Sitting of 15 October 2002

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
HSBC Investment Banking Bill [Lords](By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read a Third time tomorrow.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
Motion made,
That Mr. John Hayes be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Peter Luff be added to the Committee.—[Keith Hill. on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Railways (Overcrowding)
  Mr. Paul Burstow: What measures are proposed to tackle overcrowding on the rail network. [71411]
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan sets out how it proposes to achieve its objectives, including a reduction in overcrowding.
  Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Can he confirm that one of the first acts of this Labour Government in 1997 was to introduce regulations to deal with the overcrowding of chickens on our trains? Can he confirm that in the five years during which the Government have been in office they have failed to deal with the problems of overcrowding on our railway network, especially on Thameslink services through my constituency? Will he today commit to putting in place the systems that will ensure that we drive down overcrowding on our trains, so that commuters are not stuck every morning and night on what are effectively cattle-truck trains?
  Mr. Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that congestion on the railways, especially those
  158
  in the south-east of England, is a problem. However, action is being taken to address that. Last year, 600 items of new rolling stock came on to the system and this year 800 more new carriages will be delivered. By 2005, nearly 2,800 new carriages will be delivered. In addition, the SRA is also taking action to make better use of the existing network by re-timetabling to ensure that we make sensible use of the railways. It is estimated that on some routes we will achieve 20 per cent. more capacity, which will allow more frequent and more reliable services. The railways are taking action in both investment and organisation.
  The hon. Gentleman is right that extending capacity and increasing the number of routes on the Thameslink lines would be of some assistance. At the moment, the matter is still being considered as part of a planning inquiry—the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the inspector's findings—but I am anxious that we make progress to open up the network to enable more people to be carried across the city. He can be assured that the Government are taking action through the SRA and other players in the industry to improve frequency and reduce overcrowding.
  Mr. David Drew: My right hon. Friend will know that under the previous Government's privatisation overcrowding was explicitly excluded, but before privatisation we had some measures that could be taken to control the number of people on trains. Does he agree that overcrowding is a problem partly because too many trains are cancelled? Will he consider the franchise negotiations through the SRA with particular regard to First Great Western, which is one of the biggest offenders?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend raises several points. In relation to franchising, I hope to be able to tell the House something further in the next few weeks that will constitute a significant change to the way in which franchises are organised. I also emphasise again the point that I made to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow)—that the SRA's proposals to make better use of existing rail track will allow improved frequency and greater reliability, on the Great Western line and on others. Hon. Members will be aware that the west coast main line will now be upgraded, thanks to the significant investment that could only have been made possible by this Government. That will allow greater capacity, faster journey times and more train services. That will all contribute to building a far more reliable and safer railway.
  Mr. John Horam: Is the Secretary of State aware that cattle-truck commuting on the Kent line is now so bad that Connex South Eastern, the operator, is bringing in trains that have the seats and toilets removed to pack in more people? He has failed to recognise that the problem is not one of new trains, but of infrastructure. All the plans put forward by the SRA so far suggest no foreseeable improvement in the next five years. What infrastructure improvements can be made within the next five years to give some hope to my commuters?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman tempts me. He is absolutely right that infrastructure is one of the major

  159
  problems we face. One of the monumental failures which the hon. Gentleman's Government left was a Railtrack that was constitutionally incapable of delivering the improvements that the railway system needed.
  The hon. Gentleman says that the SRA has not concentrated on the southern region. I mentioned the new rolling stock, and the SRA is bringing forward the upgrading of the power supply to lines south of the Thames. That is something which neither Railtrack nor the previous Conservative Government, during their 18 years in power, did anything about. With respect, the hon. Gentleman should think before he speaks.
  Mr. Tim Collins: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the privatised train operating companies, which are purchasing hundreds of new rolling stock items. I agree that the problems that he has discussed this afternoon were caused by decades of underinvestment in the railways by Governments of both parties, that future investment will require both public and private money, and that it is in the national interest that Network Rail be given a fair wind. We all hope that it succeeds, but tackling the long-term problem of overcrowding will require long-term planning. Given that, does the Secretary of State share my disappointment that, 25 per cent. of the way into the Government's 10-year transport plan, so many rail projects are already well behind schedule?
  Mr. Darling: Yes I do, as I said last week when we announced the plans to upgrade the west coast main line. It would have been far better if the industry had got a grip on the costs and had fully understood the sheer scale of the projects that it has to undertake.
  As the parties are in the mood to be nice and not nasty, I shall agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) that the fault does not lie exclusively with either Railtrack or the former Conservative Government. We are dealing with decades of underinvestment and a failure to grasp the sheer scale of what needed to be done. The hon. Gentleman's Government yielded to a temptation to which, to be frank, most Governments have yielded—that is, to live off investment made in Victorian times rather than to produce new investment as needed.
  I remind the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale—and this is a difference between the parties—that the Government have allocated some £64 billion for investment in the railways. As I understand it, it remains Conservative party policy not to match that investment. If a Conservative Government were ever returned to power, the money for investment would simply not be available, and we would be back to the bad old days. I do not like to inject a note of nastiness into the proceedings—I prefer to regard it as injecting a note of reality into what the hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. Collins: Perish the thought that the Secretary of State could ever be nasty, but, given that he is talking about long-term investment plans, what does he have to say about the announcement made a few weeks ago by the Government's own Rail Regulator? The regulator stated that the Government's plans mean that Network Rail faces a "significant risk" of running out of money in the next two years. What is the right hon. Gentleman's
  160
  response to that, and what will he do about it? Does he think that simply raising the access charges for the train operating companies will provide the whole answer?
  Mr. Darling: The Rail Regulator made those remarks in the context of announcing the interim review of access charges that he decided to undertake following the establishment of Network Rail. However, all parties must face up to the inescapable fact that the cost of rebuilding the railway and making it reliable and safe is far greater than, I suspect, anyone realised in the past. The difference now is that the SRA, Network Rail and the train operating companies are working together rather than against each other, which unfortunately was how they spent much of the 1990s. They are getting to grips with the big infrastructure problems. As I said earlier, they are making better use of the capacity of the line, so that they will be able to get more trains running more frequently.
  There will be a cost, and in the end political parties and Governments must decide whether they are willing to meet that cost and put the railways into a state in which they are fit for the 21st century. I am in no doubt that we can build a railway service that is more reliable and safe, but the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is right to draw attention to the fact that the costs will be substantial.

  South-East Manchester Multi-modal Study
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: If he will make a statement on progress on the South-East Manchester multi-modal transport scheme. [71413]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): We announced in March 2002 our endorsement of the recommended strategy of the south-east Manchester multi-modal transport study and asked the delivery agencies to develop the elements of the strategy in more detail. An implementation group has been established and progress is being made.
  Mr. Stunell: I thank the Minister for his reply and for the prompt and positive start that has been made on implementing the study. He will be aware of the importance to my constituency of the Hazel Grove bypass, which is part of the integrated transport package. Will he agree to meet a deputation from Stockport to see whether ways can be found to take advantage of the consents granted at the original public inquiry a decade ago, so that time is not lost, public money is not wasted and, more to the point, the scheme is not delayed?
  Mr. Jamieson: I note the hon. Gentleman's welcome not only for the multi-modal study but for the Government's swift action in looking at the plan. I am sure that he also welcomes the extra funding that we have made available through the local transport plans in his area and the £9 million that was made available to Manchester and Cheshire to take forward some of the initial programme of work in the scheme.
  The hon. Gentleman will know that there are problems with the road that he mentioned because of the planning inquiry conducted at the time by the Highways

  161
  Agency and through the Secretary of State. The road has now been detrunked and I accept that there are some problems with going through the whole procedure again.
  I met a cross-party group from Stockport when I was in the area in April. If the hon. Gentleman wants to bring another cross-party group to talk with me about these concerns, I shall of course be delighted to meet both him and them.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: In essence I support the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). Would the Minister be happy for a Cheshire Member to be included in this deputation, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne)? Although in my area there is some difference regarding the improvements that are required, does the Minister believe it right that the Macclesfield silk road, which is a wonderful dual carriageway, should, between Macclesfield and Poynton, become a single carriageway with just some on-line improvements, to link up with the Poynton bypass which is also a single carriageway and would link up with the Manchester airport eastern link road? Does he accept that SEMMMS is dealing with the country's road requirements for 2021 onwards, while the Government's recommendations do not even deal with the roads that are required today?
  Mr. Jamieson: I am not quite sure which Cheshire Member the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir N. Winterton) had in mind for me to meet, although I would be happy to meet the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) as well.
  The multi-modal studies were established to enable local authorities to work closely with each other and the other delivery agencies—the Strategic Rail Authority, the Highways Agency and the Government office in the area—to come up with solutions that were based on local knowledge. On the road to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the recommendation came not from the Government but from local groups that know the situation in the area. I appreciate his point about inward development, prosperity in the area and the need for those road links, but I reiterate that those proposals came not from the Government but from his own area, perhaps from some of his own councillors. He may want to use some of his energies and efforts to address matters locally. If he wants to join in discussions about it, I say the more the merrier.

  Trans-European Networks
  Mr. Wayne David: What recent discussions he has held with his European counterparts on the development of trans-European networks. [71414]
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): I have met my European counterparts at four Transport Council meetings over the past year, and on each occasion the future development of the trans-European transport network has been discussed. In that time I
  162
  have also met Transport Ministers from Italy, Denmark and the Netherlands bilaterally, and each time the network was included in our discussions.
  Mr. David: I thank the Minister for that response. He will of course acknowledge the importance of trans-European networks for Britain and for the European Union as a whole. However, agreement was not reached at the last Transport Council meeting on the new list of specific projects under trans-European networks. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that at the next Transport Council meeting on 5 and 6 December, British interests will be firmly upheld?
  Mr. Spellar: They certainly will, but as my hon. Friend will know, the question of further routes under the TENS programme is also being addressed by the Transport Ministers Council, as is the percentage of grant that will go to those programmes and the overall size of the budget. Therefore, all those factors must be reconciled. It was not possible to do so at the last Transport Council meeting, but I know that the Commission and the presidency will be working hard to get agreement for the December Council.
  Mr. Don Foster: The west coast main line is part of the trans-European network of railway lines. Given that last week the Secretary of State was unable to say how much of the money for the much-needed improvements on that line was to come from the private sector and how much from the public sector, will the Minister at least tell the House whether he anticipates that any money for those improvements will come from the European Union? On the private sector money, given that the Government have rejected Liberal Democrat proposals for the future of Railtrack, is it not the case that another Liberal Democrat proposal on the use of bonds is about to be adopted?
  Mr. Spellar: It is always interesting to receive Liberal Democrat proposals, even when they are multitudinous and varied, come from all parts of the Liberal Democrat party and are often inconsistent and incompatible, as we see with monotonous regularity in the House on roads programmes. To return to railways, part of the Secretary of State's answer was that until we know the outcome of the Rail Regulator's review on track access charges, we will not know the balance of funding that will go into the west coast main line in the long term. What we do know is that getting a grip of the management of that programme—having a longer period of closures on certain sections of the line to improve it—will bring it forward by about two years. That is making considerable progress. On the final point, the hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in the newspapers.
  Mr. Graham Brady: During the long periods of closure on the west coast main line, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that there is additional capacity on alternative routes and on domestic flights into Manchester airport in particular?
  Mr. Spellar: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has looked carefully at the plan. given the location of his

  163
  constituency, and will realise that the Strategic Rail Authority has put considerable effort into ensuring continuing access to Manchester and the surrounding area, consistent with making a step change in the time scale of the project and its cost. I am sure that the SRA will be willing to engage with him on particular rail issues on behalf of his constituents. On aviation, obviously he may wish to take up that matter with Manchester airport and, indeed, the operators that operate out of there. If the hon. Gentleman is going to lobby for more flights, I hope that he will not then complain here about the impact of the noise on his constituents, which might qualify him for being a Liberal Democrat.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: When my right hon. Friend is discussing trans-European networks with his colleagues, does he discuss the lamentable failure of train operators that operate through the channel tunnel to honour their promise that there would be direct services beyond London to Manchester and to other cities? That is still an outstanding demand. It is right and proper that there should be services to the great cities of this country, to link them to the great cities of the rest of Europe.
  Mr. Spellar: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concerns and the concern that has regularly been raised from the regions. Given the lamentable state in which the railways were left by the previous Administration, we must have a list of priorities for investment. The number one priority for his region is the completion of the west coast main line and improving that important artery for rail traffic and for the north-west.

  A1
  Mr A. J. Beith: If he will make a statement about the Al multi-modal study. [71415]
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): We are currently considering the recommendations of the Al multi-modal study. We will make a statement once we have fully considered all the issues.
  Mr. Beith: In considering the issues, will the Minister take account of the views of most of the local authorities and the general public that the failure of the study to recommend dualling of the A1 right up to the border will leave a serious gap in the road system? Head-on collisions regularly take place on that road and at least one of the vehicles involved has usually just travelled a long distance on dual carriageway. Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that there is considerable scepticism that the promised train improvements will ever take place or will be sufficient to meet the needs of people living in areas such as Belford or Widrington, which are not specifically included?
  Mr. Spellar: All the multi-modal studies have to weigh up the balance within the regions and, nationally, we must consider how those fit together. The right hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that the north-east will benefit considerably from the widening of the Al further south in Yorkshire and into Northumberland, which,
  164
  although it is not in his region, will be be of considerable benefit to the north-east. Beyond that, the multi-modal study had to look at the volume of traffic being carried and also—another important consideration—the road safety aspects.
  The right hon. Gentleman is right: there have been comments from some local bodies, but many local authorities and other interest groups in the region were involved in the study group, as indeed they have been in all other regions. We are evaluating the study, both internally for the north-east and as regards other investment across the country, to see how it fits into the national transport network. I shall take the right hon. Gentleman's views into account as we undertake that evaluation.
  Mr. Stephen Hepburn: I will buy the Minister a pint in the bar tonight if he can give me a comparable example of two major neighbouring cities the size of Newcastle and Edinburgh that are not linked by dual carriageway. We all know about multi-modal rubbish, but I remind the Minister that people who use roads such as the A1s are not computers—so will he review the position with a view to throwing the study in the bin and getting a proper road between Edinburgh and Newcastle, instead of linking them, in some parts, by no more than a glorified country lane?
  Mr. Spellar: Ah well, I will be buying my own pint again tonight.
  My hon. Friend will be aware that there is another party to the discussion—the Scottish Executive. They will have views about the priority among Scotland's roads that they give the A1 from the border up to Edinburgh.
  A number of road schemes have already been developed. Other multi-modal studies will be coming in. I have already mentioned the widening of the A1 to motorway standard going up to the north-east. I also made an announcement recently about the dualling of the A66 from the north-west to the north-east. Those are major schemes and the proposals have to be evaluated. To some extent that is what the local organisations represented on the study group were doing.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: May I draw the House's attention to my declaration of interest in the Register of Members' Interests?
  I welcome the conclusion in the multi-modal study that the A1 will be made up to motorway status between Bramham and Barton. Does the Minister join me in regretting that it will be a full seven years at least before that road is built? Will he give a commitment to the House today that there will be a moratorium on the building of motorway service stations on that stretch until we know exactly where the new motorway will be?
  Mr. Spellar: I would point out to the hon. Lady that, when in government, her party removed a number of the powers in respect of motorway service station location and allowed motorway service operators to make their own bids. Of course, if that question was a bid for us to change that particular legislative position we might have a look at it.

  165
  As regards the time taken to build the road, a key issue for the highways authorities—especially with any major widening project—is that, for understandable reasons, they want to do only so much at any one time, precisely because of the inevitable delays for on-going traffic. It is much easier when building a new road, such as the Birmingham northern relief road: widening an existing highway is a different issue. We are, therefore, trying to speed up the process, partly in the time taken by planning but also by estimating and engineering work. We are doing much of that work in parallel, rather than taking one step after another. That is compressing the time between making a decision to build a road and actually opening that road. As the hon. Lady knows, we have also been looking at how we can improve planning, while maintaining the proper right of people to lodge objections and taking into account environmental impact assessments. We are considering whether that needs to take so much time and how we can compress it. We have made some progress but we still have a way to go and we are working on that.
  Mr. David Clelland: May I add my support to the points that have been made about the A1 north of Newcastle? There is also a very serious problem on that road around the Tyneside conurbation, and specifically on the Gateshead western bypass. Although I welcome the fact that the proposal to relieve that problem by building another bypass through Gateshead's green belt has now been dropped from the plan, there is still a growing problem on that road—a serious problem, which is getting worse week by week. The road is very often brought to a standstill because of the congestion. I ask my right hon. Friend to look at that as a matter of urgency, and also particularly to look at the imaginative proposals of Gateshead council to relieve congestion on that road.
  Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend has indeed raised this matter with me before. I undertake to have a further look at the new proposals, which he has just mentioned, and come back to him with a reply.

  Road Charging
  Mr. John Wilkinson: What recent meetings he has had with interest groups about proposed road user charging. [71416]
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): I have had a number of meetings to discuss road user charging with the British Chambers of Commerce, the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the London chamber of commerce insists that road user charges should be introduced only after there has been a measurable improvement in public transport in London? Is it not the case that that has not happened since the right hon. Gentleman's Government came to power, or his erstwhile colleague the present Mayor took office? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to review the situation? We have enough taxes on businesses and individuals in London already, and is not the deal very poor, inasmuch as in the first year of
  166
  operation road user charges will cost £200 million to introduce, whereas the income will be £130 million? It would be much better to put the £200 million into the tube system now.
  Mr. Darling: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that before any charging is introduced public transport must be improved. Although I have many differences with the Mayor of London, the one thing that is clear is that he has put more money into public transport, particularly buses, and bus usage in London is increasing. The congestion charging scheme in London is a matter for the Mayor of London, and the Mayor alone. The Government have no jurisdiction over it. However, any congestion charging scheme must have clear and deliverable objectives, it must be designed to cut congestion, pollution and accidents, it must be a workable scheme and the consequences of its introduction must be properly thought out. There also needs to be general public acceptance of the scheme. It is for the Mayor to satisfy himself on those points.
  The final thing that I would say to the hon. Gentleman, who I think is trying to tackle this matter in a reasonable way, is that those people in London who have concerns about the scheme should also ask themselves what measures they would adopt to reduce congestion. The Tory party has no such suggestions at all.
  Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State really cannot be allowed to wash his hands of this. He is the Secretary of State for Transport, so what is he going to do to stop the dictatorship of Transport for London? Residents are beginning to feel completely powerless; they are not listened to. As for the likely effects of congestion charging in my area, every single school that is within the congestion charging zone is already being told by teachers that they plan to leave because they are not prepared to pay £1,000 extra every year. Those are people who have travelled into the area for many years. I appeal to the Secretary of State—he cannot afford to wash his hands of this matter. He must intervene and do something for the people of London.
  Mr. Darling: The Secretary of State can do many things, but he cannot act outwith his powers. Whether my hon. Friend likes it or not, Parliament decided to devolve to the Mayor of London powers in relation to transport. Whether we like it or not—and I do not and I do not think that my hon. Friend does—the good people of London decided to elect the present Mayor. I do not suppose that she supported him any more than I did, but the fact is that this is the Mayor's responsibility. I have told the House that I believe that any congestion scheme must have clear objectives, must be workable and should command broad support. It is a consequence of devolution that these powers have gone to the Mayor of London. It is for the Mayor of London to make them work. Although I fully understand my hon. Friend's point of view because I have read comments about it in the "South London Press" and elsewhere, the fact is that the Mayor must get the scheme right because it is his responsibility.
  Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: The Secretary of State says that this is a matter for the Mayor alone, but what about all those non-Londoners—the commuters who have to come into London every day—who will be made to suffer? They are not additional optional extras; they are needed in the capital to work and to make this country work. They will be suffering, and that is a matter about which the Secretary of State should be concerned.
  Mr. Darling: The point that I was making is that, for the most part, responsibility for transport in London is devolved to the Mayor. It is for the Mayor to decide whether he introduces a congestion charge and, if so, in what form. I understand fully the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about people coming in and out of London, but it is not just a question of congestion charging; other measures designed to alleviate congestion on the streets of London are being taken. We discussed earlier rail improvements and other road improvements, so action is being taken across the piece to improve the situation—but the responsibility for the congestion charging scheme lies with the Mayor as a direct consequence of devolution to London.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Select Committee is starting an investigation into road user charges. I look forward to hearing from him on that occasion. Can he confirm that he does, in fact, support congestion charging, as incorporated in the Transport Bill in 2000?
  Mr. Darling: Many of us voted for that Transport Bill—now the Transport Act 2000—and I shall make my position clear. I have been very clear about the fact that measures need to be taken to tackle congestion not only in London, but in many other towns and cities in this country. Whether such measures are introduced is a matter for the local authorities concerned. That has to be the case because it must be the job of local councillors to decide what is right for their areas, but, again, I make the point that those people who say that they will have nothing to do with congestion charging, road pricing or anything like that have to consider the consequences of what they say, because the status quo of simply allowing streets which were never designed for the present volume of traffic, to become more and more clogged is simply not a realistic option. Whether or not the London scheme in particular or any other scheme that happens to come along is workable—whether it has clear objectives and is deliverable—is a matter for those charged with responsibility for introducing such schemes: the Mayor of London and councils in other parts of the country.

  Road Building
  Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received from the Civil Engineering Contractors Association about new road building projects. [71418]
  Richard Ottaway: What recent representations he has received from the Automobile Association about new road building projects. [71419]
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): I have met representatives of the Automobile Association and the Motorists Forum, on which the AA is represented, to discuss road transport. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport hopes to meet the Civil Engineering Contractors Association soon.
  Mr. Amess: I had anticipated that answer, but does the Secretary of State agree that, in the interests of the efficient delivery of the Government's road building programme and best value in public investment, it would be jolly helpful if there could be some indication of when there will be demand for the services of the Civil Engineering Contractors Association? So in that spirit, will he tell the House when there is likely to be an announcement of major road improvements such as those in the multi-modal integrated transport studies?
  Mr. Darling: That is a very fair point, and I hope to be able to make an announcement on a number of the multi-modal schemes that are before me in the next few months.
  Richard Ottaway: The Secretary of State will be aware that the A23 Coulsdon relief road in my constituency was one of the 34 projects announced by the Government in July 1998. He will also be aware that responsibility for building that road was transferred to the Mayor of London in 2000. In 2001, the Mayor said that he could not build it because the Government had not given him enough money to do so. Now that the Mayor is looking at it again, can the Secretary of State assure me that the Government will provide enough funding for that project to be built and that there will be no excuses about it being a matter for the Mayor?
  Mr. Darling: I am not certainly going to get into the position where the Mayor comes to me every time that he has run out of money and says, "Please give me the money to meet all my commitments." The hon. Gentleman very fairly recognises that that road is the responsibility of Transport for London. The Government give TEL its budget—it is a significantly increased budget—but the Mayor, who is democratically elected, has to decide what are his priorities. We cannot be in a position where he simply spends the money and then comes back to the Government saying "Please pay up." No Government of whatever political colour would ever get themselves into that situation.
  Mr. John Redwood: Is the Secretary of State aware that south-east England is chronically short of transport capacity of all kinds—railway routes and roads? Will he come to the House soon to tell us how he proposes to ease road congestion by road widening and junction improvements? Is he aware that the South East England Development Agency does not speak for people in my constituency, as it has tried to block necessary expansions of capacity and turned a blind eye

  169
  to chronic shortage and congestion? Would it not be better to abolish that body and spend the money on road improvements?
  Mr. Darling: I admire the right hon. Gentleman's brass neck in many ways. It would have been nice if investment in road and rail had been sustained over the past 20 to 30 years. Many of the problems about which he and his constituents rightly complain are a result of two things. One is growing prosperity—there are more cars and more people with reasons to travel. Unfortunately, however, that comes on top of a failure of successive Governments to make the necessary investments in transport infrastructure. In relation to junctions, I hope that, if we are able to make progress, I will be able to say something that may cheer him up.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the urgent need for new road systems for east-west traffic in counties such as Hertfordshire? For instance, the M10—now about 20 years old—between the M1 and the A1 gets halfway and suddenly disintegrates, and a large number of bottlenecks occur over a five-mile stretch. Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that east-west links are properly considered in relation to new road building?
  Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. I know that there is a problem with east-west links in a number of places. As I said, I hope to make announcements in the not-too-distant future following the multi-modal studies. I have noted that representations have been made not just by Labour Members but by Conservatives and Liberals, too. I hope that those representations will be as robust when the shouts of protest go up, when the decisions are made by people who hold completely different views.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Is the Secretary of State ashamed that his Government have cut investment in roads over the last five years? Last night, at the Freight Transport Association dinner, he made a welcome U-turn, recognising that congestion causes accidents, creates pollution and costs money. In the past five years, under his Government, 50 per cent. more time has been wasted by employees owing to congestion on the roads. When will the Government be able to claim that they have reduced congestion to the levels that existed in 1997?
  Mr. Darling: One of the reasons why congestion was less of a problem before 1997 was very high unemployment and one of the deepest recessions that this country has ever seen, of which, if I remember rightly, the hon. Gentleman was one of the principal architects as it was his ideology that got us there. In the spirit of being nice, I am glad that he enjoyed my speech last night, in which I simply reiterated what I have been saying since I was appointed to this job in May. If he holds his horses, I will make another speech tomorrow in which I will develop those themes and my approach towards road building more fully.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Lawrie Quinn: How his Department will work with the regional development agencies in planning improvements for transport routes and systems within England. [71420]
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): My Department is committed to working closely with regional development agencies to identify transport improvements that can enhance regional economic prosperity.
  I am also asking the Highways Agency to press on with a package of improvements to tackle congestion and improve safety at around 90 junctions across the motorway and trunk road network in England. The package is valued at about £145 million. The agency aims to open all these schemes to traffic in the next five years. I will place a list of the junctions and a map giving their locations in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
  Lawrie Quinn: I warmly welcome that answer to my question. In the light of that, would the Secretary of State care to look at the Highways Agency's final strategy for the A64 corridor? Given that economic development should drive road schemes, should not schemes such as the improvements required on the A64 to the Yorkshire coast be somewhere near the top of that package in relation to the trans-Pennine routes?
  Mr. Darling: I know that the A64 is currently the subject of a development agency study that will be considered by the Highways Agency. My hon. Friend is right that economic development is a consideration, but so too is the pressing need to tackle congestion and to improve road safety in different parts of the country. There are, therefore, different considerations in different parts of the country, and they all need to be addressed in their own way. Our objective is to make sure that we can build a more reliable road network that will assist and underpin our economic growth. A successful economy needs a transport system that can move people and goods around more effectively. However, we must also get our priorities right. Pollution and increasing safety, as well as economic regeneration, are also important.
  Mr. John Butterfill: The Secretary of State will be aware that the south-east Dorset conurbation is the largest one in the south-west, yet there are no rail links between it and the Government offices in Bristol or westwards to the proposed regional seat of government in Exeter. The condition of the road links is even more parlous. Parts of the A31, A35 and the A350 resemble mediaeval cart tracks, so is it not the responsibility of the regional development agency and the Secretary of State to make an effort to improve communications?
  Mr. Darling: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view. He is right to highlight the fact that in some parts of the country—parts of the south-west of England, in particular—transport links historically look to London and not, for example, to the south coast and to Bristol. He is right to suggest that such issues need to

  171
  be considered, but that will take time. However, in the next few months I hope to make announcements about a number of road and rail improvements. One thing that is striking in the south-west and other areas is that for everyone who wants a road there are rather a lot of people who do not want one. [Hon. Members: "The Liberal Democrats."] Yes, the Liberal Democrats are on both sides, and usually in respect of the same road. Very often the same people say different things to different people. However, the Liberals are not the only ones to do that. All of us as motorists want to be able to drive around the country, but all of us as environmentalists and conservationists want to be absolutely sure before we give the go-ahead to road improvements.
  I will consider these issues, but let no one think that that is easy. We live in an extremely overcrowded island and all these proposals are controversial. As I said, my fundamental objective is to see what we can do to reduce the amount of congestion and to improve safety. That is how I will approach the issue in the south-west of England and in other areas.
  Caroline Flint: In my right hon. Friend's dealings with the regional development agencies, what thought has he given to the Government reviewing the way in which bus services are delivered? In south Yorkshire and Doncaster, we have erratic and dirty services that are taken off on a whim. The service needs to be expanded but the money is not there. Furthermore, when will we consider the expansion of school transport as a fundamental means of reducing congestion on our roads?
  Mr. Darling: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend on that latter point. She will know that in three areas—two in England and one in Wales—FirstBus is trying out the yellow buses that are used in the United States to take children to school. The objective is to encourage children to use a dedicated bus service rather than have their parents drive them to school. The reports will not be ready until the end of next year, but the interim reports are encouraging. Therefore, I certainly want to consider such schemes and, if possible, extend them further.
  On the general point about buses, the fact is that in some parts of the country bus usage has gone up quite dramatically. For example, in Oxford—where there is a good bus service and a local authority that has gone out of its way to encourage bus travel—usage has gone up by 50 per cent. In other parts of the country, the record is lamentable. Therefore, rather than embark on fresh legislation, which I suspect would lead to a degree of planning blight, my objective is to see whether we can extend what works in some parts of the country to others, so that we can make far better use of bus services and make sure that they are as reliable as other forms of transport.

  Cotswold Line
  Mr. David Cameron: What plans he has to discuss the Cotswold line with the Strategic Rail Authority. [71422]
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): The Strategic Rail Authority has consulted on the possible combination of the First Great Western and Thames Trains franchises, which will include the Cotswold line, and will announce the outcome in due course.
  Mr. Cameron: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the Cotswold line provides a lifeline to my constituency in west Oxfordshire because it is the only significant rail service? Is he further aware that it is a single line for most of the way between Oxford and Moreton and that most rural stations have extremely short platforms that limit the number and type of services that can use them? Will he hold urgent discussions with the SRA about dualling and upgrading the line, because there is very little in the 10-year plan for people living in west Oxfordshire?
  Mr. Spellar: The SRA is considering means in the existing structure that might allow it to provide an hourly service. That would be much welcomed. Indeed, it is indeed one of the demands of the partnership. The hon. Gentleman rightly identifies short platforms as a problem in a number of areas and we are looking again at cost effective ways of lengthening some platforms so that longer trains can run on many more sections of the railway.
  We know from the Chiltern line, which is not too far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, that such measures lead to a considerable increase in ridership and a sizeable modal shift. A further extension of that line in the west midlands means that it now runs from Kidderminster to London and provides a welcome service. The hon. Gentleman can see how we have managed to expand the service. The SRA is working not just with the train companies but with local councils to see how we can replicate some of those measures on the Cotswold line.

  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister of State was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Public Services
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the progress with monitoring customer satisfaction with the delivery of public services. [71403]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Thirty pieces of research were undertaken over a three-year period from 1998 through the people's panel. This research stimulated a significant increase in the amount of customer feedback collected by Departments and contributed to the reform agenda for customer-focused public service and effective allocation of public resources.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that given the levels of investment now being put into public services, people might reasonably expect to find improvements in quality, productivity and timeliness in

    173
    their delivery? What plans does he have for the benchmarking of public service standards so that people can be told effectively whether or not those are achieved?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend will be aware that benchmarking exists in a number of Departments. Perhaps the best known example is the British crime survey undertaken by the Home Office. I should also point out that the Prime Minister's recent speeches, pamphlets and comments make our determination clear to the whole country not just to put resources into public services, but to match those resources with reform and thereby achieve the productivity and efficiency gains of which my hon. Friend speaks.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Does the Minister accept that asking people whether they are satisfied or not is an important part of the process? Why do the Government persist in denying choice to the customers of public services? When will they allow patients and parents to choose to seek another source of a public service if they are dissatisfied? It is one thing to ask them: why not let them vote with their feet?
    Mr. Alexander: I commend to the right hon. Gentleman the Fabian pamphlet written by the Prime Minister just before the party conferences which made clear our ambition to have not just universal provision but the customised service that the British people now desire. There is, however, a fundamental divide between those of us who want such choices within the public sector and those who would starve the public sector of the resources necessary to match the reform.

    Women (Public Appointments)
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What progress has been made in increasing the number of women in public appointments. [71406]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): At 31 March 2001, 34 per cent. of appointments were held by women, compared with 23 per cent. 10 years previously. This Government are committed to increasing diversity in public appointments. Each Government Department has an action plan in support of this aim.
    Dr. Starkey: I welcome the progress that has been made. Obviously there is considerable room for improvement, however, because women constitute the majority sex in the country and that is not reflected in public appointments. May I suggest that a way forward might be to provide training events for people who would otherwise not consider themselves the sort to apply for public appointments? That would encourage not just women but people from other parts of the community who are also under-represented to understand what it means to be on a public body and to appreciate the skills that they might bring to it so that they are more likely to apply.
    Mr. Alexander: I could not agree more. Let me point out first that a number of regional seminars have been held to encourage women to apply for public appointments to ensure that there is balanced coverage
    174
    across the country. In addition, in the coming days the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will host a specific seminar on the opportunities for women from ethnic minorities to participate fully in public bodies. I certainly welcome that initiative, which shows the direction that the whole the policy is taking.

    Broadband
    Mr. Michael Connarty: What progress he has made on the co-ordination of the use of broadband by Departments in providing access to Government services to the public. [71408]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): In response to a study by the Office of Government Commerce commissioned by the Prime Minister, the Government will launch the regional broadband unit later this autumn. That will aim to coordinate at a regional and local level broadband initiatives that support e-government initiatives.
    Mr. Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I know that his attention is focused on the power of broadband. Does he concur with those who have studied the matter that the rollout of broadband, with its instant, permanent online access, is the equivalent of the infrastructure built before the industrial revolution took off? Does he agree that the Government must do more to link up all existing networks, including SuperJanet, so that everyone can have access to public services? Surely he realises that the use of television for access means that we have to link up with people in their homes to give them access, rather than have them come to us, seeking our services.
    Mr. Alexander: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's knowledge of and familiarity with this issue. I recently heard him on the radio in Scotland, campaigning on the subject. We face two challenges: to extend the coverage of broadband across the country and to drive up usage levels. I am pleased that we now have 1 million broadband subscribers, but I am not satisfied. There is further work to be done, and as my hon. Friend suggests, it will support the drive towards e-enablement of government services, to which this Government are committed.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: How will rural areas get access to government services or run small businesses through broadband given the limits to BT resources and to the extent to which BT thinks that it can supply broadband through its exchanges? Are the Government expecting to rely on satellite, with higher charges and lower quality, to supply broadband in rural areas?
    Mr. Alexander: No, we are not relying exclusively on satellite, although it has a contribution to make. There are now 1,117 BT exchanges enabled across the country, and homes in approximately two thirds of the country can now receive broadband services. There is no silver bullet; we need to take several different steps, which is why I commend to the right hon. Gentleman the

    175
    s£30 million regional development fund established to support broadband initiatives in every region through the Department of Trade and Industry.
    Jim Dobbin: What are the Government doing to widen access to the internet through digital TV?
    Mr. Alexander: The Government have already put in place a digital TV action plan. In April the Office of the E-Envoy launched UK online interactive. Digital TV offers tremendous opportunities for government services to be accessed online and reaches a section of the community who may not have a personal computer in their home.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: How many of the 3 million broadband subscribers are in rural areas? How many of the exchanges that have changed over to broadband are in rural areas? Does the Minister share my concern that there is an impending digital divide between rural areas and the rest of the country? Will he therefore work with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to place an obligation on Ofcom, the new body that will regulate broadband, to ensure that all areas of the country have access to the digital revolution?
    Mr. Alexander: There are a couple of ways forward. We are establishing 6,000 UK online centres, not only in urban Britain but throughout the country. I commend the Welsh Executive for their efforts in this matter. The Welsh Assembly has taken imaginative policy initiatives, and we will work not only with the DTI but with the devolved Administrations to make sure that a digital divide does not open up as this new technology becomes available.

    E-government
    Paul Flynn: What proposals he has for e-government. [71409]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced the Government's proposals for e-democracy on 16 July. The aim of the policy on e-democracy is to strengthen representative democracy by the use of the internet and other communication technologies.
    A copy of the consultation paper, "In the Service of Democracy", has been sent to every Member of this House and Members of the other place.
    Paul Flynn: Does not e-democracy, especially in the form of MPs' websites, provide wonderful new opportunities for us to serve our constituents in direct, instantaneous ways that are particularly valuable to the housebound, the elderly and the disabled? The Government are to be congratulated on achieving 95 per cent. of their e-government targets. How much progress has been made on improving participation in voting via e-democracy?
    Mr. Alexander: Again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work. We have made significant progress, not least by allocating through the last comprehensive spending review additional resources specifically for pilots of e-voting. We face two fundamental challenges: first, progressing the work on e-voting and, secondly, facing the challenge of e-participation—how to make policy making in this country more porous and more open to contributions from a range of different sectors of society. That is why the consultation paper is so important. I believe that it will inform Government policy for years to come.

Bali
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the bombings in Bali, Indonesia.
Two bombs went off near the Sari club in Kuta, Bali, just after 11 pm Indonesian time on the night of 12 October. At the same time, a bomb exploded in Denpasar, capital of Bali, near the United States consulate, and another at the Philippines consulate in Sulawesi. The Sari club was packed with people, mainly young, enjoying themselves on a Saturday night. The attacks appear to have been timed deliberately to cause the maximum possible injury and loss of life.
First, I would like to express my deep sympathies and condolences to the families who have lost loved ones in this appalling terrorist outrage. The final toll of the dead and injured is unlikely to be confirmed for several weeks, but as of this morning more than 180 people are confirmed dead, with hundreds more injured. Many of those who died were young Australians. Up to 30 British people may have died: nine Britons are confirmed dead, with a further eight bodies yet to be identified and 13 people still missing. Eight have been medically evacuated from Bali; many more received hospital treatment at the scene. We are providing assistance, as we did after 11 September, to the relatives of British victims. That will enable those who wish to travel to Bali to do so, and we will provide help and support to them while they are there.
This was an act of pure wickedness—horrific and brutal attacks that have left hundreds of families here and all around the world in shock and grieving. Last night, the United Nations Security Council condemned the bombings in the strongest terms, calling them a threat to international peace and security. At the weekend, I spoke to Prime Minister Howard and to the Premier of Western Australia to express my condolences to them, and I will speak to President Megawati later. I have also spoken to President Bush. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke at the weekend to his Australian and Indonesian counterparts, and he is discussing the issues with Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington today. A team of specialist officers from the Metropolitan police service antiterrorist branch has already flown to Bali, and more are on their way. US and Australian experts are also on the scene.
I should like to place on record the Government's gratitude for the help extended by both the Indonesian and Australian authorities to all those from the United Kingdom who have been caught up in these dreadful events.
We had no specific intelligence relating to the attack in Bali. We do not yet know for certain who carried it out, but we do know that there are groups of extremists active in the region, some of which have strong links to al-Qaeda. Those groups have worked with al-Qaeda on attack plans in the past. We know that they have tried before to carry out major terrorist atrocities in the region—for example, in Singapore last December, when a massive attack planned against targets, including the British high commission, was thwarted by the
178
Singaporean authorities. I discussed that with the Prime Minister of Singapore when he visited London in April this year. He told me that had the authorities not discovered these plans, hundreds of people could have died.
The Indonesian authorities have been conscious for some time of the growing threat from extremists in the region. Indonesia is a secular country with a tradition of tolerance and moderate Islam of which Indonesians are rightly proud, but prior to 11 September, and especially afterwards, we identified the south-east Asian region, including Indonesia, as an area with a real and present threat from groups linked to al-Qaeda. The most prominent is Jemaah Islamiyah, which has a network stretching across a number of countries in the region, and which has to be one of the groups under most suspicion for this atrocity. We are urgently considering proscribing it under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Earlier this year, we put in place an enhanced package of counter-terrorism assistance for Indonesia, including specific programmes on intelligence, crisis management and aviation security. We also offered assistance with bomb disposal and bomb scene management training.
In June, I met President Megawati in London to discuss how we could fight terrorism in Indonesia more effectively, and we agreed to expand our existing programme further, drawing on the wide range of expertise in counter-terrorism that Britain can offer. We will do so in close co-operation with the US and Australia, as well as with the Indonesian authorities. We have also set up programmes to help other Governments in the region. In the Philippines, we are training in counter-terrorism, hostage negotiation and police investigations. In Malaysia, we are setting up training by Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism branch and in bomb disposal. We fully support the tripartite counterterrorism agreement signed by Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines earlier this year, designed to combat money laundering, illegal border crossing and the illegal trade in arms.
Of course, since 11 September, here in Britain we have enhanced our intelligence efforts, strengthened protection against rogue aircraft and shipping, and clamped down on sources of terrorist financing. We have passed new anti-terrorist legislation. Internationally, we have put a new UN framework in place, under UK chairmanship, to ensure more effective national and international action against terrorism, and we have increased intelligence co-operation, strengthening existing partnerships and putting in place new ones across the world.
So we have had a fresh reminder, if we needed one, that the war against terrorism is not over. In the past 10 days, there have been attacks in Kuwait and in Yemen. The threat to all people at any time, at any place in the world, is real. In the end, it is not just the families now grieving for their loved ones who suffer, but the people of Indonesia, many of whom already live in poverty, who will have to face the devastating economic consequences of this attack for their country, as those bombs, and the fanatics who use them, do not discriminate between young and old, east and west, black and white, Christian and Muslim. They will kill anyone of any race, creed or colour. They respect no frontiers. They have no inhibitions in murdering the innocent—indeed they rejoice in it. Because of the way

179
they work, in small cells of fanatics, and because their victims are the most vulnerable—people in a pub or a cafe, on a street or on holiday—discovering where and how they might strike next is hard. But the message we send out, and should send out, is once again the same—one of total defiance, of determination in the face of this evil to prosecute the fight against them the world over, until in time they are defeated: defeated, of course by intelligence, by police and even military action, but defeated also in the triumph of our values of tolerance, freedom and the rule of law over those of terror designed to produce bloodshed, fear and hatred.
Some say that we should fight terrorism alone, and that issues to do with weapons of mass destruction are a distraction. I reject that entirely. Both, though different in means, are the same in nature. Both are the new threats facing the post- cold war world. Both are threats from people or states who do not care about human life, who have no compunction about killing the innocent. Both represent the extreme replacing the rational, the fanatic driving out moderation. Both are intent not on letting people live in peace with each other, celebrate our diversity, and work out our differences in an orderly way, but on producing such chaos and disorder that out of it comes a world in which religions and nations and peoples fight each other for supremacy. That is the true measure of what is at stake. The war on terrorism is indeed a war, but of a different sort to the ones we are used to. Its outcome, however, is as important as any we have fought before.
Mr. lain Duncan Smith: May I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement? I should like to join him in welcoming the swift action and help given by the Foreign Office to support the many British families who have lost loved ones in Bali over the weekend. Our thoughts and prayers are with them, as they are with all the victims' families.
If 11 September was a nightmare, the atrocity in Bali marks the moment when the world woke up to the fact that that nightmare had become a living reality. Today, more than 180 people lie dead—up to 30 Britons among them—and hundreds more are injured. They were backpackers and holidaymakers, couples on honeymoon and tourist workers—innocents in a self-styled tropical paradise who were killed by an unspeakable evil that we must face up to. Terrorism is a cancer and it must be rooted out wherever and whenever we find it. So I welcome the assistance that the United Kingdom is lending to the Australian and Indonesian authorities in their search for those responsible for the Kuta beach bombing and in their efforts to bring those people to justice.
I hope that everybody will remember that this is the second largest terrorist atrocity committed against British people—the first being the World Trade Centre. In a little over a year, more than 150 British citizens have died in those two incidents—so this is our struggle too, wherever the incidents, at home or beyond our shores. I am therefore pleased that the Prime Minister has confirmed that this latest attack has stiffened our resolve to tackle terrorism around the world.
A great deal has been done since 11 September to deal with global terrorism, even though some claim otherwise. Much of it—I hope that people will
180
understand—necessarily has been behind the scenes. We know the benefits of international co-operation from working with countries such as Singapore and Malaysia, where recent planned terrorist attacks have been foiled with the help of UK and American intelligence. It is also worth noting that, as I understand it, the Saudi authorities have in the past couple of hours thwarted yet another attempt to hijack an airliner. So there have been successes; the events of the past weekend, however, show just how much work there is still left to do.
For some time, Indonesia has been warned by its neighbours and by the United States about the activities of terrorist cells on its soil. There were 30 bombings in Indonesia last year and an attempted attack on the US embassy in Jakarta last month. I therefore ask the Prime Minister why Jemaah Islamiyah—the group implicated in that attack—was not placed on any list of foreign terrorist organisations published by the US State Department, the European Union or the UK Government. He talked about dealing with that group, so why is he using the phrase that he is "only considering" proscribing it? Does he still lack the evidence? What links, if any, are there between that group and any organisations in the UK? Are there any provable links or any suspicion of which he is aware?
The Prime Minister has held talks with President Megawati. What steps are we taking to ensure that Indonesia deals with militant Islamic groups as effectively as its neighbours such as Singapore and Malaysia? He said that he had received no specific information about an attack in Bali, but I am aware that on Thursday the US State Department issued a general warning that all American citizens should stay away from venues such as nightclubs in certain countries. Was the intelligence that was available to the State Department when it issued that warning also available to us?
The need to root out terrorist groups is as urgent as the need to confront Saddam Hussein. I agree with the Prime Minister that there should be no doubt that it cannot be a question of either/or. I agree with him that those who say—there have been some—that we must choose between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are offering a false choice. Bali cannot be used as a pretext for letting Saddam off the hook. Surely the duty of any British Government is to protect British citizens against all threats—not merely to give them a false choice and present them with one threat. On the contrary. just as 11 September did, this attack shows what happens when the world fails to respond to threats as they arise, giving clear signals about further and future attacks.
The war against terrorism and our determination to disarm Iraq must surely proceed in parallel. However, the British people need complete reassurance that we are capable now of doing both. Will the Prime Minister let us all know that we will make the necessary intelligence capability, manpower and equipment available, and that nothing will stand in the way of that, regardless of implications for future financial resources?
Saturday's tragic events have shown that we must be able to fight a long-term conventional war against global terrorism, even as we prepare for another form of war against Iraq. Resources must be matched to meet the threats that we face. Without that resolve, there can

181
be no true and lasting peace for Britain. In our defence, we must surely steel ourselves for the fact that this is now a struggle not just for a few people in distant lands, but for all of us to defend our civilised values against those who would tear them down and return us to a new dark age.
The Prime Minister: I shall respond reasonably briefly, as I obviously agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman said. On some of the specific points, of course it is right that many attempted terrorist acts have been foiled, which is to the great credit of those who succeeded in doing so. The trouble is that the terrorists need succeed only once; that is the problem that we face.
The reason there has been hesitation in proscribing the particular organisation is indeed a lack of proof of whether it has been involved, but it is the most obvious suspect for the latest atrocity. We are considering it precisely for that reason, and we need to assess the evidence carefully. It is right to say, however, that we are aware of no connection with any group in this country.
In relation to warnings that have been given, there are two difficulties. The first is that there were no specific warnings of which I am aware in relation to the attack in Bali. What there have been, of course, are specific warnings about the potential for attacks in Indonesia. Indeed, last month the Americans and ourselves acted to protect our high commissions in Jakarta precisely because of worries about potential terrorist threats.
The difficulty—this is the second point—is that intelligence of an unspecific nature flows across our desks all the time. It is very difficult to work out what we must focus on and deal with, and what is so broad that we cannot deal with it. That is why we must take action not just on the intelligence front, but in trying to work out those groups' sources of weapons and bombs, how they are financed, the types of covert activity that give them the means to carry out such attacks, and where their sympathisers are in various parts of the world. All that must be part of how we act.
I emphasise, as I said right after 11 September and have said constantly since then, that that will take a significant time. We have dealt to a large extent with the al-Qaeda terrorist network in Afghanistan, but their cells remain in different parts of the world and we must go after them in each part of the world. We have discussed the matter a great deal with Indonesia, we have offered what help we can, and I know that the Americans and the Australians have done the same. The reason I had the meeting with President Megawati in London in June was to see what more we can do. We will now be looking further at what we can do.
Finally, in relation to intelligence capability, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the intelligence services will have the resources that they need to do the job that we need them to do.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I entirely associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the proper expressions of sympathy in the House this afternoon. All of us watching those awful television pictures over the past few days, particularly of the relatives making their way to Bali and trying desperately to find some information about their missing loved ones, will not have failed to realise the utter horror of what has taken place and its global unacceptability.
182
Does the Prime Minister agree that, in the wake of the tragedy, the international community must take stock of the campaign against terrorism? The new intelligence co-operation to which he referred this afternoon is obviously welcome, as is the deployment of forces to Indonesia and to the region. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that in giving support to Indonesia, it is probably worth bearing in mind the fact that we want to keep the focus of that support on civilian forces and the police, rather than on the military, because there is at least the possibility of links between the army and other Islamic terrorists?
Are the Government addressing that issue in the course of their dealings with the Indonesian authorities? Obviously, they must be given every encouragement to deter future acts of terrorism, but is not one of the lessons of this outrage that we are not facing a single threat from a single enemy in a single place, and that the complex roots of terrorism mean, as the American writer, Flannery O'Connor, once put it, that
"The terrorist seeks to wash an impure world clean with the blood of innocent victims"?
Do not we need, therefore, to tackle not only the war on terrorism, as the President and the Prime Minister call it, but the other global factors that give rise to the causes of terrorism—not least, for example, poverty? Should not we again take this opportunity to reassure the law-abiding, peace-loving Muslim community both in our country and abroad that our campaign is not against them, but against the extremists who pervert their religion and principles?
Does the Prime Minister agree with former President Clinton that
"our most pressing security challenge is to finish the job against al-Qaeda"?
Does he share the anxiety expressed by European Union Commissioner Chris Patten, who said that he hopes that the efforts against Iraq do not distract us from the need for further efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan and against al-Qaeda itself?
Finally, is it the Prime Minister's assessment that, if there were a war against Iraq, it would increase or decrease the likelihood of further international terrorist incidents of the type that we have just seen?
The Prime Minister: Let me emphasise that we will offer the relatives of those who have died in this terrorist outrage all the help that we can. When they are facing a very difficult and uncertain time and are travelling to a faraway country, we must ensure that we provide absolutely every form of assistance that we can, and we will do so. Essentially, we are providing exactly the same help as we provided for relatives in the aftermath of 11 September.
In respect of Indonesia, we will work with whatever part of the Government we can and whatever forces there are in Indonesia to try to help them combat this terrorism. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have argued long and hard—and I continue to do so—for a broader international agenda that deals with some of the issues of poverty and development in the world. However, it is important at this point and on this day in particular to make one thing clear: the terrorists carrying out these appalling acts are doing terrible damage to Muslims the world over and are killing many

183
innocent Muslims. As for poverty, quite apart from the terrible loss of life in Indonesia, we can only reflect on how much poverty will be caused by the destruction of the tourism industry, certainly for the near future in Bali and possibly beyond. The situation is therefore very serious for the poorest people in Indonesia. We know from the way in which al-Qaeda operates that the people involved are not necessarily poor at all; they are often extremely well funded, but have a particular type of fanaticism that I think we must confront.
As for the issue of weapons of mass destruction or Iraq, I shall not repeat what I have already said, but I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what the Danish Prime Minister, the President of the European Union, said a moment ago in our press conference. He said that both the issues were threats and had to be tackled, and that we should show the same firmness of will in respect of both.
Mr. Kevan Jones: Will my right hon. Friend share in the sympathy for the family and friends of Mr. Ian Findley of my constituency? He was one of those who tragically lost their lives in Bali. I want to put on record my thanks and those of the family for the support that they have received from the Foreign Office. At such a difficult time for them, will my right hon. Friend give them at least the comfort that should they need financial support to return Ian's body to the United Kingdom, it will be forthcoming?
The Prime Minister: I join my hon. Friend in sending deep sympathy and condolences to Mr. Findley's family. I assure him and them that we shall give every assistance in returning his body to this country for a proper funeral. Mr. Findley's family are among many who, unfortunately, are grieving, and we shall do everything that we can to help them, as we did after 11 September.
Mr. Robert Key: Will the Prime Minister suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should hold discussions with the insurance industry, for which he has overall responsibility, about holiday insurance? Many people take out no insurance; more take out insurance that is almost useless, and some take out expensive insurance and find that the exclusions are burdensome. That will have a huge impact on not only the British insurance industry but tourism, on which so many poor people in the world depend.
The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether there is an easy answer to such questions, but I shall raise with the Chancellor the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
Mr. Win Griffiths: At the beginning of August, I led an inter-faith delegation from Parliament to Indonesia under the auspices of the Foreign Office. We specifically examined some of the problems that relate to Muslim-Christian conflict, but we also considered the wider scene. We must remember that Indonesia is a three-year-old, fledgling democracy. It is throwing off a corrupt and repressive regime and trying to establish a tolerant and just society while also dealing
184
with unorthodox Islamic extremists. In addition to any help in finding the barbaric perpetrators of the bomb massacre in Bali, will my right hon. Friend ensure that our Government continue with the much-appreciated programmes of help and support to develop good governance, justice and inter-faith harmony, especially in places such as central Sulawesi and Maluku, where serious violence has occurred? The Bali massacre has tragically thrown all that into the spotlight.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Indonesia has escaped military rule and, as he said, is a fledgling democracy. It is tragic if its democratic stability faces another threat. We shall continue with our programmes to develop good governance. We specifically discussed inter-faith dialogue when I met the President of Indonesia in June. It is an important, long-term part of the solution.
Mr. Michael Portillo: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made a powerful point when he drew attention to the number of Britons who have been killed in the incident and others. However, the specific incident that we are discussing constituted a day of infamy especially for Australia; it is Australia's equivalent of 11 September. Will the Prime Minister be as supportive of Australia in the coming months as he rightly was of the United States after 11 September?
I have heard some people in this country argue that if Britain remained apart from the war against terrorism and from that against weapons of mass destruction, we might somehow be spared the aggression of terrorists. Does not the incident underline what many of us knew: no one will be spared in the war of aggression by terrorists, and the only answer is therefore for the world community to join the fight against terrorism?
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely. On the first point, I phoned Prime Minister John Howard immediately after the incident and we not only expressed our condolences but discussed what we could to do to help. I also spoke to the Premier of Western Australia because many victims came from there. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we will do all that we can to support Australia at this very difficult time. Australians realise, as do the British, that, in the end, there is no secure sanctuary from international terrorism, and that the only option available to us that we can possibly take with our heads held high is to be part of the coalition against international terrorism. Australia has played a magnificent part in that over the past year or so, and we must continue to be with them in that fight.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I join the Prime Minister in condemning the outrageous and barbaric act perpetrated against the young people in Bali and offer my sympathy to those left behind? In the light of this latest outrage, however, should we not be targeting all our resources and energies on fighting terrorism, rather than starting another war in the middle east? Surely the Prime Minister will agree that to start such a war would fan the flames of fundamentalism across the whole area and make matters much worse. Our priorities must be to

185
get the weapons inspectors back and to concentrate on getting rid of al-Qaeda. That is the way in which to protect all our citizens.
The Prime Minister: Obviously, my hon. Friend and I will not agree on all aspects of the Iraq issue, but I do agree with what she said a moment ago about our priority being to ensure that we root out terrorism wherever it is, and, through the United Nations, to achieve the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through a proper inspections regime. That is what we are working towards. As I said in my statement, however, this is not an either/or, and we really need to tackle both these issues, as both are threats to the stability and order of the world.
Sir Peter Tapsell: While everybody utterly deplores this wicked, cruel act of terrorism, I would like to pursue a point made by the Leader of the Liberal Democratic party, which is that it will not be sufficient for us to continue to denounce terrorism in general terms. If we are really going to grapple with the problem, we must of course use military and intelligence means, but we must also tackle its sources. They are not simply religious ones, and these acts are not organised solely by one small terrorist group. After the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Indonesia was left to wallow in chaos without the international financial organisations making any serious attempt to help, while the rest of the world humiliated Indonesia in East Timor. In those circumstances—in a country of 200 million people with a Government who are not in effective control—it is not surprising that chaos is breaking out all over that vast archipelago, and this may be only the first of many disasters.
The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on East Timor; I think that the Government took a brave and correct decision in what they did there. I do not disagree that we need a broad agenda at an international level; indeed,. I have often argued for that. At this moment, however, we must be careful of saying, in effect, that these people are carrying out these attacks because of the real problems of poverty or underdevelopment in Indonesia. They are not. They are fanatics and extremists whose very acts will have brought more poverty and more underdevelopment to Indonesia. I do not disagree that it is important for the international community to give Indonesia the chance to get on its feet economically. Indeed, this country has been trying to do so; that was another thing that we discussed with the Indonesian President in June. At this moment, however, we should not mix our messages about what has happened. It is wrong and wicked, and has nothing to do with advancing any cause that any of us recognise as justified.
Mr. Derek Foster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the horrific events of the past few days underline the fact that the fight against international terrorism must be our topmost priority? That fight depends on the broad-based coalition that he and President Bush put together after 11 September. Is it not, therefore, all the more important that my right hon. Friend get it across to President Bush that any military
186
conflict outside the authority of the United Nations would fracture that coalition and undermine the fight against terrorism?
The Prime Minister: We do want to ensure that we have the broadest possible coalition, not just in the fight against terrorism but in dealing with weapons of mass destruction. That is what we are working for and, as my right hon. Friend rightly implies, it is important that we maximise international support. I have always said, however, that it is important that the coalition addresses both issues. As President Bush's speech the other day in Cincinnati indicated, the United States has a real desire to ensure that we have the broadest possible coalition to deal with those issues, because they are both threats to the world. Weapons of mass destruction are a real threat. In my first statement to the House on the events of 11 September, on 14 September, I specifically linked the two issues together, and I continue to do so. They are both threats of the same nature, although different in means. I agree that the best way to deal with them is on the basis of the broadest possible international support.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I associate the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru with the sympathy and condolences expressed to those who have been injured and bereaved in this atrocity. I have listened carefully to the Prime Minister, but I wonder how it could be sensible to fight a war on two fronts if any preoccupation with a military campaign in Iraq were to detract, disrupt, deflect or in any way undermine the solidarity of the international coalition against terrorism.
The Prime Minister: We have to tackle the danger, whatever its source. If the danger comes from more than one source, we have to tackle it in more than one way. It is important to recognise that both issues are threats, and I shall explain why they are linked. They are linked because the same type of fanaticism and extremism is driving both threats. They may not be directly linked at this moment, in the sense that weapons of mass destruction are in the hands of the terrorists, but I ask the House to consider whether if we allow unstable states—with oppressive and dictatorial regimes—to develop weapons of mass destruction and also allow the terrorist groups to operate, we can be confident that the two threats will not at some point come together. I think that that is a real possibility, which is why it is false and—I say this respectfully—dangerous to suggest that we somehow have a choice between dealing with the threat of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in the hands of unstable countries and dealing with international terrorism. They are of the same nature and, unless we tackle both, they could come together at some point in a horrific way.
Mr. Chris Smith: Does not this tragedy all too graphically remind us of the absolute importance of the international coalition against terrorism, especially the need to sustain and enhance that coalition across the countries and Governments of the Muslim world? Therefore, is it not important that we do nothing by unilateral decision or

187
action, outside the institutions of the international community, that might diminish or damage that central purpose of combating terrorism?
The Prime Minister: Yes, it is important that we do not do anything that damages the international coalition against terrorism. As my right hon. Friend will accept, in many ways it is Muslim countries that have most to fear from this terrorism, but it is also important to deal with the issue of weapons of mass destruction. I have been trying to get us to deal with that also on a broad basis of international support, and I am confident that in the end we will get that support. Our use of the international coalition must allow us to tackle and deal with those problems, not be a means to avoid dealing with them.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The Prime Minister knows the support that exists among Conservative Members for his sentiments and for the difficult course that he has set. However, will he deal with the very real deficiencies hampering our armed forces in the challenge that they face? The regular Army shrank again last year, there are 7,000 personnel unfit for military duty, reserves are at an all-time low and another RAF squadron has closed because of a lack of pilots. I urge the Prime Minister to accept that, in the difficult time ahead, we owe it to our armed forces to tackle those problems.
The Prime Minister: There are, and always will be, matters that need to be addressed in respect of our armed forces. However, let me point out that defence spending is now rising, after falling in real terms for many years. We take very seriously matters that arise in connection with our armed forces' equipment or capability, but their commitment and capability are renowned and well regarded the world over.
Ross Cranston: As someone with one foot in this country and the other in Australia, may I associate myself especially with the remarks that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made about the victims of the tragedy, and their relatives and friends?
I am concerned about the moneys flowing to terrorists. Earlier this year, the UN convention on the suppression of the financing of terrorism came into force. All countries are obliged to take action, as this country has done. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the actions taken by other countries?
The Prime Minister: The truthful answer is that those actions have been mixed. There have been real successes in the action taken against money laundering, and there is real evidence that that activity is being disrupted. However, it is worth pointing out that there is always a tremendous will to take action in the immediate aftermath of very serious incidents. We in this country have introduced legislation but, surprising as it may seem, people's memories fade in a short space of time. Subsequently, there are many arguments about whether action should be taken against money laundering or against terrorist groups, and so on. Once again, we have been reminded that we need to take action at a national and an international level.
188
The honest answer to my hon. and learned Friend is that real progress is being made. However, I agree, as his question implied, that a lot more could be done.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Clearly, I do not know whether the estates of any of those who met untimely deaths in Bali this week or in the United States last year are liable to inheritance tax, but will the Prime Minister and the Chancellor consider exempting any estate that is so liable?
The Prime Minister: I simply do not know the answer to that. I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The outrageous atrocity against innocent people carried out on Saturday night should help to concentrate our minds. Two things are essential: we must maintain the coalition that involves the US, the UK, Russia and the Muslim countries in an alliance against international terrorism, and we must not give any comfort to al-Qaeda and the international terrorists. If we were to take military action in the light of recent events involving Iraq, does my right hon. Friend agree that we would be acting as a recruiting sergeant for the international terrorists whom we must defeat?
The Prime Minister: Again, let me say that it is important that we maintain the international coalition, but we should not underestimate the knowledge among Arab and Muslim countries of the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction. After all, the two countries that have suffered most from Saddam are Iran and Kuwait. However, I agree with what my hon. Friend said. I make the point again that it is important that we have the broadest possible international coalition, but I think that we can, and should, deal with both issues.
Mr. Edward Leigh: In recent years, I have spoken in the House about the often very violent attacks suffered by minority communities in Indonesia, to which the military appears to have turned a blind eye. Those attacks have received very little publicity because local people rather than Europeans were involved. Is the Prime Minister worried about the profound sense of alienation from western values that exists in many Muslim societies? That alienation often reaches right to the top of society.
Given the Prime Minister's experience with Northern Ireland, does he agree that we must root out, through military and intelligence means, both terrorism and its causes? In other words, will he be—to coin a phrase—tough on terrorism, and tough on the causes of terrorism?
The Prime Minister: I agree, certainly, that we should not simply try to deal with this by means of intelligence. I also agree that there is a lot of anti-west feeling in many parts of the Arab and Muslim world—there is no point in denying that. Our response must surely be twofold. First, we must deal with issues where a reasonable point is being made. Many people feel, and have felt on many occasions, that it is important to show the same rigorous concern for dealing with all the issues of conflict around

189
the world as we have shown, for example, in the coalition against terrorism. However, we must also confront extremism and fundamentalism where they effectively mean that people are, as they were in Afghanistan, forced to live in a state of abject repression or where they try to justify terrorism. I do not believe that those things genuinely have anything to do with the true voice of Islam, and I think that the majority of Muslims feel the same.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Is not the price of freedom eternal vigilance, and is not the fact that so many young lives have been lost a reminder of that dire statement?
The House will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that the United Nations Security Council has passed a further resolution condemning the bombings and also that there is co-operation with in the framework of the United Nations to attack global outreach terrorism. However, will he confirm that in the association with Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom in Bali, there can be co-operation outside the United Nations as well as within it? Finally, will he tell the House where we are with the United Nations resolution on Iraq?
The Prime Minister: On my hon. Friend's latter point, we are pursuing it and I hope and believe that we can achieve a consensus on it. On his first point, he is right that we must work with the authorities in Indonesia as well as the Australians and Americans to do everything that we can to counter the terrorist threat. I can assure him that we are doing that.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On behalf of the Unionist Members and the great majority of the people of Northern Ireland, may I express sympathy to those in Australia and in other parts of the world who have suffered in this appalling tragedy? Regrettably, there has been a sense of denial at various levels. In May this year, I asked in the House about links with al-Qaeda. At the time, there was no knowledge of any, but some of us were aware of them. When we were in Indonesia, we discovered that that was the name that they dared not speak. In other words, they were aware of the issue but not prepared to face it.
Dropping the word "international" from terrorism is a blessing, because we must realise that terrorism is homespun as well as international. Therefore, we join the Prime Minister in his leadership to deal with terrorism whence it comes. Regrettably, for example, in Northern Ireland, in the fight against organised crime, there seem to be delays between the Home Office and the Northern Ireland Office in putting into action some of the things that are needed and were agreed to earlier.
The statement from the Security Council on terrorism is to be welcomed. I trust that it will be equally united not only in putting forward a statement but in recommending action to deal with terrorism, whether it is in the form of weapons of mass destruction or the car bombs that plague our communities. We will back it.
The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support on the statement. What he says is right: we must deal with this issue whatever its source and origin. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement on Northern Ireland shortly.

Northern Ireland
4.19 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about Northern Ireland.
As the House knows, over the past weeks and months the political process in Northern Ireland has encountered increasing difficulties. I do not need to remind the House of the magnitude of the project on which we are embarked in Northern Ireland, nor that in any great historic process of this kind, there will inevitably be setbacks and difficulties.
My sincere hope, therefore, was that we would be able to overcome those latest challenges in the short term. That is why the Prime Minister and I have had intensive discussions in recent days with the Northern Ireland political parties and the Irish Government. However, it became clear that an impasse had been reached and that decisive action was needed to safeguard the progress made and tackle the remaining challenges. Because of the difficulties that we have encountered, yesterday I made an order under the Northern Ireland Act 2000 suspending devolved government in Northern Ireland. It came into effect at midnight yesterday. I said yesterday that I regretted that that had become inevitable. The real losers here are the ordinary people of Northern Ireland—those who appreciate and deserve 1ocal decisions being made by local politicians to improve the lives of local people, not least because the devolved Administration have achieved so much on their behalf and in their interest.
I take this opportunity to pay warm tribute to the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and his predecessor, their ministerial colleagues and the Assembly Members themselves for all that they have done in a relatively short period to improve the lives of people in Northern Ireland and to express the hope—I do very much hope this—that the devolved institution can be restored quickly.
I stress that that impasse affects only one aspect of the Belfast agreement, albeit an important one. As the joint statement by the Prime Minister made clear, this Government remain totally committed to the full implementation of the agreement. It has already brought great benefits to the people of Northern Ireland.
In their statement yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach also recognised that the recent difficulties in Northern Ireland stemmed from a loss of trust on both sides of the community. There has been much apportioning of blame already and there is no doubt that there is a lack of confidence on both sides of the community. At the heart of the recent political difficulties, however, have been concerns about the commitment to exclusively democratic and non-violent means.
Let us be clear, lest anyone should think that we do not take a balanced view, that we have seen violence from all sides of the community, including a campaign, sometimes murderous in its intent and effect, from the so-called loyalist paramilitaries. Let it be equally clear that the Chief Constable and I are combating and will
192
combat that violence with all the means at our disposal, wherever it happens and whoever is behind it. We will go where the evidence leads. That is why I recently redoubled our efforts by setting up, in addition to the organised crime taskforce, the law and order action group, which brings together the key agencies to strengthen our drive against all forms of racketeering and violence from wherever they may come. In that context, I have to tell the House that an arrest was made this morning in connection with the shooting of Danny McBrearty in Londonderry on 29 September. Police inquiries are continuing and will continue into that violent act as well.
I have absolutely no doubt that episodes such as the trial of republicans in Colombia and the break-in at Castlereagh have seriously damaged confidence in the power-sharing arrangements. It would, of course, be entirely improper for any of us, not least a Minister of the Crown, to prejudge the outcomes of any cases involving outstanding criminal charges. However, it would be naïve of any of us to ignore the impact on political and public opinion of the recent charges brought against republicans, including members of Sinn Fein, as a result of the police operation on 4 October.
Like me, the House will be particularly concerned about the position of prison officers and others and their families, for whose assistance the police have now established a special unit. The Prison Service is working closely with the police and has established a helpline to that end.
Let me say to the House that there can be no authority, no legitimacy, no morality and no political basis for anyone, in today's Northern Ireland, to have recourse to violence or paramilitary activity. Whatever may have happened 30 years ago, or 300 years ago, in today's Northern Ireland the path to power through democracy is open to everyone and the path of violence is illegitimate for anyone. It is also essential, as the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach noted, that each community has confidence in the commitment of the other to the agreement.
That is now the challenge that faces us. Yesterday was, perhaps not surprisingly, filled with recrimination. Today and the days beyond that should be about rebuilding: but that rebuilding has to be on foundations that are firm, sound and lasting. It is against this background that the Prime Minister and Taoiseach said yesterday that
"it must be clear that the transition from violence to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, which has been ongoing since the Agreement, and indeed before, is being brought to an unambiguous and definitive conclusion".
In their statement, they also said:
"It is now essential that the concerns around the commitment to exclusively democratic and non-violent means are removed. The time has come for people to clearly choose one track or the other"—
in Northern Ireland.
We face some difficult and challenging weeks ahead. Our task is threefold. First, we need to move rapidly and decisively from the recent weeks of political uncertainty. I have no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland—who should always be at the front of our minds in all that we are doing—welcome, appreciate and deserve devolved government. Like them, I would have much

193
preferred devolved government continuing, with local Ministers making local decisions. But until it can be restored, my colleagues and I will dedicate ourselves to working for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland to the best—the very best—of our abilities.
In the meantime, we shall carry on the process of government in Northern Ireland proactively, in the interest of all its people. This cannot be a matter of mere care and maintenance. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland that effective government should be moved forward. We shall not duck the difficult issues. We shall be able to build on the progress made by the devolved Administration in many areas, taking careful account of the "Programme for Government" and the principles of reinvestment and reform on which it is based and which the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have supported. I met both of them yesterday to begin to discuss some of those matters.
The Policing Board is widely agreed to have been one of the finest achievements of the agreement. I want its work to continue. The House will recall that it was the first time in our history that there was a cross-community, elected policing board. I have invited all the existing board members to continue providing their excellent service to the community. I sincerely hope—as I know the House will, too—that they will all accept reappointment.
In this context, I also welcome two new members of the ministerial team. I am making available separately the details of ministerial appointments under suspension. In broad terms, the Minister of State's additional responsibilities will focus on education and those of the Under-Secretary of State on social issues, including health. The portfolios of the new Ministers, my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) and for Basildon (Angela Smith), will centre respectively on economic affairs and environmental issues. Our first task is the good governance of Northern Ireland.
Secondly, under the terms of the agreement, we need to embark on a process of review. I shall be in touch with the parties and the Irish Government as to how that should be taken forward. I want to stress that this is an impasse—hopefully short-lived—in only one aspect of the agreement. It is not the whole agreement and it is not the whole peace process. We will continue, in cooperation with the parties and our colleagues in the Irish Government, to carry forward that process and the implementation of the agreement.
Thirdly, with reference to the problems underlying the present suspension that I mentioned earlier, we will bend every effort to find a basis on which to bring back the devolved institutions, and as quickly as possible. The role and the responsibility of the political parties in achieving that are vital. It is our aim to find a basis on which all the institutions of the agreement can be brought back into operation as soon as possible. The election date scheduled for 1 May stands and is not altered by yesterday's decision.
These, then, are the three priorities: the good governance of Northern Ireland, carrying forward the agreement and addressing the present impasse. They will inform the approach of the Government over the coming weeks and months. In those tasks, we will call upon the co-operation and support of the House, of the
194
parties, our colleagues in the Irish Government and those far beyond our shores, such as the President and people of the United States, who have been unstinting in their support for this historic project.
I can promise the House that, for our part, we will bear ourselves with determination and endurance, because we recognise that the magnitude of the prize that we seek is commensurate with the challenges that we face.
We have come an enormous distance in recent years. The peace process and the agreement have increased prosperity, revitalised society, safeguarded rights and, above all, saved numerous lives. I am determined that those benefits should not be lost, but should increase. The agreement will remain the template for political progress in Northern Ireland. I hope that the decision that I took yesterday and I have explained to the House today creates a breathing space—a chance to gather strength—before that progress moves forward once again.
Mr. Quentin Davies: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me an advance copy of his statement. I should also like to congratulate, on behalf of the Opposition, the two new Ministers who have joined his team—the hon. Members for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) and for Basildon (Angela Smith). I should also like to endorse his appreciation, which we strongly share, of the great efforts that have been made by so many people in Northern Ireland to make a success of devolution: the First Minister and the Members of the Executive—except for the Sinn Fein Members who are responsible for today's setback—and the Members of the Assembly and so many people throughout Northern Ireland. It is a very disappointing day for all of us—for us in the House, but for the people in Northern Ireland in particular.
We can only hope that this setback—the Secretary of State was right to use the word "setback"—is only temporary, and I hope that the political process and devolution can be restored as soon as possible. I should also like to extend our congratulations to the Chief Constable on the prompt and effective actions of the police over the past few weeks, and it is very good news—I strongly support what the Secretary of State has decided in this matter—that the police board has been asked to continue. I also share the right hon. Gentleman's relief that an arrest has been made in connection with the shooting of Mr. McBrearty in Londonderry a few weeks ago.
Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge, however, that we have made it clear—I to him in private and several of us in public—that we do not share the Government's view that suspension of the institutions is the right response to this crisis? Suspension amounts to penalising the innocent—indeed, the whole peace process—because of the misbehaviour of one party. That seems perverse, and to take risks with the whole process, which we find unnecessary and undesirable. Our strong preference was to exclude the guilty party, which is—although I notice that the Secretary of State still does not quite want to use the words—Sinn Fein-IRA, by taking powers in the House to enable the Secretary of State to exclude any party in breach of its obligations, and we argued very forcefully for that in the

195
debate that we had in this Chamber in July. Is it not very regrettable that the Government took no notice of those arguments and that when the latest crisis broke that power was not in the Government's armoury at all?
The Secretary of State, of course, took the line in July that the mechanism of an exclusion motion in the Assembly, not his taking the power in the House to exclude, was quite adequate for the purpose, and he promised to introduce such a motion in the event of another Sinn Fein-IRA breach. Let me quote the right hon. Gentleman's words precisely:
"In circumstances in which I decided that the IRA had broken the ceasefire, I would be ready to use that power, and to place such a motion before the Assembly to require it to address the matter."—[Official Report, 24 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 992.]
Why did he not fulfil that promise yesterday instead of suspending? Is it not rather destructive of confidence on the part of all concerned, particularly those who have to deal with the Secretary of State, that he should promise to adopt a particular course in a given eventuality in July and do something quite different when that eventuality duly presented itself in October?
Our responsibility is now to make the best of the situation, to contribute to ensuring that the governance of Northern Ireland from Whitehall and Westminster is as effective as it can be and to bring back devolution as soon as possible. We are absolutely committed to that objective, and I shall ask a number of practical questions on that in a moment. But does the Secretary of State not agree that it would be quite remiss of Parliament to brush over this dramatic reversal without asking some of the essential questions that arise and trying to draw the appropriate lessons for the future?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the great moral blame for what has happened must lie with Sinn Fein-IRA and with no one else? They have persistently and blatantly breached their obligations under the ceasefire and the agreement. Why does the Secretary of State find it so difficult to say so unambiguously and explicitly?
Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister, who is sitting beside him, not accept that the Government cannot escape their share of responsibility for allowing the situation to deteriorate in the way that it has? Was is not a very serious error of judgment not to respond at all to the successive Sinn Fein-IRA breaches of the agreement and the ceasefire, such as those in Florida, Colombia and Castlereagh—we all know what they were—as we urged the Government to do at the time? How can anyone seriously have supposed that failing to respond at all to blatant breaches of that kind could do other than encourage Sinn Fein-IRA to go for worse breaches in the future? 'Was not that fundamental error compounded by the extraordinary decision during precisely that period to offer Sinn Fein-IRA new concessions going right beyond the Belfast agreement, such as the promise of an amnesty for on-the-run terrorists or a special status in the House? Since Sinn Fein-IRA have so clearly breached the good faith on which the Government were counting when they offered that concession, is it not now time to review it?
We can all hope that however much the Government want to wriggle away from this and however much they want simply to sweep all those issues under the carpet
196
and say, "Well, this is a new beginning; let us not talk about the past", they are inwardly contrite about those mistakes because it is very important indeed that, as and when we get back to devolution, mistakes of that kind are not made again.
Now let me turn to the immediate practical issues that arise. Will the Secretary of State clarify what he just said about elections in Northern Ireland remaining on schedule for May? Does he mean that those elections will still take place even if there is no Assembly at the time for those elected to sit in? If that is not what he means, will he just elucidate the position to the House? Of course, if he tells us that he is certain that we can return to devolution by that time, we shall be the first to be delighted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh yes, indeed. Labour Members do not like that, but I have to tell them that they will not be able to shout down the history books. When the history of the peace process is written, it will show that our judgment was vindicated by events and that our judgment would have enabled the process set up by the Belfast agreement to continue.
How do the Government propose to legislate from now on for Northern Ireland? Does the Secretary of State accept that Orders in Council, which cannot be amended here, are a thoroughly unsatisfactory method of legislation? Does he also agree that Parliament will now need more time to consider Northern Ireland because of the much wider range of responsibilities for which Ministers here are directly accountable? Does he therefore agree that Northern Ireland Question Time will need to be longer than it has been in recent years? What role does he envisage for the Northern Ireland Grand Committee? Does he agree that, above all, in present circumstances, we must not repeat the bad example of last year, when there was not a single policy debate on Northern Ireland in Government time in the whole of the year? We had to use Opposition time for such a debate before the House rose in July. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet with the Opposition and the Northern Ireland parties to discuss how scrutiny can best be applied in these new circumstances and how Parliament can do its job?
Finally, and very importantly, will the Secretary of State be frank with the House on any understandings or undertakings—I include informal understandings—that may have been reached with the Government of the Irish Republic on consultation or co-ordination with them under the new direct rule regime?
Dr. Reid: First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations to my colleagues, and for his kind remarks, which were well deserved, about the Chief Constable.
In terms of what arrangements have been made with the Irish Government or the other parties, my priorities in the first few days and the first week have been to attend to the governance of Northern Ireland. I shall therefore meet the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, as they were yesterday, along with other Ministers, to achieve the handover. At that stage, I shall discuss matters with the Irish Government and the other parties to consider how to carry forward the other aspects of the process. That will probably be done, as I think I said in my statement, through the British-Irish intergovernmental conference provided for in the agreement.

197
As for blame, I think that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I said, as he claimed that I was reticent to blame republicans or Sinn Fein for what happened. I mentioned Colombia and Castlereagh, and, having said that it was improper to prejudge things—I think that it is—it would be naïve to underestimate the political effect and the effect on public opinion of those events. I went on to refer to the impact of the opinion of the charges brought against republicans, including members of Sinn Fein—I said that specifically—as a result of the police operation of 4 October. It is therefore beyond rhetoric to suggest that I neither alluded to nor referred to Sinn Fein; I specifically mentioned it.
As for the exclusion option that was available to us, we were presented with various options ranging from doing nothing—which was urged on us by some parties—to suspension of the Executive, suspension of the whole body, exclusion of Sinn Fein and exclusion from the process. As I said earlier, the option on which we decided was the least worst one; there were no good options in terms of balancing the magnitude of what we were trying to achieve against the problems that we face at present.
As for the elections, my comments stand. The election date remains unaffected by anything that I said yesterday. The election date was 1 May; it still is 1 May. We will obviously have to keep the date in mind in view of the real world, real politics and real circumstances, but there is no reason at the moment for anyone to feel that anything has changed about the election date. If, before or after it, we are faced with an impasse of the nature that we have at the moment, it is an issue that we shall have to consider at that time or, indeed, before it.
The hon. Gentleman referred to parliamentary procedures, and they will have to be discussed through the usual channels. It is not a matter for me how those procedures are finally decided upon but, if he wishes to speak to us about them, I am more than happy to make sure that Parliament carries out the appropriate scrutiny as it sees fit, given the portfolios that have been added and the extension of powers that I have now found thrust upon me.
I merely wish to make a final comment. Although the hon. Gentleman tries hard on these occasions to show a veneer of bipartisanship, he does not rise to the extent of the project that we are attempting to grapple with. I well remember the Anglo-Irish agreement, the Downing street declaration and the secret talks with the IRA, all of which took place when he was on the Conservative Front Bench and when the IRA was still committing acts of atrocity and was still visibly in the middle of a terrorist war. Because of the magnitude of the prize that was before us, we managed to give support to the then Government—his own party—when they were conducting such talks with the people conducting a murderous and terrible campaign, so a little more grace and support from him would rise to the occasion.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while 3,000 people were killed in Northern Ireland during the troubles, as many people have been forced into exile over that period and still remain in exile? Is it not therefore welcome that last week Gerry Adams met in the House Joseph McCloskey, the nephew of Danny McBrearty, to discuss the problem of Mr. McCloskey's exile and to
198
talk about the possibilities of his returning to Derry? Such developments are welcome and Sinn Fein must realise that, if it acts in that way and puts pressure on the Provisional IRA to see that those whom it had placed into exile could return, it will help tremendously towards creating the confidence in Northern Ireland that will allow the process, the Assembly and the Executive to be re-established.
Dr. Reid: I agree with every word of that. I know how active my hon. Friend has been on this issue, and it is nothing less than terrible and a tragedy that, because of the threat of violence against them, people should feel that they cannot return to the place where they want to stay and where, in many cases, they were born and brought up. I also think that, although much of the recent commentary in the press has concentrated on the so-called spy ring that centres around the charges that have been brought, the most distasteful aspect of the issue is the fact that prison officers and their families, who have every right to think that the threats that they used to think were held over them had long disappeared, once again found themselves in a position of trauma and fear.
Dr. Julian Lewis: And what does the Secretary of State deduce from that?
Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman let me continue? For the first time in many years, some people came out in the morning and had to remember to check under their car. It is that type of trauma. I am trying to face up to the problems that the process is facing at present while maintaining the process, which, in my view, gives me and Members of the House the best chance that we have had for decades—indeed, for centuries—to solve this problem. To those who find those obstacles too difficult to overcome and who want to get back to the old ways, I merely say that we tried it the old way for more than eight centuries. If that did not work then, it is not likely to work now.
Lembit Öpik: I thank the Minister for early sight of his statement and welcome the two new Ministers to a portfolio that, among other things, is never dull.
The Minister hopes for a short suspension. What does short mean to him? How might the arrangements change if the suspension is still in place in, let us say, January 2003? He talks of both communities, but will he consider altering the Government's terminology? There are many communities in Northern Ireland. He knows that I often have cause to think that using the concept of two communities simply serves to divide. In that context, can he assure us that all parties will be involved in any talks given the central contribution of the Alliance party of Northern Ireland and the Women's Coalition in particular to breaking past deadlocks?
Will the Minister confirm that the date of the elections will not change even if Ministers are concerned that the consequence of holding them on 1 May will be a less desirable, perhaps a more hardline, outcome, because no one should attempt to gerrymander a particular outcome by changing the date? What specific arrangements will be in place between Westminster and

199
Dublin to ensure that business continues? What are the Minister's plans for Assembly salaries if the suspension is long term?
Finally, does the Minister agree that the best thing that United Kingdom parties can do is to support political solutions rather than to win party political points at a time when Northern Ireland needs our support rather than our rhetoric? In that context, does he hope, as the Liberal Democrats do, that the suspension works and, once the process is back on track, that those who have sounded rather opportunistic this afternoon will not only accept their error of judgment but, more to the point, be willing to alter their strategies to be more supportive of what is clearly a sincere effort by the Government to do the right thing?
Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman and his party for their continuing support throughout this process. He raises a number of points. On consultation, I will consult all parties, including the Alliance and all parties represented in the House, because that is the basis on which a review has to be carried out. I apologise for referring to two communities. I should, of course, refer to the two traditions in the one community in Northern Ireland. Language is sometimes difficult in the context of Northern Ireland politics.
There is no change to the elections. No one is, or should be, frightened of the elections. I do not believe that anyone is frightened. To paraphrase Bertolt Brecht, it is not up to us to dismiss the electorate and choose another; it is the electorate who have the right to choose their representatives. However, elections do not happen in a vacuum. We had elections, we had an Executive and we had an Assembly. The reality is that despite the fact that we had elections and a democratically elected Assembly and Executive, they could not work because of the lack of confidence and trust between the partners in power sharing. If that continues indefinitely up to I May, it is not easy to see what can be resolved by having another set of elections.
Although that is all I have to say on that subject, it brings us to the crux of the matter: we cannot go on expecting people to share power with partners who appear to be riding two horses, of violence and democracy. A choice has to be made. Eight years after the beginning of the ceasefire and four years after the agreement, there needs to be a definitive step change in that position so that that ambiguity is removed. Even if that were the case, there would of course be a continual residue of problems with which to deal. No one thinks that we can wave a magic wand and by decree stop all lawbreaking or violence overnight, but we are at a crossroads and I do not believe that it is possible to sustain the power-sharing element of the agreement unless there is some substantial and definitive move in that direction.
Mr. David Trimble: Of course the Secretary of State is right not to pass judgment on individuals, but we know certain facts. The Secretary of State may like to confirm the estimates in the press that. as a result of the security breach at Castlereagh, £30 million has been spent on relocating police officers at threat and it is likely to cost twice as much to relocate
200
prison officers who are at threat. Will he confirm also whether the press is accurate in saying that more than 1,000 documents were stolen, most of them from his office? That fact indicates a massive breach of security in the Northern Ireland Office and points to the possibility of gross incompetence in that office. Surely in that situation there must be an arrangement for an effective inquiry to see whether, and in what ways, security has been breached.
The Secretary of State refers to a lack of confidence and trust. Will he bear it mind that in each of the last three years my party went into an Administration on an inclusive basis and on the basis of promises and undertakings given to us, and each time those promises were broken and Sinn Fein and the republican movement failed to deliver? Will he also reflect on his curious use of the term "power sharing", in which he thinks only of Sinn Fein? There are others, and in this matter it is wrong of him to overlook the moderate nationalist Social Democratic and Labour party.
The Secretary of State had options, and the demand for, or suggestion of exclusion, which would have been fair, did not come from Unionists alone. As he knows, it was supported by the Alliance party, which has links with the Liberal Democrats, and we are glad that the Alliance party displayed that courage. The Secretary of State is aware that support for exclusion would have extended beyond that point.
There is a point at which confidence is needed elsewhere too. In July, the Secretary of State said that he was showing republicans the yellow card. People noticed that the red card did not appear in circumstances in which the man in the street thought that it would have been appropriate. The Secretary of State has to explain why he funked it, because in the view of the man in the street that is precisely what happened: the Secretary of State decided that he would sacrifice the political process for fear of what might happen to the cessation of military operations declared by the IRA.
Dr. Reid: On the first point, I cannot confirm the press speculation about the costs, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that they are considerable—they are huge. Measures have to be taken to protect the police and, perhaps, prison officers who may be vulnerable after the events at Castlereagh. Apart from the anguish that it causes those families, that is a huge diversion of resources from the priorities of the people of Northern Ireland. It is tens of millions of pounds that could be devoted to the regeneration of inner-city or outer-city areas, to the health service and so on.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the number of documents that were stolen. From what the police have told me, I understand that his estimate is not far off. He said that we have to examine what is being done at Castlereagh, among other things. I can tell him that the security service has already agreed to send a team to conduct an independent and authoritative review of security in the Department. The team will make recommendations for the future when all is known about the events that led to the criminal charges. It will also audit security practice generally.
I do not want to go into further detail because I do not want in any way to impinge on judicial proceedings, but I can tell the House that, before these events, certain

201
steps had been taken on the advice of security authorities. They were obviously ineffective in this case, whoever is guilty, and I do not prejudge that question.
This is a serious blow, and as I said earlier, although the matter that has made the headlines is the retrieval of documents for use by others and whether that may have put them at an advantage in the political process—I do not prejudge that question either—I find the fact that prison officers may be under threat more disturbing than anything else.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the exclusion motion. I hear what he says, and it is not a matter that leaves me unmoved, precisely because I know the courage and, above all, endurance that he has shown by staying in the Assembly for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. I understand that fully. I say only that that these are not easy judgments to make.
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the Alliance party. I understand that it would have been prepared to support an exclusion motion had I put one before the Assembly—although I do not think that such a motion would have passed; the SDLP made it clear that it would not support it. Nevertheless, the fact that the Alliance party was prepared to support it shows that a significant change is taking place. The Women's Coalition would not support exclusion, but was apparently prepared to support suspension of the Executive rather than of the Assembly as a whole. No one should think that no change of opinion is occurring within the Assembly on these matters.
There is lack of confidence on both sides. People ask me, "Are the Unionists really committed to this?", but the evidence of the endurance shown over the years by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Assembly gives the lie to any claim that there are no Unionists who are prepared to put the whole of Northern Ireland first, rather than their party. Their commitment should be a sign of confidence to the whole community.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I welcome the two new Ministers on what is, for me, an especially sad day. In another place at another time, more than 30 years ago, I saw a power sharing arrangement dissolved in the same way. It took more than 30 years to re-establish such an arrangement, yet this is the fourth suspension in four years.
I welcome and agree entirely with the Secretary of State's statement that the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement, in all its aspects, is the only way forward. I agree also that if devolution is to be workable and durable, there must be trust—but let us not enter a state of denial when looking at where the lack of trust lies. Of course Sinn Fein has broken faith with everybody, not least with those of us in the nationalist community who have insisted and will continue to insist on inclusivity. Sinn Fein has to rid itself of the discredited dual strategy and commit itself to democratic, peaceful means.
Another example of lack of trust is the view in the nationalist community that not all Ulster Unionists are in favour of inclusive government and partnership politics. That is not a criticism of those in the Ulster Unionist party who are in favour of those things, but if we are to solve the problem it is right to specify that lack
202
of trust. A third example of lack of trust is that many in the Unionist and nationalist communities wonder in what type of an arrangement two Ministers can have as their policy the destruction of the very agreement from which they derive their ministerial office—[Interruption.] DUP members are abusing it.
Those three elements will have to be addressed if we are to re-establish devolution. Unless we find answers, we will not be able to reinstate devolution in the way that is necessary to make the full agreement work.
Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman points to the complexity of addressing even that limited question of trust within the limited area of power sharing. I merely say that many things undermine trust—for example, the ongoing murderous campaign of loyalists, which will be combated. However, because they are not partners in power sharing, their campaign does not necessarily undermine power sharing. Many Unionists are sceptical, but because other Unionists are involved in the partnership, that scepticism does not, in itself, undermine power sharing.
The problem is the element of concern about the partners in the power sharing from the republican movement—Sinn Fein. If Sinn Fein is thought to be involved in an ambiguous dual-track strategy, its involvement in power sharing makes that far more important in undermining power sharing. That is why I have emphasised that, among all the issues that affect confidence, we have to address that one perhaps more keenly than any of the others.
Mr. Peter Robinson: May I join other Members in welcoming the two new members of the Northern Ireland Office ministerial team? I assure the Secretary of State that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and I are happy to meet our successors in office to talk over the issues that affect those Departments.
I also join the Secretary of State in his condemnation of terrorism. Members on this Bench, at whichever end they sit, will not soften that criticism one iota for loyalist terrorists. We consider their activities despicable, murderous and foul, and will take every opportunity to say so. May I disabuse the Secretary of State of the notion that the problems that affect the process are confined to a narrow area? Wide-ranging opposition within the Unionist community is affecting Unionist trust in the whole process. Rather than the Secretary of State undertaking an idle review with yesterday's men, who cannot deliver, is it not time for him to go to the people and allow the electorate to speak? Let politicians get a fresh mandate and enter negotiations for stable political structures in Northern Ireland.
Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I do not question at all—indeed, I am well aware of—his condemnation of all violence and murder wherever it originates, including on the loyalist side. I also thank him for saying that his ministerial colleagues are willing to discuss matters with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. I do not disagree that if trust is badly affected in one area it is liable to affect a range of areas. These things develop; we get an understanding—an increasing or decreasing trust—as time goes on, just as the hon. Gentleman's own policies and awareness of

203
Realpolitik have developed. I was glad that he shared a table, if not words, with Martin McGuinness the other night. I noticed that he said clearly that if Sinn Fein has the mandate that we expect it to have after an election, that is a reality that has to be taken into account. I always welcome pragmatism, however late it is, and will engage with him.
As for the report of the political death of the First Minister, I am afraid that not only is it greatly exaggerated, but I have read about it so often that I never take it for granted, even when it is posted in the newspapers in Northern Ireland.
Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that now is the time to be honest and recognise the breakdown of trust that has led the Government to take action, not least since one party believes, or says it does, in a political way forward, but does not recognise the need to engage with a civil police service? Does he also accept that we must pick up the pieces and consider how that trust can be rebuilt? Will he say how he and his team will involve in that process many people both elected representatives in Northern Ireland and those who have played their part in the Northern Ireland Policing Board and other commissions that have been set up following the Good Friday agreement—so that elements of trust that have been lost can start to be regained?
Dr. Reid: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that, in the new Northern Ireland, the efforts that we are making—which involve considerable pain for those who were previously associated with the RUC—to create a new, reformed, revitalised, community-based, effective police service that has cross-community support deserve to be rewarded by the participation of those who have been demanding precisely that for eight decades. I do not think that one can demand rights but not face up to one's responsibilities. Sinn Fein will eventually have to face up to that.
It is not for me to tell Gerry Adams how to lead Sinn Fein, but since he continually tells me how to do my job, it might be worth saying that what has happened has handicapped not only this process and power sharing but Sinn Fein itself. Its alleged association with violence in these cases is a ball and chain around the feet of a political party that has received further and further support precisely because it was moving into the political arena and away from violence. For that reason, as well as the reason that we shall not be able to sustain the future of power sharing in Northern Ireland unless Sinn Fein shifts, it would be as well to do so.
I agree that we need to revitalise support for the agreement across the community, beyond the political parties. We have let that slip. It is not easy to rejuvenate it. It is common to all peace processes of this nature that, after the initial euphoria, it is the aficionados who tend to become involved. I will gladly consider any ideas in that direction.
Sir Patrick Cormack: In the light of the remarks that the Secretary of State has just made about Sinn Fein, what possible justification is there for continuing the special facilities that its
204
members have in this House? Given that they will not play a proper part as Members of Parliament, should not their privileged access to this place be suspended, at least during the suspension of the Assembly?
Dr. Reid: First, that is a matter for the House. Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) certainly feels that it has already offered some advantages—Mr. McCloskey met Gerry Adams here the other day. I sincerely hope that they manage to resolve the problem.
Sometimes, the apparently small things move the process forward. We have spent a lot of time, quite correctly, on the big issues such as Castlereagh, Colombia, and so on, but it should not go unnoticed, for instance, that Martin McGuinness said on Remembrance day that we should all respect the right of the British to remember the dead—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen can throw that back in his face if they like, but I welcome that as a recognition of our failings on these matters. I welcome the fact that Alex Maskey, the Sinn Fein Mayor of Belfast, laid a wreath at the Somme. I welcome the fact that an alleged leading member of the Provisional IRA, Martin Meehan, said this morning that, in his opinion, the war had been over for some time. I just wish that mixed messages were not sent out and that there was no ambiguity in telling us that violence was in the past. If that were done and done definitively with clarity and backed by action, we would find power sharing a bit easier in the future than it has been in the past.
Mr. Clive Soley: I welcome my right hon. Friend's calm and reasoned approach. Can we reiterate very strongly the message that exclusion in Northern Ireland has always been easy and that it is inclusion that has been so difficult? Despite the sad and unnecessary rise in violence perpetrated by both Unionists and republicans in recent months, we need to remember that long-term progress has been rather good and that the atrocities that we used to experience weekly no longer disfigure that society. It would be very nice if all the paramilitary groups could wind themselves up and go away over the next few months—we must never lose sight of that message—but we need to take a long-term view and recognise where we have come from, that we are making progress and that inclusion is vital.
Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend is right that we need to keep a sense of perspective about where we are in Northern Ireland, even on such sensitive issues as law and order. In some areas, there has been a considerable increase over the past two years in disorder on the streets, for instance, as against what went on in the two years previously. However, there has also been a continual reduction over the years—in some ways a dramatic one—in the number of murders in Northern Ireland.
On drugs, I want to see those on the streets dealing in drugs lifted and put where they should be—behind bars. I know that that is an ambition shared by the Chief Constable. Although it is a problem of great concern in Northern Ireland, the rate of drugs misuse in Northern Ireland is estimated, in terms of arrests and convictions, at one eighth the rate in Scotland. A sense of perspective is necessary. Similarly, when we consider the resources

205
that we put into dealing with the matter, yes, they are overstretched, but there are three times as many police per head in Northern Ireland as there are in other parts of the United Kingdom, and the position is about the same as regards resources.
We do combat the problems. It is not always easy to suffer the minutes and to watch the hours, but my hon. Friend is right: when we look at the hours, the years and the decades, there has been a significant move forward for people in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Was it really wise to suspend? Does not the Secretary of State understand that for very many people it is deeply offensive that the constitutional parties, whether nationalist or Unionist, in Northern Ireland were penalised through no fault of their own? Is it not solely and exclusively the fault of Sinn Fein-IRA because of their violent activity? Will the Secretary of State now say unequivocally that the reason the power-sharing Executive and the Assembly have been suspended and are at breaking point is Sinn Fein-IRA's activities, and theirs alone?
Dr. Reid: I have already made known my position on suspension. Yes, I do realise the burden, annoyance and frustrations of those who feel that they have done very little and yet are having their commitment and capacity to improve the lives of people in Northern Ireland taken away by suspension. I have also made it plain, as somebody who has supported devolution all my life—unlike most of the hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches, I might say—that I would have preferred not to suspend, but I have given my reasons for that. The right hon. Gentleman will not have missed the fact that some of people who he says were so pained at being suspended had actually resigned last week, so that was slightly out of my hands.
As regards the future, I am making judgments on these cases. I do not claim that they are infallible judgments or that they are necessarily right. They are my political judgments. They are made in an attempt to sustain the whole process on an inclusive basis, with the potential to resolve decades-long, generations-long and in some cases centuries-long problems, violence and conflict. If we look over the past five or 10 years, there is enough evidence there that up to this point that judgment has proved correct. What we need now is a substantive indication, as the right hon. Gentleman said, from Sinn Fein that that judgment has been correct—that the trust that we placed in the republican movement and its willingness to move to the democratic resolution of problems and away from violence, as long
206
as we provided democracy, justice and opportunity for them, was right. That is the challenge facing us over the next few months.
David Winnick: I recognise that my right hon. Friend had little alternative but to do what he has done. Is it not a fact that the present situation will only cause pleasure to those who opposed and undermined the Good Friday agreement from the very start? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will work closely with the Irish Government during the time the Assembly is suspended, and that it is extremely important that the two Governments should work together? Is it not a fact that Sinn Fein must take some responsibility for playing right into the hands of those who opposed the agreement from the beginning?
Dr. Reid: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that I will be working closely with the Irish Government on the matter. May I say how much I welcome the statement yesterday making it clear that there had been no ambiguity in the choice between violence and democracy? It was a statement not just from the Prime Minister of this country, but from the Taoiseach—the Prime Minister of Ireland. It was an indication of how strongly he and the Irish Government feel about the position. I look forward to working with them, and I greatly welcome their support and their efforts.
Dr. Julian Lewis: What exactly does the Secretary of State think that IRA-Sinn Fein intended to do with lists of the home addresses of prison officers and police officers, together with lists of which of them had and had not been issued with firearms for their personal protection? Why does he think that the IRA-Sinn Fein cell responsible for this latest disgraceful episode described the Prime Minister with two words, one of which was "naïve"?
Dr. Reid: As someone who always closely considers the evidence, the hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspaper, although since I am not allowed to reveal any secrets, I cannot contradict anything that he said. On the intentions of the perpetrators of the incident, I cannot prejudge whether the IRA or somebody else was responsible. I can only refer him to the statements that I have been making publicly as well as privately for a considerable time, saying that a ceasefire, even when I judge it in the round to be intact, is not the point. The point is that, if people are on ceasefire but are maintaining a capability in terrorist terms that could be used to break a ceasefire in the long run, they will destroy the confidence that is necessary for power sharing. I think that that answers his question.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. We must now move on to the next business.

A-level Grading
5.21 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on A-level grading.
As the House will know, following the publication of examination results in summer this year, there have been concerns about the grading of A-level and AS-level examinations and about the way in which exam standards are set and maintained. I recognise the anxiety and uncertainty that that has caused. Students have been left unsure whether their grades in A-levels and AS-levels this year accurately reflect the standard of their work. On behalf of the education service, I repeat my apology to all the students who have been affected. My responsibility throughout has been to ensure that the concerns are carefully and thoroughly investigated, that the recommendations are acted on as rapidly as possible and that clear action is taken to avoid this situation ever arising again.
Early last month, headteachers' representatives and some examiners expressed concerns about the grading of the work of some students in this year's A-level and AS-level examinations. The complaints focused in particular on changes that had been made to grade boundaries in some of the papers. Given the seriousness of the allegations, on 19 September I set up an independent inquiry under Mike Tomlinson, the former chief inspector of schools. His interim report, which was published on 27 September, identified weaknesses in the way in which the exams had been assessed this year, and recommended a process of regrading. That work has now been completed. Letters went last night from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service to all students on its records whose grades had been revised. Since 10 o'clock this morning, a UCAS helpline has been in operation.
Mike Tomlinson announced this morning that a total of 9,800 candidate entries have had unit grades raised. All the adjustments relate to the Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations Board. In the majority of cases, they have not resulted in a change to overall grades, but 1,945 candidates have had their overall grades raised—733 for AS-levels and 1,212 for A2 results.
UCAS holds a record on 1,089 of those students, of whom 689 are already in their first-choice university, although a small number are not on their first-choice course. A further 232 had no offer from their first or second-choice universities and are therefore unlikely to be affected by a grade change. On current UCAS estimates, that leaves about 168 students who may be eligible to transfer university. UCAS has told us today that there are no more than eight possible new students for any single university.
May I briefly outline the action that the 168 students need to take? Students who think that they may be eligible to move institution are being advised to contact their preferred university or college. Universities have been advised by their representative body, Universities UK, to honour all offers made to students before the publication of A-level results in August, and I am confident that they will do that. As I said on 27 September, the fact that institutions have already
208
admitted their full quota of students for this year may mean that students who wish to transfer will be offered places for next year rather than this year. Clearly, the fact that the numbers are much lower than some speculated will make matters much more manageable. Universities and colleges have agreed to make final decisions no later than 31 October. Universities and students will not be disadvantaged financially if the latter move university due to regrading.
In his report of 27 September, Mike Tomlinson also gave his preliminary views on what had gone wrong. In particular, the QCA had not issued guidance on the attainment expected for a specific grade in individual papers. It had not provided a clear, consistent view of the standard required to ensure the maintenance of the overall GCE A-level standard. In addition, although AS units were piloted, A2 units were not.
I also asked Mike Tomlinson to investigate allegations that external pressure had been put on examining boards to lower the number of passes to protect against the allegation of lowering standards. Mike Tomlinson concluded that Ministers and the Department had applied no such pressure. He further concluded that officers at QCA had acted within their guidelines, but went on to say that
"on the evidence available, the actions of the boards during the grading exercise arose from the pressure they perceived that they were under from the QCA both to maintain the standard and achieve an outcome which was more or less in line with the results in 2001".
On 27 September, I decided that the confidence of the examining boards and the headteacher representatives in the QCA's leadership was damaged and that its future would be best served by a new chairman. We shall shortly announce the name of a new interim chair.
I recognise that a major task for the QCA and my Department is rebuilding confidence in the QCA and our examination system. Ken Boston. the new chief executive of the QCA, has announced a timetable for implementing the recommendations in Mike Tomlinson's report. By the end of October, there will be additional guidance on AS and A2 standards. By mid-November, further work on the statistical issues that underlie assessment and a revised code of practice for the conduct of the process will be completed. The QCA will also put in place improved communications with all partners. Current students on AS and A2 courses can be reassured by those actions that marking and grading standards in 2003 will be robust.
Ken Boston has also announced that he will set up an examinations taskforce. Its job will be to oversee the effective delivery of the AS and A2 exams in January and July 2003. It meets for the first time on Friday and will comprise representatives of headteachers as well as the exam boards. I welcome that decisive action.
Mike Tomlinson's report also provided wider lessons for the way in which the Government plan and implement such major changes. The Department will act on those lessons. Mike Tomlinson will now tackle the second part of his remit: to review more generally the arrangements for setting, maintaining and judging A-level standards. He will report to me and the QCA in November.

209
Today's announcements are supported by the headteacher and teacher organisations, including those who raised the original concerns. All students who took examinations this year can be confident that the regrading process has been independent and fair.
I recognise the importance of exams as a means of measuring achievement and giving young people a currency for higher education and the world of work. It is therefore especially important that our assessment system is fair, transparent and efficient.
Although it is important to acknowledge this year's difficulties, it is also important to remember that the principles behind Curriculum 2000 were wholeheartedly endorsed. That must not be lost.
Mike Tomlinson has given us a clear way forward for re-establishing confidence in the A-level system, and for ensuring that standards are clear. I hope that this will enable us to avoid the sterile annual debate about exam standards, when better results should be a cause of celebration for young people and their teachers.
I want to put on record my thanks to all those in the education service who brought the original concerns to our attention. Their co-operation in and approval of the process that we have undergone have been crucial. I am also grateful to UCAS and Universities UK for their helpful and constructive approach. Finally, I would like to thank Mike Tomlinson and his team for the speed of their actions, their thoroughness and their integrity.
Mr. Damian Green: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of her statement, and I add my thanks to Mike Tomlinson for the work that he has had to do.
Today's announcement of the A-level regradings represents one more step in what has been the worst crisis ever to affect the exam system in this country—a crisis made worse by the staggeringly inept way in which it has been handled by the Secretary of State and her Department. Tens of thousands of students have had months of not knowing whether their grades were mis-marked. Two thousand families now know that they were fiddled out of the proper marks, and 88,000 others have been severely disappointed today, all because Ministers insisted, against the advice of their officials, on introducing the new A-level system too fast and too soon. Mike Tomlinson described that system as an "accident waiting to happen". The accident happened, and the Secretary of State is still trying to evade responsibility.
The root of this fiasco has been political interference in the exam system. I am afraid that nothing in the Secretary of State's statement suggests that she is prepared to reduce the degree of political meddling in the details of education, which are best left to heads, teachers and examiners. In her statement, she confirms that officers at the QCA had acted within their guidelines. If she believes that, why did she sack the QCA's chairman, Sir William Stubbs? Will she admit to the House now that he was a convenient scapegoat, used to take the pressure off Ministers? Will she also tell us why Sir William would have put pressure on exam boards to downgrade the marks if he did not believe that he was serving the interests of his political masters? It is not in the interests of the exam boards or of the QCA to
210
depress the grades. It might, however, be in the interests of Ministers to do so, if they were worried about accusations of dumbing down.
So let us have the Secretary of State's explanation of why Sir William acted as she has accused him of doing. Interestingly, the Secretary of State said in her statement that she had sacked Sir William not because he had put pressure on the exam boards, but because the boards perceived that they were under pressure from the QCA. Might it have been possible that Sir William perceived that he was under pressure from Ministers?
While we are on the subject of the QCA, will the Secretary of State finally commit to making it fully independent of the Government? The main job for her, or her successor, is to restore confidence in the exam system. That will not be achieved until it is completely taken away from political interference. If the Government were to introduce legislation in the next Session to achieve that, we would give it a fair wind.
On the exam boards, why does the Secretary of State think that only one board has been implicated in this problem? What did OCR do, under this perceived pressure from the QCA, that the other boards failed to do? How does she propose to deal with the 2,000 students who have suffered? She says that students will not be financially disadvantaged. Will she tell the House what the compensation package will cover? Will she also make it clear what she will do for the other 88,000 students who will be feeling angry and disappointed today because they have not been regraded? [Interruption.] Ministers say that those students got the right grades. I would recommend that they find the time later to visit the BBC website and read the comments of some of the students who have been affected. The words "whitewash" and "sham" appear frequently. Many of those students may want their papers re-marked, not regraded, but their schools will be put off by the cost. Will the Government do the decent thing and pay for any re-marking that is demanded by those students?
Can the Secretary of State now clear up why an AS-level is worth 50 per cent of the marks when the exam board says that it constitutes less than half the work? The authorities said that the schools misunderstood the situation, which is a real insult to thousands of heads and teachers. Can she understand why two exams, each of which received 50 per cent. of the marks, might be regarded by reasonable people as being of equal weight?
The Secretary of State said that she has asked Mike Tomlinson to produce another report by next month. Will she now agree to a fuller review, completely independent of the Government, to look into the whole future of A-levels? Without that, the system will continue to fall under suspicion. The QCA's own task force will not be enough because by her actions the QCA has been proved to be simply an arm of Government.
The Secretary of State eventually apologised for the damage that the scandal has caused. For 50 years, A-levels served young people well, with all concerned regarding them as the gold standard for exams. Her place in history is secure as the Minister who destroyed that gold standard. No one doubts her integrity, her decency and her good intentions—but with that integrity and decency she has set up a system that has not worked, she has obstinately ignored advice that it would not work, she has tried to evade personal

211
responsibility for the fiasco and she has failed to take the first step towards restoring confidence in the exam system, which is for her to resign.
Estelle Morris: I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has just said that he wished that more students had received incorrect results. [Interruption.] That is essentially what he said. All those students who now know that the results they received in August were accurate should be pleased by that. The hon. Gentleman said that he wished that more had found out today that they had been given inaccurate results in August. That is not my view. The hon. Gentleman has spent so much time jumping on every passing bandwagon in the past few weeks that he has forgotten to read the reports that Mike Tomlinson has produced.
Let us be clear about what Mike Tomlinson said. Political interference in the exam system is a serious allegation. I said when I gave my first statement on the issue that not only had no political interference ever taken place under Labour Ministers but that I believed that it had never taken place under any Conservative Minister. Even if the Liberal Democrats were ever to get to be Education Ministers—[Interruption.] That is going too far and I withdraw that comment. Seriously, I believe that politicians are unanimous on the issue and not one of us—we are all committed to the education of our children—would dream of instructing the chief executive or the chairman of the QCA to fiddle the results. We did not. I had the decency to say that the hon. Gentleman and his party would not have done that, but he did not have the decency to say that we did not. Mike Tomlinson, who is impartial, has said that. Nobody accused us of doing so—not the Headmasters and Mistresses Conference, the Secondary Heads Association, or any of the other head teachers associations. Bill Stubbs said that there was no political interference. The allegations came from elsewhere, but Mike Tomlinson said, in any form of words that he could find, that there was no evidence, written or verbal, and no allegation that Ministers interfered. He concluded that there was no interference.
The problem now is not that you do not believe us or the integrity of our profession, but that you do not believe Mike Tomlinson, the former chief inspector of schools. On that you rest, and it is up to you to justify it—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The Secretary of State has forgotten herself for a moment. She must use the correct parliamentary language.
Hon. Members: Regrade her.
Estelle Morris: Only from A up to A*.
The hon. Member for Ashford spoke of an accident waiting to happen. Mike Tomlinson did say that in the press conference on 27 September. The position was that there were no subject-specific grade criteria and no clear, consistent view about the standard required. The statistical and practical issues had not been fully worked through. All those are responsibilities of the QCA.
212
Because that infrastructure was not in place, it was, as Mike Tomlinson said, an accident waiting to happen. He also said that the chief executives of the three examining bodies believed that they were being put under further pressure. The three inadequacies in the infrastructure and the perceived pressure that I have described account for what went wrong this year.
I come now to the matter of timing. Mike Tomlinson said that the structure had been introduced too quickly, and I have said all along that I accept every one of his recommendations. I shall act on them, but I want to clarify the record in respect of the timing.
When this Government were elected in 1997, A and AS examinations had been consulted on already by the previous Administration. Those examinations derived from a report by Ron Dearing—an excellent man, and the report was not bad either. In those days, the Tories were committed to AS-levels. They want to withdraw them now, but that is a different matter.
We decided in 1997 to consult further on the matter. The previous Conservative Government might have introduced their proposals in 1997, but we delayed until 1999. We then consulted further. After that further consultation, we postponed the implementation of A and AS-level exams for a further year, to 2000. By that time, four years had passed since the publication of Ron Dearing's report on the wider curriculum for 16 to 18-year-olds.
I accept Mike Tomlinson's contention that a delay of three years rather than two might have prevented some problems. We intend to learn from that, but I want to say two things in that regard. We delayed introduction for two years after 1997 because of the results of consultation. No plea to delay introduction by another year was made to us, either in papers or correspondence from the QCA or as part of the consultation, and neither was any such plea made to us by any organisation representing head teachers. However, I accept Mike Tomlinson's report and, as I said in my statement, I believe that it is something of which Government should take note.
I come now to the important questions of compensation for students, and the QCA. Some students have been inconvenienced financially and made poorer by the extra accommodation, tuition and travel costs incurred when they chose to change universities. They will be reimbursed by a special fund being set up by my Department.
As for the QCA, the House should recall that it was set up by the previous Administration. Its impartiality has served the country well, but I accept that the time may have come when the public—and, more importantly, teachers, parents and students—want added safeguards to ensure that impartiality. That is why I welcome the decision by Ken Boston, in whom I have the greatest confidence, to establish what I might call a stakeholder body, involving head teachers and their representatives, to oversee the examinations to be held next January and June. Mike Tomlinson will monitor that body's work overall, and it will provide an added safeguard for next year's results.
However, Mike Tomlinson may say in November that further safeguards are needed, and he might make proposals to that effect. If so, we will adopt them. The Government have no interest in doing anything

213
other than ensuring that the increased standards achieved by pupils, students and teachers over the past five years are supported by a robust examination system.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which she has responded to a problem that has been very difficult for the Government. However, will she confirm that the staff at OCR has been completely absolved from any blame? That is important for me, as many of them are my constituents, and OCR is based in my constituency.
Estelle Morris: I appreciate my hon. Friend's constituency interest in that. Of course, OCR is an independent body, and it is for its members to read and absorb Mike Tomlinson's report. However, that report went no further than to examine the actions of OCR's chief executive and senior examiners. I hope that my hon. Friend can take some assurance from that, although I leave that to her sound judgment.
Mr. Phil Willis: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance sighting of her statement and for her courage in coming to the House to deliver it.
Liberal Democrats remain committed to the A and AS process, although we accept Mike Tomlinson's comment that it was rushed and that the extra year would have made a significant difference. We also believe that it is essential that the QCA is not simply reformed but abolished in its current form and that we have an examination watchdog that is totally independent of the Department for Education and Skills. Without that, everything else will be considered a fudge.
We have had two months of sheer hell affecting tens of thousands of young people who were subjected to experimentation at every level of their school life, their teachers, their further education college lecturers and their parents. In that time, our examination system has become the laughing stock of Europe and, indeed, the world. Yet now it appears that nothing happened and that all is well. It appears that either the shy and retiring Sir William Stubbs panicked when he discovered that this year's results were 0.3 per cent. out of line with his predictions and forced the exam boards to redraw the grade boundaries or that this year's students at AS and A2-level had a universal dip in performance, not when they sat their exams, handed in their course work or when their work was marked, but when their papers were graded. That is the sum comment of the Secretary of State today.
Far from restoring confidence, today's statement merely adds to the belief that the dead hand of Government was behind this déâcle. We are delighted that 1,953 students have received positive regradings today, but tens of thousands have been left wondering "what if?" Is the Secretary of State prepared to publish the numbers of students who would have gained different grades on the original grade boundaries? That set of statistics is crucial in determining where the fiddling went on.
At the heart of this fiasco is the question of standards, particularly that of maintaining the gold standard at A-level. Does the Secretary of State accept that simply
214
using the word "standards" again and again without defining what it means has contributed in large part to the chaos? Does she agree with the QCA, which clearly thought that it meant limiting the number of students achieving certain grades, or does she agree with the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), who told the QCA last week that this definition
"places a block on talent and ambition"?
The Government are right to maintain standards vigorously but they have no right whatever to determine how many students meet those standards. However, that is the impression that is abroad this year.
This statement speaks volumes. It speaks of a Secretary of State who panics every time bad news arrives and does not have the guts to say to No. 10 that running scared of criticism is no way to run a Government. Does she accept that No. 10 would not sanction charges of grade inflation, and that is what really lies behind this sorry saga? Will she confirm that in her Department's media plan, agreed with No. 10, deflecting accusations of grade inflation came near the top of the list of priorities for July and August? Will she confirm that the press releases issued on 14 August by QCA and 15 August by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), along with numerous articles about gold standards, were all planned in advance to head off criticism of grade inflation? Will she admit that her Department created such a climate of paranoia over maintaining the gold standard that this year's fiasco became inevitable?
In short, the Secretary of State is responsible for this year's A-level fiasco and she must apologise to the 90,000 students who feel that they have cheated.
Estelle Morris: I suppose that one of the advantages, or disadvantages, of being in perpetual opposition is that one can change one's mind about six times a day. To be honest, in the past few weeks, the hon. Gentleman has been changing his mind between the "Today" programme and "World at One", but so be it.
On the grading question, I am a mite cross with the hon. Gentleman at this point in time. Let us just think about it. In August, we were accused of grade inflation. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who speaks for the Conservatives, went on the "Today" programme followed by "World at One" to say the same thing, unlike the Liberal Democrats, and I grant him that—that given that A-level grades had improved, we must immediately have a thorough inquiry into the exam system. He did not congratulate the students and teachers on working harder and learning more effectively; he said that there must be something wrong with the system because the results had improved. Mike Tomlinson actually reports that at the root of the problem, at every level of society, is an unwillingness to believe that, year on year, our children can learn more effectively, students can get better and teachers can teach more effectively. Having heard that in August, in September the Government were accused of grade deflation. All of a sudden, rather than making the exams easier, to get better results, we had made the exams more difficult to get the grades lower. That is the complexity of the situation.

215
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) is usually generous of spirit and, with Labour Members, he usually gives due recognition to the achievements of youngsters in August when the results are announced. He always does so. He will know, therefore, that maintaining that their grades are due to the fact that they had worked harder and achieved more is a pretty difficult task. That is why we are prepared to assure the nation that there has been no political interference in the setting of grade boundaries or anything else; it is no more and no less than the result of the hard work of our teachers and pupils.
What is sad about what the Opposition spokesman and the hon. Gentleman have been saying today is that we set up an independent inquiry and, in effect, they have both said that they do not trust its results. They must think about the message that that gives to head teachers, parents and students. Both the hon. Gentlemen are still saying that there has been political interference in the setting of exam grades this year. There has not been—no evidence of that has been found—and while the Labour party is in power, there never will be. I also repeat that I do not believe that there ever would be were any other party in power.
Opposition Members have a choice. They can continue to play politics with that accusation or they can think carefully about the implications that it has for teachers and the students who are now studying for next year's examinations. No matter whether hon. Members believe us or Mike Tomlinson, the key thing about the report today is that every single organisation of head teachers that brought the original complaint, both from the maintained and the independent sectors, has signed up to say that the process undergone during the past few weeks has been robust, that they trust it, that it is fair, that they think that students now have the right grades and that they want to get on with teaching and learning. I back them. I certainly do not back the hon. Member for Ashford.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must inform the House that many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Could we please have shorter questions and, hopefully, shorter answers too? I call the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller).
Mr. Andrew Miller: Does my right hon. Friend yet have enough information at her disposal to determine whether the papers that were wrongly marked were in one geographical area, or were spread about? Has she been able to draw any conclusions from that data yet?
Estelle Morris: No, I have not. The list of units—we must remember that they are units and not full subjects—were published and have again been published today for anyone who wishes to look at them. It would depend on which schools in which geographical areas tended to choose OCR as an examining body. I
216
cannot give my hon. Friend a geographical make-up, but all the units that were regraded were from OCR, not from the other two examining bodies.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does the Secretary of State now accept with the benefit of hindsight that, despite the delay and the consultation, this problem had its origins in the way in which AS-levels were introduced, when the first warnings of grading problems were issued? Obviously, she has only a few weeks to ensure the credibility of next year's system, but when she considers her longer term duty of restoring the reputation and status of A-levels will she no longer rule out abandoning the AS experiment, which has contributed to this problem and caused endless other problems inside schools too?
Estelle Morris: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is clearly well versed in the matter given his former post. For the record, AS-levels, which used to be a 40:60 not a 50:50 split, emanated from the discussion document published by the Conservative Government and Ron Dearing. When we took power, we consulted. At the time, it was a 40:60 split, but it was to count for 50 per cent. of the marks. During the consultation, people thought that that system was too complicated and we came up with a 50:50 split. Interestingly, that was widely accepted by schools.
I accept that the technical implementation of that 50:50 split has caused difficulties. One thing that Mike Tomlinson said was that he would have expected the QCA to study a number of different ways to ensure that the statistical processes for getting that split were robust. He did not say—I specifically asked him this because of course, I would want to consider it—that inherent in a 50:50 split is an inability to get it right. He said that more statistical modelling needed to take place. The new chief executive of the QCA has agreed to undertake that.
What schools need now is certainty. Whatever is for the long term, I want to give them an assurance that no further changes will be made to the syllabuses—to what pupils learn and what they teach—without timely consideration and due warning—that is, not in the foreseeable future.
Mr. George Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that parents, teachers and students will contrast the dignified, decisive and, today, feisty way in which she has responded with the squalid and childish response of those on the Opposition Front Bench? When she is considering these matters further, will she give some thought to whether the introduction of an international baccalaureate, or something similar, might in the long term help to overcome some of the problems?
Estelle Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. An interesting debate has been going on in education circles for as long as I can remember about the baccalaureate and it has now been put in the public domain, and rightly so. It is important to give assurances, as I told the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I do not want schools or teachers to go away from any debate in the House thinking that the system is about to change again. If my hon. Friend means by a baccalaureate some sort of

217
overarching qualification in which we can recognise both the study of some subjects in depths, which are A-levels, and that broader curriculum, that is something in which I personally and the Government have been interested. I put on the record that that is for the long term, not the immediate term. What schools want to know most of all now is that there will be no immediate changes. I welcome my hon. Friend's contribution, however. That is a debate that the education service and this House should continue.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Is an AS-level half an A-level or not?
Estelle Morris: There are six modules in an A-level: three at AS-level and three at A2. AS-levels count for half an A-level. They are recorded in the performance tables as such. Due to the linear nature of some subjects, it was deemed that the first year six, usually the AS-levels, would be marginally easier than the old A-level standard. To maintain that standard, therefore, the second year had to be marginally more difficult than the A-level standard. That is where the difficulty lies. What is clear is that the overall standard of AS and A2 is the same as previous A-level standards.
Kali Mountford: I thank my right hon. Friend for the apology that she has issued to students this evening—a refreshing change, to which Opposition Members are obviously not used. I have had inquiries from only two students in my constituency. Given the hype raised by the battle cry of "political interference" and "interfering" from the Opposition parties, I would have expected more. Is it not the case that those battle cries do not undermine the Government in the way that Opposition parties clearly intend, but undermine those students who are now facing difficulties? Should we not now focus on how to ensure that the students affected get the help that they need quickly and how to announce a robust system to the House in the next eight weeks, so that we can have clarity for next year's exam results?
Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the details that I have been able to give the House today about the students—just under 200—who are eligible to change university, the procedures for this year's examinations, the changes we shall make and the support we shall give reassure her.
Criticisms were made today about acting precipitately—acting too quickly or too slowly are both accusations that have been made over the past few weeks. What I have tried to do during the past few weeks was actually to deal with the problem that arose at the start of September. This is the first occasion on which I have made any political comment, either party or otherwise, or attacked anybody. While others have been doing that over the past few weeks, I have been busy getting on with solving the problem that arose. I hope that today I have been able to lay it to rest.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am surprised that the Secretary of State should conspicuously have failed to recognise the work of many individual staff at the OCR, many of whom may be my constituents who work in Cambridge, or those of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). If the
218
Secretary of State persists in scapegoating the QCA and the OCR, they will recollect that she and Ministers were responsible for insisting that 40 per cent. of the work at AS-level should be counted as half an A-level, for the botched implementation of the AS-level in the first level and for the ill-advised assessment review in 2001.
Estelle Morris: I think that I have already answered the latter points. I am certain that, as regards the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he misheard, rather than deliberately misunderstood; none of the comments that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) were meant to imply any criticism of staff at OCR. I said, and I say again, that OCR will read the report. I reassured my hon. Friend that Mike Tomlinson's comments had been at chief executive and senior adviser level. To reassure the hon. Gentleman about his constituents who work at OCR in whatever capacity, I have made no comments about what they have done; 1 have referred them to Mike Tomlinson's report and I am happy to say that again.
Tony Cunningham: Perhaps one of the saddest aspects is the cloud that has hung over all A-level results, so will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the tens of thousands of successful A-level students and pay tribute to the work of their teachers and schools?
Estelle Morris: Of course.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) talked about the generation that had been experimented on, but they have also achieved more than any previous generation at each of their examination stages. I congratulate them and their teachers, parents and families for supporting them. Like my hon. Friend, I am delighted that the number of students who were today notified of changes in their results was lower than we might have expected.
Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Minister understand that one of the reasons why her whitewash today will not wash is that too many of us have direct personal experience of this fiasco? My daughter, whose AS-level grades were affected, rang me today from her school to express the anger felt by her teachers and friends about the totally inadequate response comprised by the report and the Minister's statement today. It ducks the major issue. Does she not understand that only comprehensive re-marking of the relevant papers will suffice? Will she go back to her office and immediately order that re-marking, and offer to pay for it as well?
Estelle Morris: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should distrust Mike Tomlinson's report and the word of the HMC, the Secondary Heads Association, the National Association of Head Teachers and all the teacher representatives. It is a good report, with good work over the past three to four weeks, and I am sorry that so far not one Opposition Member has chosen to support Mike Tomlinson and his recommendations.
As regards marking, the exercise undertaken by Mike Tomlinson has been wholly unusual. Never before has anyone had to look at the way in which grade boundaries were set. There is a well-established process

219
for any school that wants remarking to take place. By the time the inquiry was set up the number of schools that had asked for re-marking rather than regrading was roughly the same as in previous years, except at OCR where the number was significantly higher. That led me to say that it looked on the face of things as if there was a problem at OCR. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that when any school which applies for remarking—the boards have extended the period during which that can take place—and re-marking takes place, the fee is sent back to the school.
Mr. Paul Truswell: What will my right hon. Friend say to the 17 pupils at Horsforth school in my constituency where English literature marks were changed to the extent that some of those pupils received 91 out of 120, rather than 21 out of 120, and others received 102 out of 120? Would it surprise her to learn that the examination board involved offered no apology for its mistakes and all the trauma that was caused? What reassurance will she give pupils, parents and the school not only that we shall learn the lessons from this fiasco but that in future examination boards will have a much more human face?
Estelle Morris: I know that my hon. Friend will take back the comments that I have made to the House today, expressing our understanding of the distress that the students must have gone through. His comments only serve to remind us that we were absolutely right to act as we did in setting up an independent inquiry, letting it do its work and reporting to the House when it had completed its tasks.
As regards any points that hon. Members raise on the future of examination boards or the impartiality or robustness of the examination system, it is good to have the debate, but I am determined to wait for part two of Mike Tomlinson's report. At that point we shall no doubt have the opportunity to discuss and debate it further.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Given that Ministers introduced the AS-level, given that Ministers approved the increase in repeatable coursework and given that Ministers had sight of the draft QCA guidance on grading, how does it follow that Ministers had no responsibility at all for the accident about to happen? Discuss.
Estelle Morris: Grade E, bordering on U.
Given the hon. Gentleman's previous post, I should have thought that he would understand that the setting of grades, sending out subject specifications or anything to do with the marking assessment system is hands off for politicians. I do not question for a minute that the situation was not the same in his day. It is hands off for politicians and it is important that that remain the case. The QCA is responsible for setting out subject-specific guidance and for all the implementation and mechanics of the system.
I am responsible for the policy. I am responsible for making sure that when something goes wrong it is put right. I am responsible for Curriculum 2000 and I am
220
happy to be held accountable for that. I cannot be held responsible—nor can any politician—for interfering in the exam system because politicians should not do so. We did not do that and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not either.
James Purnell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the root cause of the problem is that some people just will not believe that A-level results are improving? They do not believe that more than a minority of people should be allowed to take A-levels and go to university. Should those people not be pointed in the direction of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development research that found that we now have the eighth best education system in the world? We should be complimenting pupils rather than running them down the whole time.
Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is, of course, exactly right. We have an excellent education system in which standards have increased at every key stage, at seven, 11, 14, 16 and 18. We should be proud of it.
I say again that we cannot be proud of the events that led to the statement. I acknowledge that. No one would want to pretend otherwise. However, each Member of the House, from all parties, has to make a personal decision: whether to accept what has come from the report, to learn from it and move on and to congratulate our students and teachers on their achievements, or whether to continue to make political capital over it—I think some have already made that decision.
I have dealt with the problems that arose during the past few weeks. We shall now move on and that will include recognising the achievements of the generation of children who are in our schools at present.
Mrs. Patsy Calton: The grading problems came to light through the starkly contrasting results of children who had been awarded previous A grades but final U grades in their modules. Anyone who has been a teacher knows that that is almost impossible and very unlikely in large numbers. However, C and D grades followed by mistaken U grades may be more difficult to identify. Has the Secretary of State satisfied herself that young people across the grading system—not merely those with As and Bs initially—have been treated fairly?
Estelle Morris: Absolutely. I did not know this two months ago, but I can now tell the hon. Lady that in order to set the grade boundaries, what first happens is that the A pass rate is set and the E pass grade is set, and then the grades in between are calibrated, presumably, within that framework. When that process was gone through again, every single grade would have been affected, so I want to offer the assurance that the process that has just been undergone has not just been about whether people who got an A or an E or a U got the correct grade; it has been about every single grade. Indeed, some of the young people who have been notified of grade changes today will find, for example, that they have a C that goes up to a B. It has been done effectively.
I again give the hon. Lady an assurance, because I do understand the seriousness of the matter; many Members of the House, not only as constituency MPs

221
but as parents, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said, know the importance of this and I note his concerns. But every single person who complained about the grading of this year's examination results has signed up today and said that they think that the process has been fair, that they are happy with the results and that they want to move on. I hope that we can do so as well.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the Secretary of State realise that the stridency of her statement and the brazen lack of contrition that she has displayed this afternoon make us all comprehend why she so regularly gets the bird at teachers' conferences? She keeps on citing the judgment of Mr. Tomlinson. Are not parents, teachers, the universities and, not least, students entitled to have a Secretary of State in whose judgment they can trust?
Estelle Morris: I think that, as I said before, the role of the Secretary of State in this is, on hearing of concerns, to look at the evidence, take action and ensure that the matter is put right. I set up this inquiry some three-and-a-half to four weeks ago. Within a relatively short period, a great deal has happened. I have been responsible for ensuring that the inquiry has been carried out effectively. I have been responsible for ensuring that it has been brought to a timely conclusion. I have been responsible for ensuring that at every single stage of that inquiry, those whose concerns brought the matter to our attention in the first place, were satisfied with the procedures that were being used. I believe that that is the sort of Secretary of State that teachers and the nation want.

Points of Order
6.12 pm
Mr. Eric Pickles: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that "Erskine May", on page 266, addresses a problem of sufficient time to deal with business. We have before us an important debate on post offices and other matters, but we also have the matter of local government finance, which represents 25 per cent. of public expenditure. Even with good will, I cannot imagine that we shall get on to that before 8 o'clock or maybe even later. That does not allow sufficient time to debate this important issue. Have you had an indication from the Leader of the House or from the Deputy Prime Minister that one of them will be coming to the House to make a statement on change of business so that we can have additional time to discuss this matter, which is vital to all our constituents?
Madam Deputy Speaker (sylvia Heal): I do understand and sympathise with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and indeed with other hon. Members in the House who hope to contribute to the debates. The timing of debates and the order of business are in the hands of the Government and I have had no notice of a statement of the type in which the hon. Gentleman is interested.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I raise a point of order concerning the treatment of the House of Commons by the Executive, for the consideration and reflection of Mr. Speaker? On 7 February 1996—
Mr. Henry Bellingham: 1896.
Mr. Dalyell:—1996. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), then the shadow Leader of the House, said in relation to the Scott report:
"I ask you, Madam Speaker, what you can do to ensure that Members of the House, and in particular the official Opposition, are not deliberately disadvantaged by the procedures being adopted by the Government."—[Official Report, 7 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 331.]
My right hon. Friend returned to the subject the following day, saying:
"Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is in the spirit of Madam Speaker's statement yesterday that Ministers should have eight days to consider the report while the Opposition have only six hours?"—[Official Report, 8 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 472.]
Indeed, the present Leader of the House, a week later on 15 February, at column 1146, complained bitterly that the then Government had had eight days and Members of Parliament had had eight minutes.
It is in the recollection of Members that on 24 September, a dossier of 55 pages on a rather complex subject was published at 8 o'clock. It was subsequently described, rightly or wrongly, by President Putin as little more than propaganda. My question is this: if reports are published for the consideration of the House, should not they be published—as they perfectly easily could have been—two, three or four days before, so that they can be considered not only by Members, but on the anvil of informed opinion? Quite bluntly, I think that it was a

223
calculated, cynical attempt to give a rather different gloss on a report than that which was actually contained in the report. These things should be subject to argument, because otherwise it will be seen as a deceiving the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for giving notice to Mr. Speaker of his point of order. The House can reasonably expect notice of important Government documents before they are the subject of debate, and Mr. Speaker attaches importance to this principle. The exact timing of the issue or publication of Government documents, however, remains a matter for Ministers, and the Speaker has no power to direct when papers will be provided.
Mr. Gary Streeter: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. Hundreds of schoolteachers in Devon this evening are looking to tonight's debate on local government finance to give them hope in tackling the underfunding of children in Devon and to help them campaign for fair funding for Devon schoolchildren. Now that the Government have squeezed that debate into two hours, how can these issues properly be dealt with by the House? What message can I take back to the people of Devon about the way that this Government have once again sought to sideline the importance of the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already answered that point of order, I think, which was raised by a Member on the Front Bench.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I heard your decision and your ruling about the timetabling of business being in the hands of the Government, but I hope that you will bear it in mind, given the representations being made to you about the limited time to debate three very important issues tonight, that we are shortly to consider changing the
224
Standing Orders of the House in order that Members can, apparently, swan off to cinema clubs in the evenings. I hope that you will convey to—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat what I said earlier. We are now discussing the merits. I have already given a ruling on the point of order.
Mr. David Curry:On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is this on the same topic?
Mr. Curry: Yes, and it is absolutely relevant, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for you to inform the House of how many hon. and right hon. colleagues are seeking to catch your eye in the debate on local government finance, so that the Government may form a view as to how much additional time would be necessary to accommodate those very important views?
Madam Deputy Speaker: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, who is very well experienced in the running of the House, that he approach that through the usual channels?
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take it from the fact that Mr. Speaker has set a 10-minute limit on all speeches that there is considerable demand to take part in the local government debate. Can you confirm that, as the Order Paper stands at the moment, it is likely that there will be debate on a ten-minute rule Bill and then the hour and a half for the Post Office, and if we then come on to the Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill and there is concern about that Bill, it could well be that we have no time to debate local government at all, and the only people we shall listen to will be Ministers? Surely that cannot be part of the way in which the Speaker would condone a debate's taking place in the House on such an important issue, which represents 25 per cent. of public expenditure?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point that I made earlier, but say too that the business of the House today is due to finish at 10 pm. It is to some extent in the hands of Members how the remaining time that we have is spent.

Corporate Responsibility (Environmental, Social and Financial Reporting)
6.20 pm
Linda Perham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish and provide for the functions of the Corporate Responsibility Board; to require certain companies to publish reports on environmental, social and economic matters; to require those companies to consult on certain proposed operations; to specify certain duties and liabilities of directors; to provide for remedies for aggrieved persons; and for connected purposes
In recent years—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (sylvia Heal): Order. Will the hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly?
Linda Perham: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In recent years, many people have come to understand the implications of the size, influence and power of major corporations. Fifty-one of the 100 largest economies in the world are now corporations, rather than countries, and the largest 500 companies in the world control two thirds of world trade. Clearly, business is a large and powerful player on the world stage. We also know of the major problems that companies have caused environmentally, socially and economically in many countries around the world, of which Shell's well-publicised disputes with the Ogoni people in Nigeria and Nestlé's continuing marketing of breast milk substitutes are well-known examples.
At home, too, I should be surprised if any Member has not had to deal with problems, brought to them by local people, caused by the activities of companies in their constituencies, such as shock job losses when production is suddenly moved overseas, pollution incidents, planning issues or the latest scandal in many constituencies—hidden mobile phone masts.
To argue that everything done by big corporations is bad would, of course, be ridiculous. Companies are creating jobs, developing products, providing services that we all need and investing in communities, but we need to be sure that they are serving the needs of society at large, not just their shareholders, and many people now feel that that requires changes in the law.
An important point must be made. When companies behave badly in ways that affect the richest and most powerful in society, there is a clamour for new rules and regulations. One has only to look at the readiness of the American Government to strengthen laws on financial processes after the collapse of WorldCom and Enron to see how fast we act to protect wealthy investors. That response is not wrong, but we should be equally determined to act when company activities affect the least well off, bearing in mind that the environmental and social impacts of companies' activities usually hit the poorest hardest.
When I introduced a similar Bill earlier this year, it had the backing of Amnesty International, CAFOD, Friends of the Earth, the New Economics Foundation and Save the Children. Since then, support has grown enormously. Major unions have come on board—including, I am pleased to say, my own union, Unison. More development agencies have joined, such as
226
Christian Aid, and Traidcraft—a business that has led the way in trading ethically and has taken care over the environmental and social impacts of its activities—also now supports the Bill.
The Bill that I hope to introduce today has four key principles. Its first requirement is for mandatory reporting on social and environmental impacts. Experience has clearly shown that a voluntary approach to reporting is ineffective. Three quarters of the FTSE 350 companies that were challenged by the Prime Minister to produce environmental reports in October 2000 completely ignored the call. There is a business case for mandatory reporting. The few companies that have responded to the Prime Minister's challenge would like the playing field to be levelled, as their competitors, who can currently undermine the better standards for which the best companies strive, would come under the same pressure from investors.
Embracing the corporate social responsibility agenda is likely to have a positive effect on staff recruitment, productivity, costs, innovation, quality, brand and reputation. It also protects the integrity of the free market, which is only possible when information is freely available to investors, customers and suppliers. The Bill would also change the basic duties of company directors, requiring them to minimise the environmental and social impacts of their activities.
Another major strand of the Bill is the requirement that companies must consult affected people on major projects, and all the best companies already do so. Indeed, many Government supported schemes already require such consultation, before export credit guarantees are given, for example. The Bill would spread what is currently best practice and make it common practice.
Finally, the Bill would allow stakeholders to challenge companies on the content and accuracy of their reports and on any impacts a company might have on its environment or its community. The Bill includes measures to prevent malicious complaints, but it is right that it should be possible to challenge companies' claims of environmental righteousness if they are clearly false—greenwash, as it is often known.
To protect reporting standards further, the Bill would require greater transparency and the setting up of a standards hoard. The board would include representatives of business and experts on the impacts of companies' activities, and would be charged with drawing up a framework of standards, ensuring that it provides appropriate information without being burdensome. The board could also carry out occasional checks on performance—perhaps examining a handful of reports each year—and assist with complaints about companies' reports.
The Government have accepted many of those principles in the White Paper on company law. The draft clauses already require an operating and financial review, which would have to include some environmental and social reporting, and would also widen the duties of company directors. Although the principle of those changes is right, the detailed wording currently leaves too many loopholes. For example, the proposals apply only to economically significant companies, leaving most businesses untouched.

227
The White Paper estimates that about 1,000 companies will be required to produce an operating and financial review, with a total turnover of around £1 trillion—roughly a third of the total turnover of United Kingdom business. My Bill, with its £5 million turnover threshold, would capture about 85 per cent. of economic activity by requiring just 2.5 per cent. of companies to report.
The Government's proposals also require reports on the environmental and social impacts that are relevant to the company, not necessarily those that are relevant to society—a crucial difference. I am also troubled that the proposed law requires reporting only on the company's policies on environmental and social issues, so a bad company with no policies need not report at all. Although a future companies Bill will recognise and include important points and accept the principle of mandatory reporting, it is unlikely to achieve significant environmental and social benefits. By winning the arguments for corporate social responsibility, we will secure the changes needed to protect the environment, defend human rights and safeguard the interests of shareholders, investors, workers and consumers across the world.
A wise man said recently that we are at our best when we are at our boldest. The Bill is bold; it would deliver measurable improvements to people's lives in Britain and abroad, and it would challenge other nations to follow our lead.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Linda Perham, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. Martin O'Neil, Dr. Vincent Cable, Sir Teddy Taylor, Ms Glenda Jackson, Mrs. Jackie Lawrence, Mr. John Horam, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Tony Colman, Sue Doughty, Mr. Simon Thomas.
CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY (ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL REPORTING)
Linda Perham accordingly presented a Bill to establish and provide for the functions of the Corporate Responsibility Board; to require certain companies to publish reports on environmental, social and economic matters; to require those companies to consult on certain proposed operations; to specify certain duties and liabilities of directors; to provide for remedies for aggrieved persons; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 14 November, and to be printed [Bill 193].
Madam Deputy Speaker (sylvia Heal): Order. Members should be aware that the digital clocks on each side of the Chamber were re-programmed during the summer recess in order to give a longer warning period. The warning lights will now start to flash one minute before a time limit is due to expire, rather than 30 seconds, as previously. That applies to the end of time-limited speeches and to the end of time-limited debates. The next item of business will be the debate on urban post offices, which has a time limit of an hour and a half. I must also announce that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in all debates for the rest of the evening.

Urban Post Office Reinvention Programme
6.30 pm
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move,
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in respect of the urban post office reinvention programme, a sum exceeding £10 million to Post Office Ltd.
The report of the performance and innovation unit on modernising the post office network was published in June 2000. It was widely welcomed in this House and outside. It included 24 recommendations, all of which the Government accepted.
A key recommendation was that if the Post Office decided that fewer offices were needed in some urban areas, the Government should consider providing financial assistance to the Post Office to ensure that sub-postmasters were adequately compensated for the loss of value of their business. Post Office Ltd. is now planning a three-year urban network reinvention programme. Following discussions between Post Office Ltd. and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, the Government announced on 3 January their agreement in principle to fund the compensation package.
In March, the Government applied to the European Commission for its approval of funding for the programme, and approval was announced on 18 September. The House is being asked today to agree the funding for that programme.
The House will want to understand why the urban post office network needsrestructuring and why the income of the post office network has declined. Thereasons date back more than 20 years, and past under-investment has been an important factor. Greater mobility and changes in shopping habits have alsosharply reduced customer numbers. The Post Office is not alone in having had to deal with these changes. Other networks, such as those of the retail banks, have been scaled back too. Post office networks in other countries have been through similar changes. I recently met Monika Wulf-Mathies, a board member of Deutsche Post and a former European Commissioner, who told me that in Germany consistent profitability has been achieved by reducing the number of post office branches from 30,000 to 13,000. Other countries have also embarked on a similar process.
Some factors have had a particularly big impact in the UK.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: There is clearly a rational case for a change in the structure of post offices. The Government have accepted it, as most people do, but the Post Office is pre-empting the process. In my area, five post offices have either been closed, temporarily closed with no signs of reopening, or their future is open to consultation with a view to closure. That is not the rational process that my hon. Friend and other Ministers promised us. It is a culling of inner-city post offices, and it is not fair to people who are less mobile or who have less access to transport, public or private, and who therefore depend on the post office.
Mr. Timms: I am aware, as my hon. Friend says, that there have been closures. Indeed, closures have been

229
happening for years. The case that I want to put is for a properly planned, properly managed process, which will protect access to the post office network in every urban area. I hope that I will be able to persuade him that that is about to commence.
Linda Gilroy: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that Postwatch and hon. Members will be properly consulted on what happens to our constituents and post office customers?
Mr. Timms: I am very happy to give my hon. Friend exactly that assurance about the role of Postwatch.
Several factors have had a big impact on the post office network. Post office income has been heavily dependent on benefit payments. More than 42 per cent. of benefit recipients now access their benefit payments via bank accounts, compared with only 26 per cent. in 1996. If we compare the last financial year with five years previously, we see that the number of retirement pensions and widows benefits paid by order books and giros dropped by more than 1 million—from just over 6 million to less than 5 million—even though the total number of pension recipients rose by more than 1 million. The number of child benefits paid through giros dropped from just under 5 million to less than 4 million, and payments at a post office of incapacity benefit fell even more dramatically—from more than 2.5 million to less than 1 million.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Timms: I shall finish the point if I may.
The drop in benefit transactions at post offices, however, has not been due only to people switching to bank accounts. The number of people receiving working age benefits has fallen in total. In February 1997, 1.6 million people were claiming jobseeker's allowance. By February this year, the number had fallen to 890,000. Clearly, that is a very welcome development, but it has reduced post office income. Benefit payment has accounted for up to 40 per cent. of post office branch income in some cases.
Mr. Tyler: I accept the Minister's point that this is a longer progress, and that it goes back to the time when Conservative Governments were pursuing this course. Will he give an explicit assurance, however, that the consultation process will consider the implications not just for post office business but for other businesses alongside, which are often in the same building? If one draws a pension or a benefit at one counter, one is likely to use that money at the other counter. The viability of a great many businesses is therefore at stake, not just that of post offices.
Mr. Timms: In a moment, I shall set out exactly how the process will work, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will receive the assurance that he seeks.
Other post office transactions have also declined.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Until I launched my post office petition in Eastbourne, many people were blissfully unaware of the changes in payments that will
230
take place next April. Does the Minister share the concerns of, for instance, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, that arrangements for the so-called universal bank simply cannot be in place by April 2003?
Mr. Timms: No. Those arrangements will be in place by April 2003. There will, of course, be a process of transition—not everybody will switch in April next year—and it will be properly planned and phased.
In the five years from March 1997 to March this year, Girobank transactions at post offices fell by 37 per cent. and postal order transactions fell by 13 per cent. There have been areas of increase, such as motor vehicle licences, lottery sales and bureau de change services, but they have only modestly offset the reductions. As a consequence, in many urban areas, there is now too little business for the number of post offices. The Post Office has the largest retail network of any organisation in Europe. It has half as many branches again as all the UK banks put together. More than 1,000 of the 9,000 urban sub-post offices have at least 10 other post offices within a mile. The volume of business through the network is simply no longer sufficient to support such a dense network. The restructuring proposed by the Post Office is intended to restore the urban network to commercial viability, restoring the confidence of sub-postmasters and making it possible to attract much-needed new investment into their post offices. The briefing circulated for this debate by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters states:
"There is an urgent need for re-structuring … Tough decisions must be made in order to ensure a viable network for the future to create bigger, better and brighter post offices."
I agree with it on that point.
Mr. Colin Challen: Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is not simply a question of commercial viability, given the need for that number of post offices in urban areas? The Government's social exclusion policy would take a great knock if too many post offices were closed. Will he assure me that it will not just be a few of the usual professionally engaged people who will be consulted in this process? When a local community demands that a post office stay open and other people agree that it should stay open will he assure us that the Government and the scheme will support its staying open?
Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I can assure him that there will be a very thorough process of consultation around every proposed closure and that the Post Office will take seriously the results of that consultation.
The programme that is the subject of the debate relates only to restructuring the urban network—offices located in communities of more than 10,000 inhabitants. Our stated commitment to ending avoidable closures in the rural network remains in place, and it has led to very sharp reductions in the numbers of rural post office closures. However, for each urban area, the Post Office has received indications from sub-postmasters who would like to accept the compensation and close their business. Post Office officials will visit and walk around every area and make a careful study of the configuration of the offices and of local factors, such as public transport, demographics, geography and where the hills

231
are, to decide whether a particular office that a postmaster wishes to close can be allowed to do so. The aim will be to ensure that it is as easy and convenient as possible for customers to use other offices nearby and to maximise the amount of business from a closing office that can be captured by other offices. The programme will start with the smaller urban offices where the sub-postmasters are under the greatest pressure.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The Minister should know that there are 15 so-called classified urban post offices in my constituency and that I can expect at least five of them to close under the new provisions. What will he say to my constituents in Chesham Bois who have seen the headline, "Last chance to save your post office" in their local newspaper? They are desperate and they have seen no sign that their representations and letters have been taken into consideration at all. What does he say to the elderly and infirm in my constituency who want to go not to a post office one mile down the road but to their local post office? I am sorry, but what he has said so far will not satisfy them.
Mr. Timms: I hope that the hon. Lady will pass on to her constituents the assurances that I am giving to the House. The programme—it has not started yet and it cannot start until the House has given its approval tonight—will not have the characteristics that she describes.
Where a sub-post office closes under the programme, the Government will meet the compensation costs—up to a total of £180 million over the next three years. An additional £30 million will be provided for modernising and adapting those offices that remain. Everyone recognises that many urban sub-post offices are much too dowdy, but the key to improving standards in them will be the increased volume of business that they can expect. However, the grants of between £5,000 and £10,000 for each office expecting to take on a significant number of additional customers—to be matched by the same sum from the sub-postmaster—will be an important boost, too. With the £30 million, this is the first time ever that a Government have undertaken a programme of investment in urban sub-post offices. It is an additional measure on top of the PIU report recommendations that we have accepted.
Several hon. Members: rose—
Mr. Timms: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew).
Mr. David Drew: As usual, my hon. Friend has been very generous with his time. May I clarify the position? I know that we are talking about the urban network, but there is some confusion between an urban and a rural sub-post office, and some of the designations have not helped. The problem in my area is that, until we can get the rural subsidy sorted out, the urban programme will appear to run into it. Will he clarify when the money is likely to be forthcoming to ensure that the rural network is properly funded in the short term?
Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend will know that we shall fund the commitment that we have given to ending
232
avoidable rural closures. I anticipate that, in just a few weeks, we shall be able to set out exactly what the commitment will entail.
In the process of urban changes that I have described, the Post Office will generally require the receiving offices to improve their facilities and to increase their opening hours. Increasingly, we can expect sub-offices to maintain the same hours as the associated retail business that is alongside, thus greatly improving the service to customers.
Mr. Michael Weir: Does the Minister not accept that part of the problem is that the Government have adopted a piecemeal approach? Has he read the briefing from the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters? Does he realise that there is great concern about the salary that sub-postmasters will be paid in the future, the whole mail system and the universal bank? Until those concerns are dealt with all at once, we will not resolve the problem properly. Does this programme not come too soon in the process?
Mr. Timms: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the briefing paper from the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, but one of the points that it stresses is the urgency of getting on with things. I do not agree that there should be longer delay.
The properly managed programme that the Post Office proposes is far preferable to the alternative of unmanaged closures resulting from falling income. At the end of the programme, more than 95 per cent. of people in urban areas will still be within a mile of a post office, and the majority within half a mile. Without the programme to which the House is being asked to agree, more and more urban sub-postmasters would simply shut down, even without any prospect of compensation, causing much greater disruption to customers.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: What assurance can my hon. Friend give to the people in severely deprived areas in my constituency who are served by 23 post offices and sub-post offices? Does he consider that the balance of funding in the programme is reasonable between compensating sub-postmasters for closing post offices and supporting post offices to remain open?
Mr. Timms: Yes, I do. One of the points that I shall come on to make is that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is developing a separate scheme—we shall announce the details shortly—to support specifically post offices in the most disadvantaged areas, the 10 per cent. most deprived urban wards. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall say more about that in a moment.
Mr. Mark Field: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Timms: I need to make progress.
The programme will follow the code of practice that was agreed last year between Consignia and the consumer watchdog, Postwatch. For every proposed closure, merger or relocation, there will be an independent consultation process lasting at least a

233
calendar month and extended to allow for bank holidays. The consultation will be conducted by Post Office Ltd., closely involving Postwatch, and it will include writing on day one to the local Member of Parliament. To ensure that the needs of all customers have been properly considered—the elderly, disabled people, those on low incomes and others—Post Office Ltd. will, in developing its proposals, take account of factors such as the accessibility and viability of the remaining post offices, transport links, opening hours and numbers of counter positions.
At the start of the programme, all the closures will be in response to requests from postmasters who have said that they wish their businesses to close. However, it is possible that, towards the end of the three-year programme, there may need to be a small number of involuntary, but compensated, closures to finalise the shape of the urban network.
To come to the specific point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), there are more than 1,800 urban sub-post offices in the United Kingdom in the 10 per cent. most disadvantaged wards in the Indices of Deprivation 2000. I want to make it clear that, other than in the most exceptional circumstances, the scope of the programme will not extend to any post offices in urban deprived areas that are more than half a mile from the next post office. Very often, they are the last retail outlet of any kind in the area. The Government intend to improve and support post offices in those areas by means of a separate scheme to provide funding for investment and improvement to post office branches that would otherwise risk closure. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly announce full details of that. The devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales are developing equivalent schemes. The merits of such a scheme are also being considered in Northern Ireland.
Mr. David Lepper: Can my hon. Friend confirm whether the scheme that he describes for post offices in the most deprived areas will be funded separately from the package that we are considering? Will it extend to re-establishing post offices in those deprived areas from which they have vanished?
Mr. Timms: That scheme will be in addition to the programme that I am describing and its funding will be separate. As I said, my right hon. Friend will set out the details shortly, but I understand that the intention is to focus on existing businesses, especially if a sub-post office has a linked retail business, and to improve the viability of the whole business.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Timms: I want to make a little progress.
Let me emphasise that there is no predetermined list of post offices that will close. No arithmetical formula is being applied to determine the number of closures in an area. Closures will be determined by the present density of offices in close proximity to each other, by current and future business volumes, by the preferences of individual proprietors—a critical consideration—and by the public consultation process that will take on every proposal.
234
In some cases it might be concluded that, although a sub-postmaster has said that he wants to close a post office, that is not the best option given the position and prospects of neighbouring offices. If he still wants to close the business, it will need to be on the basis of a commercial sale of the business. One consequence of the programme should be a revival of the commercial market for sub-post offices, which has declined over the past few years.
Mr. Chope: Does that mean that the Government are reneging on their promise positively to support the role of post offices as Government general practitioners?
Mr. Timms: No, certainly not. As I said, we accepted all 24 recommendations in the PIU report and I am making an announcement today on the "Your Guide" project. Perhaps that is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. He may know that the project was piloted in Leicestershire and that an evaluation of it was published at the end of the summer. It concluded that "Your Guide" was popular but did not have a big impact on either increasing the number of customers using sub-post offices or generating additional income for post offices. As the cost of rolling out the initiative across the country did not represent good value for money for the Departments that would use the service, we have decided not to proceed with national implementation of "Your Guide".
The pilot highlighted the potential for Departments to deliver services through post offices in future. There is also significant commercial interest in placing kiosks in post offices. For example, a commercial service based on kiosks in retail outlets, including in some sub-post offices, is expected to be piloted in Cornwall from next year. So we can expect kiosks to appear in sub-post offices.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Minister may not know that "Your Guide" was piloted in my constituency among others. The big complaint was that there was no publicity. People went into the post office and there it was, which was great, but there was no publicity elsewhere. People will go to the job centre down the road rather than to "Your Guide" unless they are pointed in that direction.
Mr. Timms: It is my impression that the project was well known in the areas of Leicestershire where the pilot was carried out. It was certainly well liked by those who were asked about it. Unfortunately, it did not meet the criteria in terms of increasing the number of people using post offices and providing good value for money for Departments. However, there will be commercial developments in the near future along the lines that I described.
Mrs. Betty Williams: I recognise the case that my hon. Friend makes, but can he assure me that he will look into the complaints that sub-postmasters in my constituency have made to me about the complicated process and the long time that it takes to open a post office card account?
Mr. Timms: I am aware of concerns about that. Card accounts will be available from the beginning of the new

235
financial year when automated credit transfer is introduced. We have made it clear all along that people will be able to obtain their money in cash at a post office through universal banking services. They will be able to do that either with a basic bank account provided by one of the high street banks, which allows their money to be accessible at a post office, or with the post office card account. There are a number of advantages to the basic accounts operated by the banks. For example, cash can be obtained from an automated teller machine as well as at a post office. In addition, basic bank accounts will support standing orders and direct debits. However, despite the advantages of a basic bank account, those people who have decided that they want a post office card account will be able to obtain one, which I think is what concerns my hon. Friend. There will be no barrier to that. People will simply need to ring the helpline and the process will begin.
I understand sub-postmasters' assertion that the post office card account is a more attractive proposition for them because it ties people into the post office. Many people will wish to be in that position. For others, however, there will be advantages in having a basic bank account as well, and we want people to be aware of those benefits—
Several hon. Members: rose—
Mr. Timms: I think I need to make a little more progress.
The compensation payable will be based on terms agreed between the Post Office and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. Outgoing sub-postmasters will receive a payment equivalent to 28 months of their remuneration, based on the best annual remuneration for a financial year since 1999. The scheme is based on longstanding arrangements through the joint discretionary fund. Payments are subject to certain conditions, such as a requirement that sub-postmasters at closing branches offer active support for the migration of customers to surrounding branches that remain open.
As a result of declining profitability, there has been a lack of investment in a large proportion of urban sub-post offices for many years. In parallel with the closures, the standards of facilities and service will need to be improved at many of the remaining post offices. Urban sub-postmasters who expect significantly more customers as a result of closures elsewhere will have the opportunity to apply for a grant on the basis of matched funding provided by the sub-postmaster. So the £30 million grant that the Government are making available should be matched by a broadly equivalent level of private sector investment.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Can my hon. Friend clarify how the post office card will work? Will it be passed across the counter or put into a hole in the wall?
Mr. Timms: I am happy to explain that to my hon. Friend. Personal identification number pads—PIN pads—are appearing at post office counters all over the country. People will place their card in the reader, type in their PIN and have access to their cash.
236
Grants of up to £10,000 will be available on a matched-funding basis for new counter positions and equipment, to support open-plan or combined post office and retail positions and to provide new fascias, adaptations for disabled customers and other refurbishments to improve the branch.
Mr. Alan Meale: The Minister mentioned earlier a mechanism for consultation. Will he ask Consignia to guarantee that local authorities will be fully consulted before any closure?
Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I can give him that assurance.
The PIU report concluded that our network of post offices had not kept pace with change or, until now, exploited its highly trusted status as a provider of financial services. It was losing business. Sub-postmasters are business people, and they have found it increasingly difficult to make a living. They have been leaving the network in increasing numbers. If we do nothing, very damaging gaps will open up in the network.
The programme is therefore vital to ensure that the Post Office can maintain an effective network, offer attractive prospects to sub-postmasters and improve the service for customers. We need to take this opportunity to set urban post offices firmly on the path towards sustained viability, which is the key to enabling them to offer improved services for their customers from better, more convenient and more accessible locations.
I commend the order to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (sylvia Heal): I am very conscious of the time limit on this debate and of the number of Members who hope to catch my eye. May I remind hon. Members that this debate is about urban post offices and the level of compensation available to them?
7.1 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: May I say how sorry I am that the Secretary of State is not here to support her Minister? This is a very important measure, and many people are concerned about it. The right hon. Lady's absence displays a certain discourtesy to her Minister and to the House. By contrast, the Minister was typically courteous and generous in giving way to so many Members during the debate. I hope that he will not think me unkind because I have some remarks about Government policy on the Post Office that he may not welcome.
The supposed main thrust of the Government's policy and the urban post office reinvention programme is to give the Post Office a sustainable future, as the Minister has just said, and it will be judged on that. Everybody in the House wants the network to survive and prosper. We all know the special place that post offices have in urban and rural communities. In villages throughout the country, in constituencies such as mine in Leicestershire and in deprived urban areas, the post office is often the only centre for meeting people and is valued as much for its community service as for its commercial activities.

237
Today Age Concern wrote to me and, I suspect, to everybody else, saying that
"for many older people the local Post Office is an important lifeline—providing a point of access to pensions and benefits as well as other financial services, a local general store, and a source of information and advice."
Each week there are still more than 15 million benefit transactions in post offices, which account for 40 per cent. of Post Office Ltd.'s income, although in many deprived urban areas the proportion is much greater.
Post Office Ltd., however, is trading at a loss; it is insolvent. The Minister failed to mention that. Consignia lost £1.1 billion last year, which is certainly an unsustainable position.
Mr. Timms: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but I need to correct the point that he just made. The Post Office is not insolvent. It is losing money, but being insolvent is a quite different matter.
Mr. Robathan: If the Post Office were a private company it would be insolvent.
Mr. Timms: indicated dissent.
Mr. Robathan: I think that it would. We could argue the toss at length.
This is a very real crisis, and if Post Office Ltd. and Consignia were not supported by the Government, they would be in danger of going bankrupt. In the Minister's judgment, is it likely that the Post Office, in part or in whole, would call in the receivers if it were not backed by Government money? Could the Government allow that? What is their attitude to the current situation?
Why have Consignia and the post office network reached a position where we have to authorise the spending of £210 million of taxpayers' money today? The Government used to take a dividend from Post Office activities and the Post Office used to make a profit. Of course there were growing problems, and we sympathise with the Government about that. The previous Conservative Government recognised the problems nearly 10 years ago, but the Post Office still made a profit for the taxpayer.
Some 28 months ago the PIU reported, and we are implementing part of that report today, but why has it taken the Government so long to get their act together? The website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister says, under the heading "Fund for Deprived Urban Post Offices", that the Government announced in the urban White Paper in November 2000 that they would establish a £5 million a year fund to sustain and improve post offices in deprived urban areas. It continues:
"It is expected that the fund will become operational in Summer 2002."
Nearly two years on, the Minister tells us that part of the money that we are talking about today is that fund for deprived urban post offices, but when will it become operational? The temperature this morning told us all that summer is long past. Why has there been a delay?
The Minister has pointed out that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will have responsibility for introducing the fund. The website says:
238
"Further details when available will be posted on this page."
I printed off that quote just over an hour ago. Obviously the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister needs to update its website, especially as I understand that it is meant to be about modernising e-Government. It would be funny if it were not so sad. I suggest that we may judge the likely success of the Deputy Prime Minister's measures by that out-of-date website. Page 5 of the PIU report says:
"Now is the time to modernise",
but that was 28 months ago.
Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend think, as I do, that the decision to expend an awful lot of money on converting the Post Office, a profitable, successful and much-loved public service, into Consignia, with all the costs that that entailed, showed that third way economics do not work? Only third way economics could turn a successful, profitable public service into a loss-making corporation in need of subsidy, and which is about to close many of its main outlets.
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We all recognise that Consignia is a totally ludicrous name. Allan Leighton must recognise that because I believe that the name will he changed back to Royal Mail on 4 November. This is one thing for which Labour Members cannot blame us.
The problem is not just endless delay and prevarication. Let us look at the PIU report's proposals for a sustainable future for the post office network. Some £30 million of today's money is being set aside for additional investment, which is only one sixth of the amount being spent on closures. One proposal in the report was for access to e-Government. That is a good idea, applauded by all, and for that reason, a year ago, as the Minister said, "Your Guide" was piloted in Leicestershire and elsewhere. It was welcomed and seemed to be a success, although it was insufficiently publicised. Now, however, the Minister tells us that "Your Guide" has been put in the bin. I understand that other Departments, in a classic example of Labour's joined-up government, refused to sign up to the scheme because they think that it would cost too much. That is a great pity, and I think that postmasters who saw "Your Guide" will agree.
What about the proposal for e-commerce? Has there been any action to encourage post offices to become distribution centres or pick-up points for goods purchased over the internet? The PIU report commented:
"The Post Office has been slow to react to this new opportunity".
Has there been an improvement?
What about the famed universal bank and, in particular, the card account? That is to be in place by April 2003. The clock is ticking, with six months to go. Everyone I talk to says that the Government are unhappy about allowing post office customers to apply for a card account, yet some 15 per cent. of benefit claimants currently do not have a bank account. The Government's unhappiness is caused by the fact that not enough money will be saved by introducing the account. That fact lies behind the card account customer journey,

239
a copy of which I have here. After stage 1, a customer who has a bank account supplies the details and no further customer action is required. In an effort to browbeat claimants who do not have an account into opening one, there are 20 steps before the journey says:
"Customer starts to use account—withdrawing money on a regular basis."
Nothing could be much more complicated than that.
Moreover, I understand that the chief executive of the Post Office has been told by the Department for Work and Pensions that postmasters are not allowed to put up posters telling claimants that they can still get benefits in cash from the post office—all because the DWP does not want to pay the small extra cost. For that reason, too, there is a presumed limit of 3 million card accounts. In today's letter, Age Concern told us that
"many older people expressed a desire to continue to collect pensions and benefits over Post Office counters."
Mr. Mark Francois: May I amplify my hon. Friend's remarks by reporting that quite a few senior citizens in my constituency have made representations to me, both in writing and during my surgeries, saying that they are very anxious about the new arrangements, which they feel have not been properly explained? They are not at all keen to have to use them—they want to be able to collect their pension as they always have, and they bitterly resent the Government's preventing them from doing so.
Mr. Robathan: I agree entirely. That is an example of Government bullying: they are forcing people to do something they do not want to do in a typically nanny state way. At the heart of the issue of the card account is the conflict between the DWP, backed by the Treasury, and the DTI. Sadly for the post office network, the DTI is proving to be much the weaker Department.
Plenty of postmasters want to get out of the network, as the Minister said. Some 3,000 postmasters want to take the compensation package under the urban reinvention programme, which says something about morale. Last May, Allan Leighton said:
"People want to know, they want to know if they are in or they are out—what is my future".
There are plenty of takers, but the appalling uncertainty and prevarication surrounding the issue needs to be ended as soon as possible. Postwatch's annual report said:
"The slow progress is very disappointing. The sub-postmasters this year have become increasingly desperate as rumour fed rumour".
At last, we have today's debate, but it was on 3 January that a DTI announcement said:
"Post Office Ltd. will be embarking on a restructuring programme in the new year and where appropriate compensation will be made available for the sub-postmasters affected".
However, that referred to the new year past—not to the coming new year. How far has the restructuring programme gone? We heard no details from the Minister.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my hon. Friend recall the Prime Minister's welcome for the PIU report in June 2000:
"I welcome this report which the Government fully accepts."?
Does my hon. Friend share my anger about the fact that only during this debate, in response to a question, have we learned that the Government have reneged on one of the commitments in that report? Does he agree that the best way for the Government to proceed now would be to restate what they intend to do as a result of the PIU report, and to announce a timetable?
Mr. Robathan: I agree entirely. I do not remember the Prime Minister saying that, but it does not surprise me at all, given that he says so many things on which he reneges the following month—but we will not go into such matters.
Postwatch does not know how far the restructuring programme has gone and it is extremely concerned that, far from a sensible restructuring, it, customers and everyone else will be presented with a fait accompli—earlier, the hon. Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) and for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) expressed their concern about that. Postwatch will be told that a post office is to close and that it can comment, but it suspects that the Post Office will not listen to its comments, which are made on behalf of the public.
Postcomm's annual report is more concerned about lack of investment to achieve
"bigger, brighter, better offices on the scale envisaged by the PIU report".
Remaining sub-postmasters in the urban network believe that they will need to improve earnings by between 25 and 33 per cent. a year; otherwise, they will not be able to stay and make that matching investment in their businesses that the Minister talked about.
Mrs. Browning: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Robathan: Yes, but the Minister spoke for half an hour and I want others to have a chance to participate in the debate.
Mrs. Browning: There is a problem for the remaining sub-postmasters in urban areas who want to invest a large amount of capital. Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that the Government have yet to tell us their intentions regarding the Crown office network, which is centrally funded? When the Labour Government first entered office, their declared policy was to increase the number of Crown offices. Given that they are starting to close private businesses, is it not about time that they put the Crown offices into the private sector as well?
Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend reveals the lack of coherence in the Government's approach towards the Post Office.
Postwatch has also highlighted the fear that urban reinvention will benefit only the multiples and that it will serve to squeeze out small business men. If so, what guarantee can the Government give that multiples, such as supermarkets, will not then reorganise and close the post office branch in the multiple—as happened in the

241
Ripon Co-op in March? Last week, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters conference passed a motion stating:
"This conference demands Her Majesty's Government take immediate action to avert the collapse of the nationwide network of post offices".
Is the federation scaremongering, or is a collapse likely?
I recall how, as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, one could sit in on meetings and know what Ministers' genuine thoughts were, even if one's own contributions were not always listened to. It was therefore with some concern that I learned that on 4 September, at a meeting of Cheddleton parish council, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), who was until recently a PPS at the DTI, said that
"The decision as to any individual post office staying open or closing was purely a commercial decision by the owner of the business",
and that
"Government money would not be used to support uneconomic offices".
If true, that tends to undermine everything the Government are saying about post offices in urban deprived areas—and, indeed, the rural network. Furthermore, it seriously undermines any lingering faith that people involved in the Post Office might have in anything connected with Government policy.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters in Northern Ireland is extremely concerned about what they regard as unfair competition being created by Government agencies promoting high street bank accounts? Does he agree that the time has come for a review of the way in which Government agencies and Departments in Northern Ireland and elsewhere have promoted universal banking to benefit claimants?
Mr. Robathan: I agree entirely. That illustrates the lack of a coherent approach and an absence of understanding of what—in so-called joined-up government—all Departments could do to help the Post Office, if they wanted to.
Postcomm, the regulator, Postwatch, the protector of consumers and customers of the Post Office, the Post Office and Consignia themselves, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and the British public are all deeply concerned about Government policy for the Post Office. The order is about shrinking the urban network, but the crisis will remain because of the lack of a serious and coherent Government policy that would make the network sustainable. There is a crisis in the Post Office which deepens with each day that passes. Allan Leighton understands that, and it strikes me that he might be the best chance for the future of the Post Office, but if the crisis becomes a disaster, there is no doubt where the fault lies—at the feet of the Government.
We condemn the Government's delay and dithering for the past five years. It has led to uncertainty, confusion and distress among employees and sub-postmasters. The DTI has not persuaded other parts of the Government of the merits of its plans. The inadequate package before the House today does not
242
include the measures necessary to give the Post Office a sustainable future, and for that reason we will oppose the motion.
7.18 pm
Mr. David Lepper: Unlike the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) I shall support the package before us this evening, even though I have some concerns about it.
Everyone present in the Chamber tonight values the sub-post offices. They are, as the Post Office's slogan says,
"An Essential Part of Everyday Life".
They are a service as well as a business. I recently spent a morning in one of my local sub-post offices. The experience convinced me of the extent to which the success of those businesses is based on sub-postmasters' knowledge of their customers, which they build up over the years. Sub-post offices are a focal point of community life, especially after the wholesale closure of so many branch banks in urban areas. I think that we would all endorse the description given by Commissioner Monti in his letter to the Government about the package. He writes:
"Besides being more physically accessible by those living in deprived and remote areas, Post Office Limited—unlike most banks—is widely trusted by those un-banked benefit recipients targeted by"
the universal banking system.
The network of sub-post offices is a national asset, and we should value it properly. But it has been dogged, for months and years, even before 1997. by rumour and uncertainty, which affects sub-postmasters—our constituents—and their customers, who are also our constituents. The questions have come thick and fast. "Will I still be able to get cash over the counter?" We have dealt with that issue at last, quite rightly, by guaranteeing that people will get cash over the counter, but I have some questions about the method by which that will be done. Sub-postmasters are asking about the way in which the Post Office has approached consultation with them in the past few months. I am not sure how helpful the Post Office's approach has been. For instance, sub-postmasters have been asked to accept compensation and go or, if they prefer, invest in their businesses or consider taking over a business that may be closing. However, sub-postmasters in my constituency have recently asked me, for instance, how the compensation package will operate in relation to tax. There has been no clarity on that question whatever.
Will the sums available to invest take local factors into account, as £10,000 will probably go a lot further in some parts of the country than in Brighton and Hove, part of which I represent? Many of those sub-post offices are in small buildings, which are constrained because they are of Victorian or Edwardian design and are in the city centre—modernisation may need a lot more investment than £10,000, even when matched by the sub-postmaster. What will happen if someone transfers from one sub-post office to another? Will they be able, for instance, to take their lottery point with them if they move from one premises to another? There is a lack of

243
clarity about many basic business questions that the sub-postmasters must consider when responding to the Post Office consultation that began in April.
There is public uncertainty as well. People want to know the future of their own sub-post office. Tonight's package will at least move us out of that uncertainty because we now have agreement on the funding that is needed. I am glad that the decisions to be made when consultation is completed will take into account issues such as the social make-up of the area, its age profile, geography, the availability of public transport and so on. However, I wonder whether the proposed one-month period of consultation will be long enough, and I am seeking guarantees about the way in which it will be publicised in the locality. It is not enough just to know who will be written to formally—we need to know about publicity on consultation as well.
A vital part of the Post Office's role will be the universal banking system. There is genuine concern about the failure to realise the full potential of the post office card scheme, which is a way of ensuring that cash can be provided over the counter and, as Age Concern says, could be a great budgeting aid, as people will not need to draw out all their pension or benefit in one go. Why, however, are many obstacles being placed in the way of sub-postmasters? Yes, it is good business for them, if they can attract customers, but why are obstacles preventing them from publicising and encouraging the take-up of the post card scheme? They have been told in the document issued by the Post Office that they must not advise their customers on what method of banking to use. There is also a complicated system in which customers must phone a helpline for a telephone consultation, then receive a personal introduction document or whatever before they can open an account. We are talking about many elderly customers who may be hard of hearing or may not be good at detailed telephone conservations of that type. Why cannot sub-postmasters undertake the business of signing people up to an account over the counter?
Most sub-postmasters are franchisees. At the weekend, one of my sub-postmasters asked me to imagine McDonald's, a franchised business, launching a new range, then forbidding people in their franchises to publicise it. There is some justice in that description of the way in which the Post Office is tying the hands of sub-postmasters, preventing them from fully realising a system which, as I have said, could be of real benefit to many customers in deprived parts of the country who, for whatever reason, do not have bank accounts. It will help them in their budgeting and, indeed, ensure the security of their money.
The PIU report argued that the Post Office should develop a role for post offices as Government general practitioners. We have heard tonight that the "Your Guide" scheme is not to be pursued in its piloted form, but I believe that the Minister said that the Government still pay allegiance to the notion of the Post Office as their general practitioner. I am pleased about that and look forward to hearing more about the way in which that role will develop; by developing that role we will continue to ensure that the Post Office remains an essential part of our everyday life.
7.26 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: The Minister got off to a good start by opening with the issue on which there is broad consensus—the PIU report, which includes the urban reinvention programme and the restructuring to which we have all, in different ways, signed up. He then rather recklessly called in aid the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, citing the paper that it distributed to us all for this evening's debate. At the risk of detaining the House, I remind him that the NFSP said in its introductory sentences that over the past two years
"sub post offices have continued to close at an alarming rate, morale throughout the network is at an all-time low and pay negotiations have been suspended over a serious dispute with the proposed new contract from Post Office Limited."
It says specifically of the Government's role:
"Of the 24 recommendations made by the … PIU, very few have been implemented: funding has not been delivered despite being promised; the timescales for implementation of recommendations have slipped further; the development of new roles for subpostmasters has ground to a halt; and there is widespread stagnation and inactivity across a wide range of the recommendations."
This afternoon's written answer, which the Minister confirmed, showed that the NFSP was being rather optimistic, as we have now lost the rollout of "Your Guide", which was an essential part of the process recommended by the PIU. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) held out some hope that the GP concept has survived, but it is difficult to see how it can do so, as "Your Guide" was at its heart.
The Government said that "Your Guide" is not cost-effective or delivering services, but I do not know whether the Minister knows that the Post Office itself has produced a pamphlet which says on the front,
"Your Guide: Something for everyone … it's brilliant".
It goes on to say that it is "a life saver" which
"opens up a whole new world",
and says—
"You don't know what you're missing"
in
"a chest of hidden treasures".
Clearly, that is a promotional document, but the chairman of the Post Office, no less, claimed that the success of the project
"is vital to the future of the network of Post Office branches".
He went on to describe how, in relation to Government services, the pilot project was producing new jobs—people were finding jobs and receiving benefit entitlements. I appreciate that a former Treasury Minister may not regard helping people to get benefit entitlements as an achievement but, none the less, the Post Office's evidence suggests that the scheme was highly successful on its own terms. Someone's head should therefore roll; the Minister responsible has gone off to the Cabinet Office. The Secretary of State, who was so committed to the project that the pilot took place in her own constituency, has not turned up, and the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness is being asked to take the rap. It is a fiasco.
I come specifically to the sums of money on which we have been asked to vote. Let us remind ourselves that, of the £210 million specifically for urban reinvention, £180

245
million is specifically for compensation and redundancy. Only £30 million is for new investment, and there is a maximum of £10,000 per post office. If one wants to go further, there is no funding to do so. More importantly—the Minister carefully avoided mentioning this—the sub-postmaster must come up with match funding. How will any sub-postmaster raise a loan against a falling revenue stream in order to match the fund's £10,000 commitment? That simply will not happen. This urban reinvention will not take place. Will the Minister tell us in his reply what has already happened to the—I think—£30 million that has been pledged to inner-city deprived areas? As I understand it, very little of that money—if any—has yet been spent. That is the track record of urban reinvention in inner-city areas.
In many ways, the problem is even worse because the assumption on which the calculations are made is that a third of urban post offices will close. I have a letter from a sub-postmaster who speaks on behalf of Manchester sub-postmasters telling me that 60 per cent. of Manchester sub-post offices are planning to close. We are therefore facing a third closing with the Government's compensation package, a third continuing without compensation but not making money, and a third carrying the weight of the business.
Mr. Michael Connarty: I share the hon. Gentleman's general concern about people being able to reinvest, but I know of an enterprising sub-postmaster who has linked up with one of the minor supermarket chains and reinvented his store. It has now become a major focus for the community in which I live. He has either found the money from the bank, with the backing of the chain, or has found it directly from the chain with which he is partnered.
Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman describes an interesting trend, which I have seen. He is talking about post offices housed in Londis seven-11 stores. It is an interesting idea and if it works I shall be delighted for the people concerned, but he may not be aware that the National Association of Convenience Stores has said that the arrangement is very unsatisfactory. Many such stores are trying out the idea, but they have no commitment to the customers as postmasters did, and there have already been several examples in both convenience stores and supermarkets of post offices closing with little consultation. The idea is interesting, but the evidence so far is that it is not a solution to the problem.
The reason that that is not a solution to the problem—this goes to the heart of the business and answers the question that we have been asking ever since the Government announced automated credit transfer—is that we do not know where the £400 million income that post offices will lose as a result of ACT will come from. We now know that it will not be from "Your Guide". It was hoped that they would at least get something from the universal banking provisions and particularly the post office card accounts.
The Conservative spokesman correctly touched on the mounting evidence that Departments other than the Department of Trade and Industry, especially the Department for Work and Pensions, are, with Treasury backing, actively discouraging applicants from using the
246
post office card accounts. They are actively sabotaging the work of the Minister's Department. This is a very serious matter.
I have here a pack that is being issued to people who want tax credits. It is very complicated; I honestly do not know how people who have problems of financial exclusion can cope with this plastic pack which contains many documents. On the page on which it deals with payments, it says that if somebody wants their credit to be paid into a bank, they must simply supply their sort code and account number. However, if they want a Post Office payment, they are advised to go to page 36 of the explanatory notes. I eventually found the explanatory notes and page 36 where it next instructed claimants to ring the helpline. We tried to do so but could not get an answer. That is the kind of maze of bureaucratic instruction that people are beginning to encounter if they try to use a post office card account.
If one wants a bank account, one just fills in a form. If one wants a post office card account, one has to be interviewed.
Matthew Green: Have my hon. Friend's constituents raised similar concerns to those raised with me about how during such interviews they feel pressurised not to take up the card account?
Dr. Cable: I have indeed; I have spoken to some people about the pressure that is being exerted. Hon. Members should prepare themselves to encounter this in their constituency surgeries. People are being told that if they go for a post office card account, the cash will arrive a month late. They lose a month's liquidity. I have discussed the matter with young women who have been split from their partners—this is even more disreputable—when talking to them about arrangements for the working families tax credit. They have been told that they are best to go through a bank otherwise the tax credit will be paid to their partners—losing all the benefits of the enfranchisement of women that the tax credits were supposed to create. Those are the kind of tricks that Department for Work and Pensions officials are getting up to—bullying people into giving up their opportunities to use the Post Office.
Mr. David Laws: Has my hon. Friend heard the complaints from sub-postmasters that I have heard in my constituency that it is staggering that even at this stage no information is being made available in accessible form either by the Government or the Post Office about how the card account will work? That reinforces the pressures that he is discussing.
Dr. Cable: Indeed; there is no proper explanation. The people who are promoting the migration are well informed of the benefits of using banks because they set them out. Draft material from the Department for Work and Pensions sets out in argued form why people should enjoy advantages by using a bank, but does not explain—the Minister did not either—that people on low incomes are subject to extremely high charges if, for example, they fall foul of standing order provisions. The presentation is entirely one-sided. All that the postmasters have been asking for is even-handed treatment. They are not asking for preference or protection. All they are saying is that the relative merits

247
of a post office account and a bank account should be dealt with even-handedly and that people should be given an equal opportunity to use one or the other.
On top of that—the Minister knows about this although he did not refer to it—there are serious problems concerning both groups of sub-post offices. First, there are the modified sub-post offices—larger units that are often staffed by ex-Post Office employees. Many are in an appalling financial position as a result of the type of contracts under which they operate, which often do not even cover their staff. I met a group of people representing modified sub-post offices in Yorkshire a couple of months ago. Their position is parlous. As the smaller units close with urban reinvention, such post offices are expected to carry the burden, but they are not in a position to do so.
The other group of sub-post offices, as the Minister should have acknowledged, is currently in the middle of a serious dispute over the terms of their contracts. The federation representing them has said that the entire reinvention programme is "hanging by a thread" owing to the lack of certainty over their contractual future. The position is very serious.
My final point concerns the mechanism used when post office closures occur. Several Labour Members have asked with an open mind for assurances. They have said that they accept that closures must occur but that they want to be assured that there is a proper appeal procedure and that local councillors and Members of Parliament will be consulted. That is fine, but let us look at the evidence put forward by the consumer protection body Postwatch. It has been clear from the beginning that it did not see a justification for 3,000 closures and that that was way in excess of what was required. It has however said that it will help with individual cases, judging the viability of particular post offices. It can only deal with three or four such cases at any time, not 3,000. It will be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of closures.
When such matters are dealt with properly and carefully, sensible decisions can be made. In the past few weeks, the Post Office has gone back on a closure at Child's Hill in London as a result of Postwatch intervention. If a closure programme is carried out gradually, carefully and slowly, it can be managed, and restructuring can take place, but the Government's scheme will bring about a disorderly collapse and cause a great deal of harm.
David Taylor: May I tell the hon. Gentleman how much I agree that the present Post Office management is highly unlikely to be able to handle efficiently the 3,000 closures envisaged? In the largest town in North-West Leicestershire, the largest post office, which was part of a superstore, collapsed about nine months ago, and has still not been reopened, despite its importance to the largest town in the
248
constituency. I do not know how the Post Office will be able to handle 3,000 closures, and I very much doubt that that will happen.
Dr. Cable: That is a helpful intervention. Within six to nine months, every hon. Member will have such anecdotes.
Dr. Rudi Vis: The hon. Gentleman referred to the sub-post office in Child's Hill, which is to be reopened, mainly because 1,000 letters were sent by residents to Postwatch, and Postwatch has been extremely helpful. However, 12 post offices in London are under threat, and they are all run by temporary sub-postmasters, none of whom will get a penny in compensation.
Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman has exposed a new type of problem, which I had not anticipated. Large numbers of post offices—those that fall outside the 3,000—will not be compensated, and many of them are in financial distress already.
To summarise, the Minister's initial commitment to the performance and innovation unit report was right, but what is happening is disastrously far from it. The central weakness in the Government's approach is their inability to give the postmasters any hope of finding alternative income streams. What is so utterly disreputable about it is that postmasters are in the middle of a battle between two Government Departments, one of which is simply concerned with saving money in the short term, without any regard to the wider financial or social implications, and the other, the hapless Department of Trade and Industry, which is carrying the can for it.
7.42 pm
Rachel Squire: I shall keep my remarks brief, as this is such a short debate and so many hon. Members want to come in. Many good points have been made so far, particularly by my hon. Friends.
Like many, I welcome additional money for local post offices, and efforts to improve the services available and increase the customer base, but I have two concerns. First, I have 25 local post offices in the hilly town of Dunfermline and my overall constituency of west Fife. Nine have been classified as urban; one of those nine is a main branch in the town centre, and of the remaining eight, a number are within a mile of that main branch office, yet they are vital centres in their communities—for instance, the branches in Abbeyview and Brucefield.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), will the Minister give a commitment that we will be able to have longer than a month for consultation, if that is desired and necessary to involve all members of the community, and that full consultation will take place, the level of local deprivation will be taken into account, and the community role of the local post office branch will be carefully considered, along with the circumstances of each locality?
The second issue, which I raise in connection with urban post offices, although it also affects rural ones, is the decline in counter payments. There are various reasons. One which particularly angers me is that those

249
who seek to pay their bills promptly and in cash at their local post office often pay more than they would if they paid through direct debit. I have raised with the Secretary of State the fact that private utility companies and others give discounts to those who pay by direct debit, but charge more to those who decide to keep paying in cash. I recently found out that Girobank has failed to reach an agreement with Fife council in respect of council tax payments, so people who pay their council tax at local post offices end up paying £1.15 more than the figure on their council tax bill.
Such charges, combined with the Government's drive to persuade people to open bank accounts, hits local post offices hard. Many of my constituents have managed on a budget all their lives by having cash in one hand, paying their bills straight away and seeing in the other hand what they have left to spend. Will the Minister take action to tackle the disadvantages experienced by those who still prefer to pay their bills in cash? Will he think again about replacing order books with complex procedures, unfamiliar smart cards and PIN numbers, which are not welcomed by many of my older constituents, who have never had and never wanted a bank account or a smart card?
Like many, I look forward to having detailed discussions with my local sub-postmasters and postmistresses in the months ahead. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to them for the vital service that they provide to our communities.
7.46 pm
Mr. Peter Lilley: As time for the debate is disgracefully short, I shall try to make just three points about this strangely named and very costly measure.
First, when the Government announced that it would be compulsory for pensioners and other vulnerable people to have their pensions and benefits paid into the bank rather than through the Post Office, they pretended that they could save taxpayers' money and still maintain a comprehensive network of sub-post offices. The measure demonstrates that they were wrong. They should have known that they would be wrong. As Secretary of State, I was advised that if we moved in the direction of making compulsory payments through the banks, that would lead to the collapse of the sub-post office network, unless we decided to subsidise it, in which case the subsidies would absorb most, if not all, of the savings that we hoped to make.
Although I have given them the opportunity, the Government have never denied that they received similar advice from their officials. They should have realised that they were faced with that dilemma, because post offices benefit in two ways from their contract to deliver benefits from the Department for Work and Pensions. They receive £400 million as payment, and they receive many millions of pounds of extra trade from people who enter their post offices and spend their benefits in them. The Government can therefore make good the loss of revenue from cancelling the contract only by paying out more than they are saving by withdrawing the £400 million.
My second point is that if the Government are reluctant to do that, as they clearly are, they are faced with the collapse of the sub-post office network. They
250
are trying to conceal that collapse not by reinventing the network, but by reinventing the English language. They have replaced the word "closure" with "reinvention". They propose to reinvent 3,000 post offices as fast food chains or estate agents' offices or by returning them to residential use. They intend to reinvent 3,000 sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses into early retirement by paying them to give up their franchises. They are going to reinvent many thousands of people who work in those post offices by taking away their jobs and reinventing them into unemployment. That is what the Government's strange wording means, and we should have no truck with it.
Meanwhile, as well as closing 3,000 of the 8,000 urban post offices, according to the Postcomm survey, over the past 12 months rural post offices have been closing at three times the rate of urban post offices, and 74 per cent. of post offices which have closed over the past 12 months have been rural post offices.
The third point is that the Government are still a long, long way from closing the financial gap that they have opened up in the viability of the post office network. The Consignia document that was sent to us a year or so ago states that the gap is £500million. Consignia said that it could make good £100 million of that money by closing stores and reducing operating costs. Presumably, the Government's way of helping Consignia to achieve that £100 million saving is the paying out of up to £210 million in the early years. I do not understand their arithmetic; they talk about a figure of £10,000 for each post office, but the closure of 3,000 stores at a cost of £210 million is a cost of £70,000 each. If the amount is spread evenly among all 8,000 post offices, the total is £26,000 each. Will the Minister explain the bizarre arithmetic of the proposal? Anyway, at the end of the day, there is an ongoing saving of £100 million.
The Post Office said that the Government gateway, which has since been rechristened several times in Blairite fashion, was going to raise £80 million a year. We are now told that it does not raise anything and costs more than it saves or generates in income, and it has disappeared. We were told in press releases that the universal bank would cost the banks £180 million, so we hoped that the money would go into the sub-post office network. On closer inspection, it turns out that there is a five-year period and that the amount is £36 million a year. As the National Consumer Council points out, that is effectively a cost to bank users and a form of taxation without legislation. Anyway, £36 million a year is a small amount. The only other sum that the Post Office quantifies relates to its conversion into a total distribution system, whatever that means. That will generate all of £6 million a year in extra revenue.
Whence will the extra money come to fill the £500 million gap? Newspaper reports over the weekend or yesterday said that the Government were going to put £450 million into rural post offices. We are not discussing that issue today, but if the Minister has leaked the information to the press, we would at least expect him to tell the House whether there is any truth in the assertions and whether, as the newspapers reported, £150 million a year for three years is to come from the Government in taxpayers' money. Perhaps he no longer holds himself accountable to the House and we are to be informed of such issues only through nods and winks to the newspapers.

251
The truth is that the Government have foolishly entered into a policy that is not compatible with the objectives that they have set themselves. There will be either minimal savings or maximal closures, and certainly great distress and inconvenience to pensioners and vulnerable people in all our constituencies. That is why many thousands of people in my constituency have signed petitions urging the Government to reconsider this daft and damaging policy.
7.52 pm
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I want to express a number of concerns about the programme and to seek some reassurances from the Minister.
We are being asked to support a package that appears to involve spending about £210 million on what is, in effect, a closure programme. I am extremely concerned that the whole programme appears to be led by the aim of compensating those running sub-post offices for loss of business rather than that of supporting the business of the sub-post offices in continuing to meet the needs of mainly excluded communities.
In my constituency, a large number of sub-post offices—some 23 of them—are at risk. I was reassured by the Minister's answer to my earlier question, in which he stated that an additional £15 million would be available to support those post offices. Before voting in support of the motion, however, I should like to have more information about that £15 million and about the £30 million that has already been mentioned.
I accept that something must be done and that the situation that we face has not arisen in the past few years but is the product of years of neglect by those who were in control in the past. Nevertheless, those of us who represent deprived communities are acutely aware of the impact that the closure of post offices and sub-post offices would have on our already suffering populations. Post offices in deprived urban areas are as important as those in rural areas. They are often a lifeline to the poor and excluded, and provide services not only in terms of essential benefits, but by assisting people in paying bills, getting information, obtaining important forms, securing licences, conducting money transfers and many other important activities. The importance of post offices in deprived urban areas goes beyond that and often relates to the businesses alongside them. Such businesses will not necessarily be located in the same building. The livelihood of essential retail businesses that are situated near post offices often depends on people going to post offices and spending their money nearby.
I hope that the Government will ensure that the future of our sub-post offices is seen in the context of dealing with social exclusion. Will the Minister again give me a clear assurance that the future of our post offices and sub-post offices will be seen in terms of providing essential services and important issues of social exclusion?
I am also concerned about the consultation process and the role of Postwatch, which covers extremely wide areas. I was extremely concerned to discover that Postwatch's northern sector includes areas as diverse as Carlisle, Newcastle, Sheffield, Lincoln, Preston,
252
Liverpool and Manchester. Many millions of consumers are represented in that area, and I should like an assurance that Postwatch will be able to conduct itself so as to take heed of the views of people in those areas. I should also like an assurance that, when the future of individual post offices and sub-post offices is considered, the Government will ensure that a proper consultation is carried out and that no given number of offices will be set down for closure irrespective of circumstances.
In short, I recognise that the Government face a very difficult problem and that something has to be done, but I want assurances that the issue of deprived communities such as mine in central Liverpool will be given full attention and that the programme will be led not by compensating people who wish to leave the business, but by the need to ensure continuation of services for those who are in need.
7.56 pm
Mr. Richard Page: In this world of Labour spin, it will surprise neither the House nor the Minister to find that the current Department of Trade and Industry website makes the remarkable claim that the Government aim to ensure that the
"nationwide network of post office counters can continue to flourish".
Why is that network not flourishing and why are record closures occurring? The answer is the Government's staggeringly inept performance in introducing automated credit transfers without a parallel programme to provide revenue and support to our sub-post offices. After the consequences have finally sunk in for the Government and the Department, they have been running around like headless chickens trying to find means to prop up the sub-post office network. The answer is there in the shape of the universal bank, but it is still not up and running and I grave doubts about whether it will be in time, before the guillotine of the ACT falls.
The Government calculated that there would be 3 million post office card accounts, but 16 million people go into post offices every week. That implies that there will be a reduction of 13 million people, but what will happen as a result? The revenue of sub-post offices will fall and they will pack up. No wonder half of them want to get out of the business—and it is this Government's fault.
7.58 pm
Mr. Timms: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had an interesting debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) for his kind words at the beginning of his speech and for his apology about disagreeing with some of the points that I made. I was puzzled by his conclusion, however, as he said that he regretted that there had been delay and he wanted uncertainty to end,

253
but he also told us that he would lead Opposition Members in voting against the measure that will ensure precisely the certainty for which he called. If he reconsiders the briefing of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, he will see that the last thing it wants is the blocking of the compensation that he urged his hon. Friends to support.
Mr. Robathan: rose—
Mr. Timms: Given the short time available, I should like to continue.
The hon. Gentleman complained about inadequate publicity for "Your Guide". I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for drawing hon. Members' attention to the good publicity for "Your Guide" that the Post Office used. The post office in Leicestershire used in-store marketing, articles in the local press and leafleting. The matter was also well covered on local radio. However, the conclusions were those that I set out.
The hon. Member for Blaby made a point that it is important to correct. He suggested that there would be a limit of 3 million post office card accounts. That is not the case; I assure him that there is no such limit. However, I share his confidence in Allan Leighton as chairman of the Post Office and in the vigour with which the organisation is pursuing its bid to return to profitability.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) made some important points. I want to stress that I agree with him and with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) about the important social role of urban sub-post offices. That is why we are supporting a careful, planned programme of change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion, however, asked why it could not be left to sub-postmasters to persuade people to take up post office card accounts. Many people who do not currently have bank accounts, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) outlined, would be better off if they did, so that, for example, they could pay bills by direct debit. That may not be the sub-postmaster's calculation. It is therefore important that people have access to advice about their options—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16.
The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 170.

Division No. 320]

[8:01 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Barnes, Harry

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Beard, Nigel

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Beckett, rh Margaret

Allen, Graham

Begg, Miss Anne

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Benn, Hilary

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Bennett, Andrew

Atherton, Ms Candy

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Atkins, Charlotte

Berry, Roger

Austin, John

Blackman, Liz

Bailey, Adrian

Blears, Ms Hazel

Banks, Tony

Boateng, rh Paul

254

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Galloway, George

Brennan, Kevin

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Gerrard, Neil

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Browne, Desmond

Gilroy, Linda

Bryant, Chris

Goggins, Paul

Buck, Ms Karen

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Burgon, Colin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Burnham, Andy

Grogan, John

Burnside, David

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Cairns, David

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hanson, David

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Healey, John

Caplin, Ivor

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Casale, Roger

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Caton, Martin

Hendrick, Mark

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Hepburn, Stephen

Challen, Colin

Heppell, John

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hermon, Lady

Clapham, Michael

Hesford, Stephen

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Heyes, David

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hodge, Margaret

Clelland, David

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Coaker, Vernon

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hopkins, Kelvin

Coleman, lain

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Connarty, Michael

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Howells, Dr. Kim

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cranston, Ross

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Crausby, David

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Cruddas, Jon

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Cummings, John

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Ingram, rh Adam

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Jenkins, Brian

Dalyell, Tam

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

David, Wayne

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Dawson, Hilton

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Denham, rh John

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Kemp, Fraser

Dobson, rh Frank

Kidney, David

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Doran, Frank

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Drew, David (Stroud)

Lepper, David

Drown, Ms Julia

Leslie, Christopher

Dunwoody, Gwyneth

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Efford, Clive

Love, Andrew

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Etherington, Bill

Luke, lain (Dundee E)

Farrelly, Paul

MacDonald, Calum

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

MacDougall, John

Fisher, Mark

MacShane, Denis

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Flint Caroline

Mallaber, Judy

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Follett, Barbara

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Foster, rh Derek

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Martlew, Eric

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

McAvoy, Thomas

McCartney, rh Ian

Foulkes, rh George

McDonagh, Siobhain

255

McFall, John

Sutcliffe, Gerry

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

McIsaac, Shona

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

McKenna, Rosemary

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

McWalter, Tony

Timms, Stephen

McWilliam, John

Tipping, Paddy

Meacher, rh Michael

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Michael, rh Alun

Trickett, Jon

Miliband, David

Truswell, Paul

Miller, Andrew

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton & Kemptown)

Moffatt, Laura

Mole, Chris

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Morgan, Julie

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Morris, rh Estelle

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Mountford, Kali

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Mudie, George

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Mullin, Chris

Walley, Ms Joan

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Ward, Claire

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Wareing, Robert N.

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Watts, David

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

White, Brian

O'Hara, Edward

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

O'Neill, Martin

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Winnick, David

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Perham, Linda

Picking, Anne

Woolas, Phil

Pickthall, Colin

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Plaskitt, James

Wright, David (Telford)

Pound, Stephen

Wyatt, Derek

Prescott, rh John

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Tellers for the Ayes:

Prosser, Gwyn

Mr. Nick Ainger and

Purchase, Ken

Mr. Jim Murphy

Purnell, James

Qninn Lawrie

NOES

Rammell, Bill

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Allan, Richard

Raynsford, rh Nick

Amess, David

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

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Bacon, Richard

Rooney, Terry

Barker, Gregory

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Baron, John (Billericay)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Bellingham, Henry

Ruane, Chris

Bercow, John

Ruddock, Joan

Beresford, Sir Paul

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Blunt, Crispin

Boswell, Tim

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Salter, Martin

Sarwar, Mohammad

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Savidge, Malcolm

Sawford, Phil

Brady, Graham

Sheridan, Jim

Brazier, Julian

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Breed, Colin

Skinner, Dennis

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Bruce, Malcolm

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe Lunesdale)

Burnett, John

Burns, Simon

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Burstow, Paul

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Burt, Alistair

Southworth, Helen

Butterfill, John

Spellar, rh John

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Squire, Rachel

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Cameron, David

Steinberg, Gerry

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Stewart, David (Inverness E Lochaber)

Cash, William

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

256

Chope, Christopher

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Clappison, James

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Moore, Michael

Collins, Tim

Moss, Malcolm

Conway, Derek

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Cormack, Sir Patrick

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Cotter, Brian

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Curry, rh David

Öpik, Lembit

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Ottaway, Richard

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Page, Richard

Paterson, Owen

Djanogly, Jonathan

Pickles, Eric

Dodds, Nigel

Portillo, rh Michael

Doughty, Sue

Pugh, Dr. John

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Randall, John

Duncan Smith, rh lain

Redwood, rh John

Evans, Nigel

Rendel, David

Fabricant, Michael

Robathan, Andrew

Fallon, Michael

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Flight, Howard

Robinson, Iris (Strangford)

Forth, rh Eric

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Rosindell, Andrew

Francois, Mark

Ruffley, David

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Garnier, Edward

Salmond, Alex

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Sanders, Adrian

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Selous, Andrew

Gidley, Sandra

Simmonds, Mark

Goodman, Paul

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

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

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Greenway, John

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Grieve, Dominic

Spring, Richard

Gummer, rh John

Steen, Anthony

Hague, rh William

Streeter, Gary

Hammond, Philip

Stunell, Andrew

Harvey, Nick

Swayne, Desmond

Hawkins, Nick

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Heald, Oliver

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Hendry, Charles

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Horam, John (Orpington)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Howard, rh Michael

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Thurso, John

Tredinnick, David

Jack, rh Michael

Trend, Michael

Jenkin, Bernard

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Tyrie, Andrew

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Viggers, Peter

Lamb, Norman

Waterson, Nigel

Lansley, Andrew

Watkinson, Angela

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Weir, Michael

Letwin, rh Oliver

Whittingdale, John

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Wiggin, Bill

Wilkinson, John

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Lidington, David

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Lilley, rh Peter

Willis, Phil

Llwyd, Elfyn

Wilshire, David

Loughton, Tim

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

MacKay, rh Andrew

Wishart, Pete

Maclean, rh David

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Malins, Humfrey

Young, rh Sir George

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Maude, rh Francis

Tellers for the Noes:

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Mr. Mark Hoban and

McLoughlin, Patrick

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 in respect of the urban post office reinvention programme, a sum exceeding £10 million to Post Office Limited.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you are in a position to advise, guide or help us. We have had an extraordinary day, in which we have, quite rightly, had three important statements from the Government, which took a great deal of time. Mr. Speaker and your colleagues were correct to allow Members to take part in the questioning until 6 o'clock or thereafter. We have had subsequent business, and we are about to discuss a relatively uncontroversial but important measure and to give it its Third Reading. Then, we shall come to what we all supposed to be the main business of the day. It is quite clear that, because Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on all speeches in all debates, a great many Members want to take part in that debate. The matter affects all our constituencies in the greater part of the United Kingdom and rumour has it that about 60 Members have applied to Mr. Speaker to be called to speak. It does not take a mathematician of genius to work out that 10 minutes multiplied by 60 will be significantly longer than the hour or so that Back Benchers will have to speak in that debate. As this is such a crucial issue, affecting so many Members in all parts of England, and as it could equally well be debated on another day, would you, Sir, be in a position to invite the Leader of the House or his deputy to make a business statement so that we can defer consideration of the local government finance formula grant distribution until another day?
Mr. Peter Viggers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A number of hon. Members on the Government side seem to find some cause for amusement in the point that my hon. Friend has raised. Many people outside the House will not understand our procedures, but it is right that they should understand them and their implications. The Order Paper reads:
"Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [Lords]: As amended in the Standing Committee, to be considered. Third Reading may also be taken. Debate may continue until 10.00 p.m."
It goes on to describe the Adjournment debate:
"Local Government Finance Formula Grant Distribution. Debate may continue until 10.00 p.m."
Those outside the House may not realise that the Report stage is the only opportunity that the House will have to consider the matters in the Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill that were considered in Committee, apart from the Third Reading, which is also scheduled for today's Sitting. Those matters may well, therefore, take us until about 10 o'clock, and the very important Adjournment debate on local government finance could get no time at all. This is a serious matter, and I strongly urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to support the point put to you by my hon. Friend.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Let me try to answer the points that have been raised. I
258
should point out that a ruling has already been given from the Chair earlier this afternoon in the light of these same considerations. The Chair has absolutely no power to require any Minister to come to the House; nor has it any power or control over the business that is put down for consideration this day. The Chair is aware of the difficulties that have arisen because a number of important matters came up earlier in the day. It is, however, a matter for the Government or the usual channels if there is to be any reconsideration of the order of business for the day.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have a unique position in the House in your capacity as Chairman of Ways and Means, and you therefore have a unique influence on matters financial. You will, therefore, be aware that we are now in a doubly paradoxical position. Not only was it originally intended that this important matter of local government finance be dealt with on a debate for the Adjournment, which might have been bad enough, but we now see the prospect of that debate shrinking by the minute before our very eyes and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) suggested, there is a danger that it might disappear altogether.
My appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker is this. Bearing in mind what you have just said, would you be prepared, together with Mr. Speaker, to give serious consideration to having discussions with the Leader of the House to see whether you can reassure the House that you will protect us from this diminution of the ability of the House properly to discharge its responsibilities in the important matter of local government finance? Otherwise, where do we turn? Are we now completely at the mercy of the Government, who are manipulating the business so that this important matter cannot properly be considered? We appeal to you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing that the Chair can do immediately about the situation with which we are faced as a result of the amount of business that is down for consideration by the House this day. Mr. Speaker is, of course, the protector of Back-Bench interests, and he will have observed what has happened today. Obviously, I cannot speak directly for him, but I imagine that, with his traditional concern for these matters, this issue might form part of the routine discussions in which he is frequently involved.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may be for the convenience of the House if I say that we fully understand the importance that many hon. Members attach to the business that is to be taken later tonight. I also understand entirely that many Members from both sides of the House wish to contribute to the debate. It was necessary for the House to hear the statements that we heard this afternoon, and I do not think that any reasonable Member would object to those statements, which, necessarily, have taken time. We will look for another opportunity to extend the debate that will start tonight so that more Members may contribute to it.

259
[HON. MEMBERS: "In the Chamber?"] Whether it will be in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall is a matter that we will have to consider.
Mr. Forth: Oh!
Mr. Cook: It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman objects to that. Half of all the next 10 days are Opposition days. If the Opposition wish to substitute the debate for one of those days, I will consider that request sympathetically.
Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether that was a point of order or a business statement. It sounded very like the latter to me, in which case it is subject to the usual procedures of the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must make it plain that I took the Leader of the House's comments as being further to the point of order that is being considered.
Mr. Forth: I do genuinely appreciate what the Leader of the House has said and his sensitive appreciation of the difficulties that we face, but it would be helpful to Mr. Speaker and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and you have generously indicated that you will take a lively interest in the issue—and to all of us if we could tease out of the Leader of the House whether he is prepared to consider proper time for a proper debate on this important financial matter on the Floor of the House and not to set a precedent by shoving the matter off to Westminster Hall where, with the best will in the world, it cannot be properly considered and given the weight that it would be given in the Chamber. I hope that the Leader of the House will not start using—I might even say abusing—Westminster Hall as some sort of cheap overflow for important business that has been squeezed by the Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The continuing discussion of the matter is, of course, taking away from the time that will be available. There may still be an opportunity for the usual channels to have some communication while the House proceeds with the next item of business. The Chair is not able to do anything other than proceed with the business that is set down for discussion. I suggest that it would be as well to move on to that.
Mr. John Gummer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to
260
prolong this discussion, but when you consider this matter—as you have kindly said that you will—you might remember that in all the time that I was the Secretary of State dealing with these matters we always had a full day's debate on what was the annual discussion of them, not the fundamental change that we have before us tonight. I hope that you will not underestimate the importance of this debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot continue the discussion by means of points of order, especially as they are getting slightly wide of the issue. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. Indeed, I understand the concern of the House, but I cannot unilaterally alter the business of the House in any way. I am a servant of the House and ensure simply that the business is conducted. Those points having been made—I am sure that Mr. Speaker has taken note of them—it would be best to proceed with the day's business.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a different point of order, although it is linked to the previous one. Can you help me and, I hope, the House? If the next item of business runs until 10 o'clock, the debate on local government finance will have no time at all. Does that mean that the House will have no opportunity to debate a matter of considerable importance to almost every hon. Member? I say that in the presence of the Leader of the House, for whom I have the utmost respect. He has sought to make the procedures of the House more relevant and transparent.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that I would always go out of my way to assist the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot comment on a hypothesis.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wished to thank the Leader of the House on behalf of the Liberal Democrats for his comments. We have this debate every time that local government expenditure is discussed on the Floor of the House. We never have enough time to debate it. It comprises a quarter of all Government expenditure, so I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that this debate needs more time than it is given, as does the local government settlement every year.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but it is not one on which I can rule.

Orders of the Day

  Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill
  [Lords]
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered. Order for Third Reading read.
  8.25 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Right hon. and hon. Members will know that this is a short but important Bill affecting the work of the Public Trustee and his office. I am pleased to say that the Bill has received support from both sides of the House. In essence, the Bill makes changes to the Public Trustee Act 1906 in two areas. It removes the requirement for full cost recovery for trust work in order to prevent the large increase in fees that the current provisions would necessitate. The Bill also amends the 1906 Act to make the Lord Chancellor responsible for fees in respect of the Public Trustee's work, rather than the current formula which places that responsibility with the Treasury—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for the House to come to order so that those of us who are interested in the Bill can hear what the Minister is saying?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am ever grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the House has heard his words.
  Ms Winterton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Keith Vaz: Will the Minister tell the House how many representations she has received from individuals, organisations or trustees about the Government's proposals?
  Ms Winterton: As far as I am aware, we have received no representations other than the thoughtful and considered responses from hon. Members.
  The Bill also repeals section 7 of the 1906 Act, which relates to the liability of the consolidated fund for liabilities arising from the activities of the Public Trustee and provides that for the future, were such liabilities to arise, they should be met from the Lord Chancellor's Department's estimate. The Bill also tidies up provisions on the Public Trustee's liability to beneficiaries. In preparing the Bill, we found that the purported exception to the Public Trustee's liability to beneficiaries in section 7 of the Public Trustee Act 1906 had no legal effect and thus serves no purpose. We have taken this opportunity to remove it.
  Throughout the passage of the Bill, both sides of the House have acknowledged its importance and, in Committee, we had a constructive debate that did justice to the issues and the context in which they arise.
  262
  Following that discussion, I wrote to all members of the Committee to clarify the role of the Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee.
  Mr. Allen: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which she handled the Committee stage. She made a complicated matter clear, even to a non-lawyer such as myself. She made several points about a case of great concern in my constituency—that of the Strelley social club and the amount of money that needs to be disbursed to former members. She was very sympathetic, which was much appreciated in my constituency. Will she take this opportunity to briefly update the House on the position in the case at the moment?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Lady replies to that point, it might be helpful if I inform the House that a large firework display will take place across the river at any moment. It might cause loud noises and I would not wish the House to be confused about the cause of any disturbance.
  Ms Rosie Winterton: I should expect nothing less during the course of my speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is as assiduous as ever in raising his constituents' concerns. I believe that 1,800 former members of the Strelley social club have been written to, and that about 1,000 have replied. Staff will look at the replies to sort out who will benefit from the residue of that fund.
  I should also like to pay tribute to all those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee and spoke on Second Reading. They drew attention to the work of the Public Trustee in dealing with the affairs of very vulnerable people, and in ensuring that the fee regime does not bear unduly harshly on them because of outdated legislative arrangements. I have appreciated the interest and good humour with which our proceedings have been conducted.
  On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) noted the speed at which the Bill had passed through the other place. He has been replaced by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). We in this House have, rightly, spent a little more time on the Bill than was the case in the other place, but I hope that we can all agree that this modest Bill is worthwhile. I am happy to commend it to the House.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I can certainly welcome what the Minister has said about the Bill's importance. I thank her for her welcome to me, although I am returning to old haunts in reassuming my present role, as I have previously been Opposition spokesman for Lord Chancellor's Department matters. After a year's absence, I have that responsibility again, and I am delighted to be associated with the latter stages of this important Bill.
  However, the Minister will know that some concerns have been expressed about the Bill. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) intervened earlier to ask about constituency issues, and my hon. Friend the

  263
  Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) has inquired about matters arising from reports from the Select Committee on Public Accounts compiled under various Chairmen, among them my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis).
  I have also encountered a case in my constituency that is not dissimilar to the one mentioned earlier in the Bill's passage through the House by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer). On behalf of those of my constituents who have been affected, I have expressed to one of the Minister's predecessors my concerns about the hugely long time it has taken the Office of the Public Trustee to respond to inquiries. I therefore take a particular interest in the changes that the Bill will make.
  The Minister rightly said that there has been no dispute between the parties with regard to the Bill. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) will speak for the Liberal Democrats on this matter this evening, and I am sure that he will confirm the statement by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) at an earlier stage of the Bill's passage through the House. That hon. Gentleman said that his party, both in this House and in another place, welcomed the Bill.
  However, I want to raise a couple of further concerns. One is the confusion that may be caused to constituents by the renaming of the office. Those who have followed the passage of the Bill will know that, on 1 April this year, the office was relaunched as the Public Guardianship Office. As it turns out, however, the same person will occupy the twin roles of Official Solicitor and Public Trustee.
  The Minister rightly said that the Bill transfers financial responsibility from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Lord Chancellor. I do not have much confidence that the change will improve the efficiency with which matters will be handled in the future. My experience, as both a Front-Bench spokesman and a constituency MP, has been that the Lord Chancellor's Department does not respond as quickly as the Treasury when questions are asked of it. It would be useful if the Minister were to give a binding guarantee that constituents will not have to wait for months and months for correspondence even to be acknowledged by the new Public Guardianship Office and by the individual who will be both the Public Trustee and the Official Solicitor.
  Also, if there are concerns in future about the operation of the Public Guardianship Office, I hope that the Minister's Department will respond with dispatch when hon. Members write on behalf of constituents. That was a huge concern under the old regime, before this Bill was introduced.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, North asked a question in relation to the Strelley social club. I do not think that it would help the debate if I were to take that further, but the Public Trustee has a responsibility to look after people who are often severely disabled as a result of the effects of pharmaceutical drugs. They are among the most vulnerable people in our society. The case in my constituency to which I referred earlier involved people trying to look after seriously disabled relatives whose financial assets were under the control of
  264
  the Public Trustee. When dealing with such cases, it is vital to be able to get quick answers. Some of the cases can be complex, but there should at least be a rapid acknowledgement of any matters that are raised.
  Ms Rosie Winterton: indicated assent.
  Mr. Hawkins: The Minister nods and I am grateful to her for acknowledging the problem.
  I am also concerned about the size of the assets under the Public Trustee's control. We are talking about a very large amount of money. On Second Reading and in Standing Committee, the Minister gave general figures regarding the amount of money under the Public Trustee's management, but I hope that she will be able to give us in this debate the exact, up-to-date numbers. That will enable hon. Members who are not familiar with the Bill to see that we are talking about very considerable sums of money.
  Mr. John Burnett: Would not the hon. Gentleman be interested in knowing the size of the office's work load, the number of cases that it has to deal with and the number of people available to deal with them? Knowledge of those figures would help to keep this debate brief.
  Mr. Hawkins: The only figures that I have available were given to the House in the debate on 1 July this year, and they can be found in the Hansard report for that date. However, I agree that that is the sort of detail that the Minister should give the House this evening.
  The PAC has reported on the various problems encountered by the Office of the Public Trustee in the past. In the debate on 1 July, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton referred to the Department's quinquennial review. The review stated:
  "Corporate development, business modernisation, high quality client service and comprehensive, reliable financial management information services have not materialised."
  My hon. Friend remarked that that was
  "Sir Humphrey-speak for a complete mess."—[Official Report, 1 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 49.]
  I want the Minister to tell us that as a result of the changes that the Government are introducing in the Bill, that mess will be sorted out. There is a sorry history of poor management and lack of financial accountability. In its various reviews of this office, the Public Accounts Committee concluded that this was the worst aspect of Government that it had ever come across. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton rightly said, there is no mileage to be had from making vulnerable people pay for the mistakes of Whitehall.
  In another place, Baroness Scotland said on 27 May:
  "the accommodation and other overhead costs attributed to trust work increased significantly from 1st April 2001, while the income from trusts work has reduced".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 May 2002; Vol. 635, c. 1050.]
  I would like the Minister's reassurance that the estates of vulnerable people, which are supposed to be looked after by the Public Trustee, will not, as a result of huge increases in charges from the Lord Chancellor's Department, be responsible for these overhead costs. I am always wary about seeing other people's money under the control of Whitehall bureaucrats. When the

  265
  matter was debated just before the summer recess, the Minister was asked specifically why the accommodation and overhead costs had increased dramatically. Having looked at the Official Report, I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton and others who raised that concern received a good enough answer.
  Finally, although this is a welcome Bill that has received all-party support, I hope that the Minister will answer these important questions before we allow the measure to pass into law.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. John Burnett: I should declare that I am a lawyer, although I do not practise as such—[Interruption.] I am trying to get into everybody's good books right from the start. I welcome back the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins)—it is a pleasure to see him with us.
  This is an uncontroversial Bill, which has been welcomed on both sides of the House and in the other place. Nevertheless, there are further points to be made arising out of it.
  In the explanatory notes to the Bill, clause 8 appears to conflict with the note that the Minister sent to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 20 July 2002 which was circulated to all members of the Committee. The Minister's note makes it clear that the Public Trustee will continue to do trust work but that the trust work that it had been involved in on behalf of people with a mental incapacity was to be transferred to the Public Guardianship Office on 1 April 2001. That is a particularly inauspicious day for the clients of the Public Guardianship Office, and I shall refer to that in a moment. The Public Guardianship Office, it appears, operates under the aegis of the Official Solicitor.
  The Minister will recall the debate that we had on 27 June 2002 when I and other hon. Members prayed against two statutory instruments. IF opened the debate and set out, among other things, the complaints of a number of individuals, constituents and others, as to the inefficiency, delays and expense in dealing with the Public Guardianship Office. I have checked with some of my constituents and am told that unfortunately the performance of the Public Guardianship Office, far from improving, is still appalling.
  My second point is about accountability. The Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee are two distinct legal bodies, although the same person, a Mr. Laurence Oates, is appointed to both statutory posts. The Minister has assured us that he receives just one salary and that it is paid at the appropriate civil service rates. In other words, he does not get two dollops. The two statutory offices continue to exist separately but are currently held by the same person. I should like the Minister outline to the House—or, better still, write to me—[Interruption.] She can circulate the letter to other Members who are interested in this riveting matter. Will she let me know why a new single statutory post should not be created, combining both that of the Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee? What are the advantages of having the two posts, especially as both are held by the same person?
  It would assist the House if the Minister were to explain in her letter exactly what cost savings would result from creating a new single statutory post. In that
  266
  letter, would she also outline what personnel are currently employed in management posts in the two offices and the approximate savings that would be achieved if they were combined?
  As I said earlier, the Bill is welcome as far as it goes, and we shall not oppose it tonight.
  8.46 pm
  Ms Rosie Winterton: First, I apologise to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). I thought that he was standing in just for this evening, but as that is not the case, let me extend a very warm welcome to him in his return to the position that he previously occupied.
  A certain amount of confusion has been expressed about the difference between the various officers and the changes that took place following the quinquennial review and the report of the Public Accounts Committee. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to the Public Guardianship Office, which is completely separate from the Public Trustee. The Public Trustee and the Official Solicitor are the same person.
  Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister make it clear that the Public Trustee still acts in trusts, although not in trusts for those who are mentally incapacitated?
  Ms Winterton: Yes, following the review, much of the trust work that dealt with very vulnerable people in particular, for example those who had been involved in road traffic accidents and so forth, was transferred to the Public Trustee. The Public Guardianship Office continues to look after people who are suffering from mental incapacity.
  In addition, there has been some confusion about fees. The fee-setting powers have been transferred from the Treasury to the Lord Chancellor. In modern practice, the Minister with responsibility for the policy holds those powers. However, the powers to set fees for trust work as set out in section 9(1) of the Public Trustee Act 1906 provide for the Treasury to set fees with the sanction of the Lord Chancellor. We are regularising the position.
  The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made some particular points about a constituent. I will be happy to explain some of the differences between the offices and where his constituent's problems may lie—he may be talking about a constituent who is having difficulties with the Public Guardianship Office, as opposed to the Public Trustee. I would be happy to deal with that if he would like to write to me or come to see me about those problems.
  The amount of money under management is in the region of £250 million. I cannot give details of the exact number of cases at the moment, but I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. I will also be happy to write to him about his detailed questions about the number of staff at the Official Solicitor's Office and the Public Trustees Office. He will know that I have written to explain that we did not think that it would be appropriate to separate the two posts at present. Indeed, that might well lead to increased, rather than decreased, costs. I will certainly write to him about the detailed matters that he discussed.

  267
  On beneficiaries making up money, we are trying to make it possible for a proper remissions policy to be introduced so that full cost recovery under the Act is not necessary—a public subsidy is allowed. Of course, the Public Trustee will work within the general Treasury rules. We wanted to ensure that these very vulnerable people would have the possibility of remissions in fees and, if necessary, therefore, there would be a public subsidy. I hope that that answers some of the questions.
  Mr. Hawkins: I understand that the Minister is going to write to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) with various details on the number of staff and so forth. She answered my question about funding, but she has not given the undertaking that I requested that people will no longer suffer inordinate delays in getting a simple acknowledgement of correspondence and papers, as some of my constituents have done, from the Office of the Public Trustee. That is the sort of problem that was highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee in successive reports on the manifold sins and wickednesses of the Public Trustee. I want an assurance that correspondence will be answered promptly.
  Ms Winterton: Of course, we will do everything within our power to ensure that that happens. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we do not want those vulnerable people, or those who care for them, to suffer any inordinate delays. I hope that the changes that we have put in place following the criticisms from the Public Accounts Committee and the quinquennial review will lead to that result.
  I commend the Bill to be read a Third time.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Local Government Finance
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  8.52 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): First, we very much regret the late start for this important debate; it could not be predicted when the time was originally allocated. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House stated earlier, we will explore options for a further debate to give the many hon. Members who want to speak on this important subject the opportunity to do so.
  Sir Paul Beresford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of the Minister's statement, those hon. Members who may be called to speak briefly this evening may want to participate in the continuation debate. Would that be in order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Obviously, an hon. Member can speak only once in a debate, so the hon. Gentleman should make no such assumption.
  Mr. Raynsford: rose—
  Mr. Eric Pickles: I appreciate that it is not the Minister's fault and we are looking forward to hearing what he has to say, but his advice will no doubt be sought, so I hope that when it is he will say that, because of the number of hon. Members who want to speak and the importance of the subject, the debate should be held on the Floor of the House, not in Westminster Hall.
  Mr. Raynsford: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and I can give him the assurances that he requests because I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the importance of having an early opportunity for a further debate. How that can be arranged will obviously depend on discussions between the usual channels. There are constraints, but it is important that we should have that debate and I was certainly very reassured by the view taken by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Don Foster: rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: Before I take any more interventions, may I point out to hon. Members that, given the short time available, I have deliberately chosen to limit my speech? We will make swifter progress and Back Benchers will have a greater opportunity to speak if Members limit their points of order or interruptions. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Foster: I apologise for taking up some of the Minister's time, but I for one want to hear in some detail what he has to say.
  Further to the question put by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), is the Minister prepared to say whether he believes that a further debate should be held on the Floor of the House?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for some time, so he ought to

  269
  know that it is not the role of Ministers to determine the business of the House. I have already given a perfectly clear undertaking. I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that he is wasting the time of the House, which should rightly be focused on the issues.
  Despite the extremely technical nature of many of the issues involved and the difficulty of making sense of all of them, the grant distribution system is one of the most important things done by the Government. Local government accounts for about 25 per cent. of all public expenditure—about £60 billion in total. More than £40 billion of that comes in the form of grant direct from the Government. Until now, the grant has mainly been distributed using standard spending assessments, which cover money for key services such as education, social services, waste management, sports, arts, libraries, police and many others. The spending review has confirmed further increases in substantial investment in those services. This debate is about how we channel that money through to councils.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am interested in my right hon. Friend's criteria for the success of that proposal. Will one of them be that he will reduce the disparity between authorities, thereby making the system fairer?
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall explore in some detail some of the key principles behind the consultation but I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that there are many definitions of fairness and that it would be wrong for me to give a particular commitment when there are also many others to consider. After all, we are engaged in a consultation exercise and no decisions have yet been taken on the final formula.
  Michael Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Raynsford: Although I am happy to give way—hon. Members know that I am usually happy to do so—it will limit the amount of time available for Back Benchers if I have to take too many interventions.
  Michael Fabricant: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not try to catch your eye later on.
  In a spirit of helpfulness, the Minister raised questions about fairness. Will he give an assurance that counties such as Staffordshire will be no worse off than they are at present—and, believe me, they are pretty badly off at present?
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall cover that specific point later in my speech. I have given undertakings that will have been heard by many Members who attended the seminars held yesterday and a week ago.
  It is important to emphasise one significant change that we are going to make from the old SSA principles. The original idea behind SSAs was to deliver a standard level of service for a standard level of council tax. If that ever worked in the past, which frankly I doubt, we certainly do not believe that it works at present. Furthermore, we are also clear that such an approach is fundamentally incompatible with our objective of giving
  270
  greater freedom and discretion to local authorities. Rather than pretending that we can say how much every council should spend, we are, under our new framework, focusing on how we distribute grant to councils.
  When we began to consider how to improve the system, we examined the range of options. Some authorities told us that formulae did not take their circumstances into account, so we offered local government the choice of using assessments of their own plans as the basis for distribution rather than formulae. We consulted on that in a Green Paper two years ago. In response, a large majority of councils said that they would prefer to keep the system based on formulae that look at their circumstances and their ability to raise council tax. If people ask why we are sticking with a system that is not fundamentally different from current arrangements, the answer is because that is what local government asked us to do.
  If the underlying approach is not fundamentally different, the detailed formulae will change. That is because everyone—Government, Opposition, councils, shools, individuals—had lost faith in the old formulae. They had been in place for over a decade. Some of them were based on very old information. Some were perverse. Many did not adequately reflect the conditions and circumstances that we face today. So while we are not abandoning the use of formulae, we are taking a fresh look at the formulae; and it is those formulae that determine how the money is divided between councils.
  In looking afresh at the formulae, we have fully engaged with local government. Technical work has been discussed in detail with representatives of local authorities, including, of course, the Local Government Association.
  We have also had a number of discussions with councillors and MPs, and we have tried as far as possible to involve those who are concerned about the process in evolving options for change. We have also conducted all this work as openly as possible, sharing options, evidence and ideas as we have gone along. I and my ministerial colleagues—I am very grateful that many of them are present tonight—have also seen many delegations on the issue. We have held several seminars for Members of Parliament, the most recent one yesterday. I am delighted to say that some 90 Members attended, which shows the interest in this important subject.
  Inevitably, many of the representations that we have received, and much of the evidence submitted to us, have been contradictory. That is understandable, since people come at this with different priorities and different ideas about what would constitute a fair system. We recognise that we shall not be able to agree with everyone, or address all the issues, or give everyone a bigger share of the cake. But we have tried to give everyone the opportunity to be heard and we are trying to ensure that the outcome does reflect, as far as possible, the many good proposals and suggestions that have been put to us.
  Let me at this point make one thing crystal clear. Contrary to what some people have suggested—indeed, contrary to what some hon. Members may hope—we have not approached this review with any predetermined outcome in mind. There is no agenda to shift

  271
  resources from one part of the country to another. Of course, in any major change such as the one that we are undertaking there will be distributional consequences.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: But the consequences are not pre-determined; they will be decided by full, careful and thorough evaluation of all the evidence and of the logic and force of the arguments. That is perhaps an unfortunate moment to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Swayne: The Minister is most kind. What estimate have the Government made of the likely increase in total Government expenditure that will be consequent upon redistributing grant to local authorities, which will then spend their additional allocation, which will have to be replaced by additional council taxes from those who lose that grant? What will the total increase in public expenditure be?
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman had been following what I said earlier, he would know that I have made it clear that there is a substantial further increase implicit in the spending review, which will ensure a good increase for local government in the settlement. If he will bear with me, I will come to guarantees for all councils.
  Richard Younger-Ross: I thank the Minister for giving way on that point. I am very concerned. He talked about fairness and said that all the formulae have been looked at and there has been no predetermination. The south-west could lose out by £152 million under the formula. It currently has an SSA of £876 per head, compared with an average of £995. I cannot see how any fairness or justice under any formula could end up with the south-west losing out at all.
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman had borne with me for a moment, he would have avoided making a rather foolish allegation that there will be losses, when we have on so many occasions made it quite clear that no authority will suffer a loss. I shall come to that in a moment.
  Mr. David Watts rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way to my hon. Friend and then I shall try to make some progress, because I know that many Back Benchers want to speak.
  Mr. Watts: Will the Minister assure many of us that not only will the system not seek to shift money from one area to another but that it will not seek to maintain the present position? Many of us believe that the present position is unfair.
  Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend will have heard from what I have said, we are committed to significant changes in the formulae, which will have distributional consequences.
  272
  One of the original goals of the review was to try to simplify and streamline the mass of complications that surround the system. This has proved one of the most difficult of the big questions that we have had to resolve. Local government has consistently said that it favours transparency, but not at the expense of oversimplification. There are benefits in achieving greater simplicity, not least in terms of the people affected having a chance of understanding the system, but simplicity leads inexorably to rough justice and, if taken too far, undermines confidence that the system takes full account of the appropriate indicators.
  Although no decisions have yet been taken, we recognise that the desire for a radically simpler system will need to be balanced against concerns that that would lead to unfairness. Having said that, we believe that it is possible to create a clearer and more consistent framework with the new formulae based around four principal components. There should be a basic allocation for each recipient of the service, such as the number of elderly people receiving care from social services or each mile of road requiring maintenance. On top of that, there should be three top-ups respectively for deprivation, pay costs and other costs, such as the additional costs of delivering services in sparsely populated areas.
  We have discussed the issue with local government and others, and there has been general support for that framework. Of course that does not mean that there is agreement about the weighting given to each component. Indeed, some of the fiercest arguments have raged over those issues. One authority will say that deprivation should be made more important; another will say that pay costs are what matter most, while others will focus on the per head allocation or sparsity.
  I have no doubt that those arguments will continue to rage during the weeks ahead. However, there has been another very important strand to the representations that local government has made to us: the calls for increased predictability and stability in the system. We have gone some way towards that in recent years with the introduction of floors and ceilings to limit year-on-year grant changes. That has been generally welcomed, although, of course, views tend to differ depending on whether an authority expects to be in the floor or the ceiling zone. As that can change from year to year, consistency is not always evident in the representations that we receive on this subject. However, we recognise that the review has inevitably created additional uncertainty, in particular with worries about authorities facing a cut in funding.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: I ask my hon. Friend to bear with me a moment.
  That is why I have given a clear guarantee—I repeat it now—that, regardless of the answers that the new formulae produce, no authority will face a cut in grant next year on a like-for-like basis. For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that that does not include inflation, but it will cushion authorities against the immediate impact not just of the new formulae but of other changes, such as the new population figures from the

  273
  2001 census. Of course, when announcing the floors for next year, we certainly hope to do better than that simple no-cash-loss guarantee, but we cannot go further on the general grant at this point because we do not yet have the final data or know what distribution the formulae will give.
  If we were to set a high floor now, we would risk having to reduce it later if it turned out to be unaffordable. Alternatively, we would risk having to set a ceiling only just above, or equal to, the level of the floor. The latter would make nonsense of the whole review; the former would have a dire impact on authorities' budget planning processes. So I hope that hon. Members will understand why we are giving a clear guarantee of no losses. We will go further, but we cannot yet announce the floor and ceilings.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that the no-cut guarantee is only in cash terms, not in real terms. Can he give a similar guarantee—if that is what it will be—for the other two years in the plan period? Will the same guarantee apply next year and the year after?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman ought to remember that I answered that question when he asked it at yesterday's seminar, so rather than detain the House now—[Interruption.] I am sorry that he seems to have a bout of amnesia and cannot remember the answer.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is clearly the sort of debate in which we all benefit from many interventions and the Minister answering questions clearly and unhurriedly. The Leader of the House promised—while you were in the Chair, sir—that this debate will be continued another day, so would it not be sensible for the Minister to take as long as he wants and as many interventions as he wishes? Several of his colleagues are nodding as I speak. We could just hear the Minister's speech tonight and have a chance to intervene, as the debate will continue another day.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter on which the occupant of the Chair can advise.
  Mr. Michael Portillo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to withhold information from the House on the basis that he gave the information yesterday in a seminar, which was not part of the official proceedings of the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is not responsible for the answers that Ministers give from the Front Bench.
  Mr. Raynsford: May I say in the nicest possible way to the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) that as he, too, was present at the seminar, he might have spared the time of the House by speaking personally to his hon. Friend?
  Michael Fabricant: This is ridiculous. I, and other Members, may not have been present at the seminar for
  274
  perfectly legitimate reasons. The House was not recalled until today. It is completely improper for a Minister to say that some people in the House might have heard an answer at an informal seminar, while other Members such as me could not be present, as the House was not in Session. The Minister is being asked a question on the Floor of the House. Will he now answer it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I assume that that is a point of order to the Chair. All that I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that I am sure that hon. Members—and not least the hon. Gentleman—have means of prising information from Ministers.
  Mr. Raynsford: As I was saying, I was delighted at the very large numbers of Members who attended yesterday's seminar and at a similarly large number who attended the other seminar that we held the week before. I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman was unable to attend either of those events. For his benefit and that of others who were not able to attend the seminar, the answer is that I made it clear that we will continue floors and ceilings in future years.
  Several hon. Members: rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint).
  Caroline Flint: My right hon. Friend said that the allowance per mile of local roads would be considered. May I bring to his attention the dilemma that faces many coalmining communities, which has been raised by the Coalfield Communities Campaign—namely, the number of unadopted roads in those communities and the problems of finding finance to work with residents to bring them back into council ownership? Will he consider including, at least for a few years, unadopted roads in target areas in the allowance per mile?
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend presciently anticipates exactly what I was about to say. Local authorities rightly feel passionately about changes to the formulae that would better reflect their local needs and circumstances. Equally, Members on both sides of the House want their area to get a fair share of the cake. We will listen carefully to all that is said tonight and on any future occasion when such a debate may be held. Within the bounds of feasibility—as I suspect that some of the demands will be mutually contradictory—we will endeavour to reflect in our final decisions the concerns that have been voiced. We do not expect to please everyone.
  Sir Paul Beresford: If I may take the Minister back a couple of paragraphs in his speech, he was talking about protection of local authorities and using floors. In the assessment of the floor, is he taking into account grant or grant plus discretionary grant?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman asks a technical question about the way in which floors are constructed. To explain the matter briefly, without going into too much detail, as I do not want to take too much time, the purpose of the floor is to ensure that no authority gets

  275
  less than a prescribed sum determined in a particular year. That refers to general grant distributed currently through the SSA system and grant that will be distributed through the formula grant distribution framework in future. It applies to general grant.
  We do not expect to please everyone—we would be very foolish if we thought that we could do so. In fact, we will have done rather well if we do not disappoint everyone. What we are determined to do, however, is to replace the old, discredited SSA system with a new grant distribution formula that is fairer, that better reflects today's needs and circumstances, that is less complex, less confusing and less perverse, and that enables local authorities to plan with greater certainty and to deliver the high-quality services that people rightly expect from their local council.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: I regret what has happened. Despite any reservations that we may have about the formulae, it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman has put in an enormous amount of effort and work. The two seminars were very good and well attended, and he went out of his way to answer the points made, so it is a shame that such effort has been rewarded by this debate. The subject deserves a full day's debate. I am pleased to understand that we will have a further debate on the matter—a continuation of this debate—on the Floor of the House. I am sure that all the Members who have constituency cases to make will not be disappointed to learn that.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is to be a continuation of this debate, as the Leader of the House has promised, it must take place on the Floor of the House? We cannot continue somewhere else a debate that was started here.
  Mr. Pickles: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The working of the usual channels are a complete mystery to me, but a bearer of tidings passed down a whisper that the debate might well take place on the Floor of the House. If that is so, we can be a little easier on the Government. However, we look forward to continuing with the debate.
  While I am in a mood to hand bouquets to the Minister, let me present him with another sweet-smelling rose. I congratulate the Government on achieving what many thought was impossible. They have taken a complex formula, added their special magic and made it even more complex. The once impenetrable labyrinth of local government grant is now firmly shrouded in mist.
  More seriously, the Government have taken a system that relied heavily on formulae and that ensured minimum interference from the Government and added a strong element of discretion. The County Councils Network referred to such discretion in its advice to all Members of the House. It said:
  "These top-ups are more susceptible to manipulation, the basic entitlement is therefore a far more equitable means of funding local authority services."
  276
  That is right. One of the most remarkable features of local government finance and involvement from the centre is how little manipulation took place in the past. [Laughter.] I am sorry to be greeted by such laughter of disbelief, because I do not believe—
  Mr. Watts: rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way and he should be heard with the same quiet as the Minister for Local Government and the Regions.
  Mr. Pickles: In fairness, I may have slightly provoked the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts).
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Pickles: Of course. I shall then give way to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North.
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend speaks about manipulation, but is he aware that, under the Government's proposals, my county of East Sussex could lose up to £44 million, which equates to 900 teachers or care for more than 2,000 vulnerable elderly people?
  Mr. Pickles: I am aware of that. I had the opportunity to visit my hon. Friend's county council a couple of weeks ago and was most struck by the need that exists there. I was also struck by the time—87 hours a week—that its excellent chief executive had spent on dealing with Government forms and the like. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
  Mr. Watts: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the previous Government did not manipulate the present system, will he explain why, when the changes took place, they transferred millions of pounds from Labour authorities to Tory authorities? My authority lost £10 million overnight.
  Mr. Pickles: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, but I have as good a memory as his. I recall the time that Bradford was Labour controlled and was on a similar band to Wandsworth. When Wandsworth did very well, Bradford did very well. In fact, we went and became Conservative controlled.
  The Minister is right to say that there is a strong element of rough justice in the system, but instead of providing greater equality, the Government have instead increased the rough justice. A change of such magnitude should be based on consensus. The Minister referred to the seminars organised by his Department. I attended only one of them, but I suspect that the others were as good tempered. Members from both sides of the House offered sound advice and there is a willingness to find a fair formula. However, it is impossible to build a consensus on the basis of transferring and losing £304 million to the metropolitan authorities, as estimated by the County Councils Network. The figure could even be as high as £800 million, based on some calculations.

  277
  The way in which the calculation has been put together and the various options available make it difficult, even for someone who is as keen as mustard on local government finance, to work out a precise picture for each authority.
  Judy Mallaber: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about disparity and losing money, does he think it right that his authority gets £200 more per primary school pupil than my county council, which is not a metropolitan area? Is that fair? Is there anything to justify why his area's needs are greater than mine, which is a far more deprived area?
  Mr. Pickles: There are many different reasons for that, which is why the formula has been so difficult to agree. For example, there are levels of deprivation and staffing costs to consider. The hon. Lady misunderstands and she is not helping the debate if she thinks that I am defending the existing scheme. One reason why the Government have spent such a long time producing an alternative is that it is a difficult thing to do. I was hoping that we might arrive at a consensus and believe that that is still possible. Local government deserves a system that is transparent and understandable. It deserves a system that we can all support.
  Paddy Tipping: rose—
  David Taylor rose—
  Mr. Pickles: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) first.
  Paddy Tipping: The hon. Gentleman talks about the need for consensus and fairness. Will he set down the principles that he and his party would use to distribute grant?
  Mr. Pickles: I am happy to do so. However, as the old saying goes, I do not think that I would have started from here. We need a thorough review of the functions of local government and to get agreement on the criteria that determine how grant is distributed. On that basis, I would certainly be willing to build a consensus.
  David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pickles: In a moment.
  However, it is impossible to build a consensus when individual high-performing authorities are penalised with the removal of grants worth tens of millions of pounds. It is impossible to build a consensus while low-performing authorities are rewarded with a cash
  278
  windfall. It is impossible to build a consensus when, as The Times asserted in a July headline, "Labour will tax Tory voters to fund heartland".
  Gregory Barker: Does my hon. Friend see anything fair in the fact that East Sussex, which is the poorest shire county in England, is also the worst affected? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Pickles: I am sorry to hear Labour Members laugh. My hon. Friend speaks the truth, certainly in terms of average income and of the size of the cuts in relation to the budget.
  Several hon. Members: rose—
  Mr. Pickles: If hon. Members bear with me, I want to make some progress and then I will happily give way—
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster rose—
  Mr. Pickles: I mean exactly what I say: I will give way in a moment.
  Decisions will be made known in December. That will be about the same time as the Audit Commission gives its verdict on larger councils, through the comprehensive performance assessment. Is the Minister prepared to give a guarantee that the top 10 local authorities will not have grant taken away from them and that the incompetence of the bottom 10 will not be rewarded with extra grant?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to respond to that. Before I do so, I take the opportunity to say that I have been informed that, following discussions held by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, we now feel hopeful that it will be possible to extend this debate on the Floor of the House next week. In response to the hon. Gentleman's question, I have already given a guarantee that no authority will receive less grant, so there is no question of any high-performing authority suffering a loss. That gives the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
  Mr. Pickles: I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that on 12 December that will not spare his blushes.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Pickles: I shall give way in a moment.
  The Government have ignored this issue for six years. It is clear from the consultation that they have not used that period to gather information. After six years, we are nowhere near agreement on the heads of need. We have moved from a position in which the Government were acting like a sleeping dormouse to a new phase in which they are like a bat out of hell. Their determination to push through these reforms by May will do untold harm to fragile local government. As a result, in the words of the Rural Services Partnership,
  "the work that has been carried out has been compressed into a short timescale and some of it appears to be lacking in rigour".
  Jim Knight: Having heard the Minister's reassurance, will the hon. Gentleman

  279
  reassure us that if his party were in office it would match the Government's plans to increase local government spending by 5 per cent. next year?
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman may have misheard his right hon. Friend. He gave an undertaking that in cash terms there will be no difference in grant, but as people will readily understand, that will in no way compensate local authorities for their cost base and wage bill.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster rose—
  Mr. Pickles: Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is so patient.
  Mr. Foster: Several Conservative Members have mentioned East Sussex. Is it not the case that East Sussex took a reduction of 7 per cent. in real terms in the last three years of the previous Conservative Government? Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to match the amount that this Government are at least guaranteeing?
  Mr. Pickles: I hope that Hansard is available in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, because those words require wide circulation. [HON. MEMBERS: "What does that mean?"] It means that the hon. Gentleman will have a bit of a problem.
  The Minister's guarantee that no authority will receive less cash next year is not sufficient to meet councils' existing needs. We know from rising pay settlements and a growing cost base that those moneys will not meet next year's costs and will lead to council tax increases and service cuts. Even the real-terms guarantee on education is so full of escape clauses that its effectiveness should be doubted. The Association of Secondary Heads in Essex told the Department on 13 September:
  "Our experiences of 'real term guarantees' in recent years have meant that our budgets have lost out. This happened in the 2002–2003 budget round when the Learning Skills Council became involved in budget calculations for the first time. In 2002–2003 many Essex secondary schools suffered a 'real terms' cut in their budgets, despite the fact that they had been promised growth."
  Given that Essex could lose about £80 million, Kent rising £90 million and East Sussex £43 million, no cash guarantee will be effective. The removal of sums of those proportions cannot be achieved by painless cuts or salami-slicing in line with the Government's gradual withdrawal of grant by placing a floor on the loss. Whole sections of public services will be abandoned or rationed. Even if the Government announce a floor of 3, 4, 5 or even 6 per cent., local authorities will have to make decisions about the wholesale abandonment of important public services.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend take into account the fact that some local authorities rely to a large extent on discretionary grants? If they are at the floor, such authorities will lose out dramatically, because the discretionary grant element will not be taken into account.
  Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend has extensive experience of these matters and he is absolutely right. Furthermore,
  280
  local authorities want to return to the levels of specific grants seen in the Tory years, because far less discretion is available to them now than they had under the Conservatives. The Minister looks surprised, but that is what the county councils said in a letter to him; I advise him to pay more attention to his mail.
  David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is moving on from the distribution of rate support grant to specific grants. Perhaps he will take a further step and consider how the national non-domestic rate is currently distributed. The system is extremely simple: every authority receives the same sum per person. Does he endorse the Government's proposals to merge NNDR into RSG, creating a formula-based system, which will not contribute to the transparency and intelligibility that are probably major planks in the consensus that he seeks?
  Mr. Pickles: I do indeed seek consensus, and I believe that consensus is possible on this issue, because I got the distinct impression from the Minister that the Government were having a rethink. I see the Minister smile, so perhaps it will be possible to build consensus. There is no sense in merging NNDR and RSG: there are several disadvantages to doing so, particularly for local authorities that currently receive no RSG. In addition, there is the importance of co-operation between business and local authorities and the need for transparency, and the current system is better in those respects than the Government's proposed changes.
  Mr. David Drew: Neither the Government nor the official Opposition have mentioned what I regard as the nub of the problem: the area cost adjustment. Many of us feel that there was a fiddle. It is understandable in the light of the notion that teachers, social workers and others in the south-east face additional costs, but it creates a blatant unfairness that must, if possible, be removed. I am interested in hearing whether the official Opposition will seek to remove the area cost adjustment.
  Mr. Pickles: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman—I do not think that the area cost adjustment was a fiddle. There is a case for examining it, but some of the proposals regarding the number of people who fall off the different steps would merely replace one perversity with another. The Government appear to have got hold of the idea of zones within counties for the purposes of the area cost adjustment, but the Minister will be aware of the huge variations that occur, for example, in the counties around London and the different parts of those counties.
  Let me return briefly to the real-terms guarantee. Taking out sums of such proportions will result in public services having to be reduced. The Minister's refusal to provide even a working assumption as to the level of the floor of the withdrawal is harming local authorities' plans. Despite pleas from Sir Jeremy Beecham, the chairman of the Local Government Association, the Minister has refused to go beyond a zero per cent. floor, suggesting in a letter that 3 per cent. might be too high. However, at this time of year, councils are at an advanced stage of their budgetary cycle, and Government's silence makes them fear the worst. Council budgets are not going to be put together in the

  281
  spring—we have moved far beyond that. Most of them are put together in the autumn. The refusal to offer anything other than a zero floor is to the detriment of local government.
  Mr. Portillo: I noted that the Minister was extremely careful in his use of language this evening. Not only is there a zero guarantee for the first year, but in subsequent years floors and ceilings, he said, would continue. He did not say which floor would continue—he did not say that it would be the same floor—and did not specify the years. Does my hon. Friend agree that his reluctance to repeat what he said yesterday in a private meeting in the Chamber, where it can go on public record, may reflect the fact that floors and ceilings in future years will not be the floors and ceilings of the first year?
  Mr. Pickles: My right hon. Friend is correct—the Minister is not in a position to say that there will be no pain or to say, "Don't worry, the amount of money will be reduced." Even on a cash basis, there will be a substantial cut for local authorities of 5 or 6 per cent. We must remember that the total sums being discussed are tens of millions of pounds.
  Resource equalisation, whereby a council's tax-raising potential is taken into account, was introduced relatively late and offers a perverse incentive to embrace higher levels of expenditure. It also penalises lower-income families in areas with high house prices. Labour Members laughed and scoffed at the mention of East Sussex, which has high local house prices but low incomes. It has almost the lowest average income in England, comparable to that of Tyne and Wear. The system, however, which is supposedly designed to deal with deprivation and sparsity, takes £43 million from the county.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) asked my hon. Friend what the Conservative party would do in government about local government finance. Will he fill out his reply and say whether he has followed the excellent work conducted for more than two years by the F40 group of local authorities, led in the House with great distinction by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who has highlighted many inadequacies and made sound proposals on the way in which injustices in the present system could be put right? I speak for Cheshire, a county that features extremely badly in the formula, and has done so under successive Governments.
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) is blushing, and so am I at my hon. Friend's question. I believe that I elaborated my thoughts in considerable detail and shall happily go to greater lengths, but I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to do so in private.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: Will the hon. Gentleman clear up something that was not obvious in his speech? Fourteen per cent. of the pot of money that goes into local government is taken out and given to local authorities, which bid for it in special grants. Is the
  282
  hon. Gentleman's policy to restore that 14 per cent. or is it to get back to the 4 per cent. that applied when the Conservatives were last in power?
  Mr. Pickles: It was not 4 per cent., but nearer 6 per cent. It depends on how one counts.
  Mr. Don Foster: It was just over 4 per cent.
  Mr. Pickles: I shall not haggle over a couple of percentage figures, but I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is right. On the general point, however, the level of discretion is about 17 per cent. Given that most local authorities spend three quarters of their budget on staffing, that leaves them little discretion on how the rest is spent. Both I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) are firmly committed to increasing the amount of local authorities' discretion so that they do not have to go cap in hand to the Government. If the Liberal Democrats want to join us in defending local government, they will be more than welcome to do so.
  As we have discovered, we can talk for hours about the area cost adjustment, the relevant merits of different recruitment costs, zone integrity and various different steps. We can talk about the desirability of lowering the top-up for additional educational needs, but at a time when rural communities are desperate for reassurance that their concerns have been heard in this Chamber, the Government have kicked away the ladder. This is a mess masquerading as a solution; a blind rush without purpose or principle. The proposals do not have the confidence of local government and should not have the confidence of the House.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: I am amused by the comments of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). In response to an intervention he referred to defending local government. I remember clearly that when he was leader of Bradford council for a short period he sold off old people's homes with old people in them. Therefore, defending local government was far from his mind then.
  Mr. Pickles: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given way because it gives me a chance to say this: under my leadership of Bradford council, we sold not one single old persons' home. The party that sold an old persons' home—to a Labour councillor—formed the incoming Labour Administration. Hypocrites!
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman set in motion the sale of the homes and was then removed from the leadership of Bradford council because people in the community said that that was not what they wanted. In fact, they are saying to the Tories now that they do not want their policies. The hon. Gentleman's speech showed clearly that the Tories have no proposals for the future of local government.
  Mr. Colin Challen: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The Opposition did

  283
  not have a word to say about cities or urban areas; they are trying to divide the country. They do not want a fair system; it is all about East Sussex.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am sure that my hon. Friend has identified the real point.
  Local government finance and the distribution formula will be of paramount importance to local authorities if we are to provide the world class services that we talk about. As chairman in the House of Commons of the Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities outside London—SIGOMA—I join my colleagues who represent those 48 major authorities in pleading with the Minister to ensure that we get a fair, transparent, simpler and more stable system of resource distribution for local government. People expect a great deal from government. They want well-run schools for their children, crime-free streets and good quality care for older people and the vulnerable in our communities. Little or no change to the system of local government funding will not provide those services and the better environment that we all expect. SIGOMA's case is for a more robust system of resource distribution. That is well known to the Ministers and all Departments.
  To make our case, I must compare the authorities in SIGOMA and those that will be affected by the resource distribution with London authorities, as there are some similarities between the two groups. Our communities suffer from generally higher deprivation than that suffered in London's urban areas. A major consequence of that is lower attainment, particularly in education. Despite the deprivation and lower attainment, our communities pay on average £125 more in band D properties than people in band D properties in London communities.
  Ms Karen Buck: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I am sorry, but I have only a few moments.
  Even after the assumed higher cost of providing services in London is taken into account, our communities still receive on average £140 per head less than the London boroughs. My own authority, Wakefield, has one of the lowest education SSAs in the country. To bring this element of Wakefield's SSA up to the metropolitan average would entail an increase in SSA or its replacement by £11 million. The children in the Normanton constituency are entitled to the same standard and quality of education as children elsewhere in the country. Not to change the financial formula for local government services is to deny my constituents fairness and justice.
  In April this year, the Secretary of State for Health announced his intention to create a radically different relationship between health and social services, particularly in the provision of care for older people. Local government shares central Government's aim to improve care for the elderly, but the NHS plan will fail if social care is not properly funded. The way to address the problems of social care is not by penalising local councils. That has happened in areas where the Audit
  284
  Commission has been compiling reports. My area suffered because of such a report. Penalising local authorities will not solve the problem of caring for the elderly and the vulnerable.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my hon. Friend give way briefly?
  Mr. O'Brien: I am sorry—I have only three minutes left.
  Councils' total contribution to supporting social care amounts to more than £1 billion over and above the SSAs on which the Government base the grant that they give to local authorities. That is a further reason for the current system to be reviewed.
  The area cost adjustment is always mentioned in debates such as this. It was raised at the seminar, and I am sure that it will be raised repeatedly until some fairness is introduced into it. Members of SIGOMA are not against any adjustment in the distribution system to recognise some of the problems that London boroughs may have. What we ask is that any adjustment should be made on the basis of actual, rather than assumed, needs. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to give that serious consideration.
  This morning, in a meeting of the Select Committee taking evidence on social housing, we were told that local authorities in London have different problems, and that what applies in one borough does not necessarily apply in others. The area cost adjustment must therefore be based on actual costs, not on assumed costs, as that is demonstrably unfair.
  Finally, I refer to the EPCS—environmental, protective and cultural services—block, which is a further concern to local authorities. Provision of services under this block is almost always the lowest funded and most under-resourced. A review of the services covered by the EPCS block is essential. The EPCS block is usually a passport to other services, and it is those other services that lose out.
  On the consequences of the decline in population, a fall in population might be seen as a blessing. We in SIGOMA refute that. Those who are most able to move from an area are those most likely to have transferable skills and a better education and to be more economically active. Those left in the area are less able to pay higher council taxes, yet are more in need of quality public services to guarantee a decent standard of living. On the EPCS block, such increases and the transfer of resources mean that there will be underinvestment and a lack of support for the delivery of world class services if we do not recognise the importance of services in that block, including playing areas, roads, open spaces and street lighting. The services take the brunt of the cuts, so I ask my right hon. Friend to give us a formula that will be transparent and robust, and which we can understand and explain to the people whom we represent.
  9.50 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: In these rather bizarre circumstances, and in what may, I hope, be seen as part one of my contribution, I intend to say a little bit about why I am concerned about what is currently happening

  285
  and mention what I think should happen next. In what I hope will be part two of my speech, at an unspecified later date, I shall speak in more detail on my thoughts about the way forward.
  The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) rightly tried to see whether it was possible to build some consensus in the House. I suspect that there is consensus in all parts of the House at least about the view that local government needs a different and fairer funding system. I hope that I can also build consensus in respect of the bouquets that he gave to the Minister. Indeed, I suspect that nobody in the House would deny the Minister's clear commitment to local government. I give him credit for his willingness to take on a challenge that almost everybody else has failed to tackle—in fairness, even the Local Government Association has failed to tackle it—and make some proposals about an alternative to the current discredited system.
  The fact that I shall be critical of some of the Minister's proposals does not mean that I am critical of his energy in that direction. His commitment to local government has been demonstrated by the fact that it has felt the effects of a number of improvements in the past five years. We have seen a number of significant changes. For instance, capping is now more or less out of the window. Of course, there have also been some improvements in overall funding, but sadly, those increases have often been linked to increases in ring-fenced funding.
  Mr. McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that there should be consensus throughout the House about the fact that social services receive woefully inadequate funding throughout the country, whether in area cost adjustment areas or elsewhere? It is a vital function of this debate that that historic misery be corrected.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The Minister might even leap to his feet to suggest that, in recognising that deficiency, the Government have put additional money into that block in the SSA formula. Were he to do so, however, he would also have to go a little further and acknowledge that, even with the additional moneys that have been put in, local authorities throughout the country are still reporting that their expenditure is well in excess of the amount that has been given and that many needs are not being met. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.
  Unfortunately, we have waited in vain for five long years for a new formula to replace the current discredited one. After two wasted years spent on the abortive attempt to introduce the plan-led approach, I believe that we are now in danger of rushing the current review through to full completion for the coming financial year in a way that could lead to the same disaster that resulted from rushing through changes to the A-level system. Hasty action now could create problems in future. The Government have left themselves a short time of only a few weeks to consider the many and varied responses to the consultation before they make their final settlement announcement.
  I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that, last year, the Government could not get their sums right for even the minimal changes—not the huge swathes that
  286
  are now proposed—to the system as district councils with incorrectly calculated floors found to their cost. As the Minister said, a change in one part of the system led to unpredicted consequences elsewhere. The Government missed those consequences. How can we have genuine confidence that last year's mistakes will not be repeated and multiplied many times in the numerous changes that are proposed to floors and ceilings, let alone all the other changes, in the approaching financial year?
  Richard Younger-Ross: My hon. Friend referred to floors and ceilings. Will he comment on the Minister's response to my earlier intervention about the long-term impact of formulae on potential? It is fair to say that if the floors exist and there is no impact in the first year, there may be no impact in the second or third year. However, what happens when the floors no longer exist? Will local authorities be worse off?
  Mr. Foster: I fear that my hon. Friend's analysis is not correct because it is not necessarily the case that there will be no impact. As the Minister rightly pointed out, the floor refers only to a cash figure, not an inflation-related figure. I am sorry that I was unable to attend his seminars, which, I understand, were extremely good. However, in the seminars and in the Chamber tonight, he failed to state clearly what would happen after the first year. We understand that floors will continue to exist for several years, but the Minister has told us neither the number nor whether they will continue at the same level. For my hon. Friend's council and many others that fear losing out under any new arrangements, there is no certainty for the future.
  I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that if the current formula is unfair and changes are required, the distribution mechanism needs to change. As the Minister said, there will always be those who will not get much more compared with others who will.
  Mr. Chris Mole: I was worried that, in supporting his colleague's comments, the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that there should be transitional arrangements that last for ever.
  Mr. Foster: I believe that I was able to point out before the hon. Gentleman intervened that I did not advocate such a proposal. I acknowledge that if we want to change a system, there will be changes for many councils.
  Sir Paul Beresford: The point that was made in the earlier intervention puts the Minister in an interesting position, because if his formula is so fair, the floors and ceilings will have to disappear.
  Mr. Foster: I accept that that is likely. If the Minister was prepared to respond to our question about the length of time that floors will continue and their operation, we might get a clearer view.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows the answer better than the rest of the House.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: This hon. Gentleman finds the subject so incomprehensible that it would be difficult for

  287
  him to explain it to his constituents. That is a genuine problem. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) made the most important, simple point: whatever the result, it must be comprehensible, unlike the Schleswig-Holstein question? The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will know that only three people knew it: one was dead, the other was mad and the third had forgotten it.
  Mr. Foster: I have come across no hon. Member, including the Minister, who is capable of fully explaining current local government finance settlement arrangements. The new system that purports to be fairer will involve a complex mechanism. We must all get used to the fact that whatever we do will be relatively complex. That complexity and the need to review the matter in greater detail suggests that although some changes could be introduced in the next financial year, it would be better if the Government postponed them for a year. I shall explain the reasons for that in more detail in part two of my speech next week.
  It is worth reflecting on the fact that earlier today on the Floor of the House—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION

  ASW Sheerness
  10 pm
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: The petition of current and former employees of ASW Sheerness—previously known as Co-steel Sheerness—and their partners
  Declares that ASW Sheerness Steel is in the process of being wound up, causing a major shortfall in the pensions that will be received, thereby resulting in considerable hardship to its members. It is believed that this situation has arisen because of pensions legislation put in place by successive Governments.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urgently pass legislation both to ensure the restoration of the ASW Sheerness pension fund and to ensure that pensions legislation is more equitable in its treatment of members of company pension schemes.
  And the petitioners remain, etc. Peter Holsten, 19 Princess Avenue, Minster. Sheerness.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Autistic Children
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
  10.1 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: Interest in the House in autism has been reflected since 1 May 1997 in 154 written parliamentary questions, eight oral parliamentary questions, nine early-day motions and, on my reckoning, at least three Adjournment debates. Those important Adjournment debates on the subject of autism have respectively been initiated by the distinguished chairman of the all-party group on autism, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on the specific subject of Asperger's syndrome, and. finally, by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), whose debate took place, fittingly, on 9 January this year, very close to the start of autism awareness year.
  Right hon. and hon. Members who take an interest in this subject will doubtless also be conscious that next month will see a further initiative from Autism in Mind, another important campaigning organisation in this field, which will stage a lobby of Parliament. I am, therefore, especially gratified—on this, our first day back after our lengthy parliamentary recess—to have the chance to raise with hon. Members this important issue. I do so conscious of the assistance of the National Autistic Society in general, and of its policy and campaigns manager, Steve Broach, and its parliamentary officer, Senay Camgoz, in particular. They have briefed me. I am not an expert, but I am doing my best to highlight issues of great importance to many of my constituents and to many constituents of Members on both sides of the Chamber.
  I begin with a brief consideration of the definition and prevalence of the condition of autism. It is a lifelong developmental disorder that affects the way in which a person communicates with and relates to the people around him or her. It is important to understand that there are many different variants on the theme of autism. We are, after all, dealing with individuals. Some conditions involve learning disabilities, others do not. So there is a great variety. It is, therefore, fitting that the professional experts in the field have come up with the term "autistic spectrum disorder" to embrace the various different forms of the condition which people experience.
  It is estimated that about 520,000 people in this country are autistic. To put it another way, 60 per 10,000 children under the age of eight are involved. That is a substantial number of people. Whatever the differences in their condition and needs, one thing that they have in common is, as one distinguished commentator on this subject has observed, that they suffer from a triad of impairments: an impairment of social interaction; an impairment of social communication; and an impairment of imagination.
  Inevitably, we are all influenced in our thinking and pronouncements on this subject by constituency cases—local examples that have inspired us to think further about a subject about which we perhaps knew little. I have been approached by the mothers of Luke Bennion

  289
  and Ethan King in the Vale of Aylesbury, and they have told me of the harrowing ordeals that they and their children have undergone in pursuit of equity and service. Equally inevitably, as the House will understand, the case with which I am most familiar and about which I am most immediately concerned is that of my constituents, Pamela Keszei and her son, Christian.
  Their story is instructive and I am sure that it will have many parallels in the constituencies of other hon. Members. When Christian was three and a half years old, a health visitor suspected that he might be autistic. The suspicion was not confirmed and no diagnosis was given. The family moved from Ruislip in Middlesex to Stone in my Buckingham constituency. It was fully five years later, when Christian was eight and a half years old, that he was diagnosed as autistic. That was after no fewer than three requests for a statement of his special educational needs. He went to a mainstream primary school in Stone. He had one hour a week of speech therapy and, I am horrified to reveal, only one hour per half term of specialist teaching.
  Christian has now moved on, temporarily, to a mainstream secondary school, Mandeville upper school. At that institution, he has one hour a week of speech or language therapy and one hour a fortnight of specialist teaching. His overall package of assistance amounts to only half a day's education each day of the week. He is at the school for three hours a day with the support of a dedicated, but non-specialist, teacher and one helper.
  In trying to form a picture of what Christian has suffered, it is important to retrace a step. When he was at primary school, he suffered bullying so regular and severe as to cause him to try to commit suicide on no fewer than three occasions. I have conversed and corresponded with Pamela Keszei. She is a remarkable and courageous lady. Her family has undergone the most appalling ordeal. Under the strain, she and her husband are now divorced. She faces childminding costs of £100 a week on average and will shortly have to resign her job as a manager for Age Concern in Aylesbury. She will almost certainly be condemned to live, against her will, on benefits. She may ultimately lose her home. She has focused, almost to the exclusion of everything else in her life and as she has had to do, on the needs and interests of her child.
  I salute the indomitable will of that lady and those who support her, but I am horrified that she and her son have been failed by the system at every turn. People who know about the subject will readily testify that autistic children find it especially difficult to deal with change. However, Christian has been obliged to face change in the form of an interrupted education. He will have the chance in May to go to a special school in Princes Risborough that focuses more on education than life skills, although his mother and others would prefer a service that focused more on life skills than education. Remember how much ground has to be made up. That is the experience that that young lad has suffered, but it should not have been necessary.
  We ought to take account of the testimony of Dr. Ann Rowland, Christian's clinical psychologist. Underlining the point about change, she says that Christian is a boy who finds change
  "extremely difficult and anxiety provoking".
  290
  His mother continues to wage a relentless battle for due entitlement in the form of a tailored package of personal care for her child.
  I want to put a series of legitimate challenges to the Minister in a non-partisan spirit. I shall raise three issues. The first concerns diagnosis, and the reality is that we face a postcode lottery. In 1999, the National Autistic Society discovered that 40 per cent. of parents had waited at least three years for a diagnosis, and that 65 per cent. of them had to see at least three professionals before a diagnosis was given. I know of cases in which as many as 10 professionals have offered a miscellany of different and sometimes hostile opinions to each other. Other hon. Members may be familiar with similar cases.
  All too often, it has appeared that the determining factor in what has been on offer has been the availability of services rather than the needs of the child. That has to change. The system has to be flexible enough to adapt to the needs of the individual child because, manifestly, in cases of this kind the child cannot be expected to be flexible enough to adapt to the needs of the system.
  We now have the national initiative on autism: screening and assessment. It is designed to provide an assessment of the current situation, to develop a template of good practice, to encourage multidisciplinary assessment teams, and to propose a framework for training that would facilitate the earliest possible introduction of the new guidelines.
  My first challenge to the Minister concerns the NIASA guidelines, which are due to be published in early 2003. Will the Government pledge to support those guidelines and to enable their national roll-out, thereby tackling the postcode lottery and ensuring consistency of diagnostic practice across the country?
  The second problem is the gap between diagnosis and access to services. The Minister and other hon. Members will know that Early Bird and Help! are two National Autistic Society schemes that inform parents and others of their entitlements. Will the Government support the development of information and advice systems that effectively empower parents? A related and no less important point has to do with the gap that exists for many children between the expertises of professional agencies. Children do not always fall neatly into categories. Will the Government undertake to issue guidance to social services departments across the country to enable each autistic child to undergo an assessment under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, and to ensure that local authorities create pathways for effective support for families with children who experience autism?
  The third real challenge relates to education and training. I referred earlier to the possibility that 60 children in 10,000 were involved, but the most recent research from the National Autistic Society suggests that as many as one child in 86 in schools is affected by autism. Whatever the numbers involved, it is essential that the school environment be responsive to the needs of those children, but 72 per cent. of schools have told the National Autistic Society that their teachers are unsatisfactorily trained in that respect.
  My request to the Minister is that she tell the House whether the Government will instruct local education authorities to train teachers, assistants and all specialist

  291
  professionals in awareness and understanding of autism, as part of their responsibilities under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001.
  In making this request—and I have made all these requests, as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) and others will be aware, on behalf and with the support of the National Autistic Society—I simply remind the Minister of the campaigning involvement of the Parents Autism Campaign for Education, yet another key body in the field. It highlights in its literature the work of the Mental Health Foundation whose research suggests that even moderate increases in educational provision could result in major savings in later living costs.
  This issue is not the subject of cross-party wrangling; it is, thankfully, the subject of cross-party co-operation, and I welcome that. I acknowledge that the Government are concerned about the issue and are taking a number of steps to improve provision which, despite all I have said—legitimately and with sincerity on behalf of my constituents—is much better than at one time it was. The numbers of people that we know to be experiencing autism are not necessarily that much greater, but reflect improved diagnosis. However, much still remains to be done.
  I am sure that the Minister will make a constructive, helpful and informative speech. I wish to hear that speech, so I shall therefore sit down.
  10.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on raising this extremely important issue on the first day back after the summer recess. That is an indication of how important the matter is to increasing numbers of families throughout the country who have to cope with the severe problems experienced by children with a whole range of autism spectrum disorders.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, autism is a complex and distressing condition for those directly affected by it and for their families and carers. The pressures can be immense. Children with autism often lead isolated lives; their social and communication difficulties place great stress on their families. I acknowledge the tremendous contribution made by families and carers in these difficult situations. It is clearly the responsibility of Government, nationally and locally, to put in place good, effective support services. Without their carers and families, the lives of these children would be much worse.
  The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there have been difficulties in this area for many years. The number of children who have been diagnosed with autism has increased recently, but it is primarily a result of better diagnosis and assessment that we are beginning to see the extent and scale of the problem. In years gone by, autistic children were almost the forgotten children with the hidden problem. We are beginning to uncover how great the problem is for communities.
  The hon. Gentleman is right that the Government have taken a number of positive and practical steps. I accept that although much has been done in this area,
  292
  there is a great deal more to do by all Government agencies—social services, education, local authorities and the voluntary sector. They need to pull together and put in place a package of support on which families, carers and children can rely.
  The main issues that parents have raised concern early diagnosis, early intervention and early support. The evidence is that the earlier these matters are addressed, the better the long-term outcome is for the children and their families. Parents want quick and easy access to statutory and voluntary services. No one party has a monopoly on the provision of these services. It is important to ensure that a variety of diverse providers can meet the needs of these children. Parents also want straightforward, readily available information. They sometimes find themselves in a maze of different assessment, processes and organisations and do not know where to turn.
  The overarching issue is about multi-agency planning and assessments. We talk, perhaps a little glibly, about joined-up thinking and services, but I can think of no better example of an area in which lack of integration means poor services for the families concerned.
  I will deal with the three specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I should like to set out the way in which the Government are trying to introduce quality and rigour into the area. It is necessary to have a decent legislative framework, which has not been in place in the past. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 strengthens the support given to parents of children with special educational needs. In the past, finding a way through the legal process has often been a minefield for parents. I speak as a former local authority education lawyer, so I know the difficulties that parents have struggled with there.
  We also introduced the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, which gives people greater flexibility. The introduction of direct payments starts to give people more choice about the sort of services that they want provided. The inspection and regulatory standards of the Care Standards Act 2000 are very rigorous, enabling us to get some quality into the system. The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 supports all children with disabilities, including those with autism and deals with some very vulnerable children indeed.
  We have a legislative framework, but that will work only if it is underpinned by practical action for families on the ground in local communities. Therefore, we have the quality protects programme, which is a major programme to help children in general, but is also targeted on children with disabilities. I am pleased to be able to say that the grant directed at children with disabilities was £15 million last year, it is £15 million this year, and next year it will double to £30 million, so it is a significant investment for such children.
  This is about trying to get greater integration of family support services—trying to integrate children with disabilities, including autism, into mainstream leisure and cultural activities. The hon. Gentleman mentioned children having life skills as well as education and having a chance to participate in the things that other children take for granted, which is extremely important. This is also about trying to ensure that people have key workers—one person to whom they can go, who can give them a gateway into the whole range of services that are available.

  293
  I have some practical examples of things that are happening under the quality protects programme, which are very encouraging. I will highlight a couple. In Cornwall, £1 million has been set aside to develop autism and Asperger's children's services. There is a five-bedded bungalow to provide respite care and transitional support and to ensure that parents can get a break from a tremendously stressful situation.
  In Windsor and Maidenhead, a one-stop shop has been set up for children with disabilities, with a particular focus on children with autism. Again, it is trying to bring the agencies together so that parents are not pushed from pillar to post, trying to seek the most appropriate service. There are also early diagnosis, speech and language therapy, physiotherapy and occupational therapy, which are all designed to give children the extra step up that they need so that they can try to participate.
  Slough has a new in-borough autism service, which is situated in the early years centre, so it is very connected with education, ensuring that children can be diagnosed and get access to services early, which is what parents want. So, the quality protects service is a practical programme that is actually making a difference.

  The hon. Gentleman mentioned diagnosis and having multi-agency assessments. He is aware of the NIASA—national initiative on autism: screening and assessment—guidelines. I am pleased to be able to tell him that Dr. Gillian Baird, the secretary of NIASA, has been appointed as a member of the disabled children's external working group, which is working on the children's national service framework. Clearly, her views and the work that she is doing will be fed into that NSF, which is very practical. Rather than having guidelines in isolation, they will form part of an extensive programme under the NSF and there is a clear focus on that.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman raised multi-agency assessments. He asked whether we would issue guidance to local authorities to say that all the agencies should come together to undertake the assessment. There must be nothing more frustrating for families than having to tell their story time and again to a multiplicity of individuals. I am delighted to be able to say that we have already issued statutory guidance under the quality protects programme. This is about moving from service-led assessments to looking at the child—putting the child at the centre of the assessment and asking what he or she needs, rather than what is the boundary of our agency, and what contribution we can make. That is quite a culture shift for some services—saying that this is the child's pathway or journey. It is similar to what we are trying to do in the national health service by asking what is the patient's journey. We are working out how to configure services to meet the needs of the child.
  Mr. Bercow: The Minister is dealing very thoroughly with my questions. Does she agree that it is important that a child should have an alternative between, on the one hand, education in a mainstream school but in social isolation, which is what Christian currently endures, and inclusion in a special school in an atmosphere that may not be suitable? Surely there should be a spectrum of choice and opportunity, just as there is a spectrum of disorder.
  Ms Blears: That is exactly the situation that we are trying to work towards. We want to provide services that are more flexible and responsive, which look and feel different and actually are different from those that we have been used to. We have embarked on that journey—we have to get from where we are now to where we want to be. Multi-agency assessments that ask what the child needs and trying to challenge services to configure themselves so that they meet the needs of that child will take some time, but that is very much the direction of travel. Those services will be valued and will make a difference to the long-term outcomes for children.
  The third issue that the hon. Gentleman raised related to education and training, which are absolutely central. If we are to have early diagnosis and intervention, we must ensure that such issues do not go unnoticed for years and years. I am delighted to be able to tell him that in July the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills published some good practice guidance—exactly what he highlighted. It was produced by the autism working group, so we are very much in tune with our partners. The group was made up of experts and practitioners on the whole spectrum of autism disorders.
  The document provides guidance on raising awareness and improving understanding of the disorders and draws on good practice throughout the country. It asks local education authorities and schools to keep their provision under review and to audit it, to provide monitoring and quality evaluation. If the provision available is not of the right quality, it will not have the impact wanted by parents and families. That guidance has been issued, so I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman those reassurances.
  In addition to the legislative framework that we have set up and the practical measures on the ground, a third important aspect is the children's national service framework. Whenever we talk about a specific service, it is crucial that we try to connect it to the rest of the machinery and the existing organisations; otherwise we end up with specific programmes for specific parts of the community. That is not the way to obtain sustainable mainstream provision that meets the needs of a whole range of people in our community. Sometimes, it is necessary for projects to pump-prime and kick-start things, to get innovation going and to set up pilots. However, the needs of children with autism are increasingly and equally important in the general thrust of the children's national service framework. They are very special children but they should be included in our mainstream thinking rather than being on the outside as "special" children.
  Under the national service framework, there will be a series of exemplars for the design of optimum service. I am pleased to tell hon. Members that one of the exemplars will focus on children with autism, so there should be some good work arising from that to show what a good service for those children should look like.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that in the past services for children with autism have been extremely poor and that families have often been left in isolation to cope on their own. We all acknowledge that.
  Mr. Russell Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on

  295
  securing the debate. I appreciate both that it concerns autistic children and that my hon. Friend the Minister is winding up her remarks. However, may I draw one point to her attention? It has been raised by some of the families with whom I have been in contact during the past couple of weeks. I realise that the hon. Member for Buckingham was talking about only one young man, but will my hon. Friend to consider the point that children grow up—even if she cannot address it this evening? There is a problem in my area, and possibly elsewhere: children have support and services but as they go through the transition to adulthood they fall between two stools and the support and service back-up which was available when they were children suddenly disappears. There is a large gulf as they move into adulthood and we need to address that.
  Ms Blears: My hon. Friend is right. The transition to adolescence is difficult in the best of circumstances, but
  296
  for children with autism the difficulties are multiplied. It is crucial that there are good, high quality support services for young people.
  We do not always turn our minds to young people as a group. We do things for children and for adults, but young people are sometimes extremely vulnerable and I shall certainly take my hon. Friend's point on board.
  We have taken a number of positive steps forward. There is a good legislative framework and some excellent practical projects are under way. We have put in more investment; as I pointed out, the grant next year is about to double to £30 million a year. Together with that investment, we need reform to find new ways of working, especially with our partners in the voluntary sector organisations, but I hope that in future the experience of the constituent of the hon. Member for Buckingham will not be replicated and that more flexible and responsive services will be in place to support families and children.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Transport of Animals
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
9.30 am
Dr. Nick Palmer: I thank everyone for attending, and thank Mr. Speaker's Office for ensuring that we get off to a good start after the recess with this rigorous 90-minute debate. It is particularly timely because the European Commission is soon to produce proposals, which are based on the requests of the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, for reforms to the transport of animals across the European Union. In addition—and not, I think, entirely coincidentally—we have before us the RSPCA's report on the 39 steps that it believes must be taken if improvements are to be made within the trade.
I acknowledge the invaluable help that I have received from the RSPCA in preparing for the debate, as well as the help that I have received over the years from Compassion in World Farming. I declare an interest, as I am a long-standing member of that organisation.
First, I should like to consider whether the problem is worthy of our attention, because Parliament has a tendency to address any and every issue, regardless of whether parliamentary action is needed. In Westminster Hall debates, in particular, it is important to establish what priority should be given to an issue.
I shall refer to a recent study, made by the "Animal Angels" team associated with the RSPCA, of a journey from Spain to Italy that was made in July 2002, in which 300 sheep were transported. The journey lasted 220 hours, which is roughly 10 days. The route plan required under European regulations was systematically flouted. When the driver got to Venice, the RSPCA intervened because the animals had been on the road without being unloaded for 75 hours. After 85 hours, they were finally unloaded at Prosecco on the Italian-Slovenian border, but only after the RSPCA intervened and reported the driver to the police.
At that point, the sheep had been without food for more than four days. For more than three days they had been unable to rest. They were showing clear signs of physical and mental stress: they were frothing at the mouth, and showed other signs of stress that would be obvious to a veterinarian. One sheep was lying in agony, with its legs sticking out from the side of the lorry, where it had fallen, because it had been packed in so tightly. Many of the sheep had not been milked, and showed clear signs of mastitis.
The water supplies in Venice were empty, so it was not clear how long the animals had gone without water in temperatures of up to 40 deg centigrade, but they were desperate for water when they were seen. If the vehicle had not been stopped, the driver would have put his loaded vehicle on the ferry to Greece. That would have added a further 36 hours without water to the journey.
2WH
At that time, we could see one dead sheep; it was likely that by the end of the journey there would have been many more. The death of animals during transport is a not-infrequent occurrence that worries the farming industry as much as anyone else. That driver drives every week, and one might ask what happened when the infringements were detected: the driver was taken to court and given a fine, and the sheep were allowed to continue their journey to Greece.
At the Italian port, the same crew overloaded two trucks with sheep on three tiers. The majority were not sheared and many were pregnant. They were in bad condition and breathing heavily with wide-open mouths. No vets were present at the port.
The temperature on the ferry was about 36 deg. Vets were present when the sheep arrived in Greece. They admitted that the trucks were overcrowded but the vehicles proceeded anyway because there was nowhere to unload the sheep. There was inadequate ventilation and a defective water system. Animals were dragged by their heads, horns, legs, tails and fleeces and there was severe overcrowding.
It might be said that that is an individual case and that hard cases make bad law. In practice, however, teams from the RSPCA and other organisations have made the same type of observations again and again.
The industry's scale is significant—5 million animals are transported every year. Until recently, live exports from Britain had been stopped because of the foot and mouth epidemic, and some of us felt that that was the only positive aspect to come from the epidemic. However, the exports have resumed, albeit on a smaller scale. Under the Government's interpretation of international law, it appears that it is not possible to ban them altogether. I think that the British public in general believe that maximum precautionary regulations and, indeed, a degree of excessive bureaucracy would be welcome. Ideally, every trip would have to be documented in a 100-page document in Serbo-Croat and submitted personally in the Falkland Islands. If that is not possible, we should at least attempt to ensure that every health and safety and welfare consideration is addressed and documented before any export takes place.
Mr. James Gray: We agree with the hon. Gentleman about the highest possible standards for exports. Does he agree that his broader point—that we must find ways of limiting the quantity of exports or, to use his words, abolishing it—would fall foul of two things? First, it would fall foul of the European free market. The whole point of being in the European Union is that we must trade with each other without restriction. Does he not understand that 1 million sheep and a quantity of other animals are exported from this country every year? If that were not the case, the domestic market would collapse and farmers who are already having a disastrous time would have an even worse time. Surely he understands the effect that any ban or restriction would have on the domestic market.
Dr. Palmer: In the real world, we can reach consensus. A ban is not possible in practice because of international trade law. We might disagree on the desirability of a ban but it will not happen. On the other hand, export

3WH
conditions must be of the highest defensible welfare standards so that we can sleep easy in our beds about the trade. I accept the hon. Gentlemen's point that these matters are significant.
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I was struck by my hon. Friend's point that the farming industry wishes to observe the highest standards. Does he accept that organisations such as the National Farmers Union have a preference for the export of meat rather than livestock, which brings back added value to the farmer, as a primary producer, and to this country's meat industry? The way forward is to try to ensure that a level playing field throughout Europe brings the standards of animal welfare throughout Europe to the levels for which we, in this country, have pressed.
Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. What he said is entirely correct.
I welcome the National Farmers Union's stance on this point, particularly with regard to pig farming. It is generally accepted that several aspects of pig farming in Britain have a higher standard of welfare than is prevalent in other European countries. Therefore, it would be in the interests of the British farming industry—as well as of the animals concerned—if we were to level up standards across Europe, rather than level them down.
Parts of the NFU's response to the European Commission's scientific committee were a bit depressing. It justified practices as diverse as the use of electric prods and, on commercial grounds, insurance to compensate transport firms that allow animals to die en route. The NFU should recognise that the public expect a balance to be struck on such matters. Nobody wishes to drive farmers out of business, and everybody accepts that our practices cannot be too different from those on the continent because of the competitive issue, but the British public are not prepared to support certain practices, such as the use of electric prods, even in the interests of smooth commercial operations. It is important for an industry not to become too separate from its consumers on such issues because, if that happens, the medium-term commercial backlash can be significant.
There is a widespread consensus on this issue in Britain. Most of us continue to eat meat but we do not wish it to be produced in grossly inhumane conditions, and most people accept that the implication of that is that the price of meat will be slightly higher. The longterm interests of the industry require that that consensus be respected.
That consensus is reflected in many other European Union countries, and it is important not to generalise too much about it. In the test votes in the Council of Ministers, there was a majority in favour of an eight-hour travel limit, but it was not a qualified majority. That majority consisted largely of what we think of as the northern tier of countries, with the exception of France and Ireland. However, there is also significant public concern in other European countries, and I understand that some of the countries that opposed a strict eight-hour limit will be open to discussion about a modified approach to the matter.
4WH
I wish to concentrate on three aspects of this issue: first, whether there should be any time limit at all on travel; secondly, whether conditions should be improved during travel; and thirdly, whether enforcements and penalties for infringements need to be toughened up. It is essential to distinguish between those three aspects of the debate, because if we were to blur them together by talking about enforcement while we are talking about the eight-hour limit, it would be easy to end up without any clear statement of what we want to achieve.
On the time limit, the European Commission obtained a report from the scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare—which we call SCAHAW—on the welfare of animals during transport, with details for horses, pigs, sheep and cattle. That was adopted on 11 March. It is a weighty document. The committee was chaired by Professor Donald Broom, who is a distinguished British scientist. The report has received a widespread—although not a universal—welcome as a serious document that addresses in detail the welfare issues for each species.
Despite the generous time allowed for this debate, It is not possible to summarise the entire report. However, on time limits, the report recommends inspection, food, watering and a six-hour pause after a journey of eight to 12 hours—depending on species—followed by a maximum of one further eight to 12-hour stretch. That does not go as far as the majority on the Council of Ministers would have liked. It was hoping for an eight-hour limit, as was the European Parliament, and such a limit was also strongly endorsed by the RSPCA among its recommendations.
In the real world, we must recognise that negotiations take place in the Council of Ministers and that we will not achieve everything that we wish for. However, given the wish of the majority of Council members and the strong views expressed in the European Parliament, I hope that the Minister will assure us that Britain will be among the countries pressing for a reasonable limit within the eight to 12-hour range for the great majority of animals. We must rely on the Minister's famous negotiating skills to get the best possible deal, but I hope that this debate will reflect a consensus among hon. Members that our starting position should be the eight-hour limit advocated in the original Council of Ministers debate.
On the question of conditions during travel, the European Commission published a report in December 2000 that openly admitted the failure of the present transport directive to protect the welfare of animals, and the Commission agrees the need for new regulation. The first recommendation in the RSPCA report is that the definition of journey time should be from when the first animal is loaded to when the last animal is unloaded. The SCAHAW report endorses that definition because, should we adopt a less precise one, less scrupulous operators may take longer to transport animals in practice.
Secondly, the RSPCA recommends a maximum journey time of eight hours for farm animals intended for slaughter and that all farm animals must be slaughtered as close as possible to where they were reared. We are all aware of the problem surrounding the closure of small slaughterhouses, and have discussed reasons for the closures in several parliamentary

5WH
debates. In discussions about common agricultural policy reform, there should be encouragements set out for farms and slaughterhouses in the form of subsidies. Subsidies that are currently available for intensive production should be available instead to encourage a high degree of animal welfare on farms and in processing procedures. We must recreate the market for local slaughterhouses to encourage their return. We are beyond the point at which the Government can direct that local slaughterhouses be reopened, but we must reach the point at which it is commercially sensible to do so with defensible animal welfare standards.
Mr. Gray: One slaughterhouse closes every 10 days under Labour. Most of the reason for that is nothing to do with the market. There is plenty of market, and farmers would take their animals to local slaughterhouses. They are closing because they cannot face the heavy burden of regulation that weighs on them and the cost of implementing it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should lighten the regulation on local slaughterhouses if they want them to continue?
Dr. Palmer: No. The regulation that we are discussing has not been imposed frivolously or randomly, but partly on welfare grounds and partly to discourage the spread of disease. The way forward is not to say that small slaughterhouses do not have to fulfil the conditions that large slaughterhouses do. That would be a market-distorting mechanism and would be deeply resented by other sections of the industry.
What is needed is support. The CAP negotiations may offer a basis for support for small slaughterhouses so that they can reach the standards that we want them to attain. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, would not endorse the concept that small slaughterhouses should have lower standards than large ones. We could discuss whether each regulation was ideal, but that might go beyond our debate. He surely accepts the principle that small and large slaughterhouses should both have high standards.
Mr. Gray: Of course I accept that. My point was that both types of slaughterhouse are heavily over-regulated by the Government. For example, what does the hon. Gentleman think about the pith regulations?
Dr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman goes beyond my knowledge of detailed slaughterhouse regulation, and beyond our debate. I shall restrict myself to arguing the general principle that small slaughterhouses should have the same high welfare and commercial standards as large ones.
Another significant problem is the attitude of the main retail or wholesale purchasers. Some of the large retail chains and supermarkets insist on the use of slaughterhouses that may be in different parts of the country from the farms. That is an anti-competitive practice, and it would help if the Government considered ways to discourage it. It has contributed significantly to a decline in small slaughterhouses.
I shall return to the recommendations of the RSPCA. The third reads:
"A maximum total journey time of eight hours must be imposed for farm animals intended for further fattening. It should not be necessary for animals to travel long distances merely to complete
6WH
the finishing stage of production. 'Further fattening animals' must be specifically defined within the Directive in a way that will avoid abuse of the system."
It is widely recognised that it is easy for transporters to maintain that animals are transported for one purpose, but for the animals then to be re-transported for another purpose when they arrive. An audit trail needs to be applied to ensure that the intention of the European Union and the Government on the issue is not subverted.
The fourth RSPCA recommendation reads:
"Breeding animals may travel for a total maximum journey time of over eight hours, but only if stringent on-board conditions…are maintained throughout the journey."
There is clearly potential for negotiations with some countries that opposed the eight-hour limit at the test votes at the Council of Ministers. I am grateful to the RSPCA for its brief on the position of each country in those discussions. Although some countries say that the regulations are fine, others concede that they may need to be improved; I hope that they will agree that if journey times for breeding animals are to be longer, the conditions should be right.
Mr. John Randall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this subject in Westminster Hall. We are discussing the regulations and the opinions of various European countries. Does he have any idea of the views of those countries that are about to join the European Union? Now seems an ideal time to try to sort out such important matters.
Dr. Palmer: I discussed that matter with the RSPCA, which has contacts throughout Europe—both inside and outside the European Union. Somewhat to my surprise, it reports that the attitude of many of the new countries planning to join the EU is quite positive on animal welfare in general, and particularly so on this subject. I say that I was surprised because Poland and Hungary have large farming interests and we might have expected them to be sceptical. I rely on the briefing that I have been given, but it seems that we will not be flying in the face of the wishes of the majority of applicant countries if we strengthen the rules.
The strongest resistance comes not from the applicant countries but from countries on the periphery of Europe that have significant trade with the rest of Europe. I think particularly of Italy, which says that a large part of its trade involves long-distance transport because the country is such a long way from its markets. That applies less to Poland, which has substantial exports to Germany and would hope greatly to increase them but which would not have a problem in meeting an eight-hour limit. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is one of numerous issues that we should try to sort out before we have 25 countries attempting to reach agreement.
The RSPCA next proposes that animals should not start a new journey without a standstill period long enough to ensure effective disease control—both to reduce the risk of spreading disease and for welfare reasons. The report of the European Commission Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare—the SCAHAW report—recommends a 48-hour period between the end of one journey and the start of the next, during which time the animals should get

7WH
rest and recuperation, and food and water. The RSPCA notes, however, that that would not be enough to act as an effective disease control measure.
The sixth recommendation in the "39 Steps" report is:
"Ways of encouraging and promoting the development and use of more local abattoirs and mobile slaughterhouses … in order to minimize journey times to slaughter. For example, the charges for meat hygiene inspections should be on a headage (throughput) basis rather than a set daily charge, to ensure smaller premises are not unfairly disadvantaged."
I believe that the Government could take action on that without having to wait for our European partners.
The seventh recommendation of the RSPCA report states:
"Forced mechanical ventilation must be compulsory in all vehicles authorized to transport farm animals over eight hours, so that adequate ventilation can be ensured when the vehicle is stationary, and under all conditions."
Indeed, it should be compulsory to use the ventilation when the vehicle is stationary. As the NFU pointed out, the problem is that existing vehicles may not meet such standards. As always, however, there is scope for negotiation on transitional arrangements to ensure that the industry is not unreasonably disadvantaged. There is a balance to be had in such matters. We hope that such regulations will be introduced within the next few years, because the average lifespan of a lorry is not normally more than five years, and it should be possible to introduce improved regulations for lorry design within that period.
The eighth recommendation reads:
"The SCAHAW report's recommended higher, more detailed space allowance figures must be implemented, and if travel beyond eight hours is permitted"—
for instance, for breeding animals—
"greater floor space allowances as given by the formula for longer journeys…must be provided to allow all animals access to feeders and drinkers during rest stops."
The SCAHAW report details the way in which various species react differently to long journeys. Animals such as cattle normally stand during journeys, but they will eventually sink to a vehicle's floor through exhaustion. That is an argument for shorter journeys, but it also means that in so far as we permit longer journeys we should allow for both standing and sitting postures, and ensure access to water.
The ninth recommendation reads:
"Increased headroom must be provided, as recommended by the SCAHAW report".
The NFU accepts that that is reasonable and should not lead to significant problems.
Recommendation 10, which is uncontroversial, states:
"Sufficient feed and water must be provided, to ensure all animals can eat and drink enough to prevent hunger and thirst in transit."
The SCAHAW report contains detailed recommendations on the amount of fasting that should take place before journeys to ensure that animals do not suffer travel sickness, and recommends that excessive fasting should be avoided because it may cause suffering.
8WH
Recommendation 11 states:
"Sufficient amounts of appropriate bedding must be provided, to allow the species in question to lie comfortably, and which remains dry on the surface for the duration of travel."
That would reduce the risk of injury if an animal were to fall in transit. I stress that we are talking about not only animal welfare but the quality of meat. It is well documented that meat quality is affected when animals are transported in unpleasant conditions, a case in which animal welfare and commercial interests are overlapping.
Recommendation 12, which relates to an earlier point, states that the
"Council should establish as a matter of urgency a common position on the Commission's proposal to improve the construction and design of livestock vehicles".
Recommendation 13 reads:
"It must be possible to carry out inspections of each individual animal during the journey and to take appropriate remedial action".
The NFU's response to the SCAHAW report makes the reasonable point that we need a precise definition of "inspection". Are we talking about peering through the slats on the side of a lorry or are we talking about examining every animal? Inspections need to be properly defined to inspire confidence in the process. It would be insufficient for a driver to say, "I had a look and everything seemed to be all right."
We need a defined process that haulage companies, which I do not want to demonise, must fulfil. We need to accept that the majority of them want to operate their businesses decently and require well-defined regulations that say what they mean. All of us who have worked in industry will be familiar with the dilemma that although one can attempt to fulfil every regulation in good faith, a campaign group can still attack a real or perceived violation of a regulation that was not clear, or was not there in the first place. We must define what we expect of haulage companies, enforce the rules and punish those who break them, but we should not demonise the companies themselves. Indeed, companies that try to comply with the terms of the regulations are being undermined by those who try to subvert them.
Recommendation 14 states:
"Ramps that animals use during loading and unloading must have non-slippery surfaces, including means of ensuring easy ascent/descent without slipping—for example foot battens at intervals appropriate to the age/species. They must also have solid sides and the maximum gradient of ramps must be suitable for the species concerned."
In principle, that is non-controversial, as long as a reasonable transition period is allowed so that new lorries can be introduced and the old ones phased out. We need to ensure that the rules are framed carefully, and unambiguously defined.
On a point of parliamentary procedure, I understand that there will be responses only from the Front Benches. However, if any Back Benchers present wish to intervene, I will be pleased if they restrain me.
Recommendation 15 reads:
"Very young animals should not be transported at all. Scientific evidence suggests calves under four weeks old should not be transported/marketed, due to the acute and chronic effects on their welfare, including health. Similar concerns apply to young

9WH
animals of other species such as piglets and lambs under four weeks old. Therefore, if such animals are to be transported, special conditions—for example, a shorter journey time—must apply."
There will be particularly strong public support in Britain for that proposal. The principle that an animal is entitled to a few weeks of life before it is subjected to extreme stress is widely accepted and if, as appears to be the case, these young animals are more than others liable to respond badly to extensive travel, separate regulations are needed.
Recommendation 16 provides:
"Animals that have previously lived in different pens must not be mixed prior to transport, while on the transport vehicle, or while in pre-slaughter housing."
That is partly because of disease and partly to discourage fighting during the journey. The paragraph continues:
"Vehicles should have moveable pen dividers to adjust to pen size appropriately, so that … animals reared together are kept in contact with each other."
Animals reared separately should be kept separately. Many people will be surprised that it is necessary to make the proposals in recommendation 17, which states:
"During loading and unloading a twitch must not be used on horses or any other species, sheep must not be grasped or lifted by their wool, farm animals must not be beaten, poked with a stick or kicked, sticks must not be used on sensitive areas such as the eyes, mouth, ano-genital regions or belly; tails or ears must not be twisted; animals must not be dragged by limbs or other parts of the body and the use of electric goads must not be permitted."
Many people will be pretty shocked to hear that all those practices occur on a regular basis. The NFU's response is that while it has reservations about the electric goad, which it believes is necessary in some circumstances, it does not dispute that it is a widespread, although bad, practice to lift sheep by the fleece and that extensive education is needed to change farmers' habits in that respect in Britain and overseas.
I will return later to recommendation 18, which states:
"Journey time and rest periods must be properly enforced by the competent authorities."
Recommendation 19 reads:
"The so-called route plan for transporters must be improved and made easier to enforce, so transporters can complete the forms showing where they have departed from the plan—
which will sometimes happen—
"and why."
The Commission needs to impose meaningful sanctions on member states if the approved route plans do not provide the information that is required in the transport directive.
Recommendation 20 states:
"The Commission must encourage member states to harmonize their policies on penalties in the EU."
There is a slight tendency to smugness in northern Europe on this issue; we are not particularly exemplary in imposing our severe penalties.
Recommendation 21 provides:
"Member states must present a report at least every 12 months to the Commission on the inspections that they have carried out, indicating in particular the frequency of inspections, the nature of any shortcomings and … the action taken to rectify problems".
10WH
That is a fairly routine matter within the EU, which follows most directives.
Recommendation 22 states:
"The Commission must present a detailed annual report to the Council and the European Parliament on the enforcement of the Directive."
In some instances we are treading on new territory. We must ensure that the directive is applied in practice and that unexpected problems, whether welfare or commercial, do not arise. It will be sensible to see a detailed annual report, certainly during the early years of implementation.
The RSPCA proposes in recommendation 23:
"The number of Food and Veterinary Office inspectors and inspections to verify implementations of the directive must be increased substantially."
I hope that the Minister will confirm that there is likely to be fairly broad consensus within the EU on that. It is clear from the debate that took place in the Council of Ministers that most countries accept that there are significant violations of even the current guidelines. That is indefensible.
As we know from debates on crime and other issues, a regulation or law that is not supervised or enforced is eventually treated with contempt. The farmers and the haulage companies that adhere to the regulations ultimately feel that they are mugs because they are undermined by those who get away with violating them. We have a duty to the commercial interests of the companies that fulfil regulations to ensure that those that do not are caught and penalised.
Recommendation 24 provides:
"The Commission must show a greater willingness to initiate and proceed with Treaty infringement proceedings against member states."
I predict that that point will not necessarily appear in the Council of Ministers recommendations, but I hope that the Commission will take note of it.
Recommendation 25 states:
"At places through which animals on long journeys regularly pass, member states of transit or destination must be required to adopt effective systems for checking they are being transported in accordance with route plans and the requirements of the Transport Directive."
I gave the example of transport from Spain to Greece with a stopover in Italy at a major ferry port to illustrate the problems that can arise if the recommendation is not fulfilled.
Recommendation 26 states:
"Member states must be legally obliged to provide suitable Border Inspection Posts…There must be a legal requirement that BIPS examine all route plans, rejecting any that are falsified."
Recommendation 27 reads:
"The Commission must require that any driver and staff of a livestock road vehicle holds a certificate of professional competence recognized by one of the member states, confirming that s/he has completed a training course for drivers of vehicles intended for the carriage of livestock—and been independently assessed for knowledge and competency."
That is important for reasons identified in the SCAHAW report. It notes that, although the most severe point of suffering is during the loading process, animals can suffer significantly during the journey if, for instance, the vehicle takes corners at high speed.

11WH
In practice, an inspectorate cannot enforce measures to deal with that. Unless every vehicle is followed as it travels, that cannot be done. We can only ensure that drivers have been properly trained, so that they know what is expected of them—the vast majority would prefer to adhere to regulations—and what they need to do to avoid causing suffering to animals being transported. We should not underestimate the role of ignorance. Many people want to do the right thing, but do not know what that is.
Mr. Randall: Ensuring that suffering in transit is limited is of great importance, but I know from my experience of travelling on the Good Shepherd—the boat that travels between the mainland of Shetland and Fair Isle—that sheep are extremely poor sailors. I do not know whether they are still transported on that boat, but is the hon. Gentleman aware of anything that can be done to alleviate problems while sheep are on board ship?
Dr. Palmer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The question of transport over sea passages is particularly important for Britain and Ireland, and is dealt with by an RSPCA recommendation, to which I shall return.
Recommendation 28 provides:
"The EU should end the payment of export refunds in respect of live animals and seek the establishment of binding international guidelines governing the treatment of live animals during long-distance transport."
There is a significant export from the EU to non-EU countries in north Africa and elsewhere but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister stressed, we should be promoting the meat trade rather than the live animal trade. Given the general commitment to reform the CAP, however shaky that may sometimes seem, this is a good opportunity to refocus the support for exports on meat rather than live animals. It is also important that the EU seeks to establish international guidelines that go beyond the EU, so that the commercial interests of its farmers are not undermined by cheaper and lower-welfare practices outside the EU.
Recommendation 29 states:
"Livestock markets must ensure record keeping for animal movements in and out of such establishments is stringent and enforced and all animals are individually identifiable."
After the foot and mouth outbreak, we do not need to be told what the risk is if there is confusion about that, whether deliberate or accidental.
I hope that the industry and the Government will increasingly promote the use of electronic markets, so that the appropriate match between buyer and seller can be achieved without the cumbersome, as well as problematic, transport of animals around the country. In this electronic age, it should be increasingly possible—I do not say "universally possible"—to achieve commercial objectives without the physical transport of animals, just as it is possible to negotiate the buying and selling of other commercial property without moving it around the country.
12WH
Recommendation 30 relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). It states:
"The Commission must bring forward detailed proposals on the protection of animals during sea transport".
The RSPCA suggests that the sea crossing of animal transport vehicles on roll/on/roll/off ferries should not be permitted if winds of force 5 or above are likely, or if sea conditions are similar, for some other reason, to those produced by such winds. That SCAFAW recommendation was rejected by the NFU, which argues that the rule is too general, and that some boats can cope with high winds, but others cannot. There is therefore a need to consider boats individually. I am not sure that SCAFAW's suggestion does the ferry operators and transporters any favours: an individual assessment would have to be made each time, and it would not be certain from studying the weather forecast each morning that one would be allowed to travel. One could turn up at the ferry port and find that the ferry was of a particular construction unsuitable for force 5 winds. There is a strong case for a specific ruling, rather than leaving the area fuzzy and to the judgment of a port official.
Recommendation 31 is that the European Union should agree additional specific detailed measures for the protection of horses during transport. The SCAFAW report identifies significant issues that relate specifically to horses. These issues are widely accepted in Britain because of the transport of horses of very high quality for racing and other purposes such as—dare I say it—fox hunting.
Recommendation 32 is that an official veterinarian with appropriate additional training and understanding of their role must supervise the loading of all animals to be transported for more than eight hours. The principle is that it is especially important that the conditions are optimal if it is decided that some or all animals may be transported for longer periods. I was disappointed that the NFU resisted that point. It is intuitively clear that the degree of inspection and control can be less for a short journey than if a major journey is about to be undertaken.
Recommendation 33 is that the Commission must provide a new definition of "fitness to travel" that includes the provision that no animal is fit to travel unless it can stand unaided and vary the weight on each of its legs when walking.
Recommendation 34 is that additional species-specific rules have been provided for the transport of the thousands of non-human primates that are imported over long distances from overseas breeding centres for use in biomedical research. Currently, there are no maximum times for journeys. We also need maximum intervals between the times at which food and water are provided.
Recommendation 35 concerns the need for improved provisions for the transport of poultry. It follows the publication of a SCAFAW report on the welfare requirements of poultry, which are not addressed in detail in the current report.
Recommendation 36 states that specific provisions for companion animals, such as dogs and cats, should be provided at a future date.
Recommendation 37, which will also have widespread support among the British public, is that the transport of heavily pregnant animals should be

13WH
avoided. It should never take place during a period at least equal to 10 per cent. of the gestation period before giving birth, nor for at least one week following birth.
Recommendation 38 is that it should be prohibited to insure farm animals transported for slaughter and further fattening against mortality because of injury or poor meat quality. That is a SCAFAW recommendation, because if it is possible to insure against the consequences of bad transport, it will be in the commercial interests of some companies in some instances to circumvent the regulations. We must do everything we can to ensure that it is against the commercial interests of companies to have poor welfare conditions.
The final RSPCA recommendation is that the EU must consider introducing a requirement for all livestock vehicles transporting animals for more than eight hours to be linked to Galileo—the navigation positioning system—to help to police and enforce the regulations.
Mr. Gray: That is all very well, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Galileo system has not been designed yet, that it will require the launch of several satellites and that it may not be introduced for 10 or 20 years? I hope that the rest of the RSPCA report is more accurately and sensibly based than that recommendation.
Dr. Palmer: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I believe that he exaggerates the difficulties with Galileo, but time will tell. Existing satellite systems run by the Americans can be used in the interim, and then Galileo will offer a more precise measurement, which I accept is perhaps not necessary in this instance. I accept his point that the system can be implemented only as it becomes technically feasible.
As I mentioned earlier, Britain is not as fine an example in enforcement and penalties as we might wish. In a case last year, JSR Healthbred Pigs and Chris Waite Hauliers admitted to providing false information on journey plans and violating the law deliberately. What happened to them? The pig farm was fined £1,500 costs and £500 for the offence, and the haulage company was fined £500 and ordered to pay £500 costs.
Those are derisory sums. As a business man, if I were not concerned with the issue, thought that the likelihood of being caught were not that high, and knew that, if I were caught I would have to pay perhaps only £1,000, I might be willing to take that risk. We need to avoid that situation and ensure that it is a severe commercial risk for a company to violate the regulations. It is a question of respect for the law, and there is no point in legislating unless the penalties are commensurate with the gravity of the offence, especially for deliberate falsification. Indeed, any deliberate conspiracy to circumvent the regulations should be a criminal offence.
Other campaigners and I are seeking some assurances from the Minister. First, will the Government give the strongest possible push in the European Council for the principle of a journey limit, even if compromises have to be made on the detail? Once the principle is established, we can make further progress, but we need to reach that bridgehead. The positive vote in the European Council gives us hope that it may be possible, with suitable compromises on detail, to achieve that principle.
14WH
Secondly, will the Minister commit to the strongest possible implementation of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare recommendations and the additional points in the RSPCA plan? Thirdly, will the Government work for the transfer of CAP subsidies from intensive farming to animal welfare? It should be possible to reassure countries that are concerned about their farming interests that we are seeking not to undermine their farms, but to reorient them to the standards that we expect in Britain. Fourthly, will the Government work for much stricter enforcement and, in particular, more commercially threatening penalties and criminal charges for active conspiracy to circumvent the law?
I am proud of Britain's record in supporting improvements, and I hope that we will join our allies in the European Union to lead the way forward. I apologise to hon. Members for taking so much time on the issue, which, despite today's light attendance, due to the scheduling of the debate, has widespread support throughout Britain. I hope that the Minister will press ahead with the policy.
10.29 am
Matthew Green: I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) secured this debate and I welcome the RSPCA's report, which will help to continue the debate. We need to reduce and phase out live animal exports, but we must do so in a balanced way that will not harm the agricultural industry or the British economy.
There are many clear arguments for reducing live exports and increasing carcase exports. Many Liberal Democrats sympathise with and support good animal welfare, which the hon. Member for Broxtowe has pressed at great length, but the costs to industry are considerable. Exporting animals means a cost to the farmer, which would not apply to shorter distances; and transporting animals also has environmental costs. Generally, the shorter the distance, the less need for road haulage. Local slaughterhouses would benefit from a greater emphasis on carcase export. Evidence suggests that animals slaughtered after longer journeys produce a lower quality of meat on the shelves—a consumer issue. Finally, disease control is a factor. If the distance over which animals are transported is reduced, the likely spread of foot and mouth or other communicable diseases is further reduced—an issue fresh in our minds.
We should recognise that only about 10 to 15 per cent. of meat exports are live and that some export is not for slaughter. Export for restocking or breeding purposes is always a possibility. New methods are under consideration—in respect of breeding, the transportation of embryos or semen, for example—but we cannot escape the fact that for breeding purposes we shall have to transport animals at different times. Transport within the UK will always be a necessity: all parts of the country cannot be used to produce fat lambs or fat cattle, for example. The upland areas of Wales and the Welsh Marches classically produce light lambs and cattle, which are sold as store animals and are sent off to the midlands for fattening. We may not be talking about long journeys in that respect, but the need to transport live animals—and not only to the slaughterhouse—will always apply. The idea that we can do everything on one large farm and ship straight to the slaughterhouse will never be a practical possibility.

15WH
We must rule out the closure of livestock markets, which perform a necessary function in the sale of both slaughter and store animals.
Dr. Palmer: That may be true, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that the exchange of information by electronic means may in the longer term reduce the necessity to transport animals from market to market?
Matthew Green: I accept that the need to transport animals to livestock markets may reduce, but I cannot imagine that there will ever be a time when livestock markets are not needed. We have to accept the permanent need for livestock markets. In the past year or two, some people have suggested that it would be possible to close all livestock markets. Frankly, that is not a possibility, and I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Government understand that.
The hon. Gentleman is particularly interested in live exports. If we are to phase them out, we need Europe-wide action; action by the UK alone has clearly been ruled out. Reforming the CAP gives us an opportunity to move—entirely, I hope—from production-based subsidies to land management-based subsidies. Some of the incentives that the system provides for live exports would then disappear, which would be welcome, not least because we need to move to land management-based subsidies for other reasons.
I hope that the EU Commission will study and change the EU transport directive and implement some of the measures raised in the recent European Parliament report. I shall mention some of the specifics later.
Overall, there must be better policing at the European level. We cannot accept a situation in which standards are enforced in some countries but not in others. Steps must be taken at the European level; it would be counterproductive for our industry if Britain took unilateral action.
The number of local, smaller slaughterhouses has been declining since before the Labour Government's period in office. There are several reasons for that, and we have touched on regulation. Another reason is the buying methods of the bigger multiples, and no one has really got to grips with the impact of their purchasing arrangements. Unfortunately, market forces have also driven the problem.
Having more local slaughterhouses offers huge advantages, but restoring them will probably require direct support. Action will also be needed to reform the meat hygiene regulations and to put them on a headage basis rather than on a flat-rate basis, which clearly discriminates against small slaughterhouses. To restore some of those slaughterhouses, we may have to discriminate in favour of them rather than against them.
If we are to phase out live animal exports, we must consider the possibility of more UK-produced meat being consumed in the UK. The knock-on effect may be a reduction in the amount of meat imported into this country. If we are to seek higher standards in the movement of animals, we must ensure that imported livestock is reared and transported according to the standards that we expect in this country. I hope that the Minister will deal with that.
16WH
I want now to touch on some of the European Parliament's proposals, which, as we heard, relate to time. However, they also talk about a distance regulation, which is slightly odd, given that it is time that matters, not the distance that an animal is transported.
On the more specific issues, the National Farmers Union is genuinely concerned that the request for the continuous feeding of animals during journeys will probably never be achievable.
Another issue is labelling. At present, we label animals where they are slaughtered, not where they start. If there was progress on that issue, I think that we would see a reduction in the movement of animals.
Finally, many of the proposals do not differentiate between different species. More work must be done. The needs of cattle are different from those of sheep, but there is a tendency to treat all livestock identically; we should be more species specific.
10.40 am
Mr. James Gray: I shall seek to be brief because I am keen to hear the Minister's response. Hon. Members often aim to be brief, but are not. I shall try to stick to my word, and if the Minister gives me a nod at the right moment, I shall happily curtail my remarks even if it means missing out some of the best bits.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) on his well-balanced and sensible approach to an issue that can generate great passion on both side of the animal welfare debate. All good men and true in the United Kingdom are in agreement about the desirability of reducing distress to animals as much as possible, both during transport and when they are being slaughtered; they differ merely about how to do it.
I am not so happy with some of the terms used by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who seemed to suggest that it was desirable to move progressively towards the abolition of live animal exports. At one stage he even seemed to suggest the abolition or reduction of transport itself. That is not practical for two reasons.
Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: I am sorry, but 1 do not have time.
The first is that the law is clear. The European Union would not allow the abolition of the export of live animals even if we wished it. Secondly, as I said earlier, we export 1 million sheep as well as many other animals, and were that to be outlawed, there would be severe consequences for our farmers. While that might seem like a good idea to the hon. Gentleman's more anthropomorphist constituents, it is not possible. In fact, we should avoid anthropomorphism in the debate. Animals are not like human beings. Of course, we would not want to be herded together in a lorry and carted around for eight, 12 or 24 hours. Equally, we would not like to be left in a field in the pouring rain to be milked twice a day and fed a lot of hay. Animals are different and it is reasonable to accept that. I suspect that some of the more extreme animal rights activists think that animals are the same as we are; of course, they are not.
The Opposition supported the Labour Government's Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 because it was a perfectly sensible means of laying down the

17WH
conditions under which animals should be transported. Our problem is that the terms of that order are not satisfactorily reflected—certainly not policed—in the European Union and elsewhere. Can the Minister comment on how the Government intend to make sure that the high standards of transport that apply in this country will be applied across the European Union and beyond—for example, in the case of the occasional transport of live animals by sea to the middle east? We must be sure that our high standards will be applied, not least so that our hauliers and farmers are not put at a competitive disadvantage. That has happened in the pig industry—we apply hugely high standards in this country but they are not applied even as close as Calais, and the consequence of the difference is that our farmers are, absurdly, put out of business.
I should like the Minister to focus on the important matter of local abattoirs. We have lost 336, some 44 per cent. of the total, since the Government came to power. There are only 500 left in the United Kingdom, largely because of costs and regulations, some associated with foot and mouth disease. The Minister must find a way in which to cut both. Will he tell us when he will implement in full the proposals in the Maclean report of 2000, which will be of great help with regard to small local abattoirs?
Will the Minister also address briefly the matter of the export of live horses? The export from the UK of live horses for slaughter has been illegal for some time; it does not happen. Will he confirm that that will remain the case and that it will not interfere with the export of live horses for other purposes, as there are some important reasons for exporting horses—for example, for competitions and racing? Will he ensure that there is no increase in the export of live horses for slaughter? In particular, will he review the disgracefully interventionist and unnecessary provisions of the horse passport scheme, which will become compulsory from 31 December 2003? Will he confirm that the introduction of horse passports will not increase the amount of horseflesh from this country that goes for eating on the continent of Europe? If that were allowed to happen, there might be a presumption in favour of allowing the export of live horses for slaughter.
Had there been time, I should have liked to raise several other points, but the Opposition broadly welcome the regulations. Broadly speaking, we welcome the RSPCA's proposals, "39 Steps", which I read with interest and which were wonderfully described by the hon. Member for Broxtowe, but we do not accept all the proposals. I mentioned Galileo, for example—a daft proposal, which would not be possible. I should also like to know what is meant by beating. Of course, we do not want animals to be beaten to get them on to lorries, but anyone who has ever loaded an animal on to a lorry knows that a tap on the backside with a stick is perfectly sensible. We must not allow ourselves to be tempted down the politically correct avenue of saying that animals should not be treated in that way. I hope that the Minister will respond to those points, and I shall be happy to discuss the subject with him in more detail on another occasion.
10.46 am
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) on his well-informed and
18WH
thoughtful contribution to the debate, as well as the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on their constructive contributions. My hon. Friend was right to focus on issues that go much wider than our responsibilities in the United Kingdom. He said that certain concerns were shared by the farming industry and animal welfare organisations, and following a conversation last night with one of the vice-presidents of the National Farmers Union I can confirm that that is the case.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has played a leading role in promoting animal health and welfare matters, is at the Agriculture Council today, but I took the opportunity of discussing this subject with him at the weekend, and I hope that, in my response, I can cover most of the points that have been raised, albeit briefly.
The transport of animals, especially over long distances, generates strong feelings. Over the years, hon. Members have helped to push the issue up the political agenda, as have organisations such as the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming. My hon. Friend focused on "39 Steps", which I recommend to hon. Members as essential reading, although unlike John Buchan's original, it may not grip the reader for hours into the night if selected as bedtime reading.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) rightly stressed the need for a balanced approach. We must deal with the issue in a practical way and ask what is necessary and useful in respect of practices that raise animal welfare concerns. The hon. Gentleman referred to the distance limit and stressed that time is more important. The proposal is eight hours or 500 km, which is an attempt to resolve the practical problems in remoter areas, where journeys by minor roads and greater distances extend journey times beyond those for producers who have easy access to motorways. It also addresses concerns about the uneven distribution of slaughterhouses.
The hon. Members for North Wiltshire and for Ludlow referred to the future of abattoirs. One of my first responsibilities as a city councillor in 1973 was as a member of the Cardiff abattoir working party, which included grappling with the impact of European requirements at that time, resulting from the decisions of a Conservative Government. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire referred to pithing. Destroying an animal's brain by use of a pithing rod after a captive bolt stunning has taken place was widely used on cattle in this country, but the Food Standards Agency recently introduced legislation to ban that practice on human health and safety grounds. The industry must clearly adapt some of its operating practices, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want us to play fast and loose with public health issues.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Maclean task force, which was established to consider ways in which to reduce the impact on small and medium abattoirs of a move required by EU law to introduce full veterinary supervision in all abattoirs and cutting plants by 1 April 2001. It was clear that the move would result in substantial increases in costs in small and medium abattoirs and that, in consequence, some would be forced to close. As announced in the rural White Paper, the Departments responsible for agriculture in England, Wales and Scotland have provided the Food Standards

19WH
Agency with £8.7 million for each of the next three years, from 2001–02 to 2003–04, to reduce the level of charges to small abattoirs. Since April 2000, the FSA has had responsibility for implementing European and domestic legislation on meat hygiene charges and other related matters.
We were pleased to award a grant to Humane Slaughter Services Ltd. to support the costs of a study of the feasibility of operating a mobile slaughter unit in central and southern England. That study has been completed and the company is now considering whether to go ahead with the development of a mobile unit.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the horse passport issue. I am happy to confirm that the move should not lead to an increase in exports of horses for slaughter. The exception is being made for the movement of horses involved in racing, for example. The horse passport proposals are widely supported by the industry.
I return to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, which are the main focus of the debate. The Government take his views seriously, and we have continued to state a preference for shorter journeys, but the United Kingdom cannot act alone in changing the rules for the transport of animals. All hon. Members who have participated in the debate have recognised that fact. We have acted in concert with other countries, because we are concerned about the bad practices leading to the cruelty to which my hon. Friend referred. In February, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary called for fewer live sheep exports and, in July, he called for the European Commission to introduce proposals to amend the current animal transport rules. In September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke at the Agriculture Council, urging discussion on a general eight-hour maximum for journeys within Europe.
As my hon. Friend said, there have been some appalling instances of abuse of animals on long journeys on the continent. Failures in the current rules and their enforcement have been the source of many concerns identified by the Commission's report on the experiences of member states since current rules were implemented. Our policy has been to enforce the rules in this country fully and consistently and to encourage those on the continent to do the same. We want a level playing field based on the highest possible standards—that is why, during the agriculture debate in September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State called for better monitoring of animal transport within the European Union. That would make a difference, because the monitoring of journeys is at present the responsibility of the member state through which the journey is made, which can lead to the inconsistencies to which my hon. Friend referred.
The problems identified by the Commission have led other member states to agree with us that changes and improvements must be made. During the Agriculture Council debate in September it became clear that progress must be made before we achieve a consensus on the extent of changes required on the length of journeys. There is deep division between EU member states that support reduced journey times and those that oppose any change in the current controls. The issue will not be
20WH
a simple one to resolve, and voluntary organisations need to step up the pressure and the process of education of citizens throughout Europe. The Government are on their side, but some Governments are not. However some, as my hon. Friend suggested, are in favour of change.
We were disappointed to see live exports resumed this summer after almost 18 months of no trade, but we must remember, as hon. Members said, that that trade is legal and our role is to apply the rules scrupulously. One way in which the UK does so is to refuse to issue route plans to the continent if sheep are likely to be transported when the temperature is anticipated to reach more than 30 deg.
As a result of the foot and mouth disease outbreak, the European Union introduced new measures to control the movement of sheep through assembly centres and staging posts to minimise disease risk. Minimum residency and standstill periods must now be met before fattening and breeding sheep are eligible for export. Under EU rules, all categories of sheep may be assembled for export only at approved assembly centres, which must meet strict conditions and be under veterinary supervision. EU animal health rules also limit the time between sheep leaving their holding of origin in one member state and arriving at their destination in another member state.
In addition to those EU controls, we have reviewed national legislation and procedures relating to assembly centres. Earlier this year we introduced measures requiring assembly centres to have in place an operational agreement covering all aspects of biosecurity.
My hon. Friend referred at length to the "39 Steps" report, which we largely welcome. It is in four sections. The first refers to journey times and the Government agree with the points made in that section. I have already referred to the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took that forward at the September Agriculture Council.
The second section covers vehicle standards and is a little more complicated. We want to see the Commission's proposals for changes in the legislation before getting caught up in a lot of technical detail.
The third section covers enforcement. The UK already operates controls that are tighter in some cases than those proposed. For example, we require route plans to be returned within 15 days of completion of a journey. We can support measures to improve enforcement in particular if they can be brought forward by changes in procedures and without the need to change legislation.
The fourth section refers to miscellaneous items, the majority of which we support. One point of concern involves livestock markets, which are covered by UK legislation. That is something about which, as hon. Members suggested, we need to be careful because there are differences between practices in some continental countries and the UK. I hope that my hon. Friend will find it reassuring that we can, in general, respond positively to what is a useful document.
My hon. Friend referred to rough weather. The Government are concerned that livestock should not suffer by being transported by sea in conditions that may cause unnecessary suffering. The state veterinary

21WH
service staff have accompanied sailings in a variety of conditions up to and including winds of force 7 and 8 and in rough seas. They observed that sheep did not suffer as a result of those conditions in the circumstances referred to. Transporters must not carry animals if they may be caused unnecessary suffering when force 7 or greater winds or rough or worse seas are forecast. Dover staff discuss any scheduled sailings with the master of the vessel to ensure that he has satisfied himself that he can comply. If staff believe that the master intends to sail in weather that may cause unnecessary suffering, a notice can be issued to prevent sailing. In fact, no notices have had to be issued so far, but several sailings have been cancelled by the operators because of conditions and that sort of discussion.
My hon. Friend also referred to the handling of animals. It is already an offence under current EU rules to lift or drag an animal by its head, horns, legs, tail or fleece and to use excessive force, sticks or electrical prods other than in limited circumstances. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire referred to that. Improvements are a matter for training and enforcement and we have already touched on that.
While we support moves in Brussels to shorten journey times on animal welfare grounds, three matters must be borne in mind. First, short journeys do not automatically guarantee improved welfare. A short journey that is badly managed can be more harmful than a long journey that is properly planned and carried out. That point must be acknowledged. Secondly, the different requirements of the sport and breeding industry, where animals of high value are generally transported under excellent conditions, must be recognised. Thirdly, the impact of changes on livestock producers in remote areas such as the Scottish highlands and islands, and on farmers such as those in Wales who need to find outlets for light lambs, must be taken into account. I hope that I have managed to cover most of the points that have been raised. There is a need further to join up our work with that of local authorities—
Mr. Alan Hurst (in the Chair): Order.

Recycling
11 am
Mr. Mark Field: May I take the opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) to his Front-Bench post? I no longer have to be quite so kind to him as he is no longer the pairing Whip, but it makes sense to spare a few kind words for his hard work, in several guises, for our party; he was vice-chairman, as well as occupying a senior post in the Whips' Office. I know that he will enjoy what is no doubt an exciting new portfolio for him.
I also have a word of welcome for the Minister for Rural Affairs, who is earning his corn this morning by dealing with two consecutive debates. Earlier, I spoke with his private office, and I want to say at the outset that the idea behind the debate is not to be overly party political, but to make constructive points about recycling. One of the few privileges of Back-Bench duty in this place is the occasional luxury of introducing a debate on a pet subject. I am not unrealistic about the likelihood of changing the law with my words today, but I hope that we raise the profile of the issue. The debate provides me with a platform to express my views and an opportunity to put on record my concerns in relation to recycling.
Recycling household waste is a key topic, and I make no apology for devoting time to discussing it. When I was growing up in the 1970s—not all that long ago—Britain was considered to be the sick man of Europe. A more accurate tag for Britain today, despite the Deputy Prime Minister's recent protestations to the contrary in his Johannesburg speech, is the dirty man of Europe. Nowhere is that more apparent than in our somewhat risible record on recycling household waste.
I represent the most central of the United Kingdom's inner-city seats—the very constituency in which the debate is taking place. I therefore appreciate that my constituents, the throng who visit London daily and, dare I say it, all of us in the House are responsible for a significant amount of litter that is disposed of in central London. Similarly, I appreciate that the built-up nature of the district means that we do not suffer the blight of either a local landfill site or an incinerator in our midst. My call rapidly to increase the rate of recycling is therefore not based on narrow, constituency self-interest.
The sheer magnitude of the garbage problem is characterised by the horrifying statistic that, every hour of the day, people in this country throw away enough litter to fill one of the great landmarks of my constituency, the Royal Albert hall. That amounts to 100 million tonnes of litter each year, the overwhelming majority of which finds itself in a landfill site or an incinerator.
It does not have to be that way. England is way behind most of its European Union partners in the household recycling league. A few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) told me that Denmark has an innovative scheme, similar to the old deposits for bottles, that applies to plastics as well as glass whereby a small deposit can be retrieved for bottles taken to a supermarket and placed in a recycling mound. Such an approach, using a carrot rather than a stick, would be welcomed in many parts of Europe.

23WH
Some 46 per cent. of German household waste is composted or recycled. The figure is a miserly 9.5 per cent. in the UK, and only Ireland, Italy and Greece have marginally worse records on household recycling. The much-derided EU—on this side of the House at least—has produced some sensible household waste targets. In the 25 years up to 2020, beginning in 1995, we are expected to reduce the amount of biodegradable household waste being sent to landfill sites to about 35 per cent. of the 1995 level. The interim target is a 25 per cent. reduction between 1995 and 2010. We are roughly halfway through that period, and it is fair to say that we have made only a negligible impact in reducing waste during the past seven years. We have a lot of catching up to do in the next two thirds of a decade.
One thing that always strikes me is that we must try to bring the issue down from sustainability in the broader sense, which may excite many of the experts in this field, to a basic level that will appeal to our constituents. I always find it remarkable that after I buy a cup of coffee at a local coffee bar—a Starbucks or a Coffee Republic, of which there are many in my constituency, as anyone who walks around the streets of Cities of London and Westminster knows—the receptacle will be thrown away. Some may be recycled, but the great majority are not. The reality is that that polystyrene cup ends up in a landfill site where it will probably take about 1,000 to 2.000 years to disintegrate fully. That cannot be a sustainable way of dealing with our waste in the years and decades ahead.
Many experts are already talking about the destructive enzymes that are developing beneath the oceans as huge amounts of indestructible plastic and chemical waste are dumped at sea. Likewise, the prospect of landfills becoming full is a pressing concern that all local authorities and national politicians must address. In my constituency, commercial recycling is as key in the war on waste as the household initiatives that have developed in recent years. If ever local and individual considerations should be a guide—thankfully, that is often the case in politics—it is in the matter of recycling, which is personal. It requires the individual to make an effort and a choice.
Leadership from politicians and others in environmental matters is vital, but it still comes down to us as consumers and residents to consider our actions. My experience is that success in recycling connects very strongly with a sense of community and belonging in one's immediate environment. For that reason, our throwaway culture in central London and in Britain as a whole is so depressing.
In the business world, whether offices, shops or factories, there seems to be much less enthusiasm to separate paper, plastic and glass than there is in homes. In one sense that is understandable, but, equally, we shall all face a somewhat doom-laden future if we do not start taking responsibility for how our actions affect the planet.
In Westminster, great initiatives among residents have been introduced in recent years. They have prompted a tremendous response, which I have perceived in my 16 months as the constituency MP. However, because of a uniquely high turnover of
24WH
residents—almost a quarter of the current population are not likely to be living here in 12 months—keeping everyone up to the mark is a continuous and thankless task. In the City of Westminster as a whole, and no matter how hard the environmental and cleansing departments work, all of us, as members of the public, could achieve much more by being considerate with our waste.
I am a great paper user—I am sure that this applies to many of my colleagues—and I tend to write letters and to deal with most of my personal correspondence predominantly by mail rather than by e-mail, which is much more environmentally friendly. It is my preferred way, and I do not apologise for it. However, my paper usage is minuscule, compared with just one document that may arrive from any of an array of public bodies that eulogise on hot topics.
To be honest, for many years I felt guilty about not recycling either my office or household waste, so I decided to take a small lead when I was elected a Member of Parliament in June 2001. Let us face it, having rubbish hanging around in our kitchen at home for a little longer than we would normally like is slightly inconvenient, but if we fail to take a lead now, how many more landfill sites will have to be dug in the countryside? How many more industrial incinerators will we need in the decades ahead?
When all is said and done, the acts or omissions of one individual make relatively little difference to the torrent of trash being generated by people and businesses in this country. If the idea of filling the Royal Albert hall on an hourly basis is difficult to grasp, we should consider the matter in this way: each and every one of this country's 58 million citizens—let us settle on that figure, although we in the House are battling over the number of residents because of the census report—throws away about 20 times their average body weight in garbage each year. What happens to that endless tide of glass, metal, plastic, polystyrene and cardboard? Sadly, while the extent of our waste problem is new, the solutions are devastatingly prehistoric. In simple terms, we dispose of about 90 per cent. of our household and commercial waste, irrespective of its pollution level, by burying it in the ground or by burning it off at an extremely high temperature.
For some time, scientists have noticed a strong link between polluted landfill sites—about 300 in England and Wales contain the most hazardous industrial waste—and an array of birth defects. Last August, the British Medical Journal published findings from Imperial college, London, which is in my headquarters area, that raised doubts about not only the most heavily polluted industrial waste sites, but all 2,300 landfill sites in the UK. Apparently, babies born within a couple of kilometres of such a site are more likely to suffer congenital abnormalities than those born further afield. Given that roughly three quarters of the British population live in such close proximity to their nearest landfill site, and in the aftermath of the great scares over BSE, CJD and foot and mouth disease, I fear that public confidence in the reassurances of any Government, of any political colour, has now reached an all-time low. Despite such medical evidence and increasing public awareness of the potential hazards of industrial burial, the vast majority of UK household waste continues to be sent directly to such sites.

25WH
It would be unfair to characterise any Government, of any political colour, as having simply sat on their hands as the landfill problem became ever more pressing. My party, the Conservatives, introduced the landfill tax—the UK's first environmental tax—in 1996, but the first few years of its operation, other than a very modest Treasury windfall, have had little impact on its target. Anyone who dumps waste in a licensed landfill site is taxed at about £12 per tonne of biodegradable waste and £2 per tonne of non-biodegradable. Most commentators admit that such penalties provide virtually no disincentive to using burial. Even setting the tax at such derisory levels has given rise to a culture of non-compliance—some three fifths of local authorities report that illegal fly-tipping has increased since the introduction of the tax and much of it occurs on farm land, which has blighted many people in rural constituencies.
In March 2001, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, in its paper "Delivering Sustainable Waste Management", attacked the inertia and low expectations that continue to characterise waste management in this country. It also criticised the Government's much-vaunted 2000 waste strategy as failing to provide real vision.
As ever, the crux of much of the new regulation is its enforcement. The hapless Environment Agency appears to be hopelessly overstretched and confesses that it is aware of cases in which illegal operators have opened sites, allegedly as construction sites, that are used for dumping contracted waste at levels below that of the landfill tax.
I understand that several leading lights in the waste disposal industry have been quoted as saying that millions of tonnes of material have been diverted in recent years to form the contours of golf courses, shopping complexes, sports grounds and housing estates. The Environment Agency seems to have little authority to license or inspect such sites, and we can hazard only a wild guess at the true level of such illegal operations. All too often, as I think the Minister can confirm, the regulations and disincentives in terms of fines are so derisory as to make little difference.
Chris Grayling: Does my hon. Friend agree that such activities could store up problems for the future? During the past generation, methane seeping from long-abandoned tips has caused fundamental problems in housing areas in several parts of the country, and the dangers that he describes as short-term have long-term implications as well.
Mr. Field: I thank my hon. Friend, who is quite right. I shall come to future issues—this is a long-term problem on which we must make an impact collectively, as politicians and as citizens of this country.
The EU has shown itself to be something of a trailblazer on landfill and recycling, and the European landfill directive has been incorporated in national law in this country. That legislation is designed to minimise the environmental impact of landfill, particularly the gas emissions mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). It also deals with surface and ground water pollution, and land contamination.
26WH
The most important domestic implication involves a ruling that the amount of biodegradable and municipal solid waste sent to landfill must be reduced in stages. That requires swift and decisive action if we are to meet our obligations. Effectively, we dispose of about only a fifth of the amount that Germany deals with through recycling rather than landfill or other means of disposal.
I am concerned that, all too often, the Labour Government's strategy for achieving landfill reductions can be described as somewhat cynical. Frequently, the claim is made that they are the greenest Government ever, but Britain ranks towards the bottom of the international recycling league among the developed nations and will continue to do so unless radical changes are made in the decades ahead. The Government seem to intend to fulfil their landfill requirement targets only by switching to the second most ecologically damaging option—incinerators. Not for nothing did the Select Committee, only 18 months ago, splutter at the lack of imagination, and planning without ambition, of the national waste strategy. Expert witnesses described the potentially catastrophic carcinogenic effect of large-scale incineration.
The Government have now revealed that they will fulfil their interim landfill directive targets by burning as much as a third of the country's rubbish in industrial incinerators, which will be the size of power stations by the end of the decade, but, between them, Ministers, civil servants and industry experts could not begin to agree how many large-scale incinerators would be needed to increase the number from 12, which we had up and running by the end of the 1990s. That augurs very badly for the battles ahead, not least with local interest groups, which are determined, perhaps understandably, to ensure that incinerators are not located in their back yards.
I understand that, only this summer, the Government were forced to admit that they were embroiled in longstanding legal and planning battles in a handful of the initial batch of new applications. Highly organised action groups in all corners of the country are determined to put paid to plan A for the Government's attempts to fulfil our international landfill obligations. The main trouble is that there is no plan B in place. I appreciate that, from the Government's perspective, they have something of a public relations disaster on their hands. In the past couple of years, there has been a shuffling of feet on the issue of incinerator sites, not least in view of the number of marginal Labour constituencies that would be directly affected by the outline proposals. In part, that may be an expression of the great electoral success of the Labour party rather than a direct criticism, but we need a more sensible strategy for siting incinerators.
It appears that the new strategy is not central Government's responsibility at all. In the perception and the reality of the localism that my party is trying to push forward, such matters must be devolved to the most local level, and the most local level is the individual consumer. I would like to see more power in the hands of local authorities and county councils in relation to recycling.
When all is said and done—a detailed disentanglement of the Government's complex statistics is required—it is clear that if there is to be any hope of meeting our 2010 targets, we shall have to burn on an

27WH
enormous scale in the short term. Municipal incinerators are the size of power stations, and in addition to their bleak, rather menacing and overpowering presence, the real problem with large-scale incineration is the widely held misconception that if waste is burnt, it simply disappears. We all know that that is not the case, and mass incineration often produces enormous quantities of potentially harmful ash. It is not the kind of ash that comes from burning coal or wood—household waste can seldom be so pure, and burning it often releases toxic chemicals into the air.
In London as a whole, certainly north of the Thames, we rely on a giant incinerator in Edmonton, which handles the waste of no fewer than seven north London authorities. The most recent tests suggest that dioxin-contaminated ash has been used in road building and the manufacture of bricks and breeze blocks. The sheer extent of the problem in Edmonton has yet to be fully determined, but suffice to say that many houses in London—and, indeed, beyond—may already contain highly contaminated material that will not become apparent for some time. At the very worst, we shall run the risk of another asbestos-type scandal every time such houses are demolished or roads are dug up. Although it is argued that the next generation of incinerators will be considerably safer—most of those built in the past were closed following the acceptance of new emission standards in the 1990s—the safe level of dust particles and dioxins remains far from certain.
In many ways, we continue to pursue what is a contamination time bomb. It may be possible to clarify the true extent of the problems only if there are far higher incidence levels of respiratory carcinomas in the decades ahead. I speak on a personal level, as my father passed away some 11 years ago due to a carcinoma of the lung—not that I think it was directly related to such toxins. Medical evidence suggests that such complaints are becoming more widespread. Although that may not be due simply to dioxins in the air, one cannot ignore the fact that it may be a result of what has been happening. As ever, it is notoriously hard to quantify the precise health risks. No serious attempts have been made at clarification—understandably, because many such problems come to light only many decades on.
We cannot allow misinformation and bogus statistics to drive Government policy and there is a risk of nimbyism being involved in the siting of incinerators, but, amid a cloud of ignorance generated by such misinformation, it is unsurprising that many local residents, groups around the country are increasingly becoming alarmed by the prospect of an incinerator being located in their neighbourhood.
Some of the evidence is conflicting. The US Environmental Protection Agency has warned that dioxins may be considerably more toxic than previously thought. The very patchy statistical evidence surrounding incineration is inconclusive, but some preliminary studies on cleaner incinerators suggest that there is little additional health risk. A recent survey in The Sunday Times pointed out that incinerators tend to be inflicted on the poorer parts of town, where residents are less able to defend themselves than the better organised middle classes, and we cannot discount the possibility that such people would have poorer health
28WH
irrespective of an incinerator. I accept that the figures are to some extent muddled, but I hope that the Minister takes on board the concerns that many leading lobbyists in the field will have expressed to him, perhaps rather more forcefully than I have.
Chris Grayling: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that communities in many parts of the country faced with the threat of incinerators tend to fragment and fight each other over their siting instead of fighting a unified battle against the imposition of such facilities by central Government? Does he agree that it would be much more constructive if politicians, residents' groups and local authorities united to try to resist Government pressure instead of taking political advantage locally to fight a NIMBY campaign for electoral purposes?
Mr. Field: I shall have to check the results in Epsom and Ewell, which may not be unconnected with those matters. Perhaps I am being a little unkind to my hon. Friend, who is right that this is a classic community issue that should not be a bandwagon to be jumped on by any political party or residents' group.
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I trust that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell recognises that his remarks and those of his hon. Friend will be widely circulated after the debate and read in Hansard with great care by Labour Members.
Mr. Field: One great benefit of representing my seat—not least, among a lot of others, is the high calibre of many local residents—is the fact that I do not have to worry about landfill sites or incinerators, unless the Minister is going to suggest putting one in Hyde park. He will have to speak to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport before doing so. I appreciate that other hon. Members may wish to speak, so I shall canter through my remaining comments.
More than two fifths of homes in England and Wales are served by segregated waste selection schemes, with separate boxes for paper, combustible materials and mixed rubbish. The effort and imagination of individuals is essential if such basic domestic recycling is to work. Interestingly, Friends of the Earth claims that the average net cost of providing a doorstep recycling and composting service is a mere £17 a household per year. That is about £375 million a year for England and Wales as a whole, which is less than one 2,000th of overall Government expenditure. The same environmental pressure group also claims that if the United Kingdom met its recycling target of 30 per cent., that alone could create 40,000 new jobs.
The responsibility for innovative thinking is now in the hands of the waste and resources action programme, which plans to encourage far greater recycling rates and to develop new products from reclaimed paper, glass, plastic and wood. Within a couple of years, it aims to increase the recycling rate for bottles and jars from about 28 per cent. to 35 per cent., and it has great plans for a wide range of new uses to which recycled products can be adapted. In view of the almost universal condemnation that the United States has received from environmental groups across the world, it is interesting that that nation has led the world in terms of much of

29WH
the innovative thinking on adapting household waste. Many of the programme's proposals have already proved a great success on the other side of the Atlantic.
It might also come as a surprise to many that two inner-city Conservative local authorities have been among the leaders on recycling. In central London, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where I was a councillor for eight years until May, and my local authority, City of Westminster, have ambitious plans to beef up their already impressive recycling facilities. I am an inveterate walker in London, and I love walking across all parts of the city, especially areas such as Camden, Haringey and Sutton. It is fair to say that councils of both Labour and Liberal Democrat hue have also had great recycling successes, and I hope that we can build on them together.
I want to talk briefly about my other local authority, which has more profound difficulties. For obvious reasons relating to terrorism, the City of London has been prevented from undertaking large-scale recycling since the mid-1990s, when the IRA threat became stronger, and since 11 September last year. However, a trial of door-to-door recycling has proved so successful that I can announce today that it will be extended to the whole Barbican area in the next year or so. I hope that the City of London, which is right at the heart of the capital, plays its part to ensure that the city has improved recycling.
Some 70 per cent. of my Westminster residents whose front doors open on to the street are already served with door-to-door collection, although the city council's director of environment and leisure laments that only a third use that service. The city council also provides 70 micro-recycling centres, and insists that 47 of its 56 schools have an on-site recycling service. That is not always easy, given the space restrictions in central London. I hope that the other nine follow suit in the next five years.
There is little doubt that Westminster council is happy to put its money where its mouth is. Excluding salaries and overheads, about 1.1 million a year is spent on the recycling programme, and it has three full-time staff on the subject. The additional post of campaigns officer is being advertised.
I make a special plea, not least given the debate on local government finance that will take place later. It is depressing that, as part of the Government's 2002 comprehensive spending review, London local authorities of all political colours stand to suffer the most as a result of recalibration of the annual sum known as the environment, protection and cultural services basket. Although the local authority has complete discretion as to how it spends its money, City of Westminster council directs a significant proportion of its income from that source to waste and recycling services. Another unwarranted and unwanted byproduct of central Government's regional gerrymandering may be that local authorities in London are forced as a result to reduce—
Alun Michael: I must be a little hard of hearing. I thought that the hon. Gentleman used the words "gerrymandering" and "Westminster city council" in the same sentence. Was that wise?
Mr. Field: I think that we can safely say that the Minister was somewhat hard of hearing in that instance. The gerrymandering to which I was referring relates to the current spending review.
30WH
One great disadvantage of denuding London authorities of money is that they will be forced to reduce—or, at best, to hold stable—funding for recycling. That might mean cutting back grant for EPCS.
In the past financial year, the City of Westminster established five new projects to increase domestic waste recycling rates. Those projects include paper recycling bins at three underground and mainline stations, the first mixed glass recycling vehicle and the further extension of the doorstep recycling scheme.
Uniquely among the main political parties at the last election, the Conservatives made proposals for an active approach to recycling. I hope that the Government will think locally on the issue. They must provide personal and community incentives, and I hope that they use the carrot rather than the stick to encourage people down the recycling route. I hope that they will also encourage people in our cities to take responsibility for changing their lifestyle habits, which are, let us face it, unsustainable in terms of the future of the planet.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Alan Hurst (in the Chair): Order. I remind hon. Members that the convention is that winding-up speeches begin at midday.
11.31 am
Dr. Alan Whitehead: The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has changed my understanding of what people mean when they talk about filling the Albert hall with rubbish. Previously, I thought that they were talking about a Barry Manilow concert, but the hon. Gentleman's imagery has caused me to think again.
The waste produced by households accounts for only 7 or perhaps 8 per cent. of all waste, but as the hon. Gentleman said, less household waste than other forms of waste is recycled. Some 40 per cent. of other forms of waste is recycled. The amount of household waste is growing by 3 per cent. a year, and not only is little of it recycled but the vast majority goes into landfill. That option has only a limited life because, as the hon. Gentleman said, the 1999 European Union landfill directive required European states radically to reduce the percentage of waste going into landfill. In any event, we are running out of holes in the ground into which to put rubbish.
The Government's response to the directive was to set local authorities statutory targets for diverting waste from landfill. Ideally, waste is to be moved mainly into compost and recycling, and the target is a 25 per cent. reduction in 1995 landfill levels by 2010. It is not clear what will happen to local authorities that miss the target. There are huge variations among local authorities in the status of recycling. The consortium of local authorities that make up the Hampshire waste project, in my part of the world, recycles 40 per cent. of household waste, but other local authorities recycle as little as 3 per cent. So it is clear that we shall have difficulty reaching the targets set in response to the directive.
So what instruments do we have, other than targets, to ensure that waste is diverted? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for individuals substantially to

31WH
change their practices, and I thoroughly agree. A problem arises, however, as soon as we ask how that change might come about. At present, the main and almost the only clear instrument for diverting municipal waste from landfill is the landfill levy. That is a gate fee of £13 per tonne tipped, which is due to increase by an escalator of £1 per tonne per year. The escalator, which is a key instrument in assisting people to change their management of waste, is a problem because it affects local authorities. There is a substantial difference between the ways in which private companies and local authorities are able to respond to an escalator; perhaps that is why more non-municipal than municipal waste is recycled. Private contractors can change their practices in response to a direct financial instrument, whereas local authorities—because they have an indirect relationship with the people who produce household rubbish but a statutory responsibility to collect and dispose of it—do not have such a direct ability to change. Indeed, the only ability that local authorities have is to influence people to produce less rubbish and recycle more, and to introduce dual bin collections. It is fair to conclude that they do not have the direct ability enjoyed by private sector companies.
However, the landfill levy applies in the same way to local authorities and to the private sector. Therefore, local authorities have to pay the landfill levy as though they were directly able to change the amount of rubbish that they must collect and dispose of. Here is the rub. The local authority has to pay the landfill levy, and the escalator on it, out of the same funds that it uses to promote recycling. Thus, each year that the escalator increases, local authorities have to find the additional money for the landfill levy from their funds for collecting and disposing of rubbish. The more that local authorities pay, the less they are likely to invest in measures to promote recycling. For them, the levy is perverse.
In evidence to the Select Committee in 1999, Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth councils estimated that in 1999–2000 they would pay some £6.6 million in landfill levy—some 20 per cent. of their total waste disposal budget. That has now risen. Twenty percent. of the funds collected under the landfill levy scheme is repatriated for various schemes including schemes to promote recycling. By definition, local authorities are excluded from that. The money is in the hands of environmental trusts, which are often associated with the landfill companies, and the money goes to non-local authority projects only, although, in some instances, local authorities have partnership arrangements with such projects.
Under those difficult circumstances, how are local authorities trying to meet the targets? As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has said, by and large, they seem, increasingly, to be using incineration. I shall not go into whether incineration is safe nor the large quantities of CO2 that are released into the atmosphere as a result of it. However, I should like to consider the logic of the mechanism so far as incineration is concerned. Given their limited up-front resources—I have already mentioned the problems of local authorities in dealing with their waste disposal funds many local authorities are signing up to joint
32WH
arrangements with waste disposal companies which will invest in incinerators. Those companies logically want a return on their investment. The deals that local authorities are signing up to are in the order of 25 years so local authorities are effectively committing themselves to a programme of primacy for incineration over a 25-year period.
To make that investment work, the companies usually require local authority disposal authorities to guarantee a waste stream to the incinerators. Furthermore, to achieve economies of scale, the companies tend to build large incinerators. For example, it is estimated that a plant that incinerates 400,000 tonnes per annum costs only three times as much as one that incinerates 100,000 tonnes per annum. Operating plant now in existence processes on average 240,000 tonnes per annum and, of the 22 incinerators in the planning process, only four are scheduled to process less than 100,000 tonnes.
As a result, local authorities will be locked in a disposal strategy for 25 years—it may not be landfill but it is nevertheless a disposal strategy—and, secondly, the waste stream will have to go to the incinerators because of their size. Therefore, as recycling increases there will come a point at which it must be stopped in order to feed the incinerators, or the local authorities will pay the penalty under the agreements that they have entered into. Logically, it looks as though the United Kingdom may be locking itself into a programme that is the opposite of the waste hierarchy that the Government's waste plan requires: reduction, reuse, recyling and, only finally, disposal.
There is a great deal to commend in the Government's waste strategy. I very much welcome the £140 million that has gone into the waste minimisation fund, and the aim of introducing markets for recycled products, which are absolutely essential. Setting up the WRAP scheme—the waste and resources action programme—is a good example of that strategy.
There is much to commend in the work of local authorities in waste minimisation and waste diversion. I was pleased that putrescibles only were regarded recently as eligible for the renewables levy when considering whether energy from waste should be regarded as a renewable source of energy. That is logical because energy produced from incineration and nonputrescibles is not recycled, but merely a delay of one stage in the burning of fossil fuel. The logic of the instruments now in place and the local authority reaction to those instruments suggest that there is a glass ceiling on the long-term development of waste strategy.
It is a fantasy to suggest that incineration should disappear entirely, or that there never will be problems in respect of the placement of incinerators. Incineration, however, should be at the bottom of the hierarchy and only for material that cannot be recycled or dealt with in other ways. That suggests a need for small incinerators rather than the large incinerators programme upon which several local authorities are embarked at present.
Is there a way forward? I make these modest suggestions. First, if we are to drive towards a hierarchy, which is something we can all sign up to and is central to the Government's waste strategy, it is not logical in the long term simply to drive people from one form of disposal to another. There must be an incineration levy,

33WH
which is also subject to an escalator, which progressively weans the UK off incineration, or, which is more likely, places incineration in its proper context—the final resort for material not otherwise capable of disposal. I was pleased that the Government indicated recently that they would keep under review the possibility of introducing an incineration levy to take us on to the next stage in waste management.
Secondly, the landfill tax must distinguish between the functions of the local authority and the private sector. Local authorities must either receive rebates or be substantially exempt from the effect of the tax if they are to make good progress in changing the way in which people dispose of their household waste.
Both taxes must be directed at the aim of the exercise—getting waste reduced, reused and recycled. That means funding the plant and the techniques to make that happen. That will create a virtuous circle rather than a vicious cycle, which I am afraid that we are in at the moment. The time scales have already been set out; we do not have long to do the work. We must do it sooner rather than later.
11.45 am
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I want to speak briefly on one aspect, but I first congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on securing the debate. I represent a very different constituency from his. I have encountered the problems of fly-tipping, and I have had controversial discussions about landfill sites and incinerators.
My background is as a local councillor. I was proud to be involved in Local Agenda 21 and to do my part locally within the bigger global picture of achieving sustainability. However, I encountered great frustration, because as much as one pushes particular initiatives locally, there comes a point at which one cannot achieve any more success without sufficient national support. I want to emphasise that point today.
At one stage, my council was unable to cover the whole borough with kerbside recycling, as the cost of collection became too high compared with what was being saved on landfill tax. The market for paper fell dramatically, and my authority no longer collected cardboard. Such circumstances are tragic. It is hard for a council when a community is willing to recycle and people want kerbside recycling, but it, with its responsibility to the council tax payer, has to make difficult decisions. As such, I was pleased with the Government's initiative to introduce targets for local authorities, because it seemed to be a way for my authority, having been halted in its progress, to move forward again.
However, all the councils in my constituency now have an enormous concern. They have been successful and therefore were given relatively high recycling targets. That is good, but they are in difficulty because there does not seem to be sufficient money to meet the demands. Other authorities that have not recycled at such a great rate have been set lower targets and may be given greater help. In a way, recycling works like the law of diminishing returns: when a council is already recycling at a high level, it costs it more to improve its rates. My plea to the Minister is for some joined-up
34WH
thinking. We are to have a local government finance debate tonight. The commitment and desire to meet the local recycling rates exists in my local councils, but we need the funds to match.
I have a letter from one of my county councillors, who writes:
"My local district council has already refused to fully implement its recycling plan unless they receive central funding, despite my pleading that if the government refused to provide the funds they should still proceed with the plan, but over a longer time scale to lessen the impact on the council tax payer."
Such is the talk in my constituency, which greatly concerns me.
All the councils have completed their recycling plans. I went to an exciting presentation by consultants at which members of the public were delighted to see that the targets could be achieved without considering incineration in the short run. The House can imagine that not having that potential conflict on the horizon made me and the members of the public feel very good. However, it was not long before someone put up their hand and said, "That is a wonderful plan, but how will it be paid for?"
Cost is a major issue for authorities such as mine, which appear to have what is described as a high council tax base. All the costs are continually pushed on to council tax payers, but people on fixed incomes will not take kindly to massive council tax increases to promote recycling when they feel that they have made their contribution and that there should be a big difference in their spending power month by month. I therefore urge the Minister to support councils. There is such a willingness out there to tackle this immense problem.
It does not matter how much scientific evidence is produced, people are worried about incineration. However, there is not only bad feeling about that, but huge concern about landfill sites. I recently supported residents who were fighting against one being created. Sadly, we lost that battle, but it must be remembered that locating landfill sites in certain areas has many environmental impacts, apart from the obvious ones.
If permission is granted, as in the case that I have mentioned, a facility will exist for a long time and have a private operator. Even if we are all successful at recycling—this point is similar to that made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead)—the pit will still have to be filled and lorries will come from even greater distances. That concerns me greatly. The location that I am talking about is in the heart of a tourism area, very near the coast that has just received an award for its outstanding beauty. Therefore, we have huge concerns, but also a willingness to recycle.
I also ask the Minister to consider the position of voluntary groups, which again reflects that willingness. If councils received only a little more money to pump prime, there could be amazing initiatives. A scout group in my ward collected waste paper for 15 years and thereby financed the building of a scout hall. Sadly, however, it abandoned collecting waste paper this year. What a tragedy. Young people and, indeed, the whole community were involved in that activity. Nevertheless, we must remain enthusiastic about recycling.
I shall end by talking about supporting the market for recyclables. I have always felt that we need Government action in that respect—my council could not afford to

35WH
extend kerbside recycling. It might not cost much for the lorries to travel round, but the cost of disposing of what is collected is a real problem. The sooner there is urgent action to support the market for recyclables, the better.
11.52 am
Mr. John Randall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and the other speakers. I do not have much time but, luckily, they have said most of what needs to be said, so I do not have to repeat it.
As we have heard, most people, individually and at local authority level, have a strong desire to help with recycling. In my local authority, Hillingdon, all parties work hard to try to improve their record, but that is not always easy. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) said, people who have made an effort to recycle are sometimes disappointed to find that what they have collected just goes to another landfill site. They wonder what the point of it all is and conclude that the exercise is a bit of a sham. That must be considered.
There are various ways to encourage people to recycle. One method that I heard of recently is reducing the number of collections of non-recyclable household rubbish, but I have doubts about that. If we imagine the food waste that might accumulate over, say, two weeks in the summer, we can see that that method has inherent problems. It is also fair to say that there would be fly-tipping of household rubbish, so we must consider such methods carefully.
Having been in retailing for many years, I have noticed how much the use of wrapping and packaging has increased. Economic reasons are sometimes given for that, because it is easier to hang products on hooks and because consumers demand that goods arrive fully packaged, as they think that that protects them. My particular area was furniture. When I started, furniture would be delivered covered in a travelling rug. We would remove it before we went into the house, but increasingly people said that they wanted the furniture to be wrapped by the manufacturers. More shrink wrapping and cardboard is now used. There is a cultural problem with wrapping that we must consider. Of course, there are hygiene reasons for covering food, but as a part-time shopper in supermarkets, I have noticed that there is a tremendous amount of wrapping to get through before one gets to the food.
Alun Michael: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's references to furniture, as my father was in that trade too. How often did people demand of the hon. Gentleman that items should have greater packaging? To what extent does consumer demand, as distinct from the retail trade's beliefs about it, provide the pressure?
Mr. Randall: Quite often, the consumer feels that if a product does not come packaged from the retailer it is shop soiled or has not been looked after properly. Sometimes they also want it to be checked beforehand. For example, consumers who buy a bed want the mattress to be inspected, but they also want it to be wrapped up again. I can understand that, but there is a
36WH
consumer problem. There is also the problem of plastic bags. I know that my party is not in favour of levying taxes, but according to the anecdotal evidence the system in Ireland is working. Some of my colleagues in retail would probably not be too happy about such a scheme, but we must consider the problem.
Finally, the recycling collection points in our constituencies often become eyesores, so people do not want them outside their house or along their shopping parade. Perhaps we should study new designs and see how collection points may be made more attractive so that people would be happier to have them built nearby. The point has been made that that must become part of our culture—we must educate people more. Other hon. Members may have had similar experiences when visiting schools: the children are all very worried about the environment and recycling, yet one sees most litter outside schools.
Returning to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster made about deposits on lemonade and beer bottles, perhaps we should use a "carrot" approach. He mentioned the credit system in Denmark. The matter may not be as simple as handing over 10p or 3p for a plastic or glass bottle, but a small financial incentive, as well as the knowledge that they are helping the environment, might encourage children and young people to collect a lot of such litter. They must feel that the material will be recycled. As others have said, we must improve. This is a non-partisan subject that we must tackle quickly.
11.59 am
Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) for calling the debate. We debate rubbish quite often, but do not make much progress. I hope that we will make more progress today.
Several statistics show that in general we are missing our recycling targets and materials recovery targets. Rather than fill up all the time that we have available, I will simply quote a useful statistic from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs digest of environmental statistics. The proportion of municipal waste disposed of to landfill has been reduced from 84 per cent. in 1996 to 78 per cent. now—but municipal waste has grown by 14.6 per cent. from 24.6 million tonnes to 28.2 million tonnes.
We are going backwards, and our approach to recycling and household waste is pathetic and sad, especially when we consider what our colleagues in Europe do. We have modest targets, but we are about to fail in relation to several of them. We missed one target by 10 years, and reached only 40 per cent. recycling against current projections, according to a study by the Environmental Services Association.
We need to support local authorities. Hon. Members have mentioned how much support local authorities need. They are doing their best, but are struggling. Guildford, one of my local authorities, sends plastic bottles all the way to Stratford for recycling into underground pipes. That is good, but it costs the authority money. There is nothing to encourage householders to minimise waste, and we could do so much more with Government help and support. There are no tools. We are procrastinating while the waste

37WH
increases. We want to reduce packaging, and the packaging waste directives are a useful tool for doing that, but we must also consider the waste that we generate. We must do much more. Councils need the tools to encourage people to sort waste at the kerbside. My council is issuing green cones to deal with food waste, and I hope that councils doing this pilot work will start to receive answers to their questions about how they can reduce collection but increase recycling.
Much more needs to be done to enable local councils to develop markets for recycling and waste products. I am talking about recycling, but the country's mindset still seems to be "burn and bury". What are we doing to stop the blight of landfill, which means living with smells, flies and vermin? The UK has one of the worst records of recycling in the western world. There is much that we can do. We need to encourage a reduction in waste.
The landfill tax, which has been mentioned several times, is a pathetically weak instrument. I am very much in favour of it, but it does little to reduce landfill. So much more could be done. The tax does not hurt the end user, and consumers do not feel much effect on their pockets. We must weigh up whether it might be better if they did. The tax could be increased substantially. Without an increase, little help will be given to local government to fund a sustainable waste strategy.
The pre-Budget report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended that landfill tax should be increased considerably, and that the Government should not wait until 2004 to increase it. However, the Government knew better; they continued to ignore what was happening and stuck to their very modest plans. We could do more to incentivise the recovery of waste. We could tax incineration by having a universal waste tax. We need to take modest steps even to meet the Government's very modest targets.
Understandably, every plan for incineration is met with protest. I was disappointed by the intervention by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). As a Surrey MP, he will know that before the last election the only approach to incineration among Members from his party who represent Surrey was to say, "We don't want incineration ourselves, but we agree with incineration in someone else's constituency." There was an unholy cycle of moving waste around but not working against incineration. I differed with my colleagues in that I refused to support incineration. We need a moratorium on all new incineration proposals.
The Government face a difficult problem. For all the reasons already outlined, people will not tolerate new incinerators. They have had enough, they are worried, and the Government should go in another direction.
We need a sustained national recycling programme. We have already talked about the problems with neighbouring authorities. If one authority gets tough, there will be fly-tipping in another authority. Such matters must be considered, not to detract from what local authorities do, but so that the Government can support them. We need a waste and recycling action programme, and perhaps some other ideas, such as zero waste. Two councils recently turned down proposals for zero waste because they wanted to know what it meant, and whether they could achieve it.
38WH
Zero waste is a mindset. It is about using resources that we would otherwise throw away as often as we can until they are rendered inert. We can then dispose of them, possibly through landfill, but in a way that would not generate all the problems we associate with landfill, such as flies, smell and leaching. Zero waste methods are growing across the world. New Zealand is a zero waste country. Nova Scotia is a zero waste province. Canberra in Australia and Toronto in Canada are zero waste cities. Bath and North East Somerset is a zero waste council. I would like to congratulate Milton Keynes, which has become a zero waste city since the change in the council, and has turned down the existing plans for an incinerator. Those ideas are taking hold in this country.
One can do an awful lot through the logic of zero waste. The idea is not so outlandish. If one keeps on recycling paper, one can reuse wood fibre six times over—but I agree with the concerns about the market for that. We need better product design, some of which will come through Europe, with the end of life vehicles directive and the electronics waste directive. The Government have not yet got to grips with simple things like sorting waste at the doorstep through kerbside collection.
Supporters of zero waste would say that the doorstep collection of dry recyclables should be extended to every home without delay. Home composting should be supported through the doorstep collection of organic waste. A network of local closed vessel compost plants should be established; there is no need to drive stuff all over the country. From 2006, landfilling with biological waste that has not been treated and neutralised should be banned. The thermal treatment—incineration—of mixed waste should also be ended, and disposal contracts should be limited to a maximum of 10 years. I agree with the concerns about what will feed incinerators over the years, because the contracts are so long. Landfill tax should be extended and become a disposal tax. It should be increased and used to fund zero waste programmes. Producer responsibility should be extended and waste planning opened up to greater public participation. A zero waste agency should be established. Those approaches are not very hard to achieve, and the Government should support them.
I heard with interest what was said about schools, tuck shops and rubbish. I had a lovely meeting at a local school, Boxgrove primary school, which has a school council. The children have representatives on it, from the reception class up, and they are asking what the school was doing about rubbish. They suggested that their tuck shop should sell fruit, and the orange peel could be recycled. They are not asking for crisps because they know that would cause a local problem—and they might actually eat their school lunch, which will delight parents. Those kids are saying many sensible things.
The idea of a tax on plastic bags is not rocket science; it is an excellent idea and we could use it. Many people worry about fly-tipping, but an Ernst and Young study of other countries found that although the figures initially go up when more taxes on waste are introduced, they then fall back. The income on plastic bags will go up, which will fund recycling initiatives. That will fall off later, but we may be recycling by then. I urge the Minister to consider some radical approaches to waste, because the way we are going is taking us backwards.
12.8 pm
Mr. John Hayes: This has been a valuable, thoughtful and constructive debate, but it has also been a disturbing one. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on bringing it to the attention of the House. He has confirmed his reputation for having an interest in garbage, which was previously pure speculation. Rightly and seriously, he has highlighted important issues that cross party divides and are important both to his constituents and to everyone else in the country. A debate on such important matters is valuable, not least because, as several hon. Members have said, the European landfill directive adopted by the EC in 1999 has now been incorporated into national law. The UK will have to make enormous changes to the way in which it deals with waste if it is to comply with that directive.
When I was doing my research for the debate, I discovered that we create enough rubbish in a day to fill Trafalgar square to the height of Nelson's column. In simple-to-grasp terms, that gives us some feel for the volume of the problem confronting us.
Mr. John Horam: Here is another interesting statistic: every hour, we fill the equivalent of the Albert hall with rubbish. I thought that that might add to my hon. Friend's rather recondite statistics.
Mr. Hayes: I am reluctant to give any more examples, or the metaphor will become rather elaborate. I am sure that we could think of many landmarks around Britain, and in London in particular, that could be filled with waste—but perhaps I am inviting comments about filling the House of Commons with garbage, which might be unwise, and against both my interests and my aim of engaging the support of my colleagues in summarising the debate.
Clearly, the UK faces enormous challenges in meeting the directive. To put some flesh on the bones, I shall remind the House of some of its specifics. In 2002—this year—we face the prohibition of the use of landfill for specified waste, including liquid hazardous waste and clinical infectious waste. By 2004 landfill will be prohibited for hazardous and non-hazardous wastes, and by 2010 we shall need to reduce biodegradable household waste, first to 75 per cent. of the 1995 level, then to 50 per cent. and ultimately, in 2020, to 35 per cent. of that level. Those seem like ambitious targets when we examine Britain's performance thus far, but not when we consider the European experience. Measured by European standards, those targets look attainable and even, when we think about some countries—or colleagues, as they were described earlier—relatively modest. As Members throughout the Chamber have said, we have a lot of catching up to do.
The debate has been thoughtful as well as valuable. I was interested when my hon. Friend who introduced the debate said that the whole business of recycling had a key role in building community, reminding people of their responsibilities and encouraging them to collaborate for the common good. I do not want to become too philosophical in the short time available, but as a Conservative I believe that we inherit the environment and landscape features and have a
40WH
responsibility to leave those as a legacy to future generations. In a sense, my hon. Friend referred to that when he talked about the feeling that this subject can generate within a community.
My hon. Friend also said that the issue was long-term and must be faced strategically, and that we could not go for quick-fix solutions. We need to build in a range of strategic measures to change attitudes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) talked about changing the culture. Such cultural change will require real commitment from a variety of agencies—a point to which I shall return in a moment.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) made a thoughtful and well informed contribution, as always. I was particularly interested in his point about the patchy performance of local authorities on this issue. That is a matter of fact, and crosses the party divide. We have also heard something about Westminster and kerbside collection in that borough, but he will acknowledge—as, I am sure, will other hon. Members and the Minister—that Labour authorities are among the worst culprits. I do not think that this is a party political issue.
However, if we are to expect more of local authorities, which we must, it is important to resource and support them. That means not only money, but encouraging strategic partnerships between the public and private sectors, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, to allow the private sector to do what it does best, but in cooperation with, rather than in contradiction of, what local authorities are expected and obliged to do to meet the directive. The issue is interesting, because a public-private partnership is a matter of necessity rather than choice.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) talked about the importance of getting young people to think about the issue. When she discussed recycling waste paper I could not help thinking about Focus leaflets, which was cruel.
Alun Michael: Cruel but fair.
Mr. Hayes: That comment was beneath me, and I should not have made it. The hon. Lady was as earnest as ever, and she made a helpful contribution about the importance of involving communities and including children. If we are to change our culture we have to start by getting children to think about waste, rubbish, litter and recycling, which must be done at community level.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge talked about producer responsibility, with which I shall deal in a moment, but first I shall consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster described as our "risible" performance. All hon. Members will be aware of the 2001 report by the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which attacked the
"continuing inertia and low level of expectation which characterise waste management in this country."
The Committee also attacked the Government's much vaunted waste strategy 2000, which is depressingly limited in its ambition and
"lets down those in the industry, and large numbers of citizens who are looking to offer something dramatically better than the status quo."

41WH
That is not a happy analysis by that robust and intelligent group of people, who were commissioned to examine those matters in detail.
The environmental sustainability index ranks the UK as just about the worst performer in the world in recycling waste. It has already been mentioned that the amount of municipal waste generated by households and businesses has been increasing by 3 to 5 per cent. each year, and about 80 per cent. of such waste is disposed of in landfill sites. The 11 per cent. UK household recycling rate is one of the lowest in Europe. Germany, Austria and Switzerland have recycling rates of about 50 per cent., and the targets are not ambitious when considered in that context. The targets are ambitious for us, but would not be particularly so for other countries further down the road.
I hope that the Minister will have time to address the particular problem of tyres. He will know that the landfill directive stipulates that by 2003 whole tyres must not be disposed of through landfill, and by 2006 there will be a ban on disposing of shredded tyres through landfill. The problem is massive, given the number of waste tyres generated by towns and cities in Britain, and not being able to dispose of them easily and conveniently will lead to a significant problem. Will the Minister address that issue when he sums up?
Every other country deals with waste disposal through local authorities, but when local authorities are asked to do the work they must be properly equipped and resourced. The Minister will say that extra money is available and that consultation has occurred, but some smaller local authorities will find it difficult to use the money in a planned way in order to target their spending effectively. One obvious solution involves encouraging businesses to invest in the necessary equipment through council tax incentives and tax breaks. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test said, the commercial sector is a big generator of waste, but we have not got to grips with incentivising it to invest in the necessary equipment to dispose of waste as we all feel it should. The targets should not be contradictory and should encourage outcomes that are based on real capacity. Landfill tax revenues must be brought back into recycling. The Government have estimated that a third of them will be, but we need an indicative number and firm commitments.
More inter-agency work is required. The public sector is a massive generator of waste, and agencies must work together to ensure that their waste is dealt with properly. What incentives exist for commercial organisations to put in the necessary work with local authorities, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test said? Why is there no tyre recycler on the used tyre taskforce, which produced its sixth report earlier in the year?
The key to the problem is establishing a hierarchy for the disposal and recycling of waste. The national waste policy should place a burden of proof on producers and manufacturers, so that we can achieve the targets that we all believe to be essential for our national well-being.
12.20 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): As parliamentarians, we hear rubbish talked about a wide variety of subjects, so it is good to hear a lot of sense uttered by Members on both sides of the Chamber in a
42WH
debate about rubbish. I particularly welcome the recognition by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that things need to change and that we have a long way to go. It is wonderful how a spell in opposition can change attitudes. I am glad that he provided a reminder of the constraints that will be placed on the disposal of tyres, because people will have to plan ahead. Implementation of the European legislation on fly-tipping presents a problem that has already arisen in many parts of the country. Obviously, we want to maximise reuse. That is why the schemes that I shall discuss involve a great deal of activity concerning the potential uses of recycled tyres.
I congratulate the hon. Member for the quaintly named constituency of Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on securing the debate and on the manner in which he introduced it. I agreed with a great deal of his constructive speech, but I must take issue with one or two points. He suggested that London is central, whereas Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield might have better claims. He claimed that he did not want to make party political points, but went on to say that not enough catching up has been done in the past seven years. It is curious that he should select that specific period, and fail to refer to the conspicuous failure of Conservative Governments to deal with the issue during the previous 18 years.
I experienced the frustration mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) when I chaired the finance committee of Cardiff city council in the 1980s. We were ambitious about improving waste disposal and recycling, but at that time much of the capacity of local government to take initiatives was being destroyed by the Thatcherite attack on local government. We should not forget the history of that period, because we need to learn from damage that it did. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), who is condemned to silence in debates because of his role as my Parliamentary Private Secretary, reminded me that as a member of Westminster city council in the mid-1990s he proposed door-to-door categorised recycling collections, but the idea was rejected by the majority Conservative group. He also pointed out that some £32 million in profits from parking and fines meant that the council could have afforded to do a lot more—an opportunity that is not available to many local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) welcomed several aspects of the Government's approach and of the work of local authorities, as well as describing some of the challenges that we face. Nimbyism is often a problem. As several hon. Members said, it is difficult to debate objectively on the basis of facts when dealing with local issues. However, it can be done, and I was pleased to hear the hon. Members for Cities of London and Westminster and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole say that all hon. Members have a responsibility to promote a sensible debate based on facts and on the challenges faced in a particular area.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said that local authorities had been given high targets. However, they have also been given significant help. She suggested that there was a danger of the law of diminishing returns applying in relation to improving recycling levels. That is true, but it can also be difficult to

43WH
make a start. Once the population understand that their recycling efforts are being taken seriously, it is possible to get on to an escalator.
A topic dealt with in several contributions was the extent to which local authorities want central funding but also a reduction in ring fencing. They want to be able to use the resources available to them in a way appropriate to their area. There is always a tension between the wish for finances for this and other activities to be provided so as to give the maximum freedom to use them in a way that suits the local area, and the need to meet overall objectives.
The Government's waste strategy was published in May 2000. The vision is to change the way in which we manage waste and resources to improve our quality of life. To do that, we must tackle the amount of waste produced and break the link between economic growth and increased waste. When waste is produced, we must put it to good use through recycling, reuse and recovery. In short, we need to improve greatly the very low levels of recycling that have traditionally been achieved in England.
To ensure that we can achieve such aims, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs called together the key stakeholders for a waste summit last November. Since then, the Prime Minister's strategy unit has been considering what further steps, in addition to those already taken, must be taken to achieve the waste strategy 2000 objectives. The unit is assessing what extra instruments, changes to targets or regulations and/or additional funding may be required to ensure that the strategy is effectively delivered and that we can develop more sustainable waste management. The unit's report should be published shortly.
I referred to challenges. It is clear that the key issue for the review will be the need to make major strides on recycling. In 2000–01, we recycled or composted only 11 per cent. of our household waste in England. That was a small increase on previous years and progress looks slow, but this is in the period before statutory targets and extra Government funding have been put in place. I have been told that local authorities in England are roughly on track to meet the first target for 17 per cent. of household waste to be recycled or composted by 2003–04. However, as the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) pointed out, the growth in the amount of waste produced has continued to outstrip the increase in recycling, so the amount sent to landfill is still increasing. That cannot continue.
I particularly welcome the comments made in opening the debate by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that recycling is a
44WH
responsibility not just of Government and local government but of individuals, families and communities. If we approach the matter in that way, we have a chance to make the sort of improvements that we want.
The EU landfill directive has set tough and binding targets to reduce and control the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste. To help achieve those obligations, we have set ourselves challenging national targets for recycling and composting household waste. Local government must double the amount of recycling over three years and triple it in the five years to 2005–06. We intend to see those targets delivered and have set every local authority individual statutory targets. If necessary, we will use the powers under the best value regime to intervene to support their delivery.
As for the comments of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, progress has been slow in Westminster, and we require every local authority to meet its targets. So far there has been a 1 per cent. increase in the rate of recycling to 7 per cent. over the 1998–1999 rate. However, I hope that the range of initiatives that Westminster currently has in place will improve its recycling performance and that the hon. Gentleman will encourage it in that direction. The recycling team offers many micro recycling centres as well as a door-to-door recycling collection service. I sincerely hope that it is now moving in the right direction and will meet its statutory targets of 12 per cent. for 2003–04 and 18 per cent. for 2005–06.
The City of London corporation must also take significant action to address its low household recycling rate. A recent estimate for 2001–02 placed the rate of recycling at 11 per cent., which is a marked improvement on the 1998–99 figure of less than 1 per cent., and I understand that the Barbican is currently achieving 25 per cent. The corporation has taken action to deliver its first statutory targets but it has probably done the easy bit. The challenge of reaching 18 per cent. for 2005–06 remains, and it will have to consider what further steps it needs to take to deliver on that target.
I am aware of the challenges to household recycling in that largely commercial area and there are security considerations, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but we need to make progress. We do not tell local authorities how to deliver their recycling because they are best placed to do that, taking account of local issues such as type of housing. I am interested to see some conversion to local government on the Opposition Benches. However, we recognise that local authorities cannot meet the statutory performance—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr Edward O'Hara): Order. We now come to the debate on child care workers.

Child Care Workers
12.30 pm
Ms Debra Shipley: Within an hour of Mr. Speaker granting me the opportunity to highlight concerns relating to vetting of child care workers, the Department of Health rang my office to ask what I would be saying and to find out whether the Department of Health or the Home Office would respond. In doing so, it unwittingly demonstrated the first major problem: who takes responsibility for vetting? If the Departments do not know, what hope is there further down the line of accountability?
Vetting should be multi-agency, of course, but there should be clear lines of accountability leading via Ministers to one Secretary of State. At present, there are at least three Secretaries of State involved—four including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I shall say more about that later.
I confirm that I told the Minister in writing prior to this debate the areas that I would be covering. I told him that the debate would cover the work of three Departments based on my tabled questions and ministerial answers over a three-year period, and would draw on written ministerial replies to me about vetting concerns from three Departments. Aided with that information, I trust that the Minister will be able to respond to my concerns about health, education and Home Office matters and the implications for Northern Ireland. Failure to do so would further indicate the limitations of the existing structure of accountability.
What is wrong with the vetting of child care workers? Gaps, a limited definition of child care workers—I know that because I was responsible for the definition—poor lines of accountability, a lot of buck-passing at local level and fudging at ministerial level. No one person ultimately takes responsibility at local level or Government level.
The report, "Safeguarding Children", which was published on Monday, contains a clear insight into the problems of child protection as it currently operates. Many of its observations about the
"ability of agencies and professionals to safeguard children"
being compromised could be applied to the various vetting processes. The report states that, first,
"The priority given to safeguarding had not been reflected firmly, coherently or consistently enough in service planning, resource allocation nationally or locally across all agencies".
That includes vetting.
Secondly, the report says:
"Local agencies interpreted their safeguarding responsibilities in different ways or with a different emphasis. Other priorities competing for attention had sometimes resulted in resources being diverted away from key safeguarding activity".
Thirdly, it says:
"The priority that senior staff said was given to safeguarding children was not reflected in many agencies' business plans".
The report continued:
"Many staff … were confused about their responsibilities and duties to share information about child care and welfare concerns with other agencies and were not confident about whether other agencies shared information with them".
Damningly, it also stated:
46WH
"Despite consistency in the findings of enquiries over past years about weaknesses and failings in information sharing, there were few formal"—
I emphasise the word "formal"—
"agreements between agencies about how"—
I also emphasise the word "how"—
"and when information should be shared".
This is certainly true with a view to vetting with organisations not covered by the Protection of Children Act 1999.
I would like the Minister to put on the record today his response to that specific point. He need not take up limited time by telling me what the working groups are doing or about interdepartmental ministerial meetings. I am well aware of that. I would like to know the outcome and what exactly is being done to ensure that the inspectors' criticism is being dealt with with a view to vetting—or does the Minister believe that the inspectors are wrong? I, for one, believe that they have been very moderate in their report.
For example, it has been brought to my attention that in the London borough of Southwark children are collected from school by drivers and escorts who are not known to the school. When challenged, they failed to produce photo identity as to who they are. Have those people, who have apparently been provided by various agencies, including International Aunties, been vetted? Who knows? Certainly not Southwark council.
I have been assured in writing by Southwark council that all the necessary procedures are in place, but those are empty words, because no recording system exists in the schools. If a driver or escort arrives to collect a child and says that he has forgotten his identification pass, the child is nevertheless sent off with him; the school does not take responsibility. If the case is brought to the attention of social services, they simply pass the buck by saying that procedures are in place; they will not take responsibility either.
Last week, I personally asked the chief executive of Southwark council to ensure that, at the very least, any driver or escort who is collecting a child, and who is unknown to the school, has his or her details, such as a driving licence, noted. I was flatly told by the chief executive that in boroughs such as Southwark, which has so many children in this position, operating such a system would be impossible. Clearly, he will not take responsibility for those children.
I also gave the chief executive the name of a girl about whom I had worries. I carefully spelled out her name, but his secretary had to ring me the next day because the chief executive had managed to take it down wrongly. A week later, having had no response, my office rang the chief executive's office to discover that the name had been passed on to social services—the very people who I had said were not on top of the case. The chief executive did not contact me at all.
I asked Romi Burns, the deputy director of social services for Southwark, for an update. She said that she had been asked to ring me but did not have my number. So, we are dealing with a social services deputy director who does not know how to ring the House of Commons. When questioned, she simply reiterated that drivers are properly checked and procedures adhered to. How did she know? Schools do not have to maintain records

47WH
because, as the chief executive had explicitly stated, it would be impossible for them do so. The answer must be that she did not know. Advice being issued was good enough for her, but it is far from good enough for someone in so senior a position to be so complacent.
When I asked about the little girl who I had named to the chief executive, she said that she knew the name but had no information because the case was being dealt with by the education department. When we rang the head of education, we were told that they were "interrogating information". If that is an example of Southwark council dealing with an MP, what hope is there for concerned members of the public who attempt to blow the whistle to help safeguard children? What will the Minister do to ensure that such complacency and buck-passing is quickly brought to an end?
I now turn to the work of the Criminal Records Bureau. My Bill, which became the Protection of Children Act 1999, changed part 5 of the Police Act 1997 to facilitate the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau. I therefore followed with interest last week's exchange in the other place. When the Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform—a Minister of State at the Home Office—was questioned about the CRB's poor performance he had no reply other than to reiterate what had happened. Perhaps the Minister in the Chamber today will be able to improve on that. To help him, I shall be specific.
My first point is that last February, I asked the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety—another Home Office Minister of State—in a written question, to list bodies registered with the CRB, and he refused. He stated:
"Since most had not given their specific consent, it would not be appropriate".
I must ask: why? What do they have to hide? He went on to say that the details of those who have given consent were available on the website www.disclosure.gov.uk. It had not occurred to that Home Office Minister in February that the fact that most organisations were not giving consent was a problem. What is the view of the Health Minister who is to answer the debate today?
Secondly, I was seriously shocked, when I questioned the CRB's chief executive, to discover that compliance checks do not mean, as I had hoped, that random checks are undertaken to ensure that an employer who has been informed that certain individuals are unsuitable for, or banned from, working with children is not employing such individuals. It seems that "compliance checks" mean that the CRB will check that the forms have been correctly filled in and that the prospective employee has given his or her permission for the check. That is a major loophole in the CRB system because paedophiles will knowingly employ other paedophiles, and the public rely on the fact that an individual has been checked if the organisation has the kudos of being registered with the CRB. How are the public to know whether the employee is suitable? We do not know, because the Minister of State says that we do not have to be told.
I raised those matters in writing last April with the same Minister. I can only say that he fudged the answers by explaining what had happened and finally stating that I was correct in my assessment. I do not want to be
48WH
correct; I want Ministers to ensure that what the CRB has revealed is acted upon correctly. Does the Minister who is here today agree with me, and what will he do to facilitate that?
I also raised the problem of court records in relation to the CRB vetting process with the Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform in April. In order for a vetting process to be up to date, court records need to be electronically communicated to the CRB immediately after sentencing. That administrative measure will be greatly welcomed by the CRB and the police. The Minister wrote to tell me that
"the principal database from which the CRB will draw its information is the Police National Computer".
Will the Minister who is to answer the debate please clarify today whether the PNC receives electronic information directly from the courts immediately after sentencing? Will he also update me on whether that information is now available to the CRB? On a wider point, will he address the issue of referrals of abusers?
In a letter that I received on 23 September from the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), I was told:
"As you know, all non-regulated child care organisations are encouraged to refer names to the Secretary of State for possible inclusion on the Protection of Children Act list and to check against the list when proposing to appoint people to any childcare position".
That sounds okay; most parents, on receiving a letter like that, would assume that child care workers employed by agencies and organisations would have been vetted. They would be entirely wrong in that assumption. As the Back-Bench MP responsible for the Protection of Children Act 1999, I know that my definition of a child care worker is precise and very limited, and so, too, is the list of statutory bodies that are required to vet their workers. I also know that there is a massive difference between saying that an agency "must" vet a worker, and saying that it "may".
The same applies to the suspicion of abuse. Under my Act, statutory bodies are required to instigate investigation procedures and refer known abusers for listings. Other agencies and organisations are only encouraged to do so. For example, private tutors need not be vetted. What is more, prior to my Protection of Children Act, vetting procedures—apart from those relating to education List 99 for teachers—were almost impossible to carry out. They were at best piecemeal and at worst non-existent. That means that before my Act was passed, many people employed as child care workers were not vetted to discover whether they had ever physically or sexually harmed a child.
I took that matter up with the Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform, and was appalled at his reply, which I received on 13 September. The Secretary of State, in effect, washed his hands of the whole business. The Minister wrote:
"As to existing employees…In general, it is a matter for employers to decide whether or not they wish to carry out checks on existing staff and whether they wish periodically to re-check their staff."
That reply is simply not good enough. A responsible employer might seek to carry out retrospective vetting now that the possibility exists, but it is the sloppy, the

49WH
second-rate and the plain bad employers that should be required to vet. It is not good enough for that Minister to pass responsibility to the employer; he should be taking the lead himself. His failure to do so may have something to do with employment legislation, as in his letter he went on to say:
"Where employers wish to ask existing staff to undergo checks they need to pay due regard to the terms of the relevant contracts or conditions of employment. They may wish to seek professional advice".
That is a clear hint that retrospective vetting may be hampered by employment legislation. Unfortunately, the Minister concerned did not offer to look into the issue; he did not liaise with his ministerial colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry. As far as I am aware, he just let the matter drop.
A decent employer seeking to do the right thing and vet existing employees is on his or her own. That is not good enough, and I look to the Minister who will respond today to undertake to make good this serious legislative hurdle in the vetting process.
My Protection of Children Act 1999 does not cover Northern Ireland, but the Assembly was seeking to put its own expanded version of it on to the statute books. The Northern Ireland version would introduce a welcome extra dimension, that of accreditation, in clause 16. However, I wish the Minister to tell us today how the accreditation of voluntary organisations will be supported and promoted by all Government Departments. I also want him to comment on the vetting of those who cross the border from the south to work with children in the north. At present, there is no equivalent vetting process in the Republic of Ireland, which effectively creates a major loophole in our system when child care workers come over here from the island of Ireland. The Minister will undoubtedly have been made aware of my concerns, so what I am looking for today is a progress report.
Finally, I almost feel sorry for the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who has the task of replying today. I want to put on the record the fact that he did not make any of the ministerial replies that I have quoted; in every case, and with regard to every Department, the replies were made by Ministers of State. That raises the question of why my hon. Friend was considered to be the most appropriate Minister to respond today.
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) for giving us this opportunity to debate these important matters. I know that she takes a passionate interest in helping to ensure that our children, who are the most vulnerable members of our society, are offered the best possible level of protection. That is very evident from what she has said today.
I should begin by saying that the Home Office is the Department that takes the lead on such issues, but it is clear that other Departments also have their respective responsibilities, and the Government think carefully about which of them should respond to specific Adjournment debates. I am pleased to respond to the debate today. I also refer my hon. Friend to the way in
50WH
which she framed her debate; it is about social care workers. Therefore, as I am part of the Health team, it is appropriate for me to respond today.
We remain grateful to my hon. Friend for guiding her private Member's Bill through Parliament. That resulted in the Protection of Children Act 1999, which the Government implemented in October 2000, and it was that legislation which, for the first time, required Government to maintain a list of persons considered to be suitable to work with children, and to place specific requirements on child care organisations to carry out comprehensive vetting of the staff whom they intend to appoint to work with children. The legislation that was proposed by my hon. Friend was a vital first step towards achieving the Government's aim of establishing a framework of coherent cross-sector schemes for identifying people considered to be unsuitable to work with children, and to prevent such people from gaining access to children through their work.
Ms Shipley: I know what my Act did. It is not cohesive, extensive or anything else; it is very precise and limited. It also has lots of holes, which I regret, but I could not get the necessary changes through at the time. I do not want to sit here and listen to a description of what already exists—and, in particular, of what I have done. I want the Minister to address the questions that I have raised today.
Mr. Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments, but it is important that I put the history of the matter on the record, because it pertains to many of the points that she raised both today and when the Act was passing through Parliament.
I wish to make some progress now, so that I can get around to addressing my hon. Friend's points. As she has said, many of them have been addressed in correspondence with various Departments, but I will seek to write to her if I am unable to get around to dealing with all of them in this debate.
I know from what my hon. Friend has said today that she would like the elements in her legislation that require organisations to seek checks on their staff to be applied to all organisations that work with children, rather than only to the statutory sector. However, that would involve some intractable problems. It was recognised very early on in the life of the Protection of Children Act that a scheme that required all employers to check that Act's list would be impossible to monitor and enforce.
That issue goes to the heart of much of what has preoccupied my hon. Friend over the past two years—and, indeed, of what has been said today. For that reason, a requirement to undertake relevant checks was made for organisations that are regulated by statute—those who employ social workers, nursery staff and everyone who works in children's homes—while other organisations are encouraged to undertake such checks.
Indeed, the net is widely cast in relation to the type of person on whom a check might be sought. In past correspondence my hon. Friend asked about minicab

51WH
drivers who drive children; for example, a minicab driver may offer to parents the service of driving unaccompanied children—
Ms Shipley: No, I did not. Will the Minister confirm that I did not raise that issue?
Mr. Lammy: The issue raised related to taxis to school. My hon. Friend will know that, in London, as in other cities, a service is provided by taxis, minicabs and various other companies that transport children to school. Service providers are encouraged to vet their drivers, and it is right for the Government to encourage that. As important as the various checks are, however, it must remain paramount for all organisations entrusted with the care of children and other vulnerable people to carry out the full range of pre-employment checks to search for criminal backgrounds. That is only one part of a process that should include face-to-face interviews. Checking the referees and references of the various people is equally important. An applicant's employment history must be considered and employers must be satisfied that any gaps in details are adequately explained.
The Government quickly built on the foundations laid by my hon. Friend, and in January 2000 we implemented part 2 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 which, taken with the building blocks contained within the Protection of Children Act and the Education Acts of 1988 and 1996, complemented the integrated scheme to prevent unsuitable people working with children. The child protection measures in part 2 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 created a new way for the courts to disqualify unsuitable people from working with children, in addition to the existing schemes for education and child care. Those who commit a serious offence against children can therefore be prevented from all such work by means of disqualification by a judge, as part of their sentence or the disposal of their case.
We also ensured that the Act provided for the disqualification to apply to persons included on the Protection of Children Act List and to those included on the list maintained by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills—List 99—which, as my hon. Friend knows, contains the names of persons barred by the Secretary of State from working in educational establishments. The Act also provided strong criminal sanctions against those who breached the disqualification order, whether the new order was imposed by the courts or the person had been included on the Protection of Children Act list.
Ms Shipley: The Minister is treating me to a history lesson, using information of which I am extremely well aware—as I hoped I demonstrated when I was speaking earlier. He has seven minutes left, in which he should attempt to answer at least one of my questions. I would like him to answer some of the questions that I raised.
Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend raised several issues, including the taxiing of children, which I believe I have dealt with. She also raised the issue of the requirement of all organizations—
Ms Shipley: I did not mention the words, "taxiing of children". I never said "taxiing". I said that in some
52WH
Southwark schools children are collected by drivers and escorts who are unknown to the schools, and that those people often fail to provide evidence of identity. The chief executive told me that the schools would find it an overwhelming task to record all the information. The question that I want answering has nothing to do with taxiing.
Mr. Lammy: As my hon. Friend will have heard, I am setting out the obligations that rest on the relevant bodies, and those relate to the illustration that she provided. I am seeking to deal with it and I want to make progress. We can exchange views, but I cannot make progress unless my hon. Friend allows me to continue. I shall certainly write to her if I cannot reach a conclusion on the issues that she raised.

The complete framework of protection provided by the 2000 Act introduced a new definition of working with children, which formed the area to be covered by disqualification. Working with children in all sectors—including voluntary work and irrespective of whether that work is paid or unpaid—thus fell within the remit of the scheme. My hon. Friend posed questions about the definition of a child care worker, and her preferred wording is on the record. However, a clear definition is set out in section 36 of the 2000 Act.
I shall now move on to discuss the Criminal Records Bureau, which has an important role in preventing unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults. The Government are acutely aware of the problems experienced by the bureau, which have caused difficulties for the proper protection of children and other vulnerable groups, but it is important not to allow such problems to detract from the value of the initiative itself.
The CRB is designed to achieve several substantial improvements. First, it will enable information from police records to be made much more widely available to employers, voluntary organisations and others, primarily those working with the vulnerable. Secondly, in respect of working with children, it will be possible to search lists of unsuitable people, which are maintained by my Department and by the Department for Education and Skills. Thirdly, the level and speed of service will be higher than the police have been able to provide in the past. I do not disparage the past record of the police, but resourcing issues apply.
My hon. Friend mentioned the list of registered bodies under the Criminal Records Bureau. If lists were given without consent, it would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998. That is the Government's position, upheld by parliamentary counsel. Consent is a critical issue in a democratic context.
Ms Shipley: What does the Minister think of listed organisations that fail to give consent?
Mr. Lammy: I pass no judgment on the many and varied reasons why organisations may not want their details passed on beyond the CRB, which is charged with that function, to other third parties—including my hon. Friend. The information relating to organisations that give consent is available for inspection on the website or a list can be provided.
My hon. Friend also spoke about compliance checks, but that is not the CRB's function and it is not equipped to carry out that task. The inspection bodies—Ofsted,

53WH
the National Care Standards Council and other bodies whose inspection duties include compliance—should rightly take up that function.
Ms Shipley: The Minister used the word "should", so can he confirm that that is the case? Does it actually happen?
Mr. Lammy: I am surprised to hear my hon. Friend ask that question. If she looked at the reports of Ofsted and other inspection bodies, she would see that compliance is examined when schools and hospitals are visited. That is where the duty lies. Action is being taken to address the bureau's operational problems. The bureau, in conjunction with its private sector partner, has put in place a service improvement plan that has already delivered several improvements, and continues to do so.
Action is being taken to address the bureau's operational problems. The bureau, in conjunction with its private sector partner, has put in place a service improvement plan that has already delivered several improvements, and continues to do so. One of the earliest—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

Option 5 Funding (Devon)
1 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: It is fitting that one of the first debates after the return of Parliament should highlight the unfair treatment of Devon schoolchildren in the educational funding that they receive from central Government. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for allowing the debate to take place.
The national average spending per pupil in England is £2,567, but a school child in Devon receives only £2,372, which represents a shortfall of £195 per pupil. Devon's 95,896 pupils are getting a raw deal, and the county is being deprived of £18 million per annum. If one multiplies £195 by 95,896, one gets a total of £18 million, so we are receiving £18 million less than the average county.
Last June, the Government issued a consultation paper on local government finance. Consultation on the document ended on 30 September. As part of the review, several options for change in education funding were proposed. The debate provides the opportunity to put the unfair and inequitable system of educational finance right once and for all.
The Government do not like discrimination, and neither do the Opposition. I do not like the postcode lottery in the health service or discrimination in education funding based on which county people live in. The current system for the funding of local education depends on a variety of factors. The Minister must excuse me if I am unclear on the matter—he may be an expert on it, but I am not. However, as I understand them, the factors are as follows: 26 per cent. relates to the number of pupils in schools within the local education authority area; 37 per cent. relates to the number of pupils in the catchment area; 10 per cent. relates to sparsity and reflects the added cost of school transport; and 27 per cent. is based on additional educational needs for deprived areas, which takes into account poor language skills and parents on income support.
The Government have proposed four options for the funding of education in the consultation paper. Regrettably, those options continue to discriminate against schools, pupils and teachers in Devon. Of the four options, only option 2 has a small financial advantage for Devon; the other three would make the funding gap considerably worse for Devon and would mean that the shortfall per pupil was even greater than £195. However, option 2 would result in £2 million of additional funding, which would translate to an additional £21 per annum per pupil. That would reduce the shortfall to £174—but there would still be a shortfall. The four options proposed by the Government still provide Devon with less money than the average county.
The consultation document introduces the concept of using the working families tax credit as a measure of deprivation. That is most welcome, as it recognises the effect of low pay on educational needs and the fact that the number of people on income support is not the only measure of financial deprivation in an area.
In conjunction with the F40 group of the lowest funded LEAs, I ask the Minister to consider a fifth option, which could be an improved version of option 2,

55WH
and would achieve a fair financial settlement for Devon schoolchildren. The Government claim to be spending more money than ever on education since they came to power. Fine. Well done. I am all for it. However, option 5 would provide a more equitable funding system by shifting from the additional educational needs criteria towards a basic allowance per pupil. For those who say that that would be unfair, especially as the additional educational needs criteria deal with those who are more vulnerable, I would point out that there are real problems with the criteria.
An independent study by PricewaterhouseCoopers shows that the average funding given to a school to support a child with additional educational needs is £1,150. However, some £550 of that can be provided through what is called unmet needs, which is neither defined nor subject to any scrutiny; it is simply a wish list that allows the local education authority to claim more money from the Government, whether the child needs it or not. That sounds like gobbledegook, and that is where the problem lies—the present criteria are gobbledegook. Additional educational needs funding should be made available entirely on a needs basis, set out and scrutinised by the Government. It should be excluded from the general education funding formula.
The consultation paper did not offer any solution or mention the problems of funding for school transport. Only 10 per cent. of the Government's block education grant is dedicated to that under the heading of sparsity. Yet Devon has more roads than Belgium, and less public transport than almost any other county. It spends over £16 million a year of its education budget on transportation to and from school. If it did not do that it would contravene the Education Act twice—first by not getting the children to their schools and secondly by not providing full-time education. The matter has been festering since 1944.
Option 5, backed by the F40 campaign, has the support of Devon's parents, governors, teachers and teaching union representatives and councillors, over 200 Members of Parliament and all Devon MPs, whatever their political affiliation. My postbag has been overflowing for the past few weeks with hundreds of letters from concerned parties, who are desperate for a change in what they recognise to be a totally unfair system. In July, a delegation of teachers and parents, led by the admirable Helen Nicholls, head teacher of South Brent primary school in my constituency, presented a 60,000-name petition to the Prime Minister, when he accidentally came out of the door of No. 10.
Mr. John Burnett: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to mention the fact that it took less than a week to get those 60,000 names. Had we had slightly longer, the number would have doubled.
Mr. Steen: Well, we can put that right. If the Government feel that it would be helpful, I am sure that we can oblige. Miss Nicholls gained the Prime Minister's attention and he listened carefully to her explanation of the fact that the system of funding penalises Devon's children. The Government, like others, listen carefully; we hope that that listening will yield some productive and constructive results.
56WH
There are 95,896 pupils in primary and secondary schools in Devon. An increase of £195 per pupil, bringing them up to the national average, would result in a net increase of just over £18.5 million a year to the education budget. The practical difference that option 5 would make would be in the provision of funding to cover the immense burden faced by Devon in transporting pupils from home to school—some £16 million. For an average secondary school in Devon, that would mean an extra £250,000 that could be translated into 16 classroom assistants or eight teachers. That would be a godsend for Stephen Jones, the head teacher of King Edward VI community college—KEVICC—in Totnes, who is beside himself with concern as to how he will manage under the present financial arrangements. For an average primary school of around 200 pupils, with six or seven teachers, it would mean an increase of around £40,000 per annum. That money would pay for an extra teacher or two classroom assistants, dramatically reducing the pressure on the existing teachers. Dartington Church of England primary school has almost double the average number of students in Devon. Its head teacher, Annie Tempest, would be over the moon if extra money were to come her way each year.
In Devon, as I believe that the Minister knows, standard attainment test results in both primary and secondary schools, as well as GCSE results, are consistently higher than the national average. That is thanks to the dedication of the teachers and the quality of the students. I should also mention the outstanding contribution of that talented county councillor, John Hart, who, as executive portfolio holder for education, has put education above politics. All schools in Devon follow a national curriculum and national targets for pupil attainments. They work hard to meet national political expectations, employ staff on national pay scales and purchase additional resources from national educational companies, but Devon does not receive equal national funding. An increase in funding to the average level per pupil in England through option 5 would ensure that Devon schools could build on the excellent standards that they have achieved and make rapid progress. Conservative Members believe in excellence—in the highest common denominator—not in trying to level downwards to the lowest common denominator.
In a House of Commons debate on 26 April 1999, the present Secretary of State rightly stated that this Government are committed to fair funding for all schools and to a process of phasing out unfair funding. That is just what we wanted to hear, and no doubt the review will give her the opportunity to put things right.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Before we proceed, several hon. Members have made arrangements with the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and with the Minister to make contributions. It may help them to gauge the length of their contributions if I say that it is desirable that the Minister be called to speak not later than 1.22 pm.
1.11 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on the case that he made on behalf of Devon schools, which I completely endorse.

57WH
I want to pick up a couple of points. First, my hon. Friend rightly spelt out the critical situation of the Devon local education authorities in having to provide for school transport in a large rural county. A letter from the Department in August, in response to a chairman of governors in my constituency, stated:
"We know that pupils from poor backgrounds generally achieve worse results than those from more affluent backgrounds and that it costs more to educate them to the same level. So poverty is one of the pupil characteristics that we want to take into account in drawing up the new funding system."
I do not think anyone would disagree with that statement, but if one of the criteria for determining affluence and poverty is to be car ownership, I should tell the Minister that although car ownership in Tiverton and Honiton—my very rural and not very wealthy part of Devon—is one of the highest in the country, the two and three-car families mostly own old bangers, not new Mercedes, and so on. I hope that the Minister will analyse carefully the rather rigid criteria that determine affluence and poverty.
Secondly, there are schools with genuine problems that the Minister's Department would not determine as being in areas of poverty. Earlier in the year, I wrote to him about one such school, Uffculme, a school for 11-to-16 year olds, saying that it could not meet its statutory requirements now, never mind under the proposals for changes in the formula, but the Minister declined to meet my local education authority, the school and me. I raised the matter in the summer Adjournment debate and I hope that the Minister will reconsider my request, not least out of courtesy to a Member of Parliament. If good schools in areas not deemed to be of known poverty fail to meet their statutory requirements—we are not talking about a sink school, but about an excellent school—I hope that the Minister will take into account the difficulties they are suffering.
1.13 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter: I shall limit my brief remarks to the issue of village schools, of which there are many scattered throughout the county of Devon. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on the points that they made.
I know the Minister to be a reasonable man who is probably very sympathetic to the cases being made today; however, it is not the Minister's Department but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that will decide on the new funding formula and I hope that the Minister will put our comments robustly to the Deputy Prime Minister.
By and large, educating children in small village schools in Devon is a success story, but the cost of so doing is significantly higher than educating children in urban areas. The cost of school transport has already been covered excellently by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. The cost of maintaining old buildings is a serious issue and the cost of providing many local services—people have to travel large distances—can also be higher, yet the quality of education that many of Devon's primary school pupils receive is of the highest level. Our village schools produce not just excellent standards but young citizens who have a responsible,
58WH
informed approach to society, most of whom will go on to become responsible adults and play an active role in this country.
Village schools hold local communities together. They are what parents want, and their existence is vital in maintaining those communities. However, they cost more, not less. That the children of Devon receive £195 a head less to maintain their education than children in other areas creates a huge problem.
I was part of the delegation—I believe that all colleagues from Devon were there—that handed the petition to the Prime Minister, who listened carefully to the points that Helen Nicholls made to him. That was on 16 July and, as far as I was aware just a few days ago, no reply has been received from Downing street three months later. It is one thing to listen carefully to the points made by responsible senior head teachers from Devon, but it is a pity that Downing street, with all its resources, cannot even find the time to write a letter in response. I hope that that does not sum up the extent to which the Government are listening to the very real concerns of those who live in the countryside.
The countryside has suffered greatly in recent years, as the Minister knows. Farming is in crisis, and we are still trying to recover from the foot and mouth crisis in Devon. It will be another body blow if the fair funding formula is not a vehicle for putting right the shortfall in education funding for the children of Devon. The message to the Minister today is simple: stop the discrimination, give us fair funding, and give us option 5.
1.15 pm
Mr. Hugo Swire: I shall keep my comments brief, but I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) for securing this debate so early. It is an extraordinarily important debate for all of us who represent constituencies in Devon. Since I have been a Member of this House—just over a year—I have never had so much correspondence on any other subject. I was part of that delegation on 16 July, and I heard the Prime Minister tell Helen Nicholls that he would study the situation carefully and get back to her. I suspect that all Members in the Chamber today overheard that, as did Alastair Campbell who was also there. He will therefore find it difficult to wriggle out of it.
As a fair man, I compare and contrast that lack of a response with a reply from the Minister, to whom I wrote on 30 September. He had the courtesy to reply to me by 6 October, for which I thank him. He gave some hope in that letter, saying that he was open to other ideas and that he would take on board our strong representations for option 5. I hope that that is the case, and that decisions have not already been made.
My constituency has one of the largest secondary colleges—Exmouth community college—in the country. It also has one of the best grammar schools—Colyton grammar school. Each school is affected by the new proposals in its own way, as are all the primary and secondary schools in the more rural areas. I have raised several times in the Chamber the question of rural sparsity and the incredibly high costs of transport in our part of the world. As we have heard, the bill is £17.5 million. In real terms, that means that more than 6 per

59WH
cent. of our education budget is committed before a single child is taught. The Government currently provide £12.8 million towards that, which leaves a gap of £4.7 million. If the cost of school transport were fully funded centrally, that would mean an extra £50 for every pupil in Devon.
That is just one of the points that we seek to highlight. Other factors will be discussed later in this morning's debate. I earnestly hope that the Minister will take on board this cross-party alliance, which represents all primary and secondary school teachers in our part of the world. As David Birch, the principal of Sidmouth college, who now chairs the Devon Association of Secondary Headteachers said:
"We are not asking for special treatment. All we want is a fair deal."
1.18 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): Many congratulations to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing this debate so early. I am happy to engage with him, as I did with one of his colleagues at our meeting last week. I will address the specific issues of sparsity and transport that were raised about the development of the new funding formula, but I also want to present a broader picture.
I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Government's policy of increasing expenditure on schools. I hope that it will not bore him if I at least put that discussion into context by explaining the increased investment in education in Devon. I do not want to trespass into party political territory, but if the hon. Gentleman could also persuade some of his party's education spokesmen that increasing investment is a good idea, he would have not only my thanks but those of his constituents.
I was struck by the figures when they were produced for me. Since the local government reorganisation in 1998, Devon local education authority's expenditure has changed. Its standard spending assessment, which is the key part of local government spending, has increased by about £60 million over four years, which is about 25 per cent. Real-terms funding per pupil from that block has increased from £2,750 per pupil in 1998–99 to £3,220 this year, which is an increase of £470 or 17 per cent. Those figures are rather different from those that the hon. Gentleman gave. I hope that he will accept it if I ask my officials to write to him to explain the disparity so that we can proceed on the basis of similar figures.
Of course, the standard spending assessment is only part of the picture. The amount that Devon receives through the standards fund, which is a central allocation, has increased from £7.6 million in 1998 to more than £26.5 million this year. That money supports a range of features of school improvement.
Those moneys are not the only two categories of increased spending in Devon. Payments from the school standards grant, which is sometimes known as the Chancellor's grant, go directly to head teachers and are announced at the time of the Budget. The grant was introduced two years ago and more than doubled from £3.6 million in 2000–01 to more than £8 million this year. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased by the
60WH
Chancellor's announcement in the spending review that a typical 250-pupil primary school will receive more than £10,000 more next year due to the increase in the schools standards grant, which is a rise from £40,000 to £50,000. A typical 1,000-pupil secondary school will receive £50,000 more, which is a rise from £115,000 to £165,000. There is much greater investment in Devon's schools.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will be keen to have it on the record that capital investment in Devon, which reached the shameful level of only £13.1 million a year in 1997, was £26.6 million last year and is more than £45 million this year. That includes a private finance initiative project—
Mr. Burnett: We are interested in the present and the future rather than the past.
Mr. Miliband: I understand that and I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall respond to the points that were made. It is worth putting on the record that the rising spend is being given to every LEA throughout the country. We are discussing how that should be distributed—the spend has gone to Devon.
The main focus of the debate is the local government finance review. Hon. Members know that it is easier and more popular for a Government to announce a review than to announce a review's conclusions because a review gives hope throughout the country but its conclusions do not necessarily meet all expectations.
It is fair to point out that there are strong passions about the local government review throughout the country. The so-called F40 group has circulated many petitions, as have groups in other parts of the country that hold equally strong views. I am meeting representatives of each group and I met the F40 group on 25 September—a head teacher was present although I am not sure whether she was Ms Nicholls. There was a constructive exchange of views and I made it clear that the Government have not made decisions about the final outcome of the local government funding review and that we are listening seriously to consultation.
As the hon. Member for Totnes said, education is only part of the scene. There are four education options but I confirm that they were there for discussion and not simply for choice. We are happy to take representations on other options and I shall address his description of option 5 later.
We would all agree that the current system has problems—the hon. Gentleman said that that dated back to 1944. I hope that we can all agree that we want a fairer and clearer system that is based on clear elements.
Mr. Steen: Before the Minister moves on to the future, may I get his agreement because my figures were somewhat adrift from his? Does he accept that as things stand there is a difference of £195 per pupil between Devon and the average county? Can we at least get that clear?
Mr. Miliband: Those figures are not in my notes. I think that the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred represent average spend across the primary and secondary sectors relating to other counties. It would not be wise for me to say that I recognise the figures

61WH
when I have not seen them. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify what we are discussing. It is clear that Devon's funding is not above average.
A formula for the future that will command confidence and respect will include a basic entitlement, and will recognise additional educational needs—the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred to poverty-related indicators—and the extra costs of running the education system in some parts of the country, including Devon.
The Department for Education and Skills has guaranteed that there will be no real-terms losses as a result of the process. Floors in the system will ensure a real-terms guarantee for LEAs. That is important. The consultation process began on 8 July, just after the presentation of the petition, and closed on 30 September. The options discussed today centre on deprivation and area costs.
I do not wish to breach confidentiality so I cannot announce the outcome of the review today, but let me give the Chamber some idea of the direction of our thinking. We are not limited by the options set out in the consultation paper, but we want to achieve a fairer match between needs—a word used by at least two, possibly three, Opposition Members—and spending. That is not the same as saying that we should set an artificial target for the funding gap between authorities. The F40 campaign's option 5, which is not a distinct option but asks for more of one option and less of another, adds up to taking money from the deprivation element of the formula and putting it into the basic entitlement. That obviously has significant implications for other authorities around the country, but we take seriously the case for a higher basic entitlement. However, Devon will benefit from some of the extra money allocated for additional educational needs.
I appreciate that some areas, such as Devon, have substantial areas of sparse population. That is why we propose that the new formula should contain a sparsity element to reflect the costs of home-to-school transport in rural areas and to help rural primary schools. Let me explain this carefully because the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) raised the subject previously.
Authorities with sparse populations want us to introduce a sparsity factor for secondary schools, too. We have examined the issue in some detail, but we found no evidence of a connection between secondary school size and sparsity. Small schools are as likely to be found in densely populated metropolitan authorities as in shires, such as Devon, but we recognise that secondary
62WH
school pupils often have to travel further to get to schools in authorities with sparse populations. That is why we examined the transport expenditure of each LEA to assess the impact of sparsity. We estimate that, in the new formula, 60 per cent. of the transport element of the LEA block will be distributed through the sparsity index and 40 per cent. according to the number of pupils living in the authority.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Option 5 is supported by many counties, not just Derbyshire. I know that the Minister has received many representations, and he has told us today that he will consider all of them, but the tight timetable for implementation is causing concern. What consultation period will there be after the Government have put forward their final option, or will it be a matter of take it or leave it?
Mr. Miliband: I give way to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon.
Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to provide in the formula for primary and secondary school transport?
Mr. Miliband: The consultation on the Government's final proposals will proceed in the usual way for a local government finance settlement in late November, early December. The transport indicator in the LEA block relates to both primary and secondary schools, but the schools block covers only the primary sector.
Finally, on the definition of deprivation, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the number of cars in a household. I do not know where she got that idea. We made it clear in the consultation paper that there are two options for measuring deprivation. The traditional income support measure includes people on incapacity benefit, so it is a measure of non-employment that targets a particular group of families. However, we flagged up in the consultation paper that we also want to recognise those children who live in working families on low wages. That is an issue in places such as Devon where many rural workers are on low wages. We take that seriously and want to recognise need in a proper not an arbitrary way.
To conclude, this has been a useful debate. I take seriously the points that have been made. However, I reiterate that spend is rising in all LEAs throughout the country. I hope that the Opposition will support us in that.

Crime (North Wales)
1.30 pm
Chris Ruane: I shall split my speech into two parts. First, I shall briefly describe my experience on the parliamentary police placement scheme, which I am currently on. Secondly, I shall focus on the crime and disorder partnerships in Denbighshire, which are not working.
Earlier this year, colleagues and I formed a Labour group of north Wales Members of Parliament. The three issues on which we are concentrating are crime, attracting quality jobs to north Wales and improvements to the North Wales railway line. I took up the issue of crime in north Wales as a member of that group.
I am taking part in the parliamentary police placement scheme. The scheme lasts for 25 days, of which I have so far done 18. I have visited dog handlers and the North Wales police helicopter crew, which works with the health service and has saved hundreds of lives since it began. I have worked with the armed response unit and I have been on the firing range at Rhewl in Denbighshire, which is the eighth best in the world. The North Wales police force is very proactive and uses the range to create income for Denbighshire. Indeed, it is doing great things in Ireland and it has got the RUC and the Gardai using the firing range, so it is doing its bit for the peace process. I have also visited the police driving school in Colwyn Bay, in north Wales, which is one of the best in the country. It offers a rolling programme of three-week driving instruction courses for 900 officers, which will make the force's drivers the safest in the UK.
I have spent three days on the beat in Rhyl, in my constituency, three days on the beat in Llandudno, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), and one day on the Maesgeirchen council estate in Conwy. I have been very impressed by the dedication and commitment of the police officers that I have been with over the past five or six months. Perhaps I was deliberately placed with positive people, but I can honestly say, hand on heart, that I have not met one jaded police officer. In our consultations on issues such as "Justice for All", such police officers will act as a valuable source of information, ensuring that we achieve best practice and tilt the scales of justice away from the criminal and towards the victim.
My experience has helped me as a constituency MP, and I have visited some excellent schemes. The youth offending team in Wrexham is one of the best in Wales. Mobile CCTV cameras can be strapped to a lamppost centre wherever there is a problem in Conwy town, and images can be relayed to police headquarters. They can also be used around the whole of Conwy county. Although the traditional location for CCTV is in the high street, where it is used to look after property, I have also seen it installed on council estates such as the Maesgeirchen estate in Bangor, where crime levels have dropped as a result. There is only one road in, so the police know when a drug dealer comes in and they can identify him.
I have also been impressed by the Conwy houses in multiple occupation team, which takes a joint approach to fighting the problems presented by HMOs, involving
64WH
not only environmental health officers but fire officers, the police, welfare rights units, social services and education. The whole team is involved, and landlords who do not perform properly or who short-change the county and their tenants will be made to pay, because the team will go through their affairs with a fine-toothed comb.
I believe that my experience will help me in parliamentary debate, which is one of the prime purposes of the scheme. Forty colleagues have been on the parliamentary police placement scheme, including my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy. Perhaps the best thing that I witnessed on the scheme was the Aquarius project, which is run by North Wales police. It is cutting edge stuff. There are 43 police authorities in the UK, and North Wales police are probably No. 1 at using technology and record management systems. They are piloting a Canadian model in north Wales, which I hope will be rolled out throughout the country when it proves successful. That is a Welsh solution to a Welsh problem, and a UK one.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am sure it is a very worthy scheme, but while the hon. Gentleman was on that scheme was it explained to him why the number of specials in north Wales has declined from 388 to just 125, or why violent crime in north Wales has increased by 36 per cent. while detection rates have dropped to 28 per cent.?
Chris Ruane: I am aware of that fact, and I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. That is a snapshot perhaps of the whole of Wales, but in certain parts of Wales—again I refer to Llandudno—there are specials who have been there for 11 years. I was out on a Saturday night at two o'clock in the morning with a special who had been there for 11 years. In areas such as Rhyl—my home town—the number of specials is just one or two. It is a patchwork across north Wales.
On the issue of crime detection and combating crime, I believe the following to be the solution. Within any police authority there are 26 separate silos of information. The Aquarius project will allow the computer to go through those silos and pick out all the relevant information on one household, individual or whatever, and convey that information to the palmtop computer of a police officer going to an incident. It can give a picture of that person. If the officer asks a person who he is, and he says John Jones, or whatever, and gives his name and address, the officer can say, "No you're not—that's John Jones." It is a fantastic system, which will cut down dramatically on bureaucracy. Police officers spend 43 per cent. of their time in the police station. Officers can do reports on their palmtops, which can be sent off to the 17 different points to which they need to be sent. That is a fantastic tool. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales to come to north Wales and judge that fantastic project for himself.
The next part of my speech concentrates on crime and disorder and it is not a positive tale. I have not got a positive story to tell on crime and disorder partnerships in my constituency in Denbighshire. The partnership is not effective, and it is having a devastating effect on my constituents, especially those in social housing. I would like to give some graphic details of how ordinary people

65WH
are terrorised in their own homes, and left without any help or support. I give you the example of a young single mother in my constituency with a nine-year-old daughter, who lived in fear and terror of a local gang who victimised her. They actually urinated over her daughter. The woman went to the council for help, and it told her that she would have to stand up and be counted, go to court and get those people prosecuted. That council is not living in the real world.
I give another example. A family with children aged from five to 13 terrorised a whole street. Their activities went unchecked for two to three years. They drove out an elderly couple who had lived on that estate for 50 years. The house became vacant and the housing association bought it. It put in a single mother with an eleven-year-old son fleeing domestic violence. The antisocial family said that they were going to kill the 11-year-old son. She turned to the council for help. It said that she should stand up and be counted and go to court.
Mark Tami: My hon. Friend has rightly raised antisocial behaviour as a crime, and a very serious one, which blights many of our communities. In my constituency there is a meeting in Sealand tonight to discuss what is happening at St. Andrew's church. That church is being targeted by young vandals, who are not only destroying the church but attacking the people who visit it, and putting them in a terrible state. We have antisocial behaviour orders. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should use them more than we are at the moment?
Chris Ruane: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will come on to the issue of antisocial behaviour orders in a moment.
After her 11-year-old son's life was threatened, the young mother left the house immediately. She had spent £1,500 on fixtures and fittings in her house, but she left it and had to go back to a violent relationship. She went to the council and asked it to rehouse her. It told her that there was nothing immediately available, and she had to wait for nine months before she was rehoused. When a council house in my constituency becomes empty, the council is prepared to spend vast sums of money on boarding up the house with steel frames, repairing the smashed porcelain and replacing the systems that have been taken out. According to figures supplied to me this morning, it spends £40,000 a year on one estate, on boarding up and repairing houses and on lost rents. I would say that that sum, for that one estate, would be better spent employing two or three dedicated officers with the job of combating crime. That £40,000 is a yearon-year cost, which, I believe, will escalate.
Figures supplied by the local county council this morning are inaccurate. They tell me that an average of four houses are boarded up on that estate, but there were 16 in June, and eight at 11.30 am today when I sent a councillor round to investigate. I am currently making inquiries about something that I have been told—that houses have been repaired and that young hooligans have then gone in and re-trashed them. That has happened on five occasions, and police were informed only on the fourth. That is not partnership in Denbighshire.
I have suggested to the council that if it knows that a council house is becoming empty, it should work around the current tenant and hand over the keys on the day on
66WH
which the tenant moves out. If major work is needed, it should have workmen in there, working through the night if necessary and, again, hand the keys over. For the 2,000 people on the council house waiting list who are desperate for homes, that seems a sensible measure to cut down vandalism and the cost of repair, and to reinvest in the community.
Mrs. Betty Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major concerns in north Wales is the absence of police at night on the streets where rowdy behaviour and vandalism occur? I am thinking in particular of areas in Llandudno, Llandudno Junction, Conwy, Penmaenmawr and Llanfairfechan, which I know my hon. Friend has visited.
Chris Ruane: Absolutely. Police numbers are important, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in 1997 there were 1,300 officers in the North Wales police; there are now 1,500. We must ensure that the extra officers going in are frontline officers. I refer again to the Aquarius project, which I believe will help to achieve that.
Mr. Martyn Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the money that councils such as Wrexham spend on youth offending teams to nip such behaviour by young people in the bud is much better spent than the money that he has described as being used for boarding up houses and so on?
Chris Ruane: Absolutely. I referred earlier to the excellent example of the youth offending team in Wrexham. That is a more positive, proactive measure and it saves money and, more importantly, communities.
Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman be interested, as I will be, to hear what the Minister has to say about how the causes of crime are being addressed? Much of what he says is about enforcement, but enforcement will cure only symptoms, not causes.
Chris Ruane: Yes. That is my point. It is no good sending police officers to those estates to chase young criminals round. The answer is a co-operative partnership approach involving the social services, education, housing, the police, the local community, the MP and the Welsh Assembly Member. The problem must be looked at in the round. I shall give a graphic example in a moment of how that has failed in my constituency.
I suggested four years ago that such a measure should take place—that houses should be repaired straight away to cut down on antisocial behaviour. The county council never took up the suggestion. It has a range of weapons in its armoury to combat antisocial behaviour. It can use strong tenancy agreements, rigorously implemented. There has been, I think, only one eviction due to antisocial behaviour in my constituency. Evictions should not simply take place in the first instance. We should give help and support to those vulnerable families, but if that fails, fails and fails again, eviction should be considered. I do not think that it has been used as a powerful weapon. Antisocial behaviour

67WH
contracts and antisocial behaviour orders could be used. Not one single antisocial behaviour order has been used in my constituency.
I have highlighted the financial cost to the council, but a greater human cost is borne by people who live on the estates and watch their communities being torn apart through inaction. That inaction helps to breed current and future crime by failing to tackle boarded-up houses and burning houses and cars. The council is creating mini-adventure playgrounds within those estates, where kids—from five-year-olds to 15-year-olds—are able to get away with crime. With each burning, young children become emboldened, learn the tricks of the trade from older children and become toughened for a life of crime.
Two years ago, a serious incident occurred in the north of the county in which a police officer was hospitalised after she was set upon by young thugs. I called a meeting, and the county council responded positively. It was represented at the meeting, along with senior officers, and £20,000 was thrown into the pot to tackle the problem. A working group was set up, which met every three months and at which action minutes were taken and reported back on—I attended the last meeting in January—and local councillors thought that we were going forward. Then, in March this year, a letter was sent from the chief executive's department stating that because the initiative had been so successful and crime on the estate had fallen, the council had decided to end the partnership. That is not an example of a working partnership; there was no consultation with people involved in the group. Consequently, in June this year a house and two cars were set alight—not on the outskirts, but in the middle of the estate, so that black, swirling smoke circulated around it. What sort of message does that send out to that community? It says, "We don't care that you are by yourselves; as long as you are paying your rent, we're happy." That can no longer be tolerated.
The view that the partnership in Denbighshire is not working is shared not only by me and the majority of my constituents but by the Home Office. The Minister will be aware that the west ward of Rhyl is one of the five wards in the UK that has become a designated policing priority area. The main theme of the report on the policing priority area was that better partnership is needed, with commitment from the top and sufficient resources and staffing. Partnerships, especially at community level, must be supported—training and secretarial help is required. That is not happening, and some members of the local crime and disorder partnerships are tearing their hair out because of the lack of progress. When I contacted the police standards unit yesterday, I was told that meetings held with the Minister responsible for the police included senior representation from Denbighshire county council and the police. That was not the case when workshops on the nitty-gritty of the partnerships were held. Senior police officers attended, but council officials did not. Commitment is needed both at the strategic and the working levels. Three weeks ago, the police and the county council agreed to a joint operation to crack down on late night fast food outlets in Rhyl, where there is a great deal of associated violence, but on Thursday it was called off unilaterally by the council. That is not participation.
68WH
Modern crime strategies look to sport to create positive diversionary activities for young people. I am conducting surveys across my constituency, on council estates and beyond, and those communities are crying out for sports facilities so that youth can be diverted into positive activities away from a life of crime. I shall give an example from my county. For two years, I participated in a sports partnership to develop a £4.5 million bid for much-needed sporting facilities in Rhyl, the largest town in my constituency. We worked away, drew up outline plans and garnered facts and figures. In the middle of the summer recess of 2001, we received a letter saying that the bid had been cancelled because it did not have the county council's support—despite the fact that it would look after young people right next to the poorest ward in Wales. The council unilaterally pulled the plug on the first phase, and a £1.5 million lottery application was ended without any consultation with the partners. A similar story can be told in Prestatyn, where a tennis courts complex was lost to a neighbouring town.
Denbighshire council often claims that it does not have the finances for those initiatives, but £600,000 of "communities first" money set aside in Cardiff for the west and south-west wards of Rhyl has remained unclaimed for the past year. Those communities are crying out for that money to be used through crime and disorder partnerships to create sports facilities, but it has not been claimed. Rhyl West is the poorest of the 865 council wards in Wales, but it has not received one penny piece of the money because the council has not drawn it down. The situation is so serious that the Assembly Member for the Vale of Clwyd, Ann Jones, has raised the matter with the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities, Edwina Hart, who has had to intervene in the matter.
I have raised a local issue from a local perspective to show that crime and disorder partnerships are not working, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that they are properly monitored. Currently, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary looks at the input of the police while the district auditor looks at the input of the county council or local authority; they do not use common timetables, standards or formats. I ask him to take the issue back to the Home Office and the National Assembly for Wales in order for one team using a common format to look at crime and disorder partnerships in the round. That team's report should be readily understood by the public to allow them to identify which partnerships are working and which are not both in their local authority and between local authorities. If partnerships are not working, the public can then get involved in the democratic process and put pressure on the Assembly Member, the council, the police and me.
I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to visit North Wales to look at the Aquarius project and talk to people on estates in my county and constituency to find out how they feel about crime and disorder.
1.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on securing the debate. The issue is important and it is good that it has been aired this afternoon.

69WH
At the outset of my remarks, it is important to make it clear that recorded crime in Wales is down by 16.4 per cent. since 1997. Although we can congratulate ourselves on that, there is no reason to be complacent. The Government will not be complacent because we are determined to reduce both crime and the fear of crime. I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that the fear of crime is often a great problem, particularly among older people, and we have to be careful about the perceptions that we create. I recently took part in a BBC programme, which produced a poll that showed that 20 per cent. of people over the age of 55 were afraid to go out after dark. The fact that 80 per cent. of such people—four out of five—were not afraid was lost. The perception created by the discussion was that people over 55 were afraid to go out after dark.
Research consistently shows that a sensible approach using a variety of crime reduction methods is the most effective way in which to improve our communities. I know from my constituency experience that partnerships between the community, the police, the local authority and others are the most effective way of building more stable communities, reducing crime and engaging young people who are perhaps involved in criminal activities. Too often, there is a problem on a particular estate because kids are gathering and causing grief, nuisance and upset to local people, and along come the police who move them from one end of the village to the other. That does not cure the problem. The only way in which we are going to tackle it is to engage with young people by giving them ownership and finding solutions with them.
Police officers must, of course, be on the beat, and I take my hon. Friend's point that that is very important. Police numbers are now at a record high in Wales, with 7,193 officers, and, as he pointed out, North Wales in particular has had extra officers. We must ensure, however, that those officers are actually out on the beat. The planned introduction of 1,000 community support officers will help to raise the police's profile. Chief constables now have the power to accredit organisations' employees in the same way as community support officers in order to raise the visibility of policing. The use of civilians in police stations will also be of benefit because that will hopefully allow more officers to go out on the beat.
My hon. Friend made a number of points about the good practices and technologies that are being used in the Aquarius project in north Wales, but we must not get away from the fact that too much of police officers' time is spent on paperwork. The recent study "Diary of a police officer" clearly demonstrated that too much time was spent on paperwork and not enough out on the beat.
I welcome the point that my hon. Friend made about the introduction of information technology and palm computers. I know how successful palm computers have been, and I would be pleased to go up to north Wales at his invitation to see them, and also to talk about the crime reduction partnerships that cause him concern in Denbighshire. I am delighted that North Wales police are at the vanguard of investing in a general packet radio spectrum link, which means that information can be transferred from existing mobile communication systems four times faster than at present. Clearly, that is the sort of benefit that investment in new technology will bring.
70WH
Since the introduction of the crime reduction programme for England and Wales in 1999, £22 million has gone into crime and disorder reduction partnerships in Wales. The investment is important, but we must see outcomes if we are to make progress. I am aware that many such partnerships work well, but if there are difficulties in the one to which my hon. Friend referred, I will ensure that his comments are brought to the attention of my colleagues in the Home Office. Again, I accept his invitation to go to north Wales to discuss the matter with him.
The first set of statutory local crime and disorder reduction strategies have been reviewed, and new strategies will be put in place for 2005. Several other initiatives such as CCTV, neighbourhood watch schemes and anti-domestic violence projects also contribute to reducing crime and building more stable communities. Some £2.8 million will go into partnerships this year in the communities against drugs programme. In my hon. Friend's area, as in mine, there are no doubt serious problems with drug misuse, and we have to put in serious resources to tackle them.
Good partnerships have been funded in Ynys Môn, and £30,000 went towards a shopwatch scheme in Holyhead and Llangefni. Total bids submitted by Wales for the second round of funding under the scheme are around £772,000. The bids have been put in, and money will be forthcoming as we develop the schemes. We await further announcements on them.
It is also important that we consider some of the causes of anti-social behaviour and crime in our communities. Drug and alcohol misuse is a major factor. I have seen that in my constituency, as I am sure that my hon. Friend has in his. To tackle that, we need to work through strategies with agencies, the voluntary sector, local authorities and the police. I am pleased that the Wrexham community safety partnership has impressively led the way in Wales through its use of antisocial behaviour orders. The powers exist to impose ASBOs so ASBOs should be used, and far more frequently than at present.
Ian Lucas: Will the Minister also commend the initiative taken by the Communities First group in Wrexham? It works to involve young people who are not involved in crime in the planning of youth facilities in difficult areas in the town. The idea is to ensure that young people do not slip into crime, by providing adequate facilities for them to use before they become involved in it.
Mr. Touhig: My hon. Friend makes an important point. All too often, we on the outside in government, the police or local authorities tend to think that we have to impose solutions on communities. We need to consider ideas from the communities themselves, so that they have ownership of the projects. That can provide much greater benefits, as I am sure he will agree.
Partnerships work well in sharing best practice in many parts of the country. It is important that we build on those good practices. Acceptable behaviour contracts can often be issued. They are a last chance before ASBOs, and sometimes they do the trick. They are another tool in the armoury of partnerships to tackle antisocial behaviour. Denbighshire local council has

71WH
drawn up about 15 such contracts, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) is aware. Their effectiveness will depend on the response from the wider community in support of the efforts of the police and partnerships.
Mr. Nigel Evans: When the Minister goes to north Wales, will he ask the chief constable, Richard Brunstrom, why he seems so intent on magnifying the number of speed cameras in north Wales? The Minister has rightly talked about the anti-social problems of violence, damage and muggings. Why is there not a huge concentration on that? Why has there been such a decline in detection rates in north Wales?
Mr. Touhig: The police have made considerable effort in north Wales, but I take the point. [Interruption.] As one of my colleagues has just said, speed kills. It is
72WH
important that we get that message across to those who have campaigned about speed cameras. Speed reduction in urban areas saves lives.
I have also been pleased about the on-the-spot fines that have been introduced in north Wales. The fines of £40 and £80 are working effectively, and are getting the right message across. I am aware of the project in the west ward of Rhyl to which my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd referred. It has been greatly beneficial, and I would like to see it continue. It has widespread local support.
Many good initiatives have taken place in north Wales. We have to ensure that the partnership that we have put in place is properly reviewed and kept under scrutiny, and that it works effectively. If there are deficiencies such as those that my hon. Friend pointed out, we must get together to overcome them and put them right.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Overseas Territories (Statistical Information)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 July 2002,Official Report, column 175W, on overseas territories, to what extent the overseas territories differ in their system for the collection and publication of statistics; and which publish details within these statistics that constitute national income accounts. [71569]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 22 July 2002]: There is no common method used throughout the UK Overseas Territories for the collection and publication of statistical information. Of the economically significant Overseas Territories, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, St. Helena and Turks and Caicos Islands regularly produce and publish details within these statistics that constitute National Income Accounts. Gibraltar has recently published a compendium of statistics after a gap of several years.

  Sheikh Salah Shahada
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government on the death of Sheikh Salah Shahada and others on 22 July. [73380]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I spoke to the Israeli Ambassador on 23 July to express the concern of the Government and the House about the Israeli attack in Gaza and the deaths of innocent civilians. I said it was unacceptable and counterproductive, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had earlier told the House. HM Ambassador in Tel Aviv conveyed the same views to the Israeli Prime Minister's office.

  Data Protection
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times the revised certificate he signed last December with respect to Section 28 of the Data Protection Act 1998 has been used by the Intelligence Service and GCHQ in relation to(a) the right of access to personal data and (b) the disclosure of personal data to the Service or GCHQ; and if he will make a statement. [74481]

  Mr. Straw
  The certificates I signed pursuant to section 28 (2) of the Data Protection Act 1998 relating to SIS and GCHQ provide evidence that the exemption from those provisions of the Act that are specified in the certificate are required for the purpose of safeguarding national security. The certificates identify the personal data to which they apply by means of general 528W
  descriptions and are expressed to have prospective effect, in accordance with section 28 (3). The certificates are used in the context of any legal challenge to the application of the section 28 exemption, such as appeals brought before the Information Tribunal under section 28 (4) or 28 (6). There have been no appeals against the certificate in respect of SIS and there have been two against the certificate in respect of GCHQ, which are still extant.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many subject access requests have been received by the Intelligence Service and GCHQ since the right of access afforded by the Data Protection Act 1998 came into effect; how many of these requests were from data subjects who were not employed or contracted to the Service; and whether any request for access has resulted in personal data being obtained by data subjects. [74480]

  Mr. Straw
  The Secret Intelligence Service has received 80 requests for subject access since the Data Protection Act 1998 came into force. Of those, 37 were from individuals not employed by or under contract to the Service. GCHQ has received 25 requests from individuals not employed by or under contract to GCHQ, of which 2 were from former employees. Personal data has been provided by both agencies to data subjects in both categories in response to requests in accordance with Section 7 of the Act.

  Chagos Islands
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Ibis people had UK passports issued to them under the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act 1971: and how many were issued in(a) Mauritius, (b) the Seychelles, (c) London and (d) other places. [74657]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The current legislation under which passports are issued is the British Nationality Act 1981, as amended by the British Overseas Territories Act 2002.

  The number of British passports issued to Chagossians in Mauritius and the Seychelles is 98 and 63 respectively. An additional 80 passports have been issued in Pretoria. Details of ethnic origin would not be recorded for British passports issued elsewhere and therefore numbers are unavailable.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are being considered by BIOT officials for the Ibis people to visit the Chagos Islands, including Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement. [74655]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A planned trip in October 02 to enable a group of Chagossians to visit the outer islands of the Chagos Archipelago could not go ahead due to the withdrawal of the vessel by the shipping company. We are ready to consider reinstating the voyage next year once the cyclone season (Nov—April) is over.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what applications he has received from the USA to construct new aircraft hangars on Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement. [74654]
  529W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The issue of possible upgrades to facilities at Diego Garcia has been discussed at annual talks between the UK and US governments. The details of these governmental talks are confidential and exempt under section la of The Code of practice on Access to Government Information, "Information whose disclosure would harm national security or defence".

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what the Government's policy is on the future status of the British Indian Ocean Territory; [74191]

  (2) what options are being considered by the Government after the expiration of the agreement granting the United States joint military use of Diego Garcia. [74193]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The British Government has a treaty commitment to allow the US to use BLOT until at least 2016, and then for a further 20 years unless prior notice is given. We have told the Government of Mauritius that the Chagos Islands will be ceded to Mauritius when they are no longer required for defence purposes, subject to the requirements of international law.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the claims of Mauritius and the Seychelles to the Chagos Archipelago of British Indian Ocean Territory. [74192]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The British Government has sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Mauritius is the only other state to have a claim to sovereignty. The British Government has told the Government of Mauritius that the Chagos Islands will be ceded to Mauritius when they are longer required for defence purposes, subject to the requirements of international law. Seychelles makes no claim to sovereignty over the Chagos Islands.

  Western Sahara
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held at the UN concerning a referendum of Saharwi people on the future of the Western Sahara. [74662]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The future of Western Sahara has been discussed at the UN recently in both the Security Council and the General Assembly.

  On 30 July 2002 the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1429. This extended the mandate of the UN's peacekeeping force in Western Sahara (MINURSO) until 31 January 2003. It underlined the validity of the Settlement Plan, which provided for a referendum on the future of Western Sahara, while noting the differences between the parties in its implementation. It supported the efforts of the Secretary General and his Personal Envoy to find a political solution to the dispute. The Council expressed its readiness to consider any approach that provided for self determination and urged the parties to cooperate fully with them.
  530W
  The Fourth Committee of the General Assembly recently debated the question of Western Sahara and agreed a resolution by Consensus debated on 4 October 2002. That resolution noted the Security Council's recent resolutions, including 1429. It urged the parties to continue their cooperation with the Secretary General and his Personal Envoy with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable political solution.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his statement of 23 July 2002,Official Report, column 960, if he will place in the Library details of his information about the similar amount to the $11 million paid on or about 23 December 1988 paid 18 months before. [73716]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I can add nothing to that which I gave my hon. Friend on 23 July 2002. It is a longstanding Government policy not to comment upon intelligence matters. As I said to my hon. Friend in the House on 23 July 2002, I am informed that after the bombing of Pan Am 103, all reports of PFLP-GC funding that emerged were investigated and none was found to have any connection to the Lockerbie attack.

  EU General Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs Council held on 23 July; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [73529]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary represented the UK at the July Council. The Council adopted the "A" points listed in document 12354/1/02 PTS A 44 and noted the Resolutions, Decisions and Opinions of the European Parliament listed in document 10110/02.

  Presidency Priorities

  The Presidency presented its work programme, with emphasis on completing enlargement negotiations with up to 10 countries by Copenhagen. Greece, which will preside over Council discussions with defence implications, briefed on ESDP priorities, particularly progress towards the Headline Goal.

  Enlargement

  The Presidency presented its programme, underlining its commitment to respect the targets set by the European Council. This involves aiming to resolve all remaining non-budgetary aspects by September, with the objective of the Brussels European Council naming the countries that could conclude negotiations by the end of 2002 and taking decisions which will enable the EU to inform the candidates early in November about the financial aspects of the package. The UK strongly supports this approach.

  Seville European Council: Follow-up

  The Council adopted revised rules of procedure, incorporating the changes agreed at Seville and setting out the role and future areas of activity of the General Affairs and External Relations Council. The UK

  531W
  welcomes the reforms agreed at Seville. The Commission noted its intention to complete by September, as requested at Seville, a study on options for resolution of the transit issue affecting Kaliningrad.

  Work in other Council Formations

  The Presidency briefed, in particular noting the first discussion in the 15 July Agriculture Council of the midterm review of the CAP, the debate in the 12 July ECOFIN on negotiations with Switzerland on taxation of savings and in the 19 July ECOFIN on the draft 2003 budget.

  Zimbabwe

  The Council confirmed that Zimbabwe was continuing to fail to respect its obligations in democracy, human rights and rule of law. The Council, with strong UK support, decided to extend the list of those in the ruling party and government affected by the EU measures set out in the 18 February Common Position. This will include all remaining Cabinet Ministers, Politburo Secretaries, Deputy Ministers, Assistant Secretaries of the Politburo and the wife of President Mugabe. The Council condemned the Mugabe government's land reforms as a major cause of the humanitarian crisis and urged Zimbabwe to implement the process agreed at Abuja in September 2001 and to review its land reform as proposed by UNDP in early 2002. The EU will continue to supply humanitarian aid to the people of Zimbabwe.

  Southern Africa

  The Council discussed the humanitarian crisis in the region, noting the EU's contribution of €130 million in food and humanitarian aid. It called on the governments in the region to work with the international community to address the underlying causes of the crisis.

  Conflict Prevention

  The CFSP High Representative and Commissioner Patten briefed on EU priorities in Conflict Prevention. The Council adopted Conclusions welcoming this work, and tasking the Political and Security Committee to keep it under review.

  Middle East

  Council Conclusions welcomed the outcome of the EU/US/UN/Russia ("Quartet") meeting on 16 July and stressed the need for parallel work on economic, political and security issues. The Council underlined the need for a roadmap towards the goal, within 3 years, of a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. The Council endorsed the appeal by the Quartet for Israel to lift closures, withdraw their forces to positions held before 28 September 2000, resume transfer of revenues due to the Palestinian Authority and to stop settlement activity. The Council condemned the recent terrorist acts against Israeli civilians. The Council urged Israel to refrain from unjustified deportations.

  Western Balkans

  Conclusions called for protection of the rights of refugees and internally displaced across the region, for enhanced co-operation between states, noted progress
  532W
  in the FRY, including the recent understanding between the FRY and UNMIK in Kosovo, and noted forthcoming elections in Macdeonia and Bosnia.

  Afghanistan

  Conclusions welcomed the outcome of the Loya Jirga and the new transitional government, and welcomed Turkey's assumption of command of the international force (ISAF). The Council noted the recent appointment of Fransesc Vendrell as EU Special Representative.

  India/Pakistan

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary briefed colleagues on his recent trip to India and Pakistan. Ministers underlined the importance that the elections in Pakistan and in Jammu and Kashmir to be held later in the year be free and fair. They invited SG/HR Solana to make this clear during his forthcoming visit to the region.

  World Summit on Sustainable Development

  The Presidency briefed on preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, to take place in Johannesburg from 26 August to 4 September 2002. The Council adopted Conclusions on the key messages for an EU Communication strategy for Johannesburg and on EU initiatives based on the Conclusions of the Seville European Council.

  Madagascar
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the political situation in Madagascar; and what recent action has been undertaken by representatives of Her Majesty's Government to protect free elections and the furtherance of democracy and defence of democratic institutions in Madagascar. [74157]

  Mr. Macshane
  On 24 September, Marc Ravalomanana, the President of Madagascar, announced that he would be dissolving the National Assembly and holding legislative elections before the end of the year. He sought international assistance to ensure that the elections would be held in a free and transparent manner.

  UK election observers will form part of a 62 strong EU Election Observer team that will monitor the legislative elections. A contingent of 14 observers will arrive four weeks in advance of the elections to monitor the campaign, the investitures and official registration of candidates. The remainder of the team will arrive a week before the election date.

  Our Embassy, along with EU colleagues, the US and major donors in Madagascar, will continue to work constructively with the Government of Madagascar to promote democratic governance and transparency.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 9 August from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. E. Stephen. [74563]
  533W
  Mr. Macshane
  A reply was sent on 19 September. I apologise for the delay.

  MOX Fuel
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library details of the representations made to the United Kingdom from en route countries in respect of the return shipment of rejected MOX fuel from Japan to Sellafield. [73552]

  Mr. Macshane
  The New Zealand High Commissioner called on the FCO on 12 July to make a formal representation regarding the return shipment of MOX fuel from Japan to Sellafield. This was an oral rather than written representation. There have been no other representations from en route countries in respect of this shipment.

  Nigeria
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Nigeria about the decision under Sharia law to stone to death Amina Lawal. [74324]

  Mr. Macshane
  During her recent visit to Nigeria my noble Friend the Minister for Africa, the Baroness Amos, raised with President Obasanjo HMG's concerns about the harsh sentences imposed under the Sharia penal codes. She emphasised the strength of feeling against them in the UK and reiterated HMG's opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances.

  The British High Commission in Abuja, together with EU partners, follows all such cases closely and keeps in close contact with local human rights organisations. The High Commission regularly raises our concerns about the sentences with the appropriate authorities

  The Federal Government has made clear its opposition to the extreme Sharia penalties. It has declared them discriminatory and unconstitutional. Exercise of the Sharia penal code is, however, entirely under the control of the relevant States. The Federal justice system only comes into play if the defendant appeals to the Federal Appeal Courts.

  Gibraltar
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the dates were of the 16 ministerial level meetings held under the Brussels Process between November 1984 and February 1999. [73981]

  Peter Hain
  Between November 1984 and February 1999, ministerial level meetings took place on: 26–27 November 1984; 5–6 February and 6 December 1985; 13–14 January, 27–28 November and 2 December 1987; 10 June 1988; 6–7 February 1989; 26 February 1990; 12 February 1991; 4 May 1992; 1 March 1993; 19–20 December 1994; 19 June 1995; and 22 January and 10 December 1997.

  Since the relaunch of the Brussels Process in July 2001, three Brussels Process ministerial meetings have been held: on 26 July and 20 November 2001 and on 4 February 2002.

  Mongolia
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Government of Mongolia over the case of Ms B. Khanddolgar, Editor-in-Chief of the UG newspaper, recently imprisoned for alleged slander; and if he will make a statement. [74510]

  Mr. MacShane
  The editor of the Mongolian "Ug" newspaper was sentenced to one year's imprisonment after publishing a story claiming that a private citizen had contracted AIDS following alleged affairs with Russian border guards. The allegations proved false. "Ug" issued an apology, but the citizen had already been killed by her partner. This was the fourth time that "Ug" had been taken to court facing similar charges.

  In discussion with ministers, editors and journalists in Mongolia last month I made clear the importance the government attaches to freedom of expression and for the need to check facts carefully and avoid publishing allegations made for sensationalist or sectarian purposes.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Strategic Export Controls report 2001. [74664]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Jeff Ennis) on 19 July 2002,Official Report, column 611W.

  The 2001 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls was published on 19 July. The annual reports were an innovation of this Government and have opened our policy to unprecedented public scrutiny. We maintain one of the most effective and transparent export licensing system in the World.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the applications for the export of military equipment to(a) the United States and (b) Israel which have been turned down since May 1997. [73563]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  Details of all relevant applications for the export of items on the Military List, where the end users were in the United States of America and Israel, which were refused between 2 May 1997 and 31 December 2001, are published by destination in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 Annual Reports are available from the Libraries of the House.

  Between 1 January 2002 and 15 July 2002, 42 Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) applications and 1 Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) application were refused in full, for items on the Military List, where the end users were in Israel. During the same period 5 SIEL applications and no OIEL applications were refused in full, for items on the Military List, to end users in the United States of America.

  Iraq
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps(a) have been taken since 1991–92 and (b) are being taken to ensure the compliance of Iraq with Paragraph 30 of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 687; and if he will make a statement. [74665]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A Tripartite Commission was set up under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross to establish the whereabouts of Kuwaiti and other nationals still missing since the occupation of Kuwait. So far, the Iraqis have provided information sufficient to close only three files. 605 Kuwaiti and other nationals are still unaccounted for. Since January 1999 Iraq has refused to attend Tripartite Commission meetings, and has thereby effectively obstructed progress. The UK, along with other members of the Tripartite Commission, continue to meet regularly. Despite our and others' efforts to convince Iraq of the humanitarian nature of this issue, Iraq still refuses to cooperate with the process.

  Beryllium
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department had with the Department for Trade and Industry regarding the decision to license the export of beryllium to(a) India and (b) Iran in 2001. [74698]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Views expressed by any individual department involved in the licensing process fall under the description of "internal discussion and advice" the disclosure of which would in this case harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion. The information is therefore being withheld on the basis of Exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Sri Lanka
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what refreshment provisions are available to members of the public at the British Embassy in Sri Lanka. [74114]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All members of the public who are waiting in the visa waiting room in our High Commission in Colombo have access to a chilled water dispenser. The visa and consular section in the British High Commission has just been awarded its second Charter Mark for excellence in customer services. The Charter Mark was obtained in 1998 and the award retained on re-inspection earlier this year.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Afghanistan Government's strategy for its fight against drugs; and what the UK's role was in the development of this strategy. [73786]

  Mr. Macshane
  The Afghan Transitional Administration has made clear its determination to break Afghanistan's social and economic dependence on drugs. On 4 September President Karzai reiterated in a radio broadcast to the Afghan people his personal 536W
  commitment to the implementation of the ban on drug cultivation, processing and trafficking introduced in January. The Afghan government has already carried out an eradication programme.

  The UK is co-ordinating international anti-narcotics assistance to Afghanistan. In consultation with the Afghan Government, other donors and international (especially UN) agencies, the UK has developed a strategy for the long term elimination of drugs from Afghanistan. It identifies four key areas where the international community should focus its support: providing alternative livelihoods for opium poppy farmers; improving Afghan drug law enforcement capacity; building up the capacity of Afghan drug control institutions; and reducing drug demand in Afghanistan.

  East Timor
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indonesian authorities over the conduct of General Wiranto during the East Timorese ballot in 1999. [73423]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK has not raised with the Indonesian authorities the specific case of General Wiranto. The EU has however urged the Indonesian government to extend the jurisdiction of their Ad Hoc Tribunal to cover all human rights violations perpetrated in East Timor before, during and after the ballot in 1999.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost to the Saville Tribunal was of the temporary relocation of proceedings in London. [74178]

  Mr. Desmond Browne
  The estimated cost of the temporary relocation to London of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry is £15 million.

  Terrorist-related Activity
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Irish Republicans who have been charged with terrorist-related activity since 1972 have been members of Sinn Fein. [74277]

  Jane Kennedy
  Statistics are not recorded on the political party affiliation of persons charged with terrorist related offences.

  Police Service
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recommendations were made by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary following completion of his review into the performance of the PSNI Special Branch. [74175]

  Jane Kennedy
  Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary has not yet completed his review of the Special Branch of the Police Service of Northern
  537W
  Ireland. He is scheduled to make a presentation of his findings to the Northern Ireland Policing Board on 6th" November.

  Electoral Identity Card
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional financial and staff resources will be put in place to ensure the provision of the statutory electoral identity card prior to the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 1 May 2003. [74286]

  Mr. Desmond Browne
  £750,000 has already been allocated to provide for the electoral identity card and a member of staff has been seconded from the Northern Ireland Office to act as a project manager in implementing all the requirements of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act.

  The arrangements for the production of the card are the responsibility of the Chief Electoral Officer. An advert inviting tenders from experienced and competent service providers for the provision of the card was entered in the Official Journal of the European Community (in line with Government procurement guidelines) on 9 September. Tenders are returnable by 4 November.

  The Government is committed to providing those people who require one with an electoral identity card in time for the Assembly election on 1 May 2003. In order to achieve this target the Chief Electoral Officer's staffing and resource requirements will be kept under review.

  Criminal Justice Website
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the objectives are of the Criminal Justice Web Site; what steps he has taken to publicise its launch; how many media outlets reported the event; and how many hits were made in the first month. [74169]

  Mr. Desmond Browne
  The objectives of the Criminal Justice System Northern Ireland website are:To provide a "one-stop shop" for information on all criminal justice matters.
  To increase public awareness by providing access to all the criminal justice agencies on one site.
  To provide a resource for the public and criminal justice practitioners in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

  Each criminal justice agency is responsible for promoting the website within its own organisation and amongst its contacts and partners. In addition, the Northern Ireland Office issued a press release to all the main local media outlets on 2 August 2002.

  One media outlet reported the event.

  The site received 21,856 hits in the first month, August.

  DNA Analysis
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) instructions were drawn up for and (b) safeguards were used by PSNI officers in the Newtownabbey area to protect against right to privacy violations in the use of DNA analysis to re-examine
  538W
  forensic evidence collected in unresolved murder investigations; what the results were of these examinations; and what his assessment is of this experiment. [74170]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police in Newtownabbey are conducting a self-inspection of unresolved murders applying forensic technology, including DNA, as appropriate. Any DNA results obtained will be examined against the DNA database. The management of the DNA database is governed by legislation, including the European Convention on Human Rights.

  The investigations are ongoing so it is not possible to provide an assessment at this time.

DEFENCE

  Secondments
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of staff were employed by his Department on secondment from the private sector in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [45258]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 19.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff were seconded between(a) BP, (b) Shell, (c) Enron, (d) Exxon-Mobil, (e) Conoco, (f) Texaco and (g) TotalFinaElf and his Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33208]

  Dr. Moonie
  No staff have been seconded between the Ministry of Defence and any of these companies during the period from 1999 to the present.

  Private Military Companies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what deployments include the use of private military companies' services(a) in Britain and (b) abroad; what the additional cost is of using mercenary troops rather than British troops: and if he will make a statement. [38798]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Green Paper entitled Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation published on 12 February 2002, highlights the problem of defining a private military company. It notes that their services may include provision of forces for combat, but much more usually, services such as advice, training, logistic support, supply of personnel for monitoring roles, and de-mining operations. In practice, a wide spectrum of people and companies may be involved in the supply of military and security services.

  The Ministry of Defence does not employ commercial contractors to provide forces for combat or armed guards. The MOD does, however, utilise the services of commercial contractors where appropriate and cost effective in a number of areas on deployments both in the United Kingdom and abroad.

  Contracted services are primarily in the areas of logistic support services, e.g. provision of accommodation, catering and maintenance. We also employ local host nation support (e.g. for food supplies

  539W
  and locally employed cleaning and interpreters). Similarly commercial contractors may also be employed to provide advice, support, training and maintenance on equipment supplied to the forces.

  Such services are provided on the majority of UK deployments in some form, and are contracted separately by individual commands. This information is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government have to use private military companies' services; in which sectors of the armed forces these will be used; and if he will make a statement. [38797]

  Mr. Adam Ingram
  The Government has no plans to engage the services of commercial contractors to provide forces for combat, but will continue to use commercial contractors to provide a range of services, both in the United Kingdom and overseas, wherever it is appropriate and cost effective to do so.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many private military companies he estimates exist in the UK; and how many UK nationals he estimates are employed by these companies. [73953]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Green Paper entitled Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation published on 12 February 2002, highlights the problem of defining a private military company. In practice, a wide spectrum of people and companies may be involved in the supply of military and security services.

  Royal Navy, Army and RAF expenditure on medical provision in financial years 1992–1993 to 2001–2002

  1992–1993

  1993–1994

  1994–1995

  1995–1996

  1996–1997

  1997–1998

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  £M COST OF DMS

  N/A

  N/A

  330.6

  333.0

  257.7

  273.5

  291.5

  320.16

  332.88

  348.89

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure for 1992–1993 and 1993–1994 cannot be provided since figures ceased to be published in the Statement on the Defence Estimates after 1991 when budgets were disaggregated and contemporary records are no longer available.

  2. Figures for 1994–1995 and 1995–1996 are the cost of the DMS estimated by Defence Cost Study 15(DCS15). The figures contained in the DCS15 report included primary care costs, estimated at £83.5 million for 1994–1995 and £81.1 million for 1995–1996. These have been removed here to allow accurate comparison with the figures for the subsequent years.

  3. Figures for 1996–1997 to 2001–2002 comprise the costs of the Surgeon General's Department and the four medical agencies (the Defence Secondary Care Agency, Defence Dental Agency, the Medical Supplies Agency and the Defence Medical Training Organisation), the single Service Medical Directorates General, the Institute of Naval Medicine, the Centre for Aviation Medicine and British Forces Germany. Except for British Forces Germany, the figures exclude primary care costs. Figures for Germany cover secondary care for Army and RAF personnel and primary care for Army personnel from 1996–1997 to 2000–2001 and both Army and remaining RAF personnel in 2001–2002.

  4. Except where advised above, primary care costs cannot be provided without disproportionate effort as they are disaggregated and are embedded in individual units' budgets.

  5. It should be noted that although the Ministry of Defence has changed accounting systems to include full Resource Accounts in financial year 2001–2002 (which include costs of fixed assets etc, not reported previously), the figures contained in the table have been adjusted to allow comparison with the previous years.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Bills introduced by his Department in the last five years have contained sunset clauses; and what plans he has for the future use of such clauses. [49613]
  540W
  The Paper notes that services of private military companies may include provision of forces for combat, but much more usually, services such as advice, training, logistic support, supply of personnel for monitoring roles, and de-mining operations.

  Given this wide range of activities combined with the definitional problems, there are numerous sectors of industry that could potentially provide such services. It is therefore not possible to make such an estimate.

  Medical Services
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) RAF budgets were for medical provisions in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [57971]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: The costs of the Defence Medical Services (DMS) in the years for which figures are available are shown in the table below. Information for the years 1992–1993 to 1997–1998 is reproduced from the House of Commons Defence Committee (HCDC) Seventh report "The Strategic Defence Review: Defence Medical Services" published on 27 October 1999. The final outturn for 1998–1999 shown in the table was the same as the estimated figure contained in the HCDC Report. For the years 1999–2000 onwards, we have obtained figures from Surgeon General's Department (SGD) (covering SGD and the four medical agencies), single Service Medical Directorates General, HQ British Forces Germany, the Institute of Naval Medicine and the Centre for Aviation Medicine. The budgets for primary care have been disaggregated down to unit level and these figures could therefore only be provided at disproportionate cost. Some historical figures cannot be provided as contemporary records are no longer available.

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has introduced only one Bill (which became the Armed Forces Act 2001) in the last five years that contains a sunset clause. The clause relates to the annual requirement to continue in force the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 and provides for the three
  541W
  Service Acts to be continued in force until no later than the end of 2006. The expectation is that by then Parliament will have enacted a further Armed Forces Act, which will extend the lives of the Service Acts for a further five years. This accords with the procedure which Parliament has adopted for this legislation in the past.

  Criminal Offences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many criminal offences have been(a) created and (b) abolished by his Department since 1997. [55437]

  Mr. Ingram
  One offence has been created in legislation sponsored by the Ministry of Defence since 1997. The Armed Forces Act 2001 included powers, in relation to persons subject to Service law, to test for alcohol or drugs after a serious incident and created the offence of failing to provide a sample in such circumstances. No offences have been abolished since 1997.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will answer the question from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South of 26 February, Reference Number 38796, on private military companies; and if he will make a statement. [65761]

  Dr. Moonie
  I replied to the hon. Member on 22 July 2002,Official Report, column 748W.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will answer the Question from the hon. Member for Portsmouth South of 26 February, Reference Number 38798, on private military companies; and if he will make a statement. [65760]

  Mr. Ingram
  I replied today.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will answer the question from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South of 26 February, reference number 38797, on private military companies; and if he will make a statement. [65751]

  Mr. Ingram
  I replied today.

  Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the statistics that are collected by his Department by English parliamentary constituency; and if he will make a statement. [67094]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the letter sent to him by the National Statistician dated 8 July 2002.

  Headline Goal
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the Common Foreign and Security Policy's Headline Goal; and if he will make a statement on when the forces will be available for use. [73208]
  542W
  Mr. Hoon
  The Helsinki Headline Goal has been broken down into 144 capability targets, of which 104 had been met following the Capabilities Improvement Conference in November 2001. Of the 40 shortfalls, about half may be resolved by improved management of existing forces. For the rest, a European Capability Action Plan (ECAP) was launched after the conference, comprising multinational panels tasked with suggesting possible solutions. Where a permanent solution is not possible by the end of 2003, interim solutions should be addressed. The European Council in Laeken in December 2001 agreed that the European Union was now able to conduct some crisis management operations and would be in a position to take on progressively more demanding operations as the assets and capabilities at its disposal continue to develop. There is no intention to create a standing EU force: existing national or multinational forces will be made available to the EU on a case by case basis when required for an operation.

  Contracts
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the 10 biggest contracts awarded, in terms of initial estimated total cost since 1 May 1997, and provide in each case(a) the expected completion dates on contracts being let and (b) the expected completion dates achieved. [73948]

  Dr. Moonie
  The ten biggest contracts by value awarded by the Ministry of Defence since 1 May 1997 are as follows:

  BOWMAN Fully Integrated Communications and Information System

  A contract for the provision of the BOWMAN fully integrated communications and information system, including manufacture of equipments; test, evaluation and acceptance of the platforms to incorporate them; delivery of converted and commissioned platforms and buildings; provision of integrated logistics support; and supply of documents and publications was placed with General Dynamics United Kingdom on 13 September 2001. The expected completion date is 31 March 2009.

  Main Building Redevelopment

  A Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract was placed in May 2000 with Modus Services Plc for the redevelopment of the MOD Main Building in London to provide the modern flexible working environment needed to provide effective direction and support to the armed forces. The contract also covers short term decant arrangements as well as the long term provision of a wide variety of services to both the redeveloped Main Building and the Old War Office Building. The contract will be complete in 2030, with reoccupation of Main Building in 2004.

  Type 45

  A contract was placed in December 2000 with BAE SYSTEMS Electronics Ltd for the demonstration and first of class manufacture phase of the Type 45 programme, covering the design and build of the first three Type 45s plus up to six ship sets of certain major equipment. The original contract acceptance date, based on three ships, is 30 September 2009.
  543W
  PAAMS

  A contract was placed in August 1999 with EUROPAAMS by France on behalf of the United Kingdom. France and Italy for full scale engineering development and initial production of the PAAMS system. The contact covers equipments and missiles required for each of the three nations' "First of Class" ships. The expected completion date is June 2007.

  Joint Services Command and Staff College

  A PFI contract was placed in June 1998 with Defence Management (Watchfield) for the provision of academic training and support services for students and officers from the United Kingdom Armed Forces and Armed Forces from abroad. The contractor also provides college and ancillary facilities, including married quarters, single living accommodation and construction of some new facilities. The new facilities have been completed and the expected completion date for the remainder of the contract is 31 August 2028.

  United Kingdom Fixed Telecommunications

  A ten year PFI contract was signed with British Telecommunications Ltd on 25 July 1997 for a strategic rationalisation of the means of delivery and operation of end to end fixed telecommunications service requirements within the United Kingdom, providing for value for money through economies of scale and other measures, whilst ensuring continued operational effectiveness. The expected completion date is 24 July 2007.

  Army Foundation College, Harrogate

  A thirty year PFI contract was let in February 2000 with Defence Training Services for the provision of vocational training, estate and store management, domestic services and transport at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate. The contract also provides for a comprehensive rebuild of the facilities on the site. The College provides a route of entry into the Army for young people and provides a 42 week course providing Military and Vocational training.

  Management and Operation of the Atomic Weapon Establishments

  A contract was signed in 1999 with AWE Management Ltd. for the management and operation of the Atomic Weapon Establishments at Aldermaston and Burghfield. The expected completion date of contract when let was 31 March 2010.

  C17 Leasing

  A contract was let with the McDonnell Douglas Corporation for the lease of four C17 Globe master III aircraft for a seven year period. The expected completion date at the time of contract was September 2008.

  Administrative and Non-operational Support Transport Vehicles (the White Fleet)

  A Public Private Partnership contract for a ten year period until 31 August 2011 was placed on 26 January 2001 with Lex Defence Management Ltd. The contract includes the provision of administrative and non-operational support transport vehicles, including fleet management, short term hire, vehicle provision, maintenance, repair and disposal, for the United Kingdom excluding Northern Ireland.
  544W
  As all ten contracts are still running it is not yet possible to provide completion dates achieved.

  Defence Intelligence Staff
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the budget of the Defence Intelligence Staff is; how many persons are employed in this section; what the aims and objectives of the DIS are; and if he will make a statement. [73955]

  Mr. Ingram
  The budget of the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) for the financial year 2002–2003 is as follows:

  £ million

  Resource Control

  173.85

  Capital Control

  12.754

  There were 3,969 permanent staff employed by the DIS on 31 March 2002. This figure excludes contractors and reservists.

  As part of the Ministry of Defence, the principal task of the DIS is to provide defence intelligence support from a wide range of sources, both secret and public, to the preparation and conduct of military operations, the formulation of defence policy and the Equipment Capability programmes. In addition, the DIS contributes from the defence intelligence perspective to the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee, other Government Departments, NATO and the EU Military Staff.

  The DIS includes two agencies, the Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence Agency (DGIA) which provides imagery intelligence and geographic support and the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre (DISC) which provides intelligence and security training. Both agencies publish Annual Reports and Accounts which include Key Targets and details of performance against them in accordance with statutory requirements.

  Further information about the Defence Intelligence Staff can be found on the MOD's website, www.mod.uk.

  US Military Assistance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the extent of US military assistance by forces resident in the UK to civilians in respect of(a) civil emergencies and (b) exchange and familiarisation of personnel. [74641]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no formal arrangement for United States Visiting Forces (USVF) to assist United Kingdom civil authorities in respect of civil emergencies or for the exchange and familiarisation of personnel. The USVF do however respond positively to specific requests for assistance by United Kingdom civil authorities, in particular in respect of search and rescue operations.

  Nuclear Testing (Kiribati)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department has given in the last five years resulting from British nuclear testing in Kiribati. [73970]
  545W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence arranged and took part in a specialist Reconnaissance Survey on Kiritimati during September 1998 to identify the types and quantities of waste materials, including an assessment of environmental risks, arising from the island's use as a base for the United Kingdom's nuclear test programme in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

  A further visit was made to Kiritimati in August 2000 by MOD and independent specialists to gather further detailed information for the proposed clean-up project.

  The clean-up of the waste material is to be undertaken by Contractors appointed and managed by specialists in the MOD. Preparatory work is currently underway with the actual clean-up work on site expected to start in 2003.

  Wind Energy Technology
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the impact of his Department's policy on radar coverage and low flying upon the Government's policy to expand wind energy technology; and if he will make a statement. [73789]

  Dr. Moonie
  Ministry of Defence officials are currently involved in a steering group with the Department of Trade and Industry, Civil Aviation Authority, National Air Traffic Services and the British Wind Energy Association. The group aims to address some of the issues that lead to the MOD and others making objections to developers' proposals. The MOD is currently assisting in a DTI-sponsored project by QinetiQ to study the effects of turbines on radar.

  The MOD is acutely aware of the government's stated aim to achieve 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom's energy from green sources by 2010 and makes every effort to assist in achieving this. However, the Government is also committed to maintaining flight safety and the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces.

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many proposed windfarms have been objected to by his Department in the last two years; and if he will list them. [73342]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 1 January 2000, the Ministry of Defence has objected to a total of 284 wind energy proposals, but has had no objection to over 400.

  I will write separately with the list and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he objects to windfarms only if they interfere with the operation of RAF aircraft; and whether other nations are consulted prior to entering an objection to a windfarm. [73343]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence deal with every wind energy proposal individually and all are given a full and thorough appraisal by at least seven separate Technical Advisors each with their own specialism including Radar, Low Flying, Communication Links and Met Office Radar. Other nations are not involved in the process of windfarm appraisal.

  Nuclear Energy
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his Department's plans for use and development of nuclear energy facilities; and if he will make a statement. [73788]

  Dr. Moonie
  Plutonium is the only fissile material produced in reactors. In April 1995 the then Foreign Secretary announced that the United Kingdom had ceased the production of fissile material for explosive purposes. Ministry of Defence has sufficient stocks of plutonium (as announced in SDR) to meet foreseeable needs. The UK supports the need for a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty which would ban the production of fissile material for explosive purposes. Chapelcross MAGNOX reactors currently produce tritium for the national nuclear deterrent. BNFL has announced its decision to close Chapelcross by March 2005. Sufficient stocks of tritium are held to meet the needs of the Trident programme. Any decision on a replacement source of tritium, should one be required, will not need to be taken for many years.

  War Disablement Pensions
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people in receipt of war disablement pensions were(a) receiving income support, (b) over retirement age and (c) in full-time employment in each of the last five years. [73969]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Veterans Agency administers the war pensions scheme. It does not retain statistical information relating to receipt of other benefits such as income support, or to the employment status of war disablement pensioners.

  The following information is available in relation to those in receipt of war disablement pension (WDP):

  At 31/3/1998: 259,160 WDP in payment—187,241 aged 65 or over

  At 31/3/1999: 249,344 WDP in payment—179,868 aged 65 or over

  At 31/3/2000: 239,423 WDP in payment—172,030 aged 65 or over

  At 31/3/2001: 222,534 WDP in payment—158,971 aged 65 or over (men)

  9,088 WDP in payment—6,872 aged 60 or over (women)

  At 31/3/2002: 213,353 WDP in payment—151,527 aged 65 or over (men)

  8,893 WDP in payment—6,585 aged 60 or over (women)

  Prior to April 2000, data for war disablement pensions paid to men and women over retirement age was not recorded separately.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason his Department is not represented at the Saville Inquiry. [74476]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is not a party to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry because the MOD of today has neither a case to put nor a position to defend.
  547W
  The MOD has been represented by Counsel when invited to do so by the Tribunal to give assistance on specific matters. In addition, officials from the MOD have maintained a near-permanent presence at the hearings.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) who was responsible for the storage of photographs held by the Army legal team at the Widgery Inquiry; in what conditions and where these photographs were stored; when they will be produced for the Saville Inquiry; and what further photographs of Bloody Sunday are available; [74473]

  (2) if he will list the (a) cinematic, (b) heli-telly and (c) other moving image photographic film clips of events on Bloody Sunday (i) available at the time of the Widgery Inquiry and (ii) discovered since; in what conditions and where these photographs were stored; who was responsible for their safekeeping; and which of these items have been (A) produced for the Saville Inquiry, (B) lost and (C) destroyed. [74474]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has provided the Bloody Sunday Inquiry with written statements on the subjects of photographs and film, and an official of this Department will give evidence to the Inquiry in the near future.

  It would therefore be inappropriate to comment separately on these matters, and I am withholding the information requested in accordance with Exemption 4 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what cost has been incurred by the legal representation of Soldier "L" at the Saville Inquiry. [74475]

  Mr. Ingram
  Up to 9 September 2002 the Ministry of Defence has incurred costs of £346,977.30 for the legal representation of Soldier "L" at the Saville Inquiry.

  Colombia
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) service personnel broken down by regiment and (b) other members of his staff have visited Colombia; what the purpose was of each visit; and what assistance he has provided the Colombian Government in the last 12 months. [74179]

  Mr. Ingram
  We do from time to time send military liaison teams to Colombia to provide advice and training assistance. The nature of this advice and assistance is confidential between governments and I am withholding the details under Exemption 1 of the code of practice on Access to Government Information, which covers information whose disclosure would be harmful to national security, defence or international relations.

  Alcohol and Tobacco
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the rules are governing the consumption of alcohol and tobacco(a) on military premises, (b) in administration areas and (c) on operational duties. [74164]
  548W
  Mr. Ingram
  Service policies are based on education and personal responsibility for alcohol consumption and smoking.

  Queen's Regulations, administrative instructions and policy guidance lay down general principles for the control and consumption of alcohol. Commanding officers are required to ensure that they have clear and effective local orders concerning alcohol and that these are enforced. These cover messes, bars, clubs and single living accommodation. Particular attention is given to the law relating to young people and the legal age for consuming alcohol. Specific single-Service directions are issued concerning fitness for duty, especially for safety critical posts and other designated tasks such as flying, driving and the carrying of arms.

  Instructions and guidance on tobacco consumption mainly relate to health and safety, including restrictions on smoking in the workplace and in messes and accommodation areas and of course in the vicinity of military equipment and flammable substances.

  Corporal John Gregory and Sergeant Robert Busuttil
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he has made for an investigation into the circumstances of the deaths of Corporal John Gregory and Sergeant Robert Busuttil. [74163]

  Dr. Moonie
  An investigation into the deaths of Corporal John Gregory and Sergeant Robert Busuttil was instigated immediately after the incident. Initial reports were compiled by the Kabul Detachment of the Royal Military Police and the 32nd Section of the Royal Military Police (United Kingdom) Special Investigation Branch. The investigation is not yet complete and remains ongoing at this time.

  HMS Nottingham
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a replacement ship has been sent to cover the mission of HMS Nottingham. [73703]

  Mr. Ingram
  A direct replacement ship will not be sent to cover the remaining parts of Nottingham's programme.

  As I stated in my answer of 22 July 2002, Official Report, column 759W, to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) HMS Nottingham deployed for duties associated with the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) including Exercise STARDEX. She was subsequently assigned to Coalition Maritime Operations in the Middle East, and was being held at notice for this purpose while deployed to the Asia Pacific region. HMS York has been nominated as the ship held at readiness in support of the fight against terrorism.

  RFA Diligence has been offered to take part in Exercise STARDEX, as an indication of United Kingdom's continued support to FPDA.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of procuring Trident missiles from the United States has been in each year since the procurement contract was initiated. [73558]
  549W
  Dr. Moonie
  The cost of procuring the Trident II (unarmed) missiles from the US under the Polaris Sales Agreement (as amended for Trident) has been as follows:

  Financial Year

  Amount £M

  1980–81

  0.023

  1981–82

  4.012

  1982–83

  8.471

  1983–84

  2.164

  1984–85

  2.009

  1985–86

  2.015

  1986–87

  0.308

  1987–88

  5.083

  1988–89

  7.368

  1989–90

  16.885

  1990–91

  28.800

  1991–92

  71.936

  1992–93

  108.132

  1993–94

  279.714

  1994–95

  188.299

  1995–96

  68.781

  1996–97

  48.140

  1997–98

  86.647

  1998–99

  79.264

  1999–2000

  71.524

  2000–2001

  53.223

  Notes:

  1. The final figure for 2001–2002 is not yet available.

  2. Figures given are gross payments and do not take account of the credits due to the UK under the 1998 MOU to reduce the overall missile buy in accordance with SDR. These affect 2000–2001 onwards.

  3. The costs cover only production costs as the UK paid no development costs for the missiles.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr Tonge) of 8 July,Official Report, column 714W, on nuclear missile defence, whether the collaborative research and information exchange will involve nuclear-based technology. [73699]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no plans for this work to involve nuclear-based technologies.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost of deploying British personnel in the United States as a result of(a) the United Kingdom purchase of nuclear weapons from the United States, (b) the United Kingdom testing of nuclear weapons in the United States and (c) other logistical requirements, including C3 expertise, of procuring nuclear weapons from the United States has been since 1972. [73559]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom does not purchase nuclear weapons from the United States. Article 1 of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons forbids all nuclear weapon states from supplying nuclear weapons to any other state.

  The remainder of the information requested could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under which budget headings the projected expenditure on(a) the Trident programme, (b) Nuclear Warhead Stability Review, (c) nuclear waste disposal, (d) nuclear site security and (e) remediation of radioactively contaminated land and buildings on
  550W
  defence nuclear sites, as listed in tables 1 to 6 of CM 5412, Ministry of Defence Expenditure Plans 2002–04, published on 9 July, will be placed. [73569]

  Mr. Ingram
  Projected expenditure on items(a)—(e) falls under "Provision of Defence Capability" for the Ministry of Defence Resource Budget (of which part is counted against the MOD's Departmental Expenditure Limit and part against non-cash items in Annually Managed Expenditure). Projected expenditure on items (a), (c), (d) and (e) also falls under "Provision of Defence Capability" for the MOD Capital Budget.

  The majority of this projected expenditure (both Resource and Capital) falls within three of our Top Level Budgets; Commander-in-Chief Fleet, Chief of Defence Logistics and Defence Procurement Agency. However additional projected Resource expenditure also falls within Land Command, RAF Strike Command and the Central Top Level Budget for item (d).

  A wide range of assets is also employed in support of these activities, covering most of the categories in Table 4.

  Equipment (Heat and Desert Conditions)
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the performance of the Challenger I tank in extreme heat and desert conditions. [74647]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank is no longer in service and has been replaced by Challenger 2.

  Challenger 2 was deployed on Exercise Saif Sareea II, held in Oman last year, where it was operated in extremely hot, dry, desert conditions. Post-exercise reports confirm that the tank performed very well during the Exercise, notwithstanding the higher than anticipated usage of engine air filters. Trials of possible enhancements to reduce the effects of high concentrations of dust on the tank are currently taking place.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent progress has been made to address the problems with(a) the Challenger 2, (b) AS90 and (c) suitability of personal equipment highlighted by the Saif Sareea II exercise. [74414]

  Mr. Ingram
  Trials of possible enhancements to reduce the effects of high concentrations of dust on the Challenger 2 are currently taking place.

  To enhance the AS90's ability to operate more effectively in desert conditions, a Desertisation Upgrade Pack is being scoped with the Design Authority.

  Personnel working on Exercise Saif Sareea II preparations over the summer months were issued with desert combat boots. It was considered that regular combat boots would be appropriate, given the expected temperatures, for the main exercise phase during the autumn. Temperatures were, however, significantly higher and a useful lesson learnt has been that for future deployments, in such temperatures, it would be appropriate for all troops to be issued with desert combat boots.
  551W
  Both desert and temperate camouflaged uniforms were approved for use on Exercise Saif Sareea II. Following experience in Oman and Afghanistan, we intend to determine the optimum upper temperature range for the temperate uniform.

  SA80
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the SA80 rifle; and whether it will continue in service. [74083]

  Mr. Ingram
  The SA80 modification programme has significantly improved the reliability and performance of the weapon. Extensive trials were carried out in severe climatic conditions including the desert, the arctic and the jungle; these trials confirmed the newly modified weapon's superior capabilities. More recent trials and demonstrations in Afghanistan and Oman have established beyond doubt that the weapon is highly accurate, reliable, and that it can be effectively maintained in an operational environment.

  Exercise name

  Date

  Location

  Type

  PANTHER CUB

  Feb 02

  Belize

  Land Command jungle warfare training

  STRONG RESOLVE

  Mar 02

  Norway/Poland

  Tri-Service participation in quadrennial NATO LIVEX

  RED FLAG

  Mar 02

  USA

  HQ Strike Command air exercise in USA

  GRAND PRIX

  Mar 02

  Kenya

  Land Command battlegroup exercise

  JOINT VENTURE

  May 02

  UK

  PJHQ tri-Service Component Commander Command Post Exercise

  STARDEX 02

  Jul 02

  Malaysia

  FLEET exercise within Five Power Defence Agreement

  MOX
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications his Department has had with the Belgian Government since March 2001 in respect of the manufacture of lead test MOX assemblies for the United States Department of Energy. [73554]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Common European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the Common European Security and Defence policy. [73836]

  Mr. Hoon
  The European Security and Defence Policy seeks to strengthen Europe's military capabilities and to support the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, while enabling a better and more coherent European contribution to NATO. It gives the EU the ability to take military decisions, and to take control of crisis management operations where NATO as a whole is not engaged.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the threat posed to Britain by weapons of mass destruction. [73904]

  Mr. Hoon
  We remain concerned about the threat from weapons of mass destruction to the United Kingdom and to UK interests. We continue to monitor
  552W
  The modified weapon, the SA80 A2, is being deployed over the period December 2001 to May 2006 and is due to remain in service until 2020.

  Training Exercises
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he plans a further exercise on the scale of Saif Sareea II; and what recent exercises have taken place in different(a) geographical and (b) environmental conditions. [74415]

  Mr. Ingram
  We aim to hold periodic exercises on the scale of Saif Sareea II but planning for the next one is still at a very early stage. Exercises at all levels frequently take place in different geographical and environmental conditions to prepare our armed forces for the many different challenges they may face, some long planned and some at short notice. A list of the most recent exercises could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Information is only held centrally on major exercises listed in the Ministry of Defence's Defence Exercise Programme (DXP) which covers some 350 exercises each year. Examples from the DXP of recent exercises in different geographical and environmental conditions include:

  developments closely. The Government's dossier on the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was published on 24 September.

  Although we assess that terrorists are more likely to mount conventional attacks, as long as Al Qaeda views the United Kingdom as a target, we cannot rule out the risk of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear materials on the UK or its interests.

  Army Training Estate
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the civilian recreational groups which have had access to the Army Training Estate, Salisbury Plain, since January; and if he will make a statement. [72611]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since January this year, the following civilian recreational groups and organisations have had access to the Army Training Estate Salisbury Plain:

  Name of Group/Organisation

  Activity

  All Wheel Drive Club

  Promotional Day/Safari

  Avon Vale Hunt

  Hunt

  Avon & Wiltshire Shooting club

  Shooting

  Barleycroft Shoot

  Shooting

  British Model Flying Association

  Model Aircraft Flying

  British Deer Society

  Services Branch—Deer Management

  Castle Down School

  Cross Country Runs

  553W

  Name of Group/Organisation

  Activity

  English Heritage

  Ancient Monument survey/ maintenance

  Mr. Flower

  Seed Collection

  Flying Druids Model Aircraft Club

  Model Aircraft Flying

  Frome & District Pistol Club

  Shooting

  Game Conservancy Trust

  Partridge Survey

  Manor Farm Leisure

  Carriage Drive

  Muzzle Loaders

  Rifle Range practice

  North Wiltshire Rifle & Pistol Club

  Shooting

  Palmer & Milburn Beagles

  Beagling

  Various Civilian Clubs

  Point to Point

  Royal Society Preservation of Birds

  Bird count/watch

  SMG TV Productions

  Filming

  SPC Promotions

  Mountain bike event

  Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen Families Association

  Car Boot Sale

  Salisbury & District Gun Club

  Shooting

  Salisbury Vintage Rifle & Pistol Club

  Shooting

  Salisbury Plain Falconry Club

  Raptor fighting

  Salisbury Plain Area Mountain Bikers

  Mountain Bike event

  Sarum Orienteering

  Orienteering

  Services Dry Fly Fishing Association

  Fishing/river bank maintenance

  Southern Countries Off Road

  4 x 4 Safari

  Southern England Trail Riders Association

  Enduro

  Southern Pointer Club

  Dog Show

  Tidworth Hunt

  Hunt

  The Crown at Everleigh

  Car Parking

  The Troop

  Boer War Reconstruction

  Warminster Running Club

  Imber Half Marathon

  Wessex Rifle Club

  Shooting

  Wiltshire & Infantry Beagles

  Vermin Control

  Wiltshire Archaeological Trust

  Guided tour of ancient monuments

  Wiltshire Wildlife Trust

  Sarsen Trail & Neolithic Marathon

  Veterans
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many veterans of the armed services have made applications for skilled nursing care; and how many of these have been successful in the last five years; [74252]

  (2) how many veterans of the second world war have had nursing care paid by the War Pensions Agency in the last five years. [74253]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Veterans Agency administers the War Pensions Scheme, including discretionary payments for skilled nursing care where this is required due to disablement for which a war pension has been awarded.

  The following information shows the number of applications for skilled nursing care payments made by
  554W
  war disablement pensioners in the last five financial years and the number of these that were successful:

  Year

  Applications

  Successful

  1997–1998

  197

  104

  1998–1999

  132

  52

  1999–2000

  85

  23

  2000–2001

  34

  1

  2001–2002

  51

  15

  Total

  499

  195

  Separate records are not held for Second World War veterans in relation to skilled nursing care.

  Food Supplies
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the total food purchased for the armed forces in the last 12 months was purchased overseas. [73804]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the last 12 months, approximately 28 per cent. of the food supplied to the armed forces by the Ministry of Defence's food supply contractor, "3663," was purchased overseas. This figure includes foods that are not produced in this country and others that have to be purchased overseas for Service personnel serving abroad, due to export or customs restrictions. Of the food purchased for use in Operational Ration Packs only 14 per cent. is purchased overseas.

  Annington Homes
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings in the Taunton constituency were sold to Annington Homes; when the sale took place; how many dwellings are available for married soldiers; how many have been demolished; and how many have been sold. [74090]

  Dr. Moonie
  139 out of a total of 140 Ministry of Defence properties in the constituency of Taunton were sold to Annington Homes Limited (AHL), as part of the sale and leaseback of Service Families' Accommodation in November 1996. 41 of these properties have since become surplus to requirements and been handed back to AHL. 99 properties are currently available for Service families. MOD has not arranged the demolition of any properties in Taunton. The future of properties released to AHL is a matter for that company.

  Defence Equipment (Israel)
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) categories and (b) quantities of defence equipment have been purchased from Israel since 8 November 2001; and if he will make a statement. [74250]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 8 November 2001, a total of three contracts have been placed with prime contractors based in Israel as follows:

  Category of Equipment

  Quantity

  Simon Rounds

  20

  Light Machine Guns

  7

  Assembly of Aircrew Equipment Assemblies

  3

  Sapper Alfred Graham Manship
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigation was held into the death of Sapper Alfred Graham Manship of 26 Amphibious Regiment Royal Engineers in 1992 in Osnabruck, West Germany; how long the investigation took; when the investigation ended; who conducted the investigation; what the conclusion of the investigation was; and if he will make a statement. [73822]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police (SIB RMP) was responsible for investigating the death of Sapper Manship in Osnabruck, Germany, in 1992. The investigation began when the SIB RMP was informed of Sapper Manship's death in the early hours of Monday 6 April 1992 and was completed on 16 April 1992. The investigation was led by an experienced SIB RMP investigator of the rank of Staff Sergeant and, as for all SIB RMP inquiries, was overseen by the Officer Commanding the SIB RMP Detachment. The investigation concluded that there was no evidence to indicate foul play and that Sapper Manship had taken his own life.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the period of time was between the discovery of the body of Sapper Alfred Graham Manship of 26 Amphibious Regiment Royal Engineers in 1992 in Osnabruck, West Germany and(a) a doctor being called to attend the scene and (b) a doctor arriving on the scene; and if he will make a statement. [73820]

  Dr. Moonie
  Sapper Manship's body was discovered by another soldier at approximately 0237hrs on 6 April 1992. The emergency services were summoned and a doctor attended the scene at around 0255hrs. Sapper Manship was declared dead at the scene at 0258hrs.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the weapon of Sapper Alfred Graham Manship of 26 Amphibious Regiment Royal Engineers was found to have been fired when examined after his death in 1992 in Osnabruck, West Germany; and if he will make a statement. [73821]

  Dr. Moonie
  Following the certification of death of Sapper (Spr) Manship, his weapon was recovered from the scene and handed to the Class 1 Armourer at 25 Regiment Royal Engineers for examination. The practice of submitting weapons subject to investigation to qualified personnel outside the unit in whose charge they are is standard for Royal Military Police (RMP) investigations.

  In the statement recorded from the Armourer, he opined that the weapon was found to be serviceable and no faults could be discovered in its mechanical function. The Armourer did not make any specific reference to whether the weapon had been fired.

  RMP enquiries established that Spr Manship had been issued with an SA80 Assault Rifle, plus 30 rounds of ammunition for his guard duty. The batch number of the spent ammunition recovered from the scene was found to be that of the ammunition issued to Spr Manship. In view of this, the location of the wound site, and all other enquiries conducted, the RMP investigating officer concluded that the submission of
  556W
  the weapon or spent ammunition to scientific analysis would not achieve any investigative purpose and would serve only to delay the release of Spr Manship's body to his family.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the(a) cause, (b) circumstances and (c) coroner's verdict on the death of Sapper Alfred Graham Manship of the 26 Amphibious Regiment Royal Engineers in 1992 in Osnabruck West Germany. [73881]

  Dr. Moonie
  Sapper Manship died on 6 April 1992 from a single gunshot wound to the head whilst on guard duty at Woolwich Barracks, Osnabruck, Germany. Following the subsequent Post Mortem Examination, Sapper Manship's body was repatriated to Scotland from Germany and the Procurator Fiscal was informed of the death. Under the legislation which allows for the holding of a Fatal Accident Inquiry, the Procurator Fiscal will only hold such an inquiry where the death occurred in Scotland or on an offshore installation, aircraft or ship. Since the death did not occur within Scotland, the Procurator Fiscal did not hold an inquiry in this case; this decision was not within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the result was of the post mortem conducted on Sapper Alfred Graham Manship of 26 Amphibious Regiment Royal Engineers after his death in 1992 in Osnabruck West Germany; and if he will make a statement. [73880]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Post Mortem Examination was conducted by the Consultant Pathologist at the British Military Hospital at Rinteln. On the death certificate, dated 6 April 1992, the cause of death was recorded as Gunshot Head Injuries.

  European Integration Conference
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the First Conference of EU Military Schools and Academies on the theme of the military dimension of European integration, held at Coëtquidan. [73863]

  Mr Hoon
  The European Military Academies Conference on the theme of "European Integration—The Military Dimension" was held at the French Military Academy, St Cyr in July of this year. The conference was sponsored by the European Commission. The conference addressed a number of topics related to European Defence, such as possible crisis management scenarios and defence industry cooperation. There was no direct involvement by HM Government or the Ministry of Defence in its organisation.

  The Conference was attended by delegates from many European nations including a number of officer cadets and staff from the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst.

  RAF Chilmark
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to date of ordnance clearance at RAF Chilmark; and when the site will be put on the market. [72613]
  557W
  Dr. Moonie
  The cost over the first five years since the closure of the site of clearing explosive ordnance has been in the region of £1.7 million. A further £371,000 has been spent on preparation of Land Quality Assessments and remediation.

  RAF Chilmark is currently being prepared for disposal. It is anticipated that the sale of the freehold will take place during 2003 when clearance is complete.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in constituting a trust to manage RAF Chilmark; and if he will make a statement. [72614]

  Dr. Moonie
  The constitution of a Trust for that part of the former RAF Chilmark which has wildlife and conservation interest is a matter for the interested parties. The Ministry of Defence will not be part of the Trust. Defence Estates is currently in discussion with representatives of the potential Trustees and is waiting to receive their firm proposals for the purchase and management of the site.

  Anti-tank Missile Loss (Bristol Channel)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the pallet of an anti-tank missile lost in the Bristol Channel recently has been found. [73313]

  Dr. Moonie
  No. Searches of the area have been carried out by the Avon and Somerset Constabulary, the Coastguard, the RAF and, more recently, Royal Navy divers. However, the pallet has not been found.

  Ammunition
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what type of ammunition has been imported to the UK for the use of the army, and at what cost, over the last 12 months. [73314]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the 12 months up to 26 July 2002, the following types of ammunition have been imported to the United Kingdom for the use of the military:

  7.62mm BALL, 21mm ROCKET SYSTEM, 21mm TRAINING SYSTEM, 0.5 4B/IT,. 338 LAPUA, 12.7mm 4MP, 12.7mm 1MP, 5.56mm AP, 9mm MARKER, 66mm, GOALKEEPER MPDS, GOALKEEPER FMPDS. 9mm, 66mm,. 338m" and 14.5mm Artillery Training L21A I (Charge 2).

  I am withholding information regarding the cost of importing this ammunition in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what orders were issued and special arrangements made concerning conduct of service personnel from the Royal Irish Regiment during the marching season in 2002; how many soldiers were subject to disciplinary proceedings that related to inappropriate political activity during this period; and what the outcome was of proceedings. [74162]
  558W
  Mr. Ingram
  Each year all service personnel serving in Northern Ireland, including members of the Royal Irish Regiment, are reminded in unit orders of the Army's policy regarding participation in political activities and demonstrations. Three soldiers were investigated by the Royal Military Police for possible breach of this policy. At present there is one soldier subject to proceedings.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the procedure is in Northern Ireland for the investigation of a suspicious death or one from non-natural causes on military premises. [74167]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Police Service of Northern Ireland retain jurisdiction for the investigation of all suspicious deaths that may occur on military premises within Northern Ireland. This is the same procedure and jurisdiction that applies throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the reasons were that underlie his decision to erect a new surveillance tower at Slievebracken Mount, Forkhill in July; what consultation he carried out with locally elected representatives and community organisations; and what the estimated cost is of this construction. [74168]

  Mr. Ingram
  I believe that the structure you refer to is the temporary water tower on Slievebracken Mountain, Forkhill. It was not a surveillance tower. The Ministry of Defence has crown immunity with regard to planning permission and there was no consultation carried out with locally elected representatives or community organisations. As military personnel carried out the work on this temporary structure there were no costs involved other than those for the construction materials, the cost of irrecoverable items being estimated at some £3,500.

  The temporary structure has now been removed.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many baton log reports were filed in each month of the last two years; what information fields are to be filled in by each person involved in the compilation of a report leading up the chain of command to HQNI; which of those fields must be completed and which are optional; and if he will make a statement on the processes involved in the entry of data from baton log reports to(a) a centralised database and (b) other systems. [74166]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of baton log reports files in each month over the last two years are set out in the table below:

  2000

  2001

  2002

  January

  0

  0

  February

  2

  0

  March

  0

  0

  April

  0

  3

  May

  0

  11

  June

  0

  17

  July

  1

  34

  August

  0

  18

  September

  3

  2

  559W

  2000

  2001

  2002

  October

  0

  1

  November

  0

  9

  December

  0

  1

  Total

  0

  17

  85

  All fields of the baton log report are completed by the person ordering the firing of the baton round before it is forwarded to HQNI. The information from the baton log is scrutinised by the chain of command in HQNI and is stored in hard copy form as well as on a database.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the rules are governing the carriage and use of personal mobile phones by service personnel of all ranks on operational duties at home and overseas; and what sanctions are available to superior officers to enforce those rules. [74165]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no specific rules that govern the carriage of personal mobile phones by members of the Armed Forces on operational duties; and the use of personal mobile phones during deployments and operations is at the discretion of the local Commander. Joint Service Publication 440 details the regulations concerning the security classification of information that can be discussed on mobile phones. It also authorises commanders to prohibit the use of mobile phones on Ministry of Defence sites and in locations denoted as "Hazardous Areas" or in areas containing classified communications equipment. Additionally, although there are no specific sanctions for the misuse of mobile phones, commanders may restrict their use in a geographic location or for a specific period of time for operational reasons. The mechanism for enforcing this is through Theatre Standing Orders. Service personnel who fail to comply with published Standing Orders or with a lawful command would be subject to disciplinary action under normal disciplinary procedures, enforceable through Queen's Regulations.

  Beryllium
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department had with the Department for Trade and Industry regarding the decision to license the export of beryllium to(a) India and (b) Iran in 2001. [74696]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has regular discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry on all relevant aspects of export licensing. Disclosure of internal opinions, advice, recommendation and consultation on individual export licence issues could harm the frankness and candour of internal discussions. I am, therefore, withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 2 (Internal Discussions and advice) of Part II of the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURALAFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 11 September 2001 from the hon. Member for Torbay regarding foot and mouth. [58922]

  Mr. Morley
  I responded to the hon. Member on 7 October.

  Recycling
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her latest estimate is of recycling rates of waste(a) paper, (b) glass, (c) metal, (d) wood and (e) cloth for each London borough; what the Government targets are in each case; and if she will make a statement. [71108]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]: Recycling data are collected in the Department's annual Municipal Waste Management Survey 2000–01. The total tonnages collected for recycling for different materials are listed below for all London boroughs and the four London Waste Disposal Authorities. Recycling rates are not available for individual materials. Separate recycling tonnages are not available for wood.

  The Government's Waste Strategy 2000 established national targets of recycling or composting at least 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005, 30 per cent. by 2010 and 33 per cent. by 2015. These targets are not material specific.

  To underpin the national targets, we have set challenging statutory performance standards for recycling or composting household waste for each local authority in England. Authorities must, on average, double their 1998–99 recycling rate by 2003–04 and triple their 1998–99 rate by 2005–06.

  The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) set annual recovery and material-specific recycling targets for certain businesses. The material-specific recycling target of 19 per cent. set for 2002 covers paper, glass and aluminium.

  tonnes

  Authority

  Paper and card

  Glass

  Cans, scrap metal and white goods

  Textiles

  Unitary Authorities

  Bexley

  10,719

  1,447

  1,799

  48

  Bromley

  16,512

  3,043

  2,436

  508

  Croydon

  6,645

  2,397

  4,518

  399

  Greenwich

  2,250

  786

  2,209

  69

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  5,534

  958

  2,023

  134

  Lewisham

  3,836

  1,260

  67

  48

  London Corporation

  3

  7

  0

  0

  Merton

  7,052

  1,284

  1,096

  245

  Southwark

  1,808

  1,054

  126

  104

  Sutton

  4,686

  2,114

  685

  192

  Tower Hamlets

  1,132

  711

  123

  82

  Westminster City

  4,181

  2,052

  37

  118

  561W

  tonnes

  Authority

  Paper and card

  Glass

  Cans, scrap metal and white goods

  Textiles

  Waste Collection Authorities

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,232

  375

  260

  257

  Barnet

  8,128

  1,655

  106

  235

  Brent

  4,652

  1,747

  268

  419

  Camden

  9,980

  3,303

  982

  604

  Ealing

  7,310

  3,511

  811

  271

  Enfield

  4,182

  1,481

  1,164

  189

  Hackney

  485

  545

  13

  0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,908

  1,280

  75

  72

  Haringey

  3,774

  894

  591

  40

  Harrow

  6,484

  1,639

  1,033

  172

  Havering

  883

  1,163

  429

  244

  Hillingdon

  3,882

  1,652

  3,976

  317

  Hounslow

  6,671

  2,693

  2,288

  296

  Islington

  2,761

  1,494

  74

  20

  Lambeth

  5,380

  3,202

  714

  189

  Kensington and Chelsea

  7,383

  1,265

  203

  1

  Newham

  1,305

  428

  465

  75

  Redbridge

  4,179

  872

  585

  171

  Richmond upon Thames

  8,111

  2,945

  1,284

  320

  Waltham Forest

  3,127

  1,222

  743

  184

  Wandsworth

  4,663

  2,193

  193

  17

  Waste Disposal Authorities

  East London Waste Authority

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North London Waste Authority

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West London Waste Authority

  0

  0

  1,460

  0

  Western Riverside Waste Authority

  511

  165

  434

  3

  Grand Total

  163,349

  52,837

  33,270

  6,043

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what figures she collates on the recycling rates for(a) car batteries, (b) alkaline batteries, (c) computers and (d) mobile phones in each London borough; what the figures were in each of the past five years; and what plans she has to increase recycling rates. [71109]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]Recycling data are collected in the Department's Municipal Waste Management Survey 2000–01. The total tonnages collected for recycling for batteries are listed below for all London boroughs and the four London Waste Disposal Authorities. Recycling rates are not available for individual materials. Recycling tonnages are not available for computers or mobile phones.

  All local authorities have been set challenging individual statutory performance standards for recycling and composting. These can be found in the Government's Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies, published in March 2001. Copies are available in the House of Commons Library and from the DEFRA website:

  http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/management/ guidance/mwms/index.htm
  562W

  Tonnages of batteries collected for recycling 2000–01

  tonnes

  Unitary Authorities

  Bexley

  46

  Bromley

  105

  City of Westminster

  0

  Corporation of London

  0

  Croydon

  0

  Greenwich

  34

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  55

  Lewisham

  0

  Merton

  0

  Southwark

  4

  Sutton

  4

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  Waste Collection Authorities

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  Barnet

  0

  Brent

  0

  Camden

  20

  Ealing

  43

  Enfield

  42

  Hackney

  0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  Haringey

  0

  Harrow

  41

  Havering

  61

  Hillingdon

  0

  Hounslow

  17

  Islington

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  Lambeth

  10

  Newham

  23

  Redbridge

  312

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  Waltham Forest

  37

  Wandsworth

  0

  Waste Disposal Authorities

  Western Riverside Waste Authority

  20

  East London Waste Authority

  0

  North London Waste Authority

  0

  West London Waste Authority

  0

  Moorings (London)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what forecasts have been made by British Waterways of the(a) number, (b) cost and (c) distribution of residential and non-residential moorings in London as a consequence of their review of licence and permit conditions. [70146]

  Alun Michael
  None. British Waterways' review of licence and permit conditions relates solely to vessel dimensions, the terms under which vessels may use the waterways and, where applicable, the terms and conditions of mooring.

  I understand that my hon. Friend met British Waterways on 13 September to discuss these issues.

  Sellafield
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what costs were incurred in(a) historic and (b) current prices in carrying out the monitoring of nuclear waste discharges to the Irish Sea from the Windscale plant. [69632]
  563W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]Monitoring of discharges is mainly the responsibility of the operator and so the majority of the costs of monitoring discharges from Windscale (which has been known as Sellafield since the early 1980s) would have fallen to BN FL and its predecessors. No information is held by the Department or by the Environment Agency about the costs of monitoring by operators.

  Packaging Waste
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what her estimate is of the changes in packaging quantities on(a) food and (b) non-food goods on retail sale over the past five years; what proportion of this is recyclable; and if she will make a statement; [71113]

  (2) what plans she has to reduce packaging on retail sales; and if she will make a statement. [70941]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) include incentives for businesses to minimise the amount of packaging they use and actively encourage the reuse of packaging. Packaging which is being reused carries no obligation after its first obligated trip. By increasing the amount of packaging reused, producers are therefore able to reduce their costs of compliance. By placing a tonnage obligation on producers, the Regulations also encourage them to reduce the amount of packaging used.

  In addition, the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 1997 include a requirement that packaging must be minimal subject to the safety and hygiene of the packed product to the consumer. The Regulations are enforced by local Trading Standards Officers, and two examples of prosecution under these regulations are known to the Department.

  We have no detailed information on the quantity of packaging used in food and non-food goods on retail sale.

  Producer Responsibility
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what her policy is regarding producer responsibility of WEEE for the EU conciliation process; [72039]

  (2) how she intends to define producer responsibility for the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive to make it compatible with the producer pays principle; [72037]

  (3) if she will make a statement on her policy regarding the principle of individual producer responsibility; [72035]

  (4) what steps she is taking to secure well-defined individual producer responsibility for electronic waste. [72036]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government welcomes the proposed EC Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. The Department works closely with all Departments, in particular with the DTI, who lead in negotiations, on this Directive. The Directive is 564W
  still under negotiation and without a final text it is too early to provide details of how it will be implemented in the UK.

  The Government supports the principle of individual producer responsibility, though we believe collective responsibility should be kept open as an option where otherwise there could be disproportionate costs to SMEs. The Common position text allows a collective as well as an individual approach to producer responsibility, and both uphold the polluter pays principle.

  EU Environmental Liability Directive
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of the need for compulsory insurance as part of the EU Environmental Liability Directive regime to give polluters a greater incentive to avoid environmental damage. [72493]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 23 July 2002]The European Commission's draft Directive on Environmental Liability requires Member States to encourage the use by operators of any appropriate insurance or other forms of financial security.

  Compulsory insurance is one possible means of financial security and was covered by the Government's public consultation which ended on 24 May 2002, and in the extended partial regulatory impact assessment (COM (02) 17). A mechanism such as this could support both the prevention and remediation aspects of the proposed Directive, with insurers offering policies on the basis of best environmental practice. It would also ensure that a source of funding was available for the remediation of damage, should it occur.

  The insurance industry has made it clear that it does not welcome compulsory insurance, but does desire a directive that is clear and workable so that cover can be offered.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the inclusion of the compliance with permit and state of the art exemptions in the EU Environmental Liability Directive. [72494]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 23 July 2002]No specific assessment has been undertaken of the inclusion of the permit and state of the art exceptions. The extended partial regulatory impact assessment submitted to Parliament (COM (02) 17) did consider the implications of removal of the permit exception, to inform the UK negotiating position in preparation for any moves by other Member States to remove it.

  This assessment revealed that removal of the permit exception could have two conflicting effects: a damaging effect upon business certainty and the ability of operators to obtain financing, whilst secondly providing an incentive for operators to treat permit conditions as a minimum requirement, and therefore take further precaution in their activities to minimise their risks. By extension, inclusion of the exception could provide shareholders and operators with some confidence, but on the other hand reduce the precautionary effect.
  565W
  The same considerations may be applied to the exception for compliance with state of the art.

  Ragwort
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent research her Department has evaluated regarding the spread of ragwort; and what action her Department has taken to(a) combat the spread of ragwort and (b) publicise knowledge of its spread. [74397]

  Alun Michael
  In 2001, the former MAFF commissioned an ADAS research project to review ragwort and its control with particular reference to horses. This included a study of the factors influencing the spread of ragwort, such as changes in land use, changes in agricultural policy and climate change. The study confirmed that these factors may influence the spread of ragwort. However, it concluded that there was insufficient scientific data to allow evaluation of the extent to which the prevalence of ragwort had increased as as result of them.

  Defra investigates complaints about the spread of ragwort and other injurious weeds covered by the Weeds Act 1959 where there is a threat to farmed land or land used for the keeping of horses as part of a diversified farm businesses. When a complaint is received the occupier of the land will be asked to take action to clear the weeds. If this fails to resolve the problem, Defra has statutory powers under the Weeds Act to arrange for the weeds to be cleared and to recover the cost from the occupier of the land. In the majority of cases, complaints about ragwort are resolved through co-operation and persuasion, without the need to take legal action.

  The spread of ragwort along the sides of roads and on railway land is of particular concern to many people in the countryside. I have recently written to the Highways Agency, Local Government Association and Railtrack reminding them of the serious problems that can be caused by ragwort and urging them to ensure that they take effective clearance action.

  This year we have also revised guidance on the Weeds Act and two updated Defra leaflets are available. "The Weeds Act 1959—Preventing the spread of harmful weeds" gives general advice about the operation of the Weeds Act and "The Weeds Act 1959—Guidance note on the methods that can be used to control harmful weeds" provides technical advice on the control of ragwort and other injurious weeds. Both leaflets can be found on the Defra website and hard copies can be obtained from Defra publications.

  Ouse Flooding
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will ensure that the consultation process which follows the publication of the Ouse draft flood strategy is one which allows all sections of the community to comment. [73950]

  Mr. Morley
  I am advised by the Environment Agency that the Ouse Strategy has undergone a consultation process during its production, with meetings occurring with Lewes Flood Action, Residents Associations and many other interest groups. A566W
  working group was established, with representations from the communities involved, including businesses, elected members, parish councillors, flood action groups and landowners.

  The purpose was to obtain advice and comments as the strategy developed, and public meetings were held in Lewes and Uckfield to facilitate this. Smaller meetings were also held with a number of other parish and residents' groups through the valley to allow for comment from other sections of the community. In addition, letters received were passed to our consultants for consideration when developing the strategy.

  The Ouse strategy now includes the Environment Agency's preferred options which are believed to represent the most economical, technical and environmentally sound proposals for the catchment. It is these options that will be forwarded to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for consideration for grant aid.

  Public meetings are being arranged by the Environment Agency in Lewes and Uckfield in August to explain the strategy, with further meetings to follow at parish level. There is still an opportunity to influence the strategy during the detailed design stage.

  Subject to approval, the strategy will be reviewed on a five yearly basis to take account of climate change and other variables.

  Sustainable Development
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what specific criteria her Department proposes for the where possible clause to become applicable within the pledge to replenish fish stocks agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. [74615]

  Mr. Morley
  The United Kingdom attaches high importance to the commitment to restore fish stocks and will be seeking to secure this by 2015 under the Common Fisheries Policy. The wording "where possible" was inserted to meet the concerns of some parties that the objective might in some cases in other parts of the world be biologically impossible.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the Government plans to develop the partnership agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development to increase the capacity of coastal developing countries to tackle and manage their fish resources; and by which year these partnerships will need to be fully operational to help achieve the 2015 millennium development goals. [74617]

  Mr. Morley
  A number of local, regional or thematic partnerships were announced at WSSD which are potentially relevant to helping coastal developing countries manage their fish resources. The United Kingdom will join these partnerships where we are invited to do so and it is clear that we have a contribution to make.

  The UK has been invited to join the core planning group for the "White Water to Blue water" initiative, promoted by the United States and intended to promote

  567W
  a cross-cutting approach to regional oceans and coastal ecosystem management in the Wider Caribbean region. Fisheries are within the scope of this work.

  The UK is currently exploring how it might assist global work to protect coral reefs through the International Coral Reefs Initiative, and is supporting OSPAR (the convention for the protection of the marine environment of the North East Atlantic) in developing a partnership with the equivalent convention for West Africa. Both should contribute to helping developing countries manage fish stocks more effectively.

  The Plan of Action agreed at WSSD called for action to strengthen donor coordination and partnerships to enable developing countries to develop their capacity for infrastructure and integrated management, and the sustainable use of fisheries. The UK will continue to work for this through its bilateral aid programme, through its membership of a number of regional fisheries organisations, and through partnerships with a number of UN agencies, in particular with the FAO.

  While these partnerships will contribute to the elimination of poverty, they are not explicitly timed to coincide with the Millennium Development Goals.

  Ecological Surveys
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what ecological surveys have been conducted by(a) English Nature and (b) his Department in respect of the sites identified for development as asylum accomodation centres to determine the presence of protected species; if the Government will publish the reports; and what further plans the Government have to commission such surveys. [74521]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that there are Home Office proposals to build asylum seeker accommodation centres on surplus land at three sites; the Defence Storage and Distribution Centre near Bicester (Oxfordshire), RAF Newton (Nottinghamshire) and Throckmorton Airfield (near Pershore, Worcestershire).

  It is not the Department's role, or English Nature's, to commission or undertake ecological surveys of potential development sites. As with any planning proposal, it will be for the relevant planning authority to ensure that potential impacts on protected species are identified and considered, including requiring the developer to undertake ecological surveys where appropriate.

  English Nature's role is to provide advice to the planning authority and also to the developer on the nature conservation issues. With respect to the specific sites, English Nature reports that Wychavon District Council has commissioned an ecological survey of the Throckmorton site and also that English Nature staff have liaised with ecological consultants engaged on behalf of developers in respect of the Bicester site.

  Where European protected species will be affected by an activity such as development works then my Department administers a licensing regime under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994. A licence under these Regulations may be needed to allow the development works or other activity to
  568W
  proceed. Ecological surveys of sites are required from applicants as part of applications for such licences, in order to allow the conservation issues to be fully considered. There is no Crown immunity from these Regulations. At this point in time no applications have been received by my Department in respect of these sites.

  Emergency Disposal Sites
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has made to implement the recommendation of the Anderson Committee that the question of compensation for communities accommodating emergency disposal sites should be researched. [73433]

  Mr. Morley
  We will examine this recommendation as part of our work to prepare a response to the inquiries carried out by Dr. Anderson and Sir Brian Follett.

  Farming
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what incentive schemes are in place to(a) encourage farmers to avoid over-production, (b) increase the sustainability of farmers, (c) to make alternative use of surplus agricultural land and (d) extend the programme of crop growing for energy production. [73557]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government is committed to moving rapidly towards a more sustainable, competitive and diverse farming industry. Key to this is reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), where we want to phase out market price support and production controls, reduce direct payments and decouple them from production. We are also seeking to shift towards the CAP's "second pillar", expanding the opportunities available for targeted support for rural development and agri-environment schemes. In this context, we welcome the proposals brought forward by the Commission as part of the CAP mid-term reviews.

  In England, the schemes covered by the England Rural Development Programme play a significant role in delivering the Government's objectives for sustainable production and land management, including those listed in the question. These schemes are the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme, the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, the Organic Farming Scheme, the Hill Farm Allowance, the Woodland Grant Scheme, the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme, the Rural Enterprise Scheme, the Vocational Training Scheme, the Processing and Marketing Grant and the Energy Crops Scheme. The budget for the Programme is £1.6 billion over the period 2000–2006. Similar schemes specific to Welsh needs operate within the Rural Development Plan for Wales, the total budget for which is £450 million over the same period.

  In addition, there are incentives under some of the CAP subsidy regimes to limit production, for example through livestock extensification and some schemes under the "national envelopes".

  The Government is working with stakeholders to develop and deliver a new strategy for sustainable farming and food in England, to be published in the autumn, which may include further measures of this

  569W
  kind. The devolved administrations are pursuing their own strategies. For example, the strategy for agriculture in Wales, "Farming for the Future", prepared in association with industry and countryside interests, was published last November.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers have been declared bankrupt per month in each of the last 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [74188]

  Alun Michael
  Data are available for England and Wales only on a quarterly basis. The level of farm bankruptcies and insolvencies tends to be in the order of a few hundred a year (as at June 2002 there were approximately 210,000 main and minor agricultural holdings1). The annual number of total insolvencies in the last five years (1997–2001) was 240 which is nearly 40 per cent. lower than the average number in the previous 5 years (1992–1996). In 2001, the total number of insolvencies rose by 14 per cent. Quarter 1 figures are available for 2002 and show a 9 per cent. increase over the same period for 2001.

  Table 1 Number of Quarterly Bankruptcies in the Agriculture and Horticulture Sector: England and Wales 1991–2002

  Year

  Quarter

  Individual Bankruptcy Orders2

  Company Insolvencies3

  Total Insolvencies4

  1991

  Q1

  68

  32

  100

  Q2

  64

  37

  101

  Q3

  53

  27

  80

  Q4

  81

  39

  120

  1992

  Q1

  89

  38

  127

  Q2

  89

  46

  135

  Q3

  62

  57

  119

  Q4

  73

  50

  123

  1993

  Q1

  86

  41

  127

  Q2

  63

  42

  105

  Q3

  63

  27

  90

  Q4

  65

  47

  112

  1994

  Q1

  60

  63

  123

  Q2

  70

  35

  105

  Q3

  43

  35

  78

  Q4

  58

  33

  91

  1995

  Q1

  80

  40

  120

  Q2

  65

  21

  86

  Q3

  36

  17

  53

  Q4

  37

  21

  58

  Jan

  Feb

  Mar

  Apr

  May

  Jun

  Aug

  Sep

  Oct

  Nov

  Dec

  Month unknown

  Annual total

  1989

  7

  7

  2

  3

  3

  9

  7

  6

  8

  8

  6

  6

  72

  1990

  10

  4

  7

  8

  8

  6

  5

  5

  9

  5

  3

  6

  76

  1991

  3

  7

  12

  13

  2

  3

  6

  7

  8

  7

  5

  4

  77

  1992

  5

  10

  9

  4

  3

  5

  8

  6

  5

  4

  5

  8

  72

  1993

  9

  4

  6

  8

  7

  8

  10

  3

  8

  4

  8

  3

  78

  1994

  3

  6

  9

  6

  5

  7

  11

  1

  8

  2

  4

  4

  1

  66

  1995

  7

  7

  6

  5

  4

  4

  1

  4

  7

  4

  6

  2

  57

  1996

  8

  5

  3

  11

  7

  4

  4

  3

  6

  4

  2

  8

  65

  1997

  3

  8

  3

  5

  4

  7

  3

  5

  9

  3

  5

  4

  59

  1998

  4

  2

  5

  13

  7

  5

  4

  2

  6

  6

  8

  10

  72

  1999

  5

  2

  4

  5

  12

  6

  5

  7

  6

  3

  6

  9

  70

  2000

  7

  8

  3

  4

  4

  6

  5

  4

  5

  6

  5

  2

  59

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics
  570W

  Table 1 Number of Quarterly Bankruptcies in the Agriculture and Horticulture Sector: England and Wales 1991–2002

  Year

  Quarter

  Individual Bankruptcy Orders2

  Company Insolvencies3

  Total Insolvencies4

  1996

  Q1

  45

  23

  68

  Q2

  39

  17

  56

  Q3

  54

  27

  81

  Q4

  30

  22

  52

  1997

  Q1

  42

  13

  55

  Q2

  46

  10

  56

  Q3

  37

  17

  54

  Q4

  30

  11

  41

  1998

  Q1

  42

  14

  56

  Q2

  29

  16

  45

  Q3

  39

  23

  62

  Q4

  47

  12

  59

  1999

  Q1

  54

  22

  76

  Q2

  50

  14

  64

  Q3

  45

  16

  61

  Q4

  34

  23

  57

  2000

  Q1

  53

  18

  71

  Q2

  35

  13

  48

  Q3

  52

  10

  62

  Q4

  33

  26

  59

  2001

  Q1

  44

  22

  66

  Q2

  48

  25

  73

  Q3

  44

  20

  64

  Q4

  47

  23

  70

  2002

  Q1

  42

  30

  72

  Notes:

  1Defra statistics

  2Figures for individual insolvencies comprise bankruptcy orders and individual voluntary arrangements under the Insolvency Act 1986 and deeds of arrangement under the Deeds of Arrangement Act 1914.

  3The figures for company insolvencies are made up of compulsory liquidations (winding-up orders made by the courts) and creditors' voluntary liquidations registered at Companies House.

  4Individual Bankruptcy Orders plus Company Insolvencies

  Source:

  Department for Trade and Industry

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of trends in farmers' suicides in the past 12 years; and how many such suicides have taken place per month in the last 12 years. [74189]

  Alun Michael
  There were the following number of farmers' and farm workers' deaths classified as suicides per month in the 12 years 1989–2000 in England and Wales:
  571W
  Figures for 2001 are not yet available.

  In the Department of Health's "National Suicide Prevention Strategy for England", published in September 2002, farmers (and agricultural workers) are identified as a high risk occupational group. A suicide prevention strategy for England has been formulated by an expert advisory group through consultation with mental health professionals, researchers, survivors of suicide attempts, the voluntary sector, and others with relevant experience. The target is to reduce the death rate from suicide and undetermined injury by at least a fifth by the year 2010. The implementation plan will be the responsibility of the National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE).

  Prior to this, the Government launched the Rural Stress Action Plan in 2001 with the aim of working in partnership to deliver support to make a difference to those in distress in rural areas. Its objectives are:

  1. building on existing partnerships, and initiate new ones where there is little provision, to bring together organisations offering a range of types of support to rural people;

  2. direct assistance to farming families, both financial and practical; and

  3. effective publicity to encourage those in need to make contact with helping agencies.

  I recently announced the extension of the Plan for a third year, 2002–03; in total nearly £1m of public funding has been provided. Its existence proved of great value during last year's outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. We hope that this modest funding will go a long way to help convey the message that advice and information is available to those suffering distress in rural areas.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether steps are being taken in the context of the review of the EU Common Agricultural Policy and Structural Funds to move towards a fairer funding distribution between urban and rural and agricultural interests. [73994]

  Mr. Morley
  Common Agricultural Policy payments are made to producers and exporters on the basis of set eligibility criteria, regardless of whether they are from urban or rural areas. There are many traders in urban areas who receive CAP export subsidies. But by definition, the majority of recipients of direct production subsidy payments are from rural areas. Structural Funds are distributed on the basis of need: in the case of Objective 1 the criterion is an area whose population earns less than 75 per cent. of the EU average income. This applies equally between urban and rural areas.

  Flood Defences
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 22 July 2002,Official Report, columns 704–05W, on flood defences, on what basis her Department keeps financial records for expenditure incurred on flood defences in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [73656]
  572W
  Mr. Morley
  Flood management is a devolved responsibility. Records are kept of grant payments (and, for local authorities, supplementary credit approvals) made by this Department directly to the flood and coastal defence operating authorities (Environment Agency, local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards) in England only. They are recorded at the level of individual payments and payee (in the case of the EA this is at Flood Defence Committee level) and the project to which they relate. It is possible to group payments, to total expenditure on a particular project, for all local authorities or on coast protection schemes for example, where the Department's payments database supports this.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) records revenue payments made by local authorities on flood and coastal defence for the purpose of paying Revenue Support Grant—the other mechanism by which the Government provides funding for flood and coastal defence works. Neither this Department nor the ODPM categorises payments in ways that might have assisted me to answer your previous Question and neither does the main operating authority, the Environment Agency. The Department does not routinely record other expenditure (by the operating authorities or other riparian owners).

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what discussions(a) have taken and (b) are due to take place between (i) her Department and (ii) the Government and the Association of British Insurers regarding insurance of householders on identified flood plains; and if she will make a statement; [73508]

  (2) what plans the Government have to assist households on flood plains to obtain insurance cover from the end of this year; and if she will make a statement; [73655]

  Mr. Morley
  There have been regular Ministerial and Official level meetings between Defra, Environment Agency, HM Treasury and Association of British Insurers (ABI) to address this issue. Meetings and discussions will continue over the coming months.

  We continue to work very closely with the Environment Agency and ABI to build a mutual understanding of flood risk. This will help develop a shared understanding with the insurance industry of the true risks of flooding in particular areas, taking account not only of the indicative flood plain but also the current and future provision of flood defences, and help achieve the mutual aim of ensuring the continued availability of affordable flood cover as widely as possible after the end of the year.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the letter of 14 August, Ref 172597/JD to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what monitoring has been done of the safeguards in the Protocol with Mauritania to protect fish resources off the West African Coast. [74196]

  Mr. Morley
  The first meeting of the Joint Committee provided for under the EU/Mauritania Fisheries Protocol took place in June, at which the
  573W
  implementation of the new 2001/2006 Protocol during its first year was reviewed. A joint scientific working party was established to examine the state of the stocks and report to the Joint Committee before 1 November 2002.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 14 August, Ref 172597/JD, what action she has taken during discussions on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy to seek a requirement that every bilaterial fisheries agreement should be accompanied by a rigorous stock assessment and conditional on an environmental and social impact assessment. [74197]

  Mr. Morley
  These are matters that we shall pursue when the Commission brings forward into the CFP reform discussions the relevant elements of its proposed Strategy for European distant-water fisheries, as foreseen in the Commission's "roadmap" communication on the reform of CFP issued on 28 May 2002.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is towards the transfer of fish from a trawler at sea onto a storage vessel for transportation to port. [73860]

  Mr. Morley
  The transhipment of fish stocks, subject to quota, between Community fishing vessels and receiving vessels has to be notified to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned in accordance with provisions of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93, as amended. Separately the Receiving of Trans-Shipped Sea Fish (Licensing) Order 1982, as amended, prohibit the trans-shipment of pelagic sea fish onto non-fishing vessels within British fishery limits unless the receiving vessel is licensed. For the purposes of this Order pelagic sea fish are defined as mackerel, herring, sprats, pilchards and horse mackerel. Additionally UK fishing vessel licences prohibit the transhipment of any fish between under 10 and over 10 metre vessels.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policy towards inclusion of the issue of fishing quota-capping in the next InterGovernmental Conference. [73823]

  Mr. Morley
  Since 1 January 1999, and with the agreement of the European Commission, all vessels fishing against UK quotas have to maintain a genuine economic link with coastal communities in the UK. We have no plans to raise the issue at the next meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on the status of negotiations on the 12 mile derogation, with particular reference to the timescale; [73870]

  (2) what negotiating points have been linked to the 12 mile derogation negotiating parties. [73871]
  574W
  Mr. Morley
  A Council Working Group of officials from EU Member States has been meeting in Brussels to consider the Commission's proposals for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. No one has attempted to link the 12 mile derogation to other issues.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent estimate she has made of the size of the UK fishing workforce(a) within the fleet and (b) in dependent industries. [73868]

  Mr. Morley
  The most recent information available on the numbers of fishermen in the United Kingdom are for the situation in 2000 as drawn from surveys carried out by the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Sea Fisheries Protection Agency in Scotland. The survey showed a total of 14,645 fishermen in the UK in 2001.

  It is difficult to estimate the level of employment in dependent industries. This is due to it being difficult to define accurately which industries are involved, and in many cases these industries are not uniquely dependent on the fishing industry. The Department and the Sea Fish Industry Authority are currently jointly carrying out research into the relationship between jobs in fishing and jobs in the rest of the UK economy, with the results expected to be available within the next two to three months.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many UK fisheries vessels there are in each port of anchorage; and what proportion of them are foreign-owned. [73869]

  Mr. Morley
  At 30 June 2002 there were some 7020 licensed UK fishing vessels. Comprehensive information about the beneficial ownership of UK fishing vessels is no longer maintained. However it is estimated that some 117 vessels are wholly or partly foreign owned. A significant proportion of the fleet is nomadic and it is not practical to break down the above numbers in terms of ports of anchorage.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total tonnage was of the(a) white water and (b) blue water fishing fleet of the UK in (i) 1972, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 2002; how many vessels there were; and how many personnel were employed at sea. [73858]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested, where available, is given in the table below. The white water fleet has been taken as those UK fishing vessels that are 10 metres or less in overall length, with the blue water fleet taken as those UK fishing vessels greater than 10 metres overall length. Data on the numbers of fishermen is not available in terms of type of vessel, only on the basis of those employed full time or part time, which is given in the table.

  Available vessel data for 1972 are not comparable with data for later years. Statistics for the active fleet in 1972 understate the overall size of the fleet; the registered fleet exceeded the active fleet by about 3,000 vessels in 1990 when the earlier statistical series was replaced. Similarly, the basis used to measure the tonnage of vessels in 1972 (Gross Registered Tonnage)

  575W
  is not comparable with that used in later years (Gross Tonnage), and generally results in smaller estimates of the tonnage of vessels.

  Consultancies
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list external(a) public relations/communications companies, (b) advertising and marketing companies. (c) management consultancies, (d) accountancy companies, (e) banking firms, (f) individual consultants and (g) other specialist consultancies used by her Department since June 2001; what actions those consultancies/companies have performed within her Department; and what costs have been incurred through use of these consultancies/companies. [74684]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 23 July 2002,Official Report, column 916W.

  19721

  1997

  2002

  Tonnage (at 1st January)2,3

  Vessels less than 10 metres

  n/a

  20,095

  19,768

  Vessels greater than 10 metres

  278,000

  254,390

  243,206

  Total UK fishing fleet

  n/a

  274,485

  262,974

  Numbers of vessels (at 1st Janurary)2:

  Vessels less than 10 metres

  3,785

  6,091

  5,713

  Vessels greater than 10 metres

  2,286

  2,576

  2,008

  Total UK fishing fleet

  6,071

  8,667

  7,721

  Personnel employed at sea during the year4:

  Full time

  17,898

  14,832

  11,923

  Part-time

  4,115

  3,772

  2,722

  Total numbers of fishermen

  22,013

  18,604

  14,645

  Notes:

  1Estimates for 1st January 1972 relate to the active fishing fleet, while those for 1st January 1997 and 2002 relate to the registered fishing fleet.

  2Data for 1972 relate to vessels below and above 40ft in length (12.2 metres).

  3Data for 1997 and 2002 relate to the Gross Tonnage of registered fishing vessels as reported to the European Commission under the Multi Annual Guidance Programme for the structure of the UK fishing fleet. The data available for 1972 related to Gross Registered Tonnage of active fishing vessels, which is not comparable. Data for vessels below 40ft in length are not available.

  4The information given in the column for 2002 relates the numbers of fishermen in the year 2001.

  Refrigerator and Tyre Disposal (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding arrangements have been proposed to deal with disposal in the county of Cambridgeshire of(a) refrigerators and (b) tyres. [74222]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have announced a further £40 million for local authorities to cover the costs of fridge disposal this year. This is in addition to £6 million already allocated for the last financial year. It is not possible to provide a meaningful allocation for each authority. It is intended that £40 million will be distributed later this year through the Special Grant system.
  576W
  The Landfill Directive is due to ban the disposal of tyres to landfill from mid-2006 by which time alternative ways of handling those tyres currently landfilled will need to be in place. At present 30 per cent. of used tyres are landfilled. However, the Government is supporting a number of research and development studies aimed at developing end markets for used tyre products which should become commercially available before the ban comes into effect. We do not anticipate, therefore, an additional burden on local authorities.

  Domestic Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the target is for domestic energy efficiency improvements. [74227]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK Climate Change Programme envisages savings of carbon emissions from domestic energy efficiency measures of up to 5 million tonnes a year by 2010.

  The Government has announced its intention to produce a Domestic Energy Efficiency Strategy to ensure delivery of these savings and work on this is being taken forward in the context of the production of the Energy White Paper, which the Government aims to publish around the turn of the year. The White Paper will also address the recommendation of the Performance and Innovation Unit's Energy Review that Government develop energy efficiency targets for each sector of the economy, including a 20 per cent. improvement in domestic energy efficiency by 2010.

  Domestic Waste
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what was the total tonnage of domestic waste collected in the last recorded 12 month period. [74575]

  Mr. Meacher
  Figures from the Defra Municipal Waste Management Survey show that in 2000–01, 25,109,000 tonnes of household waste were collected in England.

  Farm Tenancies
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the agendas and minutes for meetings of the cross-departmental working group in fiscal arrangements for farm tenancies. [73912]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department does not routinely publish minutes of cross departmental meetings such as those held to discuss fiscal measures affecting farm tenancies. Any requests for the release of this information will be dealt with in accordance with the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Second Edition, 1997) and the Freedom of Information Act when it comes into force.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the cross-departmental working group on fiscal arrangements for farm tenancies has been established. [73911]
  577W
  Mr. Morley
  Tax is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all parts of the tax system are kept under review as part of the Budget process. Cross departmental discussions on the tenancy related fiscal measures mentioned in the Policy Commission report on the Future of Farming and Food and the Plymouth University Report on the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 have taken place. Further discussions will take place as appropriate prior to the publication of the Government's strategy for sustainable food and farming in the autumn, which will include a full response to the Policy Commission recommendations.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress is being made to allow farm tenants greater flexibility to diversify their income-earning activities on farms that they rent. [73910]

  Mr. Morley
  The report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food recommends that Defra should revisit the definition of agriculture used in tenancy legislation and suggests a broader definition might remove a potential obstacle to business development. The Government is keen to ensure that the legislative framework governing farm tenancy arrangements does not act as a barrier to tenant farmer participation in diversification activities. We are therefore considering this recommendation carefully and the conclusions reached will be made known in the autumn when the Government publishes its strategy for sustainable food and farming, incorporating a response to the Policy Commission's recommendations.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress is being made in addressing issues relating to the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, with particular reference to section 4 of that Act. [74047]

  Mr. Morley
  The Plymouth University Report on the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 made a number of recommendations involving section 4 of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. These recommendations are currently being considered in parallel with the tenancy related recommendations made by the Policy Commission on the Future of Food and Farming. The Government's approach to the recommendations made in both reports will be clarified when the strategy for sustainable food and farming, incorporating the response to the Policy Commission's recommendations is published in the Autumn.

  Farming (EU Grants)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what proportion of UK farmers received European Community grants of over(a) £100,000 and (b) £500,000 per annum in each of the last five years; [73980]

  (2) what proportion of UK farmers received European Union grants of under £10,000 per annum in each of the last five years; [73864]

  (3) what proportion of UK farmers do not receive European Union grants. [73865]
  578W
  Mr. Morley
  The following table gives the numbers of addresses in England to which the specified levels of direct payments under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) have been made in the last three years. Earlier figures are not readily available. We cannot estimate precisely the number of farmers who do not receive payments. The payment of CAP grants in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the devolved authorities. Farmers may also have received European Union grants under non-agricultural programmes.

  Address to which payment was made of £100,000 to

  CAP Financial Year

  £1 to £99,999

  £499,999

  Over £500,000

  1998–1999

  63589

  61

  3

  1999–2000

  58238

  1933

  34

  2000–2001

  63497

  1822

  29

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total sum of grants by the European Union to farmers was in(a) the UK and (b) other EU member states in the last year for which figures are available. [73859]

  Mr. Morley
  The United Kingdom received €4,058.9 million from the European Union under the Common Agricultural Policy during its 2000 financial year. The other Member States received the following:

  Country

  Euro (millions)

  Austria

  1,018.5

  Belgium

  954.7

  Denmark

  1,305

  Finland

  727.5

  France

  8,982.2

  Germany

  5,641.7

  Greece

  2,597.1

  Holland

  1,396.5

  Ireland

  1,678.3

  Italy

  5,031.1

  Luxembourg

  20.6

  Portugal

  651.9

  Spain

  5,469.3

  Sweden

  798

  These figures include both direct aid and market support. Nearly all of the direct aid will have gone to farmers. Much of the market support expenditure will in the first instance have been paid to traders.

  Organic Action Plan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how she will measure the success of the Organic Action Plan; and what funding is being made available for the introduction of the Organic Action Plan. [73355]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Group that drew up the Action Plan and, from April 2003, the Advisory Committee on Organic Food and Farming will draw up and publish detailed criteria for measuring the success of the strategy for developing a sustainable organic food and farming sector in England. Funding for the changes to the Organic farming Scheme to provide for payments for five year agreements and other measures such as marketing, processing and training will come from the
  579W
  England Rural Development Programme. In addition £5m has been set aside over the five years beginning in 2003/2004 for the purpose of providing a grant to the organic industry to support its research priorities through the LINK programme.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent by the Government on foot and mouth preparations and exercises in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [73803]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on the costs of foot and mouth preparations and exercises is not available. The contingency plan for foot and mouth disease approved by the EC includes a requirement that each Animal Health Divisional Office has a local contingency plan. At February 2001, 19 of the 23 divisional plans had been updated in the previous year. In addition, these offices are required to hold at least one simulation exercise and to review staff training on dealing with disease outbreaks each year.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps have been taken to vaccinate against a future foot and mouth outbreak. [73887]

  Mr. Morley
  Routine vaccination to protect against future outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease is currently prohibited in the EU and neither the Royal Society nor the Lessons to be Learned Inquiries recommended it. This was also the view reached by the International Conference on Prevention and Control of FMD, held last December.

  The Government is currently considering the recommendations of the Royal Society and Lessons to be Learned Inquiry Reports into the 2001 outbreak. We will take these recommendations into account when deciding what role vaccination may play in future outbreaks and what future research and development requirements are. These Reports will inform our preparation for discussions in the EU on a new FMD Directive later this year.

  Emergency vaccination during a future outbreak is not ruled out, and it remains an option as part of the disease control strategy. Future scientific advances may allow vaccination a larger role and we are committed to funding research into the use of conventional vaccines to control FMD. We are currently developing more comprehensive contingency plans and field instructions for emergency vaccination and will engage stakeholders in future vaccination discussions.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department made to the Commonwealth for assistance from veterinary experts during the foot and mouth epidemic. [73862]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the current International Veterinary Reserve Agreement (IVR), participating countries have agreed to provide veterinary assistance in the event of serious notifiable disease. The agreement was initiated in the very early stages of the foot and mouth outbreak. All countries covered by the 580W
  agreement, some of which are members of the Commonwealth, participated in the eradication of foot and mouth.

  Discussions were also held with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Subsequently, Embassies assisted with the identification of suitable veterinary candidates.

  The Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) also wrote to all EU Member States seeking assistance from suitable veterinary staff.

  Cameraria Ohridella
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the spread of Cameraria Ohridella; and what action her Department is taking. [74199]

  Mr. Morley
  I indicated in the answer I gave the hon. Member on 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1198W, that it was considered highly likely that the Horse Chestnut Leaf Miner (cameraria ohridella) would spread to Britain. In July it was confirmed that the moth is now present in parts of Wimbledon. We have conducted a joint survey of the area and surrounding local Boroughs, and the Forestry Commission has placed baited pheromone traps at selected ports and towns in the south of England. So far the moth appears to be confined to the Wimbledon area but further spread is considered inevitable.

  The Commission has alerted Tree Officers in the London Boroughs and it has distributed its "Exotic Pest Alert" publication describing the moth and showing the symptoms to look for. Trees will look unsightly following defoliation by the moth, but they will recover.

  An EU research programme is underway which includes work to try to develop practical control methods. Forestry Commission scientists are in regular contact with the scientists in this programme and are also carrying out their own studies.

  Agricultural Workers
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department have made of the effect of the Communities Vibrations Directive on working times for the agricultural workforce; if such an analysis was made at the time of initial discussions in the Working Group; what cost-analysis took place prior to final agreement; and if she will make a statement. [73824]

  Mr. Morley
  The Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive is a health and safety measure which is designed to protect workers from diseases such as vibration white finger and back pain. The Directive was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 21 May 2002. The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) took the lead on behalf of the UK Government in negotiating the terms of the Directive.

  The HSE carried out a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) (including a cost/benefit anaysis) as soon as the German Presidency presented the proposal for this Directive in January 1999. The RIA considers the impact of the Directive on UK industry as a whole.

  581W
  This was updated in January 2001 after political agreement was reached in Council. Copies of the RIAs are available in the House of Commons Library.

  The UK has played a leading role in maintaining the Common Position on the terms of the Directive in the face of more restrictive amendments proposed by the European Parliament. As a result the terms of the Directive should allow farm workers to use their tractors for at least 7 to 8 hours each day. Furthermore the provision allowing exposure to Whole Body Vibration (WBV) to be averaged over a 5 day period should allow one or two long days to be offset by low exposure on rest days. In addition the WBV exposure limit value for farmers will not come into effect until 2014–12 years time. The long transitional period should allow equipment design to be improved and old equipment to be replaced.

  Plastic Bags
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answers to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) of 30 April 2002,Official Report. column 665W, what conclusions she has reached on the assessment of the effect of a plastic shopping bag levy on litter and waste reduction and on consumer behaviour. [73975]

  Mr. Meacher
  Work on the plastic bags issue continues within the Department and we are not yet in a position to reach conclusions. Also, the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) has decided to include the plastic bag tax and related issues in its wider review of waste strategy. It will therefore feature in the PIU, report, due out later in the year and the work carried out in the Department will help inform the report.

  Organic Produce
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many litres of organic milk were produced in the UK last year. [73315]

  Mr. Meacher
  It is estimated that around 200 million litres of organic milk were produced in the UK during the year to end March 2002.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many organic producers there were in the UK in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [73316]

  Mr. Meacher
  As at 31 December 2000 there were 3,563 organic producers in the UK. As at 31 December 2001 there were 3,981

  Sheep Exports
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what report was made by her official who travelled on board the ship with the sheep which were sent from Dover to the Continent on 15 July; and whether the Dutch authorities have confirmed that the sheep were transported in accordance with the route plan submitted to her Department. [73696]
  582W
  Mr. Morley
  The report records that the overall journey was satisfactory and there were no adverse comments in respect of animal welfare. We have taken account of the practical experience gained from this first consignment when considering futher Route Plans.

  The Dutch authorities have reported that the animals were either transported directly for slaughter in France or rested in the Netherlands before transport to slaughter in Italy.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in respect of the health certification carried out on the three consignments of live sheep exported from Dover to continental Europe on 21 July, how many of the sheep were rejected as unfit for the intended journey; where those sheep were taken; what problems were found in respect of the animals; what action was taken in respect of these problems; and what final destination address was given on the route plan for each of the consignments. [73695]

  Mr. Morley
  In respect of the three consignments of sheep exported on 21 July, no animals were rejected on inspection as unfit for their intended journey. The sheep were transported from approved assembly centres in North Wales and Kent via Dover and Holland to three EU approved slaughterhouses in France.

  Domestic Waste
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what tonnage of the domestic waste collection was reused as a raw material in the manufacture of(a) plastic, (b) glass, (c) paper and (d) board in the last recorded 12 month period. [74573]

  Mr. Meacher
  This information is not available.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what external advice she received regarding a duty on her to fund policies and programmes as a result of the requirement for her to have a 30 per cent. improvement in domestic energy efficiency as a principal aim under Part 1 of the Home Energy Conservation Bill; whether this advice suggests it would be within the terms of the Bill to make progress towards improving energy efficiency by(a) introducing new regulations and (b) energy efficiency programmes funded by bodies other than the Government; if she will place the advice in the Library; and if she will make a statement; [71006]

  (2) what external advice she has received regarding burdens placed on local authorities by Part I of the Home Energy Conservation Bill; if she will place this advice in the Library; and if she will make a statement; [70950]

  (3) what external advice she has received regarding the compatibility of a requirement for her to have a target as a principal aim when making decisions, as included in the Home Energy Conservation Bill and a requirement to meet that target as a statutory duty; if she will place this advice in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [71005]
  583W
  (4) when the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire will receive answers to written parliamentary questions 70950, 71005 and 71006, tabled for answer on 19 July. [74577]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]The Government has not sought any external advice on these matters. However, I am aware that the Bill's promoters sought legal advice on whether having a 30 per cent. improvement as a principal aim would have conferred a lesser obligation than a statutory duty to achieve this level of improvement, and whether it would have imposed any legal requirements on the Government to fund new obligations on local authorities.

  We have received our own advice on the implications of having a 30 per cent. improvement in domestic energy efficiency as a principal aim in this Bill. These implications, including those for the Government and local authorities of any energy efficiency targets that the Secretary of State might set, how targets might be achieved, any constraints this might place on local authorities and the potential role of other energy efficiency programmes, have, of course, been discussed with other Government Departments. The Government is committed to funding fully the cost of any new obligations placed on local authorities, although this is not a legal obligation.

  The Department has also received correspondence setting out a wide range of views on this and other aspects of the Bill, including from the Local Government Association, local authorities, trade associations, energy efficiency and fuel poverty groups and members of he public.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much of the total tonnage of waste was collected for recycling in the last recorded 12 month period; and what proportion of that was from(a) domestic and (b) industrial sources. [74576]

  Mr. Meacher
  Figures from the 2000–01 Defra Municipal Waste Management Survey show that for England, the latest tonnages of waste of municipal waste collected for recycling or composting were 3,442,000 tonnes, 2,812,000 of which was from household sources.

  The proportion of household waste that was recycled or composted was 10 per cent.

  Figures from the 1998–99 Environment Agency National Waste Production Survey, the most recent available, show that for England and Wales, 22,100,000 tonnes of industrial waste were recycled or re-used. The proportion of industrial waste recycled or re-used was 44 per cent.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much tonnage was collected from segregated domestic waste broken down by(a) paper, (b) plastic, (c) glass and (d) metals in the last recorded 12 month period. [74574]
  584W
  Mr. Meacher
  Figures from the 2000–01 Defra Municipal Waste Management Survey show that for England, the following segregated household waste were collected for recycling:

  Material recycled

  Tonnages

  As a percentage of total household waste

  collected

  Paper and card

  910,000

  3.6

  Plastics

  13,000

  0.1

  Glass

  396,000

  1.8

  Scrap metal, white goods and cans

  336,000

  1.3

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what tonnage of collected segregated waste has been(a) landfilled and (b) fly-tipped in the last recorded 12 month period; and what proportion this is of the total waste collected. [74572]

  Mr. Meacher
  This information is not available.

  Timber
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measurements she uses to monitor the change in levels of use of sustainable timber in public buildings. [74604]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Sustainable Development in Government report, which replaces the Greening Government reports and is due in November, is intended to give information on the levels of timber and timber products supplied from legal and sustainably managed sources. The Government's future performance and contribution to sustainable development (including procurement) will now be monitored under the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate—the main vehicle for systematically assessing, managing, reporting and improving performance in operational areas.

  Defra also commissioned consultants in October 2000 to undertake a timber scoping study to help buyers more effectively implement the Government's commitment actively to seek to procure its timber and timber products from sustainable and legal sources. Their findings are now being considered in the light of the reports published by the Environmental Audit Committee in July and by stakeholders at an open meeting on 2 September. The policy does not extend beyond central Government, but Defra Ministers and officials have been promoting it to the wider public sector.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the steps that are taken to ensure that only sustainable timber is used on public projects. [74603]

  Mr. Meacher
  Several of the Government's furniture suppliers are switching to certified timber sources as a result of the Government's policy on timber procurement (28 Jul 2000,Official Report, column 947W), the inclusion of these requirements in Departmental contracts and the work of public bodies such as NHS

  585W
  Purchasing and Supply Agency. The Office of Government Commerce is reviewing its existing guidance and project management services contracts to draw attention to the Government's policy. Defra has also commissioned consultants to undertake a timber scoping study to help buyers to implement the commitment more effectively. The report on this study addresses, for example, the issue of assessing the credibility of suppliers' claims on the source of the timber supplied and the provision of expert help for buyers. A copy of the scoping study report is on the Tropical Forest Forum's web site. Look in Forum activities/Trade/ Timber Trade at http://www.forestforum.org.uk.

  Birds
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the change in the numbers of birds; and what steps are being taken to encourage the growth of the songbird population. [73556]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department annually monitors the numbers of a whole range of birds, including songbirds, through the Breeding Bird Survey. This survey, conducted and funded jointly by the British Trust for Ornithology, the RSPB and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, assesses trends in the numbers of common species of birds across the country. A range of other surveys, funded by these organisations, assesses trends in scarcer species. Annual reports are produced for each of the surveys, but summary information derived from them is contained in the report The State of the UK's Birds 2001, which was published on 7 August.

  It revealed:
  Long term trends show that approximately 34 bird species including the buzzard, sparrowhawk, green woodpecker and the blue tit have increased between 1970 and 1999.
  Most species of common bird have shown short term increases between 1994 and 2000.
  The report also showed that over the period 1970 to 1999 19 species, including the marsh tit, have declined by more than 50 per cent.
  Twelve further species have showed a moderate decline of between 25 and 49 per cent., including the dunnock and the lapwing.
  Steps are being taken to encourage a growth in songbird numbers through
  Biodiversity Action Plans, for species such as Skylark, Stone Curlew, Nightjar, Corn Bunting, and Song Thrush;
  Agri-environment schemes, which are currently being reviewed: these provide significant funding for promoting environmentally sustainable farming practices; more than £1 billion has been made available for the seven-year period 2000 to 2007.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the regulatory burdens that would arise from the implementation of European Commission Draft Instrument 7396/02, dated 21 March 2002, concerning the control of high-activity sealed sources; and if she will place in the Library a copy of the regulatory impact assessment in the Library. [73553]

  Mr. Meacher
  The European Commission has made a proposal for a Council Directive on the control of high activity sealed radioactive sources, which is under 586W
  discussion in Council working group. The department is currently carrying out an initial Regulatory Impact Assessment to gauge the potential costs and benefits of implementing the current draft of the Directive. This is expected to be ready in the autumn and will be provided to the European Scrutiny Committee. I shall also place a copy in the Library.

  Horticulture Research International
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about the future financing of Horticulture Research International. [74660]

  Mr. Morley
  Horticulture Research International (HRI) is undergoing a Quinquennial Review of its performance, organisational status and relationship with Defra. The Review Team's report was published on 23 September. Stakeholders have been invited to provide comments on the report by 18 November before Ministers take final decisions about HRI's future, including its funding arrangements. These decisions will also be informed by further analysis of the financial implications of implementing the Review Team's recommendations.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are being taken to ensure that the Countryside Agency's rural proofing checklist(a) is available to Government Departments and (b) informs policy decisions. [73989]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency's rural proofing checklist was launched in April 2001. At the time it was published in hard copy as well as published on the Countryside Agency's website. Copies were circulated round all Government departments, and promoted throughout departments by the Countryside Agency and staff in departments themselves. This is an ongoing process, with continuing liaison between Government departments and both the Countryside Agency and the Department. The Countryside Agency is currently revising the checklist and this will be published shortly, with a further promotion across Government.

  The ongoing process of monitoring and evaluation that leads to the publication of the Countryside Agency's annual reports on rural proofing is the principal way to ensure that the checklist is used to inform policy decisions, and leads to rural solutions and outcomes. The continuing close liaison mentioned above also keeps the checklist at the front of policy makers minds, and the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Rural Renewal discusses such issues regularly.

  French Beef
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 23 July 2002, ref 70633, if she has applied to the European Court to intervene in the case. [73698]

  Mr. Morley
  Once the Commission has lodged the case with the European Court of Justice, the Court will invite member states to apply to intervene. This stage has not yet been reached.

  NFU
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations he has(a) received from and (b) made to the NFU; what was discussed; and when the next meeting will take place. [73842]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, along with other members of her Ministerial team, have regular contact with the NFU to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Curry Report
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) which Curry Commission recommendations will be implemented; [72456]

  (2) what percentage of her budget increase will be spent on the implementation of the Curry Commission's report; [72455]

  (3) when she will outline the new strategy for sustainable food and farming in England; [73749]

  (4) what specific reforms in line with the Curry report she estimates will be made possible by the Comprehensive Spending Review. [73779]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 26 March a series of early actions as a first step towards implementing the Policy Commission's report. A new Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food in England will be launched in the autumn. This will incorporate a response to all of the Policy Commission's recommendations arid include details of a range of policy measures.

  The recent Spending Review settlement demonstrates the Government's commitment to delivering on the vision identified in the report, providing the resources to address the Commission's core recommendations, including those aimed at improving the competitiveness of farming and the food chain and enhancing the ability of farming to deliver environmental benefits.

  From our increased post-Spending Review budget of around £2.8bn p.a., more than £500m will be made available for investment in sustainable farming and food over the three years of the Spending Review. This includes an increase of £200m in 2005–06, which will allow full roll-out of an entry-level agri-environment scheme in that year, following successful pilots.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to support the dairy industry. [73756]

  Mr. Morley
  The dairy sector is supported at a European level by the Common Organisation of the Market for Milk and Milk Products. Recognising the difficulties caused for many dairy farmers by the current low price of milk, the Government has worked within this framework to back measures taken in Brussels to support EU Markets and encourage exports.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the negotiations between the Government and outside contractors regarding the backlog of cattle TB testing. [73731]

  Mr. Morley
  TB testing is carried out by the State Veterinary Service (including Local Veterinary Inspectors); there are no plans to change these arrangements. Contractors are being employed to help with the survey of badgers killed in road traffic accidents and negotiations are continuing with contractors over reducing the backlog in "TB99" epidemiological questionnaires.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what she estimates the total cost has been of Bovine TB testing delays to farmers. [73837]

  Mr. Morley
  A formal assessment of the cost to the farming industry of the delays in testing for bovine TB has not been carried out.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to pay more than market value for cattle compulsorily slaughtered under TB control measures. [73733]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no plans to pay more than the market value for cattle compulsorily slaughtered under TB control measures.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what cost analysis has been undertaken to assess how much the delays in testing for Bovine TB have cost the farming industry. [73840]

  Mr. Morley
  A formal assessment of the cost to the farming industry of the delays in testing for bovine TB has not been carried out.

  Farming and Food Commission
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food; and what progress they have made since their formation. [73736]

  Mr. Morley
  The Policy Commisison on the Future of Farming and Food was set up in August 2001 to advise the Government on the creation of a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sector in England. The Policy Commission presented its report to the Prime Minister and Secretary of State in January 2002, after which its work ceased. The Government welcomed the report, supported its broad analysis and conclusions and will publish a response in Autumn in the context of a new strategy for sustainable farming and food.

  Agricultural Development Scheme
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the
  589W
  eligibility requirements are of the Agricultural Development Scheme; and what will be the number and value of the grants distributed. [73757]

  Mr. Morley
  The eligiblity criteria are set out in the guidance notes for the scheme. In summary, projects must concern the organisation, promotion, encouragement, development, co-ordination or facilitation of the marketing of produce and not be eligible for aid under another grant scheme. Only non-capital expenditure can be grant aided, up to a maximum grant of £0.5m and a maximum grant rate of 50 per cent. Grant can only be awarded for "additional" activities (i.e. the applicant must demonstrate that the project would not take place without grant—or would only proceed on a significantly smaller of slower scale).

  The number and value of grants will be decided in the light of the quality of applications received and the resources available, within the overall limits on individual projects summarised above. The resources available will be determined as part of our planned strategy for sustainable food and farming.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the priorities are of the new Agricultural Development Scheme. [73758]

  Mr. Morley
  The priorities for the Agricultural Development Scheme are:

  Co-operation/ collaboration benefiting primary producers;

  Benchmarking and spread of best practice;

  Assurance schemes; and

  Projects opening up new markets, for example, using crops for raw materials for industry.

  Other projects will also be considered

  Radioactive Materials
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the European Council Resolution 2002/C119/05 on the establishment of national systems for surveillance and control of the presence of radioactive materials in the recycling of metallic materials in member states, in respect of its application to the United Kingdom. [73555]

  Mr. Meacher
  Most of the Resolution's proposals are already covered by existing UK legislation, including the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (as amended) and the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999. Many of the measures proposed in the Resolution are mirrored in the draft Euratom High Activity Sealed Sources Directive, which is currently being negotiated.

  The UK INTERPOL Environmental Crime (Radioactive Substances) Sub-Group (UKIECG), which is chaired by the Environment Agency, addresses the issue of illicit trafficking of "orphan" radioactive sources. The Environment Agency is also working closely with the metals recycling industry and with regulators in other countries on the issues covered by the Resolution.
  590W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much(a) low level, (b) intermediate level and (c) high level radioactive material was in storage in each year from 1973 to date. [73947]

  Mr. Meacher
  The information requested requires the interrogation of several past UK Radioactive Waste Inventories and I will write to the hon. Member with the details in due course.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with(a) the nuclear industry and (b) other departments regarding the safe disposal of nuclear waste. [74593]

  Mr. Meacher
  In a letter sent to all MPs on 29 July, my right hon. Friend, announced the results of the recent consultation on radioactive waste management and set out the next steps of the programme, including a review of all management options for intermediate and high level waste.

  With this in mind, the Department plans to continue its frequent meetings with relevant stakeholders and interested parties, including the NGO's, technical and scientific experts, public engagement specialists and industry representatives, to discuss the issues at hand. This continual input, together with the information gathered from the four research projects that were run during the consultation period (which all involved a wide range of contacts, including stakeholders and the general public), should help formulate a successful programme.

  The Department is also in daily contact with other Government Departments and the devolved administrations on this issue.

  Carcase Burial Site, Petrockstowe
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will state, in relation to the carcass burial site at Ash Moor, Petrockstowe,(a) what the level of water table is below the surface of the land and (b) whether a microbiological study has been conducted into the use of the land for the burial of animal carcasses; if she will publish the environmental impact and risk assessments for the site and list the recommendations they made; which legal requirements were complied with before construction of the site started; what has been (i) the cost of work to date and (ii) the continuing cost of upkeep; what additional cost will be incurred if the site is brought into use for the burial of animal carcasses; and if she will make a statement. [10735]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]pursuant to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Torridge & West Devon on 7 November 2001,Official Report, column 301W. My answer referred to EA authorisation under regulation 1 8(3)(a) of the Groundwater Regulations 1998 granted on 12 April 2001. (construction at Ash Moor started on 20 April 2001). This was incorrect. The construction at Ash Moor started on 9 April 2001. The rest of the Answer remains correct.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes of 12 June, concerning drugs and the broiler chicken. [71274]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 July 2002]: I responded to the honourable member on 15 September.

TREASURY

  E-Government
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a progress report on the Customs and Excise interactive data input and editing system for traders and if he will make a statement. [74780]

  John Healey
  The business requirement for an interactive data input and editing system has been included within the scope of the HM Customs and Excise e-Business Programme, to simplify the current technology and business processes. It represents better value for money for government while ensuring that businesses, including those involved in intra-Community trade, are offered simpler and more convenient ways to transact.

  Intrastat Supplementary Returns can already be filed electronically and the new, flexible infrastructure will include technology to improve risk-based assurance of data and reduce the costs of compliance to a whole range of businesses. This will ensure that Customs and Excise is more responsive, agile and better able to meet its customers' needs.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish outturn figures for the pilot system for VAT declarations over the Internet; and if he will make a statement. [74777]

  John Healey
  The pilot system for making VAT declarations over the Internet ran from March 2000 to April 2001. Around 1,100 businesses used the service out of 2,500 businesses invited to do so.

  The electronic VAT return (EVR) system went live in April 2001. Around 400 of those on the pilot system joined the live system. There are currently 4,250 businesses registered to use EVR. Of these approximately 2,700 actually use it.

  Bank of Credit arid Commerce International
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what evidence was presented by Customs and Excise officials to the Bank of England on 19 September 1988 that Manuel Noriega had been using the Bank of Credit and Commerce International to launder money; [74516]

  (2) if he will disclose the names of those officials attending a working lunch on 19 September 1988 between Customs and Excise and Treasury officials; and if he will make a statement. [74517]
  592W
  John Healey
  Information relating to matters which are currently the subject of, or directly connected with, court proceedings are exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4 (Law enforcement and legal proceedings) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Global Poverty
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what progress was made on tackling global poverty at the recent G8 summit; [73665]

  (2) what progress is being made through the World Bank and the IMF in tackling (a) global poverty and (b) land reform in developing countries. [73662]

  John Healey
  At the G8 Summit, in June, progress was made towards a more coherent approach to tackling global poverty. In particular, members welcomed the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). The G8 undertook to establish enhanced partnerships with African countries whose performance reflects the NEPAD commitments. This will focus efforts on countries that demonstrate a political and financial commitment to good governance and the rule of law, investing in their people, and pursuing policies that spur economic growth and alleviate poverty. The G8 will match African countries' commitment by promoting peace and security in Africa, boosting expertise and capacity, encouraging trade and direct growth-oriented investment, and providing more effective official development assistance. In addition, the G7 agreed in June to contribute their share of an extra $1 billion to finance the shortfall in the HIPC initiative.

  At the Annual Meetings of the IMF and World Bank in September, further progress was made. In particular, the IMF reaffirmed its role in helping poor countries address the challenge of meeting the Millennium Development Goals by supporting economic reforms aimed at accelerating growth and reducing poverty. The Fund recognised that there may be a need to consider mobilising new resources if high demand for concessional financing continues, and stressed the importance of sound macroeconomic frameworks that can respond flexibly to changes in the external environment; identifying ways to encourage higher and sustainable growth; good governance; improving public expenditure and financial management systems; and using poverty and social impact analysis more systematically, and building country capacity in this area. In addition, the Bank and Fund reaffirmed the commitment to implement the HIPC initiative and finance it fully to help countries overcome the burden of unsustainable debt.

  At the Development Committee meeting of the World Bank, commitments were made towards better coordination and cooperation amongst development partners and by effective alignment of donor support with country strategies. Members recognised the need for more intensified efforts to harmonise operational policies and procedures of bilateral and multilateral agencies, at both institutional and country levels, to enhance aid effectiveness and promote greater ownership by developing countries. The Bank and other donors committed to further action in streamlining their policies, procedures and requirements over the period

  593W
  leading to the high-level forum scheduled in Rome in February 2003 and beyond. Members also requested the Bank and Fund to report back to them at next year's Spring Meetings on pragmatic and innovative ways to enhance the participation of developing countries in international institutions, and thereby to strengthen international dialogue.

  Improving tenure security and access to land through appropriate land reform is a key element of the World Bank's Rural Development Strategy. Secure tenure and shelter for the poor are also important components of the Bank's urban programmes. The Bank is supporting land reforms in Latin America; throughout Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union; and in Asia, efforts appear to have been generally most effective in relation to poverty reduction. The Bank is preparing to re-engage with land reform in Africa (Ghana, Malawi, Niger, South Africa and Uganda).

  The Department for International Development (DFID) is actively engaged with the World Bank in Africa to improve the effectiveness of Bank operations in land reform. In the other regions DFID seeks to support and improve the impact of World Bank interventions at policy level and through complementary support to development partners. The Bank is in the final stages of completing a major review of its work on land reform, to be captured in a Policy Research Report. DFID have contributed to the process, seeking to strengthen the linkage of Bank lending for land reform with improved livelihood opportunities for the poor and with nationally owned poverty reduction strategies.

  Early Leavers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with other departments on reducing(a) its level of early retirements and (b) the number of people leaving early on sickness or ill health grounds. [73713]

  Mr. Boateng
  (a) There has been no discussion with departments about reducing early retirements or ill-health retirement for the various public service groups. However, a recommendation in the report of the Treasury led review of ill-health retirement in the Public Sector (published in July 2000) was that high level targets should be set challenging employers to reduce ill health retirement by 2005 to a level consistent with or better than those at present achieved by the best quartile of employers.

  (b) There is no centrally held data about people leaving early on sickness or ill health grounds. The monitoring of people leaving early on sickness or ill health grounds is a matter for the sponsor departments of the various public service groups.

  Commemorative Coins
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans Her Majesty's Government have for the issue of commemorative coins next year. [74806]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Her Majesty The Queen has been graciously pleased to approve my recommendation that the following commemorative coins should be issued in 2003:594W
  a crown piece of five pounds face value to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of her Coronation;
  a two-pound coin to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the discovery of the structure of DNA;
  a fifty pence coin to mark the hundredth anniversary of the formation of the Women's Social and Political Union.

  Collector versions of these coins will be released early next year at a premium above face value and, during the course of the year, the coins will be also become available at face value from banks and post offices.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the performance and role of the Financial Services Authority over the last 12 months. [73738]

  Ruth Kelly
  The FSA is obliged under the terms of the Financial Services and Markets Act (2001) to produce an annual report assessing performance against its statutory objectives of maintaining confidence in the financial system, promoting public understanding of the financial system, securing an appropriate degree of protection for consumers and reducing the potential for financial firms to be used for financial crime. It is through this mechanism that the FSA is primarily held accountable to Ministers and Parliament.

  The annual report for 2001/02 was published on 20 June 2002 (I refer you to my answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Ms. Follett) 20 June 2002, Official Report, column 454W) and Section 6 reports on performance against the statutory objectives. Copies of the report were supplied to the Treasury Committee and copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 June 2002 Official Report, column 447W, if he will set out the Financial Services Authority's proposed powers post-2004 in relation to the regulation of mortgages and general insurances. [74241]

  Ruth Kelly
  On mortgages, the Government published proposed powers for the Financial Services Authority (FSA) on 8 August. These can be obtained from the Treasury website www.hm—treasury.gov.uk. The Government will shortly be publishing for consultation draft legislation setting out FSA powers in respect of general insurance mediation.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what methodology was used to determine the targets in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [73770]

  Mr. Boateng
  The methodologies used varied between departments and targets.

  Liabilities Insurance
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Government assistance is available to companies that find it difficult to get affordable liabilities insurance. [74446]
  595W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Government is working with trade associations, insurance bodies and organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses to try and maximise the availability of affordable cover.

  The key to securing affordable liability insurance over time will be improving the risks posed by companies particularly in terms of health and safety for employees and the public.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what recent discussions he has had with the(a) public, (b) private and (c) voluntary sectors in combining the effort to end child poverty; [74425]

  (2) what progress has been made on the commitment to end child poverty; what resources have been devoted to this commitment; and what achievements have been made; [74424]

  (3) what plans he has to introduce standards against which the progress of the policies to end child poverty can be measured. [74426]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The government has made a commitment to reduce the number of children in low-income households by at least a quarter by 2004, as a contribution towards the broader target of halving child poverty by 2010 and eradicating it by 2020. ("Low income" is defined as having an equivalised household income of less than 60 per cent. of median income).

  Progress will be reported against the 1998–99 baseline figures of 4.2m children after housing costs and 3.1m children before housing costs. Between 1997–98 and 2000–01 the number of children in low-income households fell by 300,000 after housing costs and by 400,000 before housing costs. So we are a third of the way in a third of the time towards meeting the 2004 target.

  By April 2003 the government will be spending £8 billion more on support for children each year, in real terms, than in 1997.

  Low income is of course central to poverty. But poverty of opportunity is also important. In Opportunity for All, the government's annual antipoverty report, we report progress in tackling poverty and social exclusion against a range of indicators. In April 2002 the Department for Work and Pensions launched a consultation exercise to debate the best way to measure poverty in the long-term. Academics and representatives from the voluntary and community sectors and local government all actively engaged in the debate. Results of the consultation will be published after a full analysis of the responses and technical implications.

  In working towards the common goal of eradicating child poverty within a generation, my right hon. Friend has had numerous discussions with representatives from all sectors. Only through a genuine partnership can we ensure that children and young people are given every opportunity to progress in life.

  Our strategy document, Tackling child poverty—giving every child the best possible start in life, stresses the importance of voluntary organisations in the pursuit of
  596W
  our long-term goal of poverty eradication. The Chancellor also meets ministers from the devolved administrations to consider joint or coordinated action, and exchange information and best practice in tackling child poverty and social exclusion in deprived communities. And the Government is pursuing contacts with the financial sector in efforts to tackle financial exclusion.

  Pension Tax Reliefs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the most recent annual cost was in tax forgone of superannuation and other pension tax reliefs; and what proportion of this was to the benefit of higher-rate taxpayers. [74644]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the cost of tax relief on pension contributions are contained in table 7.9 of Inland Revenue Statistics. The latest version is on the Inland Revenue website:
  http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/pensions/p_t09_1.htm

  Of the estimated £6.4bn relief on contributions by employees and the self employed in 2001–02 around £3.7bn is in respect of higher rate taxpayers and on employer contributions of the total of £9.5bn around £5.4bn is in respect of higher rate employees.

  The employers' component is estimated on the basis that under present arrangements, employer contributions are not taxable as a benefit in kind of the employees. The estimates assume that the proportion of total employers' contributions relating to higher rate taxpayers is the same as that observed for employee contributions. It is not possible to apportion the other elements of the total cost of tax relief between higher rate taxpayers and others.

  Estimates are provisional and based on the Survey of Personal Incomes 1999–2000.

  Benefits in Kind
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the yield of extending the base of employees' national insurance contributions to benefits in kind; and if he will make a statement. [74120]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Replacing the Class 1A National Insurance contributions liability paid by employers on benefits in kind, with a Class 1 liability paid by employees and employers would raise around £150 million for 2002–03, rising to £150 million for 2003–04. These estimates do not make any allowance for changes in behaviour.

  PEPs
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the total annual cost to PEP investors of the reduction in the dividend tax credit in April 1999 in each subsequent financial year; [74493]

  (2) how many (a) general and (b) single company PEP plans were in existence in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02; and how many UK individuals had investments in PEPs in each year; [74488]
  597W
  (3) what estimate he has made of the average annual cost to (a) each PEP plan and (b) each PEP investor of the reduction in the dividend tax credit to PEPs in April 1999 in the financial years (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [74492]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In respect of PEPs, the reduction in the rate of the dividend tax credit is estimated to have saved around £200m in each of the years 1999–00 to 2001–02. Reliable estimates of the number of plans and UK individuals holding plans, and hence of the average cost, are not available from adminstrative data.

  Tobacco
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what target Customs and Excise has set for illicit market share in the tobacco market by 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [74773]

  John Healey
  Customs aim to reduce the market share of smuggled cigarettes to 20 per cent. by 2003–04. This target was published in the Tackling Tobacco Strategy in March 2000, a copy of which can be found in the Library of the House and in Customs' Public Service Agreement for 2001 to 2004.

  Customs' aim is to reduce the market share of smuggled cigarettes to 17 per cent. by 2005–06. This target has been published in Customs' Public Service Agreement for 2003 to 2006.

  VAT Fraud
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the National Audit Office will be invited to review the methodology for calculating VAT missing trader fraud; and if he will make a statement. [74127]

  John Healey
  The NAO commented on the steps that Customs have taken to measure the stock of fraud in their Audit of HM Customs & Excise under Section 2 of the Exchequer & Audit Departments Act 1921 which was published on 13 February 2002. Discussions about the approach and timing of a specific review of the methodology for calculating VAT missing trader fraud are underway.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many suspect VAT registrations have been refused under the programme to counter VAT missing trader fraud; how many missing trader registrations have been identified and cancelled since August 2001; what the value is of total injunctions secured since August 2001 against missing traders; and if he will make a statement; [74128]

  (2) if he will provide an update of his November 2001 estimate of the cost of VAT missing trader fraud; and if he will make a statement; [74130]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the (a) percentage and (b) absolute reduction in VAT missing trader fraud since September 2000; and if he will make a statement. [74129]

  John Healey
  Details of the size of this form of fraud and operational activities to tackle it were first set out in the "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud" document published 598W
  at the time of the November 2001 Pre Budget Report, and will be updated on a routine annual basis in line with the commitments made in that document.

  Mapeley Steps Ltd
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the financial benefits accruing to the Inland Revenue as a result of the tax status of Mapeley Steps Ltd; [74490]

  (2) what revenue the Treasury has received as a result of the decision to sell Inland Revenue buildings to Mapeley Steps Ltd and what was the value of alternative bids received; [74487]

  (3) when (a) he and (b) the Paymaster General were informed of the decision to sell Inland Revenue buildings to Mapeley Steps Limited; and when he was informed of the announcement by the Inland Revenue that the company was based in Britain. [74489]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise "STEPS" competition was announced in August 1998. The two Departments' contract with the Mapeley consortium was signed on 6 March 2001 after a full procurement exercise.

  A joint Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise press release dated 9 March 2001 inadvertently referred to assets being transferred to Mapeley Ltd, a UK registered company, rather than Mapeley STEPS Ltd which is registered in Bermuda. Subsequently, a separate press statement has corrected this. Ministers were not aware of the registration of Mapeley STEPS Ltd at the time of the March 2001 press notice.

  The STEPS contract with the Mapeley consortium provided for the payment of £220 million to the Departments together with a further £150 million to be reflected in lower service prices. Details of the rival bids are, as is customary, commercially confidential. However, the competition to establish which bidder offered best value for money included rigorous examination of all factors relevant under the appropriate UK and European rules. By convention, the tax affairs of individual companies are not disclosed to Ministers. No separate assessment has been made of the effect of the tax status of Mapeley STEPS Ltd.

  Strikes
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will state the(a) number and (b) percentage of days lost to strike action in the (i) private sector and (ii) public sector in each year since 1997. [74385]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  599W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Tim Yeo, dated 15 October 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of days lost due to industrial action in the private and public sector each year since 1997. (74385)
  There are no statistics specifically for the public sector but figures on the public administration; education and health industries provide most of the information on the public sector as it is today. In the table below the data for these sectors Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 75, 80 and 85 are presented alongside data for the rest of the economy.

  Working days lost due to UK labour disputes

  Public administration education and health industries SIC 75, 80, 85

  Rest of Economy

  No of days lost 000'S

  % of total days lost

  No of days lost 000's

  % of total days lost

  1997

  65

  28

  170

  72

  1998

  50

  18

  232

  82

  1999

  66

  27

  176

  73

  2000

  221

  44

  278

  56

  2001

  331

  63

  194

  37

  Employment (Scotland)
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were estimated to be(a) employed and (b) unemployed in (i) Paisley North, (ii) Renfrewshire and (iii) Scotland in each of the last two years. [73671]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Irene Adams, dated 15 July 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about employment and unemployment in Scotland. (73671)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics for employment and unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following the internationally standard International Labour Organisation (ILO) definitions. For parliamentary constituencies, the LFS provides estimates of employment and unemployment rates, but not levels. However, the survey sample size is too small to provide reliable estimates of unemployment for Renfrewshire Unitary Authority or Paisley North constituency.
  The ONS also compiles statistics of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.
  The attached tables give information from the LFS and claimant count. Labour market statistics are published in the monthly Labour Market Statistics First Release and on the Nomis ® database, both of which are available in the House of Commons library.
  600W

  Table 1 Employment and ILO unemployment in Scotland; all aged 16 and over

  Thousands, seasonally adjusted

  In employment

  ILO unemployment

  March to May 2001

  2,396

  148

  March to May 2002

  2,388

  176

  sources

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Table 2 Employment rates1 for Scotland; Renfrewshire and Paisley North; all people of working age2; 1999/00 and 2000/01

  Per cent

  Scotland

  Renfrewshire

  Paisley North

  Year ending February 2000

  71.3

  74.5

  71.8

  Year ending February 2001

  73.1

  75.4

  63.4

  Notes

  1Total employed of working age as a percentage of all persons of working age.

  2Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey Local Area Database

  Table 3 Claimant count levels for Scotland; Renfrewshire and Paisley North

  Not seasonally adjusted

  Scotland1

  Renfrewshire

  Paisley North

  June 2001

  104,600

  3,745

  1,572

  June 2002

  102,700

  3,774

  1,596

  Notes

  1 Data for Scotland are seasonally adjusted.

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus administrative system.

  Public Service Agreements
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the data on(a) outputs and (b) resources underlying the report in the Customs and Excise Spring 2002 report (Cm 5427) on PSA 2000 target; and if he will make a statement. [74782]

  John Healey
  I have done so.

  Death Certificates
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy for the time of death to appear on death certificates. [73419]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Heath, dated 15 September 2002:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General, I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the time of death appearing on death certificates. (73419)
  Generally, it would not be possible to record the time of death on death certificates accurately. In many cases the doctor who certifies the death may not be with his patient when they die and therefore would not know the specific time of death. The relative who registers the death also may not be able to say precisely when the death occurred.
  601W
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to require practitioners completing death certificates to include illnesses for which there is medical evidence rather than clinical suspicion. [73420]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Heath, dated 15 October 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the requirements of medical practitioners completing death certificates to include illnesses for which there is medical evidence rather than clinical suspicion. (73420)
  Medical practitioners are required to certify the cause of death for patients under their care. Current legislation requires them to "sign the certificate in the prescribed form stating to the best of his/her knowledge and belief the cause of death". Guidance issued to doctors asks that they describe the cause of death as fully and accurately as possible. They should describe the sequence of diseases or injuries which led to the death, and other conditions which may have contributed to it. These guidance notes follow the recommendations of the World Health Organisation.
  There is considerable interest in death certification at present. The Fundamental Review of the Coroner Service has recently published a consultation document on possible changes to the way in which deaths should be investigated and certified. This can be found at http://www.coronersreview.org.uk/, or a paper copy requested from The Review of Coroner Services, 100 Pall Mall, London SW1Y 5HP. The closing date for responses is 22 November 2002. In addition, the Office for National Statistics will be consulting on modernisation of the civil registration system during 2003. Any future changes to death registration will also need to consider the recommendations that will come out of the Shipman Inquiry.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many transsexual people have applied to have their birth certificates changed since the European Court of Human Rights ruling on 11 July on the case of Goodwin and Iv. UK. [73917]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 15 September 2002:
  The National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales has been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of transsexual people who have applied to have their birth certificates altered following the ECHR ruling in the case of Goodwin and I v. UK. I am replying in his absence. (73917)
  The number of applications received at the end of September is 101. This excludes 2 requests from people born in Scotland which were referred to the Registrar General for Scotland.

  Customs and Excise Reviews
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he expects to complete Her Majesty's Customs and Excise reviews of the compliance costs of(a) excise gambling regimes, (b) customs procedures for international trade, (c) hydrocarbon oils, (d) alcohol duties and (e) tobacco duties; and if he will make a statement. [74131]
  602W
  John Healey
  Work on the studies into the compliance costs of excise duties and international trade is not complete yet. The findings will be considered and used to formulate future policies and procedures when they become available.

  Bank of England
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the legal consequences of the vacancy for the deputy governorship of the Bank of England; and if he will make a statement. [74119]

  Ruth Kelly
  There were no legal consequences of the brief vacancy for the post of Deputy Governor for Financial Stability.

  Inheritance Tax
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of the inheritance tax cultural exemption scheme; and if he will make a statement. [74121]

  Dawn Primarolo
  About £8m in 2001–02, including the value of objects accepted in lieu of tax and net of relief clawed back which was previously given under inheritance tax or its predecessors.

  Drugs
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total quantity of Class A drugs targeted on the UK for financial year 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [74778]

  John Healey
  The National Criminal Intelligence Service United Kingdom Threat Assessment of Serious and Organised Crime 2002, estimates that in the region of 30 metric tonnes of heroin and up to 40 metric tonnes of cocaine are smuggled into the UK each year. There are no estimates for other Class A drugs such as ecstasy.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place the results of the research programme on the dynamics of the UK and international drugs market undertaken by Customs and Excise in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [74779]

  John Healey
  This research programme resulted in a number of confidential threat assessments which are covered by Exemption 2 (Internal discussion and advice) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and it would not be appropriate to publish them. To the extent that the information is publishable it is contained in the National Criminal Intelligence Service Threat Assessment of Serious and Organised Crime 2002, to which HM Customs and Excise contributed. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.
  603W
  David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions(a) ministers and (b) Treasury officials have met Mr. Patrick Butcher, former Finance Director of London Underground, since 1997; and what was discussed at each meeting. [74444]

  Mr. Boateng
  Treasury Ministers and officials meet a wide variety of people to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average annual salary was, broken down by region and industry in the last 12 months. [73963]

  Gross Average Annual Earnings of full time employees on adult rates who have been in the same job for more than 12 months

  Region of workplace

  Agriculture, hunting and forestry

  Fishing

  Mining and quarrying

  Manufacturing

  Electricity, gas and water supply

  Construction

  Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles and personal and household goods

  Hotels and restaurants

  Transport, storage and communication

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  North East

  ..

  ..

  ..

  20,546

  26,671

  19,511

  16,154

  ..

  19,761

  NorthWest

  ..

  ..

  ..

  22,168

  25,636

  21,477

  18,583

  13,504

  20,650

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  ..

  ..

  ..

  21,035

  24,908

  21,556

  18,563

  ..

  18,822

  East Midlands

  16,038

  ..

  ..

  20,853

  ..

  21,155

  19,731

  ..

  19,110

  West Midlands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  20,718

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  20,138

  SouthWest

  ..

  ..

  ..

  22,488

  ..

  21,136

  18,199

  12,045

  20,563

  East

  16,111

  ..

  ..

  24,404

  ..

  24,980

  20,454

  ..

  23,134

  London

  ..

  ..

  ..

  30,219

  ..

  29,657

  24,394

  18,681

  30,225

  South East

  16,256

  ..

  ..

  26,272

  27,466

  24,012

  24,295

  17,164

  23,705

  England

  15,984

  ..

  27,767

  22,872

  28,214

  23,171

  20,897

  15,967

  23,240

  Wales

  ..

  ..

  ..

  20,271

  ..

  19,585

  16,243

  ..

  19,018

  Scotland

  15,371

  ..

  ..

  21,179

  25,229

  21,813

  17,586

  12,814

  20,293.

  Great Britain

  15,805

  ..

  30,599

  22,632

  27,827

  22,909

  20,455

  15,515

  22,906

  Region or workplace

  Financial intermediation

  Real estate, renting and business activities

  Public administration and defence: compulsory social security

  Education

  Health and social work

  Other community, social and personal service activities

  Private household with employed persons

  Extra-territorial organizations and bodies

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  North East

  ..

  21,138

  19,808

  19,992

  19,024

  ..

  ..

  ..

  North West

  23,773

  24,590

  20,610

  20,972

  19,519

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  25,501

  20,935

  21,496

  21,125

  20,323

  17,326

  ..

  ..

  ..

  East Midlands

  24,025

  23,114

  21,213

  21,504

  19,595

  16,896

  ..

  ..

  West Midlands

  25,830

  26,353

  22,292

  21,472

  20,477

  ..

  ..

  ..

  South West

  27,059

  22,927

  21,702

  21,454

  18,608

  17,894

  ..

  ..

  East

  24,712

  26,107

  22,401

  23,066

  20,070

  19,439

  ..

  ..

  London

  ..

  39,293

  25,633

  25,979

  24,248

  31,442

  ..

  ..

  South East

  29,998

  29,717

  22,731

  22,854

  20,183

  ..

  ..

  ..

  England

  41,943

  28,878

  22,291

  22,299

  20,425

  22,860

  ..

  ..

  Wales

  ..

  ..

  21,073

  21,135

  19,781

  17,354

  ..

  ..

  Scotland

  26,069

  23,712

  21,168

  21,001

  20,226

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Great Britain

  39,861

  28,223

  22,050

  22,094

  20,364

  22,560

  ..

  ..

  Note:

  ".." denotes the data has been suppressed in line with NES publication criteria.

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey, April 2001
  604W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Bill Wiggin, dated 15 October 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the average annual salary by region and industry. (73963)
  The New Earnings Survey (NES) provides earnings data for Great Britain for full-time employees on adult rates of pay. The attached table shows the average annual earnings by region and industry for April 2001, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Endowment Policies
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints of mis-selling of endowment policies by independent financial advisers have been made to the FSA in the last three years. [73666]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 17 July 2002,Official Report, columns 335–336W to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir).

  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the proportion of people with endowment mortgages who have policies which are unlikely to pay the original sum borrowed. [73664]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 24 June 2002,Official Report, column 707W to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Lucas).

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the tax credit advertising campaign outlined in the Treasury press release dated 16 September is expected to cost, broken down into the costs of each element of the campaign. [74726]

  Dawn Primarolo
  On 16 September the Inland Revenue launched a multi-media campaign to raise awareness of the changes to tax credits. This advertising campaign aims to encourage claimants of the existing tax credits and potential new claimants to make an application for Working Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit or both. The advertising in this launch phase is expected to run until March 2003.

  Expenditure on advertising is currently estimated to he as follows

  Television

  ±£6 million

  Radio

  ±£0.7 million

  Press

  ±£2 million

  Online

  ±£0.3 million

  Total

  £9million

  Note:

  All figures are inclusive of VAT

  Other elements of the campaign include direct mailings to existing tax credits claimants, and a response line set up to handle telephone calls prompted by the advertising. The final cost will depend on the number of reminders issued and the demand for the response line.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which tax credit application forms(a) are available on the internet for download and (b) can be filled in on a computer screen; and how many electronic application forms have been submitted over the internet for each relevant tax credit during the last 12 months. [74728]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Claim forms and guidance notes for the Children's Tax Credit can be downloaded from the Inland Revenue's website at
  www. inlandrevenue.gov.uk.

  For the new Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit, people can find out whether they qualify, get a detailed calculation and claim online at www. inlandrevenue.gov. uk/taxcredits.
  606W
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of(a) the new tax credit claim pack being sent to existing WFTC/DPTC and children's tax credit claimants and (b) other information available to prospective claimants, including leaflets NTC/1 and NTC/2. [74725]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue began issuing claim packs to existing recipients of Working Families' Tax Credit, Disabled Person's Tax Credit and Children's Tax Credit in mid August. The pack contains six separate items;

  A covering letter

  The Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit Claim form The notes to accompany the form

  A publicity insert giving an overview of the timing and the process of making a claim

  A leaflet from the Financial Services authority giving advice on bank accounts

  A pre-paid return envelope

  Other information for prospective claimants is as follows

  Web-site

  Comprehensive information is available on the Internet at www.inland revenue.gov.uk/taxcredits.

  Leaflets and Posters

  An introductory leaflet which sets out basic information on Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit will be made available to prospective claimants. This will be followed by a more detailed leaflet. Leaflets will be produced in Welsh and will be available in large print, audio and Braille. Summary information will also be made available in Bengali, Cantonese, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Punjabi, Turkish, Urdu and Vietnamese.

  A range of A3 posters, one of which will be available in the languages above, are available to raise awareness of the changes and to promote some of the elements of tax credits, for example, help with childcare costs.

  Information packs have been sent to individual members of the House of Commons, The Scottish Parliament and the devolved assemblies. Copies of the claim pack, the information pack the leaflets and posters will be placed in the Library.

  Paisley, North
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are benefiting from(a) working families tax credits and (b) children's tax credits in Paisley, North. [73663]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the number in receipt of the working families' tax credit, I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 293W. Information about the children's tax credit (CTC) is not available by constituency. However, the number of families eligible for the CTC in Scotland is estimated to be 400,000.

  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of this Department's measures to tackle poverty in Paisley, North. [73661]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Poverty is a complex multidimensional issue, affecting many aspects of children's lives—including income, health, housing, the quality of their environment and opportunities to learn. There is therefore no single measure of the number of families with children that have moved out of poverty in the Paisley North constituency.
  607W
  However, it is possible to provide figures for take-up of some measures aimed at those on low-incomes for which my Right Honourable friend's departments are responsible. In February 2002 there were 1,888 Working Families Tax Credit recipients in Paisley North, compared with approximately one thousand Family Credit recipients in May 1997. In February 2002 there were 57 Disabled Person's Tax Credit recipients in Paisley North, compared with 22 Disability Working Allowance recipients in May 1997.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to refocus the work of HM Customs and Excise, Cowes; and what he means by the term refocusing. [73915]

  John Healey
  Customs plan to deploy their law enforcement resources on the Isle of Wight more proactively, unpredictably and productively across a wider area to focus more on the serious threats from drugs and cigarette smuggling and from oils, alcohol and tax fraud.

  Broadband
  Brian White
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in centralised procurement of broadband networks for Government use. [71401]

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in centralised procurement of broadband networks for Government use. [71405]

  Mr. Boateng
  My hon. Friend, the Minister of State for e-Commerce and Competitiveness at the Department of Trade & Industry announced on 26 June the letting of framework agreements by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) to enable the public sector to buy broadband services more effectively; and the setting up of a Regional Broadband Unit.

  The frameworks procurement is underway and contracts are expected to be awarded next spring. The Regional Broadband Unit will be operational in November 2002. As part of the Unit, an OGC team will provide procurement assistance to the public sector. In addition, a DTI team of regional broadband advisors will ensure that public sector broadband procurement has the maximum impact on regional economic development.

  Euro
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with representatives in local government on the subject of preparing for entry into the euro. [73711]

  Ruth Kelly
  Treasury Ministers have regular discussions with representatives from all parts of Government and such discussions cover a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on preparing for entry into the euro. [73710]
  608W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has regular discussions with representatives from all parts of Government and such discussions cover a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to recharge each department for the costs of possible entry into the euro. [73709]

  Ruth Kelly
  There are no plans to recharge departments for the costs of a possible euro entry.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of preparing for entry into the euro for(a) central Government, (b) local government, (c) business and (d) the UK economy. [73712]

  Ruth Kelly
  It is not possible to estimate the cost of an introduction of the euro.

  The cost of a changeover would depend on the timing, the overall approach and individual management decisions.

  Details of preparations in the public sector for a possible UK entry into EMU may be found in HM Treasury's Sixth Report on Euro Preparations published in July.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department has started the assessment of the five economic tests for membership of the euro; and if he will make a statement. [73976]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government has said that it will complete an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. The assessment has not yet started, but the necessary preliminary analysis—technical work that is necessary to undertake the assessment within two years as we promised—is underway.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will place in the Library a document in respect of all acts of Parliament placing powers and obligations on Her Majesty's Government and other parties in the United Kingdom whose functioning would be affected by United Kingdom accession to the European currency, indicating in each case the section of each act concerned and that of the respective legislative instrument of the European Union; [74117]

  (2) if he will list each new obligation which would apply to the Government and others in the United Kingdom, on adoption of the Euro as a currency, stating in each case the treaty together with the party to which it would apply. [74118]

  Ruth Kelly
  If Government, Parliament and the people—in a referendum—decide to join a successful single currency, the transfer of legal responsibility for monetary policy to the European Central Bank would entail changes to the domestic legislation of the United Kingdom governing the formulation and conduct of monetary policy, at least to the extent necessary to ensue compatibility with the EC Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB.

  The provisions of the EC Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB which would then become applicable to the United Kingdom are referred to in paragraphs 3 to 9 of

  609W
  Protocol (No 11) to the EC Treaty (on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). In addition, legislation adopted under Article 123.5 of the EC Treaty would make the provisions necessary to enable the United Kingdom to move to the final stage of economic and monetary union.

  Import Duties
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue that would be lost to Her Majesty's Government if HM Customs were no longer able to stop any British citizen returning to the UK with cigarettes and alcohol on which no tax had been paid. [74343]

  John Healey
  Customs and Excise make no estimates of the potential loss of excise revenue if Customs were no longer able to stop British citizens returning to the UK with alcohol and tobacco products.

  Government Accounts
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will bring forward proposals on who should sign the whole of Government accounts; and if he will make a statement. [74124]

  Mr. Boateng
  The first whole of government accounts, covering the results and financial position of central government for the year ending 31 March 2004, should be published in early 2005.

  The Financial Reporting Advisory Board will be consulted in 2003 on who should sign the accounts.

  Pension Schemes
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discount rate is used for public sector pension schemes in the accounts published for financial years(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [74126]

  Mr. Boateng
  The discount rate for valuing the liabilities of defined benefit public service pension schemes in their accounts for 2000–01 and 2001–02 was set at 3.5 per cent per annum net of changes in retail prices. Bodies in the wider public sector which fall outside the Resource Accounting framework made disclosures using discount rates determined under accounting standards SSAP24 or FRS17 as appropriate.

  Income Tax
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the full year yield of a 50 per cent. tax rate on(a) gross incomes and (b) taxable incomes of more than £100,000 a year for financial years, (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [74132]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full-year effects of making the changes are set out in the table.
  610W

  Income tax yield in 2002–03 (£ billion)

  Income tax yield in 2003–04 (£ billion)

  (a) 50 per cent. rate for gross incomes over £100,000

  4.0

  4.5

  (b) 50 per cent. rate for taxable incomes
  over £100,000

  3.9

  4.3

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the April 2002 Budget. These estimates exclude any behavioural response to the tax change.

  Diesel
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he had made of the quantity of red diesel consumed at United Kingdom airports; and if he will make a statement. [74122]

  John Healey
  No information is currently available on which to make such an estimate. However, from 1 April 2003, as part of the package of measures announced in Budget 2002 to tackle oils fraud, those dealing in red diesel (rebated gas oil) and kerosene will need to register with, and provide certain information to, Customs and Excise about the supplies they make. While the main purpose of gathering this information is to help Customs target fraudsters, it will also provide management information about supplies and consumption trends generally.

  Banking Services (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that banking services are available to those living in rural areas. [73987]

  Ruth Kelly
  Innovations in the financial services industry are providing new products and varied delivery channels to increase consumer choice in banking services. However, specific groups can still be vulnerable to financial exclusion and that is why the Government is involved in a number of initiatives aimed at increasing access to financial services. Rural areas in particular should benefit from a programme of work to deliver banking services through the Post Office. A number of banks already have agency agreements with the Post Office, allowing their customers to withdraw cash and make deposits at post offices—an extension of the coverage of banks and services provided is planned. The development of universal banking services at the Post Office, from April 2003, will also significantly increase the accessibility of banking services.

  Productivity
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the trends in productivity growth; and what the latest productivity growth figures are. [73746]

  John Healey
  The Government's most recent assessment of trends in productivity growth was set out in Budget 2002 (HC 592) and the accompanying paper "Trend Growth: Recent Developments and Prospects". We will publish an updated assessment in this year's Pre-Budget Report.
  611W
  Latest figures show whole economy productivity picked up strongly and grew at above trend rates between the first and second quarters of 2002, with output per job rising by 0.7 per cent and output per hour rising by 1.1 per cent.

  Mortgages (Dual Rates)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to require mortgage lenders who operated a dual rate to compensate borrowers who took out loans at the higher rate. [74762]

  Ruth Kelly
  It is for the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to consider any wider implications of decisions taken by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), whether on dual interest rates or in other areas of its responsibility.

  Equitable Life
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to make an announcement on the Penrose report into the affairs of Equitable Life Assurance; and if he will make a statement. [74465]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Penrose Inquiry is independent of the Government and the timetable for conducting the Inquiry is a matter for Lord Penrose. No deadline for reporting has been set. The Inquiry's remit covers a long period of time and the issues involved are both broad and complex. A firm deadline was therefore felt to be an inappropriate constraint on the range and independence of the Inquiry.

  Lord Penrose has, however, made it clear that he is keen to ensure that the Inquiry proceeds as quickly as possible consistent with rigorously establishing the facts, producing an authoritative account and thoroughly identifying the lessons to be learnt.

  I look forward to receiving the report of Lord Penrose's Inquiry as soon as he is able to complete it.

  EU Tax Harmonisation
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the economic impact on the UK of the harmonisation, in the EU, of taxes on diesel fuel at current fuel prices and taxation levels. [73825]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The European Commission has recently published a proposal to introduce a single harmonised diesel duty rate for commercial users of 350 euros per thousand litres of diesel in 2010. The proposal also sets out transitional regimes in the interim period. If this proposed duty rate were applied now, it would cost at least £2 billion a year in revenue. The Government will make it clear that we see no reason for a harmonised diesel duty rate.

  Financial Aid
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been paid in(a) subsidies, (b) grants, (c) tax reliefs and (d) other financial aid to (i) the farming industry, (ii) other rural recipients,
  612W
  (iii) the black community and (iv) the gay community in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [74613]

  Mr. Boateng
  Government support for the farming industry, rural communities, black communities and gay communities takes a variety of forms and a full breakdown in the format requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  However details on subsidies received by the farming sector are published in Agriculture in the UK 2001 (available in the Library of the House). In 2001–02 public expenditure to the agricultural sector in the UK under the Common Agricultural Policy and national grants and subsidies was £5.3 billion. This includes £2 billion on foot and mouth compensation payments and associated disposal costs.

  Details of the costs of the main tax reliefs can be found in table A3.1 in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2002, (also available in the Library of the House). We are unable to analyse the cost of tax reliefs in the format requested.

  Nuclear Industry
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer against which departmental budget the funding for the proposed Liabilities Management Authority, set out in CM 5552, Managing the Nuclear Legacy, will be attributed. [73564]

  Mr. Boateng
  The costs will fall to the Department of Trade and Industry's budget.

  Public Servants
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received regarding the level of salaries of public servants; and what the outcomes were of those representations. [73835]

  Mr. Boateng
  Although we receive some representations, it is for employers across the public sector, including departments individually within the civil service, to determine the level of salaries for their own staff. We would expect to make that point in response.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what role economic incentives have in respect of the targets in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [73769]

  Mr. Boateng
  Departments decide how to provide the right incentives to ensure delivery of their targets, as part of the delivery planning process.

  Frozen Assets (Madagascar)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assets are held in the United Kingdom by(a) the Government and (b) other public authorities based in Madagascar; on what grounds action has been taken to freeze such assets; what mechanisms are available for concerned parties to (i) make representations and (ii) appeal against his action; and

  613W
  what action has been taken by other European Union countries against accounts held by authorities in Madagascar. [74158]

  Ruth Kelly
  No assets held in the United Kingdom by the Government or other public authorities based in Madagascar have been frozen. Actions taken by other European Union countries are a matter for their Governments.

  Census (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Office for National Statistics has to publish the results of the Census in Northern Ireland; and what the breakdown is of(a) the adult population and (b) children under 18 years of age in each parliamentary constituency by religious belief and perceived community origin. [74159]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 15 October 2002:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking what plans ONS has to publish the results of the Census in Northern Ireland; and what the breakdown is of (a) the adult population and (b) children under 18 years of age in each Parliamentary constituency by religious belief and perceived community origin (74159)
  As Registrar General for England and Wales, I have a statutory duty, under the provisions of section 4(1) of the Census Act 1920, to report the results of the Census in England and Wales to Parliament. The Registrar General for Northern Ireland has a similar statutory responsibility to report the results of the Census in Northern Ireland to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Thus, the ONS does not have any plans to publish detailed results of the Census in Northern Ireland.
  However, the first results from the 2001 Census, presented in a report to Parliament on 30 September, and which set out the population figures by sex and quinary age group for each local authority in England and Wales, also included corresponding

  Distribution of Gross Weekly Earnings of full time employees on adult rates of pay

  Male Non-Manual Ten percent earned

  Male Manual Ten percent earned

  Male All Ten percent earned

  Median (£)

  less than (£)

  more than (£)

  Median (£)

  less than (£)

  more than (£)

  Median (£)

  less than (£)

  more than (£)

  SCOTLAND

  465.7

  246.7

  845.2

  323.7

  206.2

  514.3

  388.8

  222.6

  720.8

  Aberdeen City

  568.1

  252.7

  1067.2

  337.0

  197.5

  682.9

  451.5

  232.8

  972.2

  Aberdeenshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  332.2

  205.6

  503.8

  388.3

  230.3

  685.1

  Angus

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Argyll & Bute

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Scottish Borders, The

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Clackmannanshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Dumfries & Galloway

  ..

  ..

  ..

  316.3

  199.1

  434.1

  345.5

  212.9

  666.9

  Dundee City

  328.1

  196.0

  494.4

  385.5

  220.8

  683.3

  East Ayrshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  East Dunbartonshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  East Lothian

  ..

  ..

  ..

  314.4

  208.0

  439.4

  ..

  ..

  ..

  East Renfrewshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Edinburgh, City of

  493.0

  247.3

  881.0

  326.5

  196.4

  530.9

  425.6

  225.1

  793.0

  Falkirk

  ..

  ..

  ..

  365.9

  224.8

  730.2

  379.7

  216.6

  710.9

  Fife

  431.0

  215.5

  715.7

  316.0

  215.5

  491.4

  354.8

  215.8

  627.8

  Glasgow City

  465.1

  236.5

  863.7

  322.1

  198.3

  513.0

  400.0

  219.8

  767.8

  Highland

  477.5

  245.5

  729.4

  316.6

  202.7

  472.7

  363.7

  209.0

  628.4

  Inverclyde

  ..

  ..

  ..

  358.5

  191.8

  479.5

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Midlothian

  ..

  ..

  ..

  301.9

  214.4

  496.3

  351.2

  226.7

  578.8

  614W figures for Northern Ireland as a whole and for Scotland, so that total figures for the United Kingdom could be included in order to assist all Members of Parliament.ONS also plan to publish a selection of key statistics from the 2001 Census for each UK Parliamentary constituency in a report, which is expected to be to be laid before Parliament around June 2003. This would include some summary information taken from the responses to the census question on religion, and would include counts of population by sex by age by main religious group. The Registrar General for Northern Ireland will decide what information on religious belief and community background of the population in Northern Ireland constituencies is to be included in this Report.The more detailed results on religion in Northern Ireland will be produced, however, by the Registrar General for Northern Ireland in reports to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Earnings (Scotland)
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for(a) Scotland and (b) each unitary local authority area in Scotland the (i) weekly median earnings and (ii) the distribution of earnings for those earning (A) under the point below which 10 per cent. of earners fall and (B) the point above which 10 per cent. of earners exceed, broken down by (1) male manual, (2) male non-manual, (3) all male workers, (4) female manual, (5) female non-manual and (6) all female workers. [74312]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Michael Moore, dated 15 October 2002:
  As National Statistician. I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the distribution of weekly earnings for workers in Scotland and the unitary authorities in Scotland. (74312)
  The New Earnings Survey (NES) can provide earnings data for small geographical areas. The release of NES data is restricted to figures that are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees, and have an acceptable level of accuracy. In the attached tables I have provided the available data for Scotland and the unitary authorities in Scotland only for those areas where the samples are large enough. These are based on the 2001 NES, the latest survey for which data are available.
  615W

  Distribution of Gross Weekly Earnings of full time employees on adult rates of pay

  Male Non-Manual Ten percent earned

  Male Manual Ten percent earned

  Male All Ten percent earned

  Median (£)

  less than (£)

  more than (£)

  Median (£)

  less than (£)

  more than (£)

  Median (£)

  less than (£)

  more than (£)

  Moray

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  North Ayrshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  405.1

  208.8

  700.0

  North Lanarkshire

  448.3

  258.2

  770.6

  348.5

  212.6

  529.3

  380.3

  235.4

  683.3

  Orkney Islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Perth & Kinross

  ..

  ..

  ..

  287.4

  184.1

  451.7

  373.1

  204.5

  638.2

  Renfrewshire

  486.6

  250.0

  856.2

  343.6

  177.5

  505.6

  408.0

  221.3

  772.0

  Shetland Islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  South Ayrshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  354.6

  224.4

  528.7

  393.2

  225.7

  678.6

  South Lanarkshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  336.2

  225.4

  520.2

  391.6

  237.7

  686.7

  Stirling

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  West Dunbartonshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  West Lothian

  ..

  ..

  ..

  332.1

  218.4

  544.0

  383.3

  230.5

  682.8

  Western Isles

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Note:

  ".." denotes the data has been suppressed in line with NES publication criteria.

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey, April 2001

  Distribution of Gross Weekly Earnings of full time employees on adult rates of pay

  Female Non-Manual Ten percent earned

  Female Manual Ten percent earned

  Female All Ten percent earned

  Median (£)

  less than (£)

  more than (£)

  Median (£)

  less than (£)

  more than (£)

  Median (£)

  less than (£)

  more than (£)

  SCOTLAND

  316.7

  198.0

  562.6

  212.3

  151.1

  345.0

  295.8

  181.6

  536.6

  Aberdeen City

  349.1

  213.4

  586.0

  ..

  ..

  ..

  316.3

  181.3

  533.1

  Aberdeenshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  236.1

  146.4

  498.6

  Angus

  324.9

  208.8

  509.8

  ..

  ..

  ..

  268.5

  170.8

  492.9

  Argyll & Bute

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Scottish Borders, The

  ..

  ..

  ..

  213.6

  151.6

  259.3

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Clackmannanshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Dumfries & Galloway

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Dundee City

  302.0

  194.2

  526.0

  236.9

  168.8

  337.2

  276.7

  188.5

  492.2

  East Ayrshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  East Dunbartonshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  East Lothian

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  East Renfrewshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Edinburgh, City of

  351.9

  216.0

  630.4

  ..

  ..

  ..

  336.5

  207.0

  614.2

  Falkirk

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Fife

  299.9

  184.7

  535.7

  223.2

  154.6

  359.0

  267.3

  178.5

  492.2

  Glasgow City

  316.8

  206.1

  557.7

  196.3

  148.2

  344.1

  307.2

  192.4

  547.2

  Highland

  299.9

  183.1

  551.8

  ..

  ..

  ..

  292.0

  177.1

  537.8

  Inverclyde

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  272.0

  188.5

  478.9

  Midlothian

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Moray

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  North Ayrshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  North Lanarkshire

  296.5

  198.3

  536.6

  197.9

  160.8

  319.4

  277.8

  183.0

  504.0

  Orkney Islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Perth & Kinross

  287.9

  172.7

  535.6

  ..

  ..

  ..

  267.3

  163.2

  503.7

  Renfrewshire

  330.5

  198.4

  564.7

  ..

  ..

  ..

  294.3

  178.8

  536.6

  Shetland Islands

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  South Ayrshire

  347.4

  211.8

  552.0

  310.1

  200.7

  546.3

  South Lanarkshire

  343.9

  201.8

  583.3

  ..

  ..

  ..

  305.4

  188.5

  542.8

  Stirling

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  West Dunbartonshire

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  271.0

  166.9

  446.0

  West Lothian

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  316.0

  200.2

  550.2

  Western Isles

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  Note:

  ".." denotes the data has been suppressed in line with NES publication criteria.

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey, April 2001

  Commissioner for Public Appointments
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of 24 July 2002,Official Report column 1197–99W, on the
  616W
  Commissioner for Public Appointments, (a) for which panel an additional candidate was put forward and (b) which bodies only have informal performance assessment systems in place; and if he will make a statement. [74279]
  617W
  Ruth Kelly
  (a) An additional candidate was put forward for the post of non-executive director of the Court of the Bank of England.

  (b) The Treasury is considering whether it is appropriate to introduce formal performance assessment processes for the Court of directors of the Bank of England and the Commissioners of the Statistics Commission.

  Fuel Duty
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of fuel duty rebates and reduced rates of duty on(a) red diesel and (b) kerosene in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [74774]

  John Healey
  The most recent estimate of loss in revenue to the Exchequer resulting from the duty rebate given to "red diesel" is approximately £3.3 billion in each of the past three years, based on the difference between the duty rate for rebated gas oil and that for heavy oil used as a road fuel. Such estimates for kerosene currently do not exist.

  The estimates for red diesel represent the maximum cost to the Exchequer since they do not allow for a reduction in demand that might be expected if the full duty rate were levied on red diesel.

  It is our policy to review rebates and reduced rates as part of the Budget process. In making his judgment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider all relevant economic, social and environmental factors.

  Trader Liabilities
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of outstanding trader liabilities were written off by Customs and Excise in the latest year for which data is available; and if he will make a statement. [74772]

  John Healey
  The latest available figure is £769.8 million, as published in Customs & Excise's annual Trust Statement for 2000–01. Figures for 2001–02 will be published in the 2001–02 Trust Statement later in the year.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the p519 latest estimate of outstanding trader debt as defined in Spending Review 2000 PSA target one for Customs and Excise; and if he will make a statement. [74775]

  John Healey
  Achievement of the Spending Review (SR) 2000 PSA Targets, Objective 1, was published in H M Customs & Excise Spring Report June 2002. The third quarter outturn for trader debt to 31 December 2001 was 1.88 per cent. against the target of 1.41 per cent.

  The full year results for 2001–02 will be published later this year, in H M Customs & Excise Autumn Performance Report, along with the emerging outturn for 2002–03.

  Depleted Uranium
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what quantities of depleted uranium have been exported to the United States in each year since 1997. [73560]

  John Healey
  The table below shows the quantities (in kilograms) of depleted uranium and products containing depleted uranium that were exported to the United States each year from 1997 to 2001:

  Cermets containing uranium depleted in U235

  Uranium depleted in U235; alloys, dispersions (other than cermets), ceramic products and mixtures containing uranium depleted in U235 or compounds of this product

  Total

  1997

  nil

  41kg

  41kg

  1998

  1kg

  26kg

  27kg

  1999

  2kg

  14kg

  16kg

  2000

  nil

  nil

  nil

  2001

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Population Profile
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the population are over(a) 75 years and (b) 85 years in (i) Worthing, West, (ii) England and (iii) the UK. [74767]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Bottomley, dated 15 October 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the proportion of the population over 75 and over 85 years in the parliamentary constituency of Worthing West.(74767)
  Although the first results of the 2001 Census have just been published they are only currently available for local authorities in five year age groups.
  In view of this, the attached table gives the proportion of the population 75 and over and 85 and over in Worthing local authority, England and the UK at Census day 2001.

  Area

  Proportion of the total population aged 75 and over %

  Proportion of the total population aged over 85 and over %

  Worthing Local Authority

  13.5

  4.6

  England

  7.5

  1.9

  UK

  7.5

  1.9

  Service Delivery Agreements
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish updated service delivery agreements; and if he will make a statement. [74771]

  Mr. Boateng
  Departments will publish their service delivery agreements soon.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Consultancies
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list external(a) public relations/communications companies, (b) advertising and marketing companies, (c) management consultancies, (d) accountancy companies, (e) banking firms, (f) individual consultants and (g) other specialist consultancies used by her Department since June 2001; what actions those consultancies/companies have performed within her Department; and what costs have been incurred through use of these consultancies/companies. [74674]

  Dr. Howells
  The available information requested for the Department, including the Royal Parks Agency, shows total costs incurred to be £3,394,385. Further details could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Stonehenge
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when work will commence on the construction of the Stonehenge Visitors Centre; and if she will make a statement. [72609]

  Dr. Howells
  The date for the start of work on the Visitor Centre is not yet known and will depend on the outcome of statutory planning procedures. However it will not open until the flyover to replace the Countess Roundabout has been completed.

  Tourism
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many tourists visited Huntingdonshire in(a) 2001, (b) 2000 and (c) 1999. [74225]

  Dr. Howells
  The table below sets out figures showing numbers of overnight stays and day trips in Huntingdonshire in 1999 and 2000.* Figures for 2001 are unavailable.

  Year

  Day Trips

  Overnight Stays

  Total Trips

  1999

  3.9 million

  378,000

  4.278 million

  2000

  4 million

  541,000

  4.541 million

  Note:

  * Data is not available by tourist numbers, but is collected in the form of day trips and overnight stays.

  Physical Activity
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what studies her Department has made of the links between physical activity and improved health. [73814]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has not commissioned any studies of the links between physical activity and improved health.

  I regularly have discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health on a wide range of issues related to sport policy, including the relationship of sport and health. It is agreed that the promotion of sport
  620W
  plays a valuable role and my Department has been working closely with the Department of Health to ensure co-ordination of sport and health policy.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures her Department has considered recently to increase participation in physical activity amongst adults. [73816]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government's Plan for Sport sets out the importance of engaging and motivating a wide range of organisations to develop new initiatives, strategies, projects and schemes that will offer more opportunities for participation for adults and the whole community,

  In addition the New Opportunities Fund PE and School Sport programme is investing £581 million in England towards school sports facilities, £25 million of which will go towards the Space for Sport and Arts initiative, a £130 million investment to create more than 300 multi-use facilities in primary schools. All facilities will be made available for use by the whole community.

  DCMS has also been a allocated £20 million for 2003–04 from the Capital Modernisation Fund which will be distributed to both provide new facilities and improve existing facilities.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what role her Department plans for(a) the private sector and (b) voluntary sports clubs in improving public health. [73815]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department and the Department for Education and Skills, supported by the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit, are working on a project to effect improvements to PE and School Sport and build stronger school/club links so young people can carry on playing sport when they leave school.

  The Strategy Unit is also looking closely into this issue as part of their overall review of the structure of sport.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many new playing fields have been created under the Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities project. [74301]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under the New Opportunities Fund's Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities initiative, £22 million has been allocated for schools and community playing fields. Hitherto, nineteen projects have been awarded grants amounting to £2,071,997. Of these, five include the creation of new playing fields.

  Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Project
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the projects which have been funded under the Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities project. [74302]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under the Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities initiative, the New Opportunities Fund will deliver projects worth £125 million across The United Kingdom through 11 award partners. Hitherto,
  621W
  £38,027,240 has been committed to 1,230 projects under this initiative. The table below details the number of projects funded, and the amount committed so far, by each award partner.

  Organisation

  Number of Projects

  Amount committed (£)

  England

  Barnardo's

  50

  2,933,620

  BTCV

  93

  715,346

  The Countryside Agency

  134

  1,933,602

  English Nature

  111

  4,946,078

  RSNC

  231

  7,605,950

  Sustrans

  57

  5,043,000

  Sport England

  337

  5,843,692

  Northern Ireland

  NIHE

  52

  500,725

  Scotland

  Fresh Futures

  35

  704,368

  SLF

  72

  6,254,271

  Wales

  WCVA

  58

  1,546,588

  UK Total

  1,230

  38,027,240

  Communications (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if the Government will consider(a) satellite and (b) cable delivery platforms to implement the commitments regarding the extension of reception of the signal TG4 in Northern Ireland made by the Government in the Belfast Agreement in 1998;[74087]

  (2) if the Government have identified terrestrial delivery options from transmitters located in Northern Ireland in seeking to implement the commitments regarding the extension of reception of the signal TG4 in Northern Ireland made by the Government in the Belfast Agreement in 1998. [74086]

  Dr. Howells
  We are considering the technical feasibility of improving the coverage of Irish language television services in Northern Ireland terrestrially. It is already open to Irish broadcasters to negotiate the carriage of their services on digital satellite, for reception in Northern Ireland, with the platform provider. Similarly, it is for the broadcasters to determine the viability of providing cable television services in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she intends to include provisions in the Communications Bill to provide statutory implementation measures for the commitments regarding Irish language television production in Northern Ireland made by the Government in the Belfast Agreement in 1998; [74082]

  (2) if she will provide for the establishment of an Irish language production fund in Northern Ireland in the Communications Bill to implement the commitments regarding financial support for such production in Northern Ireland as made by the Government in the Belfast Agreement of 1998. [74085]
  622W
  Dr. Howells
  We are currently giving careful consideration to these issues following responses to the consultation on the draft Communications Bill. I will write to the hon. Member shortly with a more detailed response.

  Screen South
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding is provided by the Film Council to Screen South in 2002–03; what element of that funding is provided for(a) the salaries of Screen South staff and internal administration and (b) for direct support of appropriate activities in the region. [73356]

  Dr. Howells
  In the financial year 2002–03 the Film Council will provide £879,267 to Screen South through the Regional Investment Fund for England (RIFE). Screen South staff carry out many activities in the region, for example location services for incoming film productions, which are funded from £300,200 of the RIFE allocated to salaries and internal administration. The remaining funds (£579,067) are used to support a range of other activities in the region including film production, exhibition, education and training.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many representations he has received from hon. Members, other individuals and organisations in connection with the statutory ban on religious organisations holding several categories of broadcasting licence; and how many and what percentage of those representatives supported the continuation of such a ban. [73830]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's papers, "A New Future for Communications" published in December 2000, and "Consultation on Media Ownership Rules" published in November 2001, confirmed that we planned to bring forward legislation to allow religious bodies to hold a local digital sound programme licence. Both papers invited further views on whether the restrictions on ownership of other terrestrial licences by religious bodies should be relaxed. We received approximately 14,500 (6,500 and 8,000 respectively) responses from MPs, organisations and members of public, virtually all of which, broadly supported the lifting of the current restrictions.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what limitations there are on the spectrum available to broadcasters allocated on new digital muliplexes; and if she will make a statement. [73943]

  Dr. Howells
  Multiplex service licences have been granted to the BBC and to Crown Castle by the Independent Television Commission under the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1996, as described in the ITC invitation to apply for digital licences issued on 1 May 2002. The Act currently requires that at least 90 per cent. of the capacity on any multiplex must be available for programme or programme-related services.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reasons there are restrictions on the broadcast of religious music. [73985]
  623W
  Dr. Howells
  There are no restrictions on the broadcast of religious music.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reasons religious persons are limited in the broadcast licences for which they can apply. [73986]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 18 June,Official Report, columns 273W–274W.

  Gambling
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what action her Department is taking to improve research into the incidence of problem gambling and if she will make a statement;[74498]

  (2) what action her Department is taking to improve services to problem gamblers; and if she will make a statement. [74497]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have encouraged the gambling industry to support the charitable trust which it has established with a remit to fund both research into problem gambling and services for its treatment. The trust has already made good progress towards the target of £3m a year which was proposed by the Gambling Review Body; and my officials have been helping the trust to develop a sound strategy for improving prevention and treatment provision. Looking ahead, we have also made clear our intention to include in legislation to reform and modernise the regulation of gambling in Great Britain both:(a) reserve powers to require licensed gambling operators to fund this work; and (b) an obligation on them in any event to comply with a code of practice on social responsibility, to be published by the new Gambling Commission when established. We intend that one of the Commission's duties should be to keep the regulatory requirements under review in the light of evidence about problem gambling and to consider whether adjustments may be required accordingly.

  Sports Clubs (Charitable Status)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how sports clubs which are industrial and provident societies are able to secure charitable status. [73530]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under the Charities Act 1993, sports clubs which are set up as charitable industrial and provident societies are considered to be exempt charities and are therefore unable to register with the Charity Commission. However, charitable industrial and provident societies are already eligible for the tax advantages of charitable status without having to register with the Commission.

  It is possible to set up an industrial and provident society as a non-charitable organisation and clubs which have chosen to do this would be eligible to register with the Charity Commission as community amateur sports clubs with charitable status.

  TV Licences
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her consultations with the BBC about amending the television licence fee regulations to protect the rights of people in sheltered accommodation when the social mix or level or warden cover change; and whether she plans to keep the current rules in force. [74710]

  Dr. Howells
  Consultations between officials and the BBC about the proposed changes to the Accommodation for Residential Care (ARC) concessionary television licence scheme are still in progress. We remain committed to the introduction of preserved rights to the ARC concession for existing beneficiaries, when the social mix or the level of warden cover in their sheltered housing change, and we intend to bring forward amending regulations as soon as we can. However, it is important that in doing so we do not create any new anomalies or unnecessary administrative burdens.

  Sittingbourne Football Club
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she will have with Swale Borough Council about the future of Sittingbourne Football Club at Central Stadium, Sittingbourne. [73166]

  Mr. Caborn
  Funding applications for grass roots football are matters for the Football Foundation.

  I understand that the Football Foundation have had no contact to date with either Swale Borough Council or the management of Sittingbourne Football Club in regard to an application for grant aid.

  Grants of up to £150,000 are available to grass roots football clubs who meet the Foundation's criteria. However, it is for the management of the football club or the council to contact the Football Foundation to discuss eligibility for funding.

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which members of the Government are scheduled to attend the Commonwealth Games; and what the estimated cost is of their visits. [73778]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following Members of Government attended the Commonwealth Games in an official capacity:

  Prime Minister

  John Prescott, Deputy Prime Minister

  Jack Straw, Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  Richard Caborn, Minister for Sport

  Baroness Blackstone, Minister of State for the Arts

  Maria Eagle, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions

  Ian McCartney, Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions

  David Jamieson, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport

  Baroness Amos, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  625W
  The total cost of their travel and accommodation was £9,299.65. Travel arrangements were in accordance with the arrangements for official travel set out in chapter 7 of the Ministerial Code, and the accompanying guidance document, "Travel by Ministers".

  The following Members of Government attended the Games in a private capacity and incurred no cost to the public purse:

  Geoff Hoon, Secretary of State for Defence

  Hazel Blears, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Health

  Ivan Lewis, Parliamentary under Secretary of State, Department of Education and Skills

  Christopher Leslie, Parliamentary under Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  Stephen Timms, Minister of State for e-commerce & Competitiveness, Department of Trade and Industry

  Beverley Hughes, Minister of State, Home Office

  Lord Macdonald, Minister for the Cabinet Office

  Phil Woolas, Assistant Government Whip

  Healthy Living Centres
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many healthy living centres have been opened in the United Kingdom; when the(a) first and (b) last ones were opened; and what plans she has for further such centres. [74461]

  Mr. Caborn
  The New Opportunities Fund's Healthy Living Centres grants programme was launched in 1999 and in total 349 award offers have been made across the UK. The first award was made in November 1999 to the St. Augustine's Centre in King's Lynn, Norfolk. The centre officially opened on 27 April 2001 on completion of building works.

  The last awards were made in September 2002. The New Opportunities Fund expects projects to start work within six months of accepting an award, although official openings may take place later than this. As a result, there will be Healthy Living Centre project openings throughout 2003 and possibly longer. The programme is now closed to new applications and there are currently no plans for a further Healthy Living Centre grants programme in the future.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Ministerial Cars
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many ministerial and other staff cars were available in his Department in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [73043]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department currently has 4 ministerial cars and 655 staff cars. Of these, 552 belong to the Court Service with 80 per cent. allocated to bailiffs and the remaining 20 per cent. to staff that need to travel regularly as part of their work.
  626W
  The fleet increased from 584 in April 2001 when LCD assumed responsibility for cars used by the newly created CAFCASS. During the previous four years the fleet size remained broadly constant.

  Magistrates Courts (Fines)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total UK figure is for outstanding fines imposed by magistrates' courts. [74612]

  Yvette Cooper
  Magistrates' Courts Committees have a responsibility for the collection of a range of debts imposed by Magistrates' courts and the Crown Court, as well as other agencies. Debt collected includes not only fines, but also fees, compensation, confiscation orders, legal aid contributions and some maintenance orders. It is not possible to separate out only fines from the total, nor those imposed by Magistrates' courts and still outstanding.

  The total "arrears" of debt at 31 March 2002 (which relates to England and Wales) was £246 million. However, most fines are paid by instalment, by agreement with the court, while the "arrears" figure reflects the fact that technically all of a debt is due immediately, whether or not an instalment order has been made.

  The Government is committed to improving the enforcement of financial penalties and lead responsibility for warrant execution was transferred from the police to Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs) on 1 April 2001, giving MCCs control over the whole enforcement process.

  Since then, we have established an information sharing scheme, which enables Magistrates' courts to obtain basic information on defaulters from the Department for Work and Pensions. We have also set performance targets for 2002–3 and MCCs have been provided with some £10 million extra from April 2002 under a netting-off scheme, ring-fenced for enforcement purposes.

  Electoral Registration
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of people have chosen not to have their electoral registration details sold for use by any person for any purpose; what steps he has taken to ensure that electoral registration officers can identify unauthorised use by those who have access to the closed version of the full register; and if he will make a statement. [74587]

  Yvette Cooper
  This information will not be available until after 1 December, the date by which registers based on the 2002 annual canvass must be published. There are no plans to collect the information centrally. Unauthorised use of the full register is a criminal offence and is therefore a matter for the police rather than electoral registration officers.

  Solicitors (Complaints)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the supervision of complaints against solicitors by the OSS. [74748]
  627W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS), the Law Society's complaints handling wing, is already subject to independent scrutiny by the Legal Services Ombudsman. The Lord Chancellor has no current plans to instigate a further review of complaints handling, however he has warned the OSS that unless swift and substantive improvements are made across the board, he will not hesitate to implement his reserve powers which allow for the establishment of a Legal Services Complaints Commissioner. In addition, he has announced recently a review of the framework for regulating legal services. The first step in the review will be to decide what it should cover in terms of services and providers and what issues it should address.

  Queen's Counsels
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to reform the appointment register for Queen's Counsel. [74749]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, issued a Consultation Paper, "In the public interest?", in July, seeking evidence to enable the Lord Chancellor's Department to address concerns expressed in the Office of Fair Trading Report, "Competition in Professions". The Lord Chancellor keeps the detailed selection process for appointment of Queen's Counsel under constant review and has introduced a range of recent changes to improve the openness and accountability of the system.

  Public Guardianship Office
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department,pursuant to his answer of 17 July, Official Report, column 412W, on the Public Guardianship Office, if he will make a statement on the level of customer complaints about the Public Guardianship Office. [73890]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Of the complaints received the most common theme was delay. The PGO has, in the course of major restructuring, and a move out of central London, lost a large number of experienced staff. It is now taking steps to restore service levels, including: a local recruitment campaign, intensive training courses, re-siting of case files adjacent to case work teams, a reconfiguration of the new telephone system and the introduction gradually of an electronic records management system to replace the largely paper based one.

  Witnesses
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of the facilities required adequately to house witnesses seperately from those charged and appearing before street crime courts. [73724]

  Yvette Cooper
  My officials identified 70 street crime courts. The courts were identified according to the following criteria:Separate entrance for witnesses or a facility to separate them immediately upon arrival. Separate secure waiting area for witnesses.
  628W
  Availability of witness support service.
  Separate lavatories and catering facilities or provision to prevent intimidation when using them.
  Capacity of the court to cope with projected workload.
  Current adequate performance.
  Availability of adequate public transport.

  Work has been commissioned at each designated street crime court, to ensure that court accommodation meets these criteria. The majority of these works will be completed in the courts by the end of September 2002. Where they have not yet been completed, local arrangements are in place to separate witnesses on arrival.

  Magistrates Courts, Wiltshire
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress he has made on reorganisation of magistrates' courts in Wiltshire; and if he will make a statement. [72612]

  Yvette Cooper
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Magistrates Courts, Essex
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she expects to make a decision on the appeal by Thurrock Council about the Private Finance Initiative Scheme for magistrates courts in Essex; and whether progress can be made with proposals for a new court house in Colchester in the meantime. [73381]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have agreed to meet the interested parties to discuss the issues raised in the appeal, and will do so as soon as a suitable date has been arranged. I will not be in a position to determine the appeal until after this meeting.

  Once the appeal has been concluded consideration will be given to the outline business case for the Essex PPP scheme, which includes proposals for a new court in Colchester.

  Transsexual People
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps are being taken, following the judgment in the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, to ensure that domestic law complies with Articles 8 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of transsexual people. [73516]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 23 July 2002,Official Report, column 1082W].

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what guidance has been issued to departments relating to the retention of e-mails for possible future submission to the Public Record Office. [73954]
  629W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Key guidance has been issued for the management of e-mails within government departments, with a view to their future retention as public records. The Public Record Office published"Management, appraisal and preservation of electronic records—Vol 2: Procedures" in 1999, which gives detailed advice on standards, procedures and policies for managing e-mails as records.

  Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) when special measures direction providing for vulnerable or intimidated adult witnesses to use TV link facilities, available under Section 21 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, will be available in all areas; [73526]

  (2) when special measures direction providing for vulnerable or intimidated adult witnesses to give video recording of their evidence, available under Section 23 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, will be available in all areas; [73524]

  (3) when special measures direction providing for the exclusion of the public from court whilst a vulnerable or intimidated witness gives evidence, available under Section 25 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, will be available in all areas; [73523]

  (4) When special measures direction providing that wearing of wigs and gowns be dispensed with whilst a vulnerable or intimidated witness gives evidence, available under Section 26 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, will be available in all areas; [73522]

  (5) when special measures direction providing for a video recording of an interview of a vulnerable or intimidated witness to be admitted as that person's evidence-in-chief, available under Section 27 of the Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, will be available in all areas; [73521]

  (6) when special measures direction providing for cross examination of a vulnerable or intimidated witness to be video recorded and admitted as evidence, available under Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Act 1999, will be available in all areas; [73528]

  (7) when special measures direction providing for examination of a vulnerable or intimidated witness to be conducted through an interpreter, available under Section 29 of the Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, will be available in all areas; [73527]

  (8) when special measures direction providing for the witness to be provided with such a device as the court considers appropriate to enable questions or answers to be communicated to or by the witness despite any impairment which the witness has or suffers, available under Section 30 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, will be available in all areas. [73525]

  Yvette Cooper
  Sections 21, 23, 25, 26, 27 and 30 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 referred to in the questions came into force on 24 July 2002 in all areas of England and Wales. Sections 28 and 29 are not yet in force. The courts have facilities to deal with the new special measures. There are TV Links in all Crown Court centres and video recording equipment and 630W
  interpreters are available. More equipment is to be fitted this financial year to cope with demand. There is no single device that will solve all issues resulting from hearing impairment, but each case is treated on its merits and arrangements made accordingly. This may include a hearing loop, voice amplification or a signer etc. Video link equipment will also be installed in 154 Magistrates Courts by September 2002. Vulnerable and intimidated witnesses facilities are already fitted in 133 Magistrates Courts.

  Data Protection Directive
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary Lord Chancellor's Department, in relation to the recent proposals published by the Government in relation to amendment of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, if he will identify the source that suggested each of the proposals in the publication; and if he will make a statement as to his plan of action and timetable with respect to these changes. [74479]

  Yvette Cooper
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the proposals in the paper proposing amendments to Directive 95/46/EC which was submitted to the European Commission in the names of Austria, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom on 13 September. The joint paper was attached to the second part of the United Kingdom's response to the European Commission's questionnaire to Member States' Governments about the implementation of the Directive. The first part of the Government's response was submitted to the Commission on 14 June. I am placing copies of both parts of the response, including the joint paper, in the Library.

  It would be difficult to identify which Member State was responsible for making a particular proposal, since initial proposals were often significantly amended in the course of discussion. Moreover, identifying the source of the proposals would be inconsistent with the accepted convention that one Member State should not reveal another Member State's negotiating position.

  The responses to the Commission's questionnaire will inform the report that the Commission are preparing on the implementation of the Directive. The Government hopes that, in preparing their report, the Commission will give serious consideration to the United Kingdom's response, including the joint paper. I understand that the Commission's present objective is to produce the report by about the turn of the year.

PRIME MINISTER

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the reports produced by the Intelligence and Security Committee, excluding annual reports to him. [73957]

  The Prime Minister
  In addition to the Intelligence and Security Committee's four Annual Reports and one Interim Report, I have, since May 1997, laid the following two reports on special subjects before the House:Report on Sierra Leone May 1999
  The Mitrokhin Inquiry Report June 2000

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to give a substantive reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed of 26 March about policy announcements to Parliament. [73902]

  The Prime Minister
  I replied to the right hon. Member on 1 August.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will take steps to ensure that the Treasury Minister to whom he has referred for reply letters to him from the right hon. Member Manchester, Gorton dated(a) 9 July with regard to Ms S. Nutter and Ms L. Roberts, (b) 17 July with regard to Mr. S. Pennells and Dr. V. Hay, (c) 22 July with regard to Rev Canon Peter Vowles, (d) 4 July with regard to Ms H. Andrews, (e) 29 July with regard to Ms K. Fletcher and (f) 30 July with regard to Ms C. Mitchell and Ms N. Flanagan replies; and if he will request explanations from Her Majesty's Treasury for its delay in responding to these letters; [74627]

  (2) if he will instruct the Secretary of State for Health to reply to the letter to him dated 27 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. A. Battersby; and if he will request an explanation from that Secretary of State for the delay in replying to that letter. [74628]

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that my hon. Friends, the Minister of State for Health and the Economic Secretary replied to my hon. Friend's letters on II September and 23 September respectively.

  I have written to my right hon. Friend explaining that I place great importance on the efficient handling of all correspondence and take an active interest in our performance in this regard. As far as I am aware all the letters he has raised have now been answered.

  Patriotism Envoy
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister what studies and initiatives have been undertaken since he appointed a patriotism envoy; and at what cost. [74263]

  The Prime Minister
  I have not appointed a patriotism envoy. However, the Government has undertaken a range of initiatives on this issue. For example, the Department for Education and Skills, in partnership with the Citizenship Foundation, has run British identity roadshows in London, Sheffield and Cardiff at a cost of around £5,000. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (the hon. Member for North Swindon) (Mr. Wills) has given four seminars hosted by the Social Market Foundation on this issue. He has also written a pamphlet on this issue published by the Social Market Foundation and several newspaper articles. There was no cost to Her Majesty's Government.

  Faith Envoy
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the(a) engagements undertaken by the hon. Member for Leeds, West since his appointment as unofficial faith envoy; and (b) articles and interviews authorised by the envoy; and what initiatives are planned in the next two months. [74264]
  632W
  The Prime Minister
  Shortly after the last general election I asked the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) to take on an informal role as my unofficial representative to the faith communities thereby serving as an extra channel of communication between faith groups and Government. Since his appointment he has met with many religious representatives. As it is an unofficial role the hon. Member is primarily responsible for deciding and arranging his engagements and written contributions.

  Peerages
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister how many peerages have been created since May 1997. [73903]

  The Prime Minister
  269 life peers have been created since 1 May 1997. This includes peers nominated by my predecessor but created after the 1997 General Election. Of these, 116 have been appointed specifically either as Labour Ministers or as Labour working peers.

  British Energy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what recent discussions he has had about(a) the future of British Energy and (b) the future of nuclear power generation in the United Kingdom; [74392]

  (2) when he was first informed that there were concerns about the financial viability of British Energy. [74391]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, kept me informed, as she was informed by British Energy of its financial position.

  The Government is currently carrying out a review of energy policy with a view to issuing a White Paper around the turn of the year. The review includes consideration of the role of nuclear power generation.

  Arnab Banerji
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Prime Minister what role he played in the appointment of Arnab Banerji as the Prime Minister's adviser on financial matters; and what formal mechanisms are in place for liaison between Dr. Banerji and the Treasury. [74491]

  The Prime Minister
  I have appointed Arnab Banerji as a special adviser in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 50 of the Ministerial Code. He is employed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Drug Dependency
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what Government services are available for people with drug problems who are seeking work; [74401]

  (2) what recent steps have been taken to ensure that people recovering from drug problems are ready to enter a working environment; [74402]
  633W
  (3) what benefits are available for those in work and still dependent on drugs to ensure that they do not relapse. [74403]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are committed to helping unemployed people who have decided to kick their drug habit and move into work. Our policies and programmes are helping people with drug problems to overcome them and lead healthy and productive lives, a key aim of the Government's Anti-Drugs Strategy.

  Jobcentre Plus provides a wide range of help for people recovering from drug problems, including early access to programmes like the New Deal and Work Based Learning for Adults.

  In addition, we are introducing progress2work, a £40 million initiative to give unemployed people who are recovering from their drug problem the extra help they need to get into work.

  Progress2work will provide specialist support to help recovering drug mis-users to make the best use of our welfare to work initiatives and move into jobs. It will equip Jobcentre Plus staff with the skills and knowledge they need to better identify people whose drug mis-use puts them at a disadvantage in the labour market, and refer them to appropriate provision.

  We launched the first progress2work projects in the spring in 27 pathfinder areas throughout the country, including one in my hon. Friend's constituency. The second phase of the initiative begins in a further 36 areas from this month. We plan to roll out the programme nationally from next year.

  In progress 2 work, close contact is maintained with jobseekers when they move into work or training to anticipate and assist, where necessary, with any problems that may cause them to drop out or relapse. The assistance given is dependent on the individual's needs but can include, for example, referral to a drugs agency, help with accommodation and debt problems, or confidence building and support to manage the transition into employment.

  Post Office
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what restrictions there will be on Post Office customers collecting(a) child benefit, (b) pensions and (c) other benefits at post offices; and which bank accounts will not be accessible via the Post Office. [74361]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have given a commitment that all customers who wish to collect their benefit or pension in cash at post offices will continue to be able to do so.

  The Post Office already has arrangements with some High Street banks—Girobank/Alliance and Leicester, Lloyds TSB, Barclays, Cahoot, Smile and Co-op Bank, and First Direct (Scotland only)—to provide their banking facilities free of charge to customers. The Post Office also provides a cheque cashing facility for customers of other banks, but a charge is made for this service.

  From April 2003, these arrangements will be complemented with the main banks and the Nationwide Building Society making their basic bank accounts
  634W
  widely available through post offices. The Post Office is also developing a Post Office card account. This will only be available through post offices and will allow benefit and pension customers to access their cash without charge at the post office.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) whether he plans to allow applicants to open a Post Office account(a) in person at post office counters and (b) in writing; [74359]

  (2) when Post Office accounts will be available. [74360]

  Mr. McCartney
  Customers who wish to open Post Office card accounts will need to discuss their account options with the relevant paying Department. They will then be given a letter to take to their Post Office branch where they will be issued with an application form. The Post Office plan to have available the card account service from April 2003.

  Disability and Carers Service
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will extend the one day impairment awareness courses for decisions makers in the Disability and Carers Service which cover mental health and learning disabilities to other impairments;[74135]

  (2) If a course on deaf awareness will be developed for decisions makers in the Disability and Carers Service. [74136]

  Maria Eagle
  There is an on-going programme of training for all staff in the Disability and Carers Service, which includes a one-day module on Disability Awareness encompassing a range of disability issues, including deaf awareness, together with two specialist one-day modules for Decision Makers covering Mental Health and Learning Disability issues. There is a commitment to review the scope of the Programme with a view to extending the specialist modules for Decision Makers to other impairments in due course.

  Deafness
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make it the policy of his Department to ensure that every deaf person who needs assistance with completing a disability living allowance or attendance allowance claim form and who cannot access the telephone form completion service is entitled to a home visit instead. [74138]

  Maria Eagle
  The Disability and Carer's Service policy, in accordance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, ensures accessibility of information for all disabled people. If a deaf person requires help to complete a benefit claim form for Disability Living Allowance or Attendance Allowance and cannot use the telephone forms completion service, which includes text phone facilities, we would arrange an interview with the appropriate interpreter present. The interview could take place at the nearest Social Security office but, if this presents difficulties for the customer, we could arrange for it to take place at home.

  Nut Allergies
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason disability living allowance and carers allowance are not available to the parents of children with nut allergies. [73901]

  Maria Eagle
  Children with nut allergies are not precluded from entitlement to Disability Living Allowance, and neither are their parents precluded from receiving Invalid Care Allowance for looking after them. But they must meet the usual qualifying conditions for the benefits. For Invalid Care allowance this means that the carer must not be engaged in full-time paid employment and must provide regular and substantial care for a least 35 hours per week to a severely disabled person receiving either the middle or highest rate of the Disability Living Allowance care component. To qualify for that component, a severely disabled child must have a need for attention, supervision or watching over by another person which is substantially in excess of the needs of an able-bodied child of the same age.

  SERPS
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his advertising campaign on rights to inherited SERPS, for what reason there are special rates for women born in a particular four month period, as set out in the footnote to these advertisements. [74452]

  Mr. McCartney
  Women born between 6 July 1950 and 5 October 1950 will attain state pension age after 6 April 2010, and will therefore be able to pass on up to 50 per cent. of their SERPS.

  This is because their state pension age is over 60 as part of the equalisation of state pension age.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on the entitlement to passported help available to claimants who have received the higher rate of incapacity benefit for over 12 months; [73888]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effects of recent changes to the long rate incapacity benefit. [73889]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have reformed Incapacity Benefit (IB) and Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) in order to provide more support to young people disabled early in life who have never had the opportunity to work.

  From 6 April 2001 young people whose incapacity begins before the age of 20 (or 25 for those continuing in education until age 20) may qualify for IB even if they have not satisfied the contribution conditions. Existing SDA recipients under the age of 20 on 6 April 2001 were automatically transferred to long-term IB in April 2002. We estimate that around 175,000 young people will benefit from the change over time.

  Depending on their circumstances people receiving IB can qualify for help with the cost of NHS treatment on the grounds of low income. They may also be entitled to
  636W
  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Social Fund crisis loans are available to people who are without resources, irrespective of their benefit status, to prevent serious damage or risk to health or safety in the event of an emergency or a disaster. A variety of local government schemes and benefits are also available to people on low incomes. Details of these schemes are not held centrally.

  We recognise that some young people who transfer from SDA to IB will no longer have automatic entitlement to this help but many in this group will already be considerably better off as a result of the changes we have introduced and it would be unfair to treat these people differently to other IB recipients.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the proportion of parents with care in receipt of income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance and corresponding benefits in earlier years, who were in receipt of child maintenance in(a) 1979, (b) 1993, (c) 1997 and (d) the latest year for which figures are available. [71036]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is set out in the table below. No reliable estimates for parents with care, on a comparable basis to those for 1997 and 2002, are available for 1979 and 1993. Figures for 1997 and 2002 are for parents with are with a full maintenance assessment.

  Year

  Caseload1 ('000)

  %receiving maintenance (income-related benefits2/tax credits)

  19971

  345

  40

  20021

  654

  40

  Notes:

  1Information based on the Child Support Quarterly Summary of Statistics, for February in each of the years, which is a 5 per cent. sample of all "live and assessed" cases on the Child Support Computer System.

  2Income-related benefits covered are Income Support and income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, for both years, and Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance for 1997 only.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of benefit claimants receive their benefits by automated credit transfer, broken down by parliamentary constituency, at the latest date for which figures are available. [74720]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. Statistical information that is readily available, can only be provided by individual benefit for each parliamentary constituency. This information has been placed in the library.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the(a) dates, (b) location and (c) sources were of attributable (i) articles, interviews or contributions for the media, books or other journals and (ii) speeches or presentations made in the public domain, by departmental special advisers since March 2001; who in his Department authorised the activity; and on what date this activity was recorded with the departmental Head of Information. [72257]
  637W
  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 24 July,Official Report, col. 1373W.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals on fraud in the benefit system. [69738]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We set ourselves a firm Public Service Agreement target to make a 10 per cent. reduction in the level of fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance by March 2002. By September 2001 we had achieved a 24 per cent. Reduction—more than double the target.

  We have now announced an increase in our target for reducing fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance for working age customers by March 2004, from 25 per cent. to 33 per cent., and we maintain our longer-term commitment to a 50 per cent. reduction by March 2006. We have also announced a new target of a 25 per cent. reduction in fraud and error in Housing Benefit by 2006.

  In April we introduced a range of measures using powers taken in the Fraud Act 2001 which will help us tackle fraudsters. For example, investigators can now request information from banks and utilities to find evidence of fraud and they have stronger powers to tackle employers who collude with their staff to defraud the benefit system. We now also have the power to remove benefits from those people who persistently abuse the system.

  These new powers will help us continue our fight to make sure that the right benefits go to the right people. They are also sending out the clear message to fraudsters that they will not get away with it.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, (1) pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2002,Official Report, column 96W, on disability living allowance, if he will give the same information for (a) the Argyll and Bute constituency and (b) Scotland;[73320]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 1 July, Official Report, column 96W, on disability living allowance, how many applicants whose initial claim for DLA was rejected in (a) the Argyll and Bute constituency, (b) Scotland and (c) the United Kingdom appealed against the rejection in each of the last five years. [73321]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the table. Information about appeals and unsuccessful claims is not available for individual constituencies or for Scotland.
  638W

  Successful applications for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) over the last five years in the Argyle and Bute constituency and Scotland.

  First applications

  Successful on first application

  Successful on review

  Argyle & Bute Constituency

  2000–01

  *200

  *100

  —

  2001–02

  *500

  *300

  —

  Scotland

  1997–98

  27,100

  19,600

  5,100

  1998–99

  23,700

  17,200

  3,600

  1999–2000

  23,100

  17,400

  3,100

  2000–01

  27.400

  20,700

  2,000

  2001–02

  28,300

  20,800

  1,700

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Figures marked * are subject to a high degree of sampling variation.

  3."—" Denotes nil or negligible.

  4.Parliamentary constituency data is not available prior to 2000.

  5. Figures for reviews include reconsiderations under the system of decision making and appeals introduced in October 1999.

  Source:

  Figures taken from the AA/DLA computer system between quarter ending May 2000 and February 2002, 5 per cent. sample.

  Information about appeals against decisions on claims for Disability Living Allowance is not available for individual constituencies or for Scotland. For the figures for Great Britain, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 1 July, Official Report, col 96W. Information for Northern Ireland is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applicants for attendance allowance in(a) the Argyll and Bute constituency, (b) Scotland and (c) the United Kingdom (i) were granted on first application, (ii) were rejected on first application, (iii) appealed against rejection of first application, (iv) were granted on review and (v) were granted on appeal in each of the last five years. [73322]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the tables. Information about appeals and unsuccessful claims is not available for individual constituencies or for Scotland. Information for Northern Ireland is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Outcome of first applications for Attendance Allowance (AA) over the last five years in the constituency Argyle and Bute and Scotland.

  First applications

  Successful on first application

  Successful on review

  Argyle & Bute

  2000/2001

  600

  500

  —

  2001/2002

  *500

  *500

  —

  Scotland

  1997/1998

  32,800

  28,800

  3,300

  1998/1999

  29,400

  26,700

  2,000

  1999/2000

  29,900

  27,300

  2,100

  2000/2001

  30,400

  28,500

  800

  2001/2002

  28,200

  25,900

  1,000

  639W
  Notes:

  1.Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Figures marked * are subject to a high degree of sampling variation.

  3. "—" Denotes nil or negligible.

  4. Parliamentary constituency data is not available prior to 2000.

  5. Figures for reviews include reconsiderations under the system of decision making and appeals introduced in October 1999.

  Source:

  Figures taken from the AA/DLA computer system between quarter ending May 2000 and February 2002, 5 per cent. sample.

  Outcome of first applications for Attendance Allowance (AA) over the last five years in Great Britain.

  Successful on first application

  Unsuccessful on first application

  1997/1998

  296,168

  116,805

  1998/1999

  292,554

  104,260

  1999/2000

  281,447

  96,815

  2000/2001

  316,676

  103,115

  2001/2002

  292,141

  89,130

  Sources:

  ASD Information Centre 100 per cent. data taken from 100 per cent. extract of monthly management information system.

  Figures taken from the AA/DLA computer system between quarter ending May 2000 and February 2002,5 per cent. sample.

  Attendance Allowance appeals lodged at a first tier agency, cleared at the hearing and found in favour of the appellant in Great Britain.

  Received

  Lodged

  Cleared at hearing

  Found in favour

  1 July—31 December 2000

  8,735

  7,180

  5,050

  2,245

  1 Jan—31 December 2001

  12,055

  11,870

  10,800

  5,030

  1 January—31 August 2002

  6,990

  5,680

  5,835

  2,765

  Notes:

  1. All figures are subject to change. Figures relating to June 2002 onwards will rise significantly as information feeds through to the Appeals Service.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  3. Figures for 2002 are provisional.

  Post Office
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary for Work and Pensions (1) whether he plans to allow applicants to open a Post Office account(a) in person at post office counters and (b) in writing; [74359]

  (2) when Post Office accounts will be available. [74360]

  Mr. McCartney
  Customers who wish to open Post Office card accounts will need to discuss their account options with the relevant paying Department. They will then be given a letter to take to their Post Office branch where they will be issued with an application form. The Post Office plan to have available the card account from April 2003.

  Pensioner Benefits
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the number of pensioners eligible for benefits and entitlements in(a) Paisley, North, (b) Scotland and (c) the UK. [73705]

  Mr. McCartney
  Such information as is available is shown in the table below. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit are not available at constituency level.

  Table 1: Figures for Paisley North, Scotland and Great Britain.

  Benefit

  Total recipients

  Paisley North

  Scotland

  GB

  State Pensions

  11,200

  911,000

  11,147,400

  Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG)

  3,000

  182,700

  1,746,200

  Attendance Allowance (AA)

  1,700

  129,200

  1,291,400

  Winter Fuel Payment (WFP)

  12,430

  996,420

  11,201,895

  Free TV licences (entitlement)

  5,600

  500,100

  4,415,700

  Council Tax Benefit

  N/A

  531,000

  4,602,000

  Housing Benefit

  N/A

  450,000

  3,813,000

  Sources:

  MIG—Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 2002 State Pensions—Figures taken from a 5 per cent. sample from the Pensions Strategy Computer System at 30 March 2002.

  WFP—Figures from a 100 per cent. sample from the Winter Fuel Payment 2001/2002 Exercise

  Free TV Licence—Figures taken from a 5 per cent. sample from the Client Group analysis of the population over state pension age as at 30th November 2001.

  Attendance Allowance—Figures from a 5 per cent. sample from the AA/DLA computer system as at February 2002

  Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit—Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock count taken in May 2002

  Youth Unemployment (Paisley, North)
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many unemployed 16 to 18-year-olds are registered in Paisley, North; and if he will list the actions being taken to assist them into employment. [73667]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In August, there were 134 sixteen to eighteen-year-olds claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in the Paisley, North constituency, nearly 30 per cent. fewer than in the same month in 1997.

  16 and 17-year-olds making a claim for Jobseeker's Allowance in Paisley, North are required to register with Careers Scotland and participate in a learning focused meeting with a Careers Adviser. Jobcentre Plus works in partnership with Careers Scotland by actively promoting the education, training and employment services Careers Scotland offers to young people.

  18 year-olds making a claim for Jobseeker's Allowance are required to register with Jobcentre Plus and participate in a work-focused interview with a Personal Adviser. They will have access to the range of support provided through Jobcentre Plus to help them move into work.

  We are building on the success of the New Deals in helping nearly three-quarters of a million people move from welfare to work. We are providing more help for

  641W
  those who face the greatest barriers to work, providing more individually-tailored support, and engaging further with employers to ensure their needs are met. We are giving young people the skills, confidence and motivation to help them find work and improve their prospects of doing so.

  Unclaimed Benefit
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the latest estimate is of unclaimed benefit in(a) Paisley, North, (b) Scotland and (c) the UK. [73672]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested for the Paisley, North constituency and for Scotland is not available.

  Estimates of the number of families entitled to income related benefits but not claiming them in Great Britain are published in "Income Related Benefits—Estimates of Take-Up". Copies of this annual publication are in the Library.

  Information on other benefits is not available.

  Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; how many(a) men and (b) women reached state pension age in each year between 1995 and 2000 and (ii) are expected to reach state pension age in each year between 2006 and 2010. [74722]

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

  Table 1: Number of men and women reaching state pension age between 1995 and 2000.

  Year

  Men Aged 65

  Women Aged 60

  1995

  262,000

  288,000

  1996

  265,000

  294,000

  1997

  261,000

  296,000

  1998

  252,000

  301,000

  1999

  253,000

  304,000

  2000

  260,000

  299,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are mid year estimates of men aged 65 and women aged 60 in the UK, rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  Source:

  1991 UK Census based annual mid-year population estimates, Office for National Statistics.

  Table 2: Number of men and women reaching state pension age between 2006 and 2010.

  Year

  Men Aged 65

  Women Aged 60

  2006

  256,000

  350,000

  2007

  277,000

  447,000

  2008

  302,000

  412,000

  2009

  317,000

  386,000

  2010

  314,000

  373,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are mid year estimates of men aged 65 and women aged 60 in the UK, rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  2. No account has been taken of the change in female state pension age in 2010.

  Source:

  The Government Actuary's mid-2000 based Population Projections.
  642W
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the possibility of making private and company pensions compulsory. [73767]

  Mr. McCartney
  Compulsion already exists in the pensions system. Most employees employed people are required to contribute to the Basic State Pension and, in the case of employees, to the State Second Pension unless they are contributing to a private pension and are contracted out of the state scheme.

  We recognise the role pension providers play in encouraging individuals to save for a pension. The UK has a tradition of voluntary pension provision by employers and the implications of moving away from that would have to be considered fully before such a step was taken. We continue to believe that the best route for pension saving is via the employer and with the introduction of stakeholder pensions most employees have access to a good value pension at the workplace.

  Benefits (Portsmouth, South)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the number of pensioners eligible for benefits and entitlements in Portsmouth, South; and if he will make a statement. [73875]

  Mr. McCartney
  Such information as is available is shown in the table below. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit are not available at constituency level. Estimates of the number of pensioners eligible for but not claiming the MIG are not available below national level. These figures are included in the publication "Take Up of Income Related Benefits: Statistics for 1999/2000", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Table 1: Figures for Portsmouth South

  Benefit

  Total recipients

  Minimum Income Guarantee

  3,600

  State Pension

  17,000

  Attendance Allowance

  2,100

  Winter Fuel Payment

  17,700

  Free TV Licence (entitlement)

  6,700

  Sources:

  MIG—Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry. May 2002 Figures marked"*" are subject to a high degree of sampling variation and should be used as a guide to the current situation only

  State Pensions—Figures taken from a 5 per cent. sample from the Pensions Strategy Computer System at 30 March 2002.

  AA Figures taken from a 5 per cent. sample from the AA/DLA computer system at 28 February 2002.

  WFP—Figures taken from a 100 per cent. sample from the Winter Fuel Payment 2001/2002 Exercise

  Free TV Licence—Figures taken from a 5 per cent. sample from the Client Group analysis of the population over state pension age as at 30 November 2001.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of unclaimed benefits and entitlements in Portsmouth, South: and if he will make a statement. [73877]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available.

  E-Applications (Benefits)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which benefit application forms(a) are available on the internet for download and (b) can be filled in on a computer screen; and how many electronic application forms have been submitted over the internet for each relevant benefit during the last 12 months. [74727]

  Benefit

  Form name

  Attendance Allowance

  DS2A (b) DS2A-print (a)

  Claim pack

  Back to Work Bonus

  BTWB1 (b) BTWB1-print (a)

  Claim form

  Bereavement

  BB1 (b) BB1-print (a)

  Child Benefit

  CH2 (b) CH2-print (a)

  Child Maintenance Bonus

  CMB1 (b) CMB1-print (a)

  Claim form

  Child Support Maintenance

  CSA1 (b) CSA1-print (a)

  Maintenance Application Form

  Child Support Maintenance

  CSA 150 (b)CSA 150-print (a)

  Earnings details

  Child Support Maintenance

  CSA1 (TC) (b) CSA1 (TC)-print (a)

  Tax Credits

  Child Support Maintenance

  CSA3 (b) CSA3-print (a)

  Maintenance Enquiry Form

  Child Support Maintenance

  CSA3 (IS) (b) CSA3 (IS)-print (a)

  Income Support

  Child Support Maintenance

  CSA3 (TC) (b) CSA3 (TC)-print (a)

  Tax Credits

  Child Support Maintenance

  CSA6 (b) CSA6-print (a)

  Request for information from the Mortgage lender

  Disability Living Allowance

  DLA1A (b) DLA1A-print (a)

  Adult claim pack

  Disability Living Allowance

  DLA1A (b) DLA1A-print (a)

  Child claim pack

  Guardian's Allowance

  BG1 (b) BG1-print (a)

  Claim pack

  Housing Benefit and Council

  Tax Benefit

  NHB1(CTB) (b) NHB1(CTB)-print (a)

  Claim pack

  Housing Benefit and Council

  Tax Benefit

  NHB1(HB) (b) NHB1(HB)-print (a)

  Claim pack

  Incapacity Benefit

  1BY1 (b) IBYl-print (a)

  Non-contributory IB claim form

  Incapacity Benefit

  SC1 (b) SC1-print (a)

  Claim pack

  Income Support

  B16 (b) B16-print (a)

  Self-Employed/Sub-contractor

  Industrial Injuries

  BI100A (b) BI100A-print (a)

  Accident at work

  Industrial Injuries

  BI100B (b) BI100B-print (a)

  Prescribed industrial disease

  Industrial Injuries

  BI100C (b) BI100C-print (a)

  Chronic bronchitis etc

  Industrial Injuries

  BI100E (b) BI100E-print (a)

  Allergic rhinitis

  Industrial Injuries

  BI100-OA (b) BI100-OA-print (a)

  Occupational asthma

  Industrial Injuries

  BI100-OD (b) BI100-OD-print (a)

  Occupational deafness

  Industrial Injuries

  BI100-PN (b) BI100-PN-print (a)

  Industrial Injuries

  BI103 (b) BI103-print (a)

  Reduced Earnings Allowance

  Industrial Injuries

  BI104 (b) BI104-print (a)

  Constant Attendance Allowance

  Industrial Injuries

  BI95 (b) BI95-print (a)

  We need some information

  Invalid Care Allowance

  DS700(1) (b) DS700(1)-print (a)

  Claim form

  Invalid Care Allowance

  DS700(2) (b) DS700(2)-print (a)

  Extra money for a child or adult

  Maternity Allowance

  MA1 (b) MA1-print (a)

  Claim pack

  Retirement Pension

  BR1 (b) BR1-print (a)

  Claim form

  Retirement Pension

  BR19 (b) BR19-print (a)

  Pension Forecast Request Form

  Social Fund

  SF100(SM) (b) SF100(SM)-print(a)

  Sure Start Maternity Grant

  Social Fund

  SF200 (b) SF200-print (a)

  Funeral Payment

  Social Fund

  SF300 (b) SF300-print (a)

  Community Care Grant

  Social Fund

  SF401 (b) SF401-print (a)

  Crisis Loan

  Social Fund

  SF500 (b) SF500-print (a)

  Budgeting Loan

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  SMP1 (b) SMP1-print (a)

  Claim for Maternity pay

  War Disablement Pension

  WPA1 (b) WPA1-print (a)

  WDP claim form

  War Disablement Pension

  WPA1C (b) WPA1C-print (a)

  WDP Civilians & Civil Defence Volunteers

  War Disablement Pension

  WPA1M (b) WPA1M-print (a)

  WDP Mercantile Marine

  War Disablement Pension

  WPA2 (b) WPA2-print (a)

  WP Further Condition

  War Disablement Pension

  WPA3ALSO (b) WPA3ALSO-print (a)

  Allowance for Lowered Standard of Occupation

  War Disablement Pension

  WPA3CAA (b) WPA3CAA-print (a)

  Constant Attendance Allowance

  WPA3 CLOTHING (b) WPA3

  War Disablement Pension

  CLOTHING-print (a)

  Clothing Allowance

  War Disablement Pension

  WPA3WPMS (b) WPA3WPMS-print(a)

  War Pensions Mobility Allowance

  War Disablement Pension

  WPA3 UNSUPP (b) WPA3 UNSUPP-print (a)

  Unsupp Family

  War Widows Pension

  WPA4R (b) WPA4R-print (a)

  WWP after 2 marriage

  War Widows Pension

  WPA4WWP (b) WPA4WWP-print (a)

  Claim form

  War Disablement Pension

  WPA 10 (b) WPA 10-print (a)

  Funeral expenses

  War Disablement Pension

  WPA 12 (b) WPA 12-print (a)

  Review of WP

  Winter Fuel

  WF1 (b) WF1-print (a)

  644W
  Mr. McCartney
  There are fifty-five benefit application forms available on the DWP Internet site for download, those marked(b) can be filled in on a computer screen.

  There is only one application form that can be submitted over the internet, the BR19 Pension Forecast request. 25,000 people have submitted this form to date.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when and how the announcement to pay winter fuel payments to some people who have moved to a country within the European Economic Area was made; what steps his Department is taking to contact people who may be affected by the change; and what estimate has been made of the(a) annual and (b) one-off costs of the policy. [74711]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on 19 July 2002,Official Report, column 599w. The changes were publicised through a press release issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the media in relevant countries in Europe. In addition, we have taken steps to ensure that this information is available on the Department's website and in the new edition of the Winter Fuel Payment leaflet, and have issued a factsheet to embassies in those countries affected. We will also be writing to people who have contacted the European Commission, claimed or recently enquired about Winter Fuel Payment for people who have moved to another EEA country or to Switzerland.

  We estimate the ongoing cost to be around £10 million and the one-off cost to be around £3 million.

  Occupational Diseases (Benefits)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's review of the schedule of occupational diseases for which benefits are paid will be published. [74247]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  No further findings have been published by the Council since the reply given to my hon. Friend on 9 July 2002,Official Report, column 857W.

  Partnerships Against Poverty Group
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what organisations are represented on the Department's Partnerships Against Poverty Group; and what sub-groups have been established. [74719]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Partnerships Against Poverty was established in 2001. It is a joint initiative with the Local Government Association and voluntary organisations with the objective of working together to reduce poverty and tackle social exclusion amongst pensioners. There are two groups, one for England & Wales and another for Scotland which have specialist sub-groups for Black and Minority Ethnic elders and Pension Credit Implementation which feedback to both. In addition to DWP and LGA the following organisations are represented.

  Age Concern

  Age Concern Scotland

  Alzheimer Scotland

  Angus Council

  Birmingham City Council

  Chinese Community Centre

  Citizens Advice Scotland

  Confederation of Indian Organisations (UK)

  646W

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Cruse Bereavement Care

  Dundee City Council

  Durham City Council

  Edinburgh City Council

  Glasgow City Council

  Federation of Irish Societies

  Hackney Council for Older People

  Help the Aged

  Help the Aged Scotland

  Jewish Care

  London Irish Elders Forum

  Milan (Senior Welfare Council)

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

  National Pensioners Convention

  Northern Ireland Social Security Agency

  Royal National Institute of the Blind

  Scotland Office

  Scottish Executive

  Scottish Local Authority Welfare Rights Advisors

  South Lanarkshire Council

  Stirling Council

  Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

  The Poverty Alliance

  Welsh Assembly

  West of Scotland Seniors Forum

  West Indian Standing Conference

  West Lothian Council

  Income-Related Benefit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the income-related benefit take-up figures for 2000–01 will be released. [74733]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  On 27 September 2001, we announced our intention to commission further research in order to better identify people who are eligible for income-related benefits, especially pensioners.

  Estimates for income-related benefit take-up for 2000–01 will be published once this research has been concluded and evaluated. The publication date will be announced in due course in "Updates", the Office for National Statistics diary of statistical releases which is published monthly and placed in the Library.

  Taunton
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many recipients of disability living allowance aged(a) over 18 years, (b) 16 to 18 years and (c) below 16 years there are in the Taunton constituency. [74097]

  Maria Eagle
  Recipients of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) by age in the Taunton Constituency at February 2002 are as indicated in the following table.
  647W

  Thousands

  Recipients aged 0–15

  Recipients aged 16–18

  Recipients aged 19 and over

  Taunton

  *0.4

  *0.1

  2.9

  Notes:

  1. Figures are shown in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Figures marked * are under 500 and are subject to a high degree of sampling variation and should only be used as a guide to the current situation.

  Source:

  ASD Information Centre from 5 per cent. sample at 28th February 2002

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many individuals have been assisted in the Taunton One Stop offices since their opening. [74096]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  There are 13 ONE sites in Somerset providing a one stop service in addition to the call centre in Taunton. Information is held for the Somerset pilot rather than for individual offices. Since the pilot became fully operational in April 2000 until July 2002, 70,491 customers have been assisted (ie have had at least one interview with a Personal Adviser), in ONE in Somerset.

  New Deal
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps the Government have taken to encourage more employers to join the New Deal scheme. [74404]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have been successful in encouraging employers to support and participate in the New Deal. Over 99,000 employers have signed up to the New Deal and many more have taken on New Deal participants without signing up for the programme.

  We recognise the central role employers have to play in achieving our goal of creating and sustaining employment opportunities for all, and we are continually seeking to involve employers even further in the New Deal.

  This year we have taken steps to improve the flexibility of the New Deal to encourage employers to recruit more participants. For example, we have given employers more flexibility in the training they provide for New Deal clients. Employers can now give New Deal clients their own in-house training instead of having to offer external training which may not meet the needs of the job. Later this year we will be introducing "Recruit" into the New Deal for Young People. This will give small employers more payment flexibility in the Employment Option.

  In August 2001, we appointed 140 Local Account Managers in Jobcentre Plus to help improve the services provided to employers and to engage with more employers to increase job opportunities.

  The National Employment Panel (formerly known as the New Deal Task Force), which is an employer-led body, continues to provide Ministers with independent advice on the design, delivery and performance of the New Deals and our other welfare to work initiatives.
  648W
  The National Employment Panel Employer Coalitions ensure that employers can contribute to services at the regional and local level.

  With the advice and guidance of the National Employment Panel, we have developed Ambition initiatives to help unemployed and disadvantaged people, including those on the New Deal, gain the right skills to meet the specific needs of employers in key sectors, such as retail, construction, energy and information technology. These initiatives are employer-led and developed to employer specifications.

  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have found permanent employment as a result of New Deal for(a) long-term unemployed 25 plus, (b) lone parents, (c) disabled people and (d) 50 plus, in each year since these schemes have been introduced. [73706]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the tables.

  New Deal 25 plus

  Total number of people moving into sustained jobs

  1998–99

  10,010

  1999–00

  23,810

  2000–01

  22,010

  2001–02

  28,410

  2002–03 (up to June 2002)

  9,190

  Note:

  A sustained job in New Deal 25 plus is defined as one lasting more than 13 weeks.

  New Deal for Disabled People

  Total number of people moving into sustained jobs

  2001–02

  245

  2002–03 (up to July 2002)

  706

  Notes:

  A sustained job in New Deal for Disabled People is defined as one lasting 26 weeks out of a 39 week period. New Deal for Disabled People was launched nationally in July 2001. Prior to that, pilots beginning in September 1998 had helped 8,242 people into jobs (sustained and unsustained).

  Separate data for sustained jobs are not available for New Deal 50 plus or New Deal for Lone Parents. The figures for these programmes which follow therefore relate to all people moving into jobs.

  New Deal 50 plus

  Total number of people moving into jobs

  2000–01

  33,020

  2001–02

  33,960

  2002–03 (up to June 2002)

  8,340

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  Total number of people moving into jobs

  1998–99

  7,240

  1999–00

  38,300

  2000–01

  44,600

  2001–02

  46,920

  2002–03 (up to June 2002)

  15,170

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  G8 Summit
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the outcome for heavily indebted countries of the recent G8 summit. [73674]

  Clare Short
  At the Summit in Kananaskis, last July, the G8 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to ensuring the full financing of the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. The G8 agreed to provide their share of up to an additional US$1 billion for the HIPC Trust Fund. This will help meet the current shortfall in the financing of the Initiative, and ensure that those countries whose debt positions have worsened because of the global economic slowdown and falls in commodity prices will get enough debt relief to enable them to exit the HIPC process with sustainable levels of debt.

  At the Annual Meetings of the World Bank and the IMF held at the end of last month in Washington, the international community welcomed the continued progress made on the HIPC Initiative, and reconfirmed their commitment to its implementation and full financing. Some donors, including the UK took the opportunity to pledge their firm support for the HIPC Trust Fund. The UK announced a bilateral contribution of US$95 million plus its share of any EDF contribution to the Trust Fund. This is in addition to the US$306 million which we have already committed. Germany are contributing US$100 million and Sweden US$21 million. The US are considering a contribution of US$230 million, many other countries said they would announce their contributions later this month.

  World Summit on Sustainable Development
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial target has been set for the Solidarity Fund on poverty in poorer countries agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development; how the Government intends encouraging voluntary contributions to the fund; and whether these will be from(a) business and (b) civil society. [74527]

  Clare Short
  The modalities of the world solidarity fund to eradicate poverty and promote social and human development will be determined by the General Assembly of the United Nations based on the Report of the Secretary-General of 2 July 2002. The Report of the Secretary-General recommends that,"The world solidarity fund would receive voluntary contributions in cash and in kind from individuals, foundations, organisations and business sector enterprises and would not duplicate existing operational programmes and modes of intervention. It would not receive funding the effect of which would be to divert the flow of funding allocated to official development assistance."

  No financial target has been set for the world solidarity fund. The Government does not intend to contribute to this fund and does not currently have any
  650W
  plans to encourage voluntary contributions. We do not believe that the creation of a new funding mechanism is the most appropriate and efficient way to increase the resources available for development. There are already too many development channels operating in developing countries. This places burdens on developing country administrations coping with the different demands and procedures of different aid delivery mechanisms.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the achievement of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in addressing commodity prices; and how this will relate to the 2015 millennium development goals. [74608]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 19 September 2002,Official Report, column 416W.

  A major outcome of WSSD is that it reaffirmed many of the commitments made at recent global conferences, including New York, Doha and Monterrey. In particular the text agreed at WSSD endorsed the Doha commitment on issues to be considered in the new trade round. This sends a strong signal for the need to reduce perverse subsidies (such as agricultural subsidies) as well as other obstacles to development such as high tariffs, tariff peaks and tariff escalation.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the achievement of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in further debt cancellation in the developing world; and how this will relate to the 2015 millennium development goals. [74597]

  Clare Short
  At the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development, participants reaffirmed their commitment to reducing the debt burden of the poorest most indebted countries. The Summit supported the Monterrey Consensus on external debt, recognising the need for the speedy implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative and the full financing of the HIPC Trust Fund to help the Multilateral Development Banks meet their share of HIPC costs. Since then, at the Annual Meetings of the World Bank and IMF, Ministers stressed the urgency of meeting the financing shortfall, which could be up to US$1 billion, and called on donor countries to make firm pledges and contributions as soon as possible. Savings from debt relief are used towards the financing for the poverty reduction strategies that HIPC countries are developing with civil society and donors. However, debt relief alone, no matter how generous, cannot ensure that the Millennium Development Goals will be met. This will require substantial additional donor resources as well as other measures, such as improvement of health through the Global Fund to combat HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria, increasing the availability of education through higher quality and quantity of spending, and trade reform.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how the specific target reached on water and sanitation at the World Summit
  651W
  on Sustainable Development will relate to existing policies on the 2015 millennium development goals. [74607]

  Clare Short
  The World Summit on Sustainable Development placed poverty eradication at the heart of efforts to achieve sustainable development. The central focus of this Government's policy on international development, first set out in the White Paper on International Development in 1997 and reaffirmed in the second White Paper in 2000, is a commitment to the internationally agreed target to halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015, together with the associated targets including those relating to water and sanitation.

  My Department's strategies for achieving the international development targets in the water sector are set out in the March 2001 paper "Addressing the Water Crisis—healthier and more productive lives for poor people". DFID has been at the forefront of efforts to promote international acceptance of the new sanitation target agreed internationally at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Better management of water resources, access to safe water and basic sanitation with hygiene promotion are key contributors to poverty reduction and other development objectives.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how the agreement made on trade at the World Summit on Sustainable Development will relate to the 2015 Millennium Development goals. [74528]

  Clare Short
  The Plan of Implementation agreed at the World summit on Sustainable Development provided a strong reaffirmation of the agreement on a "development agenda" at the 4 Ministerial Conference of the WTO at Doha, Qatar. The commitments made in Doha and again at the WSSD can potentially generate significant benefits for developing countries. The Ministerial resulted in an agreement on the need to reduce (with a view to phasing out) subsidies and barriers to trade in agriculture. Agreement was also reached on continuing negotiations on service and commitment to tackle tariff peaks, high tariffs and tariff escalation as well as non-tariff barriers to manufactured goods. The declaration on TRIPS recognised the need for a flexible interpretation of TRIPS to enable developing countries to protect public health during crises such as the HIV/AIDS pandemic Southern Africa.

  The outcome of Doha represents a real achievement for developing country negotiators. As a recent joint paper on Market Access by the World Bank and IMF points out, estimates of the welfare gains from eliminating barriers to merchandise trade, range between $250 billion and $620 billion annually with about one-third to one-half accruing to developing countries. This is several times what developing countries receive in development assistance.

  However, this is not yet a Development Round — it is a development agenda and is only the beginning of negotiations. To make it a real Development Round we will need to work to ensure that these commitments made become a reality.
  652W
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, when the Anglo-France €100 million fund to guarantee business ventures in developing countries agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development will be established; for how long will it operate; how businesses will be seconded; to whom it will be accountable; and how the fund will relate to the 2015 Millennium development Goals. [74524]

  Clare Short
  There will be no single fund. DFID will use a number of facilities, some of which are in existence and some of which are now being developed, through which to channel our funds. The French propose, in the main, to use other channels for their inputs. We will, however, work to coordinate inputs at the country and project level. It is also hoped that we may be able to persuade the French to channel some of their funds to the mechanisms we are developing with others, through which DFID funds will be disbursed.

  There is no finite life to the various facilities we are developing through which our funds will be disbursed, but we are planning to channel €100 million through these over the coming three years.

  The involvement of the private sector at the fund level will vary from facility to facility. At the project level, the funds will help to partner and/or guarantee (depending on the facility) private sector investment to help mitigate risks and encourage increased private sector flows.

  Copies of the joint statement by President Chirac and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, together with Annexes describing the British and French approach to the initiative, have been placed in the library of the House.

  Caroline Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the changes she will make in her Department's(a) policies and (b) spending plans in response to the recent UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg [74341]

  Clare Short
  The World Summit on Sustainable Development placed poverty eradication at the heart of efforts to achieve sustainable development. It brought together the agreements made at the Millennium Summit in September 2000, the Doha meeting of the World Trade Organisation in November 2001 and the Financing for Development Conference in Monterrey in March 2002. It integrated sustainability into the existing international agenda and added some important new targets, such as the target of halving the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation by 2015.

  My Department will continue to focus on improving the effectiveness of the international development effort to reduce poverty and achieve the Millennium Development Goals. My Department will work with other Government Departments for a round of trade negotiations focused on making the international trade system fairer to developing countries, and will work to ensure that the commitments made at Monterrey on increasing the levels, and improving the effectiveness, of official development assistance are delivered.

  The agreement of a new target on access to basic sanitation should lead to effective implementation through sector wide support on sanitation. In addition,

  653W
  water resource management, access to safe water, hygiene promotion and basic sanitation are key contributors to poverty reduction and other development objectives.

  The spending plans of my Department have not changed as result of the World Summit. Following the recently announced 2002 Spending Review settlement, the UK's level of Official Development Assistance (ODA) will increase by £1.5 billion to reach 0.40 per cent. of national income by 2005–06. This is the highest UK ODA/GNI level for over twenty years, marks a 93 per cent. real terms increase since 1997 and represents significant progress towards meeting the UN target of an ODA/GNI ratio of 0.7 per cent. By 2005–06, we will also have more than met the target for aid volume set at Monterrey.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, when the Transparency Initiative on cooperation on anti-corruption in developing countries announced at the WSSD will be introduced; how many corporations have indicated a willingness to comply; how many firms will have to refuse to comply before the initiative becomes compulsory; and at what stage corrupt corporations delisting from the stock exchange would he sanctioned. [74596]

  Clare Short
  At the World Summit for Sustainable Development the Prime Minister announced a partnership of governments, companies, international development agencies and NGOs which would work together to develop an initiative to promote transparency of payments in resource extractive companies.

  Natural resources are a vital asset for many developing countries and the global community has a responsibility to work together in order that the revenues generated by these resources are managed in an effective and transparent manner. The initiative aims to empower countries to make informed choices about their natural resource use in support of long-term sustainable development. This is intended to provide a virtuous circle of good governance, stability and investment that will benefit everyone.

  At this stage the formal partners to the initiative are:
  Governments: United Kingdom, Italy, Norway, Indonesia and The Central African Republic;
  Resource extractive companies: BP, Shell, Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and Anglo American;
  NGOs: Global Witness, Tear Fund, The Catholic Agency for Overseas Development and Save the Children;
  Intergovernmental Institutions: World Bank and the UN

  The partners have committed to develop a framework to promote transparency of payments from companies to host-country governments. This will help to improve government management of the revenue through their budget. Research currently being undertaken by the World Bank will provide the technical basis for the framework. Multi-stakeholder discussions are underway to develop a project strategy and timeline. We expect that the framework will be completed in the spring of 2003.
  654W
  All options for achieving transparency will be considered, including both voluntary and mandatory approaches, and a decision taken by all partners to the initiative after a full appraisal of the evidence. This process is likely to cover many of the issues raised by the hon. Member.

  The partnership is neither closed nor exclusive and the UK will be actively engaged in trying to bring other governments and civil society organisations on board. To this end preparations are underway to host an international meeting involving all existing and prospective partners to this initiative.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what future plans she has to help tackle HIV/AIDS in Southern African countries. [73693]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development is strongly committed to tackling HIV/AIDS in Southern Africa. We are working through national AIDS councils, and directly with ministries, civil society and the private sector. We are supporting efforts both to prevent the spread of the disease, and to care for those living with the disease and their families as well as children orphaned as a result of AIDS. Large new commitments to combat HIV/AIDS (totalling £71 million) include assistance to Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

  As well as our specific support to HIV/AIDS initiatives, we aim to ensure that all our work in the region addresses the impact of HIV/AIDS, which affects every area of development.

  Southern African countries will also benefit from access to the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria to which we contribute, and from our work with international partners and the pharmaceutical industry to reduce the cost of medicines in lower income countries. Investments we have made in vaccine development and microbicides should also benefit Southern Africa in the future.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, how the Government plans to implement the Accord on Patents for drugs in poorer countries, with particular reference to HIV/AIDS drugs; and how this will relate to the recent Doha developments on patented drugs. [74606]

  Clare Short
  The Ministerial declaration on the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) and Public Health agreed last November in Doha, recognised the need for a flexible interpretation of TRIPS to enable developing countries to protect public health.

  The Doha Declaration was a major achievement, but the International Community have to meet their commitments if the declaration is to lead to an improvement in poor people's access to medicines. In particular, an effective and workable solution must be found to the problem of how developing countries with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the

  655W
  pharmaceutical sector are to make effective use of compulsory licensing, by the agreed December 2002 deadline.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the process by which farm workers' organisations in the UN World Food Programme monitors those forced off farms in Zimbabwe; and what steps the Government are taking to meet their humanitarian needs. [70893]

  Clare Short
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Millennium Development Goals
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if, as a result of the G8 talks, she estimates that the UK will be on target to meet the millennium development goals; and if she will make a statement. [73568]

  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of the most recent G8 meeting on the capacity of the UK Government to meet its millennium development goals; and if she will make a statement. [72987]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave to the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) on 19 September 2002,Official Report column 415W.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if the United Kingdom is on target to meet its millennium development goals. [74141]

  Clare Short
  Latest forecasts from the World Bank suggest that globally, meeting the Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015 is attainable. There has been progress. The proportion of people living on less than I a day in the developing world fell from 29 per cent. in 1990, to 23 per cent. in 1999.

  Progress has also been made against almost all the other 2015 Millennium Development targets. The proportion of children completing a full course of primary school increased from 68 per cent. to 73 per cent.; the under-five mortality rate decreased from 88 to 84 deaths per 1,000 births; and the proportion of people with access to an improved water source increased from 73 per cent. to 79 per cent.

  However, to meet all of the Millennium Development Goals we must do more. The Sub-Saharan African region presents the biggest challenge to meeting the Goals. We therefore need to make an enormous effort internationally to accelerate progress in Africa. My Department is doing everything possible to help accelerate progress towards the Millennium Development Goals.

  A detailed description of progress towards all the Millennium Development Goals is contained in a recent World Bank publication: World Development Indicators 2002, which can be found at the following website:
  656W
  http://www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2002/worldview.pdf.

  Girls Education
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent action she has taken to help promote education for girls in developing countries. [73675]

  Clare Short
  Since 1997 we have committed over £700 million to support sustainable primary education programmes, with a strong focus on gender equality. Over the past year we have also worked with the UN Girls' Education Initiative to ensure stronger collaboration and coordination among donors, including the European Union, the UN system, the World Bank and other international financial institutions.

  Drought
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance her Department is providing to the countries of Southern Africa affected by severe drought. [73673]

  Clare Short
  Since September 2001 we have committed £71.6 million in bilateral assistance for the humanitarian crisis in Southern Africa. In addition, the UK's share of assistance provided through the European Commission is about £17 million.

  Famine
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what recent assistance(a) the UK and (b) the EU has provided to tackle famine in Southern Africa; and if she will make a statement. [74755]

  Clare Short
  Since September 2001, the UK has provided £71.6 million for food aid, logistical support and essential medicines for the six countries identified as having exceptional food shortages. As part of this effort we are also providing seeds and fertilisers to assist families to plant for the coming cropping season.

  The EU has committed €148.5 million to the same six countries since January 2002. The UK share of this, which is additional to the £71.6 million commitment above, is about £17 million.

  Debt Repayments
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will press for the immediate suspension of debt repayments under the HIPC initiative for(a) Malawi, (b) Mozambique and (c) Zambia [74525]

  Clare Short
  Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia — which are among the very poorest countries in the world — have all qualified for debt relief under the HIPC Initiative. Malawi and Zambia have reached Decision Point, and are already receiving debt relief. Mozambique has passed Completion Point and is now receiving full debt relief. These countries have completed a full poverty reduction strategy paper setting out how resources, including savings from debt
  657W
  relief, will be spent, thereby ensuring the maximum possible impact on poverty reduction. To address the current food security problem in the region, the UK has provided £26.5 million in humanitarian relief to these three countries since September 2001.

  Kiribati
  David Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what assistance her Department has given in the last five years to(a) education and (b) health projects in Kiribati. [73974]

  Clare Short
  1. DFID has provided assistance in health and education to Kiribati in a number of different ways in the last 5 years. We:

  (a) have strengthened the management and teaching capacity of the Tarawa Technical Institute. (£713,000)

  (b) have provided advice on how best to strengthen the curriculum in primary schools, particularly in relation to English and the Kiribati language. (Visits from DFID advisers).

  (c) have supported the very successful local development theatre group Te Itibwerere. This has enabled them to act as a medium for delivering a wide range of development messages for people of all ages. Topics include HIV/AIDS awareness, health and sanitation, domestic violence and environmental issues. (£40,000).

  (d). are supporting Voluntary Services Overseas in a 2 year project (until March2004) to tackle HIV/AIDS and social education issues. The project will increase the impact and effectiveness of civil society and government responses to HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted infections (£144,000).

  2. The UK is also contributing to EC programmes in Kiribati. 12 million euros were allocation for the period 1995–2001. Interventions include an allocation of 1.6 million euros for a national training programme to provide in-country training to meet Kiribati's manpower needs and skills requirements. A second phase of the programme, costing 6.4 million euros, will be implemented to provide outer island adults and

  £ thousand

  Name

  2001/02

  2000/01

  1999/00

  1998/99

  1997/98

  1996/97

  UNFPA

  24,213

  40,050

  15,000

  13,120

  11,500

  10,000

  WHO

  41,348

  75,110

  20,300

  8,091

  12,099

  11,619

  UNICEF

  28,000

  2,269

  29,143

  10,461

  9,241

  13,847

  UNAIDS

  3,052

  3,000

  3,000

  2,750

  2,300

  3,500

  IPPF

  4,500

  5,500

  5,500

  5,500

  5,850

  7,850

  MSI

  2,554

  5,132

  4,945

  4,235

  3,103

  3,202

  Population Concern

  476

  -

  649

  114

  400

  806

  IFH

  329

  508

  773

  1,151

  1,175

  762

  Bilateral Aid by Health & Population Sector

  £ thousand

  Financial Aid (Excel ATP)

  Other Programmes

  Project or Programme Sector Aid

  Programme Aid

  Technical Cooperation

  Grants and Other Aid in Kind

  Humanitarian Assistance

  Total DFID Programmes

  CDC Investments

  Health and Population

  1997/98

  21,435

  25

  59,723

  37,871

  954

  116,758

  683

  1998/99

  27,826

  0

  59,475

  46,846

  551

  134,698

  0

  1999/00

  36,011

  0

  75,058

  50,295

  6,744

  168,108

  0

  2000/01

  53,799

  0

  78,819

  50,080

  1,509

  184,217

  6,145

  2001/02

  55,779

  0

  100,016

  33,756

  64

  189,616

  7,794

  of which Reproductive Health Care

  1997/98

  897

  0

  9,661

  8,757

  0

  19,315

  0

  1998/99

  1,321

  0

  4,732

  2,930

  0

  8,983

  0

  658W
  school leavers with the skills, needed for employment. This 5 year programme will also further strengthen the Tarawa Technical Institute and extend its activities to the outer islands. The health sector, particularly outer island primary health care, may become the focus for future cooperation between Kiribati and the EC under the Cotonou Agreement.

  Bilateral Aid
  Chris McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will list her Department's total expenditure to(a) UNFPA for 2001–02, (b) WHO Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) for (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99, (iv) 1999–2000, (v) 2000–01 and (vi) 2001–02, (c)ICEF (SRH) for (i) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99, (iv) 1999–2000, (v) 2000–01 and (iv) 2001–02,(d)UNAIDS for 2001–02, (e) IPPF for 2001–02, (f) MSI for (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99, (iv) 1999–2000, (v) 2000–01 and (vi) 2001–02, (g) Population Concern for (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99, (iv) 1999–2000, (v) 2000–01 and (vi) 2001–02, (h) IFH for (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99, (iv) 1999–2000, (v) 2000–01 and (vi) 2001–02, (i) bilateral aid by sector health (health and population)—including project, programme, technical, grants, humanitarian aid and CDC investments 2001–02 and (j) bilateral aid for sexual and reproductive health and rights—including project, programme, technical, grants, humanitarian aid and CDC investments for (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99, (iv) 1999–2000, (v) 2000–01 and (vi) 2001–02. [74246]

  Clare Short
  The figures requested are set out in the two tables below. Details of sectoral funding to multilateral organisations is not held centrally and to provide it in the format requested would be at disproportionate cost. However total DFID funding to the relevant organisations has been provided:
  659W

  Bilateral Aid by Health & Population Sector

  £ thousand

  Financial Aid (Excel ATP)

  Other Programmes

  Project or Programme Sector Aid

  Programme Aid

  Technical Cooperation

  Grants and Other Aid in Kind

  Humanitarian Assistance

  Total DFID Programmes

  CDC Investments

  1999/00

  1,894

  0

  7,754

  4,608

  0

  14,256

  0

  2000/01

  1,542

  0

  7,700

  4,679

  0

  13,921

  0

  2001/02

  896

  0

  9,474

  2,624

  0

  12,994

  0

  Family Planning

  1997/98

  1,237

  0

  8,922

  6,212

  0

  16,371

  0

  1998/99

  919

  0

  7,202

  15,282

  0

  23,402

  0

  1999/00

  520

  0

  8,826

  12,173

  0

  21,519

  0

  2000/01

  2,493

  0

  12,824

  12,016

  0

  27,333

  0

  2001/02

  2,554

  0

  11,767

  10,433

  0

  24,754

  0

  STD Control Including HIV/AIDS

  1997/98

  1,555

  3

  4,980

  4,021

  0

  10,560

  0

  1998/99

  1,830

  0

  6,630

  4,654

  0

  13,113

  0

  1999/00

  996

  0

  8,653

  4,972

  112

  14,733

  0

  2000/01

  342

  0

  7,680

  6,290

  0

  14,312

  0

  2001/02

  3,938

  0

  15,536

  4,998

  0

  24,472

  0

  Notes:

  hese figures do not capture the full extent of our efforts in the health and population sector as they exclude expenditure on multisector projects, block funding to civil society organisations and general budget support.

  Development Assistance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will provide a breakdown of the funding in(a) euros and (b) sterling equivalents, given by the Government in the last financial year in overseas aid, indicating the percentage and total of each that was expended (i) directly, (ii) through the United Nations agencies, (iii) through other international bodies, (iv) through the European Union and (v) through other means. [74274]

  Clare Short
  The figures requested on UK government spending on development assistance for 2001/02 are as follows;

  £ million

  € million

  % of Total Expenditure on Aid

  Total spent bilaterally

  1,954

  3,127

  57

  Total spent via United Nations Agencies

  238

  381

  7

  Total spent via European Commission

  751

  1,201

  22

  Total spent via International Financial Organisations

  331

  529

  10

  Total spent via Other International Organisations

  48

  77

  1

  Aid
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what means the European Court of Auditors has of examining the accounts of disbursing bodies of aid to developing countries in the relevant receiving states [74275]

  Clare Short
  The statement of Assurance sections of the Court of Auditor's Annual Report which relate to the External Actions budget lines and to the European Development Fund are based on an examination of representative random samples of contracts concluded by the Commission, drawn from the database and on 660W
  payments made in the same year drawn from the Commission's central accounting system. The audit examines whether the transactions are legal and regular in accordance with the Financial Regulation. This work is supplemented by on the spot audits of transactions for which much of the documentary evidence is only available in the beneficiary countries. The Court of Auditors also examines the Commission's systems of procedures and controls to evaluate their theoretical and practical effectiveness.

  Tsetse Control
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 25 February, what discussions she has had with the Pan African Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Campaign, the FAO and the Inter-African Bureau of Animal Resources on Tsetse control and eradication programmes; and if she will make a statement. [74194]

  Clare Short
  On 9 and 10 September 2002, DFID hosted a meeting in Edinburgh under the aegis of its Animal Heath Research Programme, entitled "Tsetse Control—the Next 100 Years". The meeting brought together representatives of over thirty stakeholder organisations to the Pan African Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Eradication Campaign (PATTEC), including DFID, senior officials of the Inter-African Bureau of Animal Resources, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the wider research community, the European Commission and PATTEC itself.

  The Regional Co-ordinator of PATTEC, Dr. John Kabayo, has asked to meet DFID's Chief Natural Resources Adviser when he is next in London. Apart from this we are not aware of any formal request from PATTEC to hold discussions with bilateral donors, although we have made it clear that we would be pleased to discuss the campaign's preliminary proposals at a technical level.
  661W
  DFID is in regular dialogue with the FAO's Animal Production and Health Division and with the Inter-African Bureau of Animal Resources through our ongoing programmes of support to those organisations. Neither has substantively raised the issue of PATTEC with us.

  We remain unconvinced that the scientific and economic theories for the eradication of tsetse flies from Africa on which PATTEC's original proposals were founded are yet proven. Our view is that efforts should focus on tsetse and trypanosomiasis control rather than eradication for the foreseeable future. This is consistent with the consensus of the Edinburgh meeting and more recent statements by the Programme Against African Trypanosomiasis (PAAT) and by PATTEC.

  Kurdistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will make a statement on her Department's decision on funding a hospital project to treat the victims of biological and chemical weapons attacks in Kurdistan. [74557]

  Clare Short
  My Department recently decided not to fund such a project, for technical and strategic reasons.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, which UN agencies her Department supports are working in Iraq; and what level of financial commitment her Department makes to these programmes [74334]

  Clare Short
  The principal UN agencies working in Iraq with the Oil for Food Programme are UNDP, UNICEF, UNOPS, WFP, WHO, UNESCO, UNOCHI, UNHCR, FAO, UNIDO and Habitat. My Department does not give any of these agencies earmarked funding for their Iraq programmes, but supports most of them globally. In addition, the United Nations Guards Contingent for Iraq (UNGCI) is mandated to protect UN personnel, operations and assets involved in the humanitarian programme in Northern Iraq. As part of a joint donor effort, my Department is contributing £0.25 million in support of the UNGCI's work over financial years 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what preparations her Department has made to deal with the humanitarian consequences of possible war in Iraq. [74338]

  Clare Short
  My Department does regular contingency planning for a variety of potential humanitarian emergencies around the world, and maintains constant preparedness to respond to such events.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what arrangements are in place for consultation between her Department and the Ministry of Defence before any plans for war against Iraq are agreed. [74340]

  Clare Short
  My Department consults regularly with the Ministry of Defence on a range of issues at official and ministerial level.
  662W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what assistance her Department provides to(a) refugees, (b) women and (c) children in Iraq, broken down by region. [74336]

  Clare Short
  My Department is providing assistance for Iraqi refugees in Iran through A MAR International; for internally-displaced people in Northern Iraq through Response, Relief, Resettlement and Rehabilitation (4RS); for women in Northern Iraq through a 4RS income-generating project; and for children in Northern Iraq through Save the Children-UK and ACORN. In addition, other NGO activities funded by my Department in both Northern and Central/Southern Iraq include women and children among their beneficiaries.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what her Department's strategy is for providing humanitarian relief to the people of Iraq. [74333]

  Clare Short
  The purpose of my Department's humanitarian programme in Iraq is to reduce suffering among the Iraqi people. The programme supports and complements the UN's Oil for Food Programme by working with NGOs and other international organisations.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what assessment her Department has made of the obstruction of humanitarian relief and levels of human rights abuses committed by Saddam Hussein against the Iraqi people. [74337]

  Clare Short
  My Department monitors this situation through information obtained from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other sources, which was most recently summarised in part 3 of the dossier: "Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government".

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what discussions her Department has had with colleagues in(a) the European Union, (b) the United States and (c) the UN of the humanitarian impact of a possible war in Iraq. [74339]

  Clare Short
  My Department is not actively discussing these issues with EU, US and UN colleagues at the moment.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what assessment her Department has made of the performance of the oil for food programme in providing humanitarian relief for the people of Iraq. [74335]

  Clare Short
  My Department has monitored information made available by the UN Office for the Iraq Programme on the operation of the Oil for Food (OFF) Programme, and by other UN agencies such as UNICEF on the impact of the OFF on humanitarian indicators. Our assessment is that since the introduction of the OFF in 1996, the declining humanitarian situation in central/southern Iraq has at best only been halted, although indicators have generally improved in
  663W
  the north. The long term impact of sanctions has contributed to a high dependence by many Iraqis on the OFF food ration.

  Consultancy Contracts
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will list external(a) public relations/ commercial companies, (b) advertising and marketing companies, (c) management consultancies, (d) accountancy companies, (e) banking firms, (f) individual consultants and (g) other specialist consultancies used by her Department since June 2001; what actions those consultancies/companies have performed within her Department; and what cost have been incurred through use of these consultancies/ companies. [74683]

  Clare Short
  Information in the format requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost but DFID has let consultancy contracts to a value of approximately £300 million in 2001–2002.

  World Bank Group
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if, when carrying out her functions as Governor of the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group, she has sole responsibility for instructing the UK Executive Director as to how to exercise the UK's vote on the board of the IFC; which other departments are involved in this role; and if she will make a statement;[74579]

  (2) what guidelines exist concerning the manner in which instructions are given to the UK Executive Director as to how to exercise the UK's votes on the Board of the International Finance Corporation or on the Board of other of the World Bank Group institutions; if she will place such material in the library; and if she will make a statement. [74578]

  Clare Short
  My Department is responsible for the UK Government's relations with the World Bank Group, including the International Finance Corporation (IFC). We are represented on the Boards of the World Bank Group by the UK Executive Director or members of his staff in the UK Delegation to the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund in Washington. The UK Executive Director and his team take instructions from my department and receive guidance from, liaise closely with and report fully to my department and, as appropriate, other interested Whitehall departments and the Bank of England.

  All papers for consideration by the IFC Board are received by the UK Delegation and forwarded to DFID officials in London who consider these on the basis of agreed Government policy. If any issues arising in the papers appear controversial or are of particular interest, officials bring these to my attention or to the attention of other relevant government departments.

  The majority of papers are uncontroversial and we are content to support the recommendations of IFC management. Where necessary, DFID officials provide briefing and points for the UK Delegation to make in the Board discussion. As with the rest of the World
  664W
  Bank Group, nearly all Board decisions are taken on the basis of consensus, to reflect Board discussions, and decisions rarely go to direct votes.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee for the adaptation to technical progress of directives on the removal of technical barriers to trade in the sector of dangerous substances and preparations is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [66418]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress of Directive 76/769/EEC on the restrictions on the Marketing and Use of Dangerous Substances and Preparations is expected to meet again later this year. UK representation varies according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved administrations where there are items of sufficient interest. Members of the Scottish Executive have not attended any meetings so far, although as with other Committees of this type, discussion with them and the other devolved administrations is a continuous process during development: of the UK position.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee on statistics relating to the trading of goods with nonmember countries is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [71837]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Committee on Statistics relating to the trading of goods with non member countries is due to meet on 14 and 15 November 2002.

  The legal basis for the collection of statistics relating to the trading of goods with non member countries is Council Regulation (EC) No 1172/95, which requires that statistics are collected on a UK wide basis.

  The UK is normally represented by two officials from HM Customs and Excise. Representatives of the Scottish Executive have never been and are not members of the Committee.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee on statistics relating to the trading of goods between member states is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [71832]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Committee on Statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States is due to meet on 14 and 15 November 2002.
  665W
  The legal basis for the collection of statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States is Council Regulation (EEC) No 3330/91, which requires that statistics are collected on a UK wide basis.

  The UK is normally represented by two officials from HM Customs and Excise. Representatives of the Scottish Executive have never been and are not members of the Committee.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she takes to monitor the installation of mobile telephone masts; and what steps she has taken to implement recommendation 1.37 of the Stewart report. [73369]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not routinely monitor the installation of mobile phone masts.

  Recommendation 1.37 of the Stewart report proposed that, at national Government level, a template of protocols be developed, in concert with industry and consumers, which can be use to inform the planning process and that it should be assiduously and openly followed before the granting of permission for the siting of a new base station.

  On 22 August last year, taking into account the recommendations in the Stewart Report published in May 2000 and following public consultation, the Government introduced changes that significantly improved the planning procedures and guidance for telecommunications mast development. The changes:
  strengthened public consultation requirements on mast proposals of 15 metres and below so that they are the same as for planning applications
  increased the time for an authority to deal with prior approval applications to 56 days
  underlined that school governors must be consulted on all proposals for new masts on or near a school or college; and
  increased fees to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation.

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she has taken to ensure that local authorities maintain a mast register of local installations; and how many local authorities have such a register. [73370]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's existing Code of Best Practice advises that local planning authorities should maintain a mast register of local installations. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently revising the Code of Best Practice.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not monitor how many local planning authorities have such registers.

  The Radiocommunications Agency has made information available to the public about existing mobile phone masts via their website (www.radio.gov.uk). The database, called "Sitefinder", gives map-based details about all operational mobile phone base stations and their emissions.

  Microsoft
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the level of faults found in Microsoft products used by the UK Government in the last five years. [73826]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not held centrally.

  Your Guide
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether a Your Guide service will be rolled out nationally following a pilot of the concept in Leicestershire and Rutland between July 2001 and March 2002. [74663]

  Mr. Timms
  The pilot showed that Your Guide was popular but that its impact was limited. It would neither significantly improve Government Departments' ability to meet their objectives nor generate a viable level of income for Post Office Limited and its branches. A publicly funded Your Guide scheme would not therefore represent value for money and we have concluded that it should not be rolled out nationally.

  However, Your Guide has highlighted the potential for Government Departments to deliver services through post offices in future. There is also significant commercial interest in placing kiosks in post offices. A commercial kiosk service, based on kiosks in retail outlets—including some sub-post offices—is expected to be piloted in Cornwall from next year.

  British Energy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) meetings and (b) discussions between her Department and third parties have taken place at which the future of members of the board of British Energy has been discussed. [74366]

  Ms Hewitt
  Appointments to the board of British Energy are a matter for the company and its shareholders.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the terms of the financial facility granted to British Energy that is due to expire on 27 September. [74377]

  Ms Hewitt
  On 9 September 2002 the Government agreed to provide British Energy with a loan for up to £410 million in respect of its working capital requirements and cash collateral for trading in the UK and North America. This short-term loan was put in place until 27 September. On the 26 September the Government agreed to extend the loan until 29 November and increase it from £410 million to up to £650 million as well as taking security for the loan over British Energy's assets.

  Full details of the agreement are commercially confidential unless and until it is made public by British Energy.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Department was first made aware of the statement to the Stock Exchange made by British Energy on 5 September 2001. [74365]
  667W
  Ms Hewitt
  The Executive Chairman of British Energy, Robin Jeffrey, wrote to me on 4 September to inform me that the company's position was so critical that it had to consider whether or not it could continue to meet its obligations as they fell due. The possibility of a statement was raised in that letter. My officials met with the company on 4 and 5 September; the company decided to make a statement to the Stock Exchange at its Board meeting shortly after the meetings with my officials. My Department was made aware of the terms of the statement shortly before it was announced.

  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the position of British Energy. [74804]

  Ms Hewitt
  On 4 September, Robin Jeffrey, the Chairman of BE informed me that the company was considering whether or not it could continue to meet its obligations and sought to initiate discussions over possible funding. On 5 September BE announced that it had initiated discussions with the Government about possible immediate financial support and to enable a longer term restructuring to take place. My Department issued a separate statement on that day confirming that these discussions had started. BE's statement also said that if discussions over financial support were not successful"the company may be unable to meet its financial obligations as they fall due and therefore the company may have to take appropriate insolvency proceedings".

  The Government's overriding objectives are to ensure the safety of BE's nuclear plant and security of electricity supplies while protecting the interests of the taxpayer. My assessment was that immediate and sudden insolvency proceedings could pose a serious risk to nuclear safety and security of supply. It is essential for the safe operation of BE's nuclear power stations that the company has access to sufficient resources for it to fulfil its obligations under the nuclear, environmental and commercial regulatory regimes under which it operates. We have also been in discussions with the industry regulator, Ofgem about the risks that an unplanned shut-down of BE's plant may pose to security of supply.

  Having regard to nuclear safety and security of supply, I decided with the agreement of the Treasury to provide BE on 9 September with a loan of up to £410 million in respect of its working capital requirements and cash collateral for trading in the UK and North America. This was a short-term loan, for the period until 27 September pending clarification of the company's financial position. No commitment was given about support beyond that period.

  During that initial period it became clear that it would not be possible to have a full understanding in detail of the company's position in a way that would enable choices to be made about future restructuring options. Following discussions with the company and its advisers, and in agreement with the Treasury, on 26 September I announced an extension to the loan, now increased in value up to a maximum of £650 million. The loan has been extended until 29 November in order to give sufficient time to clarify the company's full financial position and to come to a clear view on the future options for the company.
  668W
  In agreeing and extending the loan I have sought to build in the greatest safeguards to the taxpayer. The loan is cross-guaranteed by the BE group as a whole, and is backed by security given by BE plc and its principal subsidiaries. In administering the loan we have set out strict criteria and operational arrangements which are being managed by our accountancy advisers, Deloitte and Touche.

  In view of the urgency in this case, we have sought and obtained from HM Treasury a Contingencies Fund advance of £500 million to finance the loan, and subsequently a further advance of £150 million to fund the extension of the support. It is my intention to seek Parliamentary approval for the loan through a Winter Supplementary Estimate in order to provide the authority for this loan and hence repay the Contingencies Fund. It was not possible to give the House advance warning of the need to use the Contingencies Fund. The case was urgent and I judged it would clearly be contrary to the public interest to delay expenditure until Parliamentary approval to the Supplementary Estimate could be given, in view of the risks that immediate and sudden insolvency posed to nuclear safety and security of supply. The urgent need for the loan and extension were, however, communicated to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

  These arrangements have been given in compliance with the European Commission rules on Rescue and Restructuring aid and have been notified to the European Commission as rescue aid. EU State Aid rules normally require that within a period of 6 months from the authorisation of rescue aid that aid is either repaid or a restructuring plan is submitted to the Commission. We have indicated to the Commission that we intend to comply with these conditions.

  At this stage, no decisions have been taken on the future of BE and no commitments given. But whatever the outcome at the end of this period the Government will continue to act to achieve its objectives of nuclear safety, security of supply while protecting the interests of the taxpayer. I recognise the key ongoing role played by employees and suppliers who are providing goods and services essential to the safe management of the UK nuclear power stations.

  I will keep the House informed of future developments.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Department was first informed that there were concerns about the financial viability of British Energy.

  Ms Hewitt
  Earlier this year, British Energy gave my Department information on some aspects of its financial position. The Executive Chairman, Robin Jeffrey wrote to me on 4 September to inform me that the company's position was now so critical that it had to consider whether or not it could continue to meet its obligations as they fell due.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the income received by British Nuclear Fuels Limited from its reprocessing contract with British Energy. [74371]
  669W
  Ms Hewitt
  Details of commercial contracts are a matter for the two companies.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is her Department's policy to seek to require any successor body to British Energy to enter into a contract for reprocessing waste with British Nuclear Fuels Limited. [74372]

  Ms Hewitt
  No decisions have been taken and no commitments given on British Energy's long term future at this time.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) meetings and (b) discussions between her Department and British Energy have taken place in which (i) the relationship between British Energy and British Nuclear Fuels Limited and (ii) the Climate Change Levy were raised. [74367]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department holds regular meetings with British Energy at which a wide range of issues is discussed.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the impact on the Government's(a) expenditure and (b) liabilities in the event of British Energy being placed in administration. [74376]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government has provided British Energy with a loan facility of up to £650 million until 29 November. The impact on expenditure and liabilities in the event of British Energy being placed in administration would depend upon the circumstances at the time. No decisions have been taken and no commitments given on British Energy's long term future at this time.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports her Department has received from the Financial Services Authority into British Energy; and if she will place a copy of such reports in the Library. [74374]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has not received any reports from the Financial Services Authority into British Energy.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) meetings and (b) discussions have taken place between her Department and shareholders in British Energy at which British Energy has been discussed. [74368]

  Ms Hewitt
  No such meetings or discussions have taken place.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the impact on the Government's policy of managing the nuclear legacy of British Energy being placed into administration. [74382]

  Ms Hewitt
  No decisions have been taken and no commitments given on British Energy's long term future at this time.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the costs in this financial year to British Energy of the Climate Change Levy. [74378]
  670W
  Ms Hewitt
  My Department's advisers are looking at all aspects of British Energy's costs and revenues in order to clarify the company's full financial position.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the(a) banks and (b) other companies in the financial sector with which her Department has had discussions about British Energy in the last 12 months. [74370]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department regularly meets with various banks and other companies in the financial sector to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the impact on British Nuclear Fuels Limited of British Energy being placed in administration. [74373]

  Ms Hewitt
  No decisions have been taken and no commitments give on British Energy's long term future at this time.

  Energy White Paper
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will publish the Energy White Paper. [74363]

  Ms Hewitt
  I plan to publish the Energy White Paper in the new year.

  European Agency Workers Directive
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the cost to the(a) private and (b) public sectors of the proposed European Agency Workers Directive. [74519]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government is currently consulting UK business, unions and others on the impact of the proposed directive. We remain concerned that, as currently drafted the proposed directive would impose disproportionate cost and administrative burdens on business, and would reduce routes into employment for many workers. Our initial estimate of the cost to user undertakings of the proposed Temporary [Agency] Workers Directive, as currently drafted, is in the range from £250 million to £402 million, as stated in the Regulatory Impact Assessment, which is available in the Libraries of the Houses. It is estimated that 21 per cent. of these costs would be borne by the public sector and 79 per cent. by the private sector. In addition, it is estimated that there are costs in the range of £80 million to £194 million which would be borne by private sector employment agencies.

  Broadband Services
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many households have access to broadband services in(a) Paisley, North and (b) the UK, expressed as a percentage of the population. [73676]

  Mr. Timms
  Almost all households in the UK can receive broadband through satellite technology. 63 per cent. currently have access via ADSL, with 43 per cent. having access via cable modem. Around 67 per cent. of the population has access via one or both of ADSL and/or cable modem.
  671W
  A map showing geographical availability of broadband services can be found in the UK Online Annual Report (http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/oee/ oee.nsf/sect i on s/repo rts-anrep2001-image s/$fil e/fig01.pdf).

  The Government does not compile figures for broadband connections broken down into individual constituencies.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of households have access to broadband services in Portsmouth, South; and if she will make a statement. [73873]

  Mr. Timms
  A map showing geographical availability of broadband services can be found in the UK Online Annual Report (http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/oee/oee.nsf/sections/reports-anrep2001-images/$file/fig01.pdf).

  The Government does not compile figures for broadband connections broken down into individual constituencies.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) homes and (b) businesses in the United Kingdom have broadband Internet access by (i) cable modem and (ii) ADSL; and if she will make a statement. [74386]

  Ms Hewitt
  Oftel's figures of September 2002, available on their website, reported that there were over 885,000 end users of broadband in the United Kingdom, of which over 490,000 were served by cable modem and 390,000 by ADSL. Since then, they have announced on 8 October that there are now in excess of one million users.

  Around 14 million homes can receive DSL services and 13.3 million can receive cable modem. No recent data for numbers of businesses with broadband access are readily available.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to reply to the letter of 25 July from the hon. Member for Nottingham North regarding Nottingham S.M.E.E. Ltd. of Annon Court, Nottingham. [74741]

  Ms Hewitt
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation, Lord Sainsbury replied on Friday 27 September 2002.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she intends to reply to the letter to her dated 16 August from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. T. Walsh. [74570]

  Ms Hewitt
  I replied on 24 September.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how she determines whether a letter from(a) a member of the public and (b) an hon. Member receives a reply personally signed by (i) her, (ii) other ministers in her Department and (iii) her officials. [74592]
  672W
  Ms Hewitt
  I aim to reply personally to as many letters as I can but it is not possible to do this for all letters because of the large volume of correspondence addressed to me.

  Hon. Members receive replies from me, or other Ministers in my Department if the subject matter is one in which they have been closely involved.

  From time to time, when I am out of London, I will authorise my Private Office to sign letters on my behalf and other Ministers will do the same in their offices.

  Letters from members of the public are frequently delegated to an official to answer, in order to ensure that replies can be sent quickly.

  Radioactive Material
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what account she has taken of the events of 11 September 2001 in formulating her policy on the number of movements of radioactive material. [73952]

  Mr. Wilson
  Overall policy responsibility for the transport of radioactive material lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Security for the transportation of nuclear material is regulated by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS), the security regulator. Security precautions for the transportation of nuclear material are kept under regular review. OCNS has reviewed all relevant precautions in the light of the terrorist attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001. It is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken in connection with nuclear material.

  BNFL
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she takes to ensure that the conduct of BNFL and its subsidiaries is consistent with Government policy, with particular reference to employment practices. [73951]

  Mr. Wilson
  HMG sets the overall strategic direction for the company, but the day-to-day management is a matter for the Board. BNFL like all companies must comply with relevant employment laws. It is the job of BNFL management to ensure adherence to those laws.

  Renewable Energy Sources
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the reasons underlying the change in the percentage of energy used derived from renewable sources in the last 12 months. [73949]

  Mr. Wilson
  Total electricity generation from renewables and wastes in 2001 amounted to 10,099 GWh, 38 per cent. of which was from large scale hydro generation. Large scale hydro generation was 21 per cent. lower than in 2000 because of a low level of precipitation in the catchment areas, especially in winter 2000–01. As a result, renewable sources provided 2.6 per cent. of the electricity generated in the United
  673W
  Kingdom, 0.2 percentage points lower than in 2000. Generation from renewable sources other than hydro in 2001 was 12 per cent. higher than in 2000.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the UK will meet the target of 5 per cent. of electricity to be generated by renewable sources by 2003. [73810]

  Mr. Wilson
  As I explained in introducing the Renewables Obligation Order 2002 on 6 March, (Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, column 4), prospects of achieving a level of 5 per cent. by the end of 2003—a date proposed in a 1999 DTI consultation document—have been heavily dependent on the pace of new commissioning of projects awarded contracts under the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) and the comparable arrangements for Scotland. In practice, even with the Government's action to allow locational flexibility for NFFO contracts, the pace of new commissioning has been somewhat slower than had been hoped. As I said in March, the indications are that the target of a 5 per cent. contribution from renewables to electricity supplies will be delivered late.

  The Renewables Obligation, which came into effect from 1 April 2002, introduces new arrangements to ensure the long-term expansion of renewable energy in the UK. The Obligation is set to run for twenty-five years, and will provide an incentive for renewable energy expected to rise to some £1 billion per year by 2010–11. It is backed by £260 million direct Government support for renewables over the next three years. The Obligation is set at increasing levels for successive years, rising from 3 per cent. for 2002–3 to 10.4 per cent. for 2010–11. The level of the Renewables Obligation is 4.9 per cent. for 2004–5 and 5.5 per cent. for 2005–6.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress with increasing the share of renewable energy sources in the UK's electricity production in the last 12 months. [73811]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply earlier today to the hon. Member for Lewes.

  The capacity to generate electricity from renewable sources increased by 2.9 per cent. in 2001 to stand at 2.52 MW at the end of December 2001. As a result of new projects coming fully on-line under NFFO during 2001, generation from landfill gas increased by 14½ per cent. and generation from other biofuels (especially straw and poultry litter) increased by 63 per cent.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of electricity is derived from renewable sources. [73891]

  Mr. Wilson
  In 2001, renewable sources provided 2.6 per cent. of the electricity derived in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the progress of the Government towards meeting its target of acquiring 10 per cent. of power from renewable sources. [73766]
  674W
  Mr. Wilson
  The Department collects regular statistical data on the output of different forms of energy including renewables.

  The forthcoming Energy White Paper will assess in full our prospects for achieving the 10 per cent. target.

  Renewable Energy
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Minister for Women what estimate she has made of the level of new conventional electricity generating plant needed to back up the anticipated increase in wind turbine and other climate-dependent renewable energy sources. [74398]

  Mr. Wilson
  Every electricity system has to have some spare capacity to deal with peaks and troughs in demand. To a considerable extent, this inbuilt flexibility also enables an electricity system to cope, without significant additional cost, with a proportion of intermittent supply alongside a proportion of non-intermittent supply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the Appendix to Chapter 7 of the Energy Review produced by the Performance and Innovation Unit of the Cabinet Office (PIU) in February 2002. This reports the outcome of a survey conducted for the PIU on costs associated with intermittent generation.

  The consultants employed by the PIU found that, as a rough rule of thumb, while the share of electricity supplies contributed by intermittents (for example, wind energy) remained below about 5 per cent., the system costs would be insignificant. With a share between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent., they estimated that costs might start to rise to about 0.1 p/k Wh. Costs would continue to increase beyond 10 per cent., perhaps rising to about 0.2p/k Wh, should intermittents provide 20 per cent. of electricity.

  We are considering the PIU's conclusions, as well as responses to our consultation on energy policy, as we develop the forthcoming Energy White Paper. Work is being undertaken, in particular, to improve our understanding of the complete spectrum of network-related costs arising as the share of supplies provided by intermittents rises above 10 per cent.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action her Department is taking to increase access to export credit assistance for overseas renewable energy projects; and if she will make a statement. [74500]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) have recently launched an initiative to stimulate and facilitate exports of renewable energy sector goods and services to emerging markets. This Renewables Initiative was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 2 September 2002 in Mozambique on his way to the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development.

  From April 2003, ECGD will make available cover for at least £50 million of exports each year for projects in the renewables sector which meet its minimum risk standards. ECGD will also support the DTI's Trade Promoters' outreach programme to stimulate exports of renewable energy goods and services to emerging

  675W
  markets. These activities form part of the Government—wide drive to encourage the development of power generation from renewable resources.

  It is hoped that this initiative will:
  Encourage UK entrepreneurs to develop and then export renewable energy goods and services and to offer them insurance against the risks of nonpayment;
  Assist more overseas countries to meet their power generation requirements in a sustainable way by providing finance at attractive commercial rates linked to UK involvement;
  Slow down the onset of, and possibly reduce the impact of, climate change resulting from greenhouse gas generation.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value of export credit assistance given by her Department and associated non-departmental public bodies for renewable energy projects was in each of the last 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [74499]

  Ms Hewitt
  The figures for the years in which ECGD has supported renewable energy projects since 1992 are as follows:

  Year

  Business Amount £ Million

  1993/94

  7.8

  1994/95

  17.1

  1995/96

  7.7

  1996/97

  1.4

  1997/98

  6.4

  Sustainable Development
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations the Government will make on a timetable to phase in a substantial increase on renewable energy agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development; and how this will relate to the 2015 millennium development goals. [74619]

  Mr. Wilson
  At the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the Government supported the European Union proposal that renewables should contribute 15 per cent. of total energy use by 2010, but, in the event, no specific timetable for the expansion of renewables was agreed. All parties nevertheless accepted the urgent need to increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global mix.

  The Government's Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) will help developing countries limit greenhouse gas emissions by making available at least £50 million of cover for creditworthy exports from April 2003 in the renewable energy sector. The ECGD will participate in an outreach programme, run by DTI's Trade Promoters and the private sector, to stimulate exports of renewable energy goods to emerging markets to help overcome the low level of renewables applications.

  The UK initiated the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP), which aims to foster international collaboration in order to accelerate the growth of markets in modern renewables and energy efficiency, so as to lower costs and facilitate the removal of other policy, technology, mark et and regulatory barriers. We launched this in Johannesburg, and in the coming months the UK Government shall be working
  676W
  to develop this in conjunction with other partners including the Governments of Brazil, Indonesia, Italy, Japan and New Zealand, as well as Shell, the UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy and WWF. The REEEP will work to keep renewable energy and energy efficiency high on the global political agenda.

  The Government's renewable energy policy will contribute to section IV of the United Nations Millennium Declaration "Protecting our common environment", to support sustainable development, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and lessen the threat that diminishing resources will no longer meet the needs of future generations. As the REEEP objective for lowering the costs of renewable energy is achieved, renewable energy technologies will become more affordable energy options for the poor. This will contribute towards improving access to energy services, which is important to achieving the Millennium Development Goals including the halving of global poverty by 2015.

  Domestically, the Government has set a target of obtaining 10 per cent. of our electricity from renewable sources by 2010. Sourcing 10 per cent. of electricity from renewable sources could result in annual savings of around 2.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions by 2010. The Renewables Obligation, which came into force on 1 April 2002, will provide the driving force for the expansion of renewable energy in the UK. Licensed electricity suppliers will be required to obtain specified proportions of their electricity from renewable sources. The proportion will rise each year to reach the 10 per cent. target by 2010.

  Increasing the market share of renewable energy is currently being considered in the context of the work being undertaken for the Government's forthcoming White Paper on the UK's future energy policy. This will be published around the start of 2003.

  Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will publish the results of her Department's review of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 and the submissions which were made to that review;[73751]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the outcome of her meetings with enforcement authorities, industry representatives and others, to discuss improved enforcement of the Furniture and Furnishing (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988, indicating the dates of those meetings and the organisations represented at them. [73752]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Last year the Department consulted with a wide range of interested parties about the effectiveness of the Regulations. I looked carefully at the results and concluded that their main concern was on improving the enforcement of the Regulations.

  To take matters forward I held two meetings with representatives from enforcement and industry.
  677W
  I was very encouraged by the progress made in both meetings. Enforcement is the key issue to ensure that consumers can be confident that the furniture they buy meets UK safety standards.

  EU Structural Funds
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the Government's policy is towards re-nationalisation of parts of the EU Structural Funds post 2006; [73992]

  (2) if the Government will bring forward proposals for a stronger urban dimension to future EU regional policy;[73991]

  (3) what the Government's policy is towards the development of a stronger EU regional policy for (a)new and (b) current member states after 2006;[73995]

  (4) if she will make it her policy that a similar amount of money to that received by UK regions in 2000 to 2006 would be made available by national Government for comparable purposes if EU regional policy was renationalised. [73993]

  Alan Johnson
  Although the debate on the future of European cohesion policy post-2006 has already started, very few national governments have so far committed themselves to a particular position. The Government intends to play a full part in this debate and we will shortly be launching a consultation to inform our position.

  The debate has to be seen in the context of the Government's objective to improve regional and national economic performance. Following the 2002 spending review, the Government agreed a new focus for regional policy: to improve the economic performance of all regions and over the long term to reduce the persistent gaps in growth rates between them. The Government is committed to pursuing the necessary policies to achieve this target.

  A key issue informing the Government's position in the debate will be the added value of the Structural Funds i.e. the extent to which this source of funding has delivered benefits over and beyond those which could have been achieved through national measures. We are collaborating with other Departments and the Devolved Administrations on research into this and other issues.

  Cohesion policy has always been focused on the poorest parts of the EU and the forthcoming enlargement will therefore require a fundamental review of the policy and its application. It is clear that in future there must continue to be transfers from the richer states to the poorer, and in particular to the candidates currently negotiating for accession. However, it is too early to draw any conclusions about the overall size of the Structural Funds budget, the priorities it should address or the future distribution of the Funds amongst the Member States.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the projected nuclear liabilities bill is accounted for by the need to clean up and remediate radioactively contaminated land at nuclear sites. [73562]
  678W
  Mr. Wilson
  As the White Paper explains, on current estimates the total undiscounted cost of cleaning up the nuclear legacy is some £48 billion. Of this figure, 43 per cent. is the projected cost associated with decommissioning, and 47 per cent. is the projected cost associated with the processing, storage and final disposal of waste and the environmental restoration of radioactively contaminated land. The remaining 10 per cent. represents the cost of licence compliance, site infrastructure and corporate management.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with reference to paragraphs 4.8 to 4.10 of Cm 5552, on managing the nuclear legacy, if she will make it her policy not to appoint current employees of BNFL to the Liabilities Management Authority board. [73551]

  Mr. Wilson
  No decisions have been taken on appointments to the LMA Board. As the White Paper makes clear, appointments will be made according to the rules set out by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointment (OCPA).

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her best estimate is of the transfer value of(a) Thorp and (b) SMP, if set in place under CM5552, Managing the Nuclear Legacy. [73561]

  Mr. Wilson
  Transfer of assets from BNFL will be made on a basis which reflects their value at the time the transfer is made.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the assets and liabilities allocated to the proposed Liabilities Management Authority will be(a) subject to safeguards and (b) actively safeguarded by Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency. [73565]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government's policy is that all civil nuclear material in the UK should be subject to safeguarding requirements. This policy will apply in relation to all material held at sites for which the LMA is responsible.

  Energy Review
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what responses have been received on the PIU Energy Review and when the expected White Paper will be published. [71407]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government has launched a consultation on energy policy, which includes consideration of the findings of the PIU Energy Review, with a view to publishing a White Paper around the turn of the year. We are posting replies to the consultation on the DTI's web site.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 23 July, ref 70369, what definition she gives to the materials that are to he transported from Japan to Sellafield. [73700]

  Mr. Wilson
  The material is unused Mixed Oxide Fuel.
  679W
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the reply dated 23 July, ref 70369, what future use she plans for the material being transported from Japan to Sellafield. [73702]

  Mr. Wilson
  This is a matter for BNFL. I understand there are a number of options under consideration for re-use of the fuel.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many shipments of nuclear materials from which she believes reusable materials may be recovered are expected to be made by sea to Sellafield within the next two years. [73507]

  Mr. Wilson
  The timing, numbers and nature of deliveries under reprocessing contracts are a commercial matter between BNFL and its customers.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many shipments of nuclear waste have entered the UK for processing and disposal since 1997; where each shipment originated from; and how much money was received for the taking in of each shipment. [74595]

  Mr. Wilson
  Details of the timing of deliveries to the UK of spent nuclear fuel from overseas in fulfilment of reprocessing contracts is an operational matter for the organisations concerned. The detailed contractual arrangements, including contract prices, are a commercial matter between the contracting parties.

  In respect of BNFL's contracts for THORP, it can be noted that details of the customer countries, the total amounts of spent fuel to he reprocessed and the overall value of the contracts was included in BNFL's July 1993 publication "the Economic and Commercial Justification for THORP", a copy of which is in the Libraries of the House. Since 1976 all BNFL's reprocessing contracts with overseas customers have included options for returning to the country of origin waste arising from reprocessing the fuel. It is the Government's policy that these options should be exercised.

  UKAEA no longer undertakes fuel reprocessing. There has been one delivery of irradiated fuel to Dounreay since 1997—a small quantity of fuel from Georgia received in April 1998 on behalf of the UK Government.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 23 July 2002, ref. 70369, what materials, and in what quantity, can be recovered and re-used from the material to be transported from Japan to Sellafield. [73701]

  Mr. Wilson
  I understand from BNFL that the fuel returned to the UK from Japan contains 3439 kilograms of uranium and 255 kilograms of plutonium and that all of the uranium and plutonium can be re-used.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the role of nuclear power in energy production over the next 50 years. [74362]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government is currently carrying out a review of future energy policy with a view to issuing a White Paper in the New Year. The review includes consideration of the role of nuclear power generation.
  680W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations her Department has received regarding market pressures constraining nuclear generator revenue. [71515]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has received several representations from a number of players, including nuclear generators, regarding the market pressures on nuclear generator revenue.

  Renewable Energy Generation
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to increase hydroelectric storage facilities to meet the increase in renewable energy generation. [74355]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK is relatively well endowed with hydroelectric storage, with plants at Dinorwig, Ffestiniog, Ben Cruachan and Foyers, and there are no plans to increase capacity. However, storage does have a role to play in facilitating the integration of renewable generation, and the Government is supporting the development of the Regenesys fuel cell based storage technology. Regenesys is a modular, flexible, storage technology and has considerable potential to support the integration of renewable energy.

  Social Landlords
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will exempt registered Social Landlords who are housing associations registered and regulated by the Housing Corporation under the Housing Act 1996 from proposals to extend administration provisions to industrial and provident societies. [73984]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Following detailed discussions with a range of interested parties, the Government tabled amendments to the Enterprise Bill at the Committee stage in the House of Lords to ensure that the Bill's provisions providing for the extension of administration to industrial and provident societies do not apply to registered social landlords under the Housing Act 1996, nor the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001.

  e-Government
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what involvement her Department had in evaluating the completed trials of publicly-accessed IT systems in Leicestershire post offices for their potential to help roll out e-Government; and if she will make a statement. [71410]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department chaired the Core Evaluation Team of Government departments and other stakeholders which evaluated the Leicestershire and Rutland pilot of post offices as Government General Practitioners(Your Guide). The evaluation report was published on 23 July (I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 23 July, Official Report column 947W.

  Beryllium
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what factors underlay the decision to license the export of beryllium to(a) India and (b) Iran in 2001. [74697]

  Nigel Griffiths
  All relevant export licence applications are rigorously assessed on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria and other previously announced Government policies. The consolidated criteria include a specific reference to the UK's international obligations and commitments that work to prevent the proliferation of both conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

  The Government's export licensing policy for Iran was set out in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central, to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth on 28 January 1998, Official Report, columns 273–274W.

  Since the publication of the 2001 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls it has come to light that the entry for Beryllium, licensed for export to India, was incorrectly reported. In any case, the application was refused.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the occasions on which a licence has been granted by the Government for the export of Beryllium since 2 May 1997, stating for each licence(a) the country to which export was granted and (b) the quantity of the export. [74389]

  Ms Hewitt
  The export of beryllium is controlled under entries ML8 of Part III, Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, and IC111, 1C230 and 6C004 of Annex 1 to Council Regulations (EC) No. 1334/2000.

  Details of all export licences issued are published by destination in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 Annual Reports are available from the Libraries of the House. Since the publication of the 2001 Annual Report it has come to light that the entry for beryllium, licensed for export to India, was incorrectly reported. The application was refused.

  Between 1 January 2002 and 17 September 2002 no Standard Individual Export Licence or Open Individual Export Licence was issued for the proposed export of beryllium.

  Information on the quantity of beryllium licensed for export is being withheld from disclosure under Part II, Exemptions 13 and 14 of the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Fuel Stocks
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many days' supply are available in the UK of(a) petrol, (b) diesel and (c) aviation fuel. [74437]

  Mr. Wilson
  At the end of July 2002, the UK had stocks equivalent to(a) 83 days' supply of petrol, (b) 51 days' supply of DERV (diesel engine road vehicle fuel), and (c) 46 days' supply òf ATF (aviation turbine fuel).
  682W
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate the Government have made of the levels of stocks of refined petroleum products required to meet(a) private consumer and industrial demand and (b) Government use in an orderly manner in the event of a crude price spike consequent upon a conflict in Iraq; and if she will make a statement. [74439]

  Mr. Wilson
  At 31 July 2002 the UK had stocks equivalent to 82½ days consumption of petroleum products, which is above the stock level of 67½ days worth of consumption of oil products that the UK is obliged to hold at any one time in accordance with EU legislation.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have taken place in the last three months with(a) the European Commission and (b) the lEA about a common approach to oil stocks and supply in the event of a conflict in Iraq; and if she will make a statement. [74438]

  Mr. Wilson
  The IEA Governing Board meets regularly to discuss oil stocks and oil emergency contingency plans.

  The European Commission presented its recent draft proposals regarding energy security, including oil stock requirements at the Energy Council on 4 October where I represented the UK Government.

  Firefighters (Strike)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what risk assessment has been made of the safety of(a) oil refineries, (b) chemical industry installations and (c) power stations should they continue to operate during a national firefighters' strike; and if she will make a statement. [74529]

  Mr. Wilson
  COMAH sites operated by Oil refiners and Chemical industry plus major Power Generators have conducted or are in the process of conducting safety risk assessments covering the potential firefighters strike.

  The Health and Safety Executive inform us that COMAH or Power Station sites regulated by HSE do not have a statutory duty for emergency services to be available during routine operation.

  Evidence from the Merseyside Fire Fighters strike a few years ago showed that operators were able to manage their business activities such that the lack of fire service cover did not compromise safety, and such that their business activities were not significantly compromised.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of(a) oil refining capacity and (b) oil product storage capacity would be protected from fire hazard by appliances operated by the industry in the event of a national firemen's strike; and what percentage would fail to meet safe operating standards in the event of such a strike. [74443]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK Petroleum Industry Association inform us that:

  a) All refineries have their own specialist fire fighting equipment and specialist fire fighting teams.

  683W

  b) All oil storage facilities have their own specialist fire fighting equipment and all operations personnel are trained in the techniques of fighting oil fires.

  The Health and Safety Executive inform us that:
  Those oil facilities that are COMAH top tier sites are required to prepare written safety reports which demonstrate the measures they have in place are all that are necessary to prevent major incidents and limit their consequences. COMAH sites regulated by HSE do not have a statutory duty for emergency services to be available during routine operation.

  Consultancies
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list external(a) public relations/communications companies, (b) advertising and marketing companies, (c) management consultancies, (d) accountancy companies, (e) banking firms, (f) individual consultants and (g) other specialist consultancies used by her Department since June 2001; what actions those consultancies/companies have performed within her Department; arid what costs have been incurred through use of these consultancies/ companies. [74676]

  Ms Hewitt
  This information is not readily available and could only be collected at disproportionate cost.

  Sub-Post Offices, Huntingdon
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which sub-Post Office branches in the Huntingdon constituency will have cash machines installed by April 2003. [74220]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters that fall within the day to day responsibility of Post Office Limited and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon Member.

  Mineworkers' Pension Funds
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 22 July,Official Report, column 775W, on mineworkers' pension funds; if she will made a statement on the timetable for completion of the review. [73797]

  Mr. Wilson
  Discussions are continuing with the trustees of the Mineworkers Pension Scheme and the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme to review the arrangements for the government's guarantee of member's basic pension benefits. That guarantee has served the schemes well, providing the security to enable the trustees to pursue a very positive investment strategy, both generating significant benefits for scheme members and protecting those gains in less favourable circumstances.

  A number of improvements to the Schemes that will benefit their members have already been agreed.

  On the central question of the way in which Government is compensated for the guarantee it has been agreed that further discussions should now concentrate on whether there may be any different methods of paying for the guarantee and other ways of guaranteeing bonuses where those different methods might offer advantages to Scheme members and do not represent a significant extra burden on the taxpayer.
  684W
  Discussions of those issues will include some detailed technical issues and will require advice from actuarial experts. It is hoped it will be possible to conclude these discussions in the next twelve months.

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which post offices Consignia is planning to close in the Taunton constituency; and if she will make a statement. [74088]

  Mr. Timms
  The programme to restructure the urban post office network has not yet started and I am advised by Post Office Limited that, until it does, there are no specific plans for post office closures in the Taunton constituency. When the programme starts it will be taken forward in consultation with individual subpostmasters, the community, local stakeholders and Postwatch.

  The objective of the urban network restructuring programme is to ensure that subpostmasters have the opportunity to build a viable business as well as to provide modernised and improved facilities which meet customers' needs and expectations and are in the right location for the local community.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her latest estimate is of the number of post offices and sub post offices that are likely to close over the next three years; and if she will make a statement. [74494]

  Mr. Timms
  Post Office Ltd will take forward an urban network restructuring programme whose objective will be to ensure that subpostmasters have the opportunity to build a viable business as well as to provide modernised and improved facilities which meet customers' needs and expectations and are in the right location for the local community. The programme will involve a significant number of urban post office closures over the next three years, but it is not yet known precisely how many. In rural areas, the Government has committed that there should be no avoidable post office closures before at least 2006. There has been a sharp fall in the number of rural closures.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on how many sub post offices have closed in(a) gross and (b) net terms in each month since 1997. [74590]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since 1997 net annual figures for post office closures are:

  March 1997

  163

  March 1998

  243

  March 1999

  233

  March 2000

  382

  March 2001

  547

  March 2002

  262

  I understand from Post Office Limited that gross closure figures have only been available on a quarterly basis from September 2000 and neither gross nor net closure figures are available on a monthly basis.

  Gas
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what policies she has to meet the estimated demand for gas from 2005 onwards. [74357]

  Mr. Wilson
  After 2005, as now, I expect gas to be supplied to the UK market by private companies operating in a competitive market. Government's role is to work with industry through PILOT to maximise the economic benefit to the UK of its own oil and gas resources, and with the Governments of exporting countries to set a political framework to facilitate commercial agreements between companies in the UK and in other countries. Energy security is central to energy policy and will be addressed in the forthcoming Energy White Paper.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when the EU Advisory Committee on state aid for the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty to certain categories of horizontal state aid (exemption) is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement;[67748]

  (2) when the EU Advisory Committee on state aid on the arrangements for applying Article 93 of the EC Treaty (procedure) is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive (a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [67736]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Advisory Committee on categories of horizontal state aid last met on 24 July. Neither committee is currently due to meet. The UK is normally represented at these committees by officials from my Department.

  The Scottish Executive is regularly consulted on, and is fully involved in discussions, at official and Ministerial level, with the Department on the formulation of EU policy which touch on matters which fall within the responsibilities of the Scottish Executive.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee for the implementation of the Multiannual Community Programme to Stimulate the Establishment of the Information Society in Europe is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) a remembers of it; and if she will make a statement. [68550]

  Ms Hewitt
  No date has been fixed for the next meeting of this EU Committee. As the programme concludes at the end of 2002, one further meeting is expected in the second half of the year.

  The UK is represented by a single DTI official. The Scottish Executive is regularly consulted on, and is fully involved in discussions, at official and Ministerial level, with the Department on the formulation of EU policy which touch on matters which fall within the responsibilities of the Scottish Executive.
  686W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee for the implementation of projects, actions and measures for the interoperability of trans-European networks for the interchange of data between administrations is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [64903]

  Ms Hewitt
  The correct title of the Committee is the Telematics between Administrations Committee (TAC). It is next due to meet on 3 December 2002. The UK is usually represented by an official from the Office of the e-Envoy, within the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office delegate to this committee represents all of the UK.

  The Scottish Executive is regularly consulted on, and is fully involved in discussions, at official and Ministerial level, with the Department on the formulation of EU policy which touch on matters which fall within the responsibilities of the Scottish Executive.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee on the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on promotion of innovation and participation of SMEs is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive have been members of it; and if she will make a statement. [64915]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Committee on the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on the promotion of innovation and participation of SMEs, which was established under the EU's Fifth Framework Programme (1999–2002), is next due to meet on 17 October 2002. Officials from the Office of Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry provide the UK representation. Representatives of the Scottish Executive have not been members of this committee.

  The Scottish Executive is regularly consulted on formulation and implementation of EU research and development policy that touches on matters which fall within the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.

  Iraq
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much grant was paid to subsidise the retail cost of the report of an Inquiry into the export of defence equipment and dual-use goods to Iraq and related prosecutions. [68887]

  Nigel Griffiths
  In 1995 the DTI paid a subsidy of £80,100 towards the retail cost of the Scott Report.

  Temporary Staff
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employees under contract from temping agencies worked in her Department; and how much was spent on temporary staff(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the total staffing budget in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [72636]
  687W
  Ms Hewitt
  The Department and its agencies do not keep full records of temporary agency staff. Temps work for varied periods ranging from hours to months.

  We do not keep information on the overall spend on temporary agency staff.

  General Agreement on Trade In Services
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research projects being carried out by the World Bank on assessing the impact of liberalisation on developing countries achieved through GATS negotiations are being supported by her Department. [72058]

  Ms Hewitt
  None. However the Department for International Development has been funding the World Bank Research Programme on Trade in Services since 1997 and is due to continue doing so until 2004. This programme aims to generate and draw together data and research on the impact of services liberalisation, with a view to improving services trade policy formulation and facilitating the services negotiations at the WTO. One of the central components of the programme is the creation of a database on measures affecting trade in services. The programme also includes a number of policy research projects, the results of which are available on the World Bank website (http://wwwl.worldbank.org/wbiep/trade/services.html#overview).

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received against the inclusion of water services in GATS; and if she will make a statement. [72187]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 23 July 2002]Over the past months, the Government has received a number of representations from Members, organisations and members of the public against the inclusion of water services in the GATS on the grounds that this would lead to forced privatisation and deregulation of these services, to the detriment of the poor.

  The Government understands these concerns, but does not believe that the GATS will lead to such outcomes. The GATS is a bottom-up agreement, meaning that individual WTO Members decide for themselves whether, to what extent, and when to open up services where they think this will be beneficial. To date, no WTO Member has made a GATS commitment relating to pure drinking water (although some commitments have been made in relation to waste water treatment).

  The European Community believes that improvements in the supply of water, which are needed in many poorer developing countries, can be achieved by involving the private sector in partnership with governments, given limits on public funding. One of the key outcomes from the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development was a new global target to halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation, in support of the Millennium Development Goal to halve the proportion of people without access to clean water. The EC sees the GATS as a logical complement to these commitments.
  688W
  It may be that some WTO Members will decide that it is in their interest to involved the private sector in the funding and/or provision of their water services in order to increase investment and relieve over-stretched resources. They may also decide to open this sector to foreign companies. The aim of GATS commitments would be to ensure that such access is offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms.

  Should WTO Members choose to liberalise in this way, nothing in the GATS can prevent them from regulating to ensure that prices charged are affordable, or to secure other universal service obligations. Nor can the Agreement pressure them into a specific public or private service delivery model. Moreover, the EC's requests purposefully highlight the importance of liberalisation being underpinned by domestic regulatory framework designed to ensure the achievement of public policy objectives.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to call for a comprehensive review by the WTO of the impact of increased service liberalisation, especially on water services, before implementing GATS; and if she will make a statement. [72190]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 23 July 2002]The Government has said on previous occasions that we fully support an impact assessment of the liberalisation of trade in services. WTO Members have already agreed to make this an on-going aspect of the current GATS negotiations at the WTO, and through the European Community we are participating actively in discussion on this issue in WTO Council for Trade in Services. We are also funding research by the World Bank that aims to generate and draw together data and research on the impact of services liberalisation in a wide range of countries, with a view to improving services trade policy formulation and facilitating the current negotiations.

  As regards implementation of GATS commitments in the UK, we will shortly consult fully on the requests being made of us in order to assess the potential impact of responding to these requests.

  Organisational Remits (South-East)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which areas of responsibility held by(a) South East England Regional Assembly and (b) Surrey Learning and Skills Council fall within her Department's areas of activity; what their key functions are; from where they draw funding; what their total annual budget is; and what assessment she has made of the value for money they deliver in those areas covered by her Department. [73378]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State has responsibility for the 8 English Chambers outside London, including the South East. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Department for Education and Skills has responsibility for the Local Learning And Skills Councils.
  689W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the remit is of(a) Business Link Surrey, (b) an Enterprise Hub,(c) Manufacturers' Advisory Service South East, (d) a Regional Centre for Manufacturing Excellence, (e) the Small Business Service, (f) South East England Development Agency, (g) South East Framework for Regional Employment & Skills Action, (h) Surrey Economic Partnership, (i) Workforce Development Group, (j) Surrey Sustainable Business Partnership and (k) Surrey Training and Enterprise Council; what their key functions are; from where they draw funding; what their total annual budgets are; and what assessment she has made of the value for money they deliver. [73377]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action has been taken against employers in Portsmouth, South who have failed to pay the national minimum wage; and if she will make a statement. [73872]

  Alan Johnson
  The Inland Revenue enforces the national minimum wage on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry. National minimum wage data is not disaggregated to constituency level. However, Portsmouth South falls into the Inland Revenue's South East region where, for the year ended 31 March 2002, 119 employers were found not to be paying the minimum wage and £289,722 in wages arrears was identified on behalf of more than 1,150 workers.

  Post Office Artifacts
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with the Post Office on its artifacts collection; and if she will make a statement. [73340]

  Mr. Timms
  This is an issue for Consignia plc. No discussions have taken place.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Post Office has indicated to her Department that it will make its collection of historic artifacts previously displayed in the National Postal Museum available to view by the public; and if she will make a statement. [73339]

  Mr. Timms
  This is an issue for Consignia plc. However, I understand from the company that the historical records of The Post Office, from the 17th century to the 20th are open to the public at Freeling House at Mount Pleasant in London on weekdays. The philatelic material previously at the National Postal Museum is also stored there and most of it may be viewed by prior appointment. I am also advised by the company that it is actively developing plans that would enable improved access to the stored historical artefacts formerly in the Museum.

  Post Office Museum
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has held 690W
  with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport regarding the future of the Post Office Museum; and if she will make a statement. [73393]

  Mr. Timms
  This is an issue for Consignia plc. No discussions have taken place.

  Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former miners from the north Somerset coalfield have(a) applied for and (b) received compensation awards. [73426]

  Mr. Wilson
  The table attached shows the number of offers and payments made for vibration white finger (VWF) and respiratory disease (COPD) in the constituencies of Somerton and Frome and Wansdyke.

  VWF

  COPD

  Claims registered

  10

  287

  Full & Final Settlements (inc. Denied/ Withdrawn)

  4

  65

  Value of Full & Final Settlements

  £3,113

  £409,638

  Offers outstanding

  3

  57

  Value of outstanding offers

  £8,646

  £320,149

  Interim Payments made

  0

  110

  Value of Interim Payments

  0

  £593,835

  Note:

  The Wansdyke and Somerton & Frome constituencies were defined using postcodes beginning as follows: BA2–4, BA8, BA11, BA22, BS14–15, BS30–31, BS39–40, and TA11

  Post Office Services
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which directives of the European Commission have come into effect since July 2000 reducing reserved areas, or price monopoly, of the Royal Mail and Post Office services; what consent was given by ministers at the relevant ministerial councils; and what reports were made to Parliament relating to them. [74116]

  Mr. Timms
  The European Postal Directive 2002/39/ EC came into effect on 5 July 2002. The effect of the Directive is to reduce the upper weight/price limit, of that part of the postal market that member states may reserve to national universal service providers where necessary to maintain the universal service, from the current limit of 350 grams/5 times the basic weight first class tariff to 100g/ 3 times the basic weight first class tariff from 1 January 2003 and to 50g/ 2.5 times the basic weight first class tariff from 1 January 2006. The Directive was scrutinised and cleared by the European Committees of both Houses. The UK supported the adoption of this Directive in the Council.

  Post Office Subsidiaries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the wholly owned subsidiaries of the Post Office in(a) France, (b) Germany, (c) Austria, (d) the Netherlands, (e) Denmark and (f) Ireland and those partially owned but controlled in Sweden and the (i) cumulative losses or profits from each over the period of such holdings in these enterprises and (ii) total contributions they made to Her Majesty's Treasury. [74115]
  691W
  Mr. Timms
  The wholly owned subsidiaries of Consignia plc are as follows:

  a) France: Consignia France, Courier Services, Direct Express, IS Transport, General Logistics Systems France, Extand, Extand Finanzas, Extand Normandie, Extand Relais and Extand Sistema

  b)Germany: Consignia Deutschland, Consignia Holdings GmbH. Consignia Systems, German Parcel Beteiligungs GmbH. German Parcel EDV Handels und Vermietungs GmbH, German Parcel Paket-Logistik Depot 50 GmbH, German Parcel Paket-Logistik GmbH & Co. OHG, German Parcel Paket-Transport GmbH per cent. Co. OHG, Goliath 47 Beitlungs und Verwaltungs GmbH, Der Kurier, Der Kurier Beteiligungs, Deutscher Paket Dienst Dachser and Overnight Service

  c) Austria: General Parcel Austria

  d) the Netherlands: General Logistic Systems International Holdings, R M (Netherlands) 1, Distributiecentra Nederland, NPD Holding, Nederland Pakket Dienst, NPD Services and Extand Hollande

  e) Denmark: FDS Financial Distribution, Pakke Trans, Pakke Trans Anlaeg Aps and Staffetten

  f) Ireland: General Parcel (Ireland) Ltd, Williames Ltd, Williames Air Freight (I) Ltd, Williames Cargo Systems Ltd, Williames Logistics Ltd, Fitzhan, Vicom Logistix Limited, General Parcel Aer and Information Solution (Ireland)

  g) Sweden: Pakke Trans (Sweden), FDS Financial Distribution and AB Grundstenen 87274

  The performance of these acquisitions is commercially confidential and therefore cannot be detailed here.

  Prizes (Phone Calls)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will introduce legislation to regulate the activities of companies offering cash and other prizes which can be claimed only by expensive phone calls of several minutes' duration; and if she will make a statement. [74464]

  Mr. Timms
  The activities of such companies are already regulated, by the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS), and must abide by the Code of Practice drawn up and enforced by ICSTIS. If companies breach this Code, for example by unreasonably prolonging their services, they can be fined or even banned from providing services altogether.

  Pulpwood Industry
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effect that recycling has had on the pulpwood industry over the last five years. [74571]

  Mr. Wilson
  The amount of recycled fibre used in the pulpwood industry in recent years has increased significantly and as a result the demand for virgin pulp has remained fairly static even though demand for paper has increased significantly.

  In 1983 UK paper mills used 1.8 million tonnes of recovered fibre, rising to 4.3 million tonnes in 1996 and peaking at 4.9 million tonnes in 2000. In 2001 the 87 pulp, paper and board mills in the UK used 4.6 million tonnes of recovered fibre in producing 6.2 million tonnes of paper giving a 74 per cent. utilization rate for recovered fibre, the highest level in the EU after Spain. The growth in the use of recovered fibre has generally mirrored growth in production
  692W
  tonnages, whereas the amount of primary UK produced pulp and imported pulp used in the production of paper has remained relatively static since 1990 with between 0.5–0.6 million tonnes of UK produced pulp and between 1.6–1.7 million tonnes of imported pulp being used annually.

  A voluntary agreement by the Newspaper Publishers Association to increase the recycled content of newsprint to 60 per cent. by 2001 was achieved ahead of schedule. An average 63.5 per cent. recycled content was obtained. This coupled with the targets defined in the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulations 1997 (Amendment) has significantly contributed to the leading UK position. These regulations facilitated an investment of £73 million into the paper industry between 1999–2001 from the sale of Packaging Waste Recovery Notes (PRNs) and Packaging Export Recovery Notes (PERNs).

  Nuclear Energy
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has for the development of nuclear energy. [74079]

  Mr. Wilson
  Nuclear Power currently provides about a quarter of UK's electricity supplies. Existing stations are expected to continue to contribute to the country's energy requirements and to helping limit carbon emissions provided they do so to the high safety and environmental standards currently observed.

  The current energy policy consultation is considering the future role of all generation sources, including nuclear power, in delivering a future energy policy. Submissions have been requested by 13 September and we intend to issue a White Paper around the turn of the year.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans she has for speeding up safety checks on nuclear reactors; [74080]

  (2) what plans she has to reform the system of licensing new nuclear reactors; and if she will make a statement. [74078]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have no such plans. The day-to-day regulation of nuclear safety is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.

  Construction Materials
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the sustainable certification of the construction materials(a) stone, (b) steel and (c) timber. [74605]

  Mr. Wilson
  The sustainability of the built environment and the materials from which it is constructed is a key component of our Rethinking Construction strategy for the construction industry. The sustainable use of materials is dependent on a wide range of factors such as embodied energy, renewability, manufacturing process emissions, designed use, social costs, recycling, reuse and end of life disposal.
  693W
  Product sustainability certification is in its infancy, both within the UK and internationally. We are working closely with our European partners to produce sensible international standards on a whole-life costing basis.

  Within the UK we have sponsored the Building Research Establishment to develop tools to quantify the environmental performance of products and processes. The result has been the introduction of the Ecopoint system that offers a basis for comparative assessment of building products and processes. This system is now being used to evaluate individual products to offer a clear, understandable indicator for product sustainability that can be applied to the fully breadth of products used in the construction industry.

  Steel
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to prevent imports of steel from Eastern European countries which are produced in inefficient plants with highly pollutant side effects. [745991

  Mr. Wilson
  A number of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures are in force against several steel products from various Eastern European countries. In addition, definitive safeguard measures introduced by the EU to guard against trade diversion as a result of the US safeguard measure announced in March include products from Eastern Europe. The EU also has agreements with Russia and Ukraine applying quantitative restrictions to imports of certain steel products from these countries.

  These measures have been taken to protect EU industry from unfair trade practices that harm EU industries or, in the case of the safeguard measure, to prevent a damaging surge of imports into the EU. Neither EU commercial policy instruments nor WTO agreements contain provisions providing for environmental factors to be taken into account when restricting imports.

  Stone Imports
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she takes to ensure that the country of origin of stone imports is known. [74600]

  Mr. Wilson
  Stone, being a heavy product incurs high transportation costs and has little import penetration within the UK. Most stone used in the UK travels less than thirty miles from its point of extraction to its point of use and less than 2 per cent. is imported. Over half those imports are from within the EU, subject to EU regulation and freedom of movement within the economic area. Stone forms a very small part of the goods and products imported to the UK and it would not be cost effective to monitor their origins. We do, however keep close contact with stone industry trade associations and discuss issues including imports.

  Rethinking Construction Demonstration Projects
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on each of the 694W
  sponsored projects put forward by each Government department as rethinking construction demonstration projects. [7460]

  Mr. Wilson
  The following Rethinking Construction demonstration projects have substantially been funded and procured by Central Government departments and agencies. It excludes those being taken forward by the devolved administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Project 4: New Environment Agency Facility Building

  Project 5: Kingston Hospital NHS Trust—New Ward Block

  Project 24: North East Combined Capital Works

  Project 26: Lincshore—sea defence

  Project 29: Covered Ways 12 & 58–London Underground structural work

  Project 28: M60 Manchester Outer Ring Road, Denton—Middleton

  Project 33: Building Down Barriers

  Project 52: Queen Elizabeth Hospital

  Project 55: Earth Structure project—Work on London Underground structures

  Project 83: Calderdale Healthcare PFI

  Project 124: Princess Margaret Hospital Relocation

  Project 126: Area 21 Highways Agency—Maintenance of network in North London

  Project 147: RAF Kinloss Nimrod MRA4 Station

  Project 167: 9 Dock Project—Trident submarine refuelling and refining facility.

  Project 219: Greater London Authority Headquarters

  Project 267: HMP Prefabrication and Pre-Assembly

  Project 330: Lower Tone Flood Defence Improvements Scheme

  Project 349: M62 Junction and Widening Jcts 8–9

  Further information on any of the above demonstration projects is available from the Movement for Innovation section of the Rethinking Construction website at: www.m4i.org.uk/m4i/projects/projects.asp

  International Accounting Standards
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received on the European Regulation on International Accounting Standards. [73771]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  On 2 September I published a consultation document on the options for extending the application of the European Regulation on International Accounting Standards. The closing date for comments is 26 November 2002. After the consultation I will publish a summary of the responses to the consultation.

  Venture Capital
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on Government policies to encourage venture capital in the UK. [73832]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government recognises the importance of venture capital as a source of finance for business and we have aimed to create an economic climate in which the venture capital industry can flourish. As well as providing tax incentives to encourage more individuals to invest in venture capital, we have commissioned the Myners Study to examine how it might be possible to encourage more institutional investment.

  We have worked closely with representatives of the venture capital industry to develop programmes like the UK High Technology Fund, Regional Venture Capital Funds and the Community Development Venture Fund. In each of these the Government, by making a core investment, has successfully levered in significant private sector finance. This is the first time that a Government of this country has directly invested in venture capital funds with the aim of improving small and medium-sized enterprises' (SMEs) access to finance.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on small business growth in the last 12 months. [73962]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The latest (National Statistics) 2001 SME Statistics shows the following differences from the 2000 estimates, for the UK as a whole.

  There were nearly 24,000 more businesses in 2001.

  Employment was nearly 0.5 million higher.

  Turnover was about £78 billion higher in 2001 than 2000.

  Over 99.5 per cent. of the increase in business numbers occurred in the SME category (0 to 249 employees). SMEs also accounted for 70 per cent. of the increase in employment and about 57 per cent. of the turnover increase.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the rate of(a) small business and (b) venture capital growth has been over the past five years, broken down by region. [73833]

  Nigel Griffiths
  (a) Using SME Statistics and VAT Registrations and De-registrations data the following trends are apparent for the period 1997–2001.

  For the UK as a whole there were about 3.71 million small businesses (0 to 49 employees) in 2001. This was an increase of about 36,000 on the 1997 estimates. A more detailed look at the figures shows that this has actually occurred despite a big decrease of about 50,000 from 1997 to 1998. There has been an annual increase of at least 20,000 businesses every year since 1998.

  Regional SME statistics are not available for 2000 or 2001. In the period 1997–1999 only London saw an increase in the number of small businesses (approximately 98,500 more).
  696W
  In 2001 there were about 7,000 (4 per cent.) less VAT registrations than in 1997 (UK level). The number of VAT de-registrations in the UK also fell by about 1,700 (1 per cent.).

  All regions except West Midlands region saw fewer registrations in 2001 than in 1997. All except Eastern and London regions had fewer de-registrations in 2001 than in 1997.

  (b) For the UK as a whole 17 per cent. more companies received investment in 2001 than in 1997. The amount of investment in 2001 was 55 per cent. higher than in 1997. However, there was a 25 per cent. decrease in the amount invested from 2000 to 2001, but more companies received this money.

  In the 1997–2001 period 5 English regions (Yorkshire & Humber, Eastern, London, South East and South West) have seen an increase in the number of companies receiving investment. Northern Ireland also saw this trend.

  6 English regions (all except North West, Yorkshire & Humber and West Midlands) saw an increase in the amount of investment over the period. This was also the case in Scotland.

  London saw the biggest changes over the period. From 1997 to 2001 there were 84 per cent. more companies invested in and a 160 per cent. increase in the amount invested.

  Auditing and Accounting
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress the joint DTI-Treasury chaired group has made on the(a) analysis and (b) response to the auditing and accounting issues raised by recent corporate failures. [73737]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Co-ordinating Group on Audit and Accounting Issues published an Interim Report on 24 July. Copies of the Report were placed in the Libraries of the House.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, welcomed the report in a Statement on the same day. In response to a recommendation in the Interim Report, she announced that there would be an immediate review of the regulation of the audit and accountancy professions in the UK. The Terms of Reference for that Review have now been published and are as set out below:
  To review the current arrangements for the regulation of the accountancy and audit professions; to consider whether revised arrangements and structures are necessary to provide assurance to the public that these are effective; and, if so, to recommend what form they should take.

  In particular, the review should look at:
  the regulatory functions that are necessary in the public interest, and how they should be carried out, including desirable simplification
  the balance between professional self regulation and independent regulation in carrying out these functions; and the extent to which these should be on a statutory basis
  the case for taking a different approach to the regulation of the accountancy profession in general and to the regulation of auditors in particular

  697W
  the funding arrangements and in particular whether these are consistent with the concept of independent regulation
  the responsibilities and accountabilities of the various bodies, including the process of making appointments
  In considering these issues, the review should also have regard to:
  the principles of good regulation established by the Better Regulation Task Force
  international developments, especially in the United States and the European Union
  the requirements of the 8 EU Company Law Directive and the Companies Act 1989 on the regulation of auditors
  the relationship between these arrangements and the work of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) and its subsidiary bodies, and the responsibilities of the Financial Services Authority in relation to listed companies.
  the other work being carried out following the interim report by the Coordinating Group on Accounting and Audit, and the Secretary of State's Statement to Parliament of 24 July 2002.

  The review should report by January 2003.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when(a) she and (b) the Minister for Energy have (i) met and (ii) spoken to (A) the Chairman and (B) the directors of (1) British Energy and (2) British Nuclear Fuels Limited since 1 June 2001; and what the nature of each discussion was. [74369]

  Ms Hewitt
  Ministers and Officials from my Department have had regular discussions on a wide range of issues with the Chairman and directors of British Energy and British Nuclear Fuels Limited.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the(a) dates and (b) purpose of meetings and (ii) discussions ministers in her Department have had with the European commissioners for (A) Transport and Energy, (B) Competition, (C) Enterprise and Information Society, (D) Internal Market, (E) Taxation and Customs Union, (F) Economic and Monetary Affairs, (G) Trade, (H) Health and Consumer Protection, (I) Education and Culture and (J) Employment and Social Affairs since June 2001. [74381]

  Ms Hewitt
  Ministers undertake bilateral meetings with any EU Commissioners as and when appropriate. No one central record is kept of Ministerial meetings with each individual EU Commissioner and to provide such detailed information would entail disproportionate costs.

  Data Collation
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the form in which(a) questions and (b) comments from third parties made to her Department by (i) telephone,(ii)e-mail, (iii) fax, (iv) letter and (v) other means are collated. [74388]

  Ms Hewitt
  Questions and comments from third parties received by my Department in writing—by e-mail, fax or letter—are kept on file by the directorate to which the correspondence is relevant. Replies, where applicable, to that correspondence are filed with it.
  698W
  Unless of an ephemeral nature, verbal enquiries or comments, by telephone or otherwise, are noted for the record and similarly filed. Where possible third parties are encouraged to put substantive comments and queries in writing to the Department.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the licences agreed by her Department since 2 May 1997 for the export of material to(a) Iran and (b) India, stating for each licence (i) what it was for and (ii) what checks were made to establish whether it could be used for arms production. [74393]

  Ms Hewitt
  Leaving aside concerns over confidentiality, it would entail disproportionate cost to provide details of all export licences issued to Iran and India since 2 May 1997, together with information on what the proposed export was for and what checks were made to establish whether it could be used for arms production.

  Details of all export licences issued are published by destination in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 Annual Reports are available from the Libraries of the House.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the publications produced by her Department since 25 February, stating for each the(a) number of copies produced and (b) cost of production. [74754]

  Ms Hewitt
  A list of those DTI publications produced since 25 February 2002 which have been notified to my Department's Publications Unit has been placed in the Libraries of the House. For publications produced prior to this date I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 25 February 2002,Official Report, columns 849–850W. The listing includes the total cost incurred by the Department in publishing, preparation and production of each publication (where notified centrally), and excludes publications produced for internal use.

  Information on the number of copies produced is not held centrally by the Publications Unit and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Lost Post
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask 1 he Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what percentage of(a) first and (b) second class letters and packages were lost in each of the last five years. [74394]

  Ms Hewitt
  These are matters that fall within the day to day responsibility of Consignia Limited and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Broadband Market
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the
  699W
  Government's progress towards the target of the United Kingdom having the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. [74387]

  Ms Hewitt
  In the UK Online Annual Report (November, 2001), it was announced that the UK was fourth in the G7 in terms of competitiveness, ahead of the other European members of the G7, and fifth in terms of extensiveness. We will publish updated figures later this year.

  Advisers and Consultants
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the advisers or consultants retained by her Department since 1 June 2001, stating for each adviser or consultant (i) the purpose, (ii) the length and (iii) the cost of their retention. [74589]

  Table 1. Trade union membership and density for employees1, UK

  Private sector thousands

  per cent.

  Public sector thousands

  per cent.

  Total thousands

  per cent.

  1997

  3426

  19.7

  3670

  61.0

  7096

  30.4

  1998

  3462

  19.3

  3677

  61.0

  7139

  29.9

  1999

  3496

  19.2

  3708

  59.9

  7204

  29.6

  2000

  3448

  18.7

  3835

  60.2

  7283

  29.5

  2001

  3460

  18.6

  3786

  59.3

  7246

  29.1

  Note:

  1 Includes all employees, excluding members of the armed forces. These data do not include the self-employed, unpaid family workers and those on government training schemes.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, Autumn quarters from 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

  Table 2. Trade union membership and density for all in employment1, UK

  Private sector thousands

  per cent.

  Public sector thousands

  per cent.

  Total thousands

  per cent.

  1997

  3701

  17.7

  3671

  60.8

  7372

  27.4

  1998

  3717

  17.5

  3679

  60.8

  7396

  27.1

  1999

  3789

  17.6

  3709

  59.8

  7498

  27.1

  2000

  3746

  17.3

  3834

  60.0

  7580

  27.1

  2001

  3762

  17.2

  3788

  59.2

  7550

  26.8

  Note:

  1 Includes all those in employment, excluding members of the armed forces, unpaid family workers, and those on college based schemes. These data include the self-employed and those on government training schemes not based at a college.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, Autumn quarters from 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

  Ofgem
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on discussions between her Department and Ofgem since 1 August. [74383]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Ministerial colleagues, Departmental Officials and I have regular discussions with the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets on a range of issues.

  Consignia
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the financial results of Consignia in each of the last five years. [74384]
  700W
  Ms Hewitt
  This information is not readily available centrally and could only be collected at disproportionate cost.

  Unionised Workers
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of(a) the number and (b) the percentage of unionised workers in the (i) private sector, (ii) public sector and (iii) in total in each year since 1997. [74407]

  Ms Hewitt
  The number and percentage of unionised workers in (i) the private sector, (ii) the public sector and (iii) in total in each year from 1997 are summarised in the tables below. Table 1 refers to employees only and table 2 to all in employment, which includes the self-employed. Both tables exclude the armed forces and the "all in employment" figures also exclude unpaid family workers and those on college based schemes.

  Mr. Timms
  The post tax profit/(loss), including exceptional items, for each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Outturn £million

  2001–2002

  (940)

  2000–2001

  49

  1999–2000

  (264)

  1997–1998

  447

  701W
  The recent poor performance of the company, is the result of deep-seated problems that have not been addressed over a number of years. Government has now put in place steps for this to be remedied. These include
  702W
  the appointment of new board members and making available the £1.8 billion of accumulated reserves, which will back much needed investment in the mails business and Post Office Limited.

TRANSPORT

  Cycling
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what progress has been made towards meeting the Government's target of increasing the proportion of journeys made by bicycle. [71423]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have an extensive programme of action to support and promote cycling. As part of their Local Transport Plans, local authorities are now expected to develop and deliver local cycling strategies. These strategies are currently being audited by the National Cycling Strategy Board for England, with help from a new team of experts based in the regions. We have also recently announced the first tranche of awards from the new national Cycling Projects Fund, from which we are supporting 138 projects at a cost of £2.18 million.

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what plans he has to introduce free off-peak travel for pensioners on public transport. [71424]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Under the Transport Act 2000, our standard minimum requirement for concessionary travel in England ensures half fares for pensioners and disabled people on local buses, with a free pass. Local authorities may make more generous provision, including free travel, at their discretion. From 1 April 2003 men aged 60 and over will benefit from existing schemes.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance the Government are giving to local authorities in respect of Freedom travel passes for blind people who are not of retirement age; and if he will make a statement. [74287]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Transport Act 2000 (and the GLA Act 1999 as amended by the Transport Act) provides for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance to local authorities, including the London Boroughs, which they must take into account when deciding whether someone is eligible for concessionary travel under the disability criteria. Blind or partially-sighted persons are listed in guidance issued last year as one of the seven eligible categories of disabled persons. The guidance can be viewed at www.dft.gov.uk/itwp/consult/cf/disabled/ index.htm.

  The Transport Act 2000 provides for a statutory minimum 50 per cent. discount on local bus services for elderly and disabled people in England and Wales. Many local authorities, including those in London, choose to offer better schemes and under the Act are still free to do so.

  In London, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (GLA 1999) requires the 33 London local authorities to agree arrangements for concessionary travel for their elderly and disabled residents with Transport for London annually. This scheme is known as the Freedom Pass. It provides free travel on buses, tube and rail services for all blind people meeting the disability criteria in the statutory guidance.

  Trans-Pennine Rail Links
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the need for improved trans-Pennine rail links. [71425]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan sets out proposals for improved services for both passengers and freight.

  Rail Infrastructure
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what progress he is making on improving the rail network on the North of England. [71426]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan sets out investment priorities for the network—including the North of England—and identifies how the Authority expects the key targets in our 10-Year Transport Plan to be delivered.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when railway tracks and signals will be upgraded to allow Virgin to operate its tilting train. [73853]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's proposed strategy for the West Coast Main Line would provide for the first major stage of renewal and upgrade work on the line to be completed by September 2004, when the new Pendolino trains will be able to operate at 125mph using their tilting abilities.

  Rolling Stock
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he expects the new rolling stock on the Hastings to Charing Cross line to be fully operational; and what account he has taken in the 10-year plan of the need to upgrade the line to facilitate this. [71427]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Connex has ordered 618 new vehicles of which 84 are now available for passenger service or driver training. Further vehicles are expected to enter service this year. The 10-year plan provides for investment in new rolling stock and infrastructure to achieve our targets for performance quality and growth.

  Trams
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a statement on funding of trams in Greater Manchester. [71428]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government approved in principle funding for a package of three extensions to Manchester Metrolink two years ago. Tenders have now come in at prices that are significantly above forecasts. We are therefore considering whether the project is still affordable and will reach a view as soon as possible.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority regarding high-speed rail lines to the North of England and Scotland. [71431]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The Strategic Rail Authority's study into the need for and viability of a high speed line running between London and the North of England and
  705W
  Scotland is due to be completed later this year. The Authority will report the findings to Ministers at that time.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what measures the Government are taking to improve train punctuality. [71432]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have made it a priority objective for the Strategic Rail Authority to work with the rail industry to achieve substantial and lasting improvements in performance. They are doing so.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what changes to the rail network he plans. [71433]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Plan, published by the Strategic Rail Authority in January 2002, sets out a series of projects and timescales which, if met, will deliver the targets set out in the Government's 10 Year Plan for transport.

  Phil Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a statement on passenger rail services to Corby. [71439]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Under their franchise agreement Midland Mainline provide a bus shuttle service between Corby and Kettering Station to connect with train services. Initial studies have indicated that a rail service would require considerable continuing financial support. I understand that Catalyst Corby (the urban Regeneration Company for the area) is working towards a bid for Rail Passenger Partnership funds from the Strategic Rail Authority.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what progress has been made over the past three years in increasing the public use of rail services. [71442]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Usage of the railways, measured in passenger kilometres, has increased by nearly 8 per cent. over the past three years, from 36.3 billion in 1998/99 to 39.1 billion in 2001/02.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a statement on investment in respect of the Norwich to Liverpool Street railway line. [71436]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is creating a new "Greater Anglia" franchise, through which it will consider ways of improving performance and replacing rolling stock on the Norwich-London route. The infrastructure on the route is currently affected by a backlog of renewal work and the SRA is considering options for addressing this.

  Bus Services
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a statement on the progress of bus quality partnerships. [71434]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Quality bus partnerships are helping to attract more people to public transport by improving the quality of local bus services. A survey undertaken for my Department recorded that 134 voluntary quality bus partnership agreements were in place in England 706W
  and Wales in 2001. Some authorities are actively considering statutory quality bus partnership schemes as part of their bus strategies.

  Transport Links
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what action he is taking to improve transport links between England and Scotland. [71435]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The majority of transport functions have been devolved to the Scottish Executive. On reserved matters, we consult regularly with the Executive. We are currently in discussion with the Executive on a number of issues, including regional air services and rail infrastructure, in conjunction with the Strategic Rail Authority.

  Trust Ports
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what progress his Department has made with modernising trust ports. [71438]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Of the 51 trust ports that fall within my Department's area of responsibility (England and Wales), so far 12 have achieved full compliance and 15 have prepared draft orders that are either with the Department for comment or about to be made. We are working with the remaining 24 trust ports in the preparation of their implementation plans and draft orders.

  Transport 10-year Plan
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will list the elements of the 10-year plan which are running behind schedule, as set out in the memoranda published by his Department in 2000. [71440]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A report on the 10-Year Plan for transport, which will set out progress to date, will be published in the Autumn.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements are in place to review the effectiveness of the 10-year plan for transport. [73763]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Progress towards delivery of the objectives in the 10-Year Plan is monitored continuously.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which of the timetable steps outlined in the Delivery of Improvements over the Life of the Plan memorandum published at the time of the publication of the 10-Year Plan have been met. [73379]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A. report on the 10-Year Plan for transport, which will set out progress made to date, will be published in the Autumn.

  Rail Franchises
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a statement concerning the grant of the rail franchise for Wales. [71441]
  707W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority expects to award the Wales and Borders franchise in the Spring of next year. The new franchise is likely to start next Autumn.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a statement on the South West Trains franchise negotiations. [71443]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Negotiations between the Strategic Rail Authority and Stagecoach are in progress. In June of this year they reached agreement on an interim deal costing £29 million up to February 2003 that will deliver early passenger benefits, including the replacement of Mark 1 trains.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the extension of the Thames Trains franchise. [74753]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is in negotiation with Go-Ahead Group regarding a possible two-year extension of the Thames Trains franchise, which expires in April 2004.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the impact of making speed cameras more visible; and if he will make a statement. [71444]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The camera visibility rules for those areas in the safety camera netting off came into force on 1 July 2002. It is too early to judge their effectiveness although initial feedback from the participant areas suggests that compliance is improved at the yellow fixed camera sites.

  Air Traffic Capacity
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what plans he has to meet the demand for air traffic capacity in the South East. [71445]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East Consultation Document on the Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom invites views on whether new airport capacity should be provided in the South East over the next 30 years and, if so, how much; and on where any additional runway capacity should be provided. The Secretary of State will consider all consultation responses before taking decisions in the air transport White Paper which we plan to publish next year. The consultation document includes a chapter on the implications of growth for the safety of our airspace.

  Handy Cross Junction
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a statement on the renovation of Handy Cross junction. [71437]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As the hon. Member will be aware, on 19 August I announced that we intend to accelerate this scheme by including it in our Targeted Programme of Improvements. Subject to the satisfactory completion of the necessary procedures, works are programmed to start in 2005. I am pleased to announce that the Highways Agency has now placed a Contract 708W
  Notice in the Official Journal of the European Community inviting expressions of interest for contractors to design and build the scheme.

  Ports
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are taken to prevent a distortion of competition between existing ports in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic when applications are submitted for funding to the European Union and Her Majesty's Government from port authorities in the United Kingdom. [73399]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Where port authorities in the UK seek public funding, we undertake an assessment of the potential impact on traffic flows at other UK ports. Funding of ports in the Irish Republic is a matter for the Irish Government.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the level of use of European Union-assisted ferry port facilities in the United Kingdom. [73398]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No specific assessments have been made of the use of ferry port facilities that have received European Union assistance.

  Shipping Industry
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many merchant ships were UK owned and registered in each year since 1997. [73386]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The size of the fleet in number of UK owned and UK Registered ships is given in the table:

  As at 31 December

  UK Owned Fleet (All vessels)

  UK Owned Fleet (*Trading vessels)

  1997

  1,779

  612

  1998

  1,770

  616

  1999

  1,763

  617

  2000

  1,793

  624

  2001

  1,772

  594

  2002 (as at 30 June)

  1,754

  593

  As at 31 December

  UK Registered Fleet (All vessels)

  UK Registered Fleet (* Trading vessels)

  1997

  1,498

  369

  1998

  1,498

  378

  1999

  1,456

  379

  2000

  1,518

  417

  2001

  1,527

  427

  2002 (as at 30 June)

  1,562

  451

  Note:

  *"Trading" vessels are those which carry cargo or passengers for commercial purposes. The remainder of the fleet consists of vessels, which are deemed to be "non-trading". Examples of non-trading vessels are dredgers and trawlers, but vessels which were constructed for "trading" purposes can also come into this category, if they have been converted to a non-trading use, e.g. storage or a floating restaurant.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures the Government have taken since 1997 to help increase the amount of UK-flagged tonnage in the merchant shipping industry. [73385]
  709W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have introduced tonnage tax. Together with the Maritime & Coastguard Agency's registration reforms, this has resulted in a substantial increase, of around 90 per cent., in the amount of UK-flagged tonnage in the merchant shipping industry.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions have taken place with NUMAST on(a) the health and safety of British seafarers and (b) the state of the UK shipping industry. [73388]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State met NUMAST to discuss cover by fire services at sea, social conditions on UK registered ships, and seafarer training.

  Earlier this year, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State met NUMAST to discuss social conditions on UK registered ships.

  The Chief Executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has also met NUMAST to discuss issues arising from the Report of the re-opened Formal Investigation into the loss of the MV Derbyshire.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were employed in the UK shipping industry in each year since 1997. [73387]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The best estimates of total active seafarers since 1997 are those produced by the London Guildhall University's "United Kingdom Seafarers Analysis 2001". These are given in the table:

  Year

  Total Active Seafarers

  1997

  29,610

  1998

  29,309

  1999

  28,085

  2000

  27,826

  2001

  25,188

  The Government recognise the concern about the lack of a comprehensive, consistent approach to estimating the number of people resident in the UK with maritime skills, based on agreed definitions and assumptions. This includes information on those with maritime skills in posts ashore. My Department is therefore examining, with the industry, means of improving estimates of data.

  Nuclear Waste
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many movements of spent nuclear fuel occurred in each year from 1997(a) by air within UK airspace, (b) by sea within UK waters, (c) by rail and (d) by road. [73946]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This Department does not hold statistical information of the type requested.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what rules are in place to govern the safe transfer of nuclear waste between countries. [74594]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The rules covering sea and air transport of radioactive material are, respectively, the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code (Amendment 30–00) produced by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the 710W
  Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, 2001–2002 Edition, produced by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

  Within Europe, international road transport is covered by the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR), 2001 Edition, produced by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Similarly, rail transport is covered by the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) Appendix B. Uniform Rules concerning the Contract for International Carriage of Goods by Rail (CIM) Annex 1 Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail (RID), 2001 Edition.

  All rules for the safe transport of radioactive materials are based on the Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials prepared by the International Atomic Energy Agency (the latest version being the 1996 Edition (revised)).

  Thameslink 2000
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the Thameslink 2000 project. [74747]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Planning and associated applications are currently before the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Transport Services (Taunton)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many transport(a) surveys and (b) studies underway cover Taunton. [74094]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are funding through the Highways Agency two studies covering Taunton and one survey (at various locations). Similar information of a much more localised nature would be available from Somerset County Council itself.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the(a) reliability and (b) punctuality of rail services between Taunton and (i) London, (ii) Aberdeen, (iii) Plymouth and (iv) Penzance. [74093]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority publishes performance statistics for all train operating companies every three months in National Rail Trends and every six months in On Track. The figures for each operator are not broken down to route level. Copies of these publications have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects new trains to be deployed on the Paddington to Bristol line in sufficient numbers to ensure that all Paddington to Taunton services use high-speed train sets. [74095]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The few remaining locomotive hauled (class 47) services to the west country were withdrawn with the introduction of the winter timetable on 29 September. Services are now provided by a
  711W
  combination of High Speed Trains (HSTs) and new Class 180 Adelante trains, both of which are capable of speeds of 125mph.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many arrests were made by British Transport Police in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [73808]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The British Transport Police do not separately record numbers of arrests. They processed the following numbers of persons for allegedly committing offences:

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Number

  36,607

  39.832

  38,119

  32,300

  The figures for 1997 are not readily available and were recorded using different Home Office rules that would not be comparable with the figures for subsequent years.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) officers and (b) other staff there were in the British Transport Police in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999 and (iv) 2000; and how many there are now. [73809]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The British Transport Police have provided me with the following information:

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Police Officers

  2,132

  2,095

  2,113

  2,091

  2,109

  2,123

  Support Staff

  461

  492

  524

  523

  565

  644

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the closure of the West Coast main line next year on Wilmslow; [74432]

  (2) what discussions he has had with Railtrack and Network Rail on opening the branch railway line from Styal to Manchester during the closure of the West Coast main line next year; [74430]

  (3)if he will list the persons and organisations consulted before his announcement that the West Coast main line will close next year. [74431]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These are matters for the Strategic Rail Authority. On 9 October, the SRA published for consultation their draft Strategy for delivering the modernisation of the West Coast Main Line. The Strategy includes consideration of alternative service patterns on sections of line when work is in progress.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total cost to public funds is of the West Coast Mainline upgrade to date. [73798]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No public funds have been expended specifically on the West Coast Main Line route modernisation project. However, to the extent that the 712W
  estimated costs of the project have already been taken into account by the Rail Regulator in determining Railtrack's income requirements, an element of that income will have been supported by public funding to train operating companies using the line which has flowed through to Railtrack in the form of access charges, and by public funding for network grants paid to Railtrack.

  Huntingdon—Oxford Train Service
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage the initiation of the train service between Huntingdon and Oxford. [74219]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority commissioned a study of the wider strategic options for services on the East-West corridor. This confirmed that viable options exist for services on the Oxford-Milton Keynes corridor, but found little evidence that services east of Bedford would be economically viable or provide value for money if supported by public funds. However, the SRA is exploring with Network Rail and other relevant parties options for keeping parts of the East-West route in railway ownership and safeguarding potential infrastructure alignments in the West Coast and East Coast Main Line upgrades.

  Public Transport Assessment
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to undertake an assessment of the road and public transport infrastructure in London and the South East of England before the house-building programme announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review begins; and if he will make a statement. [73509]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to develop its comprehensive long-term programme of action for building sustainable communities. Transport has an important role in this, and we will be working closely with regional and local partners to understand their particular transport needs as plans develop.

  Disabled Access
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent changes have been made to public transport in the United Kingdom to ensure better access for disabled people. [74471]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are using the powers in Part V of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to introduce regulations which will ensure that public transport is accessible to disabled people, including those who need to travel in a wheelchair.

  The Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 were the first to be made and affect all new passenger rolling stock entering service since 1 January 1999. Those regulations apply not only to rolling stock on mainline services, but also to light rail systems and underground systems.
  713W
  Similar regulations—the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 2000–apply to new buses and coaches with a carrying capacity of more than 22 passengers which are used on local and scheduled services. Those regulations have applied since 31 December 2000. Different dates for compliance with the wheelchair access requirements have been set for different vehicle types, ie

  For full size single and double deck buses—31 December 2000

  For smaller buses and all coaches—1 January 2005

  Separate dates have also been set for all vehicles to comply with the regulations, ie

  For full size single deck buses—1 January 2016

  For double deck buses—1 January 2017

  For smaller buses—1 January 2015

  For coaches—1 January 2020

  The Act also makes provision for accessibility regulations to be made for licensed taxis. We are currently considering how best to take forward those provisions. In the meantime we have already introduced a requirement for taxi drivers to accept assistance dogs accompanying a disabled person and to carry those dogs free of charge. That requirement came into force on 31 March 2001.

  Railways
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with rail companies on(a) the modernisation of trains and (b) the extension of services through the night. [74470]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. These would be matters for the train operating companies to take forward with the Strategic Rail Authority.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new railway have been constructed since 1997. [73956]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Annual figures for the renewal of the rail network are as follows:

  Financial year

  Length of track in km

  1997–98

  456 1)

  1998–99

  397 2)

  1999–00

  517 3)

  2000–01

  1064 4)

  2001–02

  983 5)

  Sources:

  1. Railtrack's 1998 Network Management Statement

  2. Railtrack's 1999 Annual Reconciliation Statement

  3. Railtrack's 2000 Annual Reconciliation Statement

  4. Railtrack's 2001 Annual Return to the Rail Regulator

  5. Railtrack's 2002 Annual Return to the Rail Regulator

  Rail Complaints
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the change in the number of complaints to the Rail Passengers Council in the last 12 months. [73735]
  714W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Rail Passengers Council (RPC) is required to publish an annual report to the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, whose responsibilities include protecting passenger rights. The overall number of complaints handled by the RPC between 2001 and 2002 rose by around 3 per cent., from 14,149 to 14,528. This increase was not uniform, with some areas, such as the Southern and Midlands regions, experiencing a fall in complaints. The main causes for complaints this year were train performance and service quality, redress and reimbursement and facilities and service at stations.

  Railway Crime
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he had to tackle crime on the railways. [73807]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are committed to reduce crime and the fear of crime wherever it occurs in the transport system.

  The British Transport Police work with the rail industry, local police forces and other agencies to deliver a safe railway environment free from disruption and the fear of crime. Our Policy Statement on Passenger Rail Franchising includes improvements in safety and personal security among the benefits the SRA might deliver through franchises.

  We are involved in or support a number of specific initiatives including the Secure Stations Scheme, the National Route Crime Group, a pilot secure transport route along the Manchester (Victoria) to Clitheroe rail line and a joint project with the Strategic Rail Authority on ways to improve personal security in train travel.

  Central Railways
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the latest report and advice from the SRA on Central Railways; and when it will be published. [74442]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has now delivered its report about Central Railways' proposals. Publication of the report will be a matter for the SRA.

  Rail Operators (Cycles)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the rail operating companies that provide accommodation for cycles on(a) peak and (b) off-peak journeys; what the average number was of cycles carried per rail journey in 2001; what plans the Government have to increase the number of cycles carried by rail operators; and if he will make a statement. [73531]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) requires franchise operators to provide facilities for cycles on existing rolling stock subject to what is reasonably practicable given the type of rolling stock currently used and the nature of the service provided. In
  715W
  accordance with Directions and Guidance from the Government the SRA is working with the operators to provide reasonable and secure facilities on board new rolling stock and at stations. The table below sets out

  Train operating companies that provide accommodation for bicycles1

  Train operating company

  Cycles accommodated in peak2

  Cycles accommodated off-peak

  Anglia Railways Train Services

  Yes

  Yes

  Arriva Trains Merseyside

  Yes

  Yes

  Arriva Trains Northern

  No

  Yes

  C2C

  No

  Yes

  Central Trains

  Most services

  Most services

  Chiltern Railway Co

  Not on services to and from London or Birmingham Snow Hill

  Yes

  Connex

  Not on services to and from London

  Yes

  First Great Eastern

  Not on services to and from London

  Yes

  First Great Western

  Yes

  Yes

  First North Western

  Yes

  Yes

  Gatwick Express

  Yes

  Yes

  GNER

  Yes

  Yes

  Island Line

  Yes

  Yes

  Midland Main Line

  High Speed Trains only

  Yes

  ScotRail

  Yes

  Yes

  Silverlink Train Services

  Not on services between Wolverton and London

  Yes

  South Central

  Not on services to and from London

  Yes

  South West Trains

  Not on suburban services to and from London

  Yes

  South West Trains

  Not on suburban services to and from London

  Yes

  Thameslink Rail

  Not on services to, through or from London

  Yes

  Thames Trains

  Not on services to an from London

  Yes

  Virgin Trains

  Most services, except Virgin Train Rail Links

  Most services, except Virgin Train Rail Links

  WAGN Railway

  Not on services between Finsbury Park and Moorgate or into Cambridge in the morning peak

  Yes

  Wales & Borders Trains

  Not on some Valley Lines services

  Yes

  Wessex Trains

  Not on services between Exmouth and Paignton—Exeter Central; Weston-Super-Mare and Bath Spa—Bristol Temple Meads/Filton Abbey Wood; Bristol Temple Meads—Bath Spa

  Yes

  Note

  1 On some services advance booking, limited spaces and charges may apply. Some operators do not accept tandems or tricycles. No restrictions usually apply to fully folded folding cycles.

  2 Peak services apply Monday—Friday excluding Bank Holidays, and the duration of peak hours varies between operators. Unless otherwise specified peak restrictions apply to services into the indicated terminal in the morning and out of that terminal in the evening.

  Railway Consultations
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for statutory consultation between local authorities and rail authorities. [73792]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Section 206 of the Transport Act 2000 requires the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), in formulating its strategies, to consult the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, the Rail Regulator and other such persons as it thinks fit. Beyond this, the Secretary of State's Directions and Guidance to the SRA make clear that he expects the Authority to carry out the appropriate level of consultation with those likely to be affected by its actions. The SRA has also published its policy on consultation, which can be found on its website. We see no reason to impose further statutory consultation requirements on the SRA.

  Virgin Trains
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take action to ensure that the benefit of compensation paid to Virgin Trains in respect of delays caused by failure of Railtrack infrastructure are passed to the passengers who have endured those delays. [73818]
  716W
  which train operating companies provide accommodation for cycles on their peak and off-peak services. Information on the average number of cycles carried in 2001 is not available.

  Mr. Jamieson
  Compensation to passengers for delays and cancellations to train services is covered by the Passenger's Charter which every franchised train operating company is required to publish and which applies to all train operators services on all routes. Any passengers who have been delayed and have made claims will have had their claims for compensation dealt with by Virgin Trains.

  Vehicle Inspectorate/Traffic Area Network
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the proposed changes affecting the Vehicle Inspectorate and the Traffic Area Network are; if he will list the organisations consulted; if he will give the timetable for the integration of the computer systems of the two organisations, with the estimated cost; and if he will make a statement. [74345]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 23 July 2002 [Official Report, columns 964–65W]. In line with usual conventions regarding machinery of government changes, there was no consultation with external organisations prior to the announcement. Decisions on the structure of the new organisation, including the extent and speed of integration of its computer systems, will be made within

  717W
  the context of the strategy for improved customer service across the agencies in the DVO group and the delivery of e-enabled services to the motorist.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accidents have been attributed to the use by(a) car, (b) bus, (c) taxi, (d) coach drivers and (e) cyclists of a hand held mobile phone in each of the last three years, (i) in total and (ii) as a proportion of the total number of journeys by that group. [74244]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information regarding the use of mobile phones is not recorded within national statistics on road accidents.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accidents have been attributed to the use by tourist coach drivers of a hand held microphone in each of the last three years(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of the total number of journeys by this group. [74245]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is not available.

  A21
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents occurred on the A21 between(a) Lamberhurst and Flimwell and (b) Tonbridge and Pembury between January and June. [73338]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The figures requested are shown in the table:

  Injury accidents on the A21: GB 2001

  Location

  2001*

  20011

  Lamberhurst—Flimwell2

  2

  4

  Tonbridge—Pembury3

  8

  20

  Notes:

  * Data for January to June only

  1. Complete year data.

  2. Figures are taken between the junction with the B2169 near Scotney Castle and the north end of the dual carriageway at Flimwell.

  3. Figures are taken between the junction with the A26 at Quarry Hill and the junction with A264.

  Motorways
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to plant foliage on the central reservations of UK motorways. [74611]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency, responsible for motorways in England, has no plans to plant the majority of central reservations. Since 1990 central reservations have been designed and constructed as hard surfaced areas often with integral drainage channels and cable ducts for lighting. These areas are in a hostile environment which is subject to the effects of de-icing salt, turbulence and dust and not suited for growing plants.
  718W
  Planting is considered viable only in wide central reservations where the total width is 10 metres or more and a healthy plant environment can be maintained. Where central reserve planting does exist in narrow central reserves there are high maintenance costs involving traffic management, replacement planting and pruning. These activities also result in delays to road users and potentially put operatives at risk from working close to live traffic.

  M25
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the concrete surface of the M25 between junctions 8 and 9 is to be replaced with quieter materials. [74441]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency. Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter to Mr. Crispin Blunt from David York, dated 15 October 2002:
  I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent question asking when the concrete surface of the M25 between junctions 8 and 9 is to be replaced with quieter materials. I am replying since Tim Matthews is currently away on business.
  The surface of the M25 between junctions 8 and 9 will be replaced as part of the Government's commitment in the 10 Year Transport Plan to replace all concrete roads with quieter surfaces by 31 March 2011. This section of the M25 is not included in the current 3 year national resurfacing programme for the period 2001/04. The resurfacing programme for the remaining years of the Plan will be formulated as part of future Spending Reviews.

  A556M
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if (1) he will make a statement on the proposed A556M;[74429]

  (2) What consideration he has given to making Junction 20 of the M6 multi-directional. [74428]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter to Mr. George Osborne from Hillary Chipping, dated 15 October 2002:
  The Transport Minister, David Jamieson has asked me to reply to your recent questions about plans for the A556 (M) and Junction 20 of the M6. I am replying in the absence of Tim Matthews, the Chief Executive who is currently away on Highways Agency business.
  As you may be aware, the White Paper "A New Deal for Trunk Roads" published in July 1998, identified a need for the West Midlands to North West Conurbations Multi Modal Study (MIDMAN). As part of a combined package of transport solutions, the study has identified a number of highway improvements including widening the M6 Motorway to 4 lanes up to Junction 20 and re-modelling Junction 20 to make it multidirectional. A steering group made up of regional stakeholders, including the Highways Agency and the North West Regional Assembly (NWRA), has considered these improvements.
  The Agency voiced their concern that the proposed Junction 20 improvements had not been adequately assessed against an alternative proposal to upgrade the A556 to motorway standard. which was considered as part of the A556/MIDMAN Study. The steering group therefore asked the Agency to carry out further technical work and report back to the NWRA. Subsequently, the Agency commissioned consultants to produce the A556 Area

  719W
  Study, which concluded that the A556 (M) scheme should be taken forward in place of widening the M6 from Junction 19 to 20 and the Junction 20 improvements.
  The Agency has now informed the NWRA of their conclusions. I understand that the NWRA considered the MIDMAN recommendations on 4 October and is in the process of making their views known to the Secretary of State. These and other issues will be considered by the Secretary of State and a formal announcement on the whole package of transport measures will be made in due course.
  If you would like any further information about these issues, please contact the Highways Agency's Regional Manager for Network Strategy in the North West, Malcolm Roberts, at Sunley Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester, M14BE—Tel: 01619305668

  Smoky Vehicle Hotline
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost to the Vehicles Inspectorate of operating the Smoky Vehicle Hotline was in each of the past four years; what the estimated cost is for the present year; and if he will make a statement. [74704]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The smoky vehicle hotline is one of several services provided by the Vehicle Inspectorate through its general enquiry unit. Hotline calls may also be made to the Inspectorate's area offices. For these reasons I cannot give an individual cost for the service. The costs are met within the total operational costs of the agency.

  Smoky vehicle hotline calls recorded by the Vehicle Inspectorate

  Category

  April 2002–August 2002

  01/02

  00/01

  99/00

  98/99

  HGV

  88

  465

  1,042

  2,139

  4,441

  PSV

  112

  310

  824

  1,524

  2,965

  Other

  74

  304

  656

  743

  1,693

  Total

  274

  1,079

  2,522

  4,406

  9,099

  Of which calls actionable

  151

  469

  1,405

  2,611

  —

  Lighthouses
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has exercised his powers under Section 218 (2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to change the format of the General Lighthouse Fund's accounting records; what Accounts Direction he has issued to the General Lighthouse Fund on generally accepted accounting practice and additional disclosure requirements; and whether these requirements will be applied in the 2002 GLF report and Accounts. [73394]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State is responsible for the preparation of the General Lighthouse Fund Accounts. These accounts consolidate the accounts of the three General Lighthouse Authorities with those of the Fund. The format of the Accounts is agreed with the National Audit Office (NAO) having regard to generally accepted accounting policy and Treasury guidance. An accounts direction is under discussion with the NAO for agreement later this year. The 2002–03 accounts will be prepared to the new format.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the annual financial contribution in euros has been from the Irish Government under the
  720W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many complaints about smoky vehicles have been made to the Smoky Vehicle Hotline(a) in each of the past four years and (b) during 2002; [74706]

  (2) how many vehicles were inspected by the Vehicles Inspectorate (a) in each of the last four years and (b) during the current year to date because of an unsatisfactory response by the licensed operator to a letter from the Inspectorate following a complaint to the Smoky Vehicle Hotline; [74705]

  (3) how many licensed operators were written to by the Vehicles Inspectorate (a) in each of the last four years and (b) during 2002 following complaints reported to the Smoky Vehicle Hotline. [74707]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table below shows the number of calls about smoky vehicles recorded by the Vehicle Inspectorate in each of the last four years and during the financial year to date. The number of calls actionable by the Inspectorate, that is those calls which relate to "O" licensed vehicles and which contain sufficient information for the vehicle and operator to be identified, are also shown. The Inspectorate does not record the number of vehicles inspected due to an unsatisfactory response to a letter from the Inspectorate following a complaint to the smoky vehicle hotline. However, this does not indicate that no action is taken. Follow-up action may take the form of a fleet check and this enforcement activity would be recorded separately.

  terms of an agreement reached in 1985 for the sharing of certain costs incurred by the Commissioners of Irish Lights in the Republic of Ireland. [73395]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The contribution from the Irish Government in 2000/01 was 2,110,825 million euros and in 2001/02 is forecast to be 3,214,780 million euros.

  The amount given is for each financial year, that is from April to March, and not each calendar year.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in discussions between the General Lighthouse Authorities and the Ministry of Defence on the transfer to the GLAs of the MoD's navigation buoys in the UK waters; and if he will make it his policy that the residual costs to the GLAs of maintaining the buoys be met by the MoD if the transfer takes place. [73397]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The maintenance and funding of the aids to navigation required by the Ministry of Defence is a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence. Under Section 197(8) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 as amended, the General Lighthouse authorities are
  721W
  empowered to undertake buoy work for other bodies. Any agreement to carry out work for MOD or any other organisation would be subject to contractual negotiations. There are no plans to take on the MOD aids at the current time.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the financial status of the NATS; when he expects the CAA to make a decision on the funding of NATS; what NATS have asked Her Majesty's Government to contribute; and if he will make a statement. [74468]

  Mr. Spellar
  I expect the CAA to publish and consult on its decision on the price cap review later this month. As a responsible shareholder, the Government working with the other parties concerned to prepare a package to ensure that NATS has a robust financial structure for the foreseeable future. The Government have said that they are prepared, on the appropriate terms, to match new private sector investment to this end.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions have taken place between his Department and the British Airports Authority on the possible investment by BAA in National Air Traffic Services. [74739]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The parties concerned are having continuing discussions about the financial position of National Air Traffic Services Ltd (NATS), including BAA's proposed investment in the company. I shall make an announcement in due course.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the level of National Air Traffic Services debt levels; and if he will make a statement. [73734]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As a responsible shareholder the Government, together with the other parties concerned, are preparing a package to ensure that NATS has a robust financial structure for the foreseeable future.

  Airports
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the estimated cost is of the plans to add a new airport and increase the number of runways in the UK. [73728]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The series of consultation documents,The Future of Air Transport in the United Kingdom, published on 23 July 2002 set out a number of possible options for new airport capacity including a new airport near Cliffe in North Kent and other options for additional runways at existing south east airports, options in the Midlands for an additional runway at Birmingham and East Midlands airports or a possible a new airport (to replace Birmingham), and an option for a new runway at either Glasgow or Edinburgh airport. The estimated capital costs of each option (£ billion in
  722W
  today's prices), including where relevant the airport's share of associated road and rail access improvements, are:

  Number

  Cliffe

  11.5

  Heathrow (one new runway)

  4

  Stansted (one, two or three new runways)

  4–8

  Birmingham

  0.7–1.3

  East Midlands

  1.2

  Midlands new site

  6.9

  Edinburgh

  0.4

  Glasgow

  0.7

  Not all these options would go forward, as many of them are alternatives. The purpose of the consultation process is to establish how much airport capacity is needed up to 2030 and where any new capacity should be located.

  Airport Security
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he has taken to improve the security arrangements of private companies operating at the UK's airports. [74737]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department is consulting with industry on the implementation of procedures for creating a list of approved providers of aviation security services. Such companies will have to meet certain criteria, set down by my Department, before they can deliver services at UK airports.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State Transport what measures he has taken or has planned for improving the arrangements for the security vetting of staff working in secure areas within the UK's airports. [74738]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Counter Terrorist Checks have been extended in relation to security staff, and a requirement for security managers to undergo such a check was introduced in May. My Department is also working to introduce Criminal Record Checks for all new and existing holders of permanent passes to airport restricted zones.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent action he has taken to review the security arrangements at UK airports. [74763]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Aviation security remains at an enhanced level following the attacks on 11 September last year. Many of the additional measures introduced by other states following those attacks had long been in place in the UK, but we nonetheless ordered an immediate review and identified a package of additional security measures, including for raising security on the ground at airports. These have been taken forward with the industry. In addition, my right hon. friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Home Affairs earlier this year commissioned Sir John Wheeler to conduct a study of airport security, including the threat from serious and organised crime, with particular reference to the role of the police service. Sir John's report was recently received, and is now being considered.
  723W
  Airport security standards are kept under constant review, with my department's inspectors carrying out regular and frequent inspections to check and when necessary enforce them.

  Alconbury Airfield
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the proposals concerning Alconbury Airfield set out in the national consultation, the Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East, will be capable of being progressed in the event of him determining in favour of the planning application of ADL concerning the Alconbury Airfield. [74226]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) main consultation document is seeking views on a range of options, one of which is a small-scale airport development at Alconbury. Responses to this consultation will inform Minister's decisions on the policies to be published in the air transport White Paper.

  It is inappropriate to comment on any planning appeal ahead of the Inspector's report and subsequent decisions.

  Heathrow Airport
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many graves at Harmondsworth Church will need to be exhumed if the third runway is permitted at Heathrow Airport. [74735]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS) is still subject to consultation.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the levels of compensation will be for those residents affected by the possible construction of a third runway at Heathrow(a) if their homes are demolished and (b) if their homes are affected by (i) noise and (ii) air pollution. [74736]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The principal Acts covering compulsory purchase and compensation are the Land Compensation Acts of 1961 and 1973, the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.

  For people whose property is required to allow for a proposed development, compensation is payable on the basis that they should be no worse off in financial terms after the acquisition than they were before. This means that they receive compensation for the value of their property based on its open market value if there had been no proposal to acquire their property compulsorily plus the reimbursement of any actual costs and losses incurred as a result of having to move.

  In addition, both owner-occupiers and tenants who are displaced from their home as a result of a compulsory purchase, and have occupied the property as their main residence for a year or more, will be entitled to a home-loss payment. In the case of tenants this is currently £1,500 while owner-occupiers receive 10 per cent. of the value of their property subject to minimum and maximum thresholds which are currently set at £1,500 and £15,000. However, both the flat rate
  724W
  payable to tenants and the thresholds for owner-occupiers are currently being reviewed, including proposals for increasing the payments above the present £15,000 ceiling. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published a consultation document about this on 27 September, inviting comments by 6 January 2003.

  People whose property does not need to be demolished may be entitled to compensation to cover depreciation in the value of their land due to physical factors caused by the use of a development, such as noise, smell, smoke and fumes. In this case, compensation for the loss in value would be based upon prices current on the first claim day, which is 12 months after the first use of the public works.

  In addition to these rules, the consultation on The Future Development of Air Transport in the South East is seeking views on additional mitigation and compensation measures for people who might suffer noise impacts as a result of an airport development option. These measures are outlined in paragraphs 16.49–16.58 of the main consultation document.

  West Midlands Airport
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the grid references of the site identified to the South East of Worcester as a possible site for a new West Midlands airport. [74752]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government is not putting forward for consultation any option for a new airport site in the Midlands other than that located between Rugby and Coventry, as detailed in "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: Midlands" consultation document.

  The Government, having identified a potential need to develop further airport capacity in the Midlands over the next 30 years, had earlier appraised a number of locations throughout the Midlands against a range of criteria in a five stage process. Details of this process are available in the document "Preliminary Site Search of Options for New Airport Capacity to Serve the Midlands" and its appendices which can be found on the Department for Transport's website www.airconsult.gov.uk. The result of this process was that the option of a new site between Rugby and Coventry, and no other site in the Midlands, should be included in the consultation.

  Airports (Scotland)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will include in his consultation on airports a proposal for an international air transport hub in Scotland. [73722]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's Consultation Document, "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: Scotland" seeks views on a number of important aspects of air services within Scotland including a niche hub serving Scotland and the future development of airports.

  Severnside International Airport
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that the proposed Severnside International Airport will not be subject to consultation as a possible new airport. [74053]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Developers have prepared a proposal for a new single runway airport set in the Severn Estuary (Severnside). Our analysis suggests that a new airport there would only be viable if Cardiff or Bristol airport, or both, were to close or become congested to the point of capacity. Our forecasts under all scenarios indicate that this is unlikely to occur within the forecasting period. With the investment required to establish such a facility and with spare capacity available at Cardiff over the next 30 year period it is unlikely to be commercially viable in its own right and could only be considered as an option, if at all, for other policy reasons.

  The Government will set out their conclusions in next year's White Paper on air transport. This White Paper will be informed by the current consultation on the future development of air transport in the United Kingdom.

  Cliffe Airport
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Department has to consult local residents in Southend, West on Cliffe Airport. [74511]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) consultation document was published on 23 July 2002. We recognise the importance of taking into account, and seeking to balance appropriately, the views of all interested parties before coming to the decisions which will be set out in the air transport White Paper.

  To support the consultation process the Department for Transport has arranged a series of public exhibitions. To date exhibitions on the Cliffe airport option have been held at Basildon, Chatham and in two locations on the Hoo peninsula. I am also aware that a wide range of stakeholders have, or are in the process of, arranging events and meetings about this option. All responses to this consultation are welcome.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations his Department has held with Southend Borough Council with regard to the new airport at Cliffe. [74508]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Prior to publication of the Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) consultation document on 23 July 2002 no discussions were held with Southend Borough Council, or any other local authority, regarding any of the airport development options.

  Since publication we have been consulting with all those with an interest in any of the options, including local authorities.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether the Cliffe airport option cross-wind runway flight path would over-fly(a) Canvey Island and (b) Hadleigh; [74073]
  726W
  (2)how often he estimates use would be made of the Cliffe airport option cross-wind runway if that option is adopted; [74070]

  (3)if he plans to permit night use of the Cliffe airport option cross-wind runway; [74063]

  (4)what his policy is on the fifth runway, with a flight path over Canvey Island and Leigh on Sea, included in the Cliffe Airport proposal. [74294]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Paragraph 11.4 of the The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) main consultation document makes clear that the option of a fifth runway to reduce night-time noise impacts was appraised.

  This runway was considered for use only by night-time arrivals from the South-West, to avoid overflying towns such as Gravesend and Tilbury. The results of this analysis is presented in the SERAS Stage Two Appraisal Findings report, paragraphs 11.8.7 to 11.8.10. These suggest that, for movements other than arrivals from the South West, the night-time noise impacts would be minimised by using a combination of the parallel runways. Therefore overflying of neither Canvey Island nor Hadleigh is envisaged.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new rail links he plans for the proposed Cliffe airport option. [73520]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) main consultation document indicates in paragraphs 11.7 to 11.10 the type and scale of rail infrastructure that would be needed to connect the Cliffe airport option to the wider rail network.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the additional houses needed under the Cliffe airport option is over and above the targets for new house building set the Government for South Essex and North Kent. [74074]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) consultation document sets out in paragraph 11.29 that if the scale of housing development indicated in Regional Planning Guidance were rolled forward to 2030, it is considered likely that the airport employment needs could be met with fairly limited additional housing development.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will issue his white paper on airport capacity in the South East. [74296]

  Mr. Jamieson
  When the current consultation exercise is concluded at the end of November this year, the Secretary of State will consider all responses before taking decisions in the air transport White Paper which we plan to publish as early as possible next year.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport at what stage the road link between the A130 Benfleet and the Cliffe airport option would be built if that option goes ahead. [74072]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) consultation document makes clear in paragraph 11.13

  727W
  that as the airport grows a second road crossing of the Thames to the A13/A130 at Benfleet could, in time, give better access to the labour market north of the Thames. At this stage, we have not attempted to identify precisely when such a link might be needed.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport at what point he estimates the proposed Benfleet Tunnel Crossing, connecting Essex with the possible Cliffe airport, will go underground(a) on the mainland near Sadlers Farm, (b) on North Canvey near Waterside Farm and(c) on South Canvey near Thorney Bay. [73571]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS) analysis has not attempted to identify the location and design of highway connections for either the Cliffe option or any of the published options.

  As is made clear in The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) consultation document (paragraph 11.13), a second road crossing of the Thames to the A13/A130 at Benfleet could, in time, be needed to give better access to the labour market north of the Thames.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport where the rail connection between the Tilbury Southend line and the possible Cliffe airport option would be sited. [74071]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS) analysis has not attempted to identify the location and design of rail connections for either the Cliffe option or any of the published options.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the shortest distance is from the outer edge of the Cliffe airport option to each of the nearest communities. [74077]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Plan 11.5 in the South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS)Stage two Appraisal Findings (figures—chapter 11—Cliffe Marshes airport) gives a clear indication of the proximity of local communities to the published option.

  At this stage the location and scale of this, and all other published options, should be considered as indicative only. If any option is favoured in the air transport White Paper more detailed design and project definition will be required.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are for a new Thames road and rail crossing as part of the Cliffe airport option strategic infrastructure development. [73518]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) consultation document sets out in paragraph 11.8 that a multi-modal (road and rail) Thames Crossing is assumed to be in place to support Cliffe airport option. This link might be progressed irrespective of whether a new airport is built at Cliffe.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the species of birds and other wildlife that would be adversely affected by the Cliffe airport option. [74076]
  728W
  Mr. Jamieson
  As part of the South East and East of England Regional Airports study (SERAS), an appraisal was made of direct and indirect effects arising from habitat loss, damage or disturbance to species and habitats arising from the construction, presence and operation of the proposed new airport option. This included an initial assessment of the impacts on birds and other wildlife. A summary of the methodology adopted is outlined in the SERAS stage two appraisal findings report (section 6.7). A more detailed statement is contained in Environmental Appraisal Groups 2 and 3 report. This also contains the detailed assessments relevant to the Cliffe option.

  Specific to the Cliffe option, a preliminary assessment was made of the risk of birds colliding with aircraft. Details of this work are contained in the North Kent Marshes Ecological study Phase 1. Copies of all the above reports are available in the House libraries.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate he has made of the impact of the Cliffe Airport proposal on(a) flood risks, (b) sea defences and (c) ground water levels for (i) Essex and (ii) Canvey Island; and on what (A) evidence and (B) studies and models his estimates are based; [74295]

  (2) what analysis he has made of the change in flooding risk to Canvey Island and Benfleet, if the Cliffe airport platform is built in the Thames. [74069]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No specific analysis has been undertaken into the change in flooding risk to Canvey Island and Benfleet if the Cliffe airport option were to go ahead. If the Cliffe option were supported in the air transport White Paper, more detailed work into both the risk of flooding in the wider area and the measures required to counteract such a risk would be needed.

  A summary of the appraisal methodology regarding the water environment is outlined in the SERAS stage two appraisal findings report (section 6.8). The results of this appraisal, relevant to the Cliffe option, are summarised in the South East airports consultation document (11.19–11.22) and shown in paragraphs 11.7.1 to 11.7.12 of the SERAS stage two appraisal findings report. Copies of all these reports are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the estimated time scale for the planning, building and commissioning of the Cliffe airport option. [73517]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) main consultation document sets out on page 143 the key appraisal assumptions used in the analysis. The first new runway of any option (or the first two at Cliffe) was assumed to be open in 2011. Cliffe's third and fourth runways were assumed to be open in 2021.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what controls would be necessary to protect the Cliffe airport from birds; and what the(a) range and (b) extent of these controls is. [74075]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The North Kent Marshes Ecological Study (phase 1 report), one of the South East and East of England Regional Air Services study supporting

  729W
  reports, included a preliminary assessment of the risk of birds colliding with aircraft. This also included an overview of potential mitigation measures.

  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) consultation document makes clear in paragraph 11.18 that the Department for Transport would commission further research to assess fully the risk and the best mitigating measures. This work is now underway and will he used to inform Ministers' decisions.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in which constituencies the 162,000 additional houses required by the Cliffe airport option would be built. [74065]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS) identified, in broad terms, the scale of housing required, and urbanisation impacts, of all airport options. If any option is supported in the proposed air transport White Paper, the detailed urbanisation implications would need to be considered through the land-use planning system.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what strategic road infrastructure he plans as part of the proposed Cliffe airport option; and if this would form part of a new outer M25 project; [73519]

  (2) if the proposed Benfleet tunnel crossing, associated with the Cliffe airport option, would be part of an outer M25 infrastructure; and if he will make a statement. [73715]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) main consultation document indicates in paragraphs 11.11 to 11.13 the type of road infrastructure that would be needed both to connect the Cliffe airport option to the strategic network and the type and scale of improvements that might be required on the strategic network as a result of the construction of an airport at Cliffe (if that were to go ahead). The airports study did not consider any broader highway issues.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the spoil from the Shellhaven port Thames dredging operations will be used to build up the platform needed for the full four-runway airport in the Cliffe option. [74064]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS) analysis has not attempted to identify construction impacts to this level of detail. The appraisal methodology regarding construction impacts is contained in SERAS Stage 2 Methodology report (section 7.8).

  The results of this appraisal, relevant to the Cliffe option, are shown in the SERAS Stage 2 Appraisal Summary tables (table 11.13).

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what models have been tested to predict the changes in(a) ground water and flood levels and (b) hydrographic flaws, around and in Canvey Island and Benfleet, resulting from the Cliffe airport option. [74068]
  730W
  Mr. Jamieson
  No models have been used in the South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS) analysis to predict changes in either ground water and flood levels or hydrographic flaws. A summary of the appraisal methodology regarding the water environment is outlined in the SERAS stage two appraisal findings report (section 6.8).

  The results of this appraisal, relevant to the Cliffe option, are summarised in the South East airports consultation document (11.19–11.22) and shown in paragraphs 11.7.1 to 11.7.12 of the SERAS stage two appraisal findings report. Copies of all the above reports are available in the House libraries.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many lanes he expects the proposed Benfleet Tunnel crossing, associated with the Cliffe airport option, would have in each direction. [73570]

  Mr. Jamieson
  At this stage we have not attempted to identify details of either when such a scheme might be needed or the design and project definition.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will identify the previously developed land that would be used to provide additional housing in the event of the Cliffe airport option being adopted. [74067]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS) identified, in broad terms, the scale of housing required, and urbanisation impacts, of all airport options. If any option is supported in the proposed air transport White Paper, the detailed housing implications would need to be considered through the land-use planning system.

  A more detailed assessment of the housing implications specific to the Cliffe airport option is set out in the SERAS Land Use and Urbanisation study (section A7). Copies of all the above reports are available in the House libraries.

  IMO Convention
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations the Government will make to meet its pledge at the World Summit on Sustainable Development to encourage other Governments to ratify the International Maritime Organisation convention. [74616]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The World Summit on Sustainable Development's Plan of Implementation identifies the enhancement of maritime safety and protection of the marine environment from pollution as important objectives, and in this context makes reference—inter alia—to actions at all levels to invite States to ratify or accede to and implement the conventions and protocols and other relevant instruments of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) relating to the enhancement of maritime safety and protection of the marine environment from marine pollution and environmental damage caused by ships.

  The majority of coastal and flag states are already parties to the Convention on the International Maritime Organization ("the IMO Convention"). The UK is

  731W
  active in seeking to ensure that states meet their responsibilities in the fields of maritime safety, and environmental protection from shipping, at the IMO.

  The UK will continue to be active, both in the forum of the EU and in that of the IMO, in encouraging other states to ratify and implement the IMO conventions which are of such importance to us and other maritime nations.

  In particular, since June 2001 the UK has been active within the EU in promoting a strategy for implementation of IMO conventions to significantly improve the compensation arrangements following pollution from shipping and to improve response to marine pollution.

CABINET OFFICE

  e-government
  Derek Wyatt
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what plans he has to enable those in rural areas to access e-government [71404]

  Mr. Alexander
  Electronic delivery of Government services provides the opportunity to bring them together in a convenient way for users, particularly those who find travel difficult. Over half of Government services are already available electronically.

  We are currently conducting a pilot—"UK online interactive"—through Digital Television. The service is currently available on the BSkyB platform, with work in progress to extend this to all platforms.

  Terrorist Attacks
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent steps have been taken to bring Government departments together to take co-ordinated action in event of a terrorist attack. [74409]

  Mr. Alexander
  Since the attacks of 11 September 2001, the Government has conducted a wide ranging review of UK counter terrorist procedures and infrastructure, including physical and legislative measures to disrupt, deter and prevent terrorist activity. The Government's progress report "The United Kingdom and the Campaign against International Terrorism" published on 9 September, and placed in the library of the House, provides a summary of action taken to strengthen counter-terrorism measures within the UK.

  The Civil Contingencies Secretariat (CCS) was formed prior to the events of 11 September with a specific remit to co-ordinate improvements in civil emergency planning and since September 11 has been bringing departments and key organisations together to enhance preparedness for any major disruptive incident. This has included: working to designate lead departments for specific incidents, ensuring that they have satisfactory response plans and taking forward work towards a Civil Contingencies Bill. Further information on the preparedness of the UK to respond to a major terrorist attack can be found on the website maintained by the CCS at: http:// www.ukresilience.info/home.htm
  732W
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent changes have been made in the areas of counter-terrorism and civil contingencies in event of a terrorist attack. [74408]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government has established procedures for managing any terrorist incident, including the consequences. The response to any terrorist incident relies upon a co-ordinated approach and the Government draws upon the resources of relevant departments, the security and intelligence agencies, the police, the military, scientific and other specialist advice, local authorities and the emergency services. The UK crisis management machinery is based on a proven response capability, co-ordinated through the Cabinet Office. Each agency involved contributes its own specialist skills and resources to achieve an effective response and outcome to the incident.

  To further enhance the capacity at the centre of Government to co-ordinate security, intelligence and consequence management matters and deal with risks and major emergencies should they arise, Sir David Omand KCB was appointed as Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator and Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office in June this year.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent resources have been provided for the CCS for central co-ordination and direction. [74410]

  Mr. Alexander
  None. The total administrative resource budget for the Civil Contingencies Secretariat in the 2002–03 financial year is £6.9 million.

  Intelligence and Security Co-ordinator
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the responsibilities are of the Intelligence and Security Co-ordinator at the Cabinet Office. [74411]

  Mr. Alexander
  Sir David Omand KCB was appointed as Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator and Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office in June this year. This new post was created to enhance the capacity at the centre of Government to co-ordinate security, intelligence and consequence management matters and deal with risks and major emergencies should they arise.

  Sir David has taken from the Cabinet Secretary the following responsibilities:
  Accounting Officer for the Single Intelligence Account (SIA)
  Chairmanship of the Permanent Secretaries' Committee on the Intelligence Services (PSIS)
  Chairmanship of the Official Committee on Security
  Oversight of the Civil Contingencies Secretariat and support for the Home Secretary in his role as Chairman of the Civil Contingencies Committee.

  Sir David's appointment does not affect the statutory relationships between the Heads of the Intelligence Agencies and their Secretaries of State, nor the statutory sole responsibility of the Agency Heads for the direction

  733W
  of the operations of their Agencies and their right of access to the Prime Minister.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what resources the Government are allocating to emergency planning over one period covered by the Comprehensive Spending Review, broken down into annual budget totals. [73772]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government has allocated £19.038 million Civil Defence Grant to local authorities in England and Wales for each of the years 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what steps Government is taking to prevent local authorities from spending emergency planning funds on other areas. [73775]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Civil Defence Grant provided to local authorities in England and Wales is a specific grant that must be used for emergency planning. The financial accounts of local authorities are audited to ensure this.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, for what reason the Government reduced the Civil Defence Grant budget for emergency planning in 2002. [73776]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Civil Defence Grant budget was not reduced for 2002–03. The Government allocated £18.97 million to local authorities in England and Wales for 2002–03, which was the same amount as in the previous year.

  People's Panel
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what was(a) the total cost of the People's Panel, (b) the title, client and value of each project undertaken using the panel and (c) the amount paid to MORI under their contract with the Department in respect of the panel in each financial year from 1998–99 to 2000–01. [74496]

  Mr. Alexander
  The total cost of People's Panel research was £1,408,365. Details on the title, client and value of each research project undertaken and on the payments to MORI and others have been placed in the libraries of the House today.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the work of the People's Panel. [74495]

  Mr. Alexander
  Two independent evaluations were carried out—the first in 2000 and a second and final report which was published in July this year. Both were placed in the House libraries and are available on the Panel web site: http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page5627.as

  Civil Service
  Colin Pickthall
  To ask the MCO how many(a) Civil Service posts and (b) departments have been devolved from London and the South East to other regions since 1997. [71402]
  734W
  Mr. Alexander
  In April 1997, there were 148,800 permanent Civil Service staff working in London and the South East. By April 2001, this had fallen to 144,550, representing a 1.4 per cent. reduction in the number of staff based in these areas. However, overall the remaining regions have seen an increase in the number of permanent Civil Service staff during the same period.

  Consultancies
  David Davis
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list external(a) public relations communications companies, (b) advertising and marketing companies, (c) management consultancies, (d) accountancy companies, (e) banking firms, (f) individual consultants and (g) other specialist consultancies used by his Office since June 2001; what actions those consultancies/companies have performed within his Department; and what costs have been incurred through use of these consultancies/companies. [74672]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 29 January,Official Report, column 251W. by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will publish the Performance and Innovation Unit report on the review of sport. [74303]

  Mr. Alexander
  The joint Strategy Unit/DCMS report on sport will be published in due course.

  EU Fixed-Term Workers Directive
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) if ministerial special advisers are fixed-term workers within the scope of the EU Fixed-Term Workers Directive; [73683]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the EU Fixed Term Workers Directive on the employment of special advisers, with particular reference to the provision that fixed term contracts will become permanent after four years. [73819]

  Mr. Alexander
  Special advisers are temporary civil servants appointed under Article 3 of the Civil Service Order in Council 1995. The Government's view is that they cannot be employed on a permanent basis on the grounds that they have been recruited outside the Civil Service rules of fair and open competition, and they are not required to be politically impartial or serve a future Administration of a different political party. Special advisers are employed on fixed term contracts for the purposes of the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 but the Government believes that special advisers' contracts cannot be converted to permanent ones by virtue of Regulation 8. Employing special advisers on a temporary basis is justified on objective grounds due to the special nature of their employment.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum seekers
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dispersed asylum seekers are accommodated in Nottingham, broken down by the different housing sectors. [73688]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  As at the end of June 2002, 1,495* asylum seekers (including dependants) were being supported in the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation in Nottingham.

  Information on the type of accommodation in which asylum seekers are housed is currently not available.

  Statistics on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS in each region are available on the Home Office's Immigration and Asylum Statistics website: http://www homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.
  * Figures have been rounded to the nearest five.Figures exclude cases where the asylum seekers support has been ceased.
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people have applied for asylum in Scotland in the last 12 months; [73692]

  (2) how many asylum seekers have had applications to remain in Scotland rejected in the last 12 months. [73677]

  Beverley Hughes
  Asylum seekers apply to be granted refugee status in the United Kingdom (UK) rather than specifically in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Asylum applications data are not available at regional level except by port (for those applications made at port—these accounted for 33 per cent. Of applications in the period July 2001 to June 2002, inclusive). Corresponding information on initial decision outcomes relating to persons in particular areas of the UK is also not available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what support will be made available from public funds for asylum seekers whose applications have taken more than six months to determine and who are unable to take up employment as a result of the recent withdrawal of the employment concession; [74255]

  (2) how many asylum seekers whose applications have taken more than six months to determine have taken advantage of the concession to take up employment in each of the past three years; what estimate he has made of the resulting impact on public funds: and if he will make a statement. [74254]

  Beverley Hughes
  Asylum seekers who are destitute can apply for support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). Support can include the provision of accommodation and financial support. The amount of financial support varies according to the person's circumstances but the rates of support applicable from 8 April this year are as follows:736W

  Price

  Person aged 18–24

  £29.89

  Person aged 25 or over

  £37.77

  Couple

  £59.26

  Lone Parent

  £37.77

  Child under 16

  £33.50

  Child aged 16 or 17

  £32.50

  Where accommodation is provided the costs of this, together with any associated utility bills and council tax is met centrally. Asylum seekers are also eligible for NHS treatment and may be eligible for free prescriptions, dental and optical services.

  Children of compulsory school age here as part of an asylum seeking family are also entitled to attend school.

  Information is not held centrally on the number of asylum seekers who were granted permission to work under the terms of the employment concession and this could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many places will be provided in the further asylum accommodation centres proposed by his Department. [74509]

  Beverley Hughes
  We propose to provide approximately 3,000 places in the trial accommodation centres.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he has set in terms of numbers for the level of pressure on local authorities' housing for those authorities not to be considered suitable locations for an asylum accommodation centre; and what the level of pressure on local authorities' housing is in each of(a) the proposed accommodation centre sites and (b) the other sites short-listed but not chosen. [74646]

  Beverley Hughes
  No such guidelines have been set. We do not envisage a demand on local authority housing as a consequence of those working or residing in an Accommodation Centre.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which sites for proposed asylum accommodation centres his ministers have visited; and when these visits were made. [74523]

  Beverley Hughes
  My officials and I visited the proposed sites at DSDC Bicester on 26 June 2002, at RAF Newton on 2 July 2002 and at Throckmorton Airfield, Pershore on 8 October 2002.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Scottish Executive will have the final decision in the consideration of planning permission for an asylum seeker accommodation centre at RAF Turnhouse. [74183]

  Beverley Hughes
  Planning proposals in Scotland are determined by the Scottish planning authorities and the Scottish Ministers.
  737W
  If such a proposal for the Turnhouse site were to be pursued, it would be a matter for consideration by the City of Edinburgh Council in the first instance. If the Council were to object then the Home Office, as developer, would consider whether to refer the proposal to the Scottish Ministers for a final decision.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to identify potential sites for asylum seeker accommodation centres other than those already announced as under consideration. [74182]

  Beverley Hughes
  Site searching has continued since we made our initial announcement, as we said it would. We will not be putting into the public domain details of such sites unless and until they are considered to be a serious prospect for the siting of an accommodation centre.

  Total Initial Decision3

  Cases considered under normal procedures4

  Backlog clearance exercises5

  Granted asylum

  Granted ELR7

  Refused

  Granted Asylum or ELR,7 under backlog criteria

  Refused under backlog criteria6

  2000

  595

  20

  10

  525

  35

  5

  2001(p)

  2,105

  115

  45

  1,950

  -

  -

  January to June 2002(p)

  2,310

  645

  55

  1,610

  -

  -

  Notes:

  1Figures rounded to the nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2.

  2Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications received in the same period.

  3Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  4Cases considered under normal procedures may include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

  5Cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum application backlog.

  6Includes some cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  7ELR = exceptional leave to remain.

  (p)Figures for 2001 and 2002 are provisional and subject to change.

  Information on asylum applications and decisions is published quarterly. The next publication will be available from 29 November 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the backlog in asylum applications was at the end of each of the last 10 quarters for which figures are available. [74451]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision, as at the end of each of the last 10 quarters, is shown in the table.

  Applications for asylum awaiting initial decision, Q1 2000–Q2 2002, principal applicants only

  Year

  2000

  Q1

  114,600

  Q2

  102,800

  Q3

  96,900

  Q4

  88,600

  2001(p)

  Q1

  60,200

  Q2

  47,800

  Q3

  43,000

  Q4

  38,800

  2002(p)

  Q1

  34,800

  Q2

  35,300

  Notes:

  Rounded to nearest 100

  (p) provisional data
  738W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what compensation will be made available to people living close to sites of asylum seeker accommodation centres. [74180]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) gave to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 19 April 2002,Official Report, column 1262W.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum have been(a) approved and (b) rejected in respect of Zimbabwean nationals since 1 January 2000. [73796]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the initial decisions of Zimbabweans claiming asylum, excluding dependants, from January 2000 to June 20021,2.

  Information on the number of asylum cases awaiting an initial decision is published quarterly. The next publication will be available from 29 November 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistic Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.htm.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation (Children)
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications by persons reaching the age of majority for a review of awards granted on application to the CICA/CICB by their parents in respect of sexual abuse suffered by them whilst children have been made in each of the last five years in(a) the UK and (b) Scotland; [72793]

  (2) how many applications to the CICA for review of awards in respect of sexual abuse suffered by children made by persons reaching the age of majority have been successful in each of the last five years; [72794]

  (3) how many applications to the CICA for review of awards made in respect of sexual abuse suffered by children made by them once they have reached the age of majority have been reviewed in each of the last five years. [72795]

  Hilary Benn
  There is no provision in the current tariff-based scheme, nor the common law damages scheme which preceded it, for the review of an award made and accepted on behalf of a child who had suffered
  739W
  sexual abuse once the child reaches the age of majority. Consequently, since such cases lie outside the scope of the Scheme, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority does not collect data on this category of request.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used by the CICA in deciding whether an application for a review of an award made to a child who suffered sexual abuse can be reopened in each of the last five years. [72796]

  Hilary Benn
  Where an application has been finalised, the only circumstances in which it may be reopened are where there has been such a change in the victim's medical condition that an injustice would occur if the original decision were allowed to stand, or where the applicant has died as a result of the injury. In such circumstances, a case may be reopened more than two years after the date of the final decision, on the basis of evidence presented in support of the application to reopen, provided that it can be considered without a need for further extensive enquiries.

  However, where a decision made previously has neither been accepted nor been the subject of a Review application, then an application for Review may be considered beyond the 90 day period specified in the Scheme, in exceptional circumstances where it is considered in the interests of justice to do so.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if it is his intention to institute a right of appeal for persons reaching the age of majority who make an application to the CICA/CICB for review of an award granted to them as a child when the application for such a review is refused by the authority;[72790]

  (2) what plans he has to amend the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in respect of children who have been sexually abused. [72791]

  Hilary Benn
  Following a major public consultation exercise launched in 1999, the Compensation Scheme was thoroughly reviewed in 2000, and a number of improvements were made which came into force from 1 April 2001. These included significant changes to the tariff descriptions and levels of award relating to the physical and sexual abuse of children. In view of that recent review and consequent changes, there are no plans for further amendment to the Scheme at this time.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people employed by his Department under the New Deal for Young People in each of the last four years have subsequently(a) found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks and (b) returned to jobseeker's allowance or other benefits. [44913]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information is not held centrally on the number of New Dealers who have found unsubsidised employment for more than 13 weeks or who have returned to jobseekers' allowance or other benefits.
  740W
  According to available records, one of the New Dealers employed by the core Home Office has left the department to work for a private employment agency, and one successfully applied for a permanent post via a Home Office external recruitment scheme.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what businesses have employment links with prisons; and what role the Government plays in cultivating these links. [66649]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]The Prison Service has employment links with a wide range of businesses and other organisations. These include commercial contracts to supply goods and services, and providing employment for prisoners whilst in custody, including in engineering, woodwork, clothing, laundries and light assembly, which can lead to continued employment for prisoners on release. In addition, with our support and involvement the Prison Service is developing its wider links with employers, the Confederation of British Industry, other employer and industry organisations, and Sector Skills Councils to help increase the number of prisoners getting jobs after release. In particular, its Custody to Work initiative is focusing on sectors in which existing or developing prison work and training activity overlap with feasible job opportunities for released prisoners. These include construction, catering, industrial cleaning, warehousing and distribution, and call centres.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what education and training facilities are available in prisons; and what assistance is given to prisoners in getting a job on release. [66648]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]Our aim is to provide learning opportunities for prisoners which will enhance their chances of getting a job on release and help them resettle back in the community. All prisons have to provide a core curriculum of basic skills, social and life skills, information technology and preparation for work and are expected to meet basic skills targets. We have recently widened these targets to enable prisons to be more responsive to the range of prisoners' needs.

  Prisoners also have access to a range of vocational training courses, including construction, catering, industrial cleaning, motor mechanics, engineering and hairdressing. We are investing £20 million over the next two years to develop and modernise education and training so that it better fits the needs of the individual prisoner and the external employment market.

  Many establishments provide services to help prisoners find employment on release, often in partnership with Jobcentre Plus, the National Probation Service or voluntary sector organisations. These include jobsearch training and support, and the piloting in eight prisons from Summer 2002 of new technology giving access to Jobcentre Plus information on employment vacancies across the country. The Prison Service Custody to Work initiative, with £30 million earmarked for 2001–04, is geared towards increasing employment and training outcomes for released prisoners through the development of such resettlement activity.
  741W
  In a survey in November and December 2001, 24 per cent. of sentenced prisoners nearing release said they had a job to go to on release and six per cent. a training place. A copy of Home Office Research Findings 173—"Jobs and homes: a survey of prisoners nearing release" is in the Library. These findings suggest we have discharged the commitment we made in Autumn 2000 to double the proportion of prisoners getting jobs on release against the 10 per cent. baseline suggested by previous research. We have now set the Prison Service a target of increasing by 1,700 by April 2003—from an estimated 26,500 to 28,200 a year—the number of prisoners getting jobs or education or training places after release.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners received university degrees in each of the last 10 years. [66238]

  Hilary Benn
  133 prisoners have completed university degrees whilst in custody since 1991, and the numbers are broken down by year in this table.

  1991–2001

  Number of prisoners received university degrees in prisons

  1991–92

  15

  1992–93

  10

  1993–94

  9

  1994–95

  17

  1995–96

  14

  1996–97

  17

  1997–98

  17

  1998–99

  14

  1999–2000

  5

  2000–01

  15

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time spent by prison staff on training was during 2001–02. [66231]

  Hilary Benn
  Staff in prisons spent an average of 6.65 days each in staff training during 2001–02.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time out of cell was in 2001–02 in each prison establishment in England and Wales. [66234]

  Hilary Benn
  The average time out of cell on weekdays and at weekends in each prison establishment in England and Wales during 2001–02 is given in the table.

  Prison name

  Average weekday time out of cell 2001–02

  Average weekend time out of cell 2001–02

  Acklington

  10.3

  8.8

  Albany

  9.3

  7.5

  Altcourse

  10.1

  10.1

  Ashfield

  12.0

  12.0

  Ashwell

  15.5

  15.5

  Askham Grange

  16.0

  16.0

  Aylesbury

  8.0

  5.9

  Bedford

  8.1

  6.8

  Belmarsh

  5.8

  4.1

  Birmingham

  7.9

  7.2

  Blakenhurst

  10.1

  9.4

  Blantyre House

  15.3

  15.3

  Blundeston

  10.1

  7.7

  Brinsford

  8.3

  6.5

  Bristol

  7.8

  6.2

  Brixton

  7.9

  6.3

  742W

  Prison name

  Average weekday time out of cell 2001–02

  Average weekend time out of cell 2001–02

  Brockhill

  8.2

  7.3

  Buckley Hall

  13.4

  13.1

  Bullingdon

  8.9

  6.7

  Bullwood Hall

  11.5

  8.8

  Camp Hill

  10.3

  10.3

  Canterbury

  8.5

  7.7

  Cardiff

  8.9

  5.9

  Castington

  10.0

  9.2

  Channings Wood

  10.8

  7.1

  Chelmsford

  9.7

  8.3

  Coldingley

  12.3

  10.2

  Cookham Wood

  10.5

  8.5

  Dartmoor

  7.9

  6.2

  Deerbolt

  8.0

  5.4

  Doncaster

  11.4

  11.4

  Dorchester

  11.3

  11.2

  Dovegate

  0.0

  0.0

  Dover

  8.4

  7.6

  Downview

  10.8

  10.4

  Drake Hall

  24.0

  24.0

  Durham

  7.0

  4.0

  East Sutton Park

  17.2

  17.2

  Eastwood Park

  10.0

  8.5

  Elmley

  8.1

  7.9

  Erlestoke

  11.1

  10.4

  Everthorpe

  11.0

  7.9

  Exeter

  8.5

  7.5

  Featherstone

  8.8

  10.1

  Feltham

  8.0

  7.5

  Ford

  13.3

  13.3

  Forest Bank

  11.4

  11.5

  Foston Hall

  10.3

  9.1

  Frankland

  9.4

  7.3

  Full Sutton

  9.5

  7.5

  Garth

  10.0

  7.5

  Gartree

  10.1

  7.3

  Glen Parva

  5.8

  3.5

  Gloucester

  8.7

  5.0

  Grendon

  15.4

  14.1

  Guys Marsh

  8.7

  7.4

  Haslar

  11.2

  10.8

  Hatfield

  13.5

  13.5

  Haverigg

  11.8

  11.8

  Hewell Grange

  24.0

  24.0

  High Down

  8.3

  5.9

  Highpoint

  8.8

  8.8

  Hindley

  7.2

  4.4

  Hollesley Bay

  0.0

  0.0

  Holloway

  6.0

  6.11

  Holme House

  5.7

  5.1

  Hull

  7.6

  5.7

  Huntercombe

  9.8

  8.1

  Kingston

  11.8

  7.7

  Kirkham

  13.5

  13.0

  Kirklevington

  19.0

  19.0

  Lancaster

  10.1

  7.2

  Lancaster Farms

  7.8

  5.1

  Latchmere House

  19.0

  19.0

  Leeds

  8.6

  7.7

  Leicester

  10.4

  8.1

  Lewes

  9.2

  6.6

  Leyhill

  23.3

  23.3

  Lincoln

  10.5

  9.0

  Lindholme

  11.7

  9.6

  Littlehey

  9.3

  8.4

  Liverpool

  6.9

  4.1

  Long Lartin

  9.2

  9.2

  Low Newton

  11.0

  10.0

  Lowdham Grange

  12.4

  12.4

  Maidstone

  10.4

  8.0

  Manchester

  10.5

  8.5

  Moorland

  9.0

  5.7

  743W

  Prison name

  Average weekday time out of cell 2001–02

  Average weekend time out of cell 2001–02

  Morton Hall

  15.0

  15.5

  Mount

  7.8

  7.0

  New Hall

  9.6

  7.7

  North Sea Camp

  19.5

  19.5

  Northallerton

  7.8

  5.5

  Norwich

  8.6

  7.6

  Nottingham

  9.1

  5.0

  Onley

  8.9

  6.8

  Parc

  9.7

  9.9

  Parkhurst

  9.7

  8.6

  Pentonville

  4.6

  3.5

  Portland

  9.8

  5.7

  Preston

  8.4

  5.0

  Ranby

  13.4

  12.5

  Reading

  8.3

  7.1

  Risley

  11.0

  10.5

  Rochester

  9.6

  7.5

  Rye Hill

  0.0

  0.0

  Send

  12.7

  12.8

  Shepton Mallet

  10.5

  9.0

  Shrewsbury

  10.0

  10.5

  Stafford

  8.9

  7.7

  Standford Hill

  24.0

  24.0

  Stocken

  11.4

  11.4

  Stoke Heath

  10.2

  10.0

  Styal

  11.6

  11.4

  Sudbury

  24.0

  24.0

  Swaleside

  9.7

  7.4

  Swansea

  9.3

  8.2

  Swinfen Hall

  10.3

  6.8

  Thorn Cross

  12.5

  12.5

  Usk

  13.6

  11.9

  Verne

  16.0

  16.0

  Wakefield

  8.8

  6.8

  Wandsworth

  7.2

  7.6

  Wayland

  9.5

  8.5

  Wealstun

  12.5

  12.4

  Weare

  10.1

  9.4

  Wellingborough

  10.0

  7.8

  Werrington

  9.8

  9.8

  Wetherby

  9.9

  5.5

  Whatton

  12.8

  12.5

  Whitemoor

  9.9

  7.5

  Winchester

  8.6

  6.4

  Wolds

  8.8

  9.0

  Woodhill

  10.2

  8.5

  Wormwood Scrubs

  8.5

  6.9

  Wymott

  10.0

  10.0

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on recent developments in the field of prison education. [74643]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government is making progress on its commitment to improve the quality and quantity of prison education by investing in the Prison Service's capacity to deliver, and by bringing prison education into line with mainstream initiatives.

  We have set targets in basic and work-related skills and are on course to achieve them this year. We are investing £20 million in capital projects which will support improvements in education and training. We are also improving quality by implementing national standards through inspection and through support for establishments in planning. We are also introducing new approaches to learning: in basic skills and citizenship and through Learndirect.
  744W
  Younger offenders we have introduced a new national specification for learning and skills which will significantly enhance provision for them both in custody and the community, and teaching and learning is now supported in the classroom by learning support assistants.

  Armed Robberies, East Preston
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will visit the shopkeepers in East Preston, West Sussex, to discuss armed robberies at retail premises. [74765]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have no plans to make a Ministerial visit to East Preston in the near future.

  We are, however, aware that Arun Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership is actively engaged with the Traders Association and the local community to discuss and tackle the crime problems retailers in this area are facing.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many armed robberies have been recorded in East Preston, West Sussex, in the past two months. [74764]

  Mr. Denham
  The requested information is not available centrally.

  Vandalism
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences involving acts of vandalism were committed by young people between the ages of 11 and 16 years in the last year for which figures are available. [74793]

  Hilary Benn
  Statistics of recorded crime do not include any details of offenders.

  Offences involving acts of vandalism are not distinguishable from other offences of criminal damage on the Home Office Court Proceedings and Cautions Database.

  Communications Data
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to communications data, how many Immigration Service officials he estimates will be authorised to seek access to communications data and how many times officials have sought access to such data from communications providers such as Internet service providers under the Data Protection Act 1998 in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [74483]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration Service has previously accessed communication data under the Data Protection Act 1998 through police Single Points of Contact. The Immigration Service did not retain a central register of the number of inquiries undertaken.

  The Immigration Service is seeking to become a prescribed authority under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Chapter II in order to access communications data. Once approved, any

  745W
  immigration official investigating immigration related crime would be able to submit an application for communication data via a single point of contact.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the code of practice in relation to communications data; which public authorities will be able to have access to communications data; if he will make a statement on the support he has obtained from telecommunications companies for the concept of a voluntary code of practice to govern the access to communications data; whether he intends to use statutory powers to place access to communications data on a statutory footing; and if he will make a statement on the collective statement made by Data Protection Commissioners with regard to his proposals for the retention of communications data. [74584]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Communications data may be supplied voluntarily for specified purposes (e.g. investigation of crime) under the Data Protection Act 1998. A more tightly controlled regulatory regime for access to communications data will be provided for under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Chapter II of Part I of the Act explains the duties and responsibilities placed upon each party involved in the process, and creates a system of safeguards reflecting Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The overall regime will be subject to oversight by the Interception of Communications Commissioner.

  The Chapter II provisions are subject to a statutory code of practice, a draft of which was published for public consultation during summer 2001. The code relates to the powers and duties conferred or imposed

  Number of anti-social behaviour orders reported to the Home Office which have been issued as from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2002 within Hertfordshire by local government authority

  Area

  From 01-Apr-99 to 31-May-001

  From 01-Jun-00 to 31-Dec-00

  From 01-Jan-01 to 31-Dec-01

  From 01-Jan-02 to 31-Mar-02

  Total

  Police Force Area/MCC2

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  7

  —

  9

  Local Government Authority

  Cheshunt BC

  ..

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Stevenage BC

  ..

  —

  4

  —

  4

  Three Rivers DC

  ..

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Welwyn Hatfield DC

  ..

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Notes:

  1 Total figure only available for Hertfordshire police force area within this period. Local Government Authority not known.

  2 MCC—Magistrates' Courts Committee area.

  .. Not available.

  Police, Hertsmere
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were in post in(a) Hertsmere and (b) Hertfordshire (i) on I May 1997, (ii) on 1 May 2001 and (iii) according to the most recent figures available. [74454]

  Mr. Denham
  Police strength information at force level is collected twice a year in March and September. The information requested for Hertfordshire Constabulary is set out in the table. The latest figures are for March 2002. Information for individual divisions/ basic command units is not collected centrally.
  746W
  under Chapter II. It provides guidance on the procedures that must be followed before access to communications data can take place under those provisions. RIPA provides that the code is admissible in evidence in criminal and civil proceedings. We aim to implement the Chapter II provisions in 2003.

  I will be bringing forward proposals in relation to any additional public authorities under Chapter II Part I of RIPA following detailed public consultation.

  We are still in consultation with the communications service providers on the production of a voluntary code of practice to cover the retention of communications data by them under the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, and have noted the statement by the Data Protection Commissioners with regard to proposals on data retention.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders, Hertsmere
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been made in respect of residents of(a) Hertsmere and (b) Hertfordshire in each year since the inception of the orders. [74455]

  Mr. Denham
  An anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) is a civil order made by a court which currently can be applied for by a local authority or the police. The table shows the number of notifications received by the Home Office of ASBOs issued within Hertfordshire by local government authority up to March 2002.

  We are aware that the number of ASBOs made locally have been consistently under reported in returns made by magistrates courts and are considering how reporting can be improved.

  Following boundary changes on 1 April 2000, responsibility for policing some parts of the Metropolitan Police area was transferred to Hertfordshire. A number of Metropolitan Police Officers were seconded to Hertfordshire following this change. Many of these officers returned to the Metropolitan Police Service during 2001/2002 and this is reflected in the fall in strength between March 2001 and March 2002.

  Year as at 31 March

  Hertfordshire Police Strength

  1997

  1,759

  2001

  1,922

  2002

  1,825

  Source:

  Home Office Statistical Bulletins—Police Service Strength

  Nazi War Criminals
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new measures have been taken since 1997 to ensure that alleged or indicted Nazi war criminals(a) have not visited and (b) are not now in the UK. [74744]

  Beverley Hughes
  No measures aimed specifically at alleged or indicted Nazi war criminals have been put in place since 1997. In our White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven, the Government has made clear its intention to strengthen its ability to deal with suspected and convicted war criminals by:Up-dating relevant immigration and nationality legislation
  Ensuring better co-ordination between the Home Office and all other Departments and agencies who have an interest in this area.

  Work is currently underway to achieve both of these commitments.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the UK Public Records to identify alleged or indicted Nazi war criminals living in the UK. [74745]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We have no present plans to conduct a general review of public records to identify Nazi war criminals. However, the police will continue to consult public records where necessary to help them investigate individual cases.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what improvements have been made in international collaboration and exchanges of information between Government authorities, law enforcement agencies and archive centres on alleged or indicted Nazi war criminals since 1997. [74746]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  In June 2002, the European Union agreed to set up a network of contact points to exchange information to help investigate and prosecute suspected war criminals. A further instrument is being negotiated which would facilitate the exchange by Member States of information on war crimes held by their immigration authorities, to assist criminal investigations.

  In addition, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is developing increasing links with authorities in other countries enabling the informal exchange of information about war criminals generally.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contacts he maintains with Government agencies in Eastern Europe and South America about alleged or indicted Nazi war criminals living in the UK. [74751]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There are no regular contacts with authorities in those countries concerning Nazi war criminals living in the United Kingdom. However, the police have visited Eastern Europe as necessary when investigating individual cases, and European Union enlargement will bring a number of Eastern European countries into the European Union's arrangements for exchanging information on war criminals.

  Personal Data
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have personal data relating to fingerprints or DNA stored on national police computers; and what percentage of these records relate to individuals who are(a) not criminals and (b) not suspected of any criminality. [74585]

  Mr. Denham
  On September 2002 the total number of profiles held on the National DNA Database was 1,884,450. Of these there were 55,032 profiles marked as acquitted. These were all taken under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) from all those charged with or informed they will be reported for a recordable offence, but against whom the prosecution was not proceeded with or who were subsequently acquitted by the courts.

  The total number of fingerprints on the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS) was 5,213,106 on 3 October 2002. Currently if a prosecution is not proceeded with or a person is acquitted by the courts, the fingerprint record is weeded from NAFIS once the result is recorded on the Police National Computer. In light of the changes in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, further proposals are under consideration in relation to the system to allow for the retention of fingerprints on NAFIS in such cases.

  The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 changes to PACE have been subject to Judicial Review. On 12 September 2002 the Court of Appeal ruled on the cases of S & Marper v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police that the new legislation did not breach the European Convention on Human Rights.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times the revised certificate he signed last December with respect to section 28 of the Data Protection Act 1998 has been used by the Security Service in relation to the disclosure of personal data to the Service; and if he will make a statement. [74583]

  Mr. Blunkett
  None in legal proceedings.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 12 June 2002, Official Report, column 1306W outlining circumstances in which the Security Service might provide an explanation of the operation of section 28 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and a copy of the revised certificate.

  ID Cards
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the response of the Information Commissioner to his consultation concerning his recent proposals for ID/entitlement cards; and if he will make a statement. [74485]

  Beverley Hughes
  In line with the Government's code of practice on written consultations, all comments received on the consultation paper published by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 3 July may be published unless the person or organisation submitting them asks for them not to be.
  749W
  The consultation period closes on 10 January 2003. A response from the Information Commissioner has not yet been received. The Commissioner's office has confirmed that there would be no objection to placing a copy of its response in the Library and this will be done when it is received.

  Immigration
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria his Department follows for(a) initiating deportation proceedings under the Immigration Act 1971 and (b) initiating denaturalisation proceedings under the British Nationality Act 1981. [74750]

  Beverley Hughes
  A person who is not a British citizen is liable to deportation on the grounds that this would be conducive to the public good, or if another person to whose family he belongs is being deported (limited to the spouse and any minor dependent children of the person being deported). He or she may also be deported following a recommendation made by a court under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971.

  Before any decision to deport is taken, all relevant factors are taken into account, including: age; length of residence in and strength of connections with the United Kingdom; personal history, including character, conduct and employment record; domestic circumstances; criminal record; compassionate circumstances; and any representations received on the person's behalf (paragraph 364–367 of the Immigration Rules (HC395 as amended)).

  The criteria for deprivation of citizenship are set out in section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. The grounds are that the person either obtained his nationality by fraud, has shown himself to be disloyal or disaffected towards Her Majesty, has unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy in time of war, or has been sentenced within five years of becoming British to at least 12 months imprisonment.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the handling of the application for indefinite leave to remain by Irena Iotova Nikolova (C1059475) of Taunton. [74326]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate notified Mrs. Nikolova's representatives on 1 October 2002 that she had been granted indefinite leave to remain. A letter was enclosed apologising for both the delay in resolving her case and the administrative failures which resulted in the original application being erroneously refused. I echo those apologies.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the number of illegal refugees entering Britain in each of the last five years;[74486]

  (2) What estimate he has made of the number of refugees who have (a) entered Britain illegally, (b) remained in Britain after being refused asylum and (c) been given exceptional leave to remain in Britain after their asylum application has failed in each of the last five years. [74395]
  750W
  Beverley Hughes
  The number of principal asylum applicants granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years is given in the table.

  Year

  Grants of ELR1.2

  Granted ELR under clearance backlog exercise

  1997

  3,115

  —

  1998

  3,910

  —

  1999

  2,465

  10,195

  2000

  11,475

  10,020

  2001(p)

  21,175

  —

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  1 includes reconsideration cases in 2000 or 2001 where an asylum decision by the Secretary of State is later required to be reconsidered as a result of additional information or significant changes in current circumstances and country information.

  2 Data for 2000 may include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

  (p) Data are provisional and subject to change.

  I regret that there are currently no estimates of the number of persons who have entered Britain illegally or remained in Britain after being refused asylum. The Research Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office has commissioned research to look at the methodology of sizing the illegal population and is due to report next year.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many organisations, broken down by region and nation, have been approved for registration or exemption by the office of the Immigration Service Commissioner. [74142]

  Beverley Hughes
  As of 1 October 2002, the number of organisations registered with, or exempted by, the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) was as follows:

  England

  Organisations registered with the OISC

  Oranisations exempted by the OISC

  Avon

  1

  8

  Bedfordshire

  2

  10

  Berkshire

  4

  10

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  7

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  8

  Cheshire

  1

  9

  Cleveland

  0

  5

  Cornwall

  1

  8

  County Durham

  0

  8

  Cumbria

  0

  8

  Derbyshire

  1

  7

  Devon

  0

  13

  Dorset

  0

  10

  East Sussex

  0

  10

  East Yorks

  1

  1

  Essex

  0

  27

  Gloucestershire

  0

  7

  Hampshire

  0

  24

  Herefordshire

  0

  1

  Hertfordshire

  1

  17

  Isle of Wight

  0

  1

  Kent

  1

  26

  Lancashire

  8

  46

  Leicestershire

  0

  15

  Lincolnshire

  0

  9

  London

  87

  183

  751W

  England

  Organisations registered with the OISC

  Organisations exempted by the OISC

  Merseyside

  1

  22

  Middlesex

  13

  14

  Norfolk

  0

  10

  North Humberside

  0

  2

  North Yorkshire

  0

  10

  Northamptonshire

  0

  10

  Northumberland

  0

  7

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  11

  Oxfordshire

  1

  14

  Shropshire

  0

  6

  Somerset

  0

  5

  South Humberside

  0

  2

  South Yorkshire

  0

  24

  Staffordshire

  0

  15

  Suffolk

  0

  11

  Surrey

  10

  29

  Tyne & Wear

  0

  9

  Warwickshire

  0

  7

  West Midlands

  9

  27

  West Sussex

  0

  11

  West Yorkshire

  3

  24

  Wiltshire

  2

  8

  Worcestershire

  0

  6

  Total

  148

  762

  Northern Ireland

  Organisations registered with the OISC

  Organisations exempted by the OISC

  County Antrim

  1

  16

  County Down

  1

  7

  County Armagh

  0

  3

  County Tyrone

  0

  3

  County Derry

  0

  1

  Total

  2

  31

  Scotland

  Oraganisations registered with the OISC

  Oraganisations exempted by the OISC

  Aberdeen City

  0

  1

  Aberdeenshire

  0

  1

  Angus

  0

  3

  Argyll & Bute

  0

  0

  Clackmannanshire

  0

  0

  Comhairle nan Eilean

  0

  4

  Siar

  Dumfies & Galloway

  1

  7

  Dundee City

  0

  1

  East Ayrshire

  0

  1

  East Dunbartonshire

  0

  1

  East Lothian

  0

  2

  East Renfrewshire

  0

  1

  Edinburgh City

  0

  10

  Falkirk

  0

  3

  Fife

  0

  0

  Glasgow City

  3

  10

  Highland

  0

  5

  Inverclyde

  0

  0

  Midlothian

  0

  3

  Moray

  0

  1

  North Ayrshire

  0

  6

  North Lanarkshire

  0

  5

  Orkney Islands

  1

  1

  Perth & Kinross

  0

  2

  Renfrewshire

  0

  1

  Scottish Borders

  0

  4

  Shetland Islands

  0

  1

  752W

  Scotland

  Organisations registered with the OISC

  Organisations exempted by the OISC

  South Ayrshire

  0

  0

  South Lanarkshire

  0

  4

  Stirling

  0

  2

  West Dunbartonshire

  0

  2

  West Lothian

  0

  0

  Total

  5

  82

  Wales

  Organisations registered with the OISC

  Organisations exempted by the OISC

  Blaenau Gwent

  0

  1

  Bridgend

  0

  1

  Caerphilly

  0

  1

  Cardiff

  0

  7

  Carmarthenshire

  0

  3

  Ceredigion

  0

  2

  Conwy

  0

  1

  Denbighshire

  0

  1

  Flintshire

  0

  2

  Isle of Anglesey

  0

  1

  Merthyr Trdfil

  0

  1

  Monmouthshire

  0

  4

  Neath Port Talbot

  0

  3

  Newport

  1

  2

  Pembrokeshire

  0

  2

  Powys

  0

  3

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  0

  3

  Swansea

  0

  2

  Torfaen

  0

  1

  Vale of Glamorgan

  0

  3

  Wrexham

  0

  1

  Total

  1

  45

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the time limits on early clearance certificates placed in passports abroad start from when the visa is granted and is given an early clearance certificate stamp. [73793]

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

  From 2 October 2000, entry clearances have conferred leave to enter. Leave to enter the United Kingdom is considered to commence on the "valid from" date on the entry clearance and not from the date of arrival in the United Kingdom.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign visits have been made by special advisers in his Department in the last 12 months; and what the(a) destination and (b) cost of each visit was. [73886]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, gave to the hon. Member for Chelmsford West, (Mr. Burns), on 9 July 2002,Official Report, column 891W, the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on 24 July 2002, Official Report, column 1494W and the hon. Member for West Marland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on 24 July 2002, Official Report, column 1478W.
  753W
  Information for the period beyond March 2002 will be available in due course.

  Marsham Street
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which refrigerant will be used in the air conditioning in his Department's new building in Marsham Street. [74758]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on 19 September 2002,Official Report, column 35W.

  Death Forms
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy to require a practitioner other than the signatory to the death certificate to sign a cremation form;[73416]

  (2) if he will introduce a requirement for post mortem examination when there is insufficient evidence relating to the nature of the illness suffered to complete a death certificate satisfactorily. [73418]

  Hilary Benn
  The appropriate processes for the investigation and certification of deaths are currently being explored by the review of coroner services, which is due to report next year. The Shipman Inquiry is also examining ways to make existing procedures more effective. We propose to consider what action might be taken in this regard in the light of the recommendations to be made by the review and the Inquiry in due course.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 5 August from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Sulayman Yunes. [74569]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 1 October 2002.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 13 August from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Ms S. Mohammed. [74567]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 16 September 2002.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to letters from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight dated 6 February, 18 March, 1 May, 9 May and 24 June concerning an application dated 20 June for leave to remain on the basis of a subsisting relationship. [73704]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 22 August 2002. I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  Ronald Biggs
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason Ronald Biggs was permitted to marry whilst serving a prison term. [73424]
  754W
  Hilary Benn
  Prisoners have a right to marry under the Marriage Act 1949, as amended. In Mr. Biggs' case, the status of the spouse as a foreign national did not affect this right; nor has the marriage altered this status.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many caseworkers were employed at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in Croydon in each year since 1997. [73925]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information identifying the number of caseworkers within the Integrated Casework Directorate (ICD) separately from other staff was not collected prior to 2001. The number of caseworkers in the ICD in Croydon since 2001 is as follows:2001–910
  2002–876 (this excludes 264 casework staff who transferred to the Immigration Service).

  The following table shows the number of staff in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) in each year since 1997.

  Year

  Staff numbers (headcount)

  April 1997

  5,697

  April 1998

  5,160

  April 1999

  5,750

  April 2000

  6,582

  April 2001

  9,757

  April 2002

  10,878

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what refreshment provisions are available to members of the public when attending the Immigration and Nationality Department in Croydon. [74113]

  Beverley Hughes
  The refreshment needs of the Public Enquiry Office (PEO) Croydon first and second floors are currently served by 12 vending machines, six per floor. The machines on each floor offer a range of both hot and cold drinks while light snacks such as sandwiches, crisps and confectionery are available. There are a further four machines which serve the third and fourth floors—the Asylum Screening Unit (ASU) and Interview Booking Unit (IBU), each floor having two machines. All machines are checked regularly throughout the day and restocked as required. Callers to any of the units of the combined public offices have access to all vending machines.

  Alcohol and Tobacco Consumption
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the rules are governing the consumption of alcohol and tobacco(a) on police premises, (b) in administration areas, (c) by police officers on duty outside police premises, (d) by staff on prison premises, (e) by prison officers on duty outside prisons, (f) by staff on fire service premises and (g) by fire staff on operational duties outside prisons. [74269]

  Mr. Denham
  For the Police Service, the Code of Conduct, appended to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999, states that, whilst on duty, police officers must be sober. The Code also states that officers should not
  755W
  consume alcohol on duty unless specifically authorised to do so or it becomes necessary for the proper discharge of police duty. It is for chief officers to determine local policy on the consumption of alcohol and tobacco on police premises and in administration areas and on the consumption of tobacco by police officers on duty outside police premises.

  The Prison Service's policy is that no person shall bring alcohol into a prison without the permission of the Governor. Staff are not permitted to consume alcohol whilst on duty, and it is a disciplinary offence to do so. Prison Service policy on smoking is contained in Instruction to Governors 16/1996, Work Place Smoking Policy (a copy of which can be found in the Library) and Governors are required to develop local policies which reflect the guidance in the Instruction. The Instruction advises Governors to impose a ban on smoking in office accommodation including single occupancy offices, corridors, staircases, etc. It does not, however, give advice regarding staff on duty outside prisons, but local policies should address that issue.

  I understand from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that there is no centrally issued advice to the Fire Service addressing the consumption of alcohol or tobacco by staff on Fire Service premises or by staff on operational duties outside premises. However, under the Code of Conduct in the Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985, it is an offence for an officer to be unfit for duty. The offence is defined in the Regulations as follows:
  "Unfit for duty, which offence is committed where a member of a fire brigade renders himself unfit through drink or drugs or similar means for duties which he is or will be required to perform or which it is reasonable to foresee that he will have to perform".

  Mr. Aiden Hulme
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made for the prompt and effective medical treatment for the leg injury sustained prior to his arrest by Mr. Aiden Hulme, now a prisoner at Her Majesty's Prison, Belmarsh. [74270]

  Hilary Benn
  For reasons of medical confidentiality I am unable to disclose medical details related to any prisoner, but I am advised that Mr. Hulme is receiving the appropriate and necessary treatment for his condition. Belmarsh prison has well-established arrangements with hospitals in the local area and is able to call upon their services when appropriate. Prisoners receive medical treatment according to their individual needs.

  Prisons (Internal Discipline)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with prison governors concerning implementation of the European Court of Human Rights' judgment on the protection of the right to a fair trial in relation to internal disciplinary procedures; and what measures he has taken for the adjustment of procedures to prevent violations. [74271]
  756W
  Hilary Benn
  I have had detailed discussions with the Director General of the Prison Service on the implications of the ruling for internal disciplinary procedures. On 14 August, following consultation with Governors, we laid before Parliament amendments to the Prison and Young Offender Rules. The changes strengthened some of the existing punishments, and also provided for independent adjudicators to hear the most serious cases. The adjudicators will be able to impose additional days as a punishment. Prisoners in hearings before the independent adjudicators will have a right to legal representation. Until the end of March 2003, the Lord Chancellor has agreed that District Judges may act as adjudicators. They began hearing cases on 7 October. We shall decide on longer term arrangements in the light of their work.

  Plastic Baton Round
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome was of the North Wales Police investigation into the effectiveness of the use of a plastic baton round on 27 February; and at what distance from the target the baton round was discharged. [74177]

  Mr. Denham
  As a result of the discharge of a baton round on 27 February, the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) supervised an investigation which was carried out by a senior officer in the North Wales Force. It concluded that the use and level of force on this occasion was proportionate and entirely justified. As a result of this investigation, a number of recommendations were made concerning the use of the baton round, all of which have been welcomed by the Force. North Wales Police inform me that the baton round was fired from approximately six metres (19ft/20ft) during the incident.

  Motorway Service Stations
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes have been recorded as having taken place at motorway service stations in West Berkshire in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by(a) type of crime and (b) crimes occuring at Burghfield, Chieveley and Membury service stations separately; and what the overall figures is as a proportion of total crimes of each category in West Berkshire [74251]

  Mr. Denham
  The requested information is not collected centrally.

  Public Buildings
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what part designers and contractors play in the Home Office Action Plan for Better Public Buildings. [74354]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office Action Plan responds to the initiatives of Her Majesty's Treasury's "Achieving Excellence" and the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) "Rethinking Construction", along with the procurement strategies advocated by the Office of Government Commerce.
  757W
  The Plan provides for a more structured approach to promoting good design as early as possible in the procurement process, whether it is through the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) or publicly funded. The outcome of this should be that designers are more carefully selected for their technical skills and capabilities, and contractors are engaged earlier to make a greater contribution to design and specification, and enabling greater value for money to be achieved.

  Metropolitan Police Housing
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much Government grant has been received by the Metropolitan Police to house officers under the Government's Starter Homes Initative. [74505]

  Mr. Denham
  A £16 million Starter Home Initiative (SHI) grant has been allocated to Tower Homes, working in partnership with the Metropolitan Police Service and City of London Police, to help some 550 police and key civilian staff in London to buy homes within reasonable travelling distance of their workplace. The grant is available up to March 2004.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what his policy is towards sales of section houses and other residential accommodation owned by the Metropolitan Police; [74506]

  (2) how many section houses and other residential accommodation owned by the Metropolitan Police are for sale; and if he will make a statement. [74507]

  Mr. Denham
  Policy on the sale of police property is a matter for Police Authorities. Individual Authorities take all relevant factors into account when developing policies and making decisions on sales.

  The Clerk to the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) informs me that the Authority's residential estate is primarily held as an aid to recruitment. Sales of properties are only undertaken when no other viable alternative exists for their continued retention in the residential portfolio.

  The Clerk to the Metropolitan Police Authority informs me that one section house and three other properties in the MPA residential estate are currently being offered for sale.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Metropolitan Police officers have been housed under the Government's Starter Homes Initative. [74504]

  Mr. Denham
  I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that by 30 September 2002 39 police officers and three civilian support staff have found homes to purchase under the Starter Home Initiative scheme. 16 police officers and one civilian have completed their purchase or exchanged contracts prior to completion.

  Ashfield Young Offenders Institution
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of staff at HMP 4 YOI Ashfield in post one year ago remain in post at the latest date for which figures are available. [74449]
  758W
  Hilary Benn
  On 30 September 2001, Premier Prisons had 242 staff in post at Ashfield prison and young offender institutions. On 30 September 2002, 177 (73 per cent.) of these staff were still in post.

  Cybercrime
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to ratify the European Convention on Cybercrime. [74278]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  No timetable for United Kingdom ratification of the Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention has yet been set.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what recent assessment he has made of the risk to the UK of a terrorist attack; what counter-measures he has proposed; and what improvements have been made to strategic co-ordination and direction by central government. [74412]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The terrorist threat to the United Kingdom is monitored very closely and remains under constant review. The Government published on 9 September 2002 a progress report titled "The United Kingdom and the Campaign against International Terrorism". The report, which summarises measures taken within the UK to counter the terrorist threat since 11 September 2001 and the areas where the Government are planning to focus its future effort, can be accessed via the Cabinet Office website www.cabinet-office.gov.uk.

  In October 2001, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister approved the establishment of a Ministerial Sub-Committee of the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee to oversee the Government's role in the international coalition against terrorism. DOP(IT) Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy, Sub-Committee on International Terrorism—was set up with a remit to keep under review the Government's policy on international terrorism, in particular the political, military and humanitarian response to the attacks in the United States on 11 September and preventative security measures in the UK and overseas.

  As part of this new Sub-Committee, the Prime Minister established a Ministerial Group, which I chair, to keep under review policy on protective security. DOP(IT)(T)—Ministerial Group on Protective and Preventative Security—was set up with a remit to keep under review the Government's policy on preventative and precautionary security measures to counter the threat of terrorism in the UK and to British interests overseas.

  I also maintain oversight of the United Kingdom's capacity to respond to terrorist attack through my chairmanship of the Civil Contingencies Committee.

  To further enhance the capacity at the centre of Government to co-ordinate security, intelligence and consequence management matters and deal with risks and major emergencies should they arise, Sir David Omand KCB was appointed as Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator and Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office in June this year.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the EU Co-ordination Group to promote uniformity of application of the general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas (first general system) is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [66456]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The last meeting of the EU Co-ordination Group on the General System Directives took place on 9 July 2002 and the date of the next meeting is to be confirmed, it is anticipated that it will take place before the end of the year. There are two directives under the General System—89/48 EEC (First Diploma Directive), the responsibility of DTI, and 92/51 (Second Diploma Directive), the responsibility of DfES.

  The DTI Co-ordinator for Directive 89/48 EEC represents the UK at meetings of this Group. We liase with the devolved administrations on the application of the Directive. If an issue of particular relevance were to be put down for discussion at a meeting, in relation to Scottish qualifications, the UK Co-ordinator would liase with the Scottish Executive to discuss whether a Scottish official should attend. This has not been necessary to date.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the work of the learning and skills councils and the local councils. [74632]

  Margaret Hodge
  The LSC is in its second year of operation, and is making significant progress in meeting the learning needs of individuals, employers and the wider community. Participation and achievement levels have increased, and work is in hand to drive up quality in teaching and learning, and to broaden the range of provision available for learners. The LSC is expected to publish its annual report and a revised Corporate Plan later this year.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list in respect of each programme transferred to the Learning and Skills Council(a) the agency previously responsible, (b) the total resources allocated in 2000–01, (c) the total resources allocated for 2001–02 and (d) the estimated costs of administering the programme in 2000–01. [74107]

  Margaret Hodge
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 19 September 2002,Official Report, columns 125–26W.

  A-Levels
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students(a) sat A-level
  760W
  exams this year, (b) have completed a UCAS form and (c) have planned to defer their entry into higher education. [74626]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is given in the table.

  18 year olds sitting A levels and applying for HE

  Number

  Students1 sitting A Levels in 2002

  200,000

  Students2 with 2 or more A levels applying via UCAS in 2002

  141,000

  of which, those accepting an HE place and deferring entry

  17,000

  Notes:

  1 Aged 17 at August 31 2001

  2 Aged 18 at September 30 2002. Latest figures as at October 3 2002. Figures rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what steps she will be take to deliver the guarantee of a university place to those disqualified by inappropriate downgrading in A level examinations this year; [74692]

  (2) if she plans to override the autonomy of selection by higher education institutions to fulfil her guarantee of a place for those students whose A levels were inappropriately downgraded. [74695]

  Margaret Hodge
  Universities UK, the representative body of universities, has already advised all its members to honour the offers they made prior to the publication of A-level results in August. lf, as a result of the review, a student is now eligible to take up a place, they will be able to do so, either if possible this year, or in 2003.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much extra finance will be made available to higher education institutions to accommodate downgraded A level students; and whether maximum student numbers will be increased; [74691]

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much extra funding will be provided to higher education institutions who have to take extra students in(a) this academic year and (b) future academic years as a result of exam remarking. [74624]

  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear that universities and higher education colleges will not suffer financial disadvantage in this financial year because of changes in student numbers due to regrading of A level marks. This commitment continues in to next year.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list when meetings took place between Ministers and officials of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, between 1 July and 31 August; and if she will place the minutes of each meeting in the Library. [74332]

  Mr. Miliband
  Ministers met officers of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority on 25 June, 18 July and on 7 August. All relevant notes were made available to Mike Tomlinson in the course of his inquiry into A-level standards.
  761W
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost is to a student of requesting a re-mark in an A-level exam with the(a) Oxford, Cambridge and RSA, (b) Edexcel and (c) Assessment and Qualifications Alliance boards. [74625]

  Mr. Miliband
  The cost of re-marks are usually borne by students' schools and colleges. The awarding bodies will not accept requests for re-marks from candidates, or their carers or from any third party, except in the case of private candidates. The awarding bodies offer a fast track re-mark service to be completed in 30 days, standard remarks should be completed within 40 calendar days. Oxford, Cambridge and RSA (OCR); and the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance charge £20.80 for the re-mark of a specification unit under both the fast track and standard services. Edexcel charge £30 for a fast track re-mark of a specification unit and £25 for a standard re-mark. Schools are not invoiced until the outcome of a re-mark is known. They are only charged if the grade does not change.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students of the(a) Oxford, Cambridge and RSA, (b) Ed Excel and (c) Assessment and Qualifications Alliance boards had A-level papers re-marked (i) this year and (ii) in each year since 1997. [74620]

  Year

  Oxford, Cambridge and RSA

  Edexcel

  Assessment and Qualifications Alliance

  Legacy A level

  Curriculum 2000 AS/A2

  Legacy A level

  Curriculum 2000 AS/A2

  Legacy A level

  Curriculum 2000 AS/A2

  1997

  1565

  2368

  n/a

  1998

  2206

  2468

  n/a

  1999

  2181

  2578

  n/a

  2000

  1977

  2789

  5074

  2001

  1828

  3169

  —

  4255

  —

  7580

  2002

  5826

  4863

  7200

  OCR was the only awarding body able to supply a breakdown between the examiners marking the legacy A level and the Curriculum 2000 assessments in 2001. AQA was unable to provide details of the examiners employed in the years 1997 to 1999.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many A-level papers of the(a) Oxford, Cambridge and RSA, (b) Edexcel and (c) Assessment and Qualifications Alliance boards were re-marked (i) this year and (ii) in each year since 1997. [74621]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, as regulator, monitors the performance of the awarding bodies and since 1999 has collated data on the basis of the number of enquiries and appeals processed. An enquiry could relate to the results for one unit of a modular A-level or one paper of a linear A-level or the overall results for all modular units or all linear A-level papers for an A-level examination. We are seeking a breakdown on the basis requested which will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of students whose downgrading in A level
  762W
  Mr. Miliband
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the awarding bodies usually collate information on candidate entries affected. We are seeking a breakdown on the basis requested, which will be placed in the House of Commons library in due course.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list contacts between her Department's officials and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority between 1 July and 31 August. [74353]

  Mr. Miliband
  As part of normal business, DIES officials met their QCA counterparts on over 150 occasions during July and August. Meetings covered a wide range of national curriculum qualifications and assessments issues. They also communicated in writing and by telephone.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many qualified A-level examiners were employed by the(a) Oxford, Cambridge and RSA, (b) Edexcel and (c) Assessment and Qualifications Alliance boards (i) this year and (ii) in each year since 1997. [74622]

  Mr. Miliband
  I set out below the number of qualified A-level examiners employed by each awarding body in the years in question.

  examinations cost them a place at university this autumn who will be (a) accommodated with a place this year and (b) in subsequent years. [74693]

  Margaret Hodge
  Universities UK have advised their members that they should honour commitments made before August to all students who are entitled and wish to transfer after the regrading of their results. Where possible, students will be able to take up their place this year, but if not, entry will be offered for next year.

  Universities
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment is made by her Department of the pastoral care system in British universities; and how the Department monitors it. [73349]

  Margaret Hodge
  A new system of academic review has just been introduced by the Quality Assurance Agency for universities in England. Under this system, students will be encouraged to comment on their learning experience including the quality of pastoral support. QAA reports will include both students' views and their own findings. In addition, as part of our drive to give students more say over their education, there will be institutional and national student satisfaction surveys that will include their views on quality of
  763W
  pastoral support. The national surveys will be undertaken annually, from Autumn 2003 onwards, independently seeking the views of graduates. The Department has also recently undertaken a project to identify a range of effective approaches by Student Services. The project has been completed, and the results will be published in November.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which universities are allowed to set their own tuition fees; and what plans she has to extend the freedom for universities to set their own fees. [73383]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government only controls the fee for undergraduate full-time courses at publicly funded higher education institutions. Privately funded institutions can set their own fee for these courses and all higher education institutions can set their own fees for post-graduate and part-time courses.

  The ability to charge differential fees has been raised as an issue many times over the last decade as one way for universities to raise income, including in a recent report from the Education and Skills Select Committee. The Government will be publishing its response to the Committee's report alongside the HE strategy document later in the autumn.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the impact of rises in tuition fees on poorer people; and if a family with a large number of children wishing to attend university is entitled to a reduction in fees. [73384]

  Margaret Hodge
  Students from lower-income families do not make any contributions to their tuition fees and have not therefore been affected by their uprating since 1998/99 in line with inflation. Any parental contribution to fees and maintenance is assessed on the basis of parental income and is shared between those children in the same family who are eligible for student support. By dividing the parental income by the number of children who are currently

  95–96 Estimate

  96–97 Estimate

  97–98 Estimate

  98–99 Estimate

  99–00 Estimate

  00–01 Estimate

  01–02 Estimate

  Unit funding

  (£)

  3080

  3200

  3240

  3370

  3500

  3890

  4280

  Projections for the next three years will not be available until the detailed 2003–06 Spending Review allocations are agreed in the autumn.

  Information about sixth form colleges is not kept separately from FE colleges. The unit funding information on these is given in PQ 73961.

  The unit funding figures for schools and FE colleges (including sixth form colleges) are not directly comparable, as they have not been calculated on the
  764W
  attending university, the impact of tuition fees on families with a large number of children is fairly assessed.

  16–19 Year Olds
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many 16 to 19-year-old students there were in(a) sixth form colleges and (b) further education colleges in each of the last three years. [73965]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The requested figures are given in the table below:

  Enroled learners in England

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  Ages 16–19

  Further education colleges

  698,600

  686,100

  662,100

  Sixth form colleges

  121,200

  121,100

  122,600

  Unknown Age

  Further education colleges

  72,500

  68,900

  45,400

  Sixth form colleges

  5,700

  3,800

  2,100

  All ages

  Further education colleges

  3,510,600

  3,541,500

  3,469,000

  Sixth form colleges

  210,400

  221,100

  215,500

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average per capita funding for 16–19 year olds in(a) schools and (b) sixth form colleges was in each of the last ten years; and what the projections are for the next three years following the Chancellor's spending review. [73914]

  Mr. Miliband
  Although sixth forms have not been funded separately prior to 2002–03, the table below gives an estimate of the average unit funding per sixth form pupil, obtained by taking age-weighted funding for such pupils and adding in other school-level and LEA central funding for secondary schools on a per capita basis. Figures for 2002–03 have not yet been calculated.

  same basis. For example, the FE unit funding is for all pages and not just 16–19 as they are not available separately for this group.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average per capita funding for 16–19 year olds in further education colleges was in each of the last 10 years; and what the projections are for each of the next three years. [73961]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The following figures represent total funding per full time equivalent student in FE colleges including sixth form colleges:
  765W

  93–94 Actual

  94–95 Actual

  95–96 Actual

  96–97 Actual

  97–98 Actual

  98–99 Actual

  99–00 Actual

  00–01 provisional

  01–02 Provisional

  02–03 Planned

  Total unit of funding

  3,210

  3,170

  3,040

  3,050

  3,070

  3,120

  3,440

  3,540

  3,810

  4,090

  These figures are for students of all ages, as the Department does not collect this information separately for the 16–19 age group.

  Projections for the next three years will not be available until the detailed 2003–06 Spending Review allocations are agreed in the autumn.

  These figures are not directly comparable with information on per capita funding in schools as they are not calculated on the same basis. The FE unit funding figure includes total public funding allocated for FE, while the schools' figures are based only on delegated funds and exclude other funding that schools receive centrally from LEAs that impact on post-16 students. The figure for 2002–03 includes reallocated funds made available to FE in 2002–03 including for the Success For All strategy and additional funding recently announced for the Teaching Pay Initiative.

  Staff Vetting
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assurances(a) the Criminal Records Bureau and (b) Capita Plc gave that the backlog of applications would be cleared by the start of the school term; and if she will publish them; [74456]

  (2) when her Department asked (a) the Criminal Records Bureau and (b) Capita Plc whether it would be possible to process applications by the start of the school term. [74457]

  Mr. Miliband
  Officials in my Department receive information about the performance of the CRB on a regular basis. When interim arrangements to allow people to be appointed in advance of receipt of a Disclosure were first introduced from 24 May, the letter to Local Education Authorities stated following advice from the CRB that: "the CRB are confident that their problems will be resolved and that all relevant Disclosures have been issued before the start of the Autumn term." During June and July information provided by the CRB continued to indicate that they expected to clear the backlog of applications by the end of August, and to achieve the service standard of issuing Enhanced Disclosures within 3 weeks of receipt of the application by that point. During August it became increasingly uncertain whether the CRB would achieve that, and my officials enquired if the checks needed for staff at the beginning of term could be identified and given priority. In discussion with my officials on 21 August officials of the Bureau stated that they had identified approximately 22,500 outstanding applications for checks on education staff and were confident that the Bureau could clear most of these by 4 September, although it was possible that they might not be able to complete some where more information was required. Bureau officials also said that the actual checking process would be completed by the start of the new term, and that it would be possible to courier results to 766W
  Local Education Authorities after 29 August. Further discussions took note of the range of different dates for the start of the new term, with 4 September the most common. Lists of term start-dates were requested from Local Education Authorities for the purpose of prioritising the processing of applications. On 27 August the CRB was asked to agree a form of words to be included in my Department's letter to Local Education Authorities, and agreed the following text:
  "The Criminal Records Bureau is already targeting the checks that need to be cleared for education personnel on the basis of key word searches and the registration authorities that have sent them. Emergency action is in hand to ensure that as many as possible of these are cleared by 4 September, whilst ensuring there is no compromise in the integrity of the checks. In order to assist this process, and ensure that priority is given to those posts that will be most critical to the smooth running of schools in your LEA at the beginning of term, it is strongly recommended that each LEA provides the CRB with the following list of information as a matter of urgency, if you have not already done so:

  (1) Name of LEA and number as a CRB registration authority

  (2) Name, telephone number, and email address of key contact in the LEA

  (3) Start of term date for pupils (we have already provided a full list for all LEAs in date order to CRB, but it will help to have this together with the other information)

  (4) A list, with the name (first name, initial, surname), and CRB application number, of those individuals that the LEA regards as the highest priority for clearance for the beginning of term, in the light of the guidance given above. Please keep this as short as possible.

  (5) A full list, with the name (first name, initial, surname) and CRB application number, of all those individuals for whom the LEA is still awaiting outcomes of checks. This can follow the priority list if not readily available."

  My Department did not have direct contact with Capita PLC on these matters.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what proposals her Department has to reimburse schools the costs incurred as a result of delays by the Criminal Records Bureau in vetting staff before the commencement of the Autumn term; [74305]

  (2)what steps are being taken to recover costs incurred by (a) schools and other educational institutions and (b) her Department as a result of failures by the Criminal Records Bureau and Capita plc to process applications prior to the start of the Autumn term; [74307]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the cost to schools of additional supply staff needed as a result of the failure to complete Criminal Records Bureau checks by the start of the school term. [74311]

  Mr. Miliband
  We are currently considering representations we have received on behalf of schools about compensation for extra costs incurred as a result of delays by the CRB in issuing Disclosures. No decisions have been made as yet. We have asked a number of Local Education Authorities to provide estimates of the costs incurred by schools
  767W
  My Department's officials are currently discussing with the Criminal Records Bureau a claim for compensation in respect of the costs incurred as a result of having to put in place arrangements to make checks of List 99 for schools and other employers and agencies.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance her Department issued to(a) the Criminal Records Bureau and (b) Capita plc regarding the relative priority to be accorded to checks on (i) teachers with continuous records of employment in UK schools and (ii) new applicants to teach in UK schools. [74308]

  Mr. Miliband
  None.

  Consultancies
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list external(a) public relations/communications companies, (b) advertising and marketing companies, (c) management consultancies, (d) accountancy companies, (e) banking firms, (f) individual consultants and (g) other specialist consultancies used by her Department since June 2001; what actions those consultancies/companies have performed within her Department; and what costs have been incurred through use of these consultancies/companies. [74675]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 25 January 2002,Official Report, column 1129W in relation to part (a) of the question. The Information requested for the remaining could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Clitheroe Royal Grammar School
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will use her discretionary powers to award advanced status to Clitheroe Royal Grammar School. [73805]

  Mr. Miliband
  No, we propose to publish guidance in the Autumn and Clitheroe Royal Grammar School will he assessed against the criteria in the same way as any other school.

  Infant and Primary Schools
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment her Department has made of the impact of phased admission to reception classes on children born in May, June, July and August; [74281]

  (2) what consideration her Department has given to the provision of part-time teaching within a school environment at the beginning of the academic year for children who will not become five years old until the months of May, June, July and August. [74283]

  Mr. Miliband
  Admission arrangements for infant and primary schools, including the timing of admission to school, are matters for the admission authority. For most schools this is the Local Education Authority but for some it is the Governing Body.

  Many schools which admit children before compulsory school age do so initially on a part-time basis, particularly for the younger four year olds.
  768W
  Although the Government has not specifically assessed the impact of phased or part-time intake to reception classes, in September 2001 we published a summary of independent research into the effects of children starting school at different ages. This reported that research on the school starting age and summer born children is inconclusive.

  What is important is the quality of care and learning experiences very young children receive. Young children in reception classes receive provision, as part of the Foundation Stage, which is appropriate for their age and stage of development.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the local education authorities operating(a) a single fixed date of admission to reception classes and (b) a system of phased admission. [74280]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on the pattern of admissions into schools is not collected centrally.

  Admission authorities—the Local Education Authority for community and controlled schools (unless it has delegated authority to the governing body) and the governing body for foundation and aided schools—set their own admission arrangements, including how many pupils are to be admitted and when they are to be admitted. (Some infant schools admit children at the beginning of each term).

  Teacher Recruitment and Retention
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what changes she plans to make to the level of London weighting to which teachers are entitled to address recruitment and retention problems. [74526]

  Mr. Miliband
  The School Teachers' Review Body will be making recommendations early next year to the Secretary of State on this and other pay matters. The Government is aware that some schools have difficulties in retaining good, experienced teachers in inner London. The Secretary of State has asked the Review Body to give special attention to that issue. The Government does not, however, support further high, across the board increases next year covering the London Allowance areas, though does not rule out an increase in line with inflation. The value of the allowance has already increased by over 35 per cent. since 1997. The recruitment and retention issues across the London Allowance areas are complex. Schools are best placed to use their existing pay flexibilities to target the teachers they need. In addition, Stephen Twigg has been appointed as Minister for London schools, and the Secretary of State will shortly be appointing a London Schools' Commissioner to work alongside him. Their work will naturally take account of teacher recruitment and retention issues in London.

  Sector Skills Councils
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of the workforce is covered by sector skills councils. [74634]
  769W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There are five Trailblazer Sector Skills Councils currently estimated to cover 15 per cent. of the UK workforce. Five further sectors are developing final proposals to become Sector Skills Councils. This is estimated to increase the proportion of the workforce covered by all Sector Skills Councils to 48 per cent., subject to these sectors being successful in receiving a licence and their proposed coverage being confirmed.

  Youth Advice
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to consult(a) employers, (b) the CBI, (c) the Institute of Directors, (d) the Small Business Service and (d) sector skills councils on their role in delivering advice and guidance to young people. [73745]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  In recognition of the key role we envisage that all of the above mentioned groups will have in supporting a successful 14–19 phase of education, all were invited to respond to the proposals in the 14–19 Green Paper—including the advice and guidance aspects—earlier this year. In the light of responses from key stakeholders, we will be announcing how we intend to take forward our proposals shortly.

  We will be consulting into all key organisations in this area, including these groups, as we more further into the implementation phase of the proposals.

  Schools (Taunton)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average teacher to pupil ratio in(a) primary school and (b) secondary school classes in Taunton was in each year since 1996. [74091]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Pupil: Teacher Ratio1 in Maintained Primary and Secondary Schools in the Taunton Constituency Position in January each year.

  Primary2

  Secondary2

  2002 (provisional)

  22.0

  18.7

  2001

  22.8

  18.9

  2000

  23.9

  18.6

  1999

  24.7

  18.3

  1998

  24.5

  17.9

  1997

  23.7

  17.9

  1996

  .

  .

  Notes:

  1 The pupil:teacher ratio is calculated by dividing the total number of full-time equivalent pupils on roll in schools by the total number of full-time equivalent qualified teachers employed in schools.

  2 Includes middle schools as deemed

  . Data is not available by parliamentary constituency prior to 1997.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) pupils, (b) teachers and (c) support staff there are in each school in the Taunton constituency at the end of the 2001–02 academic year; and if she will make a statement. [74092]
  770W
  Mr. Miliband
  The available information is shown in the table below. This relates to numbers of pupils published in the Primary and Secondary School Performance Tables for 2001. Otherwise, school level information is not routinely published.

  Number of Pupils on Roll in Schools1 in Taunton Constituency

  Name of School Number on Roll

  Number on Roll

  Maintained Primary Schools

  Wellesley Park Primary School

  373

  Bishops Hull Primary School

  245

  Churchstanton Primary School

  98

  Lydeard St Lawrence Community Primary School

  87

  Milverton Community Primary School

  206

  Pitminster School

  41

  Sampford Arundel Community Primary School

  82

  Stawley Primary School

  48

  Halcon Community Primary School

  135

  North Town Community Primary School

  387

  Priorswood Primary School

  219

  Wellsprings Primary School

  313

  Beech Grove Primary School

  318

  West Buckland Community Primary School

  69

  Wiveliscombe Primary School

  256

  Parkfield Primary School

  413

  Lyngford Park Primary School

  258

  Oake and Bradford Community Primary School

  64

  Blackbrook Primary School

  212

  Holway Park Community Primary School

  346

  Bishops Lydeard Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School

  256

  Cheddon Fitzpaine Church of England Primary School

  152

  Creech St Michael Church of England Primary School

  220

  Hatch Beauchamp Church of England Primary School

  42

  Kingston St Mary Church of England Primary School

  111

  Langford Budville Church of England Primary School

  72

  North Curry CofE VC Primary School

  131

  Norton Fitzwarren Church of England Voluntary Controlled Community School

  151

  Nynehead Church of England Primary School

  25

  Rockwell Green Church of England Primary School

  184

  Staplegrove CofE Primary School

  192

  Stoke St Gregory Church of England Primary School

  77

  St Andrew's Church of England Primary School

  245

  West Monkton Church of England Primary School

  217

  Burrowbridge Church of England Primary School

  25

  Ruishton Church of England Primary School

  182

  Archbishop Cranmer Church of England Community Primary School

  355

  Holy Trinity CofE VA Primary School

  304

  Thurlbear Church of England Primary School

  188

  Trull Church of England VA Primary School

  221

  St George's Catholic School

  201

  Dulverton Middle and Community School

  114

  St John's Church of England Primary School

  191

  Maintained Secondary Schools

  Bishop Fox's Community School

  787

  Court Fields Community School

  736

  Heathfield Community School

  1071

  771W

  Number of Pupils on Roll in Schools1 in Taunton Constituency

  Name of School

  Number on Roll

  Kingsmead Community School

  679

  Ladymead Community School

  767

  The Castle School

  1132

  The St Augustine of Canterbury School

  552

  Special Schools

  Selworthy Special School

  62

  Note:

  1 Only includes schools which have pupils eligible for Key Stage

  2 tests or pupils aged 15 and for whom results are published in the Primary and Secondary Performance Tables. The Primary Performance Tables only include mainained primary schools with Key Stage 2 eligible pupils. Independent schools and infant schools are therefore excluded.

  Source:

  2001 Primary and Secondary Performance Tables

  Electronic Credits
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much is to be allocated in each of the next three comprehensive spending reviews for electronic credits. [74133]

  Estelle Morris
  I will announce decisions on the allocation of funding available from the Spending Review 2002 later in the year.

  Salisbury College
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement about the financial position of Salisbury College. [72610]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Fingerprinting
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason children's fingerprints are being taken in school libraries; if they will be stored securely; when they will he destroyed; and if she will make a statement on the system being used. [73318]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  About 1,000 schools are using software provided by a company called Micro Librarian Systems (MLS), which gives purchasers an option to use thumb printing to identify individuals for the purposes of schools' library management systems. Key features of the prints are converted into a numerical code for recording on the system. MLS has given officials in the Department a demonstration of their software and we understand that, while the number could, with difficulty, be re-created, the original print itself is not stored and cannot be reconstructed.

  The Office of the Information Commissioner have confirmed that they are of the view that the current use of the software developed by MLS is compatible with the principles of data protection, given the existence of safeguards against wider use of the thumb prints than is necessary for the purpose for which they are being collected in schools. The data should be deleted once a
  772W
  pupil leaves a school in accordance with the fifth principle of data protection that "personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes".

  Ultimately, it is for schools to decide whether they wish to use this software or not and, if so, whether they wish to use the thumb print technology as part of it. If they do decide to use it, the OIC has stressed that schools should seek the consent of parents. We would add that schools should seek the consent of pupils where appropriate. MLS also strongly recommends in its literature to schools that they should contact parents to advise them of the technology and their intention to use it before beginning the registration process. In schools that do use the software with the thumb print option, there are alternative means of access for those pupils who choose, or whose parents choose, not to use the thumb print option, so they are not disadvantaged.

  Private Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if, in respect of those provisions in the Education Bill which permit individual bodies of school governors to make contracts for the supply of educational services to schools with firms outside the public services, she plans to issue guidelines to local authorities and governors as to procedures to be adopted; and if such bodies will be subject to inspection by other statutory bodies. [74284]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department for Education and Skills will make guidance available on sections 11 and 12 of the Education Act 2002 which allow school governing bodies to form companies to provide services and to procure goods and services. Guidance on purchasing for schools is already available separately from the Department. School companies will operate under the provisions of the Companies Acts and will submit audited accounts to Companies House. The regulations on school companies will provide for a supervising local education authority to receive accounts from the company and to request further information where necessary. School companies will not be subject to inspection by other statutory bodies.

  Performance payments
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the differentials between performance payments for teachers in schools and further education colleges. [73719]

  Mr. Miliband
  Teachers in maintained schools are subject to national school teachers' pay and conditions based on recommendations made by the independent School Teachers' Review Body (STRB). Teachers at the top of the main pay scale can apply to "cross the performance threshold" by providing evidence of competency in five nationally agreed teaching standards. The aim of the performance threshold is to encourage and reward good teaching and to help make teaching a more effective and attractive profession. Passing the threshold means a permanent move to an "upper" pay scale. In practice, this mean a salary
  773W
  increase of about £2,000. The criteria for moving through the upper pay scale is developed by individual schools.

  FE colleges, including sixth form colleges, are run by independent corporations and unlike schools, there is no national pay agreement in the sector. There is a nationally recommended pay scale agreed by employer representative bodies and the unions but pay arrangements in the sector are diverse. This reflects colleges' ability to agree annual pay rises and conditions of employment with their staff in the context of local priorities and the overall resources available to them.

  In consultation with the Association of Colleges, the Sixth Form Colleges' Employers' Forum and the FE unions we have introduced the Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI) to help colleges modernise pay arrangements and to recruit, reward and retain teachers excellent teachers. For sixth form colleges, the arrangements for TPI (referred to as the Professional Standards Payment) are very similar to those in schools, with a prescribed payment of £2,000 to the eligible teachers who meet the required standards. In general FE colleges, there are national guidelines within which payments must be determined, rewarding the achievement of qualifications, continuous professional development, advanced practitioner status and measures to modernise pay arrangements. General FE colleges have the flexibility to determine the precise levels of TPI payment made to their staff. It is for individual colleges to decide whether to consolidate TPI awards into pensionable pay.

  We have recently announced the extension of the TPI to non-teaching staff in colleges.

  TECS
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list(a) the total sums made available by her Department or its predecessors to training and enterprise councils for their central administration costs and (b) the amounts spent by TECs on central administration, for each year from 1995–96 to 2000–01. [74100]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) on 24 July,Official Report, columns 1360W–64W.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance was given by her Department to Training and Enterprise on the virement of funds between the budgets allocated for work-based training for young people and adults, and those for central TEC administration in each year from 1995–96. [74102]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) on 24 July,Official Report, col. 1359W.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list(a) the total sums made available to training and enterprise councils and (b) the sums spent by TECs on work-based training for (i) young people and (ii) adults, and other Government-funded programmes, in each year from 1995–96. [74101]
  774W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) on 24 July,Official Report, col. 1356W–57W.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what funding is being provided to the teacher training agency to ensure additional supplementary courses are offered at primary level in PE equivalent to those offered for secondary PGCE courses; [73937]

  (2) what proportion of primary school teachers are trained to teach an effective PE and sports curriculum; and if she will make a statement. [73942]

  Mr. Miliband
  From September this year, all those training to be primary teachers receive training to teach PE as an integral part of their programme. This should ensure that more new primary teachers are suitably prepared to deliver the primary PE curriculum. Initial teacher training providers can also choose to offer trainees additional specialist training in PE or other subjects if they wish. However, the change in the requirements for primary teachers means that there should be no need for any supplementary courses of the kind offered for secondary teachers. These courses are aimed at providing graduates with the full range of knowledge and skills needed for the more specialised secondary PE curriculum.

  Professional development also has an important role to play, and DfES and DCMS are working together to deliver a joint PSA target to enhance sporting opportunities for 5–16 year olds, by increasing the percentage of children who spend at least 2 hours a week on high quality PE and schools sport, within and beyond the curriculum, to 75 per cent. by 2006. Subject to final detailed decisions on the 2002 spending review settlement, we aim to support additional training for teachers and others in PE and school sport.

  Year 12 Pupils
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many year 12 pupils are expected to be in full-time education in(a) September 2002 and (b) January 2003; and how many were in full-time education in (i) September 2001 and (ii) January 2002. [73708]

  Mr. Miliband
  Figures on participation in education are compiled using information available around the end of the calendar year, and that information relates to pupils by their age at the start of the academic year.

  Provisional figures collected around the end of 2001 showed that there were 218,000 pupils aged 16 in schools and 232,000 in further education in England.

  Projections indicate that there will be approximately 221,000 16 year olds in schools and 239,000 in further education around the end of 2002.

  Performance Bonuses
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which schools have received a special achievement bonus in the past five years, broken down by region. [73850]
  775W
  Mr. Miliband
  School Achievement Awards were made for the first time in 2001. Details of the 2001 awards and those made in 2002 have been published on the Department's Teachernet website where the award winning schools are listed under each Government Office Region. (http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/Management/pay and performance/schoolachievementawards/)

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what types of special achievement bonuses for schools are available; and what the criteria are for earning them; [73847]

  (2) what plans she has to introduce further bonuses to encourage improving school performance. [73848]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department's School Achievement Awards Scheme allocates £60million to our 7,000 best and most improving schools. Awards must be used to fund staff bonuses for which all staff, not just teachers, are eligible. They have been made for the second time this year and were awarded to schools:

  1998

  1999

  English

  Maths

  Science

  English

  Maths

  Science

  North East

  60

  55

  52

  59

  57

  51

  North West

  65

  58

  54

  63

  60

  53

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  61

  57

  53

  61

  59

  52

  East Midland

  63

  60

  56

  62

  63

  56

  West Midland

  62

  56

  53

  63

  59

  51

  East of England

  66

  64

  60

  65

  67

  60

  London

  62

  52

  49

  60

  56

  48

  South East

  69

  64

  62

  70

  67

  60

  South West

  67

  63

  60

  67

  66

  59

  England

  65

  59

  56

  64

  62

  55

  2000

  2001

  English

  Maths

  Science

  English

  Maths

  Science

  North East

  61

  61

  56

  63

  63

  63

  North West

  63

  64

  58

  65

  65

  64

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  61

  61

  56

  62

  63

  63

  East Midland

  63

  66

  61

  63

  67

  67

  West Midland

  63

  62

  57

  63

  64

  64

  East of England

  66

  69

  64

  67

  70

  70

  London

  61

  59

  51

  62

  61

  58

  South East

  68

  69

  64

  69

  70

  71

  South West

  66

  68

  64

  67

  70

  70

  England

  64

  65

  59

  65

  66

  66

  2002

  English

  Maths

  Science

  North East

  65

  64

  63

  North West

  67

  66

  65

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  64

  64

  64

  East Midland

  65

  68

  68

  West Midland

  65

  65

  65

  East of England

  67

  70

  70

  London

  63

  63

  61

  South East

  69

  70

  70

  South West

  68

  70

  70

  England

  66

  67

  66

  Note:

  2002 Government Office Region figures are "early statistics"
  776W where pupil performance in 2001 was substantially better than in 1998;where pupil performance in 2001 was better than most schools in similar circumstances; and that have come out of special measures in the 2000/01 school year.
  Third round award-winners will be announced in Spring 2003. The scheme is separate from the financial support the Department gives to schools for threshold pay and performance related pay for teachers.

  Assessment Test Scores
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average assessment test scores for secondary school students have been over the last five years, broken down by region. [73851]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following tables show the percentage of pupils who achieved level 5 or above in the Key Stage 3 tests in each Government Office Region in England between 1998 and 2002.

  Internet Access
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding the Government provides towards promoting internet access in schools in the last year in classrooms; and what programmes the Government funds that promote the use of the internet. [73846]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government made available £245 million through the Standards Fund in the last financial year (2001–02) for information and communications technology (ICT) in schools. This includes funding for equipment and content as well as for the Internet. Statistics published on 29 August tell us that over 99 per cent. of all schools in England were connected to Internet at April 2002 and that computer to pupil ratios are now one computer for every six secondary school pupils and one computer for every 9.7 primary school pupils.

  The main programme to promote the use of the Internet in schools over the last four years has been the National Grid for Learning strategy which is now part of the overall ICT in Schools Programme.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of(a) primary and (b) secondary schools broken down by region, have internet access. [73843]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information is not available.

  It is estimated from a recent sample survey of schools that over 99 per cent. of both primary and secondary schools in England were connected to the internet at 31 March 2002. The sample size was not large enough to support regional estimates.

  Information for England 2002 was published in Statistical First Release 19/02 "Survey of Information and Communications Technology in Schools 2002: Provisional", which is available on my Department's web-site www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics and from the Library.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are in place to improve the secondary education of students and the recruitment of teachers. [73838]

  Estelle Morris
  Investment for Reform, published in July, sets out our intentions for reforming the secondary education system. A record £12.8 billion increase in education investment over the next 3 years, together with measures in the Education Act 2002 will provide a firm basis for further reform and improvement, and higher standards.

  A range of measures has been introduced to boost teacher recruitment. From September 2000, £6,000 training bursaries have been paid to eligible students on postgraduate courses that lead to qualified teacher status. For those who train in and then go on to teach in shortage subject areas a £4,000 "golden hello" payment is made after induction has been completed. These measures helped to ensure that there were 29,045
  778W
  new entrants to initial teacher training courses in 2001–02, more than any year since 1994 and 1,330 more than 2000–2001.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what tests are used to assess whether secondary schools are improving; and if she will make a statement on the methodology of these tests. [73839]

  Mr. Miliband
  Secondary school performance and improvement are assessed on a number of bases, including the performance of their pupils in public examinations (GCSEs/GNVQs). Increasingly, we are also taking account of pupil performance in the end of Key Stage 3 tests, both in its own right and as an indicator of the "value added" by schools during Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4. The 2002 performance tables will include two value added measures for secondary schools nationally, in addition to the raw examination results published normally.

  The principal means of assessing achievements at the end of compulsory education is the GCSE. GCSEs are assessed through a combination of coursework and terminal examination. GCSE specifications have to meet the requirements of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's (QCA) subject criteria. A Code of Practice sets out the principles and practice for the assessment and quality assurance of the GCSE qualifications. It helps to ensure grading standards are constant in each subject across different awarding bodies and different specifications year on year.

  The National Curriculum Key Stage 3 tests are developed by QCA on behalf of the Secretary of State. These tests provide a measure of pupils' progress in English mathematics and science at the end of Key Stage 3. They help teachers and parents to see what children have achieved compared with other children of the same age and with national standards, based on eight levels of attainment in the National Curriculum.

  Exclusions
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children were excluded from state primary and secondary schools at each of the key stages in each of the last five years; and what percentage of each of these totals of exclusions children were recognised as being on the autistic spectrum. [73967]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The available information is shown in the table. Information collected centrally on permanent exclusions does not record the Key Stage of the pupil or the type of special educational need. Guidance from the Department makes clear that, other than in the most exceptional circumstances, schools should avoid permanently excluding pupils with statements of special educational needs. The guidance also requires head teachers to say, when reporting exclusions to Discipline Committees and Local Education Authorities whether the pupil has special educational needs, either with or without a statement.
  779W

  Maintained Primary and Secondary Schools: Number of Permanent Exclusions by age of Pupils

  England 1996/97–2000/011

  Primary Schools2

  Age of pupils

  Total

  3 and under

  4 to 6

  7 to 10

  11 to 13

  14 to 15

  16 and over

  1996/1997

  Number of permanent exclusions

  0

  239

  1,316

  18

  0

  0

  1,573

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  0.0

  15.2

  83.7

  1.1

  0.0

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.00

  0.01

  0.06

  0.08

  0.00

  0.00

  0.04

  1997/1998

  Number of permanent exclusions

  0

  210

  1,317

  12

  0

  0

  1,539

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  0.0

  13.6

  85.6

  0.8

  0.0

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.00

  0.01

  0.06

  0.06

  0.00

  0.00

  0.03

  1998/1999

  Number of permanent exclusions

  0

  188

  1,164

  14

  0

  0

  1,366

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  0.0

  13.8

  85.2

  1.0

  0.0

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.00

  0.01

  0.05

  0.07

  0.00

  0.00

  0.03

  1999/2000

  Number of permanent exclusions

  0

  152

  1,039

  35

  0

  0

  1,226

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  0.0

  12.4

  84.7

  2.9

  0.0

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.00

  0.01

  0.04

  0.20

  0.00

  0.00

  0.03

  2000/2001 (1)

  Number of permanent exclusions

  0

  166

  1,240

  30

  0

  0

  1,436

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  0.0

  11.6

  86.4

  2.1

  0.0

  0.0

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.00

  0.01

  0.05

  0.18

  0.00

  0.00

  0.03

  Secondary Schools2

  Age of pupils

  Total

  3 and under

  4 to 6

  7 to 10

  11 to 13

  14 to 15

  16 and over

  1996/1997

  Number of permanent exclusions

  0

  0

  56

  4,727

  5,500

  180

  10.463

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions4

  0.0

  0.0

  0.5

  45.2

  52.6

  1.7

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.00

  0.00

  0.07

  0.29

  0.52

  0.06

  0.34

  1997/1998

  Number of permanent exclusions

  0

  0

  49

  4,404

  5,537

  197

  10,187

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  0.0

  0.0

  0.5

  43.2

  54.4

  1.9

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.00

  0.00

  0.06

  0.27

  0.53

  0.06

  0.33

  1998/1999

  Number of permanent exclusions

  0

  0

  59

  4,075

  4,393

  109

  8,636

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  0.0

  0.0

  0.7

  47.2

  50.9

  1.3

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.00

  0.00

  0.07

  0.24

  0.42

  0.04

  0.28

  1999/2000

  Number of permanent exclusions

  0

  0

  33

  3,266

  3,322

  92

  6,713

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  0.0

  0.0

  0.5

  48.7

  49.5

  1.4

  100.0

  Percentage of school population (4)

  0

  0

  0.05

  0.19

  0.31

  0.03

  0.21

  2000/2001 (1)

  Number of permanent exclusions

  0

  0

  50

  4,063

  3,165

  27

  7,305

  Percentage of all permanent exclusions3

  0.0

  0.0

  0.7

  55.6

  43.3

  0.4

  100.0

  Percentage of school population4

  0.00

  0.00

  0.07

  0.23

  0.29

  0.01

  0.23

  Notes:

  1 Permanent exclusions for 2000–01 are estimated as a number of LEAs have yet to confirm the data for their schools

  2 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  3 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the total number

  4 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of full and part-time pupils (excluding dually registered pupils in special schools) in January each year.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Departmental Guidance (14 to 16-year olds)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to his answer of 24 July 2002,Official Report, column 1354W, when he will issue the published version of guidance on increased flexibility for 14 to 16-year-olds. [74743]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department for Education and Skills and Learning and Skills Council's draft Guidance on Selected Legal Issues, as detailed in my answer of 24 July, is currently being revised in the light of comments made during an extensive consultation. The expectation is that a published version will be available in November 2002.

  PFI Projects
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the PFI projects in maintained schools which have been approved, giving the value of each. [74518]

  Mr. Miliband
  81 local education authority schools projects have been awarded PFI credits for new buildings or major refurbishments. Of these, 48 projects, covering 550 schools, have reached financial close, with a total capital value of £1.3 billion. Another 33 projects are in procurement, having been approved by the Treasury-chaired Project Review Group (PRG). These projects have a capital value of
  781W
  £1.1 billion, and cover more than 250 schools. Details of these projects are given on the Department's website at www.teachernet.gov.uk/ schoolsprivatefinanceinitiative. A further 20 projects, covering more than 150 schools, have been awarded PFI credits on a provisional basis, and are currently preparing Outline Business Cases for consideration by the PRG.

  Threshold Payments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of teachers who have successfully applied for threshold but who are awaiting payment as a result of delays in Government funding. [73742]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department makes monthly threshold payments to local education authorities so that payments can be made to schools as soon as they return a funding claim form. Authorities are also able to make payments to schools or teachers before receiving payment from the Department. This means that there should not be delays in schools receiving the Threshold Grant.

  Grammar School Ballots
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which local authorities have been the subject of a request for electoral reform services for the petition threshold figure under the education (grammar school ballots) regulations 1998 in 2001–02; and what threshold figure was calculated for each local authority. [73916]

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  £2,960

  £2,940

  £2,920

  £2,830

  £2,830

  £2,830

  £2,870

  £2,990

  £3,190

  £3,390

  £3,520

  English Baccalaureate
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what preparatory work her Department has done for the introduction of an English baccalaureate; and if she will make a statement. [74351]

  Mr. Miliband
  In our Green Paper, 14–19:extending opportunities, raising standards, we sought views on a proposal for a new overarching award called the Matriculation Diploma. We have considered carefully the views expressed during the consultation on the Green Paper and will be making an announcement soon on how we intend to take forward our plans for the 14–19 phase.

  Curriculum 2000
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the cost of ending the Curriculum 2000 exam systems; and if she will make a statement. [74352]

  Mr. Miliband
  We have made no estimate of this cost. The government believes that the greater breadth introduced in the post 16 curriculum by Curriculum 2000 is valuable, a view shared wholeheartedly according to the Tomlinson report.
  782W
  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  Bexley

  8,829

  Bournemouth

  3,849

  Buckinghamshire

  17,159

  Kent

  *

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  3,433

  Lancashire

  request withdrawn

  Lincolnshire

  *

  Medway Towns

  10,533

  Poole

  3,766

  Reading

  3,679

  Slough

  4,563

  Southend

  5,946

  Sutton

  7,096

  Torbay

  4,310

  Trafford

  8,624

  Wirral (Calday)

  2,146

  Wirral (County)

  2,916

  Wirral (St Anselm)

  2,122

  Note:

  * ERS were unable to complete setting thresholds for Kent and Lincolnshire.

  School Funding
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average per capita funding for schools was in each of the last 10 years; and what the projection is for the next three years. [73966]

  Mr. Miliband
  The per capita funding for schools in the last 10 years is set out in the table below. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will determine the final schools projected per capita funding later in the year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she intends to reply to the letter regarding Pat. McGuinness from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, addressed on 22 April to the Home Secretary and copied by the Home Secretary's Office to her. [73720]

  Stephen Twigg
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, replied to the right hon. Member's letter of 22 April on 7 August 2002.

  Youth Parliament
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much the Youth Parliament receives each year; and which minister takes lead responsibility for it. [73319]

  Mr. Denham
  The UK Youth Parliament is a registered charity, independent of Government. It receives financial support from a range of sources. The value each year of Government support, including grants, commercial contracts and support in kind, is as follows:

  1999–2000: £12,000

  2000–2001: £264,000

  783W

  2001–2002: £84,000

  2002–2003: £110,000

  As the Minister for Young People, I take the lead in Government, in its relationship with the Youth Parliament.

  Religious Education
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what figures she collates on the vacancies for trained religious education specialists in secondary schools. [73345]

  Mr. Miliband
  National Statistics published by my Department on 5 August show that, in January 2002, there were 90 vacancies for full-time teachers of religious education in maintained secondary schools in England.

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many places for religious education specialists at teacher training institutions are unfilled; [73346]

  (2) how many places on teacher training courses are set aside for training religious education specialists. [73347]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, made available 650 places on courses of initial training of teachers of Religious Education in 2001/02. Of those, 588 were filled. 700 training places will be available for Religious Education in 2002/03.

  Primary Schools
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will amend the basic need criteria to facilitate the provision of primary schools within new neighbourhoods; and if she will make a statement. [74467]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Basic Need guidance for 2003–04 was issued on 30 July 2002, and the deadline for LEAs to submit their bids was 30 September 2002. Basic Need is defined as the requirement for additional school places in areas of population growth, where there is no more capacity in schools in the surrounding area.

  We are currently undertaking a consultation on the future allocation of capital funding for new pupil places, with the aim of simplifying the process. Any new methodology, which should affect funding from 2004–05 onwards, should better support the expansion of successful and popular schools.

  Comprehensive Schools
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what evidence and related to which dates the old comprehensive schools involved(a) headteachers following orders, (b) teachers working alone, (c) school performance failure unchallenged and (d) accountability work as stated in her document Education & Skills: Investment for Reform, 5 July; and from what dates that model is derived. [74108]

  Mr. Miliband
  Under the original comprehensive system established in the 1960s, heads had neither the power nor often the resources to make their schools 784W
  special. Schools were isolated, and teaching skills, the school curriculum and school improvement were not publicly scrutinised. There was no framework to measure the effectiveness of schools nor to ensure intervention to drive improvement where standards were unacceptable.

  Significant policy initiatives introduced by this Government include: Excellence in Cities, which began in 1999 and is now operating in over a third of LEAs and having a positive affect on standards in those areas through partnerships and networks; intervention in inverse proportion to success leading to real action to tackle failing schools resulting in the number of failing secondary schools falling from 88 at the end of 1998 to 52 this summer; the expansion of the specialist schools programme as an engine for improvement—there are now almost 1,000 specialist schools covering 8 different specialisms compared to 181 schools in 2 specialisms in 1997; and a drive to improve leadership including the establishment of the National College for School Leadership, announced in 2000.

  TECs
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of total expenditure on Government-funded programmes was represented by central administration costs in respect of each training and enterprise council for 2000–01; and to what extent the sums spent on central administration represented value for money. [74104]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) on 24 July,Official Report, col. 1360W–64W.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much in each year from 1995–96 her Department consented to be transferred by training and enterprise councils between budget heads, showing for each budget head the total amount transferred out and the heads to which it was transferred. [74103]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) on 24 July,Official Report, col. 1359W.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff were(a) employed at the end of 1999–2000, (b) transferred to the Learning and Skills Council, (c) transferred to the Small Business Service, (d) transferred to Business Links, (e) transferred to other organisations and (f) made redundant by each TEC prior to 31 March 2001. [74105]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) on 24 July 2002,Official Report, col. 1357W–359W.

  Teachers
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham of 9 July 2002,
  785W
  Official Report, column 820W, if she will list for each school the number of teachers; and if she will make a statement. [73718]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is the Department's policy not to publish figures about individual schools unless the schools concerned have had the opportunity to check or confirm that information. The pupil figures provided in the reply given on 9 July,Official Report, column 820W were published as part of the Primary and Secondary School Performance Tables; these figures had been checked by the schools. Teacher numbers are, however, not routinely checked with schools.

  Capita
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps were taken by her Department following the suspension of the individual learning account scheme to ensure that services provided to it by Capita plc and its subsidiaries would be provided to an acceptable standard. [74304]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Officials continue to take seriously their responsibilities as managers of the Department's contracts, not only with Capita but with all our delivery partners. As soon as we became aware of the issues emerging from Individual Learning Accounts we took immediate steps to ensure that they did not apply to any of the Department's other contracts with any of our delivery partners. We have also taken further steps to ensure that ongoing assessment of the risks associated with delivery of contracted outputs is a standard part of what the Department's contract managers do. A comprehensive and wide ranging Supplier Management Project is seeking to embed that commercial competence across the Department as a whole and is one of our key improvement priorities.

  Departmental Research
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the current research commissioned by her Department in the fields of further and higher education and vocational training. [74629]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department's research programme currently supports 19 projects in the fields of further and higher education and vocational training. Details of the projects are noted below:

  Research on the Relationship between Training and Business Performance

  FE Students' Financial Circumstances

  Learning and Training at Work 2001 and 2002

  National Adult Learning Survey 2002

  Evaluation of the CMF-Funded UK Online Centres

  Early impact of the new arrangements for Adult and Community

  Learning under the Learning and Skills Council

  National Survey of Adult Basic Skill Needs

  Longitudinal Panel Survey of Learners

  Evaluation of Adult Basic Skills Pathfinder Extension Activities

  JSA Adult Literacy and Numeracy Skills Pilots

  Key Issues in Higher Education

  Evaluation of Connexions Card

  Evaluation of Playing for Success

  Evaluation of the Neighbourhood Support Fund

  Survey of Connexions Costs in Urban and Rural Settings

  786W

  Connexions Customer Satisfaction Survey

  Connexions Stakeholder Survey

  Ethnic minorities and HE

  Key Issues in HE.

  In addition the Department also funds 4 research centres whose activities will cover the areas noted above. These are:

  Wider Benefits of Learning

  Economics of Education

  Information Communication Technology

  National Research And Development Centre For Adult Literacy And Numeracy.

  University of Industry
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the role of the University of Industry in relation to other(a) providers and (b) strategic policy bodies in connection with vocational education. [74633]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Ufi was set up to stimulate demand for lifelong learning amongst businesses and individuals and to promote the availability of high quality learning materials and innovative learning methods, particularly through the use of Information and Communication Technologies. It uses the brand name learndirect.

  Ufi contracts for the delivery of learndirect courses in over 1700 centres across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Partners include further education colleges, private and voluntary sector providers, employers, trade unions and others. In England the Learning and Skills Council funds learning delivered in these centres. Ufi works closely with this Department and with the LSC, and a wide range of other partners, in pursuit of the effective delivery of its objectives. We have recently begun a review of the relationship between Ufi/learndirect and the DfES in order to agree the most effective long term basis for its future development

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has for quality accreditation processes to ensure that all young people receive high quality one-to-one information, advice and guidance in schools, colleges and the workplace. [73743]

  Stephen Twigg
  The Connexions Service has responsibility for working with schools, colleges and work-based training providers to ensure young people aged 13–19 have access to information, advice and guidance. Young people can access a wide range of support including one to one support from Personal Advisers.

  The Connexions Service is delivered by Connexions Partnerships operating in 47 areas in England. Each Partnership is responsible for meeting key requirements and quality criteria developed by the Connexions Service National Unit and OFSTED. On an annual basis each Partnership undertakes a self assessment of its work and this forms the basis of performance reviews with the Connexions Service National Unit. Once every four years OFSTED will also undertake a full inspection in each Connexions Partnership area. Work is also underway to develop a national non-statutory

  787W
  specification for careers education and guidance. The specification will help schools, colleges and work-based training providers improve the quality of support they provide to young people.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proposals she has to enable the Connexions Service to meet individual needs for guidance for young people arising from the Government's 14 to 19 policies. [73744]

  Stephen Twigg
  The Connexions Service will continue to provide access to impartial advice and guidance on learning and career options for all young people aged 13–19, through: individual and group sessions with a Connexions Personal Adviser; a wide range of careers information products; and through Information and Communication Technology.

  In recognition of the broader range of learning pathways that will become available as a result of the proposed 14–19 reforms, the Connexions Service will work with schools to review progress with young people and their parents or carers at the end of Key Stage 3. This will inform young people's specific learning choices

  1996/97

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/00

  2000/01

  Pupils in:

  Specialist pre 1 September 1997

  52

  54

  57

  59

  60

  Specialist post 1 September 1997

  45

  47

  48

  49

  51

  Maintained mainsteam

  43

  45

  46

  48

  49

  Note:

  1. Pupil weighted average.

  TEC Surpluses
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what(a) her estimate of the aggregate of Training and Enterprise Council surpluses attributable to public funds is, (b) the amount paid over to public funds to date in respect of those surpluses is and (c) action her Department is taking to recover outstanding amounts in respect of each TEC. [74106]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) on 24 July,Official Report, column 1359W–60W.

  Sector Skills Council
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to create a sector skills council for post-compulsory education. [74637]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Employers are discussing with my Department the potential for a UK-wide Sector Skills Council for post-compulsory education. These discussions are at an early stage. A firm proposal from employers would also need the support of the devolved administrations. It is the responsibility of the Sector Skills Development Agency to assess proposals against the Sector Skills Council standard and to recommend the award of licences.
  788W
  for Key Stage 4 and broad learning goals for the post-16 phase, as well as identifying opportunities for young people to undertake wider development opportunities. The focus of activity for the Connexions Service will be to provide individually tailored support to young people undertaking learning programmes that involve studying outside the institution in which they are based and those with multiple barriers to learning. We are also developing a new 11–19 national specification for careers education, to help schools, colleges and work-based training providers to develop more effective curriculum-based careers education programmes.

  GCSE Grades
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average percentage of pupils was obtaining five GCSE A*-C grades or above in(a) specialist schools designated before 1 September 1997, (b) specialist schools designated after September 1997 and (c) all schools in each of the last five years. [73968]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information is shown in the following table.

  Average 1 percentage of pupils obtaining 5 GCSE/ GNVQ A*-C grade or above in academic year:

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the sector skills councils(a) established prior to April, (b) established subsequently and (c) currently in formation. [74635]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We announced the award of trailblazer Sector Skills Council status to five sectors in December 2001. These sectors represent the audio visual; environment and land-based; oil and gas extraction, chemicals manufacturing and petroleum; apparel, footwear and textiles and retail industries. No further Sector Skills Councils have been licensed. There are five sectors in the final phase of developing Sector Skills Council proposals for consideration by the Sector Skills Development Agency. These sectors represent the e-skills; hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism: technology, engineering and science; construction and process manufacturing industries.

  National Training Organisations
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many national training organisations are in place. [74636]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Government recognition of National Training Organisations was withdrawn in March 2002. 61 organisations formerly with this status continue to operate in their own right.

  Schools Access Initiative Fund
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps her Department has taken to inform schools of the Schools Access Initiative Fund. [74139]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Information on the Schools Access Initiative is available on the Department's Special Educational Needs website at www.dfes.gov.uk/sen including information about allocations to individual Local Education Authorities and advice on how to find out more. Guidance on capital issues, including Schools Access Initiative, is also available on the education resource website teachernet at www.teachernet.gov.uk

  We sent guidance to all schools—Accessible Schools: Planning to increase access to schools for disabled pupils—in July this year. This included information on the Schools Access Initiative.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps her Department is taking to monitor the applications and spending decisions made under the Schools Access Initiative Fund, with particular reference to differing types of disability. [74140]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Local Education Authorities (LEAs) in receipt of resources provided under the Schools Access Initiative, are required to submit an implementation report to the Department at the end of the financial year confirming the types of access work and schools which have been targeted, together with costs and potential benefits of the work. This information is not categorised according to type of disability.

  LEAs are under a statutory duty to plan to increase the accessibility of their schools to disabled pupils, and the effective provision of access for disabled pupils in schools is an integral factor in the appraisal of Asset Management Plans. OfSTED will also monitor schools' accessibility plans as part of their inspections.

  Digital Photographs
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if digital photographs of children are being used to identify them in schools. [73317]

  Mr. Miliband
  Schools have for many years taken photographs of pupils for sale to parents, copies of which have been kept in the school. In recent years, copies of these photographs have been made available on a CD to many schools, so that a photo can be added to a pupil's electronic record.

  A photograph of a pupil falls within the definition of data in section 1 of the Data Protection Act and schools should ensure that the storage and use of the photograph is compatible with the Act.

  Juvenile Obesity
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research is being commissioned by the 790W
  Department on levels of obesity amongst school children; and what assessment has been made as to how these vary in different types of school. [73348]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  This Department has not commissioned any research into obesity amongst school children, or carried out any assessment as to how obesity varies in different types of school.

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the report by the Better Regulation Task Force regarding education. [73764]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Better Regulation Task Force published their report "Higher Education: Easing the Burden" on 22 July. Due to the Summer Recess, the Task Force has agreed that the normal 60-day response time can be extended to end of October. I will inform the hon. Member of the Government's response at that time.

  Apprenticeships
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many apprentices(a) started and (b) completed their apprenticeships in the years commencing 1 May (i) 1996, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 2002. [74329]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number of Advanced Modern Apprenticeships (AMA) and Foundation Modern Apprenticeships (FMA) started by young people (aged 15 to 24) are as follows:

  FMA

  AMA

  (i) 29 April 1996–4 May 1997

  0

  56,900

  (ii) 5 May 1997–4 May 1998

  1,400

  68,300

  (iii) 29 April 2002–23 June 2002

  4,400

  12,000

  Note:

  Figures exclude transfers between AMA, FMA and other work-based learning.

  (b) Information on completion of AMA and FMA frameworks is not available.

  Children in Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she is taking to raise the educational standard of children in care. [73928]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will publish her review of student finance. [74688]

  Margaret Hodge
  I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

HEALTH

  Health Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed by his Department on(a) 2 May 1997 and (b) 31 May 2002. [60893]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the right hon. Member to the central answer provided by my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office on 13 June 2002,Official Report, col. 1402W. Copies of the documents are available in the Library.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for(a) nurses and (b) doctors in the Huntingdon constituency. [74238]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information on the numbers of vacancies for nurses and doctors in the Huntingdon constituency has been placed in the Library.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the planned cost is of administrative and support staff for the North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire NHS Health Authority in 2002–03. [74328]

  Jacqui Smith
  The planned cost of administrative and support staff for the North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire Strategic Health Authority is £4 million.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the Nursing and Midwifery Council's proposals to introduce compulsory insurance. [74330]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has received 32 letters from independent midwives and those who have used their services on this subject.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of administrative and support staff in NHS organisations within the North Yorkshire Health Authority area in 1996–97; and what the planned cost is of administrative and support staff for(a) Hambleton and Richmondshire Primary Care Trust, (b) Craven, Harrogate and Rural District PCT, (c) Selby and York Primary Care Trust, (d) Scarborough, Whitby and Ryedale PCT, (e) Harrogate Health Care Trust, (f) South Tees Hospital NHS Trust and (g) York Health Services NHS Trust in 2002–03. [74327]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the table below.

  NHS Organisation

  1996/97 (£m)

  North Yorkshire Health Authority

  5.9

  Harrogate Health Care NHS Trust

  3.164

  Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  3.481

  York Health Services NHS Trust

  5.273

  2002/03

  NHS Organisation

  (£m)

  Hambleton and Richmondshire Primary Care Trust

  1.890

  Craven, Harrogate and Rural District Primary Care Trust

  1.980

  Selby and York Primary Care Trust

  4.320

  792W

  NHS Organisation

  1996/97 (£m)

  Scarborough, Whitby and Ryedale Primary Care Trust

  2.225

  Harrogate Health Care NHS Trust

  3.558

  South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust

  6.6

  York Health Services NHS Trust

  5.0

  Ms Drug Therapies
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what system of audit was set up alongside the risk sharing scheme for MS drug therapies announced in February; [73308]

  (2) what information (a) PCTs and (b) strategic health authorities are required to provide to his Department in respect of the risk sharing scheme for MS drug therapies; [73309]

  (3) What assessment he has made of the success of the risk sharing scheme for the MS drug therapies since its inception; [73310]

  (4) if he will undertake an interim review to assess progress in implementing the risk sharing scheme for drug therapies for MS; and if he will make a statement. [73357]

  Mr. Lammy
  The risk-sharing scheme is subject to the usual arrangements for clinical governance and audit adopted within the National Health Service. It is the role of the strategic health authority to ensure that policy is delivered appropriately in its area. Each neurology centre submits data to the scheme co-ordinator, Sheffield University's School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR).

  Primary care trusts and strategic health authorities are not expected to report routinely to the Department, though we have, in this instance, requested reports on progress. We understand that, in most areas if treatment is not already being initiated, it will start over the autumn.

  Devolution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the EU Standing Committee on zootechnics is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [70565]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Standing Committee on Zootechnics meets infrequently and we have no information about when the next meeting will be. UK representation varies according to the agenda for each meeting, and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved administrations where there are items of sufficient interest.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the EU Standing Veterinary Committee is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [70564]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.
  793W
  The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (formerly the Standing Veterinary Committee) generally meets twice a month to discuss public health or animal health matters. The next meeting is due to take place on 8/9 October 2002. UK veterinary representation varies according to the agenda for each meeting, and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved administrations where there are items of sufficient interest.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in making beta interferon available for MS sufferers by(a) primary care trusts and (b) hospital trusts serving (i) West Somerset and (ii) Taunton Deane. [73269]

  Ms Blears
  Beta interferon and glatiramer acetate are available on the National Health Service for the treatment of people with multiple sclerosis (MS) under the "risk-sharing scheme". The scheme, which came into operation on 6 May 2002, allows such treatments to be prescribed on the NHS to patients who meet the criteria set out by the Association of British Neurologists. All pharmaceutical companies involved have agreed terms for the supply of their products under the scheme. Patients will be monitored to confirm whether the drugs are working and costs to the NHS will reduce if patients do not benefit as expected.

  Currently, approximately 51 patients from Somerset are receiving treatment. The local primary care trusts are in discussion to arrange funding for an MS nurse beyond the period provided for by the pharmaceutical industry.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what appeal procedures are in place to enable MS patients who have been denied a place on the beta interferon pilot to challenge that decision; [73511]

  (2) what audit procedures are in place to ensure that local implementation takes place of the risk-sharing scheme involving drug therapies for beta interferon that he announced earlier this year; [73515]

  (3) how many patients were receiving treatment with drug therapies for beta interferon in Essex on 5 May; and how many patients are now being treated with these therapies; [73513]

  (4) what controls he intends to use to prevent consultants who do not agree with the wider use of beta interferon from preventing their qualifying MS patients from entering the pilot; [73512]

  (5) what assessment his Department has made of progress in implementing the risk-sharing scheme in relation to beta interferon; and if he will make a statement; [73514]

  (6) what progress is being made in making beta interferon available for MS sufferers by (a) primary care trusts and (b) hospital trusts serving patients in Essex. [73510]

  Mr. Lammy
  If a clinician has decided that a patient should not receive treatment under the risk-sharing scheme, and that patient is dissatisfied with the decision, we expect the patient would be offered a second opinion from another clinician.
  794W
  The risk-sharing scheme is subject to the usual arrangements for clinical governance and audit adopted within the National Health Service. It is the role of the strategic health authority to ensure that policy is delivered appropriately in its area. Each neurology centre submits data to the scheme co-ordinator. Sheffield University's School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR).

  Primary care trusts and strategic health authorities are not expected to report routinely to the Department, though we have, in this instance, requested reports on progress. We understand that, in most areas if treatment is not already being initiated, it will start over the autumn.

  We understand that 139 Essex patients were being treated prior to the inception of the scheme and that 19 patients have been initiated on treatment since May.

  Frozen Embryo Bank
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms are in place for the management and independent inspection of the Frozen Embryo bank; and how many mismatches have been(a) claimed and (b) verified in the last year. [74761]

  Ms Blears
  Frozen embryos are stored in centres licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Storage must be in accordance with the conditions of the licence, which include compliance with the HFEA's code of practice. The code of practice is regularly reviewed and laid before Parliament. The HFEA carries out a full inspection of each centre before a licence is given and every three years thereafter. In the interval there are annual inspections of specific aspects of the centre's work. A case involving alleged irregularities in frozen embryo storage is currently subject to court proceedings.

  Blood Products
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide funding to allow all NHS patients to access virus-inactivated plasma; and if he will make a statement. [74060]

  Ms Blears
  Plasma used for the production of blood products is virus inactivated and is already sourced from United States donors as a precaution against the theoretical risk of vCJD.

  An announcement was made on 15 August 2002 that fresh frozen plasma (FFP) will be obtained from the United States for new born babies and children born after 1 January 1996. This measure is designed to protect the most vulnerable group who will not have been exposed to BSE through foodstuffs. The United States FFP will be subject to treatment with methylene blue to reduce the risk of transmission of blood borne viruses.

  The Government expert advisory committee on the microbiological safety of blood and tissue for transplantation is continuing to keep this issue under review and there are currently no plans to allocate further funding.
  795W
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the Government did not decide in 1998 to stop the use in transfusions of fresh frozen plasma derived from UK donors; and if he will make a statement. [74061]

  Ms Blears
  The Government expert advisory committee on the microbiological safety of blood and tissues for transplantation did consider the importation of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) in 1998. The National Blood Service advised that sustainable supplies of imported plasma for FFP could not be obtained for the large number of patients every year who required it.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will apply the obligatory safety monitoring and other patient safeguards which are standard for licensed pharmaceutical products to fresh frozen plasma and methylene blue-treated fresh frozen plasma. [74204]

  Ms Blears
  The Medicines Control Agency already ensures that the United Kingdom's blood services meet European good manufacturing practice standards. In addition, the new European Blood Directive will, when adopted, require the accreditation of all blood establishments to ensure common standards of safety and quality in blood and blood components across all Members States and the reporting of serious adverse reactions attributable to the safety and quality of blood and blood components.

  The UK serious hazards of transfusion (SHOT) reporting system has had safety monitoring of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) and methylene blue treated FFP in place for five years. Although SHOT is a voluntary scheme the level of reporting compares favourably with reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions associated with licensed pharmaceuticals. Ninety two per cent. of hospitals in the UK already participate in SHOT and recent guidance to the National Health Service on the appropriate use of blood asks all hospitals to ensure participation www.doh.gov.uk/publications/coinh.html. SHOT publishes an annual report, and a copy of the most recent, for 2000–2001, has been placed in the Library.

  The National Blood Service is developing a new patient information leaflet for all patients who will undergo a transfusion with blood or blood components.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce his decision regarding the funding for the provision of non-UK plasma; and if he will make a statement. [74205]

  Ms Blears
  Plasma used for the production of blood products is already sourced from United States donors as a precaution against the theoretical risk of vCJD.

  An announcement was made on 15 August 2002 that fresh frozen plasma (FFP) will be obtained from the United States for new born babies and children born after 1 January 1996. This measure is designed to protect the most vulnerable group who will not have been exposed to BSE through foodstuffs.

  The Government expert advisory committee on the microbiological safety of blood and tissue for transplantation is continuing to keep this issue under review.
  796W
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to prevent the transmissions of West Nile Fever in blood purchased from the United States for use in the UK. [74756]

  Ms Blears
  Plasma is currently imported from the United States for the production of plasma products, as a precaution against the theoretical risk of vCJD transmission. Viral inactivation of these products is carried out as a safety measure to remove the risk to patients of transfusion transmittable viruses, including West Nile fever virus, should it be present. The decision to import plasma for babies and young children born after 1 January 1996 from the United States was recently announced. This plasma will also undergo viral inactivation.

  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason methylene blue-treated fresh frozen plasma is being advocated for use in children and others by the National Blood Service; and what assessment he has made of its safety. [73932]

  Ms Blears
  As an added precaution against the theoretical risk of vCJD transmission, the Government's expert advisory committee on the microbiological safety of blood and tissues for transplantation (MSBT) has recommended importing single unit fresh frozen plasma (FFP) from the United States. On 15 August 2002 the Government announced that imported FFP would be used for new-born babies and young children born after 1 January 1996.

  On the advice of MSBT, US sourced FFP will be virally inactivated using methylene blue (MB) treatment. MB has been administered in medical practice since 1900, and in much larger doses, many thousand-fold, than the National Blood Service (NBS) will be using. NBS will be removing more than 90 per cent. of MB before the FFP is issued to National Health Service hospitals. MB is a registered medical device under the Medical Devices Directive and has a European safety (CE) marking.

  Oxygen
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make available at reasonable cost ambulatory and/or liquid oxygen to those with respiratory difficulties likely to benefit. [74640]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have no plans at present to change the arrangements under which oxygen is provided for patients who need it. The current review of the domiciliary oxygen service has not yet been concluded.

  Asthma Nebulisers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make more asthma nebulisers available on prescription. [74639]

  Mr. Lammy
  We consider that asthma nebulisers are best provided to patients on loan from specialist National Health Services services. We have no current plans to make them available on general practitioner prescription.

  Hospital Chaplains
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the discussions between his officials and the Multi-faith joint First National Working Group in relation to advice and information for hospital chaplains. [73750]

  Mr. Lammy
  Department officials have been working closely for some time with the multi-faith joint national working group via their chosen representative, the Chief Executive of the hospital chaplaincies council to produce renewed advice on the provision of chaplaincy services in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the findings of the Patient Information Advisory Group with regard to the work of hospital chaplains. [73754]

  Mr. Lammy
  The patient information advisory group has advised me that National Health Service trusts should seek consent from patients before information about their religious affiliations can be passed to hospital chaplains. The NHS will need to develop systems for supporting the work of chaplains whilst recording and respecting the preferences of patients. I have placed a copy of the advisory group's advice in the Library.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimates his Department has made of the total cost to social services departments of the recent decision by the Competition Commission Appeal Tribunal on social services department funding of care home placements; [74789]

  (2) what advice he will issue to social services departments in England on abiding by the recent Competition Commission Appeal Tribunal decision on social services department funding of care home placements; and if he will make a statement. [74790]

  Jacqui Smith
  The judgement by the competition commission appeal tribunal, in the case of Bettercare versus the Director General of Fair Trading, found that purchasing by a public body, in certain circumstances, is an economic activity carried out by an undertaking and therefore may be subject to the provisions of the Competition Act 1998. The judgement reflected a particular set of circumstances and is not of general application. In broad terms, the Competition Act is concerned with anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant market positions. We would not expect councils to be acting in ways that are inconsistent with the Competition Act. The Government's White Paper Modernising Social Services made clear that councils should apply best value principles when securing social care services, whether those services are directly provided or purchased from a private or voluntary sector organisation.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential care home places for elderly people were closed in the Huntingdon constituency during the last 12 months. [74221]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information is not centrally available.

  Children's Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the recent report into the preparation of the Social Services Inspectorate report on children's services in the London Borough of Haringey. [74435]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Social Services Inspectorate did not prepare a report into the preparation of the inspection of children's services in the London Borough of Haringey. The most recent published report is that of the Inspection of Children's Services February 2002, which was published on 1 July 2002.

  Looked-after Children
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the GCSE exam performance of looked-after children in 2002. [74436]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not currently available. Data on the educational qualifications of care leavers aged 16 or more in year ending 31 March 2002 will be published by the Department in November 2002.

  Social Services Inspectorate
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to the Social Services Inspectorate concerning the role of inspected social services departments assisting service users and carers in completing questionnaires distributed as part of a Social Services Inspectorate inspection. [74434]

  Jacqui Smith
  No guidance has been given to the Social Services Inspectorate (SSI) on this topic. SSI is committed to obtaining the views of service users as part of its assessment of social services functions. SSI has advised inspected authorities that they should offer independent help to users and carers when they are completing questionnaires as part of an inspection, particularly for those people who may have difficulties completing a questionnaire.

  Information Systems
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the steps his Department has taken and plans to take to identify and remove incompatibility between NHS and social service information systems. [74427]

  Mr. Lammy
  The national strategic implementation programme for delivering 21 Century information technology support for the National Health Service, published by the Department in June 2002, sets out the actions required to meet the targets of the NHS Plan. A key element in this programme is the development of the integrated care records service (ICRS), which seeks to address the problems caused by the incompatibility of health and social service systems.

  Over the last two years, the Department has also commissioned a number of projects that have sought to identify and provide practical solutions to the problems of integrating health and social care systems. Two of the projects within the electronic records development and implementation programme (ERDIP), supported by the NHS information authority, have developed joint records for use by all members of community mental

  799W
  health teams, including both health and social services staff. Also, within the Information for Social Care demonstrator programme, a number of the projects have addressed issues relating to the sharing and exchange of information between health and social care agencies.

  These issues are also being progressed through the information strategies which support the national service frameworks, particularly those relating to mental health, older people and children's services.

  Hepatitis C
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation he has made of the measures(a) available and (b) required to prevent, treat and manage cases of chronic hepatitis C infection. [73896]

  Ms Blears
  We published Hepatitis C Strategy for England for consultation on 14 August 2002 in recognition of the importance of hepatitis C as an important public health issue, as highlighted in the Chief Medical Officer's infectious disease strategy, Getting Ahead of the Curve. The strategy sets out the current situation and proposals to improve the effectiveness of prevention, diagnosis and treatment services for hepatitis C.

  Following consultation, it is intended that the strategy will form the basis of an action plan, as proposed in Getting Ahead of the Curve. This will serve as a clear framework setting out actions that need to be taken by Government, the National Health Service and others to intensify efforts to tackle hepatitis C.

  Folic Acid
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responsibility the Food Standards Agency has with respect to informing Government policy on the fortification of flour with folic acid. [73894]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency was asked to consider and provide advice on the practical risk management issues which were linked to options for achieving universal fortification of flour with folic acid.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the effects of fortifying flour with folic acid on(a) the occurrence of birth defects and (b) the incidence of cardiovascular disease in other countries; [73895]

  (2) if he will ask the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition to review evidence on the effects of folic acid in lowering homocysteine and reducing cardiovascular disease. [73893]

  Ms Blears
  The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA, 2000), assessed the effects of folic acid on birth defects, such as neural tube defects (NTD), and estimated that fortification of flour with folic acid at a level of 240 micrograms per 100g could reduce the incidence of NTD affected pregnancies by 43 per cent. In terms of other countries, mandatory fortification has been implemented in the US, Canada and Chile. Recent research in some US States has linked the policy with a fall in the incidence of NTD. However,800W
  the level of fortification in other countries varies considerably from that recommended by COMA and therefore the results may not be directly comparable.

  There is epidemiological evidence that increasing dietary folate may reduce blood levels of homocysteine, an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, the effect of increasing folate intake on the incidence of CVD is not as yet conclusive. Results of ongoing randomised controlled trials are awaited.

  I have no plans at present to refer the matter of links between folic acid, homocysteine levels, and cardiovascular disease to the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. However, it is open to the Committee to review the developing evidence in this area if it feels this is appropriate.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will make a decision on his policy on the fortification of flour with folic acid. [73892]

  Ms Blears
  The decision on this complex issue requires careful consideration of both the benefits and the possible risks of fortification. The options are currently being considered, in the light of the recommendations of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA, 2000); responses to the consultation process, carried out in 2000; and advice from the Food Standards Agency.

  Prescriptions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average amount paid to Her Majesty's Government from the prescription charge was for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [73714]

  Mr. Lammy
  Data for 2000–01 indicate that on average each person who was liable to pay prescription charges, excluding those who held a pre-payment certificate, paid for around three prescription items.

  Prescription charges collected in England for each of the last ten years are shown in the table.

  Year

  Prescription Charge

  Total Collected (including PPC sales) £m

  1991–92

  3.40

  215.2

  1992–93

  3.75

  242.0

  1993–94

  4.25

  265.3

  1994–95

  4.75

  287.2

  1995–96

  5.25

  298.7

  1996–97

  5.50

  295.7

  1997–98

  5.65

  320.9

  1998–99

  5.80

  341.3

  1999–00

  5.90

  366.7

  2000–01

  6.00

  386.9

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what clinical benefits are expected from the electronic transfer of prescriptions programme: [73326]

  (2) what the projected lifetime cost is of implementing the electronic transfer of prescriptions programme. [73323]
  801W
  Mr. Lammy
  The electronic transmission of prescriptions between general practitioner practices and community pharmacists is just one element of a wider programme to modernise pharmacy services and the issue of prescriptions. The aim is to implement a new national prescriptions service that supports improved information on individuals' past and current medication, the move from paper based prescriptions with handwriting to secure electronic prescriptions with digital or graphical text and better decision support with integrated access to online drug dictionaries. There will be many building blocks that make up the whole national prescriptions service and at an infrastructure level the electronic transfer of prescriptions and prescription messaging together with connections and computers for pharmacists will be essential.

  The benefits of a national prescriptions service are then considerable. They will include:
  safer prescribing to save lives and reduce harm by automatic checks on drug interactions and dosage, and less errors arising from illegible or incomplete prescriptions
  a more convenient service for patients with easier and faster repeat prescriptions and choice over where they would like to collect their prescriptions
  better medicines management and the dramatic reduction of fraud and loss of money that can be put into patient care.

  A business case is being prepared for the national prescriptions service and its key components. This will identify, and provide more detail for, the full range of patient, clinical and efficiency benefits to be realised. The outline business case should be completed by January 2003.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the prescription charging system. [74198]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have no current plans to review the prescription charging arrangements.

  Mercury
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies his Department has commissioned on the impact of mercury in vaccines and its effect upon children; and if he will make a statement. [73787]

  Ms Blears
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) has recently reviewed the currently available data relating to possible neurotoxicity of thiomersal (a mercury-containing compound) in vaccines and advised that there is no evidence of harm caused by doses of thiomersal in vaccines, except for sensitisation reactions. The CSM concluded that the risk: benefit balance of thiomersal-containing vaccines remains overwhelmingly positive.

  The Institute of Medicine (IOM) in the United States also published a detailed review of the evidence relating to possible neurotoxicity of thiomersal in vaccines in October 2001. The IOM review also concluded that the evidence did not support a causal association between thiomersal contained in vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders. These findings were consistent with the CSM conclusions.

  We are aware of two studies in the United Kingdom looking at the relationship between mercury in vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders in children. One of
  802W
  these studies is funded by the Department and uses the Avon longitudinal study of pregnancy and childhood. The other study is using the general practice research database and is funded jointly by WHO and PHLS, which receives its funding from the Department. Neither of these studies supports an association between thiomersal exposure through the UK programme and neurodevelopmental disorders in children. The results of these studies have been made available to the Department and a summary of the findings is available in a Report to The US Congress which will be placed in the Library.

  Vaccines
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the four projects that are directly related to generating and testing new vaccine candidates and make a statement on the Government's involvement in each. [73732]

  Ms Blears
  Both the national institute for biological standards and control and public health laboratory service receive funding from government, some of which is spent on research and may be related to new vaccine work. They also receive funding/grants from other external sources, which includes help with research and development on vaccine activity.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the contracts to manufacture vaccines awarded to Powderject by his Department over the past two years, stating in each case what vaccines were to be supplied, when the order was placed, what the value of each contract was, where each vaccine was to be manufactured and whether the order was put out to a full competitive tender. [74235]

  Mr. Hutton
  In the past two years, the following contracts have been awarded to Powderject:

  Vaccine

  Data contract awarded

  Site of manufacture

  BCG & PPD

  10 March 2001

  UK

  Influenza

  6 August 2001

  UK

  Smallpox

  11 April 2002

  Germany

  All were put out to normal competitive tender except for smallpox, which was not subject to the normal competitive tendering process on the grounds of protection of the basic interests of the security of the UK.

  We do not disclose the value and quantity of the contracts, as this is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which company was awarded the contract to produce anti-tuberculosis vaccines for his Department last March; how much the value of that contract came to; and whether the cost represented a significant increase on previous contracts to manufacture similar vaccines. [74234]

  Ms Blears
  PowderJect were awarded a two-year contract for the supply of BCG vaccine in March 2001. Information surrounding the value of individual contracts is commercially confidential and is not disclosed.
  803W
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what preparations his Department has made with respect to purchasing further doses of smallpox vaccine, subsequent to the contract awarded to Powderject. [74233]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our longer term requirements for licensed Lister strain smallpox vaccine are currently under consideration

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role Impfstoffwerke Dessau Tornau is to play in the manufacture of the smallpox vaccine which will he supplied to the Government by Powderject. [74232]

  Mr. Hutton
  Impfstoffwerke Dessau Tornau GmbH (IDT) is the subcontracting manufacturer of the new smallpox vaccine for Bavarian Nordic, with whom PowderJect have an exclusive agreement for the supply of smallpox vaccine.

  Growth Hormone Deficiency
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with(a) the Pituitary Foundation, (b) the Royal College of Physicians and (c) the Society for Endocrinology on the subject of growth hormone deficiency. [73352]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no discussions with the Pituitary Foundation, The Royal College of Physicians or the Society for Endocrinology on the subject of growth hormone deficiency.

  In May the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommended to the National Health Service in England and Wales that human growth hormone (somatropin) is both a clinically and cost effective way to treat children with growth hormone (GH) deficiency. A decision on adult growth hormone deficiency is eexpected from NICE shortly.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the average cost of treatment for individuals suffering from growth hormone deficiency in the last year for which figures are available. [73353]

  Jacqui Smith
  The cost of treatment depends on the dose, which is determined by the weight and size of the patient, as well as the individual growth hormone reserve. The average annual cost of growth hormone treatment, based on March 2002 figures, is around £3350 per patient.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to answer the correspondence from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, referred to him by the Prime Minister, concerning Dr. Chai Patel and his membership of advisory committees; and if he will list those committees. [74342]

  Mr. Milburn
  I replied on 7 October 2002.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 10 January from the hon. Member for New Forest West. [54356]
  804W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 1 July 2002.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Broxbourne of 19 April, 16 May, 14 June and 11 July relating to correspondence from Mr. Hugh McKinney of Cert. [70435]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 30 July 2002.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will set a national target for reduction of epilepsy deaths; [74052]

  (2) whether the Home Office is being consulted on the Action Plan to address the findings in the National Audit of Epilepsy-Related Death on the adequacy of post-mortem investigations; [74050]

  (3) what plans he has to address the information and support needs for bereaved families affected by SUDEP and other epilepsy deaths; [74048]

  (4) what plans he has to address the findings in the epilepsy deaths report on the adequacy of post-mortem investigations. [74049]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) on Thursday 19 September 2002,Official Report, col. 344W.

  We are working with the Royal College of Pathologists to promote their guidelines on autopsy practice, to improve post mortem investigations. The guidelines cover neuropathological cases, including deaths in epilepsy. Additionally we propose to consider ways of improving practice in new death certification and investigation procedures in the light of the Home Office review of coroners system which is due to report in April 2003.

  GPs
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners(a) took early retirement and (b) left for other reasons from primary care practice in Sunderland in each year since 1998.
  [74259]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002*

  Early retirement

  2

  2

  4

  1

  2

  Left for other reasons

  13

  7

  18

  15

  8

  Notes:

  Early retirement is defined as under 60 years

  * 2002 to end of August

  Source:

  Northumberland and Tyne & Wear Strategic Health Authority

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) female and (b) male GPs took up their first post in the NHS since 1998; what available number of GP training places there were in each year since 1998; what special measures were taken locally to

  805W
  recruit GPs since 1998; broken down by each health authority/PCT in the Northern and Yorkshire areas; and if he will make a statement. [74256]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data are not collected in the format requested.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies for general practitioners there were in the Taunton constituency in each year since 1996; and if he will make a statement. [74089]

  Ms Blears
  The Department first carried out a survey into general practitioner (GP) recruitment, retention and vacancies in 2000. The information is collated on a health authority basis.

  In the 2000 survey Somerset Health Authority reported that it had four GP vacancies outstanding at some time in the 12 month period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000. In the 2001 survey there were 28 general practitioner (GP) vacancies at some time in the 12 months from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001.

  Results from the 2002 survey should be available later in the year.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds have been blocked in Somerset hospitals in each month in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002. [74112]

  Ms Blears
  Information on delayed transfers of care has been collected at health authority level and has been placed in the Library. Figures are available for the four Quarters of calendar year 2001 and the first Quarter of 2002.

  Nursing
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing posts there are at the(a) Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust and (b) South Somerset NHS Trust which have been vacant for three months or more. [74111]

  Ms Blears
  The three month vacancy rate1,2 for qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff in Taunton & Somerset Hospital National Health Service Trust is 0.3 per cent. This is based on less than five vacancies3 and staff in post of 980 whole time equivalents and 1,260 headcount.

  There is no data available for South Somerset Primary Care Trust. This was a new primary care trust in April 2002 after the three month vacancy survey was undertaken.
  Source: Department of Health Vacancy Survey 2002 Department of Health Non medical workforce census September 2001
  Notes:

  1. Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2002 which trusts arc actively trying to fill, which have lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalent)

  2. Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from this survey.

  3. Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest ten.

  4. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.
  806W
  5. Due to rounding calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rate.

  6. Staff in post data is from the non-medical workforce census September 2001.

  7. Figures exclude learners.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the Nursing and Midwifery Council concerning their processing of registration applications from non-EU qualified nurses with special reference to the efficient process of applications for registration; and if he will make a statement. [74081]

  Mr. Hutton
  I met with Mr. Jonathan Asbridge, President of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), in July to receive a progress report from him regarding the implementation of the new Nursing and Midwifery Order. The well-publicised problems of the NMC regarding delays in the processing of applications for registrations formed part of those discussions and I am, through my officials, continuing to monitor the progress of the NMC in addressing these issues.

  I support the continuing actions taken by the President to resolve the immediate issues and his commitment to undertake a comprehensive review of the systems and processes that the organisation inherited from its predecessor, the United Kingdom central council for nurses, midwives and health visitors (UKCC).

  I am advised that the NMC has cleared the backlogs in the UK applications and is continuing to target resources at registration applications from those qualified overseas, from both within and outside the European Union.

  Anaphylactic Attacks
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice his Department has given to pharmacies to have epipens available to treat anaphylactic attacks; [73900]

  (2) what requirements there are for pharmacies to have epipens available to treat anaphylactic attacks. [73899]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has not given any advice to pharmacies that requires them to have eipipens available to treat anaphylactic shock. As epipens are prescribable items we would expect pharmacies to stock them as a matter of course.

  The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain in their code of ethics refers to emergencies and states "Pharmacists must assist persons in need of emergency first aid or medical treatment whether by administering first aid within their competence or by summoning assistance and or the emergency services".

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department has given to(a) nursery and (b) primary schools about special measures for children susceptible to (i) anaphylactic shocks and (ii) other allergies. [73897]

  Mr. Lammy
  In 1996 the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment issued joint guidance on Supporting pupils with medical needs in

  807W
  schools. The guidance, which was sent to health authorities and local education authorities, covers treatment and the development of healthcare plans for pupils suffering from potentially life threatening medical conditions, including anaphylaxis. Although aimed primarily at schools the guidance was also recommended to special schools, nursery schools and further education colleges.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the availability in(a) schools, (b) chemists, (c) restaurants and (d) doctor's surgeries of epipens to treat anaphylactic shocks. [73898]

  Mr. Lammy
  In 1996 the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment issued joint guidance on Supporting pupils with medical needs in schools. The guidance, which was sent to health authorities and local education authorities, covers treatment and the development of healthcare plans for pupils suffering from potentially life threatening medical conditions, including anaphylaxis. Although aimed primarily at schools the guidance was also recommended to special schools, nursery schools and further education colleges.

  The Department has not assessed pharmacies regarding the availability of epipens. As epipens are prescribable items we would expect pharmacies to stock them as a matter of course. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain in their code of ethics refers to emergencies and states "Pharmacists must assist persons in need of emergency first aid or medical treatment whether by administering first aid within their competence or by summoning assistance and or the emergency services".

  There has been no assessment of the availability of epipens in restaurants and doctors' surgeries.

  Food Poisoning
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of food poisoning were contracted during a hospital stay in each of the last five years, broken down by trust. [74202]

  Mr. Lammy
  Data on food poisoning cases contracted during a hospital stay are not available. The table shows reported outbreaks of food borne infectious intestinal disease in England from 1997 to 2001 by strategic health authority.

  Year

  Number of outbreaks

  Strategic Health Authority

  Number of people ill*

  1997

  1

  Kent

  38

  1997

  1

  London

  2

  1997

  1

  Northumberland

  36

  1997

  1

  Somerset

  14

  1997 (total)

  4

  90

  1998

  1

  Thames Valley

  10

  1998

  1

  Norfolk

  27

  1998

  1

  Surrey

  100

  1998 (total)

  3

  137

  1999

  1

  Hampshire

  7

  1999

  1

  North Yorkshire

  35

  808W

  Year

  Number of outbreaks

  Strategic Health Authority

  Number of people ill*

  1999

  1

  Hampshire

  50

  1999 (total)

  3

  92

  2000

  1

  Essex

  6

  2000

  1

  South West Peninsula

  106

  2000

  1

  Essex

  8

  2000 (total)

  3

  120

  2001 (total)

  0

  0

  1997 to 2001(total)

  13

  537

  Note:

  * includes patients and staff

  Data source:

  PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre—GSURV Gastrointestinal Diseases Division

  Restenosis
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of whether percutaneous coronary interventions with bare stents increased after the National Institute for Clinical Excellence completed its appraisal of stents in May 2000; [74216]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the cost of readmitting patients who have restenosis after revascularisation; [74218]

  (3) if his Department has set targets for the reduction of restenosis following stenting in revascularisation. [74217]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not collect cost or activity data that relates solely to hospital readmission and has not made any assessment about the cost of readmitting patients who have restenosis after revascularisation.

  The Department does not collect information on the number of percutaneous coronary interventions that involve the use of stents.

  The Department has not set any targets for reduction in restenosis following stenting in revascularisation.

  NICE
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps are being taken to ensure that health economic data used by NICE is accurate, reliable and up-to-date; and if he will make a statement; [74209]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the reliability and accuracy of health economic data used by NICE in its appraisals; what mechanisms exist to review the reliability and accuracy of the data; and if he will make a statement. [74210]

  Mr. Lammy
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellences (NICE) appeals committee obtains health economics data from two main sources—a technology assessment report (TAR) prepared for each appraisal and submissions from manufacturers.

  The academic teams which prepare TARs were selected through a competitive tendering process which provides assurance of their competence to carry out this

  809W
  work. Before presenting the TAR to NICE, the team seeks the comments of expert reviewers and technical staff at NICE. The TAR is subsequently scrutinised by the NICE appraisal committee and by consultees to the appraisal.

  Submissions from sponsors of technologies (including manufacturing) are critically examined by the academic teams which produce TARs, by the technical staff at NICE and by the appraisal committee.

  There is therefore a comprehensive process in place for quality assuring the evidence used in NICE appraisals.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the credibility and clarity of NICE guidance; and if he will make a statement. [74211]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have received correspondence about many appraisals in which the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recommended restricted use of a technology.

  The Health Select Committee, on which the hon. Member serves, has published its conclusions on the credibility and clarity of NICE guidance. The Government response was published in September 2002 as Command Paper 5611.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given NICE in respect of his policy of enhancing patient choice in the context of NICE appraisals of modes of dialysis. [74240]

  Mr. Lammy
  None. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence carries out its appraisals independently of Ministers.

  Blood Products
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make the reporting of adverse incidents associated with transfusions in the NHS mandatory. [74058]

  Ms Blears
  The serious hazards of transfusion (SHOT) reports provide a comprehensive picture of serious transfusion complications in the UK. The fifth annual SHOT report (published April 2002) showed an increase in participation to 92 per cent. of eligible hospitals. Participation in the scheme has been encouraged by guidance to the National Health Service, most recently in HSC 2002/009—("Better Blood Transfusion—Appropriate use of blood") http://www.doh.gov.uk/bbt2/009hsc2002). This asks Chief Executives of National Health Service trusts to ensure participation in the SHOT scheme by December 2002.

  SHOT is currently collaborating with the new National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) whose core function is to improve the safety of NHS patient care by promoting a culture of reporting and learning from adverse incidents and professional errors without fear of personal reprimand. The NPSA reporting system will be implemented across the NHS from 2003 and will cover of all types adverse incidents and "near misses" affecting NHS patients, including those associated with transfusions.
  810W
  The draft European Commission Directive on standards of quality and safety of human blood and blood components requires Member States to report "any serious adverse events (accidents and errors) related to the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of blood and blood components which may have an influence on their quality and safety, as well as any serious adverse reactions observed during or after transfusion which may be attributed to the quality and the safety of blood and blood components".

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to reduce the mortality and morbidity levels associated with fresh frozen plasma. [74059]

  Ms Blears
  The Government's advisory committee on the microbiological safety of blood and tissue for transplantation is continuing to consider the relative efficacy and risks of the different types of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) available.

  United Kingdom FFP is already a very safe product. To minimise the risk from viruses, it is made only from previously tested blood donors. Since the year 2000, an additional test for hepatitis C has been added. As a result the risk from a unit of FFP is estimated to be one in five million for HIV and lower than one in one million for hepatitis C. Over 300,000 units of FFP are issued annually and it is only given in life-threatening situations to prevent or stop haemorrhage associated with abnormal blood clotting.

  The National Blood Service is conducting an option appraisal of means to minimise the risk of transfusion-related acute lung injury from FFP.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what representations he has received in favour of the use of solvent detergent-treated transfusion plasma produced from United States of America plasma; and if he will make a statement. [74057]

  Ms Blears
  The Government has received correspondence from Octapharma Ltd supporting the increased use of their product "Octaplas". Department officials have also met Octapharma and further discussions are planned.

  "Octaplas" is licensed in the United Kingdom and can be purchased by National Health Service trusts. It is made by pooling plasma from donors but is treated with solvent detergent to reduce the increased risk of viruses caused by pooling. There would also appear to be a reduced risk of transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) with this product. We understand that it is not yet made exclusively from United States plasma but soon will be.

  United Kingdom sourced fresh frozen plasma (FFP) is also available from the National Blood Service and is more commonly used by the NHS than Octaplas. It is made from single donations from donors who have been previously tested for viruses to minimise the risk of infection. Like all blood for transfusion, FFP is also leucodepleted to reduce the theoretical risk from vCJD.

  As an added precaution against the theoretical risk of vCJD, the Government announced on 15 August that FFP for young children and babies will be imported from the United States. This FFP will be treated with methylene blue to reduce the risk of viral transmission

  811W
  still further for this most vulnerable group. This decision was made following advice from the advisory committee on microbiological safety of blood and tissues for transplantation (MSBT) who are continuing to review the safety of FFP.

  Blood Transfusions
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS trusts are required to transfuse anaemic cancer patients at the haemoglobin levels recommended by the British Committee for Standards in Haematology, following the publication of the Health Service Circular 2002/009, Better Blood Transfusion; Appropriate Use of Blood. [73958]

  Ms Blears
  The Department published Health Service Circular 2002/009,Better Blood Transfusion—Appropriate Use of Blood on 4 July 2002, available on www.doh.gov.uk/publications/coinh.html. This circular recommends that National Health Service trusts adopt national guidelines for the appropriate use of blood and recommends a number of national guidelines and web sites, including guidelines from the British committee for standards in haematology published in 2001. These guidelines provide specific advice to clinicians. The type of treatment offered to anaemic cancer patients is a matter of individual clinical judgement and discussion with the patient concerned.

  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS trusts are required to give patients information on(a) the alternatives to transfusion and (b) the standards of transfusion in advance of receiving treatment following the publication of the Health Service Circular 2002/009, Better Blood Transfusion—Appropriate Use of Blood. [73959]

  Ms Blears
  The Department published Health Service Circular 2002/009,Better Blood Transfusion—Appropriate Use of Blood, on 4 July 2002, available on www.doh.gov.uk/publications/coinh.html. This circular asks National Health Service trusts and primary care trusts to ensure that written information is made available to patients on transfusion and the alternatives by April 2003.

  National Blood Authority
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much state subsidy the National Blood Authority has received over the past three years; if he will publish its full consolidated accounts in the future; and if he will make a statement. [74206]

  Ms Blears
  The table shows the central funding which the Government has provided to the National Blood Authority (NBA) between 1999–2000 and 2001–2002.

  Revenue (£ million)

  Capital (£ million)

  1999/2000

  17.127

  18.715

  2000/2001

  17.257

  11.500

  2001/2002

  46.550

  16.149

  812W
  The published annual reports of the NBA contain financial statements in summary form. Each report states that a full set of Accounts can be provided by NBA on request.

  A full set of NBA Accounts for 2000–01 have been placed in the Library.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 July 2002,Official Report, column 121W, if he will make it his policy to collect this data. [73817]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are currently no plans to publish information on nursing and care home beds more frequently than annually. Information relating to the change in the number of homes between 2001 and 2002 will be available later this year. The National Care Standards Commission is developing its database to enable the production of information linked to its Royal Commission requirements. Within this context, information relating to the quality and capacity of residential and nursing care home beds will be available later this year.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 April 2002,Official Report, column 459W, on care homes, if he will place copies in the Library of the letters sent to national providers about the increases in fees experienced by residents. [56594]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]No, as the correspondence relates to the commercial or contractual activities of care homes.

  NHS Clinical Governance Support Programmes
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total running cost has been of the NHS Clinical Governance Support programmes. [73344]

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

  Programme

  Cost 2001/2002 £000s

  Clinical Governance Development Programme

  578

  Strategic Leadership of Board Development Programme

  235

  Protected Time Pilot Programme

  3241

  General Practitioner Appraisal Training Programme

  67

  Total

  1,204

  Note:

  1 plus £50,000 for each of the 19 NHS pilot sites to support them in the local delivery of the programme

  Transplants
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he plans to publish his consultation paper on organ transplantation; [74237]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the progress towards the United Kingdom's transplants target of 2,500 transplants per annum by 2005–06. [74236]
  813W
  Mr. Lammy
  At the first ever organ donation and transplantation summit in February 2001, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched a draft plan—Organ and Tissue Transplantation—a plan for the future. The plan issued for consultation included draft proposals aimed at increasing kidney donation rates to achieve 2500 renal transplants in England by 2005–6. We are considering the comments received. A final version of the plan is being developed and will be published in due course. UK transplant continually monitors transplant activity and the latest figures are available from their website (www.uktransplant.org.uk).

  Clinical Governance
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the(a) background and (b) intentions of the strategic leadership of the Clinical Governance Board programme led by the NHS Governance Support Team. [73350]

  Mr. Lammy
  The NHS Plan for investment and reform identifies the need to put in place a robust management and support framework to deliver national standards of care. The strategic leadership of clinical governance board development programme was introduced in February 2001 to ensure top-level board commitment to deliver these national standards.

  Currently the board development team is working with 100 National Health Service organisations to enable them to deliver safe, high quality healthcare. They enable boards strategically to factor in external drivers and future changes to create a clinically focused strategy and development plan that make a difference to the lives of patients and health professionals.

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of blood donors who will be removed from the blood donor base if recipients of blood are banned from donating blood. [73931]

  Ms Blears
  The National Blood Service estimates that approximately 135,000, or 7.7 per cent., to 255,000, or 14.5 per cent. of blood donors would be removed from the donor base if it was decided to exclude donors who had previously received a blood transfusion, as a precautionary measure to minimise the theoretical risk of transmitting vCJD through blood. The Government's expert advisory committee on the microbiological safety of blood and tissues for transplantation is currently considering this along with other possible vCJD risk reduction measures.

  Neo-Natal Services
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason there has been a delay in publishing the report on the future of neo-natal services in England; and when it will be published. [73935]
  814W
  Jacqui Smith
  The report on the future of neonatal services in England was delayed so as to allow for the implications of its recommendations to be more fully assessed. It is anticipated that the report will now be published for consultation later this year.

  Surgical Instruments
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS hospitals have received delivery of new surgical instrument decontamination equipment as a result of the commitment of the £200 million at the start of 2001; [73979]

  (2) what progress has been made with regard to spending the money announced at the start of 2001 to upgrade hospital decontamination facilities. [73977]

  Mr. Lammy
  At the end of August, £85 million had been allocated to 101 schemes proposed by National Health Service trusts for improving their decontamination facilities. These schemes included purchasing new equipment, upgrading the buildings used for reprocessing and purchasing new surgical instruments to facilitate the centralisation of reprocessing. This, together with contributions from the NHS trusts themselves, amounted to an investment of some £107 million. Similar bids worth another £10 million were still being considered.

  In order to get the best value for money, the tendering process for equipment has been undertaken by the NHS purchasing and supply agency. Individual contracts are awarded by the NHS trusts themselves, taking into account local issues such as the expected completion of essential building work. The installation of equipment will follow these necessary preparations.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the procurement rounds organised by the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency for new surgical instrument decontamination equipment since the commitment of £200 million at the start of 2001. [73978]

  Mr. Lammy
  The NHS purchasing and supply agency tendered for all the sterilizers and washer-disinfector requirements that were identified as part of the immediate investment process to upgrade existing decontamination facilities within the National Health Service in England.

  This major investment covers in excess of 70 NHS trusts across the country for 115 sterilizers, 171 washer-disinfectors and a large amount of associated equipment and accessories to the approximate value of £28 million.

  A number of suitable sites have recently been identified for intermediate investment and the NHS purchasing and supply agency is in the process of procuring this additional equipment.

  A significant proportion of the £200 million is being spent on building work to improve segregation and the purchase of surgical instruments to enable centralisation of the service.

  PFI Funding
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals in England have had PFI funding in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [73726]
  815W
  Mr. Hutton
  In the year from April 2000, 24 contracts, with a value of £1 million or greater, were signed. In the year from April 2001, 11 contracts with a value of £1 million or greater, were signed.

  No records are kept centrally of schemes valued at less than £1 million.

  Hospitals (Alcohol and Tobacco Consumption)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the rules are governing the consumption of alcohol and tobacco(a) on hospital premises, (b) in patient areas and (c) in emergency services staff areas. [74160]

  Ms Blears
  There are no centrally imposed rules on alcohol consumption on National Health Service premises, but all NHS trusts are expected to have policies in place that reflect their need to provide patients with high quality medical care in a safe environment. The Department issued Guidance entitled Taking alcohol and other drugs out of the NHS workplace in February 2001, which deals with the issue of alcohol consumption by NHS staff, but does not ban it from NHS premises.

  Many NHS trusts have already banned smoking in their hospitals and hospital grounds and the Government have set milestones for implementing smoking policies across the NHS as part of the national service framework on coronary heart disease.

  Reserve Forces Doctors
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the operating cost was of the compulsory mobilisation of reserve forces doctors employed by the NHS on 16 May. [73930]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on the operating cost are not held centrally.

  Elective Surgery Abroad
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the pilot scheme to refer NHS patients overseas for elective surgery. [73780]

  Mr. Hutton
  The pilot scheme for treating National Health Services patients in other countries in the European Economic Area was evaluated by the York Health Economics Consortium. Their evaluation has been published and is available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/international and the Library.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 July, ref 68035, what quality checks are in place for elective operations performed abroad under contract to the NHS. [73781]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has established lead commissioning arrangements for overseas healthcare capacity. Guy's and St. Thomas' National Health Service Trust is responsible for finding high quality elective treatment capacity and providers of clinical teams to come to this country in Austria, Belgium, Germany, and northern Europe. Kent and Medway 816W
  Health Authority is responsible for finding treatment capacity and providers of clinical teams in France, Spain and more southerly countries.

  The Department has advised NHS primary care trusts and NHS trusts to approach one of the two NHS lead commissioners if they wish to arrange for treatment for patients abroad.

  In selecting hospitals in other countries in the European Economic Area to treat NHS patients the lead commissioners take into account relevant paper evidence and visit hospitals where patients may potentially be treated. Quality requirements are set out in the contracts agreed between the lead commissioners and the hospitals abroad. The Department has asked the lead commissioners to ensure that contracts with overseas healthcare providers will require them to afford reasonable access to the Commission for Health Improvement and other appropriate bodies.

  Obesity
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total amount of Government funding has been for research and development into issues related to overweight people and obesity in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [74458]

  Ms Blears
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in health and social care.

  The MRC has a large commitment to nutrition generally with major investments in the MRC Dunn human nutrition unit, the MRC resource centre for human nutrition research and the MRC international nutrition group. Spend on the whole portfolio amounted to £16.6 million in 2001–02, for example.

  The total MRC and Department expenditure specifically on obesity related research for the past five years is as follows:

  Year

  £million

  1997/1998

  £0.3

  1998/1999

  £0.5

  1999/2000

  £1.0

  2000/2001

  £2.0

  2001/2002

  £2.1

  In addition, the Department provides National Health Service (NHS) support funding for research commissioned by the research councils and charities that takes place in the NHS. Details of ongoing and recently completed research projects funded by, or of interest to, the NHS are available on the national research register at www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm.

  NHS Financial Directors
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many financial directors were employed in the National Health Service in(a) 1979 and (b) 1997 and are now employed in (i) England, (ii) Wales and (iii) the UK. [73567]
  817W
  Mr. Lammy
  In 1979 it was not compulsory for every National Health Service body in England to appoint a Finance Director. Records are not held centrally of how many were in post at that time.

  Since 1979 each NHS body in England has been required to appoint a Finance Director. The number of such bodies was 543 in March 1997 and 596 in March 2002.

  The position in other countries within the United Kingdom is the responsibility of the devolved administrations.

  Child Psychotherapists
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the availability of funding for child and adolescent psychotherapists in South West Hampshire; [73938]

  (2) how many child and adolescent psychotherapists are practising in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight; and what funding is being made available for training posts. [73939]

  Ms Blears
  A total of 5.7 whole time equivalent (wte) child psychotherapists are employed across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

  The Department allocates the multi-professional education and training levy to local workforce development confederations (WDCs) for the training of health professionals, including child psychotherapists.

  The Hampshire and Isle of Wight WDC is responsible for deciding priorities for investment in new training places and is aware of a bid for a child psychotherapy trainee in Southampton. The WDC has not been able to fund all the bids it received this year for additional training places in the many different health professions but bids will be reconsidered against next year's allocation.

  Patient Records
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures are in place to enable a person to access patients' records made before 1 November 2001. [73906]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Data Protection Act 1998, which came into force in March 2000, enables individuals to apply for access to their health records, regardless of when their records were created. The Access to Health Records Act 1990, which came in to force in November 1991 governs rights of access to the health records of deceased persons.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many requests to access patient records were made in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001 under the Data Protection Act 1998. [73907]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested in not held centrally.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations have been received by the Information Commissioner on access to patients' records being refused in each year since 1990. [73905]
  818W
  Mr. Lammy
  I have been informed by the Office of the Information Commissioner that it holds general information about the number of enquiries and complaints it has received regarding health matters under the Data Protection Act 1998 since it came in to force on 1 March 2000, but it does not hold details of the specific issues involved in each case. Prior to this date the majority of requests for access to health records were governed by the Access to Health Records Act 1990, but no information is held centrally on numbers of requests or refusals.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms his Department has put in place to remove the variations between trusts in the standard of structure and content of patient records. [73909]

  Mr. Lammy
  The delivery of electronic records is being taken forward in implementing the national strategic programme Delivering 21st Century IT—Support for the NHS which was announced by my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (the Lord Hunt of Kingsheath) following the publication of Delivering the NHS Plan on 11 June 2002. One of the key aspects of phase one of the programme requires all primary care trusts and National Health Service trusts and hospitals to implement elements of electronic patient records by December 2005.

  To support the NHS toward delivering this vision the Department in July 2002 published for consultation the National Specification for the Integrated Care Records Service to take forward the life-long heath record service. The key feature of the programme is the shift to a more corporate, national approach to deliver information technology in the NHS. This represents a step-change from the current arrangements whereby systems are typically provided for individual organisations in each health care sector. For electronic records this change means that there will be a national approach to procurement resulting in services conforming to national standards, which will include record structure and some content standards. The resulting services will be able to inter-operate with emerging national services such as the electronic staff record and the health record infrastructure. The aim being to ensure that all electronic record systems are fully compliant with national standards and specifications by December 2007.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many requests were made to access health records for deceased persons in each year since the Access to Health Records Act 1990 came into force. [73908]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Booked Admissions Programme
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the projected lifetime cost is of implementing the booked admissions programme. [73324]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national booking programme began as 24 pilots in 1998 and since September 2001 is being implemented in every health community in England in order to move booking to a mainstream way of providing National Health Service services. By
  819W
  December 2005 all inpatients and outpatients will benefit from the choice of a convenient date, time, place and provider for their hospital appointments and admissions.

  Booked appointments are one element of the reforms set out in the NHS Plan to provide health services designed around the patient. The lifetime costs of the booking programme are not separately identifiable from the overall costs of improving patient services. The table below shows funding made available to the national booking programme since 1998.

  National Booking Programme Funding since 1998 (£ million)

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  10

  20

  40

  50

  60

  NHS Information Technology
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the NHS IT programme,Delivering 21 Century IT Support, to reach the OGC gate three investment decision. [73325]

  Ms Blears
  The Gateway Review 3: Investment Decision is designed to ensure that the recommended investment decision is appropriate before a contract is placed. It provides assurance on the processes used to select a supplier, whether the process has been well managed and whether the business needs are being met. It also provides assurance that the proposed solution can be implemented and managed to achieve a successful outcome.

  The national Information Technology programme as a coherent whole, and each major component thereof, will be subject to a Gateway Review 3 at the appropriate time. Some major elements e.g. electronic appointment booking may reach Gateway Review 3 earlier than others but this stage should be completed for all components by Spring 2003.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the NHS IT programme has passed its Gate Zero Gateway Review by the Office of Government Commerce. [73332]

  Ms Blears
  The national programme for Information Technology in the National Health Service,Delivering 21st Century IT Support for the NHS successfully completed the Gateway Review 0: Strategic Assessment in July 2002. The gateway review process is not an audit and the key stages of the review process are not in the strict sense, pass or fail.

  The Office of Government Commerce team review and make constructive recommendations to the senior responsible officer, in this case Sir John Pattison. We are acting on their recommendations to ensure the programme management, monitoring and resourcing is appropriate and are now working towards Gateway Review 1.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what formal assessment he has made of the relationship between size and risk in the successful procurement and delivery of NHS IT projects; and if he will publish such assessments and its supporting evidence. [73333]
  820W
  Ms Blears
  The initial work on developing a national strategic programme and implementation plan for Information Technology in the National Health Service did consider an outline risk analysis. A major component of the risk management strategy will be through the rigorous application of the Office of Government Commerce gateway review. The programme team will also have risk management as one of its core functions.

  The Department is also guided by advice from the Office of Government Commerce in developing formal business cases for key components of the national programme when necessary as part of the procurement process. This would include individualised risk assessments. At the appropriate time the risk analysis and management assessments will be made available.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the e-Envoy's office will be involved in managing implementation of the NHS IT programme,Delivering 21 Century IT Support; [73328]

  (2) whether the e-Envoy's office will be involved in managing implementation of the NHS IT programme identified by the OGC as necessary following its Gate Zero Gateway Review. [73329]

  Ms Blears
  The office of the e-Envoy has been consulted on the initial development of the national programme for Information Technology in the National Health Service and the implementation plan. Andrew Pinder, the e-Envoy, will be a key part of the ministerial taskforce on IT. The taskforce is to be chaired by my noble Friend, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, The Minister for IT in the NHS and will monitor the feasibility and progress of the programme and evaluate the way it is being managed.

  There was no recommendation on the specific future role of the e-Envoy's office from the gateway review process. The office of the e-Envoy will continue to provide technical advice and help co-ordinate the programme with wider eGovernment initiatives as we proceed through the Office of Government Commerce gateway review.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department had with potential preferred service providers before the Government announcement on NHS IT policy; and if he will list the potential preferred service providers with which such discussions were held. [73337]

  Ms Blears
  The Department routinely receives many approaches from suppliers of healthcare information technology (IT), services and information communication technology. The policy for some time has been to promote partnership working across the IT supplier community and this has involved two way dialogue on the aims and objectives of the Department and ideas based on the experience of a whole range of small and major IT suppliers.

  One of the supporting workstreams in the new national programme for IT in the National Health Service is entitled "Developing IT Industry capacity for the NHS". A number of meetings with NHS IT suppliers have been held to introduce the proposed

  821W
  procurement strategy. There was also a one day forum on 22 July that was attended by approximately 200 NHS IT suppliers.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total expected cost of implementing the NHS IT programme, Delivering 21 Century IT support is, for each year between 2003 to 2009, in terms of(a) current baseline spending and (b) additional investment. [73327]

  Ms Blears
  Delivering the NHS Plan in April 2002 promised a greater share of new investment for information and communication technology. The increased levels of funding from April 2003 to March 2006 are part of the Spending Review 2002 and no details have been made available yet.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the consequences for existing NHS IT suppliers of the preferred service provider model for NHS IT procurement; and if he will publish it; [73334]

  (2) what advice he has received on the preferred services provider model for NHS IT procurement; and if he will make a statement. [74285]

  Ms Blears
  We published the summary of the overall procurement strategy for the national programme on 26 July 2002. Its purpose was to provide information on the preferred model, approach and contracting arrangements and enable consultation with a wide audience across the NHS and National Health Service IT supplier community. Almost 90 responses were received and the feedback and comments are being reviewed. A synopsis of the main feedback will be published in early October and work continues on developing the full procurement strategy. The full version of the procurement strategy will be available by December 2002.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given to NHS trusts and PCTs relating to potential planning blight in the purchasing and installation of IT systems following the Government announcement on NHS IT policy on 12 June. [73335]

  Ms Blears
  Key messages have been given that the National Health Service should be working to achieve the following:Connecting all NHS staff to the NHS network for email communications and web browsing
  Enabling the electronic transfer of pathology requests and results between GPs and NHS laboratories
  Improving the information and IT support to the clinical priorities covered by the national service frameworks.

  All NHS trusts are also expected by December 2005 to have implemented the first generation of electronic records that will provide a common set of applications and functionally across the NHS. Wherever current procurements are in hand our clear message has been to proceed. The Interoperability of systems will be critical to delivering national services and specifications and standards for NHS IT systems. They are still in development, indeed will continue to develop over time
  822W
  but we have made it clear that compatibility with key standards that are known is an essential requirement for current procurements.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether his Department has agreed with the Office of Government Commerce an action plan to implement corrective actions to the NHS IT programme identified by the OGC as necessary following its Gate Zero Gateway Review; [73330]

  (2) what action plan his Department has to implement corrective actions identified by the Office of Government Commerce as necessary following its Gate Zero Gateway Review; and if he will place a copy of the plan in the Library; [73336]

  (3) how many corrective actions to the NHS IT programme were identified by the Office of Government Commerce as necessary following its Gate Zero Gateway Review; and if he will list them. [73331]

  Ms Blears
  New and large-scale procurement projects in central Government are subject to gateway reviews. The process examines a project at critical stages to provide assurance that it can progress successfully to the next stage. The review provides project teams with advice and guidance from fellow practitioners and in order to maintain the integrity of the advice, this is held to be completely confidential by both parties. The gateway review process is not an audit.

  No action plan with the Office of Government Commerce is routinely produced as a part of the gateway review process and none has been agreed in this case. However they do make recommendations to the senior responsible officer, in this case Sir John Pattison, on good practice in key areas such as programme management and involving key stakeholders. The national programme is taking their key recommendations on board as appropriate to help prepare for implementation and the next stage in the gateway review.

  Value for Money
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the data underlying his Department's value for money scores in relation to the 1998 public service agreements; and if he will make a statement. [74770]

  Mr. Lammy
  The published measure for the 1998 public service agreement's targets on the efficiency and value for money of Departmental operations was that business plan objectives would be achieved within the running costs limits set by the Comprehensive Spending Review. Running cost plans and outturn against them where available have been published in the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) for the years 1999–2000 to 2002–03, copies of which are available in the Library. The statistics demonstrate that the Department is on track to meet the targets.

  Northwich Park Hospital
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further action he is taking to improve the quality of, and reduce waiting times in, accident and emergency services at Northwich Park Hospital. [74501]
  823W
  Mr. Hutton
  Improving patients' experience of emergency care is essential. In light of this, reforming emergency care was launched in October 2001 supported by £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 & Emergency.

  Concerted action is being taken to further improve the quality of and waiting times in Northwick Park A&E. The A&E department is now receiving targeted support through the Modernisation Agency's intensive support team (IST).

  Action already taken to improve the way emergency admissions are managed, including an increase in capacity of 21 beds has already drastically reduced very long waits for beds over the last six months. In addition NUCare, which is an innovative joint scheme run by the trust and local primary care trust, is speeding up care for patients with less serious illness or injuries by bringing GPs and community services into A&E.

  Over seven out of ten patients now spend less than four hours in total in the A&E. There is still a long way to go and no room for complacency but the combination of local action by the trust and its health community with the support of the 1ST is laying the ground work for real improvements to the patient experience.

  Medical Research
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on(a) funding and (b) progress with medical research into fluoridation and (i) cancer rates and (ii) hip fractures. [74249]

  Ms Blears
  The report, published on 4 September, of an expert working group set up by the Medical Research Council (MRC) at the request of the Department concluded that there was no firm evidence linking water fluoridation to cancer or to hip fractures. But the group recommended that a comparison be made between the amount of fluoride that the body absorbs from water supplies in which it occurs naturally and those to which it has been added artificially.

  We are, therefore, taking immediate steps to commission a project on the absorption of fluoride. The Department is finalising the specification for a research project to compare the body's absorption of naturally occurring and artificially added fluoride, and will shortly be inviting tenders. The MRC group concluded that if new studies show that the uptake of fluoride from artificially fluoridated water is substantially higher than from naturally fluoridated water, then further investigation of the long term effects of fluoridation on hip fractures will be needed.

  The group also recommended that an updated analysis be made of the data on fluoridation and cancer rates, and suggested that any new studies on the causes of bone cancer could easily include an assessment of exposure to fluoride. The Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Dental Officer will be advising on the action we should take on this and the remaining recommendations in the MRC group's report.

  GM Foods
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) UK and (b) EU legislation is in force regarding GM foods. [73857]

  Ms Blears
  The following United Kingdom legislation regarding genetically modified foods is in force:The Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients Regulations 1997, as amended.
  The Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients (Fees) Regulations 1997, as amended.
  The Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1994, as amended.
  The Genetically Modified and Novel Foods (Labelling) (England) Regulations 2000.
  The Genetically Modified and Novel Foods (Labelling) (Scotland) Regulations 2000.
  The Genetically Modified and Novel Foods (Labelling) (Wales) Regulations 2000.
  The Genetically Modified and Novel Foods (Labelling) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000.

  The following European Union legislation regarding genetically modified foods is in force:
  Regulation (EC) 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel foods ingredients.
  Regulation (EC) 1139/98 concerning the compulsory indication of the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms of particulars other than those provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC.
  Regulation (EC) 49/2000 amending Council Regulation (EC) 1139/98.
  Regulation (EC) 50/2000 on the labelling of foodstuffs and food ingredients containing additives and flavourings that have been genetically modified or have been produced from genetically modified organisms.

  Drug-resistant Bacterium
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to reduce the proliferation of drug-resistant bacterium. [73844]

  Mr. Lammy
  We are committed to tackling the serious problem of antimicrobial resistance. In 2000, we published the UK Antimicrobial Resistance Strategy and Action Plan which identified three key areas for tackling antimicrobial resistance; surveillance of antimicrobial resistant organisms and use of antimicrobials, promoting prudent antimicrobial use and infection control to contain and prevent the spread of antimicrobial resistant organisms.

  More recently, the Chief Medical Officer's infectious disease strategy, published in January 2002, has identified antimicrobial resistance as a priority area for intensified action and a targeted action plan is being developed to build on the existing UK strategy. The new targeted action plan will take into account the views from a range of stakeholders including priorities identified by the recently constituted specialist advisory committee on antimicrobial resistance.

  Asthma
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide financial assistance to people who cannot afford asthma medication. [73660]
  825W
  Mr. Lammy
  People with asthma are entitled to free National Health Service prescriptions if they are under 16 (or under 19 if in full-time education); aged 60 or over; hold a maternity or medical exemption certificate; receive income support or income based jobseekers allowance, are named on a tax credit NHS exemption certificate; or hold an NHS low income scheme exemption certificate for full help.

  Patients who need frequent prescriptions may benefit from purchasing a prescription prepayment certificate.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have been diagnosed with asthma in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [73658]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However tables showing the number of hospital episodes by age where the primary diagnosis is asthma have been placed in the Library. The International Classification of Disease 10 codes J45–J46 have been used. The data is for 1996–97 to 2000–01.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has gone into research into the causes of asthma; and how much has been allocated to financing drug treatment in each of the last five years. [73659]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main Government agency for research into the cause and treatments of disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. Asthma is a priority area for the MRC. It supports a wide range of research projects looking at asthma ranging from basic research to applied clinical studies. The MRC spend in the area in 2000–01 was approximately £3 million.

  The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the National Health Service. The Department of Health also provides NHS support funding for research commissioned by the research councils and charities that takes place in the NHS. The Department spend on directly commissioned research projects on asthma since 1997 is an estimated £7.24 million.

  Health authorities (HAs) and primary care trusts (PCTs) receive funding to spend each financial year but the Department does not specify how much of that should be spent on the drugs bill, nor how much should be spent on individual drugs such as for asthma. However, guidance is set and sent out to all HAs and PCTs advising what monies should be set aside for prescribing budgets, what level of growth should be assumed, and what factors should influence their budget setting process.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assistance the Government have given to the National Asthma Campaign in raising awareness of the effects of asthma. [73657]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has recently provided the National Asthma Campaign (NAC) with a section 64 grant to assist the funding of a telephone help-line. This enabled the NAC to both help asthma sufferers and their families as well as raising awareness of the condition.
  826W
  The Department is currently arranging a series of discussions between the NAC, the British Thoracic Society and the British Lung Foundation with various sections of the Department and the Modernisation Agency to help shape initiatives in progress within the Department.

  Bereavement Counselling
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what bereavement counselling is available to parents who have lost a child. [74399]

  Jacqui Smith
  A range of services for people suffering bereavement reactions is available within the National Health Service. The Department has also sought to strengthen more specialised services, in partnership with voluntary organisations like the Child Bereavement Trust, which receives funding through the Department's Section 64 grant aid scheme.

  Brain Injury
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) information, (b) support and (c) services are available to (i) people with brain injury, (ii) their families and (iii) carers. [74422]

  Jacqui Smith
  Patients with brain injury, their families and carers are able to access the full range of National Health Service services for head injured people. The information, support and services an individual receives will depend on the extent and severity of the brain injury they have incurred.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently developing guidelines for patients and clinicians on early management of head injury. The guidelines are scheduled for publication around March 2003. These guidelines, together with the forthcoming national service framework for long term conditions, will help ensure that health and social care services work together to provide the right level of treatment and care for people with brain injury.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions the Department has had with charities and the voluntary sector to provide and improve the quality of support, activities and facilities for people with brain injury. [74423]

  Jacqui Smith
  I am meeting hon. Members and the Chief Executive of Headway on October 22. Officials have had discussions with both Headway and United Kingdom Acquired Brain Injury Forum recently and will meet the Chief Executive of Rehab UK on 16 October to discuss the key issues which they consider should be addressed in the long term conditions national service framework which will have a particular focus on treatment and care for people with brain injury. Those discussions will cover the quality of support. activities and facilities for people with brain injury.

  Headway and Rehab UK are currently receiving Section 64 funding for projects that will help patients with brain injury.

  Children's Deaths
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he issues to ensure that(a) parents are

  827W
  given a full explanation and (b) care and consideration is taken when death of a child occurs during surgery. [74400]

  Jacqui Smith
  Parents should be supported after the death of their child and given information that will help them understand why the death occurred. Health Service Guidelines HSG(92)8, issued on 23 January 1992, deals with patients who die in hospital, whether child or adult.

  The guidance requires hospitals to ensure that all staff who deal with the dying or the deceased and their relatives are made aware of the document. It also requires those commissioning healthcare services to ensure that hospitals have appropriate procedures in place to ensure that account is taken of the guidance.

  The children's national service framework will look further at the special considerations surrounding the death of a child and include examples of good practice.

  Oxtail
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of meat hygiene regulations on the availability in British shops of oxtail from beasts reared in the UK. [74703]

  Ms Blears
  I am not aware that the availability of oxtail has been affected by any recent change to meat hygiene regulations.

  Devon and Cornwall Health Authorities
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what amount each of the health authorities in Devon and Cornwall was overspent at the point at which they ceased to be operational. [69185]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]The previous health authorities in Devon and Cornwall ceased to exist on the 31 March 2002. In their statutory annual accounts for their last year of operation covering the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 they reported the following:

  Health Authority

  North and East Devon

  £144,000

  Underspend

  South and West Devon

  £168,000

  Underspend

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  Breakeven

  The accounts of these organisations have now been audited by their external auditor and signed off as representing a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the health authorities as at the 31 March 2002.

  However, in respect of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly a disclosure note was incorporated into the annual accounts, which identified that the Cornwall Health Community had an underlying deficit and that the health authority achieved financial balance through the receipt of non-recurrent brokerage of £6.3 million.

  Wynthenshawe Hospital
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what reason Wynthenshawe Hospital failed to 828W
  reschedule heart surgery on Mr. Stanley Ford of Warrington within 28 days of the first cancellation of his operation; [71381]

  (2) for what reason Wythenshawe Hospital cancelled heart surgery on Mr. Stanley Ford of Warrington six times; and, in each case, what the reasons were for the cancellations; [71379]

  (3) what the average time taken in 2001 by the Chief Executive of Wythenshawe Hospital was to reply to letters from hon. Members outside Manchester. [71377]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 July 2002]The reasons for the six cancellations were as follows: on 22 March, there was unforeseen sickness amongst theatre staff and priority was given to an emergency admission; on 13 May, non-availability of a clinician who was needed to perform a specialist procedure; on 29 May, no intensive care bed available; on 31 May, 12 and 14 June, all elective surgery was cancelled owing to an methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection.

  Surgery could not be rescheduled within 28 days for clinical reasons of which the patient and his family are aware.

  The trust received 23 letters in 2001 from hon. Members whose constituencies are outside Manchester. The average response time was ten working days.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will discuss with the Chief Executive of Wythenshawe Hospital the hospital's methods of handling complaints made by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents; and if he will make a statement; [71378]

  (2) if he will investigate for what reason the Chief Executive of Wythenshawe Hospital has not replied to correspondence from the hon. Member for Warrington. North about the case of Mr. Stanley Ford; and if he will make a statement. [71380]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answers 19 July 2002]We have taken this matter up with the Chief Executive and I understand a letter has now been sent.

  Long-term Sickness
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to improve services to get those who have chronic diseases but are of working age back to work. [74503]

  Jacqui Smith
  Helping people back to work after an accident or illness is a priority for the Government. The Department works closely with the Department for Work and Pensions and organisations representing disabled people to review and develop policy in this area.

  We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Health and Safety Executive on job retention and rehabilitation pilots to test different health and employment strategies to help people with long term sickness or disability to remain in their jobs. They will start in April 2003 and run for two years. Job retention advisers will act early to assist those who have been forced to give up work through prolonged illness or disability to retain their skills and links with employers.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Bed and Breakfast Accommodation
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many families there are in bed and breakfast accommodation in the last three years for which figures are avilable, broken down by local authority. [74203]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  Showing Available information reported by local authorities in England on the total number of households—including couples and single persons without children—accommodated in bed and breakfast units under statutory homelessness provisions at the end of March in each year since 1999 is avaiblable in the Library.

  National and regional figures are presented in a quarterly Statistical Release, and an accompanying Supplementary Table also summarises reported information at local authority level. Both of these are also available in the House library and via the ODPM website.

  Earlier this year the Government announced a new commitment to ensure that by March 2004 no family with children will be placed in B&B other than in an emergency, and even then for no more than 6 weeks. This was accompanied by changes in Housing Benefit subsidies to make leasing self-contained temporary accommodation more cost effective, and an additional £35 million to help local authorities find alternatives to B&B.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what provision he will make to fire authorities spending above their SSAs when he revises the SSA formula for fire; and if he will make a statement. [73940]

  Mr. Christopher Leslie
  Statutory responsibility for the provision of fire services rests locally with the fire authority.

  We invited comments on options for changes to the formulae for the distribution of revenue support grant for local authority services, including fire, in a consultation period which ran from 8 July to 30 September. Our proposals will be announced in the provisional local government finance settlement later this year.

  The total provision for revenue funding for fire and other local authority services is considered in the spending reviews. Under Spending Review 2002, announced in July, the fire service share of Total Standard Spending in England will be increased by £61.6 million (4 per cent.) for 2003–04 and by increases of £70 million (4.4 per cent.) and £50 million (2.9 per cent.) in the following two years.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures are in place to ensure that the Fire Service has adequate resources and equipment. [73389]

  Mr. Christopher Leslie
  Statutory responsibility for the provision of fire services rests locally with the fire authority. However, a fire authority may not reduce its 830W
  establishment without the approval of the Secretary of State under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. Consent is only given when he is satisfied that the national standards of fire cover will be maintained. Fire authorities are inspected regularly by HM Fire Services Inspectorate as to the manner in which they are performing their functions.

  Under Spending Review 2002 the fire service share of Total Standard Spending in England will be increased by £61.6 million (4 per cent.) for 2003–04 and by increases of £70 million (4.4 per cent.) and £50 million (2. per cent.) in the following two years.

  There have also been substantial increases in fire service capital provision for England and Wales, with an increase of 67 per cent. in 2001–02. A further increase of 3.4 per cent. is planned for 2003–04 and this level of credits will be maintained for 2004–05 and 2005–06. An additional £200 million in PFI credit approvals has already been earmarked for the fire service, and a further £50 million in PFI credits will be made available to the service in both 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  £43 million will be provided under the Capital Modernisation Fund for mass decontamination equipment, supported by an additional £13 million in revenue funding. We have said that we shall fully fund the new fire service radio replacement strategy. Amongst other funding initiatives, we are providing £15 million additional funding over three years from 2003–4 for community fire safety and arson reduction initiatives, targeting socially deprived areas.

  Under the Central Local Partnership, we will continue to work closely with fire service stakeholders in England and Wales in the Fire Service Expenditure Forecasting Group to assess future funding pressures.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he plans to bring the firefighters working in the Retained and Volunteer Duty System up to the same standard of training and pay as their whole time counterparts; [73392]

  (2) What the pay levels are of members of the Emergency Fire Control Staff; and what proposals he has to bring wages in line with firefighters of equivalent rank. [73391]

  Mr. Nick Raynsford
  As announced on 5 September, an independent review of the Fire Service is being conducted by Professor Sir George Bain. The review will look at the future organisation and management of the fire service in the United Kingdom, including retained and voluntary firefighters. In that context it will look at pay and conditions of service. It would not be appropriate, therefore, for me to pre-empt the outcome of the review.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the recent discussions with the Fire Brigades Union; and what conclusions have been reached. [73393]

  Mr. Christopher Leslie
  Following discussions with the Fire Brigades Union and other interested parties, on the 5 September my right hon. Friend the member for Greenwich & Woolwich announced an independent review of the Fire Service. The review will be conducted by Professor Sir George Bain, who has an outstanding
  831W
  record in industrial relations and academia, including key roles at the London Business School, ACAS and the Low Pay Commission. He will be assisted by Sir Anthony Young, a past President of the TUC, and Sir Michael Lyons, who until recently was the Chief Executive of Birmingham City Council.

  Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average length of time was between an application for rehousing under the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme and nomination to a property in the last 12 months. [74151]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  276 days.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what has been the annual rate of reletting of council housing stock in each year since 1972. [74261]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  Centrally available information collected from local authorities annually since 1979–80 is presented below.

  Local Authority Stock Lettings to New and Existing Tenants: England

  Total Lettings

  as a % of stock

  1979–80

  411,800

  8.6

  1980–81

  444,000

  9.2

  1981–82

  414,700

  8.6

  1982–83

  438,800

  9.0

  1983–84

  429,100

  9.1

  1984–85

  429,300

  9.3

  1985–86

  437,000

  9.6

  1986–87

  430,200

  9.6

  1987–88

  425,800

  9.6

  1988–89

  410,200

  9.5

  1989–90

  390,300

  9.3

  1990–91

  400,900

  9.9

  1991–92

  406,500

  10.4

  1992–93

  399,900

  10.4

  1993–94

  404,900

  10.8

  1994–95

  407,900

  11.1

  1995–96

  415,200

  11.6

  1996–97

  422,000

  12.2

  1997–98

  403,900

  11.9

  1998–99

  378,900

  11.4

  1999–2000

  354,000

  11.1

  2000–01

  326,600

  10.8

  Note:

  Lettings include mutual exchanges and transfers of existing tenants, and lettings made to new tenants on either secure or non-secure tenancies.

  Source:

  DOE/DTLR/ODPM Housing Investment Programme returns (annual)

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with local authorities about the Housing Mutual model to encourage housing transfer. [74515]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  Ministers have had no discussions with English local authorities about the Housing Mutual model to encourage housing transfer.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the rate of change was in house prices in the past five years, broken down by region. [73964]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  The rate of change in house prices in the past five years, by region, is estimated to have been as follows.
  832W

  North East

  + 3.7%

  North West

  + 54.8%

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  + 49.6%

  East Midlands

  + 72.4%

  West Midlands

  + 65.4%

  East

  + 92.6%

  London

  + 110.0%

  South East

  + 94.6%

  South West

  + 97.0%

  England

  + 82.7%

  Wales

  + 56.1%

  Scotland

  + 27.5%

  Northern Ireland

  + 66.1%

  United Kingdom

  + 77.1%

  Sources:

  ODPM Survey of Mortgage Lenders

  Increase in the regional house price indices between Q2 1997 and Q2 2002.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent action has been taken to address the Housing shortages in(a) Glasgow and (b) the UK. [74419]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  Following devolution, housing policy in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for the relevant devolved administrations.

  Regional Planning Guidance requires planning bodies to strategically examine housing need, including the need for affordable housing, across their areas. We also expect local authorities to plan to meet their housing needs.

  However, we recognise the need for more affordable homes in England, and have substantially increased resources to address this. Funding for the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme (ADP) for next year will be £1.2 billion, almost double the figure for 2000–2001. This should deliver 22,700 homes next year.

  My right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister will return to the House at the turn of the year with a comprehensive long-term programme of action to tackle supply and demand issues, as promised in his statement of 18 July, Official Report, Hansard, (col. 438).

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent action has been taken to ensure that(a) the right to buy is not abused and (b) people are able to have the option of buying their homes. [74421]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  We are concerned about abuses of the Right to Buy scheme and we have commissioned research into their scope and extent. The results will be available by the end of this year. We are considering what can be done about such abuses, but we have no plans to end the Right to Buy scheme.

  Under its devolved powers, the Scottish Parliament has passed legislation introducing a Modernised Right to Buy for new tenants in Scotland. to take effect from 30 September 2002.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent measures have been taken to improve the quality and conditions of social housing in(a) Glasgow and (b) the UK. [74420]
  833W
  Mr. Tony McNulty
  Responsibility for housing in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for the relevant devolved administrations.

  For England we have set a Public Service Agreement target to bring all social housing up to a decent standard by 2010.

  To help ensure delivery against this target we have set up a Delivery Unit to work with Government Offices and the Housing Corporation to ensure local authorities and housing associations quantify the level of non-decent housing in their stock and put in place a strategy for dealing with the problem, backed up by a very significant increase in resources since 1997.

  The emphasis on delivery is paying dividends and we are on track to meet our interim target of bringing a third of the worst social housing up to a decent standard by 2004.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many applicants are on the waiting list for a nomination to a property under the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme. [74150]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  On 30 September 2002 there were 564 applicants on the waiting list for a nomination to a property under the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme.

  Local Authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Barking and Dagenham

  2 x 2 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  4

  1 x bedsit

  1 x 1 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  Barnet

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  0

  2 x bedsit

  2 x 1 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Bexley

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  0

  Brent

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  0

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  Bromley

  2 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  0

  1 x 1 bed

  3 x 1 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 5+ bed

  Camden

  2 x bedsit

  1 x 1 bed

  6 x 1 bed

  7

  3 x bedsit

  1 x 1 bed

  4 x 1 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  6 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  City of London

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  I x bedsit

  1

  1 x bedsit

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  Croydon

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x bedsit

  4 x 1 bed

  7

  6 x 1 bed

  3 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Ealing

  2 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  4

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Enfield

  5 x 1 bed

  1 x bedsit

  1 x 1 bed

  5

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  Greenwich

  1 x 3 bed

  5 x 1 bed

  9 x 2 bed

  6

  5 x 1 bed

  3 x 1 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  9 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  3 x 4 bed

  834W
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research his Department has undertaken into the impact of relets of council housing of the introduction of the Right-to-Buy scheme. [74262]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  We have commissioned research into the scope and extent of abuses of the Right to Buy scheme. The results will be available by the end of this year.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme on easing pressure on social housing in London; [74152]

  (2) how many and what size of properties were released by nominees from London boroughs to the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme in each year since 1979, broken down by region. [74149]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  The number of London Lettings released by the operation of the scheme in recent years are listed in the table below. This represents a useful contribution to easing pressure on social housing in London.

  The number of households rehoused under the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme by property size are as follows. Figures prior to 1996–97 are not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. For 1999–00 (when the Management of the Scheme was moved from North British Housing Association to HOMES) figures are not available by property size.
  835W

  Local Authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Hackney

  1 x bedsit

  8 x 1 bed

  3 x bedsit

  13

  1 x bedsit

  1 x 1 bed

  6 x 2 bed

  5 x 2 bed

  3 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  6 x 3 bed

  10 x 3 bed

  9 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  1 x 5+ bed

  6 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  2 x 1 bed

  3 x 1 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  1

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x bedsit

  3 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Haringey

  1 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  7 x 2 bed

  13

  2 x bedsit

  2 x 1 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  4 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  5 x 3 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Harrow

  1 x 2 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  0

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  Havering

  4 x 1 bed

  3 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  4

  3 x 1 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  Hillingdon

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  0

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  Hounslow

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x bedsit

  6

  1 x 2 bed

  4 x 1 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  4 x 3 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  Islington

  4 x 1 bed

  1 x bedsit

  2 x 1 bed

  12

  5 x 1 bed

  3 x 1 bed

  5 x 2 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  5 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  5 x 3 bed

  4 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  2 x 4 bed

  2 x 4 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x bedsit

  2

  1 x bedsit

  1 x bedsit

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  Kingston upon Thames

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x bedsit

  1

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  Lambeth

  3 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  4 x bedsit

  11

  2 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  9 x 2 bed

  5 x 2 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  6 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  2 x 4 bed

  4 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  3 x 4 bed

  Lewisham

  2 x 1 bed

  3 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  6

  2 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  9 x 2 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  6 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  6 x 3 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  5 x 3 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Merton

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  2

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  Newham

  1 x bedsit

  2 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  13

  16 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  6 x 1 bed

  10 x 2 bed

  10 x 2 bed

  7 x 2 bed

  10 x 2 bed

  12 x 2 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  5 x 3 bed

  7 x 3 bed

  10 x 3 bed

  4 x 3 bed

  2 x 4 bed

  3 x 4 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  4 x 4 bed

  Redbridge

  2 x 1 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  0

  2 x 1 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  Richmond upon Thames

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x bedsit

  0

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  Southwark

  4 x 1 bed

  1 x bedsit

  7 x 1 bed

  14

  4 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  11 x 2 bed

  6 x 1 bed

  7 x 2 bed

  5 x 2 bed

  8 x 2 bed

  10 x 3 bed

  8 x 2 bed

  8 x 3 bed

  12 x 3 bed

  6 x 3 bed

  3 x 4 bed

  5 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  1 x 5+ bed

  Sutton

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  3

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 5+ bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  Tower Hamlets

  2 x 1 bed

  1 x bedsit

  1 x bedsit

  10

  10 x 1 bed

  4 x 1 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  6 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  4 x 3 bed

  7 x 2 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  3 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Waltham Forest

  2 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  8

  2 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  5 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  Wandsworth

  1 x 1 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  4 x 1 bed

  3

  2 x 2 bed

  2 x 1 bed

  3 x 2 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  4 x 2 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  2 x 2 bed

  1 x 3 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  2 x 3 bed

  836W 837W

  Local Authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Westminster

  1 x bedsit

  1 x bedsit

  1 x 4 bed

  2

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x bedsit

  3 x 1 bed

  3 x 1 bed

  1 x 1 bed

  1 x 4 bed

  Total

  5 x bedsit

  8 x bedsit

  11 x bedist

  10 x bedsit

  4 x bedsit

  58 x 1 bed

  63 x 1 bed

  46 x 1 bed

  69 x 1 bed

  47 x 1 bed

  85 x 2 bed

  86 x 2 bed

  85 x 2 bed

  51 x 2 bed

  54 x 2 bed

  47 x 3 bed

  53 x 3 bed

  43 x 3 bed

  65 x 3 bed

  51 x 3 bed

  12 x 4 bed

  10 x 4 bed

  5 x 4 bed

  10 x 4 bed

  10 x 4 bed

  4 x 5+ bed

  Moves from RSLs (location and property size not recorded)

  —

  —

  9

  8

  9

  25

  Total

  207

  224

  199

  166

  214

  191

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many appeals against the valuation of a property being sold under the right-to-buy scheme have been submitted in London in each year since 1980; and how many of those appeals resulted in a reduction in the valuation. [74267]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  Figures for the number of appeals against Right to Buy valuations in London are only available from 1992 onwards, information prior to this date is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. They are as follows:

  Year

  Appeals against valuations by local authorities

  Appeals against valuations Registered Social Landlords

  1992–93

  2,311

  27

  1993–94

  1,300

  25

  1994–95

  757

  18

  1995–96

  705

  4

  1996–97

  715

  2

  1997–98

  920

  6

  1998–99

  1,041

  4

  1999–2000

  1,615

  39

  2000–01

  2,008

  42

  2000–02

  1,758

  80

  Totals

  13,130

  247

  Information on the number of appeals that resulted in a lower valuation is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  A review of the system for valuing properties for Right to Buy purposes is in progress. The results will be made publicly available when the project is completed.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the popularity of the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme among older tenants in London. [74153]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  No recent assessment has been made of the popularity of the Scheme.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to require boroughs in London which have received above expected Approved Development Programme funding from the Housing Corporation to make a proportion of new lettings available to applicants from boroughs with lower than expected ADP funding. [74260]
  838W
  Mr. Tony McNulty
  The Housing Corporation will be working closely with London boroughs to agree a framework across London for the pooling of nominations for new lettings on a sub-regional basis, similar to those in existence under the London Housing Partnership programme, to widen choice and promote cohesive communities.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact that the Rent Rebate Subsidy Limitation regulations have on a local authority's capacity to finance the revenue costs of concierge security schemes. [74148]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  Each local authority has a responsibility to balance its Housing Revenue Account, and to decide what services it can provide taking account of its income e.g. from rents and HRA subsidy.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to establish separate funding provision for(a) new social and affordable housing, (b) repair and regeneration of social sector stock, and (c) funding of housing market renewal; and if he will make a statement. [73944]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  The 2002 spending review settlement has provided an extra £1.4 billion for housing over three years. This will help to provide well-designed, affordable homes where they are needed, improve stock conditions in both the social and the private sectors, and tackle low demand through significant funding for the pathfinder projects.

  Current arrangements channel most funding for new affordable housing through the Housing Corporation, and for repair of social stock through local authorities.

  My right hon. Friend The Deputy Prime Minister announced on 18 July, Official Report, Hansard, (col. 438) that he plans to bring housing investment into a single regional pot, to ensure that housing investment decisions are brought together with planning for housing, and linked with regional economic and transport strategies. He is carefully considering the best way forward and will announce the details in due course.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to expand the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme. [74154]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  There are currently no plans to expand the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working with HOMES, North British Housing
  839W
  Association and the London Borough of Bromley (on behalf of the London Boroughs) to review the workings of the scheme in order to improve the efficiency of its operation.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many households in London are one or more bedrooms below the bedroom standard, broken down by local authority. [74145]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  The information requested for London, together with comparable data for England, is given in the table below.

  Information for individual local authorities is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Households Below the Bedroom Standard1: 2001–022

  Thousand

  Per cent.

  London

  175

  6

  England

  501

  2

  Source:

  Survey of English Housing, ODPM

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

  2Information for 2001–02 is provisional.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research he has commissioned into the Housing Health and Safety Rating System since July 2001; what the terms of reference are for that research; who is undertaking it; and when he expects it to be published. [74143]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  We are currently running three research projects relating to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The first, which began in January 2001, is to develop the statistics to support the system, and is being carried out by Warwick University with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The second, which began in August 2001, is an evaluation project, by DTZ Pieda, to identify the practical lessons to be learned from the publication of Version 1 of HHSRS in July 2000. The third, which began in September 2001, is to produce the guidance needed to assist local authorities in the application of HHSRS specifically to houses in multiple occupation, and is being carried out by the Building Research Establishment. Reports on these projects are expected to be published by the end of this year. This work will inform the production of Version 2 of HHSRS, which we expect to commission in time for publication next autumn as part of a comprehensive package of guidance.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of the size and type of accommodation suitable as an alternative to LA and RSL tenants underoccupying their current accommodation; and what measures he has taken to encourge LAs and RSLs in areas of high demand to ensure that this type of accommodation is included in new developments. [74156]
  840W
  Mr. Tony McNulty
  No such assessment has been carried out by the Government. However, local authorities in their role as strategic housing authorities are required to assess the type of accommodation required in their areas. Local authorities may also require a proportion of affordable housing as part of new developments, often built by Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) and funded by the Housing Corporation. RSLs must ensure that bids for capital investment in social housing fit with local authority and regional priorities and the Housing Corporation's National Investment Strategy.

  Over the next ten years, the Government will encourage councils and housing associations to set their rents to within 5 per cent. of the levels given by a national formula that reflects a property's size, location and condition. This will give tenants the choice over paying more for a larger property in a high cost area, or saving money by renting a smaller property.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to replace the current overcrowding standards; and if he will make a statement. [74144]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  The Government has no immediate plans to replace the overcrowding standard. But it is considering the extent to which overcrowding can be tackled through a new health and safety enforcement regime for housing, based on the new health and safety rating system.

  The Government intends to legislate to introduce the new enforcement regime as a replacement for the fitness standard when Parliamentary time allows.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of the impact of concierge security schemes on anti-social behaviour in local authority tower blocks. [74147]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not made a recent assessment of the impact of concierge security schemes on anti-social behaviour in local authority tower blocks.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost of the Millennium Dome to public funds has been. [73801]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), which was responsible for building the Dome and running of the Millennium Experience, was allocated £628 million of National Lottery funds from the Millennium Commission for the Millennium Experience, which included the associated national programme of events across the UK as well as the Dome at Greenwich. NMEC is currently in solvent liquidation and it is expected that some £25 million of this grant facility will not be required.

  Up to the end of July this year, English Partnerships (EP) had incurred a total cost of £21.4m. This includes, from 1 July 2001—when EP took over the ownership of the Dome—£3.3m for the management, maintenance and security of the Dome; £6.5m for decommissioning the contents of the Dome and its site in preparation for the future long term use; and £4.9m in connection with the sale process. It also includes £6.7m for the previous

  841W
  competition to find a long-term use for the Dome. All of these costs incurred by EP in relation to the Dome will be recovered from sale proceeds.

  Property Prices (Taunton)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effects of the change in property prices in Taunton since 1999; and if he will make a statement. [74110]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  According to the Department's Survey of Mortgage Lenders, house prices in South West England rose by 31.8 per cent. during the three years 1999 to 2001. According to HM Land Registry figures the average price of residential property sold in Taunton Deane was £85,097 in 1999 and £109,530 in 2001.

  Homeownership is affordable for most people. Homeowners are benefiting from low interest rates, low unemployment and robust income growth. For people purchasing a home in South West England during 2001, total mortgage payments averaged 17.44 per cent. of their income. This compares to 28.42 per cent. of income in 1990, and is lower than 1999 (17.91 per cent.) and 2000 (19.43 per cent.).

  However, we are well aware that there can be serious problems for many first time buyers in areas of high demand. We are committed to improving people's housing choices, and to ensuring that everyone has the opportunity of a decent home. Our aim is to deliver new affordable housing where it is needed most, in more sustainable forms.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to communications data as defined in RIPA, how many officials from his Department he estimates will be authorised to seek access to communications data; how many times officials have sought access to such data from communications providers including Internet service providers under the Data Protection Act 1998 in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [74588]

  Mr. Christopher Leslie
  No officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or its Agencies are engaged in law enforcement activities requiring them to be authorised to access communications data as defined in Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

  Parish Councillors (Model Code of Conduct)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to request parish councils to indicate how many of their parish councillors have been resigned in response to the introduction of the Model Code of Conduct for Parish Councils. [74229]

  Mr. Christopher Leslie
  We have no plans to request such information from parish councils.

  Personation
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he proposes to introduce to prevent personation for the local elections to be held on 1 May 2003. [74760]
  842W
  Mr. Nick Raynsford
  We have no evidence to suggest that personation will be a significant problem at local elections in May 2003, and have no plans to introduce any new specific measures to prevent personation.

  In our prospectus, issued in September 2002, inviting councils to propose pilot voting schemes in the May 2003 local elections, we have made clear that such schemes would need to ensure that any new method of voting is at least as secure, if not more secure, than conventional electoral practices. The Electoral Commission will, as required by statute, be consulted before any pilot schemes are approved. The programme of pilots itself will be looking at new ways to incorporate specific measures to test security and fraud.

  Congress of Local and Regional Authorities
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the(a) national budgetary contribution to, (b) role of and (c) national representation to the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities; when he last met representatives from that group; and if he has made representations on this body to the Foreign Office in the context of the Convention on the Future of Europe. [73861]

  Mr. Christopher Leslie
  Member states of the Council of Europe (CoE), including the UK, make no direct budgetary contribution to the Congress of local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE), which is a consultative body within the CoE consisting of local and regional elected representatives from each of the 44 member states. CLRAE is funded through the CoE's ordinary budget as provided by member states and as agreed by the CoE's Committee of Ministers.

  CLRAE has a Regional and a Local Chamber, membership of which is on the basis of nomination by member states' governments according to the requirements of the CLRAE founding charter. The U K has 9 full and 9 substitute seats in each Chamber. The UK's nomination procedure provides for a balanced representation of local and regional interests; all UK appointees must hold an electoral mandate in a UK local authority, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly, or the GLA.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met the leader of the UK's CLRAE delegation at the recent World Environment Conference in Johannesburg. Within the Central Local Partnership my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and I regularly meet representatives of local government, including members of the UK CLRAE delegation, to discuss European issues, including the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe.

  Homelessness
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many families were living in bed and breakfast accommodation in(a) East Worthing and Shoreham and (b) West Sussex in each year since 1997. [73926]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  The East Worthing and Shoreham Parliamentary constituency is covered by Adur DC and part of Worthing DC. Information reported by these and other councils in West Sussex on
  843W
  the total number of households—including couples and single persons without children—accommodated in bed and breakfast units under statutory homelessness provisions at the end of March in each year since 1997 is summarised below.

  Homeless Households in Bed and Breakfast Accommodation as at 31 March*

  Adur DC

  Worthing DC

  All DCs in West Sussex

  1997

  not reported

  39

  65 (estimated)

  1998

  5

  47

  79

  1999

  3

  37

  74

  2000

  3

  37

  74

  2001

  14

  22

  81

  2002

  17

  18

  128

  Note:

  * includes households accommodated pending completion of enquiries by the local authority.

  Sources:

  1997: P1(E) housing return (quarterly)

  1998 onwards: Housing Investment Programme returns (annual)

  Earlier this year the Government announced a new commitment to ensure that by March 2004 no family with children will be placed in B&B other than in an emergency, and even then for no more than 6 weeks. This was accompanied by changes in Housing Benefit subsidies to make leasing self-contained temporary accommodation more cost effective, and an additional £35 million to help local authorities find alternatives to B&B.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met the Director of the Homelessness Unit. [73927]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  My right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister regularly meets officials in the course of his official duties.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent estimate he has made of the level of homelessness; how he defines a homeless person; and if he will make a statement. [74658]

  Mrs. Barbara Roche
  At the end of June 2002 81,170 households in England were living in temporary accommodation, including over 6,500 families with children in bed and breakfast hotels, and around 600 people were sleeping rough on any one night.

  Under the homelessness legislation (Housing Act 1996), a person is "statutorily homeless" if they do not have accommodation which they have a legal right to live in, which is physically available to them and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to occupy.

  In March 2002, the Homelessness Directorate published a report "More than a Roof", which outlined the Government's new approach to tackling homelessness funded by £125 million over this year. The Homelessness Act 2002 will also bring about radical change in the way that central and local government, and all other partners, work together to tackle homelessness. For the first time ever, local authorities will be required to carry out a review and develop a strategy for their area that prevents homelessness and provides solutions for people who are, or who may become homeless.
  844W
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he is taking to tackle homelessness in rural areas. [73988]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  The Homelessness Directorate's report "More than a roof", sets out specific measures to tackle homelessness backed up by a £125 million investment over the next year. The Homelessness Directorate has provided a total of over £3.7 million to local authorities in rural areas over the next year to fund schemes such as mediation services for family and couples in relationship difficulties; additional support for women fleeing domestic violence; rent deposit guarantee schemes to help homeless people find housing in the private sector; court and landlord advice services to reduce evictions; and debt and welfare counselling to help people sustain their tenancies.

  Pathfinder Renewal Project
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will announce the resources allocation for the Pathfinder Renewal Project. [74248]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  The 2002 spending review settlement has provided an extra £1.4 billion for housing. This will help to provide well-designed, affordable homes where they are needed, improve stock conditions in both the social and the private rented sectors, and tackle low demand through significant funds for the pathfinder projects. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is giving careful consideration to the best use of this additional funding to deliver sustainable communities. My right hon. Friend has said that he will report back to the House at the turn of the year.

  Local Government
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister where responsibility will lie for(a) police, (b) waste disposal and (c) fire services in new unitary authorities. [73354]

  Mr. Nick Raynsford
  The Regional Governance White Paper,Your Region, Your Choice, published in May, sets out the Government's plans to establish unitary local authorities in place of existing county and district councils in those regions where people vote in a referendum for elected regional assemblies. In any region where the Government decides that a referendum should take place, the Boundary Committee for England will carry out a review and recommend the best unitary arrangements for the two-tier parts of that region. A referendum will then be held to see whether people support the creation of an elected assembly. The new unitary arrangements will be implemented if—but only if—a majority of those voting in the referendum voted for an elected regional assembly.

  Where new unitary arrangements are introduced, we would expect that existing police authorities would remain in place. Appointments to these authorities would be made either by unitary districts or by the unitary county council, depending on the new unitary structure.

  There are currently combined fire authorities in former county areas which have only unitary local authorities; and also in areas where there are one or more unitaries, district councils and a county council.

  845W
  Where changes lead to district-based unitaries in future, we would expect there to be a combined fire authority, but where they lead to a unitary county with no existing or new district-based unitaries, we would expect the county council to remain responsible for providing fire services. This is without prejudice to our consideration of any recommendations on the organisation of the fire service that Professor Sir George Bain's recently announced review might make.

  Waste disposal is currently a responsibility of county councils and would become a responsibility of unitary authorities where these are established in future in regions that have an elected assembly.

  Regional Governance
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the consultation on the White Paper on Regional Governance. [74098]

  Mr. Nick Raynsford
  The White Paper Your Region, Your Choice formally invited comments on stakeholder involvement with elected regional assemblies; the closing date for responses was 31 August 2002. But the White Paper also offered the opportunity for general views to be submitted—there is no deadline for these views and comments are still being received.

  To date, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received around 1,100 representations on the White Paper, of which around 200 offered comments on stakeholder involvement with elected assemblies

  In addition, we have received around 1,500 postcards in support of the Cornish Constitutional Convention campaign for a referendum on establishing a Cornish Assembly.

  We are currently undertaking detailed assessments of stakeholder responses, and of general responses to the White Paper. These will be published on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website later in the year. We
  846W
  will then set out our further proposals on stakeholder involvement, taking into account views expressed in the consultation.

  It remains the case that we intend to introduce a Bill to provide for referendums and associated local government reviews as soon as Parliamentary time allows, with the aim of enabling the first referendums to be held during this Parliament.

  Local Authority Referendums
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what has been the average turnout for referendums held by local authorities to establish opinion on local issues. [74215]

  Mr. Nick Raynsford
  Information about turnout for those referendums which local authorities hold voluntarily is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The average turnout in binding referendums which councils held between June 2001 and October 2002 on whether or not their area should have a directly elected mayor was 29 per cent., within a range of 10 per cent. to 64 per cent.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans his Department has to encourage the provision of more affordable housing in rural communities. [73831]

  Mr. Tony McNulty
  The Government recognises that there is a shortage of affordable housing in many rural towns and villages. The need can be for both homes to rent and to buy.

  We expect all local authorities to develop housing strategies and to develop local housing need assessments as part of their long-term plans. We believe that judicious use of their planning powers can deliver more affordable housing.

  By next year, we expect to deliver around 9,000 affordable homes annually in rural areas, including 3,000 in small settlements. Of these, a proportion will be for low-cost home ownership.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Married Women's Pensions
Baroness Greengross>Baroness Greengross> asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to review the impact on women of the married women's reduced rate national insurance contribution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the number of married women on the reduced rate stamp, which was 3,500,000 in 1978 and is now 80,000, will be 3,000 in 2010. We have no plans at this stage to review the rates.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, with which I have some sympathy, despite my former role with Age Concern. I think the Minister knows that. No one paying reduced contributions could expect to get the same benefits as people who paid the full stamp. It is not like the scandal that affected inherited SERPS in 1999–2000. However, many women probably did not fully understand the rules or their impact. After all, who does? Even the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, admitted that pensions were extremely complicated.
Is there any possibility that women adversely affected by ill informed decisions made prior to 1977 will be allowed to buy back their missing contribution record or, at least, part of it, given the 25 per cent rule? That would go some way to addressing their concerns and help with their problems.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Baroness has a proud record, particularly on issues such as inherited SERPS. However, I cannot help her on this issue. This is a pay-as-you-go scheme. Most married women who continued to enjoy the reduced stamp after 1977–78 did well financially out of it. Obviously, that was not the case for some individuals. To recalculate now on a PAYE basis and decide whether there were adverse consequences would be difficult practically, and I am not sure that it would be fair. It would be like saying that a married woman who opted to pay the full stamp in 1978 but who, over the next 25 years, had low or intermittent earnings—with the result that her state pension was no higher than she would have got on her husband's contribution—should also be allowed to revisit her choice. We cannot do that.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that there are anomalies in the situation? For example, a woman can qualify for a pension on her husband's contributions. However, if she reaches 60 before he reaches 65, she will have no pension, as she must wait until he is 65. That leaves women with no pension at all.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend is right. As your Lordships will understand, the problem is that the reduced married women's stamp dates back to 1948 when the presumption was that women were dependent on their husband's earnings and on his pension. The assumption behind the situation described by my noble friend is that, if the husband is under 65, he will still be in work and his wife will enjoy the support of his wages.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister say what benefits, if any, were received by women who paid the reduced contribution after 1977? What was done to explain the situation after 1977 to women? Does the Minister accept that it is no excuse for not remedying an injustice to say that it is only a little one?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not saying that it is an injustice. Most women who took the reduced married women's stamp saved thousands of pounds—something like £18,000 for someone on mean average earnings over that time. If such a sum had been invested, it would have produced an alternative return.
The noble Earl also asked what women knew. I have a copy of the leaflet that I had when I chose to continue with the reduced married women's stamp. It says, in bold type:
"The contribution choice… Why your choice is important".
It goes on to say:
"The choice you make about paying contributions can effect your future entitlement to benefits such as maternity allowance, sickness, invalidity and unemployment benefits and retirement pension. This is explained in paragraphs 12–21 of this leaflet and you should read these carefully before you make up your mind".
That is in the simplest conceivable English. It certainly allowed me to make an informed choice at the time.
The noble Earl's first question was about the benefits enjoyed by people who took the married women's reduced stamp. They receive statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay, industrial injuries benefit and the 60 per cent of the pension that goes to the wife of a man who makes a full national insurance contribution.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, I was one of the people in the predicament of having to opt back in. Does the Minister agree that there was enormous publicity about the perils of not re-entering the full system, not only in leaflets, but in media of every description—newspapers, radio and so on? None of us was left in any doubt about the outcome.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for making that point. Women first entering the labour market in the 1960s and 1970s had to sign to elect to receive the reduced stamp; secondly, in 1977–78, they had all the information described by my noble friend; thirdly, they received further information in 1989; and, fourthly, they were given further information in 2000 associated with the changes in the lower earnings limit. So, on four occasions, married women paying the reduced stamp received fairly straightforward—I do not say that it was brilliant—accessible information on which to make an informed choice.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
2.43 p.m.
Lord Naseby: I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as chairman of governors of Bedford School.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the difficulties over A-level results, there have been any changes in the senior management or board of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, in her Statement of 27th September, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced that she had removed Sir William Stubbs from his post as chairman of the QCA. Since then, there have been no further changes in the membership of the senior management or the board as a consequence of the difficulties over A-level results.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, should not the whole educational team of Ministers resign—in recognition of the trauma, heart-searching and career stunting that this fiasco has caused for over 90,000 young people? Is not the real truth that it was Ministers' insistence on a new, unproven and untrialed examination that caused the fiasco? Rather than "Education, education, education", ought not the epitaph of this Government in this area to be: "Failure, failure, failure"?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not recognise what the noble Lord has said. My answer is simply: no, they should not resign.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House on what grounds Sir William Stubbs was sacked?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, in looking at what needed to be done to restore confidence in the A-level system, believed that it was appropriate to dismiss Sir William Stubbs.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that during last summer a senior civil servant was acting chief executive of the QCA and that, currently, 22 per cent of DfES civil servants are seconded to other organisations? Will she accept that under such circumstances it is inappropriate to claim that the QCA is completely independent? Does not the whole thing smack of micro-management of the system by her department? Will the Minister agree with me that, for the sake of future A-level students, the QCA should be seen to be entirely independent?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in answering Questions in this House last week, I made it clear that the QCA is an independent statutory body. No doubt noble Lords will look forward to the Statement that I shall repeat later today, when we shall discuss the issues that have arisen. It is common practice for secondments to take place both from the DfES and to the DfES. We believe—and previous governments employed this practice—that it is the best way of ensuring that we have the best possible knowledge. Mike Tomlinson's review was quite clear: there has not been government interference by any Minister.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister confident that her officials and experts can produce an examination system—designed to deal with about 20 per cent of the ability range, now designed to deal with 50 per cent of the ability range—that will not give rise to the anomalies produced by the present system?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not believe that the system that the noble Lord is looking for would produce the anomalies that he describes in these circumstances—the very particular circumstances, as the noble Lord will be aware from Mike Tomlinson's work, which arose in this case. It is the desire of government to make sure that students who are able to go to university have the opportunity to do so. We believe that it is important that students are given those opportunities. It is for the health and benefit not only of the students but of the economic life of this country.
Earl Russell: My Lords, what leads the Government to suppose that academic standards in A-levels or anywhere else are a matter within their competence to judge?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government do not necessarily believe that. We have academic institutions whose job it is to judge the academic standards of our students. I think that noble

695
Lords will join me in supporting and congratulating the students who this year have done so well in their academic life.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I, like many other parents, have children who are about to enter upon the A-level curriculum. What confident actions will the Government take to ensure that those students who are about to embark on a two-year preparation for an examination will not undergo the same fiasco as that suffered by students this year?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, Mike Tomlinson is continuing his work to ensure that we address the issue of standards for next year. In addition, Ken Boston has announced that he is setting up a task force. I have great confidence that, between the work of these two eminent gentlemen, we shall have in place a robust system in which we can all have the sense of security that the noble Lord has every right to expect for his children.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of us find it difficult to understand why Sir William Stubbs was dismissed before the Tomlinson inquiry had reported—the full consequences of which are apparent only today? While the Secretary of State seems to have acted speedily over that, she seems to have been extremely slow to take action over the clearance of staff for recruitment. There was considerable delay in reaching the obvious sensible decision to leave the matter to head teachers if they took on staff as yet uncleared. What is the number of staff still awaiting appointment to schools who have not yet been cleared?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord will understand that, as I am answering questions on the QCA, I do not have the precise figures. I shall be delighted to write to him with the exact figures for those still awaiting clearance. We were dealing with two entirely different situations. The noble Lord will recognise that, in the case of schools that were waiting for clearance, we took the decision that in the interests of all the children, we would allow those staff to be in schools. But that is always in the context of child protection, which, I am sure, is paramount to all noble Lords. I have already stressed that my right honourable friend took the decision that she did on Sir William Stubbs because she believed that, as there had been a loss of confidence, it was appropriate to make sure that it was restored. On that basis she dismissed him.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, let us suppose that schools continue to produce more and more highly successful A-level students. Does the Minister anticipate any difficulty in reconciling the number of students who get very good A-level results with the number of funded places available at universities?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is a problem that I would look forward to and relish, and
696
it demonstrates the ability of our young people. We work very closely with Universities UK and universities in general to address the issues. The noble Baroness will be aware that many discussions on higher education are ongoing in order to ensure that we can accommodate students in a variety of ways, at different institutions and on different degree-level and other courses that they wish to take.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give an assurance that the Government will bear any additional costs incurred by universities as a result of revised grades and the movement of students between universities or to different subjects?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall say more about that in the Statement on A-level results later today. However, I assure the noble Lord that we are working with universities to ensure that no student suffers financial hardship and that every student goes to university. The Government will make sure that the appropriate finances are available.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, resignation, which the Minister ruled out, is a subjective matter. But, what is her response to the point by my noble friend Lord Naseby that the introduction of the new examination system was flawed in its conduct?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I said in your Lordships' House last week, there is evidence that perhaps we should have looked more carefully at the piloting of the A2. We are looking at what we can do to make sure that we learn from that. My right honourable friend has been very clear about accepting responsibilities and about learning from this. I shall leave the matter there.

Theft: Law Enforcement
2.53 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the police have any discretion in applying the laws relating to theft; particularly in relation to the handling and receipt of stolen goods.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the enforcement of the law is an operational matter for chief constables. A police officer will need to interpret and assess the particular circumstances of any one incident and apply his or her discretion in considering whether an offence has been committed and what action to take.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he satisfied by the ability of the police to recover stolen vehicles and equipment that they know to be held at a travellers' encampment?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, if a vehicle is identifiably stolen, the police have entirely adequate powers to go in and recover that material, subject to the proper steps being taken. As to whether there are difficulties in relation to particular encampments of an operational sort, it is plainly a matter for individual chief constables in each police authority area to determine the appropriate steps, but they certainly have the powers to do so.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although the police have powers, in the counties around London in particular they do not have the manpower to follow up very many cases of theft and misappropriation? What is being done in Surrey, Thames Valley and Hertfordshire to overcome this great shortage of manpower as people transfer to other forces, including the Metropolitan Police? What is being done about the recruitment and payment of Specials, which the Government have been considering for as long as they have been in office?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on the first question about the size of the police force, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, knows, the number of operational members of the police force is the highest that it has been since 1921 at just under 130,000. As the noble Lord also knows, we have committed ourselves to a further 2,500, which obviously will increase the figure yet further. The noble Lord will also know that we have committed ourselves to funding community support officers to whom the police will be able to leave certain tasks so that they can concentrate on mainstream policing activity. The noble Lord will also know that local authorities are funding significant numbers of street wardens, which will also help to reduce the burden on the police. Those are the steps that we are taking. It is plainly right that individual police constables must prioritise what goes on in their area. The Government are providing them with the support, money and manpower that they need to do the best job possible.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the police do not treat travellers' encampments as no-go areas, that it would be wrong for them to do so, and that if it is necessary to enter such encampments in furtherance of detecting crime they do not hesitate to do so?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, of course there are no no-go areas for law enforcement in this country. As to how individual encampments are approached and treated in the context of individual crimes, I must make it clear that it is a matter for individual chief constables to determine how best to deal with the matter. It is not for central Government to give direction in that respect.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Construction Plant-hire Association estimates that thefts of plant throughout the United Kingdom amount to about £600 million per annum,
698
that frequently these are the work of organised crime through the theft to order of high-value equipment, and that the police recover only around 10 per cent of it? Does he agree with the public perception, as outlined by my noble friends Lord Attlee and Lord Waddington, that there is a lack of motivation by certain police forces to pursue this type of stolen equipment? Will he encourage chief officers to devote more resources to addressing this substantial problem?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware of the precise figure until the noble Viscount said it. I am aware of the problem of plant theft. In different police force areas it is for the chief constable to determine priorities and how best to deploy manpower. The problem is serious, and its seriousness will vary between police areas. Again, I emphasise that it is for chief constables to determine their priorities.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, if the Government can lay down priorities for street crime, why cannot they do so for this sort of crime?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in relation to street crime the Government identified that there was a significant increase in that type of crime and brought together those, including chief constables, who could best advise on how to deal with it. That led to greater co-operation. In the 10 areas where street crime was at its worst there was a 16 per cent drop, comparing the six months to the end of September 2002 with the previous parallel six-month period.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Minister introduced the figures for 1921, stating that we have the same number of police as we had in 1921. What was the population of this country in 1921, and what is it now?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the number in the police force is the highest since 1921. Unfortunately, I do not have the population figures available. But I anticipate from the wily way in which the question was asked that the population might have been lower then.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister believe that sufficient powers are now in place and that there is sufficient co-operation from banks, solicitors, accountants and other professions to provide a necessary response to enable the police to pursue money laundering and other white-collar crime involving the handling of stolen goods?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in the Proceeds of Crime Act that was passed in the last Session, significant powers were given. We need to look to see how those powers work out before we answer the question of whether more powers are required. It is an incredibly important area of law enforcement that needs real concentration.

Transport Strategy in London
3 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What recent discussions they have had with the Mayor of London concerning his proposals for the movement of both people and vehicles in the area within his control.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the proposals of the Mayor of London for the movement of both people and vehicles are his responsibility, not the Government's. However, Ministers have regular meetings with the Mayor at which a wide range of transport matters are discussed. The most recent of those was between the Secretary of State and the Mayor on 26th September.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I would very much like to be present at one of those meetings. Is the Minister aware that there is general surprise and disappointment that the warmth and intimacy which one would expect in relationships between Ministers and the Mayor of London seem somehow to have evaporated? Is he also aware that the present operations of the Mayor on the roads of London have had the remarkable result of increasing the congestion while at the same time the traffic has been diminishing? Not everybody could do that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall see whether I can obtain an invitation for the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, to attend the next meeting. There are of course public meetings in which the Mayor is involved and I am sure that he would be happy to invite the noble Lord to them.
Yes, I am aware because I have read today's Evening Standard and I admire the noble Lord's self-publicity in advance of his Question. Of course these matters are serious, but they are devolved to the administration of London. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, or anyone else would wish this House to become an urban district council.
Lord Winston: My Lords, is the Minister aware of evidence regarding changes to the phasing of traffic lights in London? If so, under whose authority was that done? Is he also aware that the current congestion in London has caused a huge amount of extra energy to be wasted in the form of spent fuel; a vast amount of wasted man-hours at work because people are unable to travel to their workplace; and huge pollution of London's environment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the phasing of traffic lights is a matter for the Mayor of London. I understand that he is working within guidelines, which have been accepted for many years, on the balance
700
between pedestrians and vehicles. Of course, my noble friend's remaining comments will be communicated to the Mayor, as always.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many transport policies in Greater London have an impact on areas outside? If so, does he agree that the Greater London Authority Act gives the Secretary of State power, where the transport strategy is inconsistent with national policies and the inconsistency is detrimental to areas outside Greater London, to direct the Mayor to make revisions to his transport policies? It is hard to believe that the state of transport in London is consistent with any government objectives and it certainly affects areas outside Greater London. What action is the Secretary of State proposing to take under that section?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, about the provisions of the Greater London Authority Act. These matters are discussed between Ministers and the Mayor when they meet and they were discussed by the Secretary of State when he met Ken Livingstone and Bob Kiley on 26th September. I do not accept that we are in a position in which the "reserve powers" in the Act need to be invoked.
Lord Richard: My Lords, did I understand my noble friend to say that as regards traffic lights the Mayor is operating within well recognised guidelines? If so, and if that is what the Mayor has told the Government, my experience of driving around London is precisely the opposite. I recently found myself at a junction with the Vauxhall Bridge Road and Rochester Row where we had five seconds—five; I counted them—to get across Vauxhall Bridge Road. It was not that the traffic was moving down that road; it was stationary!
If and when these meetings take place, will my noble friend take back to the Mayor the thought that the obviously intentional way in which the congestion has been caused to London is irritating many normal, law-abiding citizens? He has gone over the top and he ought to be told so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand the temptation which noble Lords have to intervene in matters which have been devolved to the government of London. I share that temptation—I was chairman of the transport and planning central area board of the GLC in 1976 and I have my views, which have been boiling up inside me for 25 years. But I believe that we ought to behave as a second Chamber of Parliament and not as an urban district council. I will communicate my noble friend's views to the Mayor.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the Government's plans suggest that 20 major towns and cities will introduce congestion charges. Many of them are awaiting the

701
results of London's introduction. Are the Government still committed to the principle of congestion charges as a way of controlling traffic?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes, the Government have always been supportive of congestion charges and we have been supportive of the plans for congestion charges put forward by the Mayor of London. That matter was discussed with the Secretary of State on 26th September.
Lord Lloyd-Webber: My Lords, I must—
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I may—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, has been trying to ask a question for some time.
Lord Lloyd-Webber: My Lords, I must declare an interest in that I am co-owner of 13 West End theatres. I want to bring to your Lordships' attention the mood of despair that exists in the West End, with St Martin's Lane and Charing Cross Road closed southbound and the chaos that that is inducing.
Yesterday I had lunch with the coach operators who bring people to West End theatres and learnt that several of them have permanently abandoned using London as a theatre destination. The traffic and drug problems are rendering London a no-go area for theatre-goers. Will the Government urgently address the health of London as a major capital city and world destination?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with great authority and his views are taken seriously. If he would care to act as an intermediary for the coach operators and communicate with the Government and the Mayor, I have no doubt that those views will be taken extremely seriously.

Business of the House
3.7 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, three Statements will be repeated from another place today. The first, on Bali, will be repeated by my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. The other two will be repeated at a convenient time after 6.30 p.m. The second Statement, on Northern Ireland, will be repeated by my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, and the third Statement, on A-levels, will be repeated by my noble friend Lady Ashton.
702
It may be for the convenience of the House if I take this opportunity to mention that the date of the State Opening is to be Wednesday 13th November.

Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Enterprise Bill
3.9 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Office of Fair Trading]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, after "corporate" insert "with both a chairman and a chief executive"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to a subject which we have debated on many occasions; namely, good corporate governance. I want to speak to a number of amendments which are set out on the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 1, which is at page 1, line 5 of the Enterprise Bill, inserts after the word "corporate" the words "with both a chairman and a chief executive". Clause 1(1) will therefore read as follows:
"There shall be a body corporate with both a chairman and a chief executive to be known as the Office of Fair Trading (in this Act referred to as 'the OFT')".
Amendment No. 2 seeks to insert at the end of Clause 1 a new subsection (4) which states:
"In managing its affairs the OFT must have regard to the generally accepted principles of good corporate governance".
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, may recall that he moved a similar amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill which was incorporated into that legislation.
Amendment No. 3 would insert a new subsection (5) to the effect that,
"The appointments of the chairman and the chief executive shall not take effect until they are confirmed by the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee following a public hearing".
That is another issue which we debated in relation to the Financial Services and Markets Bill. That debate was an opportunity for the Minister to outline the way in which the appointments were to be made—to which I shall return in a moment. Although the issue of whether the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee will confirm the appointments is of course a matter for the other place, as the issue has arisen previously, I make no apologies for mentioning it again.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 would insert the words "a chief executive" and "and the chief executive" on page 195, lines 5 and 7. I shall not go in detail into the remaining amendments in this group. Suffice it to say that they insert the words "the chief executive" after

703
the word "chairman" where it appears on page 195, with the exception of Amendment No. 13, which would delete the word "either" and insert "any".
I hope that I have therefore explained this rather extensive group of amendments. This group may be large in number, but it is in effect arguing the case for good corporate governance.
I recall that when we debated this issue before, we had a look at the Cadbury report. This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves of that groundbreaking report which set out a number of aspects of corporate governance that have since been adopted almost completely. I think that the Cadbury report did a great deal of good in setting out some of the basic principles of good corporate governance. Paragraph 4.7 of the report, on page 21, addresses the whole issue of the chairman and envisages the chairman's role as follows. It states:
"The chairman's role in securing good corporate governance is crucial. Chairmen are primarily responsible for the working of the board, for its balance of membership subject to board and shareholders' approval, for ensuring that all relevant issues are on the agenda, and for ensuring that all directors, executive and non-executive alike, are enabled and encouraged to play their full part in its activities".
At paragraph 4.9, the report continues:
"Given the importance and particular nature of the chairman's role, it should in principle be separate from that of the chief executive. If the two roles are combined in one person, it represents a considerable concentration of power".
When we last debated the Cadbury report, at the Committee stage of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, I recall that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said:
"I doubt whether they"—
the Cadbury rules—
"are the most recent thinking on current good practice".—[Official Report, 16/3/00; col. 1717.]
As that was an interesting observation, I have turned to the Hampel report, which also dealt with the chairman and chief executive, in 1995.
The Hampel report was established to review the Cadbury code. On page 28 of the report, however, the chairman's job is described in exactly the same terms as Cadbury had described them. It states:
"The chief executive officer's task is to run the business and to implement the policies and strategies adopted by the board. There are thus two distinct roles".
The report went on to say that it endorses the Cadbury description.
At paragraph 3.17, the Hampel report continues:
"Cadbury recommended that the roles of chairman and chief executive officer should in principle be separate… We agree with Cadbury's recommendation and reasoning, and we also note that in the largest companies there may be two full-time jobs".
Cadbury, of course, spoke of a non-executive chairman and not a full-time chairman.
"Our view", said Hampel,
"is that, other things being equal, the roles of chairman and chief executive officer are better kept separate, in reality as well as in name. Where the roles are combined, the onus should be on the board to explain and justify the fact.
704
Cadbury also recommended that where the roles of chairman and chief executive officer were combined, there should be a strong and independent element on the board, with a recognised senior member…But even where the roles of chairman and chief executive officer are separated, we see a need for vigorously independent non-executive directors".
So that was Hampel. In order to persuade the Minister that this is the bang-up-to-date view, I wanted to submit two further pieces of evidence. The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants produced a report—a guide to corporate governance—in which, on page 9, it made it absolutely clear that it endorses that position on chairman and chief executive. It states:
"The chairman of the board is responsible for the efficient running of the board… He… is therefore responsible for ensuring that the… Code's principles and provisions are followed. These require that there should be a clear division of responsibility at the head of the company so that no one individual has unfettered powers of decision".
On page 10, in describing the chief executive, the report states:
"The chief executive is responsible for the efficient running of the company's business. He has, therefore, quite a different role from that of the chairman of the board. The Combined Code states that 'a decision to combine the posts of chairman and chief executive officer in one person should be publicly justified'".
So we come to today.
The second piece of evidence is from the National Association of Pension Funds, which only last week produced a report in which it criticised the failure of a number of companies to observe the code. In an article in the Evening Standard entitled, "Drop those dual roles at the top says NAPF", it criticised companies which were still seeking to combine the roles of chairman and chief executive here, a decade after corporate governance pioneer Sir Adrian Cadbury criticised the practice. NAPF is described as the City's most powerful shareholder group, and it made it clear that it regarded that as unacceptable behaviour.
The Minister may seeks once again to persuade us that the new Office of Fair Trading is unique in the world of corporate governance or—I refer to subsection (1) of Clause 1—in the world of bodies corporate. It is to be a body corporate. Therefore, I believe that the Government should pay more heed to the principles of good corporate governance.
Some would say that the principles of control freakery run so deep in this Government and in the institutions they create that that could constitute an explanation. However, it would be a brave Minister who would justify the matter in such terms before the House on Report. I hope, therefore, that the Minister might consider—if he wishes to intervene I may be able to cut short an otherwise long explanation in dealing with the other amendments—saying at the Dispatch Box, "Don't worry, we will observe the principles of good corporate governance and have a chairman, and a chief executive". However, he shows no sign of leaping to his feet. Therefore, I shall now say why I thought that he would not do so.
We have the advantage of reading in the Sunday press an advertisement for the new Director-General of Fair Trading which stresses what an important job

705
he or she will do and the fact that he will be given many more powers than the existing Director-General of Fair Trading. The advertisement seeks to attract non-executive directors to what is termed "the strategic board". As I understand it, that is the only board of the Office of Fair Trading but perhaps the Minister will explain the word "strategic". However, it certainly spells out the importance of that body.
In seeking to persuade people to apply, the advertisement states that the OFT has wide-ranging enforcement powers and will in future carry out some cartel investigations under the criminal law regime. The new director-general will have more wide-ranging powers than the existing director-general. But where is the strong independent element? The advertisement is for non-executive directors. What kind of commitment will they give? Will it be for most of the week or most of the month? No, non-executive directors will need to commit 30 days a year. If one divides that by 12, it is about two-and-a-half days a month. However, the advertisement states that that commitment will be dependent on their involvement in committee work. So, board members may well not commit as many as 30 days per year if they are involved in various OFT committees.
To compound our concern—this may appear a rather unnecessarily aggressive comment for this House when we have yet to decide the matter—apparently the Government have already decided not only that the new chairman will also be chief executive but also—as we discussed at earlier stages—that John Vickers, the Director-General of Fair Trading, will be the full-time chairman and the full-time chief executive of the board. But where is the independent element that is so necessary in a board which is to have these wide-ranging powers? The Minister may well come to the Dispatch Box and say, "Ah, we have a similar situation to the Financial Services and Markets Act in that we have someone who will not take the post unless he is chairman and chief executive". That was the argument used with Sir Howard Davies which carried a great deal of weight with the House as we all considerably respect Sir Howard. He has done an outstanding job as chairman and chief executive of the Financial Services Authority.
However, when we debated the then Financial Services and Markets Bill I recall that the Liberal Democrats commented that they detected that although the Government were not prepared to move on the issue at that moment, they were prepared to consider appointing a chairman and a separate chief executive of the Financial Services Authority when Sir Howard Davies retired. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, did not seek to contradict that assumption from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Therefore, I hope that during the course of this debate or elsewhere, the Minister will indicate whether that is still the Government's intention.
After having done an outstanding job in setting up the Financial Services Authority, Sir Howard Davies has indicated that he wishes to retire. I challenge the Minister and his ministerial colleagues to consider
706
appointing a separate chairman or, if Sir Howard is to remain chairman, a separate chief executive of the Financial Services Authority. I believe that that would be a wise move in any event to enable the overlap from one chief executive to another to be more satisfactorily dealt with, if, indeed, the Government are now persuaded to have two separate posts, as I hope they are. I believe that it would greatly assist the governance of the new Financial Services Authority if it were to have a separate chairman and chief executive.
I return to the new Office of Fair Trading. It seems to fly in the face of all the speeches that were made during the course of the then Financial Services and Markets Bill for the Government to insist that the chairman and chief executive should be the same person. I know John Vickers who has been an exceedingly good director-general, but I am sure—as I believe Sir Howard Davies will have found—that it is very helpful indeed to have a non-executive chairman to assist one in handling the extensive responsibilities not only of the Financial Services Authority but also of the new Office of Fair Trading. It would be a good move if the Government were able to accept the amendments we are discussing.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will accept Amendment No. 2 which states that,
"the OFT must have regard to the generally accepted principles of good corporate governance".
I said previously that it is similar to the amendment which the Minister moved—under considerable pressure from these Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches—at a late stage in the then Financial Services and Markets Bill. We are giving the Government a slightly earlier opportunity to spell out the matter. I hope that they will accept the Cadbury recommendation on chairmen and chief executives, endorsed as it has been not only by Hampel but also Greenbury, Turnbull and various other commentators. Indeed, the consultation paper on company law, which I believe was issued only yesterday or at the weekend, endorsed strongly the code and the principles of good corporate governance. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept Amendment No. 2. Under the present principles of control freakery I doubt that the Government will hand over the confirmation of the appointments to the Treasury Select Committee in another place. However, if the Minister wishes to surprise me by indicating acceptance of Amendment No. 3, no one would be more thrilled than this noble Lord. I would be surprised, thrilled and also exceedingly satisfied that I had been able to persuade the Minister how important that would be. I urge the Minister to consider that.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will listen to noble Lords on all sides of the House who seek in some way to entrench in a new and exceedingly powerful body the principles that I have outlined. There is a feeling in the Houses of Parliament and outside them that the question of who regulates the regulators must be addressed. A number of regulators have sprung up. I take full responsibility for the creation of a number of such posts, having been a junior Minister at the Department of Energy and having held various other

707
ministerial posts. However, that was at a different stage. Since then, a number of regulators have been appointed. We must now address much more clearly the question of who regulates the regulators. If the principles of good corporate governance are involved, I wish the new Office of Fair Trading well. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I rise to oppose Amendment No. 1 and the consequential amendments grouped with it.
I need hardly refer to Amendment No. 3 because the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, has already indicated that he does not expect it to be agreed to. That is right because it would be wholly undesirable, in this Bill and in relation to this particular post, if a broad change of that kind were made; it would involve making the appointment acceptable to a House of Commons Select Committee although no other appointment would be made on that basis. A much broader discussion across the general world of public appointments is needed before agreeing to that substantial change of principle, which I am sure fascinates all of us. We should consider the example of the United States, where Senate approval is needed. However, to introduce that concept in relation to one official in this country on this one occasion would be very odd; we should discuss the proposal on a much broader basis.
I turn to the main amendment. All of the noble Lord's points related to public limited companies. A discussion of corporate governance has been through all of the splendid committees to which he referred, including Cadbury, Hampel and Turnbull; all of them were concerned with the governance of public limited companies. There is no necessary read-across from the governance of public limited companies to government agencies, whether we are discussing the Office of Fair Trading or others. One must consider what is required of each of them. The noble Lord surely cannot argue that Cadbury, Hampel and the rest of them were thinking of bodies such as the OFT, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets or the Financial Services Authority when it contemplated the problem of the governance of private and public limited companies.
In any case, the noble Lord completely omitted the point that there is no statutory requirement for public limited companies to have the posts of chairmanship and chief executive in separate hands. That is laid down as a recommendation in the combined code that followed Hampel. I have for some years been a sort of serial non-executive director of various companies and I fully agree with those proposals and with the idea that, normally speaking, companies should have a non-executive chairman and a chief executive and that those posts should be held by different persons. However, there is no statutory requirement, and rightly so. The noble Lord wants to introduce a statutory requirement that, irrespective of the particular needs of the moment—or, for that matter, the longer-term needs of the country in relation to the
708
governance of the OFT—there should be a rigid requirement that the posts of chairman and a chief executive should be held by two persons.
The Bill as it stands does not have any rigid requirements to the contrary. It does not require that the posts of chief executive and chairman should be held by one person. The board is described in Schedule 1 and the advertisement for non-executives is part of the process of getting the other members of the board together. The Bill allows for the possibility of those two posts to be held by one person. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, accurately pointed out, the Government have indicated that they have it in mind that the first chairman should be not only chairman but also chief executive, and that it should be Mr John Vickers, the current Director-General of Fair Trading. The Bill leaves open the possibility that two persons should hold those two posts, as and when circumstances suggest that that would be better. That flexibility is much more desirable than the rigid requirement for which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, is asking in the amendment; that is, that once the Bill is enacted and without any question, two persons should hold those two separate posts.
Of course there are practical arguments for suggesting that the roles are different. That is shown by examples of the corporate governance of public limited companies. It could be desirable for the chairman to have someone else to take the full burden of administrative and managerial responsibility. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a deputy from being appointed. The noble Lord will remember that the Minister said in Committee that one or more of the members of the board might be executive members of the board. One of those executives could be a deputy who could be given charge of administrative and managerial responsibilities, and the chairman and chief executive could take the broader role. That seems perfectly sensible.
In order to distinguish the OFT from public limited companies, in relation to which the principles of corporate governance suggest that normally speaking the two roles should be in separate hands, I point out that decision-making under the Bill—we will discuss such matters later—and, for that matter, decision-making under the Competition Act 1998, should be speedy and effective. I believe that the Government have indicated that it is likely that the board will need to delegate to the chairman many executive decisions about mergers and whether there should be an investigation of a particular industry; I support that. I should not like to see diffusion or confusion between two persons of equal authority. One can have a person in charge, of whom it can be said, "the buck stops here", and a deputy, but at this early stage, when the Bill will be beginning its operations, it is desirable, as the Government suggest, that the posts of chief executive and chairman should be held by one person.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, like many noble Lords, I have held a number of chairmanships. I have also held the post of chairman/chief executive and of full-time chairman with a chief executive. Moreover, I held that

709
post of chairman with a chief executive in a non-public company. I am strongly of the view that the separation of the two posts should be maintained wherever possible.
The job to which I refer in particular was that of the chairmanship for some six years of the British Railways Board. There was a full-time chairman and a full-time chief executive and both of us would have claimed to be fully occupied, although I am sure that that was not always the view of the staff.
The two posts carry two clearly separate sets of responsibilities. A full-time chairman has a very close relationship with the board. That does not mean that he does not have a relationship with the executives; it means that he does not become involved in the detail of the business. He is basically concerned with strategy and the monitoring of progress. The chief executive has responsibility for the mechanics and motivation of the business. As a chief executive, he will spend his time in the guts of the organisation, ensuring that it is running properly. Of course, he will also be directly responsible to the board, but that is a different responsibility from that of the chairman.
Perhaps I may give a classic example of why I feel so strongly about this issue. Over the years, I have been involved with the removal of four chief executives or chairmen. In each case, the pattern was the same. Two or three of the non-executive directors talked to the chairmen, who then talked to the institutions or, in hard times, the bank. If the chief executive is also the chairman, there is no way that the executive directors will put their head on the line because their future employment will be in the hands of the chief executive. They will have nowhere else to go.
I do not believe that this is a deeply philosophical matter; it is an organisational and structural issue. Large companies do not necessarily have available to them supermen, and I include in that some of the signatories to some of the studies quoted. I believe that, wherever possible, the line should be clear, as should the responsibilities. Key organisations, such as institutions, should be able, for example, to talk freely and in confidence with the chairman without involving the chief executive.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the situation that is desirable "wherever possible". What would happen if it were undesirable? Would the noble Lord make an exception? Does he not recognise that in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, a chairman and chief executive should be appointed in all cases?
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am bound to say that I start from the point that I cannot think of a strong argument against the proposition. I have seen it working. There is a long history of companies which do amazingly well, then suddenly a fashionable gladiator of the day begins to emerge and things begin to go wrong. We have seen that occur in some very well-known companies and very often when that situation arises, it does so where the chairman is also
710
chief executive. There is no one else to talk to if one is an outsider. I find it difficult to envisage that a serious organisation would find that the ideal way to administer a company.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I rise in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I do not want to repeat the arguments that he made so eloquently and with which I entirely agree.
I turn to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. It is always difficult to argue with someone who has held with such distinction the position—or the equivalent position—that we are discussing. Indeed, I believe it is axiomatic among noble Lords that, were the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in post and were it possible for him to be in post in perpetuity, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would not have tabled the amendment and I would not be supporting it. I do not want that to be taken as a criticism of John Vickers, but of course we are not talking about the experience of personalities. Indeed, we all recognise the enormous contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, made to the post without a separate chairman being in place.
I agree with part of the noble Lord's fundamental analysis, although I disagree with his conclusion. Those of us who argued this point during both the passage of this Bill and that of the previous Bill establishing the Financial Services Authority may perhaps have made a slight error in trying to establish a cross-over from Cadbury—from corporate governance—into this area. It is obvious that there is no exact parallel between the private sector and what we are discussing today in relation to government bodies and government regulators.
One fundamental reason for the current desired structure for chairmen and chief executives in publicly-owned companies is that the chairmen and non-executive directors have responsibility for the shareholders. In this case, no one is suggesting that there is a cross-over and no one is asking who the shareholders are of the Office of Fair Trading—whether they are the public or the Government. No one is suggesting that and I am not supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in some strange quasi-shareholder way.
A fundamental point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and it behoves the Minister to answer it. Let us forget the comparison with Cadbury. I believe that, to an extent, it has been a red herring that has led us down paths that have agitated the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and we would always want his support on an issue such as this. The fundamental question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is that of control of the regulators. Contrary to the concerns that existed in the days when the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, performed this function, a serious concern now exists as to the amount of power given to Sir Howard Davies and the Financial Services Authority and to John Vickers as Director-General of Fair Trading. There is a significant issue here which the Government must address. I hope that when the Minister responds, he

711
does not simply demolish the Cadbury argument. Let us take it as accepted that this is not a cross-over from Cadbury into the Office of Fair Trading. I hope that the Minister examines the matter in the context to which I refer; that is, the control of the regulators.
When this issue was discussed in Committee, my noble friend Lord Sharman, who unfortunately cannot be here today, referred to the long-standing fight that the Conservative and Liberal Democrat opposition put up in relation to the creation of the Financial Services Authority. They tried to build into the legislation the split between chairman and chief executive but failed.
In Committee, my noble friend drew your Lordships' attention to the annual report of the Financial Services Authority. The report justified the combining of the titles of chairman and chief executive, now vested in Sir Howard Davies, by reference to the fact that executive responsibility is divided among other members of the board, including those who are managing directors. Contrary to the point that I have just made, the report of the Financial Services Authority went on to say that, as verified by the independent auditors of that body, it was in compliance with the Cadbury code, which recommends the division of those separate responsibilities.
The FSA report recognised the need for a division of those responsibilities. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is leading the Minister to indicate that as and when Sir Howard Davies stands down, there might be a split in the FSA. The real issue is that to satisfy the Conservative and Liberal Democrat oppositions, the Bill must do that which the FSA requires—divide responsibility among other members of the board. We see no evidence of that in the Bill and if its structure does not provide for responsibility to be divided among other members, we would press the point that there needs to be a separate chairman and chief executive.
Let us accept that Cadbury does not apply—we are not considering a commercial enterprise. Take the BBC as an example. How would your Lordships feel if the suggestion were made in revising the BBC charter that Greg Dyke should run the lot—with no chairman of the governors—and that separation of the roles in a quasi-public body should not exist? Answer: your Lordships would be horrified. That is a fair analogy. When the Minister responds, he should not demolish the Cadbury argument because we can move on from that—but he ought to deal with the BBC argument. What is the difference, on this issue, between the Office of Fair Trading and the BBC?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am surprised that the Government have taken the position they have. We had an interesting debate in the summer, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, on the Government Benches, on the subject of corporate governance. The emphasis placed by the Government on the Higgs committee as being the development of corporate governance makes a striking comparison with their proposals.
712
It is not just a question of public confidence, which requires that best practice is not just followed but seen to be followed. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that there is not necessarily a read-across to public organisations from PLCs. He is absolutely right—but that does not mean that there cannot be a read-across. On this issue there is a read-across on the arguments powerfully made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, about the twin pressures at the top of an organisation or company. They are the strategy, which is the setting of the overarching approach that the organisation or company will follow, and the day-to-day implementation that requires the strategy to be carried through in the detail. Those are not separate roles but strategy and implementation do overlap,
It is easy within an organisation or company for one or the other to predominate. Either the company or organisation becomes obsessed with strategy and the big picture, without thinking about the detail, or the company becomes immersed in the detail and loses sight of the wood for the trees. My noble friend is right that each function needs its own champion. The structure of a board, whether of a company or of the OFT, demands two different people.
It might be unfair to say this but the suggestion originally that the two roles should be split was not in Hampel or Cadbury but in Greenbury. The chairman of that committee was of course the chairman and chief executive of Marks and Spencer. When Mr. Greenbury was asked the reason for making that recommendation when he held both roles, he replied, "This is a special case"—rather like the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, saying that this is a special case. The history of Marks and Spencer may have nothing to do with the combination but it is a warning that the Minister should bear in mind.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I refer to the much quoted remark by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, about there being no necessary read-across from a public limited company and a body such as that which we are debating. That is true but the role of the Office of Fair Trading—much expanded by this 500-page Bill—will make it a much more difficult organisation to run than the typical PLC. Its judgments will be highly sensitive, often contentious and always political. If ever there was a need for the extra resource that the twin-officer approach provides, it is here.
For the Minister to suggest that it will be sufficient to have a deputy director is so far wide of the mark that I beg him to reconsider. A deputy is a deputy—an inferior answerable to the person for whom he or she deputises. The post will have to minister to four constituencies—the consumer lobby, the business lobby, the government and political lobby, and the public at large. That will make the job hugely difficult and Amendment No. 1 seems to be common sense.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I much appreciated the survey by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, of the various reports on corporate governance and the views of the noble Lord,

713
Lord Marsh. I totally agree, from my experience in industry, that it is entirely right that there should be a split and that is the best way to run companies.
However, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie—it was his argument as well as his great distinction in his former post that count on this occasion—was entirely right. There is no direct comparison to be made between how one runs a public limited company and a non-ministerial department. The issues are quite different. The reason for having the split between chairman and chief executive in a public company has to do with its relationship with shareholders, which is clearly different from the relationship between the head of a non-ministerial department and the Government. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that we should forget about that unrealistic comparison and look at the subject on its own merits.
The noble Lord drew an interesting comparison with the BBC but again, that is a completely different situation. The BBC is a big organisation with large operations. Where there are large operations as well as a need for strategic thinking, the model is closer to a public company.
4 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I cannot follow the Minister's argument. There are numerous organisations in the public sector where the Government of the day—whatever the rules and regulations say—will wish to speak to someone in the organisation about the way it is managed. All of us who have been Ministers have done that sort of thing. There must be someone to whom Ministers can speak. To talk to the chap in charge of the organisation's management specifically and solely is not always productive and reliable. Over the years, Ministers, in my experience, have talked to the chairman.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the situation does not parallel that of a public company. It is much easier for a Minister or someone else to discover what is thought about the performance of a public body. The Minister does not need the intermediary of a chairman who can be used to take action on the executive side. I do not believe that the situation is parallel to that or that one can make that comparison. All these situations must be considered on the basis of the particular kind of organisation and the job which it does. In that context I shall deal with the situation here.
Amendments Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 8 to 16 would create a separate post of chief executive of the OFT. At present the Bill provides for a chairman and no fewer than four other members appointed by the Secretary of State, with the Secretary of State consulting the chairman before appointing any other member.
714
We have taken account of the OFT's particular circumstances in deciding not to separate the roles of chairman and chief executive at this time. The Secretary of State will appoint John Vickers as chairman for the remainder of his current term as Director-General of Fair Trading, honouring the commitment made to him when he was appointed to that post. John Vickers will work together with the other members of the OFT. Given his position, and to provide for some continuity through this period of great change, I do not think that the OFT should necessarily separate the roles of chairman and chief executive at this time. However, while the Bill does not provide for a separate post of chief executive, nor does it preclude it. If at any time the OFT wished to go down that route, it could create a separate post of chief executive and select the appointee.
That raises another important point. The amendments would create a post of chief executive appointed by the Secretary of State. In contrast, the approach we propose, where the OFT could, if it wished, appoint a separate chief executive in the future, gives the board much more independence and discretion. It is also consistent with the approach taken throughout the Bill and with other regulators. The chief executive of Postcomm is appointed by the chairman, which is a Secretary of State appointment, and the chief executive of Ofcom will be appointed by the board.
Amendment No. 3 would require the appointments of chairman and chief executive to be approved by the Treasury Select Committee. I have already given my reasons for not creating a statutory post of chief executive in the Bill. As regards Select Committee approval of the post of chairman, I would point out that John Vickers was appointed as Director- General of Fair Trading in line with the Nolan principles, and through an open competition. He was appointed on the understanding that in due course he would become the first chairman of the OFT. His successors as chairman will similarly be appointed in accordance with the Nolan principles and after a fair and open competition. In my view giving a Select Committee the power to veto this appointment would serve to undermine the operation of the Nolan procedures. It would make a fair and open competition meaningless.
I would also point out that the OFT will be a non-ministerial government department; a part of the executive branch. It would introduce a wholly new constitutional principle for appointments in government departments to be subject to such scrutiny.
Amendment No. 2 would oblige the OFT to have regard to the generally accepted principles of good corporate governance in its affairs. We discussed that point in Committee. I said then that I would certainly expect the OFT to act in accordance with the principles of good governance insofar as they are relevant to the OFT, but that I considered that a matter of good administration rather than something to go on the face of the Bill. I remain of that view. The OFT is a

715
government department, not a public limited company, and many of the principles of good corporate governance are aimed at business practices which do not have an obvious equivalent in government.
The OFT's strategy and activities will be set out publicly in its annual plan and annual report. Under Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, to which we shall come shortly, its draft proposals for the annual plan, which may take the form of a draft plan, will have to be consulted on publicly and laid before Parliament. The annual report must also be laid before Parliament. The combination of the plan and the report will ensure that both Parliament and the public are engaged in the OFT's work; that they can influence it and can monitor its performance. The chairman of the OFT, like the DGFT at present, will be accountable to Parliament through his appearances before Select Committees, especially the Trade and Industry Select Committee and the Public Accounts Select Committee.
The OFT will also publish other reports of its work (Clause 4) to keep the public informed of its activities. Indeed, currently the DGFT's office publishes decisions, advice and a range of materials on its website, which we expect the OFT will continue to do, as well as to run roadshows for consumers and business, and participate in outside events to get its message across.
To conclude on this group of amendments, I emphasise that we are already depersonalising competition and consumer regulation by creating a statutory authority with at least five members. We expect the board to have a majority of non-executives and we are giving the OFT significant independence from Ministers. With the appointment of John Vickers as chairman, we are providing some continuity, which in this case is enormously important. If in time the OFT should decide that it would prefer a separate post of chief executive, it will be able to select one. I believe that that is the best way forward. In the light of those arguments I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he help as to the power under the Bill by which the Secretary of State has appointed a chief executive?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if I understand the noble and learned Lord correctly, he is asking which power there is in the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, yes.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot answer that exactly, but if it is a matter of concern, I shall write to the noble and learned Lord and set that out.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. However, I believe that a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh,
716
exposed a paradox in the Government's case. In response to the noble Lord the Minister stated that Ministers do not need an intermediary, as if the OFT was not an independent public body and the Minister would fulfil the role of being a recipient of representations, which would then be communicated to the chief executive or, as is proposed, the chairman and chief executive. I remind the Minister that the advertisement, which presumably he authorised, states clearly that the Office of Fair Trading is an independent public body.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, who made an important point about Cadbury, perhaps I may say that my point is not to embrace Cadbury alone. I tried to combine it with the pamphlet on corporate governance produced by the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), which was responsible for the combined code. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts pointed out, CIMA states that that should apply to all organisations. That is the intrinsic point I sought to make. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, belongs to that exclusive club of existing or past director generals of fair trading. I bow to his knowledge of the organisation. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, made an important point. We are asking the question, "Who regulates the regulators?" Therefore, this has been an important debate on that subject.
As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, stated, we are dealing with a highly sensitive, political and controversial body, which will have to make a whole range of decisions. Therefore, I urge the Government to practise what they preach and to have a separate chairman and chief executive. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, stated that they may do so at some stage in the future, and the Minister seemed to urge that. However, we are dealing with today. The Government made clear in an advertisement that the first chairman will also be chief executive. That is why I believe I should test the opinion of the House.
4.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 134; Not-Contents, 123.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Bowness, L.

Addington, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Bridges, L.

Arran, E.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Buscombe, B.

Attlee, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Avebury, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Biffen, L.

Carrington, L.

Blaker, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Blatch, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Boardman, L.

Coe, L.

717

Colwyn, L.

Newby, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Northover, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cuckney, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Denham, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Dholakia, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Peel, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Elton, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Freeman, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Prior, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Razzall, L.

Greaves, L.

Reay, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Redesdale, L.

Henley, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Higgins, L.

Renton, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hogg, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Howe, E.

Rogan, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Roper, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Russell, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sandwich, E.

Jopling, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Kimball, L.

Seccombe, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Selborne, E.

Kingsland, L.

Sharples, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Lucas, L.

Stewartby, L.

Luke, L.

Strathclyde, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Swinfen, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Taverne, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

McNally, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Maddock, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller]

Trumpington, B.

Marlesford, L.

Vinson, L.

Marsh, L.

Waddington, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Walmsley, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Walpole, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Weatherill, L.

Moynihan, L.

Wigoder, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wilcox, B.

Naseby, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ahmed, L.

Burlison, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Amos, B.

Carter, L.

Ampthill, L.

Christopher, L.

Andrews, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Bach, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Barnett, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Crawley, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

David, B.

Billingham, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Blease, L.

Desai, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Dixon, L.

Borrie, L.

Donoughue, L.

Bragg, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Elder, L.

Brookman, L.

Erroll, E.

718

Evans of Parkside, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Gale, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gavron, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Orme, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ouseley, L.

Golding, B.

Patel, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Paul, L.

Goudie, B.

Pendry, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gregson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grenfell, L.

Radice, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Rea, L.

Harrison, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Haskel, L.

Richard, L.

Haskins, L.

Rooker, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sawyer, L.

Hoyle, L.

Serota, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sheldon, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Simon, V.

Islwyn, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Stallard, L.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jones, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Jordan, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Tenby, V.

Kirkhill, L.

Thornton, B.

Laird, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Turnberg, L.

Lipsey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Varley, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Whitty, L.

McCarthy, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Williamson of Horton, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
"(4) In managing its affairs the OFT must have regard to the generally accepted principles of good corporate governance."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 2. I should like to test the opinion of the House on it. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dean of Harptree): Amendment proposed: page 1, line 8 at end insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. As many of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". Clear the Bar.
Division called.
Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order 53. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Contents have it.

Bali
4.24 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With your permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the bombings in Bali, Indonesia.
"Two bombs went off near the Sari club in Kuta, Bali, just after 11 p.m. Indonesian time on the night of 12th October. At the same time a bomb exploded in Denpasar, capital of Bali, near the United States consulate, and another at the Philippines consulate in Sulawesi. The Sari club was packed with people, mainly young, enjoying themselves on a Saturday night. The attacks appear to have been timed deliberately to cause the maximum possible injury and loss of life.
"First of all, I should like to express my deep sympathies and condolences to the families who have lost loved ones in this appalling terrorist outrage. The final toll of the dead and injured is unlikely to be confirmed for several weeks. But as of this morning, more than 180 people are confirmed dead, with hundreds more injured. Many of those who died were young Australians. Up to 30 British people may have died. Nine Britons are confirmed dead, with a further eight bodies yet to be identified, and 13 people still missing. Eight have been medically evacuated from Bali. Many more received hospital treatment at the scene. We are providing assistance, as we did after September 11th, to the relatives of British victims. This will enable those who wish to, to travel to Bali. We will provide help and support to them while they are there.
"This was an act of pure wickedness—horrific and brutal attacks which have left hundreds of families here and all around the world in shock and grieving. Last night the United Nations Security Council condemned the bombings in the strongest terms, calling them a threat to international peace and security. At the weekend I spoke to Prime Minister Howard and to the Premier of Western Australia to express my condolences, and I hope to speak to President Megawati later this week. I have also spoken to President Bush. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke at the weekend to his Australian and Indonesian counterparts and is discussing the issues with Secretary of State Powell in Washington today.
"A team of specialist officers from the Metropolitan Police Service Anti-Terrorist Branch has already flown to Bali, and more are on their way. United States and Australian experts are also on the scene.
"I should also like to place on record the Government's gratitude for the help extended by both the Indonesian and Australian authorities to all those from the United Kingdom who have been caught up in these dreadful events.
720
"We had no specific intelligence relating to the attack in Bali. We do not yet know for certain who carried it out. But we do know that there are groups of extremists active in the region, some of which have strong links to Al'Qaeda. These groups have worked with Al'Qaeda on attack plans in the past. We know that they have tried before to carry out major terrorist atrocities in the region, including in Singapore last December, when a massive attack planned against targets including the British High Commission was thwarted by the Singaporean authorities. I discussed this with the Prime Minister of Singapore when he visited London in April this year. He told me that had the authorities not discovered those plans, hundreds of people could have died.
"The Indonesian authorities have been conscious for some time of the growing threat from extremists in the region. Indonesia is a secular country, with a tradition of tolerance and moderate Islam of which Indonesians are rightly proud. But prior to 11th September, and especially afterwards, we identified the south east Asian region, including Indonesia, as an area with a real and present threat from groups linked to Al'Qaeda. The most prominent is Jemaah Islamiyah, which has a network stretching across a number of countries in the region, and which has to be one of the groups under suspicion for this atrocity. We are urgently considering proscribing that organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000.
"Earlier this year we put in place an enhanced package of counter-terrorism assistance for Indonesia, including specific programmes on intelligence, crisis management and aviation security. We offered assistance with bomb disposal and bomb scene management training.
"In June I met President Megawati in London to discuss how we could fight terrorism in Indonesia more effectively and we agreed to expand our existing programme further, drawing on the wide range of expertise in counter-terrorism that Britain can offer. We will do so in close co-operation with the United States and Australia as well as with the Indonesian authorities. We have set up programmes to help other governments in the region. In the Philippines we are training in counter-terrorism, hostage negotiation and police investigations. In Malaysia we are setting up training by Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism branch, and in bomb disposal. We fully support the tripartite counter-terrorism agreement signed by Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines earlier this year, which is designed to combat money laundering, illegal border crossing and the illegal trade in arms.
"Since 11th September, here in Britain we have enhanced our intelligence efforts, strengthened protection against rogue aircraft and shipping and clamped down on sources of terrorist financing. We have passed new anti-terrorist legislation. Internationally, we have put a new United Nations framework in place under United Kingdom chairmanship to ensure effective national and international action against terrorism and we have

721
increased intelligence co-operation, strengthening existing partnerships and putting in place new ones across the world.
"So we have had a fresh reminder, if we needed one, that the war against terrorism is not over. During the past 10 days, there have been attacks in Kuwait and in Yemen. The threat to all people, at any time and at any place in the world is real.
"In the end, it is not just the families now grieving for their loved ones who suffer, but also the people of Indonesia, many of whom are already in poverty, who will have to face the devastating economic consequences of the attack. For the bombs and the fanatics who use them do not discriminate between young and old, East and West, black and white, Christian and Muslim. They will kill anyone of any race, creed or colour. They respect no frontier. They have no inhibitions in murdering the innocent; indeed, they rejoice in it. Because of the way in which they work, in small cells of fanatics; because their victims are the most vulnerable, people in a pub or a cafe, on a street or on holiday, discovering where and how they may strike next is hard.
"But the message that we send out is once again the same: one of total defiance—of determination, in the face of evil, to prosecute the fight against them the world over until, in time, they are defeated. Defeated, of course by intelligence, by police and even military action, but defeated also in the triumph of our values of tolerance, freedom and the rule of law over those of terror designed to produce bloodshed, fear and hatred.
"Some say that we should fight terrorism alone and that issues to do with weapons of mass destruction are a distraction. I reject that entirely. Although different in means, both are the same in nature. Both are the new threats facing the post-Cold War world. Both are threats from people or states who do not care about human life and who have no compunction about killing the innocent. Both represent the extreme replacing the rational; the fanatic driving out moderation. Both are intent on not letting people live in peace one with another; not letting us celebrate our diversity and work out our differences in an orderly way. They want to produce such disorder and chaos that from it comes a world in which religions, nations and peoples fight each other for supremacy. That is the true measure of what is at stake.
"The war on terrorism is indeed a war, but one of a different sort to the ones to which we are used. Its outcome, however, is as important as that of any that we have fought before".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. It is indeed a sombre day when a Statement on such a terrorist atrocity abroad will be followed later by one about terrorist intransigence here at home.
722
As the Prime Minister said, never has vigilance and firmness of purpose been more needed. He is right to say that the threat is global, constant and urgent. However distant it is geographically, it is very near to us all.
I shall not seek to add to the words poured out in response to the massacre in Bali, but the hearts of all of us go out to the families and friends of those young British people who died—some of whom are to be found in this place. Our sympathy goes to those of all nations who have been struck down, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord might consider sending a particular message of sympathy and solidarity from this House to the Senate of the good and brave people of Australia—for so long our most close and trusted friends—who have been so brutally scarred. It must be our common resolve not to rest until we have seen the perpetrators of this crime brought to justice.
The nation expects unity at this time. It also deserves realism. I have been dismayed to hear certain voices say that the outrage in Bali somehow shows that we were wrong to be concerned about a threat from Iraq. As the noble and learned Lord mentioned during his repetition of the Prime Minister's Statement, the word "distraction" has been freely used by some here at home and by depressingly many in Europe. Like the Prime Minister, I repudiate that view. It fails to reflect the grim realities of the global challenge that we now face or the daily realities of what this country and the United States have been trying to do.
I see no evidence that a concern about weapons of mass destruction held by a dictator who has assaulted four of his neighbours and who rewards the families of suicide bombers is either ill-founded or a distraction. The Government are right to put pressure on Saddam Hussein to give up weapons of mass destruction and we on the Conservative Benches hope that they will maintain that pressure. Saddam Hussein knows all about terror. Bring together weapons of mass destruction and global terrorism and all mankind is threatened. So that is not a distraction; it is essential to our future security.
We must also have no illusions about the terrorist mentality. Terrorists do not read the manuals of human rights; for them, the sanctity of human life means less than nothing. Some laugh behind their sleeves at the idea of a war on terrorism. But it is a war. It is not a war that we declared; but it is a war that we must win. For if we do not win it, all the values in which we believe will be put in peril.
Perhaps I may ask some specific questions arising from the Statement that I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to answer, within the constraints of the need to protect our intelligence sources. Can he say more about the links between Al'Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah? Why was Jemaah Islamiyah not placed on the list of foreign terrorist organisations published by the United States' State Department, the European Union or, indeed, our Government? Should that not now be done urgently? What is the status of Jemaah Islamiyah today, according to the Government? What are we now doing

723
to ensure that Indonesia deals with militant Islamic groups as effectively as have Singapore and Malaysia in recent years?
Does the noble and learned Lord know whether Jemaah Islamiyah has any resources in this country? If so, have its assets been frozen, before they are moved offshore? Finally, is he satisfied that organisations and agitators in Britain who declare the same support for the aims of Al'Qaeda pose no threat to our people?
We are again reminded by these events that the war on terrorism is a global war. It affects us all. We cannot dismiss it as some quaint American eccentricity—a view that itself is too often a by-product of anti-Americanism—because we must now believe that we are all targets. Scores of our citizens have already been made victims. We must fight back, and we must be ready to carry that fight to the enemy for as long as it takes to win. If the Government have the resolve for that, they may be sure that we on these Benches will not be found lacking.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader of the House for repeating a Statement made in another place by the Prime Minister on the terrible events in Bali. Perhaps I may also associate our party with the deep sympathy extended to the families and friends of those British citizens who lost their lives, but also of the many young Australians who lost their lives, and pay particular tribute to the courage of patients in the Darwin hospitals who cleared their beds to enable them to be used for casualties returning from the scene of the crime in Bali. Perhaps I may say a word about the Indonesians who lost their lives and, not least, the people of Bali itself, who will weep not just for the loss of paradise but the loss of their livelihoods.
In addition, I should add that this is not the first paradise that has been lost. Only a week ago I returned from Kashmir, another beautiful place that is being continually attacked by terrorists with help and support from outside. We would be very foolish not to recognise just how extensive is the terrorist network, and the way in which it particularly fastens itself upon those areas of the world that may well be the best hope for their citizens as regards moving out of a life of poverty. Indeed, both Bali and Kashmir are very good examples of the latter.
I believe that there was a strong indication that Indonesia was likely to become the scene of further terrorist activities. I should declare an interest as a member of the board of the International Crisis Group, which, on 8th August of this year, produced a study entitled, Al-Qaeda in Southeast Asia: The Case of the 'Ngruki Network' in Indonesia. The study sets out in great detail the way in which that network was created, and the way in which it has already been engaged over many months in terrorist activities, many of which were intended to create communal strife.
Literally thousands of Indonesians, both Muslim and Christian, have lost their lives in Aceh, in Kalamantan, in West Papua, and in Molucca, just to
724
mention four of the islands that have virtually moved towards anarchy over the past few months. I believe that Western governments did not pay sufficient attention to the way in which this situation was building in Indonesia, not least because that country is now attempting, with great difficulty, to embark upon some necessary political reforms. The Prime Minister has let us know that he is in touch with President Megawati, the recently-elected president of Indonesia.
Can the Leader of the House say whether the Government still strongly support the attempts that President Megawati is making—for example, to establish civilian control over the police and to train the police to work with, not against, civilians, which is a very important part of dealing with terrorism? There is always a danger that we deal with terrorism by entirely military means and fail to recognise that cutting off the support on which it feeds is absolutely essential. Therefore, helping Indonesia towards political reform is an important part of that strategy.
When repeating the Prime Minister's Statement, the Leader of the House rightly said that Indonesia has been proud of being a tolerant and moderate Islamic country. It is vitally important that we do not lose the support of that moderate Muslim majority. I trust that the Government will identify with some of the aspirations of the democratically-elected Indonesian Government who are handling an extremely fragile and delicate situation. Can the noble and learned Lord assure us that careful attempts will be made to ensure that the paramilitaries in Indonesia, who have created tremendous opposition against the government of that country, will be reined in and not used as the major method of controlling terrorism? The paramilitaries in Indonesia have huge casualties among civilians to answer for.
Can the noble and learned Lord assure us that we shall continue to support, with aid, the efforts to train the Indonesian police in the proper handling of order? Can he also assure us that, as a crucial part of the second strategy against terrorism, we shall look again with our international partners at the disastrous consequences of reducing the help for education in that country that flowed from the economic crisis of 1998? That has led to a very substantial number of Indonesian Muslim children now being trained in what are known as madrasas in Pakistan and in Indonesia as pogroms—that is, religious fundamentalist schools—because they are free and there is often no secular educational alternative for these children to attend.
I have one further question for the noble and learned Lord with regard to the absolute importance of retaining the united support of the international community for the war on terrorism. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in this House made reference to the comments made by my right honourable friend in another place about the distraction from the war on terrorism caused by the massive concentration on the issue of Iraq. I simply want to say that that concentration has been extreme. Although all of us agree that Iraq is an evil regime, this is a moment when we must use every last ounce of our

725
effort and energy to try to get agreement in the Security Council on a common resolution to bring back the inspectors, without any conditions—a view that we all share. The alternative would be a divided international community and it is precisely on those divisions that terrorism most feeds.
Can the noble and learned Lord respond to a question about the Prime Minister's reference to the illegal trade in arms by telling us whether, following the outrage in Bali, Her Majesty's Government will now look again at the supply of legal arms to Indonesia because it is both legal and illegal arms that today feed so much of terrorism in South East Asia? We need to reconsider that extremely dangerous situation.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. The noble Lord made a most graceful suggestion that I shall adopt. I shall, today, have a letter sent on behalf of all of us. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his imaginative suggestion. The noble Lord was absolutely right to speak about the necessity for continuing constant vigilance and firmness. I have to agree with him that our focused concentration on Iraq has not been a distraction. Iraq and international terrorism are not alternatives; they are both common threats, not only to those countries immediately affected but also to the United Kingdom, which is the prime responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.
Her Majesty's Government keep under constant review the sale of arms, but I remind myself that it is not illegal arms of any sort that caused the death and destruction that we are discussing this afternoon; to the best of my knowledge, we are talking about manufactured bombs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked a number of questions about whether or not we had recognised over the past year or so the threat from extreme terrorism in South East Asia. I can tell your Lordships that we have. Along with our colleagues in the United States, and others, we have encouraged all governments in that region to act against networks on their own territory. There was significant success in the disruption of planned attacks in Singapore, to which I referred earlier. We have strengthened intelligence co-operation on counter-terrorism with the key countries in the region, as well as with our allies active there. Indeed, to deal with a particular point raised by the noble Baroness, we have set up specific programmes to help governments in the region; for example, training in the Philippines on counter terrorism crisis management, hostage negotiations, and police investigations.
In Malaysia training courses are being organised by Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism branch, and there is also training in bomb disposal. In Indonesia we have planned aviation security training, crisis management training, and have offered bomb disposal and bomb-scene management training. In addition, officers from
726
the Metropolitan Police have already arrived in Indonesia to offer their detailed, specialist expertise. So we have not been slow, though we have not been entirely successful because that is the nature of opportunistic terrorism.
As the Prime Minister indicated in his Statement, the Government are urgently considering the proscription of Jemaah Islamiyah under the Terrorism Act 2000, which is under active consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about that organisation in this country. He was very scrupulous to advise me to keep within the limits of what might prudently be said about, for example, its assets. As on such occasions in the past, I am perfectly happy to have discussions on Privy Council terms with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the noble Baroness, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, in which I shall give such information as I have.
I should point out to the House that we are in the very early stages of investigation. It is prudent sometimes not to jump to conclusions, which experience may sometimes show are not justified. I have information that there are connections and cross-connections between that organisation and Al-Qaeda, but I do not think it would be prudent of me to go further on this particular occasion.
I think that I have dealt with the questions put to me. I am deeply grateful to noble Lords on behalf of those who suffered. They are entirely innocent, young, carefree, guileless and guiltless. I echo what the noble Baroness said. We have to remember the terrible wounds which have been caused in Bali, a country, as many of us know, dependent on innocent tourism. The economic effects seem gloomy. We do not need to consider only death and injury but the wider ripples: the intended consequences of this mindless terrorism.
4.51 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. I am sure I can speak for my fellow bishops on these Benches in saying how much we deplore this barbaric and evil act of violence perpetrated on the island, its visitors and its people. There will be families throughout the United Kingdom—sadly, some are known already to us today—who will face the future with broken hearts but who, while in mourning, will long that the deaths of their loved ones should somehow be part of a new creation of meaning in our world. While feeling shock, anger and despair they will not want those who have been killed to have died in vain.
One of the awful paradoxes and ironies of the violence is that an extremist terrorist group may claim religious justification for its actions. If that happens, I earnestly hope and believe that the leaders of all religious faiths in this country, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and others, will want publicly and wholeheartedly to join in condemning this terrible act and this twisted abuse of the name of religion.

727
Terrorists want to blow us apart, literally and metaphorically. They want to injure, fragment and destroy. It seems to me, therefore, that it is the bounden duty of all religious and political leaders, and others, in our own country to make sure that those terrorists can never, ever achieve their aims. We do this not simply by condemnation but by doubling and redoubling our efforts to create just, peaceful and tolerant neighbourhoods in the UK and a just, peaceful and tolerant United Kingdom.
Evil—it is the only word that will do in these circumstances—thrives in darkness. To keep the light of truth, understanding and love burning—it requires much moral courage to be exhibited by believers and non-believers alike—is ultimately the only way to defeat evil. We on these Benches are totally committed to that way. Along with everyone else in this country, we would wish to extend our profoundest sympathy to all those who are bereaved and injured and offer them our heartfelt prayers.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the right reverend Prelate for those remarks. I am sure we all concur with the theme. He is right. The appetite for terror is insatiable. Religious motives are not the motive engine. It is hate and envy. It is hate of something better than terrorists can conceive of; and it is envy for innocent happiness.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, the appalling nature of the incident in Bali chills one when contemplating this latest development in the dispute relating to terrorism. I appreciate the somewhat measured references to Al'Qaeda by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. Is there not plenty of evidence that Indonesia has been suffering from great discontent and conflict stretching back over a number of years? The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned the disputes in Aceh, the Christian-Muslim conflict in Amboina, and the fighting in West Irian, all of which underline the fact that Indonesia is not a natural economic or political entity. It is a creation of western imperialism.
One of the underlying anxieties must be the inability of an Indonesian state to play its part in dealing sufficiently effectively with terrorism. Perhaps I may ask this of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. At some early date, perhaps we may be presented with an assessment of the underlying political and economic situation in Indonesia so that that may be taken into account as well as the specific tragedies in Bali.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall give the most careful attention to the suggestion in the latter part of the noble Lord's remarks.
I have been deliberately cautious about attributing blame because blame needs to be attributed on the basis of evidence not speculation. The recent history of Indonesia, about which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness spoke, is a matter of fact, and not of
728
comment from me. On these occasions, one should sometimes guard, and advise one's self, against the temptation to jump to conclusions. I am grateful.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I want to look to the future rather than dwell on the immediate tragedy. When such an accident takes place, people are often advised not to go in future to that country for tourism purposes. While such caution may be right immediately after the event, I hope that we shall reverse the advice as soon as possible and ask people to go to Bali. One way to fight terrorists is not to be bullied by them and to continue to act normally. I hope that the Foreign Office will do that as soon as possible.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, because I know my noble friend so well, I know that he made a slip of the tongue when he referred to "accident". If he said "incident", I am grateful. It is murder, wilful murder carried out deliberately, of young people who happen to be enjoying themselves. At present the Foreign Secretary has to adopt an extremely prudent stance. He has a duty to British nationals. The Foreign Office advice at present must be to advise against all travel to Bali, and holiday and non-essential travel to Indonesia. Plainly our diplomatic representatives on the ground there are liaising closely with the business community derived from the United Kingdom. I am happy to reassure my noble friend that as a matter of policy the Foreign Office reviews and re-reviews constantly its advice to travellers. We have seen that recently, for example, in Pakistan and India. However, at the end of the day if our nationals ask the Foreign Office for advice we must err on the side of caution and prudence. I take my noble friend's longer term point. The importance of tourism as an industry to Bali, where the income is very modest indeed, cannot be overstated.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I echo the expressions of horror and of sympathy conveyed already to the House. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I refer to one point which can give rise to anxiety. I refer to the risk of being confused or ill judged in our reaction to the complex of problems we are discussing. The threat posed by weapons of mass destruction is one important issue, not least in Iraq. Terrorism almost world-wide is a different threat. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree, in the calm, deliberate way in which he is responding to questions, that we must, at all costs, avoid confusion between those two components, which can—I do not mean to disturb my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition—be implicit, if we focus too much on the idea of a war against terror. They are two different problems, and we must avoid being provoked into any ill judgment on one side or the other by any possible confusion.
On the issue of weapons of mass destruction, we must, of course, unflinchingly sustain deliberate, well judged, united pressure along the lines already laid out, with as much support from the international community as possible.

729
On a longer timescale, the multi-headed hydra of terrorism will require co-operation on an even wider scale. I am particularly grateful for the sympathetic way in which the noble and learned Lord defined the way in which we are struggling to help Indonesia. I agree with everything that was said by my noble friend Lord Biffen about the difficulties that face that country. I am also glad that the international partnership against terrorism is embracing the wisdom that can be derived from a more stable society, such as Singapore. I had the opportunity of discussing some aspects of the situation with the chief minister there not long ago. He can give us enormous help, just as we can help a country such as Indonesia.
I urge the greatest possible caution. We must avoid confusion between the two problems in judging our reaction to each.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. However, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, did not exhibit confusion. The noble Lord said that vigilance must be determined, if we are to produce a proportionate response. I agreed with him on that. I also agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, that that proportionate response will be different. It may, as the Prime Minister said in the Statement, involve a military response, or it may involve detailed, careful co-operation of the kind to which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, referred. I hope that I was able to fill in some of the picture.
It is essential that the approaches taken should be multilateral. It is in our interest that they should be so. We must co-operate not in a spirit of dictation but in a spirit of true understanding and give any logistic support that we can.
International terrorism—or internal Indonesian terrorism, if that is what it proves to be—must be discussed and deliberated on differently from the question of weapons of mass destruction. However, they may elide one into the other; we do not know. Although I can point to the success in Singapore, one of our difficulties is that the failures of our vigilance—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—exhibit themselves in the deaths and injuries that occurred in Bali. The successes of our intelligence efforts cannot, in the nature of things, be trumpeted, nor should they be.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, on behalf of all Cross-Benchers, I convey sympathy and condolences to the families of the victims of this appalling outrage. I also thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for his intention to include the Convenor in any extra briefing.
730
Can the noble and learned Lord reassure the House that the good relationship that we have had with the Indonesian authorities in the immediate aftermath of this appalling disaster will continue? Is he satisfied that there will be good relations in the future?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. I can confirm that we have had an increasingly productive relationship with the Government of Indonesia, particularly after 9th September. We are developing particular support by way of exchanges and training in areas in which the Metropolitan Police, in particular, are extremely well regarded all over the world. That is very useful.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is important that we do what we can to assess the extent to which Al'Qaeda is connected with the attacks that we have been discussing. My noble friend Lord Biffen referred to attacks in other parts of Indonesia. Do we have evidence to connect Al'Qaeda, in addition, to the foiled attempt in Singapore or with the attacks in Yemen and Kuwait?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have no evidence that I can offer to your Lordships. The attacks in Kuwait and Yemen were very recent. There is a document, of which the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, will be aware, that purports to support the attack on the American marines in Kuwait and the attack on the French oil tanker in the Gulf of Yemen. I am always cautious. I do not regard such statements as being entirely based on truth. The statement may be an opportunistic attempt to muddy the waters; I do not know. I doubt that evidence will be forthcoming.
We must be cautious. In such murky waters, people play strange games, and, sometimes, it is foolish to be taken in by them.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I support the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde about the message to be sent to the Australian Senate. In one report, I saw that many New Zealanders were involved as well. I hope that the Foreign Office will consider to whom the messages should be sent, so that they cover all our concerns.
I also support what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House gave the impeccable reply that it was a matter of balance, and I accept that, at this stage, the action of the Foreign Office is correct. However, one of the real tragedies that could emerge from this situation is the economic collapse of Bali. Nothing that we seek to address today will be made any easier by an economic disaster that would affect all the people in that beautiful territory. Obviously, it is a question of judgment, but I hope that the Foreign Office will listen to the representations made by two noble Lords—to which the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House properly responded—and that it will, at the

731
earliest possible date, give some permission and encouragement. The announcement made today has been shattering for the people in Bali.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater. He will remember that it was on the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that I sent a letter on behalf of the whole House to the Senate of the United States, immediately after 11th September. I know that it was well received. I will do as the noble Lord suggests and relate the message through my noble friend Lady Amos, who is in her place next to me. We shall see to that.
The issue of tourism does require a difficult balancing act. As it happens, I know Bali, having spent an extremely happy holiday there. One can see how important tourism is as one pays what are, in our context, relatively small sums to people whose daily life depends on it. I agree that, if one of the long-term consequences were to be economic collapse, it would be a firm victory for those who caused such wicked consequences.
Mayor Giuliani said that people in New York should go out and shop, go out and spend, go to the theatre and make New York what it was. We can learn from that.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I do not intend to detract from the need to reinforce the war against terrorism. However, I must refer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, about the training of fundamentalists, the lack of education and the way that, even in a democracy such as Pakistan is becoming, fundamentalists are winning increasing support. There are millions of hearts and minds that are not with us.
Does my noble and learned friend agree that, side by side with reinforcing the war against terrorism, we must consider what we must do in Yemen, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, in parts of Africa and elsewhere to win over those hearts and minds? The incidents take place against a background in which—it is painful to say—millions are not with us.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, what my noble friend says is absolutely right. I tried to accept that in the propositions advanced by the noble Baroness. I can reassure my noble friend and the whole House that the Government's policy, through DfID and the FCO, is to stress the important factor that our aid must go in significant part to education, to take up the noble Baroness's point. So I do not dissent from what my noble friend said—although in the all countries he mentioned the problems are not uniform; they need to be dealt with in a subtle and discriminating way.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in its wickedness and lack of discrimination, this terrible act compares all too closely with the Omagh bomb of August 1998? By a horrible coincidence, it compares also in terms of the number of United
732
Kingdom citizens killed. At Omagh, 28 were killed, including a pregnant woman and two small children; the figure in this case is apparently 30.
The Minister referred to the need to protect this country. I for one believe that the arrangements for immigration and passport control in this country leave a great deal to be desired. I have given details, but as yet have received no reply from the Home Office. I should like to have the opportunity at some stage of talking to the noble and learned Lord privately.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not privy to the correspondence between the noble Lord and the Home Office. I can say truthfully and conscientiously that I try to reply to letters by return. If it takes more than a week, I regard that as a personal disgrace. I am more than happy to speak privately to the noble Lord.
As I said earlier, terror has an appetite which is both insatiable and irrational. I draw the noble Lord's parallel between Omagh and this incident. It is the slaughter of the innocents to make an allegedly political point. It is monstrous. We should be careful not to say in the press that "no one has claimed responsibility". I prefer the phrase: "No one has admitted these crimes".

Enterprise Bill
5.12 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [The Office of Fair Trading]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
Page 195, line 5, after "chairman," insert "a chief executive,"
Page 195, line 7, after "chairman" insert "and the chief executive"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No.6:
Page 195, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) The chairman and members shall be broadly representative of interests in the area of responsibility of the OFT."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7, which relates to line 8 on page 195. It reads:
"Members shall be appointed on the basis of their expertise in areas of responsibility of the OFT and such expertise shall not disqualify them on the grounds of conflict of interest".
I begin by declaring marginal interests: I continue to have active links with the Co-operative Movement and with the British Retail Consortium, with both of which I have had useful consultations.
In striking at this aspect of the Bill, perhaps I may say how pleased I was to be present for the earlier debate when Members on all sides of the House spoke clearly and with authority. They did the Bill proud—I

733
do not refer to the result of the vote, but to the intelligence that they brought to the debate from their experience elsewhere. I was delighted to be present.
These matters were raised at an earlier stage. I simply want to remind the Minister that I welcome the main thrust of the reform of the OFT; namely, its transformation into a board, the requirements for an annual plan and its new remit for promoting the benefits of competition for consumers and the economy.
These amendments take up an idea introduced in earlier amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. They support the Bill, but attempt to shape or re-shape its provisions by obtaining from the Minister intelligence and advice on what he and his colleagues have in mind as regards those who will carry out its provisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, posed the 64,000 dollar question: who regulates the regulators? It is no good saying after the event that we ought to have done such and such; or the Minister saying, "If only you had only mentioned this, I could have taken it into account". The purpose of my amendments is to seek assurances from the Minister that the thrust of what I seek is taken care of in the Bill in general—in which case he will no doubt be kind enough to point that out to me.
I should be interested in hearing from the Minister how, for example, the process of selecting the members will take place. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt—that is the third and last time that I shall mention him in this debate—drew attention to the advertisement that had appeared giving some indication, but that is not sufficient to satisfy me.
The Minister is aware of my strong connection with the Co-operative Movement, which is a consumer movement. I am naturally interested in hearing from him the steps that he and his colleagues have in mind to ensure that those who have wide experience of consumer matters will be considered. I do not mean opening the drawer of the great and the good, pulling out names and saying that it is the turn of this or that person. I should like to hear what he has in mind in terms of trawling over the wide range of people—north and south, male and female, black and white—who are prominent in the consumer movement. A great deal of legislation comes to us these days from Brussels. Do the Minister and his colleagues have the European dimension in mind when considering who will serve on boards?
We should not be looking for people who are "experts" or even "authorities" in these matters. I am always prepared, when reading a list of people who are to serve on a committee, not to know any of them. Then, when I look into their credentials, I am pleasantly surprised to see how well qualified they are, even to my untutored mind. Within the confines of the Bill, the Minister has a great deal to offer to us. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 17 to 21. These amendments respond to points made by noble Lords in Committee
734
and fulfil commitments I made to agree to consider these points further. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 require the OFT to publish a summary of its rules and procedures for dealing with conflicts of interest. The OFT is already required to consult the Secretary of State when drawing up these rules and procedures. The publication of a summary of them under this amendment will ensure transparency in how the OFT conducts itself in this important area. The amendments are in response to an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 require the OFT to lay the proposals for its annual plan, as well as the final version, before Parliament and to hold a public consultation on the proposals at least two months before the final version is published. This removes the discretion that the OFT currently has under the Bill to consult such persons "as it considers appropriate", and, I hope, satisfies noble Lords' concerns that the OFT should consult widely on the plan. These amendments respond to an amendment by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in Committee.
Amendment No. 21 provides additional requirements for the content of the OFT's annual report. Noble Lords expressed concern in Committee that more detail should be placed on the face of the Bill. The amendment provides for significant new requirements covering the main activities and investigations over the year, the allocation of financial resources and enforcement practices and performance. This last requirement would include, for example, an assessment of how OFT has complied with the Enforcement Concordat, which I believe will be welcomed by business. This amendment responds to amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Graham, the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland, Lord Hunt, Lord Razzall and Lord Sharman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in Committee.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, tabled by my noble friend Lord Graham, seek to ensure that the OFT board is made up of people who are representative of the key areas of OFT responsibility and that such people will not be disqualified from taking up board appointments on grounds of conflict of interest. We will be holding a fair and open competition for non-executive board posts in accordance with Nolan procedures. In answer to the points made by my noble friend, I hope very much that this will not consist of the great and the good but of people who can bring some real skills to this area.
The range of skills and qualities that we are looking for may mean that some members of the board will be drawn from, for example, competition, consumer or business backgrounds, and it is to be hoped that some will have experience of European matters. Our aim is to appoint the best candidates, not to have quotas or de facto appointments representing certain interests. Although board members are likely to have other

735
outside interests, they will be appointed to the board in their own right, not as representatives of a particular interest. Their role on the board will be to see that the OFT takes the right strategic decisions to fulfil its functions effectively and to achieve its goal of making markets work for consumers.
We want to appoint the best people to give the OFT a strong and strategic board with a balance of skills, expertise and abilities. Experience of, for example, general management or strategic skills will be as valuable to the board as a wide-ranging and in-depth experience of competition and consumer issues, but not every candidate need necessarily have all these qualities, skills and expertise in all these areas.
I reassure my noble friend that candidates with backgrounds relevant to OFT's responsibility will not automatically be disqualified from taking up board appointments on grounds of conflict of interests. Provided that they comply with the OFT rules and procedures on conflicts of interest, which I mentioned, there is no need for them to be disqualified. It is unnecessary to set this out on the face of the Bill. If noble Lords agree with the amendments that I am moving in this group, the Bill will be clear that OFT will have published rules and procedures for dealing with conflicts of interest, and board members will have to act in accordance with these or face removal by the Secretary of State. I do not think that there is any need to add anything more to the Bill. In view of these arguments, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he make it clear that there is no intention to impose any kind of positive discrimination in the appointments, and that the best people for the job will be chosen, regardless of whether they are all men, all women, all black or all white?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I can give the assurance that the best people for the job will be appointed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, in particular for moving his amendments, which go further along the road towards what I was asking for. I get the impression that he is looking for a balance in which there is not a predominance of those with experience in retailing, production, finance or any other field. I was heartened by his reference to the possibility that there would be someone, or perhaps more than one person, with experience of the European regulatory regime. The Minister can be satisfied that I intend to withdraw my amendments, and I am grateful to him for his comments on his own amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendments Nos. 8 to 16:
Page 195, line 10, after "chairman" insert ", the chief executive"
Page 195, line 12, after "chairman" insert ", the chief executive"
Page 195, line 14, after "chairman" insert", chief executive"
Page 195, line 16, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive"
Page 195, line 21, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive,"
Page 195, line 22, leave out "either" and insert "any"
Page 195, line 23, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive"
Page 195, line 29, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive"
Page 195, line 33, after "chairman" insert ", chief executive"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 17 and 18:
Page 196, line 11, at end insert "rules and"
Page 196, line 12, at end insert—
"(3) The OFT shall from time to time publish a summary of its rules and procedures for dealing with conflicts of interest."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3 [Annual plan]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
Page 2, line 13, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) The OFT shall for the purposes of public consultation publish a document containing proposals for its annual plan at least two months before publishing the annual plan for any year."
Page 2, line 15, leave out from "lay" to end of line and insert "before Parliament a copy of each document published under subsection (2) and each annual plan"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 4 [Annual and other reports]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
"(c) a summary of the significant decisions, investigations or other activities made or carried out by the OFT during the year;
(d) a summary of the allocation of the OFT's financial resources to its various activities during the year; and
(e) an assessment of the OFT's performance and practices in relation to its enforcement functions."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Provision of information etc. to the public]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 3, after "competition" insert "within a context of social community and environmental responsibility"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is comparable to the one moved in Committee, when a number of your Lordships spoke in support of it. Clause 6, entitled "Provision of information etc. to the public", is divided into two parts.
We have no quarrel whatever with Clause 6(1)(b), which gives the OFT the function of
"giving information or advice in respect of matters relating to any of its functions to the public".
That seems to us on these Benches to be absolutely sensible. It is Clause 6(1)(a) that concerns us. It talks of
"making the public aware of the ways in which competition may benefit consumers in, and the economy of, the United Kingdom".
That provision is buttressed by Clause 6(2)(a), which gives the OFT the power to publish educational material and, in the following subsection, to

737
commission any independent group, body or organisation to produce materials or carry out education. In simple terms, the concern on these Benches is that for education, particularly in schools, one needs a broader matrix than the bare one provided by Clause 6. That is particularly the case given that Clause 6 refers only to promoting public awareness of the benefits of competition. Much heat was generated at Committee stage, during which the Minister expressed himself to be passionate about competition. He said that competition does indeed benefit consumers. We agree. He added that the best form of consumer protection is choice. We agree.
The argument on this amendment is not about free marketeers and anti-free marketeers; it is about the simple fact, which is no great secret, that competition comes in many forms and not all of it is desirable. Let me give a couple of examples of competition that is lawful and certainly red of tooth and claw. What about a firm that exploits foreign workers in their working conditions and pay? That is perfectly lawful. Indeed, one could say that if one were a real competitor in the real, tough economic world, the more we exploit foreign workers to produce cheap products for the shelves here, and to make a profit, the better. But plainly that is not the view of the majority in this House, and I would be staggered if it were the Minister's view. What about, for example, environmental issues? The reckless despoliation of the environment is not unlawful, but it could be highly competitive if one takes a narrow view of that concept. I know that the Minister does not and I read his words only because I want to suggest that both the quotes I gave need to be couched within a broader context of social, community and environmental awareness and responsibility.
I have used those words in the amendment because they appear in the model Companies Bill, which was published after a huge amount of work by the commission sitting on the reform of company law under Dame Mary Arden. Those three words are to be found in Clause 75 of the draft Companies Bill, which talks about the duties to consider, including other matters, in operating and financial reviews of larger companies. Those matters include,
"the companies' policies on environmental issues; the companies' policies on social and community issues".
There is therefore no doctrinal difference between us and the Government on this clause. The difference lies simply and solely around the issue of education in schools. It has nothing to do with the regulation of business or anything else, but with education in schools. And it is the Government's firm policy that education in schools, which will come as part of the citizenship curriculum, must be broad, impartial and fair.
I refer to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in Committee. The Minister may say that nothing the OFT will do will be less than unbiased and fair and non-propagandist. The noble Lord said:
"it strikes me that the specific functions of the OFT in the Bill and in the Competition Act are partisan in the promotion of competition. More balanced judgments are made by the
738
Competition Commission and others. In future, it will be part of the job of the Office of Fair Trading, as it has been in the past 30 years, to be partisan in those respects".—[Official Report, 16/6/02; col. 1156.]
We are saying, "Fair enough in all that it does, but not fair enough in schools". It runs directly counter to the obligations which the Government have imposed on themselves statutorily. I read that the statutory order imposing citizenship education directs that pupils should be taught about,
"how the economy functions, including the role of business and financial services…the rights and responsibilities of consumers, employers and employees…the wider issues and challenges of global interdependence and responsibility, including sustainable development".
That last phrase replicates in crude terms what the amendment puts into the Bill.
I urge the Government to take a step back and accept that if they are taking, as they are, a specific power on the part of the OFT to educate in schools—or, worse, to get others to do it for them—they must accept that in that regard, if no other, they ought to couch it in a wider social, moral and environmental context. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I apologise in advance to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, if I sound churlish about the amendment. When I first looked at the amendment, I said to myself, "Oh dear". When I looked at it again, I said, "I absolutely hate this amendment".
At one time I had responsibility for these matters. In order to demonstrate to your Lordships how prejudiced I was in this respect—and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will remember it well—I confess that I used to complain bitterly about the public interest criteria in Monopolies and Mergers Commission findings. I felt that it was not narrow enough; I wanted, purely and simply, public interest struck out and the consumer interest put in.
To become too diverse in this matter is to take away from the consumer interest. It is a pure interest and one which is already covered well in the Bill, as quoted by the noble Lord. Employment legislation deals with a great deal of what he has said and other legislation deals with other factors he has raised. In my experience, it is difficult enough to teach children in schools their simple rights and obligations as consumers. So many people have tried to do it and I challenge the noble Lord to go into schools and to question children—even those in the upper classes—about their rights and obligations as consumers. Even today, with all the work that has been done, few will have the slightest idea. That is due in part to the fact that we have had a great deal of confusing legislation, but the fact remains. I would be against any amendment which in these matters sought in any way to mitigate against the pure consumer interest and which would go further than the other issues named in the Bill.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips,

739
and I do so for two reasons. First, I declare an interest in that I chair a foundation for the environment which was set up some 10 years ago by BOC. We have funded the encouragement of the dissemination of information on the environment to schoolchildren. I therefore believe that this is an important area as regards good governance, social responsibility and the environment. I must also report that from everything the foundation has picked up subsequently we know that children and young people are far more alive to the benefits for the consumer of having such issues taken into account.
The second reason I support the amendment is the importance to competition. Without doubt, the bottom line benefits from the growing acknowledgement by companies that their customers, the citizens of their country, want them to be good corporate, community-involved bodies in the broad sense and to follow good environmental practices.
I therefore warmly support the amendment and I hope that if it is not accepted at least the OFT, with its new responsibilities in this regard, will take on board the aims behind it. I warmly approve of them.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, my Amendment No. 23 is in this group. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is trying to achieve. I do not want to go over issues debated in Committee, but I have read carefully what the Minister said on that occasion. I did not find his words convincing.
The amendment refers to Clause 6, the heading of which is,
"Provision of information etc. to the public".
It is not the provision of information; it is the provision of one side of the argument. Therefore, the heading of the clause is misleading in terms of what is contained in the clause. My amendment seeks to remove the word "benefit" and insert the word "effect", which is a more even-handed way of dealing with the issue.
The OFT is a regulatory body; it holds the reins. It needs to be seen to be even-handed, not a propagandist for one side of the argument. That is not to say that the operation of the market is not important and is not supported by me and all other noble Lords in the House. It is an educational role, but not a propagandist role. Let the public know about competition. In Committee, replying to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the Minister said:
"Quite simply, I believe that we should require the OFT to concentrate and focus on its primary task; namely, the promotion of competition. We should have the confidence to let it promote the benefits of competition, because that is its role".—[Official Report 16/7/02; col. 1159.]
The Minister, however, has given only half its role. The OFT's role is actually to hold the ring, not to speak in that particular way.
We have already referred today to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. As I was a member of one of the regulatory bodies—the Securities and Futures Authority—subsumed under the FSMA, I learned a little about the discussions in your
740
Lordships' House, before I became a Member, about the roles given to the Financial Services Authority. Section 2(2)(b) of the Act states that one of the FSA's regulatory objectives is to promote "public awareness", which is a perfectly fair objective. The Act goes on, in Section 4, to explain what is meant by "public awareness". It states:
"The public awareness is: promoting public understanding of the financial system… It includes, in particular—promoting awareness of the benefits and risks associated with different kinds of investment or other financial dealings".
The duty to inform and educate the public and to help them understand what happens in the financial services arena is therefore absolutely fairly and squarely defined and imposed on the Financial Services Authority. It is Clause 6 of the Bill that is lopsided and should be made much more even-handed.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation because I think that I am about to disagree for the first time with my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. I feel trepidation because, in 1979, as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Secretary of State, I was one of my noble friend's very junior administration members when she took through, against all the odds, the Price Commission (Amendment) Act 1979 which abolished the Price Commission. I have always had the profoundest respect for all that she utters—at least until today when she said that she did not agree with these amendments, particularly Amendment No. 22. I agree with her on the issue of consumers, but I think that the attraction of this amendment is that it seeks to put competition itself in a context of responsibility as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury.
I listened to my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots when we debated this issue in Committee. Now that we have had some tautological discussion about "affect" or "effect", I think that it is entirely apposite to insert the word "affect" in place of "benefit". I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, that these two amendments would be beneficial to the way in which the OFT will perform its functions. I hope that the Minister will see the amendments as genuine attempts to try to present a balanced approach. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots put it, we have to try to strike a proper balance between competition per se for its own sake and the more interesting discussion of ways in which it can affect consumers either positively or negatively.
While I am on my feet—I wanted to do this in our debate on an earlier group of amendments—I should like to thank the Minister for listening in Committee to my noble friends and to other noble Lords We are grateful to him for having listened and coming forward with those amendments on Report. I hope that he will listen and be as positive about these two amendments as well.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I have rather enjoyed the intra-party disagreement on the other side of the Chamber. I come down on the side of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, was quite wrong to say that, in either the past or the future, it is intended that the OFT should "hold the ring". The OFT is a partisan body which determines whether there is a prima facie case that a matter requires investigation. Subsequently, someone else will do the balancing and hold the ring and reach a conclusion. In this Bill, for the very first time, there is even provision for something called a "cartel offence" in which the OFT, with the Serious Fraud Office, will be the prosecutor. It will be the courts, however, that determine whether that case is justified.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's point about holding the ring. He will appreciate, however, that the Financial Services Authority is also a prosecuting authority.
Lord Borrie: Indeed, my Lords. However, my point is to undermine the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and indeed that of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I do not disagree at all with the type of educational materials that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, would like school children and even adults to receive; what I dispute is whether the OFT—with its partisan role, as I said, in the sphere of consumer and competition affairs—is the appropriate body to fill that role. I do not think that it is. To include the type of words that the amendment seeks to introduce would be to ask the OFT to fill a role that is not really apt for that body to perform.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 seek to amend the Office of Fair Trading's function of making the public aware of the ways in which competition may benefit consumers and the economy. I begin by reminding noble Lords of the purpose of Clause 6. A key role of the OFT is to make markets work for consumers. This is reflected in the clause which gives the OFT the function of promoting to the public the benefits that competition has for consumers and the economy and providing the public with information or advice on matters relating to its functions.
Competition does indeed benefit consumers: the best form of consumer protection is choice. The aim of the clause is to help to create assertive and knowledgeable consumers who are aware of the importance of competition. There is much to be done in this sphere. The DTI peer review of the UK's competition regime showed that while more than 83 per cent of respondents in the United States thought that competition policy was important to the US public, the equivalent figure in the UK was just 10 per cent. So there is a very substantial job to be done.
I turn to the two amendments. I have great sympathy with Amendment No. 22, but rather little sympathy with Amendment No. 23. Amendment
742
No. 23 proposes that the OFT should have the function of making the public aware of the ways in which competition may affect, rather than benefit, consumers and the economy. I find that an extraordinary statement. We are establishing this body because we believe that competition is a good thing. The alternative would be to say that we do not think that competition is a good thing—that we think that some monopolies and a few cartels would be an excellent thing. In establishing this body, we are clearly making the judgment that competition is a good thing.
To ask the body established to make that statement to express the view that competition is other than a good thing would be to make an extraordinary assumption. We did not, for example, establish the Equal Opportunities Commission and tell it, "By the way, you should put forward a balanced view about equal opportunities. Perhaps equal opportunity is not always a good thing". Rather, we said to the EOC: "We expect you to promote equal opportunities". The same applies to the treatment of racial discrimination. I do not know what we are doing in this legislation if we are not starting with the assumption that competition is a good thing. We should therefore refer to the "benefits" and not just the "affect" of competition.
When consumers understand the benefits of competition—which include quality, choice and accessibility as well as price—I believe that they become more powerful, more confident of their rights and more demanding. I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said in Committee that he believes that competition may have adverse consequences for consumers. I beg to differ. Of course, competition can be abused but that does not alter the fact that, overall, competition is a good thing. Anti-competitive behaviour constitutes abuse but competition does not. Anti-competitive behaviour harms consumers. However, competition benefits consumers and the clause should reflect that.
Amendment No. 22 falls into a different category. I have a great deal of sympathy with it, particularly as regards the context of school education. However, I wish to explain why the Government do not want to accept the amendment. It seeks to amend Clause 6 to give the OFT the function of making the public aware of the role of competition within a context of social community and environmental responsibility. As I am sure the House is aware, I certainly accept the importance of social community and environmental responsibility. Indeed, those are matters which the Government actively promote. I also accept that consumer and competition policy must function within the broader framework of social welfare. We are not saying that competition which in any way detracts from legislative, social or environmental frameworks should be excused or condoned. However, I do not believe that it is right to broaden the specific focus of the OFT which is rightly focused on

743
making markets work for consumers. To broaden the OFT's general function as proposed in the amendment would seem to be a rather arbitrary choice.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does not the argument that has been made fit well with what is in the Bill which does not merely mention competition but also the economy of the United Kingdom of which the environment is an important part?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord. The economic framework is important. However, the point I am trying to make is that if one singles out particular aspects of the social and economic contexts in which competition policy operates and states that the OFT must also focus on those matters, an almost endless list arises of other issues of which it must take account: for example, health and safety issues, employment law and all the other contexts within which competition policy operates.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. There is, of course, a big difference here in that employment law and health and safety issues constitute laws. However, we are talking about a moral framework which is never susceptible to legal intervention within which this matter should be addressed. The Minister makes his own point that a great deal of industrial business and service activity, whilst being competitive and lawful, can be deleterious in other respects.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that leads me to my next point. If one refers to a moral framework, one should ask what is the competence of the OFT to give views or, indeed, materials on a whole range of other issues. I should place the matter in a realistic context in terms of how it would operate in schools. I believe that our main concern is similar in that context. Citizenship is already taught in schools. It is for schools to decide what materials they use in educating their pupils and the appropriate context for those materials. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, commented that citizenship covers a much broader area than simply competition. The noble Lord should not worry that this matter will be placed within an inappropriate framework. It is not envisaged that the OFT will allocate significant resources to providing educational materials specifically aimed at schoolchildren. Its efforts will be aimed principally at educating the public at large.
Although I have great sympathy with the viewpoint that has been expressed, if we introduce the other matters that are proposed, we distract the OFT from the job that it is competent to perform and from its important focus; namely, to inform the public with regard to competition. We risk taking the OFT into other waters. I accept that it is proposed that that should be done within a certain framework. However, the OFT should focus on informing the public of the benefits of competition as that is what it is set up to do.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I believe that there is a
744
difference here. I believe that a great deal of the value judgments that have to be made even within the framework of the Bill involve decisions that are not purely economic. The notion of fair trade, for example, is not based on a purely economic concept but on the concept of what is fair. There is no way round that problem. The Minister suggests that by introducing concepts of social community and environmental awareness, one is opening a Pandora's box. First, that is not the case as I have used only those three adjectives in the amendment. Secondly, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that any education, whether offered by the OFT or anyone else, that disregards that matrix of considerations is doomed to failure because it will not achieve its purpose.
I am a little surprised that the Government are not happy to accept the amendment as I believe that it would enforce the work of the OFT. Finally, it does not extend the scope of the OFT; it simply states that if the OFT is to engage in education as opposed to giving information or advice, it must do so in a broader context. Therefore, I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
5.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jacobs, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jopling, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kingsland, L.

Avebury, L.

Lindsay, E.

Barker, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blaker, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Boardman, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Buscombe, B.

Maddock, B.

Byford, B.

Mar, C.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Mar and kellie, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Marlesford, L.

Coe, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Craigavon, V.

Moynihan, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Newby, L.

Dholakia, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Falkland, V.

Northover, B.

Geddes, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Goodhart, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Goschen, V.

Phillips of Sudbury, L. [Teller]

Greaves, L.

Razzall, L.

Hamwee, B.

Reay, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rogan, L.

Higgins, L.

Roper, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L. [Teller]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Howe, E.

Seccombe, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Sharples, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

745

Smith of Clifton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Stewartby, L.

Tope, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Vinson, L.

Taverne, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hoyle, L.

Alli, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Andrews, B.

Islwyn, L.

Bach, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jeger, B.

Berkeley, L.

Jones, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Billingham, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Blease, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Borrie, L.

Layard, L.

Bragg, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brookman, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McCarthy, L.

Burlison, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Chandos, V.

Christopher, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Marsh, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Crawley, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

David, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Orme, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Patel, L.

Desai, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dixon, L.

Paul, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pendry, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Elder, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Radice, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Fitt, L.

Richard, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rooker, L.

Gale, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gavron, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sheldon, L.

Gilbert, L.

Simon, V.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Golding, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Goudie, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thornton, B.

Greenway, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Grenfell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Varley, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Harrison, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Haskel, L.

Weatherill, L.

Haskins, L.

Whitty, L.

Healey, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.7 p.m.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Super-complaints to OFT]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 4, at end insert—
"( ) In the event that the OFT decides to take no action, and an undertaking has incurred costs as a result of the complaint, the OFT upon the application of the undertaking may make an order that the consumer body which made the complaint shall contribute to the costs of that undertaking."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, investigations by the competition authorities often impose huge costs and other burdens on business. I make no apology for moving this amendment. When there is no action by the competition authorities following a super-complaint against an undertaking, the undertaking should at least be given the opportunity of seeking a contribution to its costs. I cannot foresee that the noble Lord will have any argument against that; there are surely many arguments in favour of it. It would deter frivolous or vexatious complaints. I see no other provision in the Bill that would have that effect. Once again, I stress that investigations impose huge costs and other burdens on business. There is therefore every right for an undertaking, when a business has had to incur considerable cost, to at least have an opportunity to try to get some contribution to its costs. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive two speakers rising from the Front Bench. The main reason that I do so is to apologise to him for tabling two manuscript amendments: Amendments Nos. 27A and 158A. I take full responsibility for the fact that they are late. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to respond to them. I see that the noble Lord is nodding. I thank him for preparing himself so swiftly for the coming ordeal.
I spoke to Amendment No. 27A during the Committee stage. In reply, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, stated that the Government did not propose to add any new category of appealable decisions, save category (m), which concerned decisions not to grant interim measures under Section 35.
The noble Lord continued that the other proposed additions were not appropriate as they would extend the category of appealable decisions to intermediate or investigatory steps taken by the OFT. The noble Lord further added that parties at the stage of intermediary investigatory steps could still use judicial review, which, I entirely accept, carries with it the possibility of quashing interim measures.
In the course of my speech supporting this amendment in Committee, I relied heavily on a recent case of the Competition Appeal Tribunal called Bettercare. The Minister will be relieved to know that I do not intend to take your Lordships through the details of that case again. I shall make only one additional observation.

747
If one takes, for example, our proposed paragraph (1)—a category which refers to a decision by the OFT not to investigate a complaint under Chapters I or II—and compares it with an investigation started by the OFT but terminated because, for one reason or another, there are no good grounds to continue it, then that comparison, in my submission, is a distinction without a difference. In both cases, the OFT is deciding not to continue to investigate a matter. The only difference is that one decision is made in the course of an investigation and the other is made not to make the investigation at all. I believe it is difficult to see why, in making those decisions, the criteria of the OFT should differ. If my analysis about that is correct, it seems to me curious that in one case a person has a right to a full appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal but, in the other, only to judicial review in the High Court.
I would add that it was my impression that, under this legislation, the Government were striving to find some unifying judicial themes in dealing with competition law. That, in turn, suggests to me that the Government should, so far as possible, concentrate litigation in one place rather than two.
There is a second manuscript amendment in this group—Amendment No. 158A—Which concerns delay by the Office of Fair Trading. If there is delay by the OFT in any investigation that it undertakes from time to time under Chapters I or II, the only way that a person under investigation can respond to that situation is to make an application to the High Court. This amendment seeks to enable an approach to be made to the Competition Appeal Tribunal in order both that the OFT can be reminded that it has been considering a matter for some while and that the Competition Appeal Tribunal can be empowered to give directions to the Office of Fair Trading to expedite the investigation.
Again, I recognise that the Minister has had very little time to consider this matter, and I shall understand if he wants to defer a response until Third Reading. However, if he has something to say on it, I shall of course be very grateful to hear him.
Once again, I apologise to the Minister for the fact that these amendments are in manuscript.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I am among those who have only just seen these manuscript amendments. It may be due to my own inadequacy that I cannot understand why they are coupled with Amendment No. 24, which relates to Clause 11. They seem to deal with entirely different matters. Perhaps there has been a slip-up somewhere. I do not know whether I am the only person who has had that difficulty.
However, I want to speak to Amendment No. 24. It is somewhat similar to amendments that we discussed in Committee and, indeed, is somewhat less extreme than one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, at that stage. But there was an interesting division on the Liberal Democrat Benches. For some reason, several noble Lords on those Benches have deserted us
748
at this moment. But I noticed that, in relation to the similar amendment moved by his colleague, one other member of the Liberal Democrat team—the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury—said that it would put a torpedo under Clause 11 if it were passed.
To my mind, that is an appropriate phrase because, if this amendment were carried, it would seriously inhibit the work of consumer bodies, which are meant to promote super-complaints and which must be designated—no doubt after careful consideration by the Secretary of State. According to my knowledge of consumer bodies, it is very unlikely that they are rolling in money and are able easily to manage to pay the type of costs that might be envisaged by the amendment.
Surely the whole point of Clause 11 is that such bodies have special expertise. They are given a remit in Clause 11 to assist the public interest in bringing forward complaints that deserve closer investigation. It would seem a great pity to hobble that work by the proposed costs deterrent provided by the amendment.
I remind your Lordships that the guidance that will come from the Office of Fair Trading will ensure—indeed, it will insist—that super-complainants present a reasoned case. That, surely, is sufficient to dispel any notion that vexatious complaints will arise which would be a thorough nuisance and cause a cost problem to the businesses or undertakings concerned.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 25, which is also in this group. This amendment would make it a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish criteria which bodies would have to meet in order to be designated as super-complainants. It has always been the Government's intention to publish those criteria, and the amendment responds to a similar one tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Razzall and Lord Sharman, in Committee, which I agreed to consider.
We shall consult fully on the criteria after the Bill has received Royal Assent. I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and others with copies of the latest draft of the criteria, which I hope they have found helpful.
Amendment No. 24 seeks to make consumer bodies contribute towards the costs incurred by the business where the OFT has decided that there is no case to answer following its consideration of a super-complaint. I am afraid I believe that the amendment is based on a false premise. It treats the super-complaints process as if it were a litigious one. Super-complaints are not about taking businesses to court; they are about providing designated consumer groups with a quick and effective route into the OFT system for complaints about market features that are harming consumers. If a super-complaint is submitted with inadequate evidence or which is clearly without foundation, it will not take the OFT long to announce that it intends taking no further action. I cannot imagine that it would require much work either, if any, by the companies in the affected market.

749
We have already put in place checks to prevent against frivolous or vexatious super-complaints being submitted in the first place. Consumer bodies, to be designated to bring super-complaints, will have to meet criteria drawn up by my department. A body will have to produce evidence of experience and acting responsibly—and of the ability to put together reasoned super-complaints.
The cost of putting together a reasoned super-complaint is likely to be considerable. Taking that into account, together with the damage to a body's reputation if the OFT publicly dismissed a super-complaint as frivolous, it is unlikely that the making of a super-complaint will be entered into lightly. The OFT has begun consultation on draft guidance on the making of super-complaints and I wrote to noble Lords about that in September.
We expect that there will be informal consultation between the body bringing the super-complaint and the Office of Fair Trading before the OFT accepts the complaint. It is highly unlikely that a frivolous super-complaint will be submitted but if that does happen, the OFT will not take further action beyond the initial consideration. I do not think that should take long or require much from the companies concerned.
In all super-complaint cases, the OFT will publish the reasons for what action, if any, it proposes to take—which will ensure that consumer groups submit decent super-complaints. They will not want the bad publicity and subsequent damage to their reputation from the OFT discarding one of their super-complaints as wasteful.
The super-complaint process does not impose new burdens on companies. It will only consider whether action is justified—just as with any other complaint. The process involves no sanctions or judgments of its own. Super-complaints are simply a new route into the OFT system—an initial "fast tracking" to ensure that complaints about market failure that harm consumers are given consideration within a fixed period. The options that the OFT has for follow-up action to super-complaints are the same as for any other complaint.
It is therefore right that all parties should follow the same procedure in terms of costs. Parties do not get their costs back when other complaints are submitted to the OFT and investigations are carried out that result in no action being taken. It would be an unnecessary additional burden and unfair to have that condition attached to complaints made via the super-complaints procedure. It would almost certainly discourage designated bodies from bringing super-complaints and make the new procedure meaningless. The bodies would surely opt instead for submitting a normal complaint, where the threat of costs does not exist. I am confident that the checks that we have already put in place will be sufficient to guard against frivolous super-complaints.
Similar arguments on costs have not been made in respect of super-complaints where the complaint is found by the Office of Fair Trading to be legitimate
750
and results in further action by the OFT to make markets work properly and protect consumers. I did not hear any calls for the businesses concerned to contribute towards the costs of the super-complainant in such cases. In view of those arguments, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
I have been briefed efficiently and quickly by DTI civil servants on Amendments Nos. 27A and 158A. My comments this morning on the movers of this amendment and on the procedures of the House of Lords will, I hope, remain confidential to myself and the civil servants.
Amendment No. 27A would add to the list of decisions by the OFT that could be appealed to the Competition Appeal Tribunal under the Competition Act 1998. Section 46(3) lists a number of decisions of the OFT that can be subject to a full appeal to the tribunal and further decisions may be added by regulation. In our earlier debate, I accepted an amendment in the category covered by Section 46(3)(m) and we are working to bring forward secondary legislation as soon as practicable to add that new right to Section 46(3) and Section 47.
I am convinced that the remaining proposals that form Amendment No. 27A should not be taken forward. Paragraphs (i) to (k) relate to intermediate steps in the OFT's investigative procedures and are not substantive decisions of the OFT. Granting a right of appeal on interim investigatory steps would be highly unusual, significantly increase the length of OFT investigations and reduce the office's discretion to deploy resources to areas where it can be most effective. There would be a concurrent deleterious effect on the operation of the competition regime as a whole.
Subsection (1) concerns OFT decisions not to investigate complaints. It is essential that a right of appeal to the CAT is only granted against substantive decisions of the OFT, as was always the clear intention during the passage of the Competition Bill.
Amendment No. 158A would provide for persons who had submitted material to the Office of Fair Trading alleging infringement of Chapters I and II prohibitions of the Competition Act 1998 to seek a direction from the Competition Appeal Tribunal that the OFT's investigation of the alleged infringement is determined without any unnecessary further delay, where the court is satisfied that there has been undue delay on the part of the OFT.
The investigation of complaints alleging infringement of Chapters I and II prohibitions of the Competition Act 1998 is the responsibility of the Office of Fair Trading. Some of the allegations that the OFT will receive will be dismissed at an early stage, whereas some will lead to findings of a serious breach under the Act.
To ensure that the most serious and harmful cases are dealt with effectively, the OFT needs the discretion to deploy its resources accordingly. The amendment would restrict the OFT's ability to prioritise its caseload and would hamper the investigation of serious breaches of the Act. Furthermore, many

751
elements of an investigation are outside the OFT's control—for example, where it is dependent on further information from third parties. That can affect the time it takes the OFT to gather the material necessary to further an investigation, which would not be assisted by the amendment. I am not minded to take forward either of the amendments and hope that they will be withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for responding to Amendment No. 24. In the light of his remarks, I will reflect carefully on his points and those of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I thank the Minister most warmly for his response to the manuscript amendments. We will carefully consider not only what he said publicly but also that which he is reputed to have said privately to his officials about the procedures of the House. In all those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 9, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State—

(a) may designate a body only if it appears to him to represent the interests of consumers of any description, and

(b) must publish (and may from time to time vary) other criteria to be applied by him in determining whether to make or revoke a designation."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Tribunal: procedure]:
6.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 205, line 16, after "particular" insert"—

"(a) provide for time limits for making claims to which section 47 A of the 1998 Act applies in proceedings under section 47A or 47B;

(b) provide for the Tribunal to extend the period in which any particular proceedings may be brought; and

(c)"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am conscious that this is a large group of amendments but they are all similar, in that they primarily make technical changes to the Bill to improve its functioning. They reflect work that has been done over the summer to respond to certain points raised by noble Lords in Committee and to check through the Bill for accuracy. Our hope is that none of the amendments in this group will cause your Lordships any difficulty. Given the size of the group, I will keep my commentary to a minimum and focus on those amendments that are likely to be of most interest.
I said in Committee that we would consult on what would be the appropriate period for bringing an action following a decision in a merger or market investigation. We have now launched our consultation
752
on the tribunal's rules. Part of that seeks views on whether the periods should be one month for a merger and six weeks for a market.
I emphasise that we have not yet come to any view on the appropriate length of either period. However, we have decided that as we may end up changing these periods in the tribunal's rules at an early stage in the life of the legislation, it would be better to remove the reference to three months from the face of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 26, 79 and 141 guarantee that whatever the outcome of the consultation we have the flexibility we need.
There are 28 technical amendments aimed at improving the clarity of the public interest regimes under the Bill. The most significant changes to the EPI scheme are Amendments Nos. 50 and 117, which clarify that there is a power to add new public interest considerations, unrelated to any considerations already specified in Clauses 57 and 148. That was always our clear policy intention.
Amendments Nos. 89, 90, 143 and 144 are technical amendments to provide for the situation where an order effecting a change to the public interest considerations specified in Clause 57 or 148 is subsequently not approved by Parliament. These amendments ensure that the changes are reversed.
We are also tabling 20 amendments to improve the enforcement regime in Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill. Of those, 14 are required to ensure that more than one undertaking can be accepted—for example, when the OFT is considering accepting undertakings in lieu. The remaining six make minor technical changes to other parts of the regime.
Amendment No. 64 is concerned with the interaction between the special regime for water mergers and the general mergers regime. Mergers between conglomerates and multi-utility companies can involve the merger of a range of different businesses. It is possible that a merger between two water enterprises falling to be assessed under the special regime could be a component of a bigger merger. The amendment clarifies that the general Part 3 mergers regime can apply to the bigger merger but, where that happens, excludes from consideration any merger between water enterprises that is subject to the separate mandatory assessment under the Clause 67 regime.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, moved an amendment to the definition of "business" in what is now Clause 178, which I agreed to consider further. The purpose of the noble Lord's amendment was to make clear that the conduct of public bodies, where it has an impact on competition in a market, can be taken into account in the context of a market investigation.
In our view, amending Clause 178 is not the best way of resolving that point. We propose instead to delete the words "in the course of business" from Clause 126(2). That means that the conduct of public bodies supplying or acquiring goods or services in a market will always be capable of being taken into account as a "feature" of a market within the meaning of this

753
clause. Given that the conduct of public bodies is capable of having a significant impact on competition in many markets, we believe that that is appropriate.
Clause 191 provides for professional privilege in respect of legal and banking material in the context of investigations of the cartel offence. Amendment No. 157 provides a different way of accounting for the equivalent in Scotland of legal professional privilege. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and to his colleagues who drew attention to that matter in Committee.
The Government's intention throughout Part 6 has been to model the OFT's investigatory powers and safeguards for those under investigation on those contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1987. The original Clauses 191 and 197 followed the Criminal Justice Act 1987 precedent. That was done to ensure consistency in approach regardless of whether the OFT or SFO are investigating or prosecuting.
However, having considered the matter further, we recognise the concerns that current Scottish customs and practice be properly reflected in the Bill. I am therefore pleased to move the amendment which draws on the opposition amendment brought forward in Committee. It follows the more recent precedent of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and provides a definition which corresponds more closely with Scottish practice.
Amendments 149 and 150 allow for the appointment of independent members to the Competition Commission's governing council. The function of those independent members will be solely and specifically to sit on the council. We see the addition of independent members to the council as a way of strengthening the leadership of the Competition Commission and reflecting best practice in corporate governance. The council would now consist of the chairmen, the deputy chairmen, the chief executive and one or more independent member.
A number of other amendments are being made, but as I stressed at the outset I do not intend to go into any more detail now. I re-emphasise the minor and technical nature of the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 205, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 27A not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland
6.36 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House knows, over the past weeks and months the political process in Northern Ireland has encountered increasing difficulties. I do not need to remind the House of the magnitude of the project on which we are embarked in Northern Ireland, nor that in any great historic process of this kind there will be setbacks and difficulties. My sincere hope, therefore, was that we would be able to overcome those challenges in the short term. That is why the Prime Minister and I have had intensive discussions in recent days with the Northern Ireland political parties and the Irish Government. However, it had become clear that an impasse had been reached and that decisive action was needed in order to safeguard the progress made and tackle the remaining challenges.
"Because of the difficulties we have encountered, I yesterday made an order under the Northern Ireland Act 2000 suspending devolved government in Northern Ireland. It came into effect at midnight yesterday.
"The real losers here are the ordinary people of Northern Ireland, those who appreciate and deserve local decisions which affect local people being made by local politicians, not least because the devolved administration has achieved so much on their behalf, and in their interest. I take this opportunity to pay warm tribute to the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and his predecessor, and to their ministerial colleagues, for all they have done. I very much hope that the devolved institutions can be restored quickly.
"I would stress that this impasse affects one aspect of the Belfast agreement, albeit an important one. As the joint statement by the Prime Minister yesterday made clear, this Government remain totally committed to the full implementation of the agreement. It has already brought great benefits to the people of Northern Ireland.
"In their statement, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach also recognised that the recent difficulties in Northern Ireland stemmed from a loss of trust on both sides of the community. There has been much apportioning of blame and there is no doubt there is a lack of confidence on both sides of the community. However, at the heart of the recent political difficulties have been concerns about the commitment to exclusively democratic and non-violent means.
"Let us be clear that we have seen violence from all sides of the community, including a campaign, sometimes murderous in its intent and effect, from the so-called loyalist paramilitaries. Let it be quite clear that the Chief Constable and I are combating it

755
and will combat it with all the means at our disposal, wherever it happens, whoever is behind it. We will go wherever the evidence leads. That is why I have recently redoubled our efforts by setting up the new Law and Order Action Group bringing together the key agencies to strengthen our drive against all forms of racketeering and violence, from wherever it may come.
"I have to tell the House that an arrest was made this morning in connection with the shooting of Danny McBrearty in Londonderry on 29th September. Police inquiries are continuing.
"I have absolutely no doubt that episodes such as the trial of republicans in Colombia and the break-in at Castlereagh have seriously damaged confidence in the power-sharing arrangements. It would, of course, be entirely improper to prejudge the outcomes of any cases involving outstanding criminal charges. But it would be naive for any politician to ignore the impact on political and public opinion of the recent charges brought against republicans, including members of Sinn Fein, as a result of the police operation on 4th October.
"Like me, the House will be particularly concerned about the position of prison officers and others and their families, for whose assistance the police have now established a special unit. The Prison Service is working closely with the police and has established a helpline.
"And I say this to the House: there is no authority, no legitimacy, no morality and no political basis for anyone, in today's Northern Ireland, to have recourse to violence or paramilitary activity. Whatever may have happened 30 years ago or 300 years ago, in today's Northern Ireland the path to power through democracy is open to everyone.
"It is also essential, as the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach noted, that each community has confidence in the commitment of the other to the agreement. That is now our challenge; that is now our task. Yesterday was, not surprisingly, filled with recrimination. Today, we should be about rebuilding. But that rebuilding has to be done on foundations which are firm, sound, and lasting.
"It is against this background that the Prime Minister and Taoiseach said yesterday that,
'it must be clear that the transition from violence to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, which has been ongoing since the Agreement, and indeed before, is being brought to an unambiguous and definitive conclusion'.
They also said:
'It is now essential that the concerns around the commitment to exclusively democratic and non-violent means are removed. The time has come for people to clearly choose one track or the other'.
"We face some difficult and challenging weeks ahead of us. Our tasks are threefold. First, we need to move rapidly and decisively from the recent weeks of political uncertainty. I have no doubts that the people of Northern Ireland—who should be always
756
the ones at the front of our minds in all that we are doing—welcome, appreciate and deserve devolved government.
"Like them, I would have much preferred devolved government continuing, with local Ministers making local decisions. But until it can be restored, I and my colleagues will dedicate ourselves to working for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland to the best of our abilities. In the meantime, we will carry on the process of government in Northern Ireland proactively, and in the interests of all of its people.
"This must not be a matter of mere care and maintenance. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland that effective government should be moved forward. We will not duck the difficult issues. And we will be able to build on the progress made by the devolved administration in many areas, taking careful account of the "Programme for Government" and the principles of re-investment and reform on which it is based. I have already met yesterday with the First and Deputy First Ministers.
"The Policing Board is widely agreed to have been one of the finest achievements of the agreement. I want its work to continue. I have invited all the existing board members to continue providing their excellent service to the community. I sincerely hope that they will all accept reappointment.
"In this context, I welcome two members of the ministerial team. I am making available separately the details of ministerial responsibilities under suspension. In broad terms, the Minister of State's additional responsibilities will focus on education and those of the Under-Secretary of State on social issues including health. The portfolios of my honourable friends the Member for Dudley South and the Member for Basildon will centre respectively on economic affairs and environmental issues.
"Secondly, under the terms of the agreement, we need to embark on a process of review. I will be in touch with the parties and the Irish Government about how that should be taken forward. I want to stress that this is an impasse—I hope, short-lived—in one aspect of the agreement. It is not the whole agreement. It is not the whole peace process. We will continue, in co-operation with the parties and our colleagues in the Irish Government, to carry forward that process and the implementation of the agreement.
"Thirdly, we will bend every effort to find a basis on which to bring back the devolved institutions, and as quickly as possible. The role and responsibility of the political parties in achieving this is vital. It is our aim to find a basis on which all the institutions of the agreement can be brought back into operation as soon as possible. The election date scheduled for 1st May stands.
"These three priorities: the good governance of Northern Ireland; carrying forward the agreement; and addressing the present impasse, will inform the approach of the Government over the coming weeks

757
and months. In those tasks we will call upon the co-operation and support of the parties, our colleagues in the Irish Government and those far beyond our shores like the President and people of the United States who have been unstinting in their support.
"For our part, I can promise the House that we will bear ourselves with determination and endurance, because we recognise that the magnitude of the prize we seek is commensurate with the challenges we face.
"We have come an enormous distance in recent years. The peace process and the agreement have increased prosperity, revitalised society, safeguarded rights, and—above all—saved lives. I am determined that these benefits should not be lost, but should increase. The agreement will remain a template for political progress in Northern Ireland. I hope the decision I have explained to the House today creates a breathing space—a chance to gather strength—before that progress moves forward once again".
6.46 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the other place earlier this afternoon. This is undoubtedly a sad day for Northern Ireland. Four and a half years after the signing of the Belfast agreement, with all the hopes and aspirations that surrounded it, devolved government has had to be suspended for a fourth time and direct rule imposed from Westminster.
It is all the more tragic because the political institutions that flowed from the agreement—the Assembly, the Executive, the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council—were generally considered to be working well. As someone who lives in the Province I am convinced that devolution, with locally elected politicians taking decisions over local matters, will always be a much more responsive form of government for Northern Ireland than will ever be the case under direct rule.
We hope that this period of direct rule will not only be short but will also be the last. It must be our intention, as the noble and learned Lord said, to return powers to locally elected politicians as soon as is practically possible. However, as things stand today none of us can be confident about when that might be. In the meantime, we trust that the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, including the two new appointees, will exercise their responsibilities in an impartial and even-handed manner in the interests of all sections of the community.
The House will have noted, perhaps with surprise, that both the new Ministers in the Northern Ireland are from another place. As for as I know this the first time there has been direct rule without a Minister from the House of Lords. Perhaps the Prime Minister considers these two to be far better than anyone
758
available to be appointed from the Government Benches here. I do not know the new Ministers, but I would dispute that conclusion
Lord Graham of Edmonton: They are both very good.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. The reason why direct rule has had to be re-imposed today is clear. There has been a complete breakdown of trust between the parties that signed the agreement. Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal agree that we are here today entirely because of the republican movement's failure to fulfil its commitments under the Belfast agreement to make the clear and unambiguous transition to exclusively peaceful and democratic politics?
The agreement called for the complete disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. In his speech during the referendum campaign in May 1998 the Prime Minister said that there had to be "progressive abandonment of paramilitary structures". However, since the agreement Sinn Fein has continued to pursue a twin-track policy of serving in government while remaining inextricably linked to the terrorist organisation known as the IRA.
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that this is completely unacceptable? Does he also agree that the time has come to operate the same threshold for Sinn Fein's participation in the government of Northern Ireland as the Taoiseach insists on in the Republic of Ireland; namely, no private army?
The catalogue of republican breaches of the ceasefires over the past year is compelling. We had the arrest of three republicans in Colombia suspected of collaborating with the narco-terrorist group FARC; we had the break-in at Castlereagh police station, strongly suspected as being the work of the IRA, which has led to hundreds of people being re-housed across the Province; we had the discovery of target lists of members of my party and updated information on military targets in Great Britain; and we had a summer of street violence in which, according to the police, known republicans—along with loyalists—were among the main protagonists. We have the paramilitary beatings and shootings, the exiling of people from their homes—again carried out on both sides—that are a daily feature of life in parts of Northern Ireland. And, a week last Friday, we had the discovery of a republican spy ring in the heart of government at Stormont. I hope that it is not in Westminster.
Among the documents uncovered in the police raid on Sinn Fein's offices—a party in government—were transcripts of conversations between the British and Irish Governments, the Government and the Northern Ireland parties, and even transcripts of conversations between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that all of this is clearly incompatible with a commitment to what the Belfast agreement calls "exclusively democratic and peaceful means"? If he

759
does, then is it not also the case that by suspending the institutions, and restoring direct rule, the Government are punishing the innocent along with the guilty?
Would not the right response to this crisis have been for the Secretary of State to have fulfilled the commitment he gave to Parliament in July to take action against the one party—Sinn Fein—that is in breach of its obligations? In my party's view, the Secretary of State should have tabled a Motion before the Northern Ireland Assembly this week for the exclusion of Sinn Fein. And had that failed he should have done what we have been urging him to do for a year now and taken powers here at Westminster to exclude any party in breach of the cease-fire and the agreement.
This is a power that we believe should be available to the Secretary of State. Therefore, will the Lord Privy Seal now urge him to take it so that devolved government can be restored with an Executive comprised of those parties, Unionist and nationalist, that are committed to peaceful and democratic politics?
It is clear that the political process in Northern Ireland is in a deep crisis. The next few months will be critical. But we remain committed with the Government to the implementation of the Belfast agreement, and we want to see devolved government re-established on as inclusive a basis as possible. Yet that can be done only on the basis that all parties operate under the same rules and on a level playing field.
There can be no place in a democracy for private armies. Responsibility now rests with those who have for too long been ambiguous in their attitude to violence to make the transition. Otherwise, as things stand, direct rule will, regrettably, be with us for some time to come.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Secretary of State's Statement.
We have, of course, been here before. The politics of intransigence has triumphed yet again. One wonders whether it will always surface to torpedo the process of Northern Ireland ever becoming a mature and stable democracy. We must always hope and pray that the politics of transcendence, to borrow Professor Paul Arthur's felicitous phrase, may one day allow an enduring democratic system to exist.,
History seems to be repeating itself with monotonous and depressing regularity, but it is vital to note that the present crisis is not the same in all respects as that which erupted previously. What occurred in 1999 led to a three-month suspension of the Executive and the Assembly. On that occasion, both institutions were in possession of a relatively fresh mandate from the elections of 1998. Now, by contrast, both have a fast waning mandate that, in the normal course of events, would have been refreshed or changed with the elections that were due next May.
760
The second difference is that this time the suspension of Stormont is likely to be considerably longer than three months. That means that what is left of the various parties' mandates in practice has now been snuffed out. Therefore, I would argue strongly that unless the Assembly and the Executive can be reconvened within a month—and, as I say, that is very unlikely—all salaries be terminated.
I raised this issue in an amendment that I proposed at the Committee stage of the Northern Ireland Bill 2000. I was given assurances then that salaries would be kept under review by the Secretary of State. This time, I understand, the Executive will lose all their ministerial emoluments, and Assembly members will have token reductions in the already disproportionately inflated salaries they voted themselves with unseemly alacrity.
There is an unanswerable case for terminating their salaries after a month on two grounds: first, one of principle in that they are not doing the business; and, secondly, particularly in the context of Northern Ireland, it is the quickest way to concentrate minds.
Can the noble and learned Lord say what the policy of Her Majesty's Government will be on this issue in the event of a prolonged suspension? It looks as though they may be waiting six months. That, frankly, is far too long.
Another difference between now and two years ago is that the political vacuum created by the suspension of devolution will not lead to a re-imposition of direct rule of the kind that has traditionally obtained. It will not be a return to the status quo pre-1998 as the Unionist opinion fondly hopes. As I have said previously in your Lordships' House, without a speedy restoration of devolution the only practical alternative is some form of condominium arrangement operated between London and Dublin. If that was true earlier, I believe it is much more so now. In the two years that have elapsed, there has been much sensible cross-border collaboration in tourism, waterways, agriculture and in other practical ways.
It is inconceivable that the two governments of the UK and Ireland would allow such constructive activity to be halted or mothballed now. A momentum has been established and the achievements are there to be seen. I predict that what we shall observe is a quickening in the pace of such partnership activity between London and Dublin in the governance of Northern Ireland. The future will be "Maryfield with knobs on", as Dr Maurice Hayes so graphically described it in his column last week in the Irish Independent.
Such a development is inherent in any prolonged suspension of the Assembly and power-sharing Executive. The principle of power sharing is here to stay. If it ceases to be practised via the conduit of the Assembly and the Executive, then it will be carried on by a London/Dublin condominium. I am pleased that that was, to some extent, re-affirmed in the Statement. But I would ask the Leader of the House to be more specific and to give us some details on how he sees this collaboration with Dublin developing.

761
For some time, perhaps for most of the time since 1998, there has been, what I shall call an implicit prevailing consensus within governing circles at all levels that all was manageable for so long as the UUP and the SDLP held the reins of power in the form of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister posts. Unfortunately for this view, both parties have been losing their electoral support at an increasing rate to the DUP on the one hand and to Sinn Fein on the other. The so-called middle ground of politics, on which the prevailing consensus relied, has fast been disappearing.
All of this has clearly undermined the rationale of the prevailing consensus which, in recent months, has been valiantly attempting to shore up a false political equilibrium. There have been press reports of late that London and Dublin have been considering prolonging the life of the Assembly beyond its constitutionally prescribed limit, for fear of the likely outcome of the scheduled elections in May. If the press is to be believed, one reason perhaps for supporting suspension now is the rather perverse one that it would at least pre-empt any such gerrymandering. Tinkering with scheduled elections in this way should be unthinkable to any democratically elected government in all contexts, but particularly so in that of Northern Ireland. I trust that the press rumours are totally without foundation. I invite the Leader of the House to say so.
Propping up a false equilibrium is not a viable option in the long run. What is going to happen after next May if Stormont remains suspended? It may be that the London/Dublin condominium will have been reasonably successful and may become entrenched and in some way acceptable to general opinion. Given the zero-sum nature of Northern Irish politics that leads to inevitable impasse too regularly for democracy to prevail, perhaps a condominium arrangement is Pareto-optimal, as the economists say. In other words, there may be enough of a trade-off for there to be something in it for everyone. At a pinch one could live with that.
However, as a passionate believer in representative parliamentary democracy, my preference would be for the restoration of Stormont with fresh elections next May at the latest. If that means the DUP and Sinn Fein become the main parties, so be it. The people will have spoken. They should be given a voice. I do not think it is beyond the bounds of possibility or ingenuity that the DUP and Sinn Fein could contrive a working modus operandi. After all, the day-to-day working of the Executive has not been impeded by widely differing political viewpoints around the table. If such a deal proved to be impossible, the London-Dublin condominium could prevail. Will the Leader of the House confirm unequivocally that elections will take place in May at the latest? The Statement says that they still stand. That is too weak a commitment.
We on the Liberal Democrat benches will support the suspension of devolution with a heavy heart and because it seems to be the only realistic option available at present. But the future may be fraught.
762
Minds must now be concentrated among the parties and between the two Governments in broad and imaginative ways to get devolution back on track.
7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith, for their comments. In different ways they have both said that, four and a half years on, this is a sad day. It is, but it is a set-back; it is not a catastrophe. It is a blemish; it is not a terminus. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said: devolution will always be the most responsive—and therefore the most appropriate—method for the governance of Northern Ireland.
I must gently chide the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, on one thing, if I may. I think that it is well known to your Lordships that I asked my right honourable friend the Prime Minister if I might speak on Northern Ireland matters in this House. I hope that all of your Lordships—of whom there are many with different views and different backgrounds—with an interest in Northern Ireland feel that we have worked co-operatively together over a long time. I invited my right honourable friend Dr. Reid to allow me to continue to do that work. In no sense has he slighted this House by responding to my invitation. Of course, that may not be entirely to the satisfaction of all of your Lordships, but if blame there is, it is mine, not that of Dr. Reid.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked what had brought about the suspension. There is no doubt that its proximate cause was the fact of the activity in the Northern Ireland Office and the discovery of what had been taken from there. We must be careful, because several people have been charged—there may be more; I do not know—who are entitled to a trial not bedevilled by allegations or assertions that may be the subject of criminal proceedings.
It is not a landscape wholly painted in sepia tones of gloom. It is as well to remind ourselves that we have all previously agreed that sometimes in Northern Ireland there are the dual disadvantages of too short and too long a memory. Since the peace process started, we have had the lowest troop levels in 30 years and 102 cross-border roads have been opened. Living standards, measured by the number of dwellings, have risen by 6,000 since last year. Jobs rose from 557,000 in June 1994 to 656,000 in June 2002—the highest employment figure on record for June. Unemployment fell by 62 per cent between April 1994 and April 2000. There has been the record of the fastest economic growth in the United Kingdom.
Devolved government has delivered a good deal. Tourism has increased to 1.6 million in 2000, compared to fewer than 500,000 in 1976. There is the new high-speed ferry service to Scotland, the new terminal at Belfast city airport—which is an exceptionally friendly airport that works a good deal better than Heathrow, if I may say so sotto voce. The Belfast-Dublin rail service has been upgraded; the M3 Lagan bridge has been opened, as has the Newry bypass and the new Foyle bridge.

763
A great success has been the police board. As he said in his Statement, the Secretary of State has asked all 19 members to retake their responsibilities. Two of them have been uncontactable because they are abroad—I do not know whether they have been in Spain. The 17 who have responded have responded positively and will resume their functions.
Those are not bad achievements. Too short a memory? On 24th July, Dr. Reid made it perfectly plain that, as the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have made plain on innumerable occasions, no one can ride both horses if one is violence and the other is democracy. No Secretary of State could have been plainer than that.
I turn to one or two questions of ignoble detail asked by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. First, he asked: what about the salaries? The Secretary of State has said that salaries will be reduced with effect from next month to the levels that applied before the Assembly took powers. The effect is that salaries will fall by about a quarter. Representatives will for the time being function as constituency representatives and will receive some pay and allowances, but, to take the point made by the noble Lord, the Secretary of State has recognised that that cannot continue without review. If necessary, the Secretary of State will need to review that at the end of the year—which, of course, is not far away.
To state that the May elections still stand is not a weak way to put our position, and I stand by that.
The other questions asked relate to joint rule, to which the noble Lord, Lord Smith referred as the Dublin-Westminster condominium. He is a braver man than I. There is no question of joint rule; it features nowhere in the agreement and is not in the Government's thinking.
We want, after as brief a period of suspension as possible, to return to an Assembly that was working. It was working a good deal better than many of us had expected. It was a salutary, object lesson to go there to see what was happening. It was by no means perfect. I spent a day there during the summer talking to those of reasonably disparate views—starting the day with Mitchel McLauglin and finishing it with the Rev. Dr. Paisley. One way or another, that Assembly was working. We should not be too gloomy.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, and your Lordships' House of the Statement that he delivered to this House on 24th July at column 409. He said:
"In reviewing the cease-fires, I will give particular weight to any substantiated information that a paramilitary organisation is engaged in training, targeting, acquisition or development of arms or weapons, or any similar preparations for a terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. I say to the House—lest there be any doubt on the matter—that I will not hesitate to use the powers Parliament has given me if the circumstances require it".—[Official Report, 24/7/02; col. 409.]
Given the events of the past two weeks, with the arrest of four Republican activists on suspicion of involvement in spying against the Government—our
764
Government—at the very heart of the Northern Ireland Office, how can the Government justify their failure to exclude Sinn Fein/IRA Ministers from the Northern Ireland Executive?
Why have the Government decided, by suspending the political institutions, to punish all of the people of Northern Ireland, rather than those who are at fault? Have the Government considered the possibility that, by taking what some might describe as the easier option, they have risked dealing a final and fatal blow to Unionist confidence in the agreement itself?
On a practical level, as the duration of direct rule is open-ended, can the Government reassure us that the development of various projects, especially capital projects in areas such as health and education, will continue?
7.9 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I remember repeating the Statement on 24th July and there have undoubtedly been setbacks since then. Since 1st January 2002, 40 assaults and 47 shootings have been attributed to Republicans. Since the same date, attributable to loyalists have been 77 assaults—almost double that number—and 93 shootings, which is about double that number. So we need here to have a context that is not limited to the failings of one set of law-breakers or another. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, mentioned four-and-half years. It is a long time if you are living somewhere in deeply unsatisfactory circumstances. However, I respectfully point out that it is a short time within which to have accomplished what has undoubtedly been accomplished.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, made a very good point in his final remarks. He seeks my assurance that development projects and capital inflows, especially on health and education, will not cease. As my noble friend Lord Graham said, the Secretary of State has chosen two admirable Ministers who are both energetic and committed. Of course we want those capital inflows to continue. But external capital, international capital, will continue to go into Northern Ireland only if there is some prospect of hope towards a resumption of a democratic, devolved assembly. I do not believe that it was the easier option. It was the more scrupulous option. The option that Dr Reid and the Prime Minister took is best calculated to bring about what everyone wants; namely, a developing, increasingly stable democracy in Northern Ireland.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for the fact that I allowed myself to be detained in a Committee Room so that I missed the opening phrases of the Statement. However, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I have read the Statement from start to finish.
I was delighted that the noble and learned Lord was able to give the House good news from the police authority. That, in itself, is a form of power sharing. However, I regret that the possibility of retaining the substance of power sharing was not grasped. I had hoped that new direct-rule Ministers could have been

765
found from both the Unionist and the nationalist traditions. This might have been accomplished through another place, the European Parliament, or even through your Lordships' House. However, I should like to be more positive than that.
Can the noble and learned Lord give us an assurance that the north-south and east-west dialogue between this country and Ireland and between the North and the South of Ireland will continue at full strength? This is surely the wider context established by the Belfast agreement. It is vital that both dimensions of dialogue should be strengthened. If that can be done, the chance of internal agreement in Northern Ireland will be improved.
I have another thought; namely, that an analytical conflict resolution process facilitated by independent third parties could be helpful. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that such a process could assist the very necessary dialogue across the sectarian interfaces, notably in Belfast? If such a process proved successful there, I believe that it could be applied more widely.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Due to time running out, I do not believe that I gave full justice to all the questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for giving me the opportunity to return to those points. I can confirm that we shall continue to work in close co-operation with the Irish Government. Apart from anything else, by virtue of the 2000 Act, taken in conjunction with the Belfast agreement, we shall have to carry out the statutory review in due time in co-operation and partnership with the Government of the Irish Republic. Under suspension, it is clear that there will be no meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council. The implementation bodies are not affected by the suspension order. The British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference will continue to work in close co-operation with us and the Irish Government.
We shall look at the institutional formats to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred. He spoke about third party intervention, which has occurred in past years and which can be either formal or informal. I have to say that the United States Administration have been extremely helpful. Of course, we have had third party involvement in Northern Ireland over the years; I have in mind, for example, Senator Mitchell.
It is most important for Her Majesty's Government, the Government of the Irish Republic, and the Administration in Washington to continue to work together as closely and as faithfully as possible. However, there comes a time when the institutions in Northern Ireland will have to stand on their own two feet. I still believe that this is not an occasion of deep gloom and pessimism as can be seen if one puts one's mind objectively to the part recitation that I gave of the
766
progress that has been made. That was just a small selection—perhaps 50 per cent—of what I could have recited.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, since the promulgation of the Good Friday agreement in this House I have found myself in a rather difficult position. At all times I should have liked to support the Labour Government in their objective in Northern Ireland; but living in Northern Ireland and being aware of its politics for many decades, I always had sincere doubts as to whether that agreement was ever going to work.
When the Government called upon everyone to vote in the referendum to support the Good Friday agreement, a great friend of mine—a very prominent and eminent trade unionist and historian—wrote a letter to a newspaper in Northern Ireland stating that he could not support the agreement for various reasons, which he then outlined. Over the years since then I have watched the unfolding of the situation in Northern Ireland and my friend has been proved right in every aspect of his objections. The main one being that the Good Friday agreement institutionalises Catholic and Protestant tribes. Where you have a Catholic as opposed to a Protestant tribe, you will never readily find agreement.
The agreement has created two Unionist parties, one more extreme than the other; and it has created two nationalist parties, one more extreme than the other. I have heard it said here today that it would have been possible for the Government to promulgate a motion at the Northern Ireland Assembly calling for the eviction of Sinn Fein because it had been engaged in violence. However, that would never have been passed by the Assembly, because the SDLP (the moderate Catholic party) could not afford to run away and desert the extreme Catholic party.
I know that the Minister, and other spokesmen for the Government, are saying in press releases and so on that we should not indulge in pessimism because the agreement can be resurrected. I have to stand here and tell the Leader of the House that I do not believe that the Good Friday agreement can be resurrected in its present form because the Unionist politicians will be playing to their electorate to get extreme votes and you will have the Catholic electorate—the Catholic MLA.
Here we have a continuation of the most divisive things in Northern Ireland politics. I agree almost line by line with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. The Government should find the means not to cling tenaciously to an agreement that has so often failed and is doomed to failure; they must try to resurrect some other constitutional means. This one has gone. I believe that it has gone for ever.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I always pay careful attention to what my noble friend Lord Fitt says. I recognise that he has a much greater reservoir of experience and of courageous political activity than any of the rest of us. I approach his comments with, I believe, appropriate regard. My noble friend said that his colleague, the historian, had written a letter to a

767
newspaper giving many reasons why the agreement would fail. One year there were 500 reasons why the agreement must not fail: 500 dead.
This is a difficult time, but it is not a lost time. I turn, for example, to the police service. The PSNI has cross-community support. It has 50:50 recruitment. My noble friend Lord Fitt talked about institutionalised tribes. The board and the Chief Constable have agreed a workforce plan for the next eight to 10 years. There is in existence in Northern Ireland—not, I believe, in the remainder of the United Kingdom—an independent police ombudsman. We have had a review of the criminal justice system. We have had a successful passage of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act. There is an organised crime task force. A single equality commission has been established. Again, I do not think that obtains in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
Enormous steps have been taken. We should not diminish the progress which has been made. It is not perfection. Nevertheless, it is very substantial.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, and the noble Lord, Lord Laird, will be able to speak in the time available.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I was pleased to hear the reference to the arrest of the IRA men who shot, beat and tried to kill Mr O'Breavty when he was driving a busload of pensioners. He was attacked after appealing in vain to Martin McGuinness for help, his nephew having been exiled from Northern Ireland for refusing entry to a bar to Mr McGuinness's son. I hope that Sinn Fein-IRA will be required to end the exile rather than pressing them further on the stale and unprofitable issue of decommissioning.
I realise that we shall have a review. I hope sincerely that that review will address itself to the violence on the streets carried out by the paramilitaries against their own people on both sides. I wish also to be reassured that from now on we shall hear no more about proposals to allow the "on-the-runs" to return to the community.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall not comment about the details of the arrest made this morning and about the shooting of Danny O'Breavty. I stress that everyone—whether we like or despise him or her—is entitled to a fair trial in any part of the United Kingdom. What are or are not the facts about the attack on Mr O'Breavty on 29th September must be the subject of an independent inquiry—it is called a police investigation—and then an independent trial of which the judges in Northern Ireland have been exemplars. So I shall not be drawn into that matter. I am sure the noble Baroness will not be displeased at my not going into those details.
768
In the past, the noble Baroness has asked me frequently about "on-the-runs". That matter will have to be dealt with at some stage and within the law.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I listened with great disappointment to the Statement repeated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. The Government have made the wrong decision. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, they should have continued with devolution in Northern Ireland.
Most people in Northern Ireland support the principle of devolution/administration of Stormont. There will be disappointment at the Government's decision. None the less, the greater number of people in Northern Ireland will welcome the fact that due to the continued activities of Sinn Fein-IRA, inextricably linked as they are, Northern Ireland now returns to direct British rule from London. That will be welcomed throughout Northern Ireland.
The comments of the spokesman for the Liberal Democrat Party concerned me in two respects, in particular his implied suggestion that politicians in Northern Ireland can be bought off by salaries and money. That is an insult to the elected representatives of Northern Ireland. It demonstrates a total lack of knowledge of nationalists and Unionists. Their feelings and political opinions are so strong that some have even paid the supreme sacrifice, They are not the kind of people to be bought off by simply doing away with their salaries. You will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland through the salaries of elected representatives.
I was even more concerned at his suggestion that Northern Ireland should cease to be governed as part of the United Kingdom: that the sovereignty of the United Kingdom should cease. I was concerned that the Liberal Democrats now suggest that Northern Ireland should become a condominium, jointly ruled by Dublin and London. I find that most upsetting and I am quite sure that members of the Alliance Party, linked with the Liberal Democrats, will find it equally upsetting. I shall be interested to hear the reaction in Northern Ireland when those comments are heard.
Four years ago, the Prime Minister sent a letter in his own handwriting to the people of Northern Ireland saying that those who were not exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic methods would be excluded from the democratic government of Northern Ireland. Why has the Prime Minister's letter not been honoured?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that I responded to the question of a condominium as robustly as I possibly could on behalf of the Government, with whose authority I speak. I am grateful for the support from a sedentary position from the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney. I agree with him, and as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, that most people in Northern Ireland would support devolution. I wish to say as strongly as I can that devolution is not abandoned. This is a setback. But I hope that the commitment demonstrated by Dr Reid,

769
and in particular the Prime Minister, over many years is powerful evidence that we want to see a devolved solution.
As Dr Reid said on 24th July, and later, you cannot ride two horses if one is democracy and one is violence. The recent events brought him inevitably, although sadly as he said in the Statement, to the conclusion that there must be a suspension for a time. However, I hope and pray that devolution will be the opportunity that offers itself, and that in the historical context it will be seen as an aberration, not a defeat.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement and for his undertaking that there will be a continuance not just of government in Northern Ireland on a care and maintenance basis but also of hard work on many programmes.
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his point about dismissing the concept of a condominium. Perhaps he will consider this irony. We are brought to today's situation by the inactivity of Sinn Fein, the republican party. Yet this House and another place now have a responsibility for and an ability to look into some aspects of policy in the Irish Republic. I am the chairman of a cross-border body. We receive our mandate, funding and direction from the Dail in Dublin and the assembly in Northern Ireland. If the assembly is done away with, we shall receive our funding and direction from this Parliament. So it is interesting to note that, after 80 years, some aspects of policy which are looked after in the cross-border bodies will be answered here by British Ministers at British Dispatch Boxes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point: that irony is not a commodity in short supply in the recent history of Northern Ireland. I cannot gainsay what the noble Lord said. From my experience of him I know he realises that there is a wider dimension which involves co-operation with the Government of the Republic or possibly institutions in the Republic. I pay tribute to him for that and for the many efforts of the noble Lord and his colleagues who sit in this Chamber. I repeat: this is a disappointment but it is not a fatal blemish.

A-Levels
7.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement on A-level grading.
770
"As the House will know, following the publication of examination results in the summer of this year there have been concerns about the grading of A and AS level examinations and about the way exam standards are set and maintained.
"I recognise the anxiety and uncertainty that this has caused. Students have been left unsure about whether their grades in A and AS-levels this year accurately reflect the standard of their work. On behalf of the education service, I apologise to all those students who have been affected.
"My responsibility has been to make sure that the concerns have been carefully and thoroughly investigated, the recommendations acted on as rapidly as possible and clear action taken to avoid the situation ever happening again.
"Early last month, head teachers' representatives and some examiners raised concerns about the grading of some students' work in this year's A and AS-level examinations. The complaints focused, in particular, on changes that had been made to grade boundaries in some of the papers.
"Given the seriousness of the allegations, on 19th September, I set up an independent inquiry under Mike Tomlinson, the former Chief Inspector of Schools.
"Mike Tomlinson's interim report, published on 27th September, identified weaknesses in the way the exams had been assessed this year and recommended a process of re-grading.
"This work has now been completed. Letters went from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) last night to all students on their records whose grades had been revised, and, since 10 o'clock this morning, a UCAS helpline has been in operation.
"Mike Tomlinson announced this morning that a total of 9,800 candidate entries had had unit grades raised. All the adjustments relate to the Oxford, Cambridge and RSA board. In the majority of cases, this has not resulted in a change to overall grades, but 1,945 candidates have had their overall grades raised: 733 for AS-levels and 1,212 for A2-levels.
"UCAS holds a record on 1,089 of these students. Of these, 689 are already in their first-choice university, although a small number are not on their first-choice course. A further 232 had no offer from their first or second-choice universities, so they are unlikely to be affected by a grade change. This leaves, on the current UCAS estimates, around 168 students who may be eligible to transfer university. UCAS has told us that there are no more than eight possible new students for any single university.
"I shall briefly outline what action these 168 students now need to take. Students who think they may be eligible to move institution are being advised to contact their preferred university or college. Universities have been advised by their own representative body, Universities UK, to honour all offers made to students prior to the publication of

771
A-level results in August, and I am confident that they will do so. As I said on 27th September, the fact that institutions have already admitted their full number of students for this year may well mean that students wishing to transfer will be offered places for next year, rather than this. Clearly, the fact that the numbers are much lower than some have speculated will make things more manageable. Universities and colleges have agreed to make final decisions no later than 31 st October. Universities and students will not be disadvantaged financially if students move university due to re-grading.
"In his report of 27th September, Mike Tomlinson also gave his preliminary views on what had gone wrong. In particular, the QCA had not issued guidance on the level of attainment expected for a particular grade in individual papers; nor had it provided a clear, consistent view about the standard required to make sure that the overall GCE A-level standard was maintained. In addition, although AS units were piloted, A2 units were not.
"I also asked Mike Tomlinson to investigate the allegations that external pressure had been put on the examining boards to lower the number of A-level passes to protect against the allegation of lowering standards. Mike Tomlinson concluded that no pressure had been applied by Ministers or the department. He concluded that officers at QCA had acted within their guidelines but went on to say that,
'on the evidence available, the actions of the boards during the grading exercise arose from the pressure they perceived that they were under from the QCA both to maintain the standard and achieve an outcome which was more or less in line with the results in 2001'.
"On 27th September, I decided that the confidence of the examining boards and the head teacher representatives in the leadership of the QCA was damaged and the future of the QCA would be best served by a new chairman. We will shortly announce the name of a new interim chair.
"I recognise that a major task for the QCA and my department now is to re-build confidence in QCA and our examinations system. Ken Boston, the new chief executive of the QCA has announced a timetable for implementing the recommendations in Mike Tomlinson's report. By the end of October, there will be additional guidance on AS and A2 standards. By mid-November, further work on the statistical issues underlying assessment and a revised code of practice for the conduct of the process will be completed. The QCA will also put in place improved communications with all partners. Current students on AS and A2 courses can be reassured by these actions that the marking and grading standards in 2003 will be robust.
"Ken Boston has also announced that he is to set up an examinations task force whose job will be to oversee the effective delivery of the AS and A2 exams in January and July 2003. The task force meets for the first time this Friday and will have on it representatives of head teachers, as well as the exam boards. I welcome this decisive action.
772
"Mike Tomlinson's report also provided wider lessons for how government plan and implement major changes of this type. My department will act on these lessons.
"Mike Tomlinson now turns to the second part of his remit, to review more generally the arrangements for setting, maintaining and judging A-level standards. He will report to me and to the QCA in November.
"The announcements made today are supported by the head teacher and teacher organisations, including those who raised the original concerns. All students who have taken examinations this year can be confident that the re-grading process has been independent and fair.
"I recognise the importance of exams as a means of measuring achievement and giving young people a currency for higher education and the world of work. It is therefore particularly important that our assessment system is fair, transparent and efficient.
"While it is important that we acknowledge the difficulties this year, it is also important to remember that Mike Tomlinson reported that the principles behind Curriculum 2000 were wholeheartedly endorsed. That must not be lost.
"Mike Tomlinson has given us a clear way forward for re-establishing confidence in the A-level system in future and for ensuring that standards are clear. I hope that this will enable us to avoid the sterile annual debate about exam standards, when better results should be a cause of celebration for young people and their teachers.
"I put on record my thanks to all those in the education service who brought the original concerns to our attention. Their co-operation and approval for the process we have undergone have been crucial. I am also grateful to UCAS and to Universities UK for their helpful and constructive approach. Finally, I should like to thank Mike Tomlinson and his team for the speed of their actions, their thoroughness and their integrity".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement but, having listened to the Secretary of State in another place, one can only be impressed by the energy put into passing the blame for what happened to anyone other than the department, any Minister or the Secretary of State herself. At almost every criticism, the Secretary of State hid behind the Tomlinson report.
One recognises that, in the time allowed, Tomlinson performed well the task that he was given by the Secretary of State, as the Minister said. However, we were all witnesses to Mr Tomlinson's comment that the introduction of the AS-levels was,
"an accident waiting to happen".
I shall return to his more extraordinary comments, reported today.

773
We also know that the A2-level was not trialled at all. Students, teachers and parents believed that the two parts—AS and A2-levels—were equal and that 50 per cent of the marks would be given for each part. Certainly, they were of equal worth in that respect, but they were not equal in terms of the work that they represented. We now know that the A2 was subject to more stringent marking than the AS-level. In itself, that begs another question: does the Minister agree that students amassing points for university entry would find it easier to take only AS-levels, rather than complete the full A-level by taking the A2 examinations?
It was Ministers who introduced AS-levels—too fast and too soon. I do not accept, as the Secretary of State claimed in another place, that because the previous Conservative government were contemplating the introduction of AS-levels, as a result of findings in the Dearing report, the Government can speculate about what might have been. The Government are in their sixth year of office and must, therefore, accept responsibility for their own policies, their implementation and any resulting mistakes.
AS-levels, far from broadening the education of students, have resulted in an unacceptable proliferation of examinations and have reduced many of the rich non-examination activities, such as music, drama and sport. In my view it is now time to consider abolishing AS-levels.
I repeat a question that I asked earlier today: what exactly is the basis for the dismissal of Sir William Stubbs? I return to Mr. Tomlinson's reported remarks. He said today:
"I think it is remarkable—and remarkably worrying—that we could have an examination system where AS and A2 standards, which are part of this new qualification, have not been adequately defined, not only for examiners but also for teachers and pupils".
He went on to say:
"I do think it is amazing, yes".
He added:
"I still don't know what the standard of AS and A2 is in terms of what QCA think it ought to be".
Is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State was completely unaware until last month that no one knew what the standard of AS-levels and A2-levels were in terms of what the QCA thought they should be? Were the Secretary of State, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools and the Minister for Schools all unaware of that? Where have they been for the past two years?
The Prime Minister is quoted in today's press as having said:
"What's important is that we look forward and now start to rebuild confidence in the A-level system".
That is after more than five and a half years in office.
If the QCA was alleged to have created the perception of pressure on examination boards, why was only one board affected? The 2,000 students involved will welcome the news that their results have been upgraded—of course they will. But what about the uncertainty caused for the other 88,000 students,
774
many of whom possibly delayed applying to have their papers re-marked because of this exercise? Even though the date for requesting the, re-marking of papers has been extended to the end of this month, much valuable time has been lost.
Confidence will need to be restored. As part of that, will the Government make the QCA entirely independent? That includes an end to departmental secondments to the QCA—a point made earlier today from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
This has been a dreadful time for teachers, students and parents. The situation was made much worse by the dismissal of Sir William Stubbs even before the re-grading was complete.
Finally, what comfort is there for this year's students—for those starting AS-levels this term, but more particularly for those studying for the A2-level, who are already more than halfway through their course? We know that the Secretary of State was unaware of the standards expected—otherwise, she would have acted much sooner. We know that the former Chief Inspector of Schools, by his own admission, was unaware of the standards expected. How on earth could teachers and students know what standards were expected?
Apologies, however sincere—I have no doubt as to the Secretary of State's sincerity in this matter—are not enough. The Secretary of State and the Government should accept responsibility for this débaĉle. It has blighted the careers of many students and has created a serious loss of confidence in the sixth form education system.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am glad to know that, after all the fuss, the numbers affected by the re-grading are relatively small, and in particular that only 168 students now settled in universities of their second choice may be involved in changes. I am glad that the number involved for any one university is eight—a manageable number. Having worked in a university, I know that it is possible to squeeze in "extras" at those sorts of numbers. It is good to know that, after all the uncertainties of the summer, not that many students are affected.
However, we should not forget the uncertainties that have arisen. I suspect that for many of the students involved it has been a "summer from hell". Ten-thousand papers were re-graded, but there were probably 100,000 students who were wondering and worrying about whether their results were to be re-graded and what that might mean. We now know that, of the 10,000 students whose papers have been re-graded, 2,000 have been upgraded. Nevertheless, for them it has been a summer of great uncertainty. I am glad that the Secretary of State has apologised on behalf of the education service for the problems caused.
In the longer term, it is clear that this fiasco has undermined the confidence that people have had in A-level. In particular, it has raised doubts about

775
Curriculum 2000 and the new AS-levels and A-levels. It will take many years to restore that confidence. It is clear that the Secretary of State recognises that, and has to some extent set in train mechanisms by which confidence can be restored.
I am glad, too, that there is no question at present of abandoning Curriculum 2000. Schools have had enough change. Too many new initiatives have been poured upon them. The last thing they want now is for us to abandon the system of AS and A2-levels. It is, therefore, right and proper that we should carry on with this system but make sure that such a fiasco never occurs again.
The Tomlinson report begins to give us some idea of why the fiasco occurred. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I find it extraordinary that the QCA did not, as the Secretary of State said, issue guidance on the level of attainment expected for a particular grading in terms of individual papers; nor did it provide a clear and consistent view of the standard required to make sure that the overall GCSE/A-level standard was maintained. Why do we have a QCA if it is not to do that job? Whether the blame lies with the QCA or with Ministers, I do not know. At the end of the day, in our system it is Ministers who take the rap. It is extraordinary that there was no previous recognition of that.
Above all, it is extraordinary that A2 was not piloted. We know that the QCA had been warned that it should be. I believe that that is one of the reasons why the fiasco occurred. Perhaps that is a lesson to be learnt for other occasions; namely, where such new initiatives are proposed, it is essential that they are carefully piloted.
A further aspect is the question of the examination boards "perceiving" there to be pressure upon them not to increase the proportion of those receiving A grades at A-level. Given that this was a cohort who had achieved very well at GCSE, partly perhaps because of some of the reforms that were coming through the system—we know that they were the guinea pigs—and, in addition, having taken AS-levels in a wider range of subjects and then dropped those that they were least good at, we all knew that they would do better. Yet no one seems to have taken that into account. That is extraordinary. Why was the board so paranoid about this? Why did it make what seems in retrospect to have been rather ham-fisted adjustments to the grading boundaries in order to cope with the situation?
A point was raised by Mr Phil Willis, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on education in the other place, about the ministry's issuing of press releases over the summer. He questioned Ministers running a press campaign in late July and early August stressing the importance of A-levels and the fact that the gold standard was not being eroded because they were so worried about what the tabloid press was saying. Did that merely feed the board's perceptions and add to its own trouble? It probably did, and Ministers need to think very hard about how they play their PR on such matters.
776
I have two further questions for the Minister. So far, grade boundaries have been adjusted, but many of the original complaints came from students whose coursework had been given a "U" grade even though in other modules they had all gained very high grades. The coursework had been marked by teachers, who did not expect the students to gain a "U" grade. In these cases, will there be remarking of scripts as distinct from regrading or will normal complaint procedures be followed?
If we are to restore confidence in the examination system, the QCA must be seen to be totally independent of Ministers. Whether we like it or not, cronyism has influenced job appointments. That must stop, and people must be seen to be appointed as independent experts rather than because they happen to know the right people in the right places. Only if we get away from that will confidence in the system be restored.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her support for Mike Tomlinson, which is important. Responsibility for standards must rest with the QCA. I will try to deal with the specific points that the noble Baroness raised, starting with the weighting between the AS- and A2-level. The full weighting of the new A-level is the same as that of the historical one. The AS-level has been set to recognise that students are in the first year of their two-year course and to give weighting appropriately. That has meant effectively that the AS-level is slightly easier and the A2 level is slightly harder, which reflects the fact that students will have completed a two-year course. On Curriculum 2000 overall, as I repeated in my right honourable friend's statement, Mike Tomlinson is very clear that the principles were wholeheartedly endorsed. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for adding her weight to the endorsement of the principles behind the breadth of the curriculum.
Turning to the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about Sir William Stubbs, I recognise his record. As my right honourable friend said, the way in which the QCA was perceived and the confidence in the system required a change of leadership in the organisation. We expect shortly to announce an interim chair for the QCA.
I am afraid that I will have to leave for Mike Tomlinson's further discussion the question of why only one board was affected. The issue is one of perception rather than reality, but it is very important that we look carefully at it. We accept that we must examine carefully the role of the QCA. We have every confidence in the new chief executive, Ken Boston. As I said, he is putting forward his task force and looking very carefully at what needs to happen.
We have never claimed, and never would do, that there has been no contact between the QCA and the department. As I said earlier, there is a policy in the department of promoting secondments in and out of a wide range of organisations. Secondments are an

777
important process in creating a level of understanding and recognition. I have never known secondees to have behaved other than with propriety in this regard.
We will want to look carefully at the matter, but I accept the points raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Blatch. Mike Tomlinson will be considering further the question of more QCA independence. We do not want to make any instant decisions at present; the matter is open for discussion. The key principle is that the exam system must match public expectations of integrity, fairness, objectivity and consistency, as noble Lords would expect.
I am grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I agree that the uncertainty for students over the summer has been very difficult. Although we are, in a sense, relieved—I use that word advisedly—that the 168 students affected is a smaller number than some speculated, I add immediately that one student put in this position is one student too many.
As a Government and as a group of Ministers, we asked Mike Tomlinson to look very carefully at whether there had been any interference by Ministers or officials. A resounding answer that there was none came back to Ministers and to your Lordships' House now in this Statement. I ask noble Lords to accept the word of the former Chief Inspector on the matter and I assure them that we asked that question to ensure that nothing had been done to put any pressure on the QCA. We recognise that there are lessons to be learnt and that the piloting of A2 might have been done better. As my right honourable friend said, we will learn the lessons from that.
Some of those who received a "U" in their coursework were part of the regrading process. A separate exercise related to remarking is going on. It is worth repeating that when the inquiry was called the number of requests for remarking was consistent with those of previous years. To return to the final point of the noble Baroness, the independence of the QCA will be discussed as part of Mike Tomlinson's further work.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, as chief executive of Universities UK, I welcome the generous spirit and the content of the Minister's Statement. We should remind ourselves that, given the attacks on the Secretary of State, the Tomlinson report was clear. This House needs to remind itself of how important it was to the integrity of the exam system that there was no political interference in the process. I echo the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in expressing my hope that there will not now be a knee-jerk reaction to abandon AS- and A-level combinations. Many teachers and schools have put huge effort into making the combination work, and it would be inappropriate for us to say that the system should be abandoned now. The system has broadened the curriculum in a way that schools and universities welcome.
I made a point about the Minister's generosity because there are lessons to learn. The Minister and the Secretary of State have made it abundantly clear
778
that those lessons will be learnt, and we should accept that. Universities UK and universities generally are enormously pleased that this period of uncertainty has ended. We are working with students and their families to resolve the many questions that will obviously arrive. I am delighted that the problem is much smaller than originally we had been led to believe it might be. We are pleased that the Secretary of State has provided assurances that neither student nor university will lose out financially as a result of any students changing institution. That was an enormously helpful and positive thing to say. Finally, I hope that we will all now work to restore to the confidence of schools and students the integrity of the examining board and the QCA. We should all be working to that end now.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and I have already paid tribute to the work done by Universities UK in this process. I am also grateful for her support for the continuation of the AS-level and the A-level. Last evening, I heard a head teacher say that in his view the group which had just left the school was perhaps the broadest and best educated he had seen.
I recognise that the period of uncertainty for students has been extremely difficult and we are all relieved that it is over. We need to work hard to ensure that any loss of confidence in the system is restored. Furthermore, I repeat that we have available special funds to ensure that no student or university is financially disadvantaged by the process.
8.p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, given the number of Ministers in the department, both in the previous Parliament and in this; given the fact that there were no ministerial resignations after the fiasco of the individual learning accounts; and given that no resignations are occurring in the present context, some might say that the cat's nine lives are beginning to run out. However, I acknowledge that I said today that resignation is a subjective matter.
Perhaps I may ask a practical question. The Statement refers to the 168 students who might be able to apply to a university on the basis of the results that they have been given. I followed that advice. However, in terms of students entering a university which they have not previously been able to enter, the Statement refers to a small number of students among the 689 who are already at their first-choice university and to a small number who are not on their first-choice course. As no advice is given on that matter, is it possible under the system for those students to ask whether they can be put on their first-choice course?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the most recent figure I have indicates that 73 students are currently at the university of their first choice but not on the course of their first choice. They will be getting in touch with their tutors and with the university admissions body to see whether a transfer would be possible. They will be making a decision in the same light as the 168 students; that is, considering whether

779
the university can accommodate them this year, whether they should take a gap year or whether to apply next year. That is the number in total.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, perhaps I may assist my noble friend. I believe that the same criteria will apply. If there is a place available I am sure that that will be accommodated. However, it may be enormously difficult because of over-recruitment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am not sure that it is in order for a Back Bencher to answer another Back Bencher, even when the chief executive of Universities UK happens to sit on the government Benches. I am not sure that that is correct, but if I am wrong I shall stand corrected.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I apologise.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I ask a question as someone who lives in another part of the United Kingdom and has not had direct involvement in A-levels. Listening to the whole debate and following what has happened, I can understand why the universities are relieved that the changes do not affect them a great deal. I can also understand why students are fairly satisfied that not too many of them will have to change their plans. However, in view of the massive operation of marking A-level papers and grading them, and the way in which that is done, and in view of the fact that adjustments had to be made to the marking when the results were published, how do we know that the re-grading is right? Have all the marks of the thousands of students been looked at or only those up for remarking?
What about the people who did better than the staff expected and therefore did not ask for re-grading? Could many of them have had better marks but did not? How do we know that the re-grading is correct? The process makes me anxious.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the issue for the re-grading is to look at the way in which the A/B and E/U boundaries are determined. We begin working out the grading around those two boundaries and, in a sense, the other grades are then slotted in. The question raised was whether, after all the papers had been examined, the recommendations the examiners put forward for the boundaries were not what was expected.
After all the exams had been marked and all the students examined, the process looked at what happened to the boundaries to fit in the various grades. Mike Tomlinson's team went back and looked at that issue in order to ascertain whether it was done in a way that deflated the grades. The process was therefore looked at across the board; it was not restricted only to those students who had asked for remarking because that is a separate process. The process looked at specific areas of concern in relation to specific subjects.
780
Mike Tomlinson could give the noble Baroness a better technical answer and I am sure that he would be delighted to do so if she would like that. However, I am confident in saying to the noble Baroness that the boundaries have been examined, that the re-grading has been effectively done and that students can be absolutely assured that the marks they now have are accurate.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am surprised to find that this year's group of A-level students have not sprouted whiskers and tails because I know of no group of students who have been treated so much like guinea pigs. These students have been experimented on from the beginning of their school life. In view of that, it is surprising that they have achieved so much. We appear to have a very able group of students.
I am also surprised that their achievements were not predicted, given the explanation outlined by my noble friend Lady Sharp about the number of people who dropped out after the AS-level. Often the best predictor at A-level is the achievement of the same group two years previously at GCSE-level, when these students achieved a pass rate of 94.4 per cent. And guess what—at A-level they achieved 94.3 per cent. That is about 4.5 per cent higher than the previous two years. There was therefore two years' notice of the problem and clearly there was no need to worry about a perception of grade inflation. The group was achieving and from the beginning it was expected to achieve.
How will the Minister ensure that no future cohort of able children will be suffering from the same concerns about grade inflation and the same perceived pressure to change the grades around? Furthermore, can she reassure the House that no group of children will go through their school career as guinea pigs, as has been the case with this group?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear me say that I would not describe this group of students as guinea pigs but rather as recipients of a new strategy. It is interesting that despite the fact that noble Lords and the press have described the group as guinea pigs, they have been great achievers. One might therefore say that they have achieved so much not despite the new strategy but because of it. I am sure that we can debate that matter another time and no doubt at length.
I recognise the noble Baroness's understanding that one of the outcomes of the AS-level should be that students would be either awakened to work harder for the A2 or to make decisions about which subjects to continue with. That is one of the issues that Mike Tomlinson and the QCA need to examine very carefully. A perceived problem is also a perceived success and we must ensure that we address these issues firmly and properly. We have great faith that Ken Boston will be able to look at the issue constructively. He had been in post only a week or two at the beginning of the problem and he is now dealing with it most effectively.

781
We must look at the matter carefully to ensure that we recognise the achievements and that Curriculum 2000 delivers for us and our students some good results.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, following a matter raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, if the whole exercise has been totally even-handed and not just a patch-up, there will have been a number of "downs" in the re-gradings as well as all the "ups". How many "downs" were there?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not have the information about the downs and the ups. The issue was, as I said, whether students who should have received higher grades received deflated grades. The question of regrading has therefore focused on what happened at the boundaries between A and B and between E and U. We have made it clear that no student will suffer as a consequence of the regrading in relation to the results that he or she has already received. If I subsequently find more information which is relevant to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, I shall indeed write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, if there was only a perception that there had been pressure from the QCA, and if the outcome of the exercise reveals that there had been no large-scale downgrading of examination results, would the Minister, with hindsight, think that it was right that Sir William Stubbs was dismissed so quickly? Why were the Secretary of State and the former chief inspector not aware that the standards expected for AS and A2 levels had not yet been determined?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I turn first to the noble Baroness's second point. The issue of paramount importance raised by Mike Tomlinson is the guidance issued by the QCA on how the standards should be applied. Although that issue by itself might seem minor, it is absolutely critical in ensuring that the grades are applied effectively. We and the QCA will have very carefully to examine its future in relation to that point.
On Sir William Stubbs, as I have said in your Lordships' House several times, my right honourable friend believed that there had been a loss of confidence in the leadership of the QCA and, after much deliberation, determined that the best way forward would be to have a new chairman to lead the organisation. On that basis, she dismissed him.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I point out that the question that both my noble friend Lady Seccombe and I asked was why the former chief inspector and the Secretary of State were not aware of the standards expected by the QCA?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness needs to understand that, in all the dialogue
782
with the QCA, there was a great amount of information and understanding about what was happening. We are saying that it is the QCA's responsibility to issue the guidance on standards. As I said, when Mike Tomlinson has completed his work, I shall undoubtedly have more to explain to the House and be able to examine these issues in detail. I am giving the noble Baroness the benefit of all the information that I currently have. The issue for the QCA is the guidance that accompanied the standards. As Mike Tomlinson and Ken Boston continue their work, we shall be able to provide noble Lords with more information. I shall do so with pleasure.

Enterprise Bill
8.15 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
"TRIBUNAL: REGULATIONS

(1) The Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State may together make regulations—

(a) empowering the courts to transfer to the Tribunal for determination by it any issue arising in any civil proceedings the determination of which depends on whether provisions of Chapter I or II of the 1998 Act or Article 81 or 82 of the Treaty have been infringed where, in the opinion of the court making the transfer, the transfer would be conducive to the efficient conduct of the proceedings;

(b) making any rules that the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State may deem to be appropriate as ancillary to the power to make such transfers or to be reasonably required in connection therewith and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, to the effect that—

(i) on making such a transfer, the court making the transfer may state facts that the Tribunal shall then treat as established for the purposes of determining the issues transferred to it;

(ii) after having made its determination, the Tribunal shall remit the matter to the court that made the transfer to it, declaring the determination of that issue by the Tribunal, which, subject to any clarification or amplification by the Tribunal of its determination that may be requested by the court that made the transfer, shall be then treated as a determination of that issue by that court;

(iii) enabling courts that have made, or have in contemplation the making of, such transfers and the Tribunal to co-operate together in any way that they deem to be appropriate to enable issues arising in the proceedings before them to be determined as efficiently as possible.

(2) The Lord Chancellor may appoint as president and as chairman of the Tribunal judges of any of the courts provided that, before appointing a judge of the Court of Session or sheriff courts under this subsection, the Lord Chancellor shall first consult the Lord President of the Court of Session.

783

(3) In this section references to "the courts" are to the High Court of Justice and the county courts in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Court of Session and the sheriff courts in Scotland.

(4) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, some of you may recall from our consideration in Committee that what is now Amendment No. 28 sought to grant the civil courts the power to transfer to the Competition Appeal Tribunal competition issues that arise in private law claims based on alleged breaches of European Community and national competition laws.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I believe, agreed to give consideration to the content of this amendment during the summer Recess. He obviously reflected long and hard, because it was not until 9th October that I received the result of his deliberations. I think that I can do no better than to quote from the communication that I received. The letter was in fact signed by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, whom I am delighted to see on the government Benches today. It states:
"We do not see the practical need for such a power. The effect of the Competition Act 1998 regime and, in due course, 'modernisation' on the number of Article 81 and 82-related cases heard in the courts is uncertain. We are confident that, where such cases arise, the courts will be able to deal efficiently with them. It is the role of the courts to build up the specialist body of law in a particular area. It is not necessary to create a specialist body or court on each occasion that something new and complex arises. Judges, particularly those in the High Court, where such cases could expect to be heard, already have to weigh technical evidence, including that relating to economic effects, presented by experts in a variety of cases. Economic evidence related to the consideration of Article 81(3), which has been highlighted as a particularly complex area, could be handled in the same way.
"It is important to bear in mind, too, that, under the regulations being developed as part of the 'modernisation project', the competition authorities of the Member States will be able to submit written observations to the national courts on issues relating to the application of Article 81 and 82. With the permission of the court in question, they will also be able to submit oral observations to the courts. For these reasons, we cannot support an amendment along the lines suggested".
I would like to thank the Minister for giving this matter such careful consideration. However, I have to express considerable surprise at his conclusion. The European Court of Justice itself, sitting in Luxembourg, has decided that competition matters can be satisfactorily dealt with only by a specialist court. That is why the Court of First Instance was established.
The Court of Justice recognises that it is only by the concentrated and sustained development of skills by European judges that the jurisprudence on competition law will properly develop.
I should have thought that that lesson would not have been lost on the Minister with regard to our own judicial system. Indeed, there are many precedents for it in the High Court. The emergence of the commercial court is a classic illustration of how it was necessary to develop a specialist part of the High Court to deal with a particular type of case. Equally, in more recent times, it has been found appropriate to establish an
784
employment appeals tribunal—another specialist branch of the High Court—to deal with employment matters.
Competition cases require an intimate knowledge of complicated national and international economic law. Given the wholly appropriate development of careers on the High Court bench, I see no prospect of any individual judge, in the course of his time at that level, developing anything like the necessary skills to handle complicated competition cases.
I therefore urge the Minister to reflect again on the conclusions that he has reached and set out so starkly in his letter to me; otherwise, the increasing momentum of domestically generated competition cases and the new approach of devolving European competition cases on the national court systems of the European Community will, together, result in a severe gap between the demands of the market for judicial guidance and the capacity of our judges to provide it. I beg to move.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I believe that the amendment he is moving is the same as that which I moved in Committee. We clearly are both in thrall to Sir Jeremy Lever QC who is, of course, the author of the amendment.
I do not want to repeat the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, with all of which I agree. However, the fundamental issue on which he perhaps did not touch is that in producing the amendment we look forward to a Competition Act regime under which significant powers that are currently vested in Brussels are devolved to the United Kingdom. I believe that it is common ground on all sides of the House, first, that that is a likely outcome—namely, that many competition decisions that are currently determined in Brussels will be devolved to the United Kingdom authorities—and, secondly, that that is a desirable outcome. I believe that noble Lords on all sides of the House share that view. The concern that is reflected in the amendment is that when that happens—all the indications are that it will happen soon—and if the Minister is not prepared to move on this issue, in due course either his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be forced to alter the pattern of appointment of judges or he will have to produce primary legislation to deal with this point.
Judges are in danger of being asked to determine issues they are not really equipped to deal with as they do not have expertise in competition law. They will be asked to deal with issues that they are not competent to deal with. The tribunal will be asked to deal with issues with which it is not competent to deal; that is, the whole damages issue. There is no one better than any High Court judge to determine a damages issue but there is no one less equipped than a High Court judge to determine the complex issues of economics, law and fact which are bread and butter to the experts on competition law.
I have no pride of authorship of the amendment, as I have indicated. The amendment was drafted by Sir Jeremy Lever QC. He lobbied the noble Lord, Lord

785
Kingsland, myself and, no doubt, the Minister heavily on the amendment about which he feels strongly. Sir Jeremy predicts that if this amendment or something like it is not enshrined in the legislation, either the Minister in due course will have to introduce further primary legislation or his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will have to alter the pattern of recruitment of High Court judges. For that reason I support the amendment.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I have no doubt at all that in the enforcement of competition law private actions for damages have a useful role to play in the public interest alongside the enforcement role of the Office of Fair Trading and the European Commission. The OFT and the European Commission simply do not have limitless resources and are bound to have to prioritise as regards which cases they take up. I believe that that point is probably generally agreed.
The important question raised by the amendment, as by that proposed in Committee, is what is the best body to determine, when an action for damages is brought, first, whether there has been an infringement of competition law, UK or EU, and, secondly, if there has been such a breach, who should determine and quantify the amount of damages? The question of whether there has been a breach of competition law is generally a mixed issue of law, economics and fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, explained, which the mixed membership of the Competition Appeal Tribunal is most appropriate to determine. However, as regards the question of who is most appropriate to determine damages, that is a typical issue for a High Court judge sitting alone; hence the proposals for the possibility of transfer—I interpret part of the amendment as a provision for retransfer as well—between the High Court judge and the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
At first sight—I believe that my noble friend Lord McIntosh made a similar comment in Committee—it is odd that a body entitled the Competition Appeal Tribunal should have the role of deciding at first instance, without anyone else having decided the matter before, whether there has been a breach of competition law. But the role of the Competition Appeal Tribunal under the Government's own Clause 17 is not an appeal role. Clause 17 as it stands gives the Competition Appeal Tribunal jurisdiction to handle at first instance private claims for damages provided that there has already been a public law determination of a relevant infringement. That is not an appeal; it is intended to be a decision—if Clause 17 comes into effect—of a court of first instance.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment proposed by the party opposite which emanates, as has been said, from Sir Jeremy Lever, a fellow of All Souls, whom I have known for at least 30 years as being pre-eminent in UK and EU competition law and who has obviously given a great deal of thought to this matter. I submit that the proposed subsection (2) of the amendment on appointments is probably not needed as my noble friend Lord McIntosh clarified in
786
Committee that the appointment of High Court judges to the Competition Appeal Tribunal can be made under the present legislation and the Bill as it stands. If there were a vote, I would not enter the Lobby with the opposition parties on this matter. However, I hope that between now and Third Reading the Minister will give the amendment close consideration with a view to positively bringing forward a measure on similar lines.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as we have heard, the amendment would give Ministers a power to make regulations allowing the courts to transfer to the Competition Appeal Tribunal issues arising in civil proceedings that require the determination of whether there has been an infringement of competition law. The tribunal's determination of that competition matter would then be binding on the court.
I listened carefully to the arguments. We certainly do not dispute that once the jurisdiction to handle civil proceedings involving breaches of both Articles 81 and 82 is devolved to national courts and national authorities, this may well become an increasingly important area of work. The fundamental issue in this regard is whether it is realistic and desirable for the courts themselves to build up a specialist body of law in this area. In our view, it is both realistic and desirable and we do not want to see the fragmentation that the amendment would cause. We are confident that where such cases arise, the courts will be able to deal efficiently with them. It is already the case that national courts are empowered to take decisions on Articles 81(1) and 82 and they can apply the equivalent provisions of the Competition Act 1998. It is true that few such cases have been dealt with by the courts hitherto. It is also true that in future Article 81(3) issues will be added to the mix of matters with which the courts will have to deal.
However, judges at all levels and in particular those in the High Court, where we would expect the vast majority of these cases to be heard, are expected to handle—and, if necessary, become expert in—a wide range of areas of law as and when they come their way. They already have to weigh technical evidence, including that relating to economic effects presented by experts in a variety of cases. The Judicial Studies Board is there to ensure appropriate training in new areas of law.
I should add the important point that the EU regulations being developed as part of the EU competition law modernisation project cater for the fact that national courts may need access to expert advice. Regulations will enable the competition authorities of the member states—in our case, primarily the Office of Fair Trading—to submit written observations to the national courts on issues relating to the application of Articles 81 and 82. Further, with the permission of the court in question, they will also be able to submit oral observation to the courts as an expert witness.
The OFT will not act in that expert capacity on every occasion but it is likely to want to offer views where a case is particularly important or is likely to set

787
important precedents. That will represent an important source of advice for the courts when the occasion demands.
The alternative envisaged by the amendment to give the Competition Appeal Tribunal a new role and additional powers would have a number of important disadvantages. It would entail an unnecessary degree of fragmentation in the judicial system. The consideration of civil proceedings would be split between the courts and the CAT. There would be increased uncertainty for parties about the path that their case would take because that would depend on the readiness of individual judges to refer matters to the CAT. We believe that it would also be a significant obstacle to the development of relevant expertise by the High Court for any cases to be transferred to the CAT.
There are other more technical difficulties. It would, for example, be highly unusual for a tribunal to make decisions on an issue arising in a case before the High Court or Court of Sessions judge that is binding on that judge, not least because tribunal decisions are subject to judicial review, with the court exercising the power of judicial review.
I shall add one final but important point. This whole area is obviously a matter of judgment. Although we currently do not believe that it would be appropriate to take the power contemplated in this amendment, if such provision proves necessary when we come to examine the implementation of the proposed EU modernisation regulation, we believe that it will be possible to use the powers under Section 2 of the European Communities Act, combined with those in Clause 204, to secure the goals of the amendment. We believe that we could use those powers to give the CAT the jurisdiction that it would need and the courts the powers needed to enable matters and issues to be transferred to the CAT to determine or for the CAT to assist the courts in appropriate cases.
As I said, we do not want to send the signal that that is the direction in which we expect to have to go by taking a specific power. However, an alternative power exists. I do not wish to rule out the possibility of using it if it proves appropriate to enable us to implement our Community obligations. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full reply in which he sought to contradict all of the points made by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. I was much encouraged by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who rightly referred to Sir Jeremy Lever—who is really the author of this amendment—as the outstanding competition lawyer of his generation.
No one knows the field of competition law and courts like Sir Jeremy. He has no self-interest whatever in promoting one particular pattern of jurisprudence rather than another. His proposal is the result of deep
788
reflection on the current system and fears about how we might be inadequately resourced to face the challenges ahead.
I shall reflect between now and Third Reading on what the noble Lord the Minister said. I am slightly reassured by his reference to the possibility of using a power that the noble Lord believes he already has to cope with what is likely to happen in the European Community in the next two or three years. I should have preferred the noble Lord to have taken that power now in the Bill.
I shall reflect on the Minister's response and I thank him for his full reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Duty to make references in relation to completed mergers]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 12, line 12, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
"(e) the European Commission is considering a request made, in relation to the matter concerned, by the United Kingdom (whether alone or with others) under article 22(3) of the European Merger Regulations, is proceeding with the matter in pursuance of such a request or has dealt with the matter in pursuance of such a request."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments covers issues related to the interaction between domestic and European competition law.
Throughout the process of updating the UK's competition framework, the Government have had to set the updated regime within its wider—European—context. European competition law, where it applies, has primacy over domestic law. That fact means that it is not necessary in the Bill to spell out the detailed interaction between Community and domestic law. Users of the legislation, of course, will need a clear understanding of the interactions. That will be secured by the new requirements introduced by Amendments Nos. 82 and 134 for the OFT and the Competition Commission to provide advice and guidance on the interaction between Community law and the new domestic mergers and market investigations regimes. We believe that that approach has the benefit of simplicity. It will also help to "future proof" the Bill against developments in European competition law. Amendments Nos. 91, 92, and 135 are consequential on the new requirement to provide advice and they define the term "Community law".
In very exceptional circumstances, it is possible that a merger case handled initially in Brussels can fall subsequently to domestic jurisdiction. It is important that the domestic authorities are not time-barred from considering cases that may have been delayed by European Community merger regulation proceedings. The new clause introduced by Amendment No. 82 ensures that the OFT retains the power to refer such cases. That does no more than update the existing provision set out in regulations to bring it into line with the new regime and ensure that the impact is clear from the face of the Bill.
I now want to turn to the amendments involving provisions for the OFT's duty to refer mergers. Those mergers that fall to Europe exclusively will not in fact be in the frame for consideration under the domestic merger regime. Amendments Nos. 29, 35, 36, 38, 47, 73 and 74 therefore correct the current text of the Bill to ensure that the exceptions to the duty to refer—and the associated timetabling provisions—cover only those mergers that would fall to the OFT. The effect is to narrow the exception to only those UK mergers that the OFT decides to refer to the European Commission, on the grounds that the European Commission is better placed to consider their competitive impact under the European Community merger regulation. The previous, wider exception would have prevented references also in those very rare instances where the UK merger regime and provisions of Community competition law can legitimately apply in parallel.
A further, related amendment is Amendment No. 41, which clarifies that the Secretary of State will not give an intervention notice under Clause 41 in a case where Community law prevents a reference from being made.
Moving on from the power to refer cases under the domestic regime, I would like to turn to new Clauses 62 and 63 and consequential Amendments Nos. 85, 86, 87 and 93, which all deal with those mergers that fall to the European Community merger regulation—the ECMR. These new clauses and amendments seek to close an unintended gap in the current Bill. They ensure that the Enterprise Bill provides a vehicle for the UK to act in ECMR cases to protect important non-competition interests—the primary concern being national security. That is specifically foreseen by the European Community merger regulation itself. The European Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the competition aspects of all European Community merger regulation cases, but member states are allowed to take action to protect a strictly limited range of recognised "legitimate interests", including public security.
Our intention is to preserve the current position, which is that, where necessary, the UK can use the domestic merger control regime to take action on matters other than competition, such as defence, in relation to cases that fall to the ECMR. It is important to note, however, that the power to protect legitimate interests will not range any wider than the public interest considerations that may be taken into account under the new UK merger regime.
Amendment No. 62 introduces a new clause which ensures that the Secretary of State can give a European intervention notice in an ECMR case. The Secretary of State will be subject to similar disciplines as those that will operate under the Clause 41 intervention arrangements.
Amendment No. 63 introduces a further new clause which provides a power to establish the scheme for protecting legitimate interests along the lines of the domestic public interest and special public interest regimes.
Finally in this group, I want to touch on Amendments Nos. 168 and 169. Clause 204 gives the Secretary of State a power, exercisable by the affirmative procedure, to make regulations modifying the Competition Act 1998 so as to bring it more closely into line with the reformed arrangements for the enforcement of Articles 81 and 82 of the EC treaty—commonly known as "modernisation". We expect the treaty to be implemented in 2004 and it will devolve much of the work of enforcing Articles 81 and 82 to national competition authorities.
Two amendments that we propose—Amendments Nos. 168 and 169—will, together, make it clear that regulations made for the purposes of modernisation can confer the power to make rules, such as procedural rules governing how the UK competition authorities will handle various aspects of the investigation and decision-making process under Articles 81 and 82. At present, the rules governing the enforcement of the Competition Act by the OFT are made by the director-general and approved by the Secretary of State. The power would remove any doubt as to the ability to allow for the director-general to make such rules in relation to Articles 81 and 82.
The interactions between the two pieces of legislation are fairly complicated. However, I believe that, by setting out these amendments, we provide additional clarity to the position. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, most telegraphically, I want to say to the Minister that the amendment to Clause 21 seems to us to be very sensible. It gives the OFT the power not to make a reference in the event that the UK and other member states are contemplating referring a merger to the EC Commission under the ECMR.
I want to raise only one question in relation to this matter. It is possible that the noble Lord has already answered it but that, inadvertently, I did not hear him. Presumably, once the European Commission ceases to consider such a request—that is, after it has made up its mind—the power would revert to the OFT to make a reference again. I am sorry not to have given the Minister notice of that question. He may want to reflect on it and return at Third Reading.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that I should like to reflect on the matter. Perhaps I may write to him because the point becomes rather technical and I do not want to mislead the House. Therefore, if I may write to the noble Lord, that would be the easiest way to proceed.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, if there is a lack of clarity about this, perhaps I may respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that he should reflect on inserting a new clause after Clause 118 in order to clarify the point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 12, line 36, after "of" insert "a notice or possible notice under section 41(2) or 58(2) or"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Relevant merger situations]:
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 12, line 43, leave out "£45" and insert "£100"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now turn to the subject of relevant merger situations under Clause 22. We also return to the question of the turnover test, which we debated for a short time in Committee. Perhaps I may stress that the purpose of Amendment No. 31 is to ensure that we avoid the imposition of excessive burdens on both business and the OFT by making certain that the whole system is not clogged up by the OFT having to review transactions which are unimportant in competition terms.
The Government do, indeed, propose to remove the assets test in the Fair Trading Act 1973 and replace it with a turnover test. At present, Clause 22(1)(b) refers to,
"the value of the turnover in the United Kingdom of the enterprise being taken over exceeds £45 million".
I have discussed this clause with the CBI and with several of my noble friends and colleagues. Whereas we favour removal of the assets test from the scope of the UK's merger regime, since assets are not the best test of the market strength or otherwise of a company, and as the Government acknowledged back in 1999 when the reforms were first floated, asset structures are changing.
However, we believe that if the assets limb is to be replaced with a turnover test, it is vitally important to achieve the appropriate level. Therefore, I asked the CBI what figure would be arrived at today if it were to take the £70 million gross assets figure, which was last set in 1994 by RPI, and increase it through the mechanism of the price index. The answer was £85 million.
If one applies a ratio of average turnover to gross assets from, say, a sample of 500 companies, by using the same database as the Government, we then arrive at a figure of £100 million. That is the justification for the view that, if £45 million were replaced by £100 million, that would ensure that transactions which were not important in competition terms did not clog up the system.
A key difference between that analysis and the calculations used by the Government is that, as I explained, the figure to which I refer was arrived at by the use of indexation through the application of the RPI. Things have changed a great deal since 1994 so I suggest to the Minister that £100 million is a more realistic and reliable figure to adopt.
Grouped with Amendment No. 31 is Amendment No. 33 which seeks to leave out on page 13 subsections (3) to (8) inclusive and to insert a new subsection (3) to state:
"The condition mentioned in this subsection is that the merger would create or strengthen a share of 25 per cent or more in any relevant market in the United Kingdom or a substantial part of the United Kingdom".
792
Of course, the concept of "relevant market" underpins modern competition law. It is used elsewhere in the Enterprise Bill and, so far as I can gather, the test is applied in all other jurisdictions.
The share of supply test, which dates from the old Fair Trading Act 1973, is an anachronism, never even adopted in other jurisdictions. While share of supply and market share may sometimes be the same, they are often different. If the substantial lessening of competition—SLC—test is adopted, a share of supply threshold will require the OFT to analyse the relevant market on a multi-basis in any event. A separate test would be required and that is a confusing and unnecessary aspect of the Bill. The share of supply test is a classic example of the old formalistic approach, long-since abandoned in favour of a more substantive approach to such issues.
Also in this group are Amendment No. 37, on which I look forward to hearing the Minister, and Amendments Nos. 83 and 84. No doubt the Minister will explain the reasoning behind Amendment No. 83, which would give Ministers the power to alter the share of supply test. I still contend that if the noble Lord were to accept Amendments Nos. 31 and 33, a great deal of confusion would be removed. There would be clarity and a lot of situations not necessary to investigate and which would clog up the system could be avoided. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I will deal first with the amendment that would raise the turnover threshold to £100 million. We fulfilled the commitment that I gave in Committee to look again at the evidence underpinning our preferred £45 million figure. We shared that second set of analyses with the CBI, which in turn undertook some alternative analysis. We are grateful to the CBI for its contribution to this debate. The letter that I sent earlier this month summarised the data and why we think they showed that the lower threshold is still the right one.
We now have figures based on two independent sets of data. Our original analysis, based on the One Source Database, showed that the number of UK companies with total assets of £70 million or more was 7,473. The number of companies with a turnover of £45 million or more was only 7,057. That would, a priori, seem to suggest that using the turnover test brings slightly fewer companies into the net.
The second analysis carried out by officials over the summer using the Fame database, which holds data relating to company returns made in 2000 and 2001, identified 9,966 UK companies with total assets of £70 million or more but only 7,806 companies with a turnover of £45 million or more. If anything, those findings show that we have pitched the turnover threshold too high rather than too low.
I am not certain that I understand the basis of the noble Lord's alternative figures. I believe that he took the £70 million assets test and indexed that up, but I am

793
not sure how he got from assets of £85 million to a turnover figure. One cannot index the asset figure, then add on a bit more to make it a turnover figure.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, the figure of £70 million becomes £85 million by indexation. Then applying a ratio of average turnover to gross assets from a sample of more than 500 companies brings one closer to the figure of £100 million.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the problem with that figure—which I believe was the basis of the CBI analysis—is that it is based on measuring the average turnover only of those companies that happen to meet the assets test. Changing the test inevitably means covering a somewhat different range of companies. For example, new technology companies, whose turnover may significantly exceed their asset base, may be covered by the test for the first time—but property companies with the opposite assets-to-turnover ratio may drop out. The calculation is difficult to make, in terms of going from an assets test to turnover. It is by no means clear that ours is a foolproof method but at least it is clear that it simply looks at the number of companies that are caught by the two different tests. The new test, if anything, will catch fewer companies than before.
As I said in Committee, we are dealing essentially with an informed estimate. We remain confident that a figure of £45 million comes closest to our original goal of identifying a turnover threshold that would bring within the scope of the merger regime roughly the same number of companies as are currently covered by the £70 million worldwide assets test. We have built into the new legislation a mechanism for keeping the level of the threshold under review and for adjusting it through secondary legislation in the light of experience. If that shows that we are bringing too many harmless mergers within the scope of the mergers regime, we can adjust the figure.
As to Amendments Nos. 32 and 33, the share of supply test is being retained from the Fair Trading Act 1973 and will apply to mergers that create or enhance a 25 per cent share of supply in the UK or a part of the UK. It ensures that competition authorities can scrutinise those mergers that do not necessarily involve the biggest companies but can nonetheless narrow the market—for example, in a region. That definition covers the two broad types of sector—goods and services. If the share of supply test did not cover services, only the turnover test would be applicable to those companies. We consider that that may leave an unacceptably large hole in the merger regime. For example, broadcasting businesses such as regional radio stations may not meet the turnover threshold. Further, it is not always clear cut whether a business provides goods or a service. The current drafting allows the OFT the discretion to allow for that reality.
When we debated a proposal identical to Amendment No. 33 in Committee, I set out why the share of supply test is the better one to use as a jurisdictional threshold. It has several advantages.
794
First, it is a straightforward test. Compared with the more complex market share test, it is easy to apply. Secondly, we are wary of introducing the more substantive market share test at this point because of the potential burden that would entail for businesses. They are less likely to know whether their merger would qualify on market share grounds and may feel pressed to employ economic advisers at an early stage in an investigation. There would be additional burdens for the OFT, whose workload would increase for similar reasons.
The share of supply test is a commonsense threshold that complements the turnover threshold. Together, they provide a sound jurisdictional structure for the competition authorities, which has worked well over the years.
Government Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 88 relate to the share of supply test. Amendment No. 83 would give the Secretary of State the power to alter the share of supply test by affirmative resolution. As I explained earlier, the share of supply test has served us well over time. Business is used to it and the test has been effective in capturing cases where enterprises will have a substantial share of supply following a merger.
The amendment is designed to ensure that we can keep the threshold accurately targeted on the mergers that we wish to scrutinise, by being responsive to changes in the economic environment. It complements the power to make changes to the other jurisdictional test—the turnover test—in light of experience. The power obliges the Secretary of State, in consultation with the OFT and the Competition Commission, to consider in particular the desirability of ensuring that any amended or new condition continues to operate by reference to the degree of commercial strength that results from the merger.
Amendments Nos. 84 and 88 are consequential on the introduction of the new power. Amendment No. 37 is a minor amendment to the turnover test clause. The amendment is in the same spirit of ensuring that these thresholds are relevant and practical. It allows us to ensure that the competition authorities have a degree of discretion in making the calculation, within the boundaries of the provisions mentioned in draft legislation. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, the Minister and I obviously beg to differ, particularly over Amendment No. 33, where I believe that the share of supply test is an anachronism. That is probably a polite way of describing it. It is a classic example of the old formalistic approach, which has never been adopted in any other jurisdiction. However, I shall consider carefully the Minister's comments, in particular regarding Amendment No. 31.I shall reflect on some of the figures he put forward and consult those who put forward the alternative figures. I believe that we are moving ahead with the same objective; the important thing is to get there. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Extension of time-limits]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 14, line 27, after "to" insert "take reasonable steps to"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 34 also deals with relevant merger situations. In the relevant subsections in Clause 23 we come across time limits and prior notice. However, Clause 24 carries the weasel words "extension of time-limits". That is an issue about which people have written to me expressing their concern.
Under subsection (2) the OFT has the right to extend the time limit if the person has,
"failed to provide, within the period stated in a notice under section 30 and in the manner authorised or required, information requested of him in that notice".
It has been suggested to me that that wording is particularly inflexible and prescriptive and could be used in future by asking for information to be provided in a manner with which it was not possible to comply as precisely as is laid down. That issue has given rise to a number of concerns and letters addressed to me. The Minister will say that that will never happen, that the OFT will be perfectly reasonable, that it will use a format which is fair, under which such information could always be supplied.
My amendment seeks to insert the words "take reasonable steps", so that if a firm involved takes reasonable steps to provide reasonable information, even if it cannot be done in precisely the format or manner authorised or required, it will have complied with the provision and therefore there will not be an extension to the time limit. It must be in all our interests that these relevant merger situations are resolved as quickly as possible. Without that, the period of uncertainty for the firms, their suppliers, creditors and employees, would be unduly elongated. I believe that the words "take reasonable steps" would meet the concerns that have been expressed. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, Amendment No. 34 relates to the power of the OFT to extend the deadlines for its investigation pre-reference where requested information has not been supplied. The amendment proposes that no extension should be possible where the relevant person has taken reasonable steps to provide the information.
However, in this case it is important to draw a distinction between the power to extend the timetable for reference and any punitive action, such as is available to the Competition Commission in the form of monetary penalties. The powers to extend timetables have been introduced to ensure that the regime works effectively. Where the OFT does not have adequate information to conclude that a merger will not result in a substantial lessening of competition, it will be faced with no option but to refer the merger unless it has this power to extend the timetable for reference.
796
In this case there is a community of interest between the OFT, which requires the information, and is therefore looking for an extension, and the provider of the information, who would like the decision to be made by the OFT on a proper basis of information. If it is not, there is always the danger that the OFT will say, "We are coming up against a deadline and in those circumstances we shall have to refer". I am totally behind the idea that we must ensure that that is not used as an excuse for delay. However, if the power to extend the deadline is removed, we could fall into a situation where the information is not provided and the OFT would have to refer. That would not be desirable from anyone's point of view.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, in particular for his assurance that the information required would not be asked for in a form which is so prescriptive that firms would find it hard to comply. With that assurance I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
Page 15, line 7, leave out "or is" and insert "(but is not yet"
Page 15, line 15, leave out from "Kingdom" to end of line 16.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 27 [Turnover test]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 17, line 24, at end insert—
"(3A) An order under subsection (2) may, in particular, make provision enabling the decision-making authority to determine matters of a description specified in the order (including any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (3))."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Duty to make references in relation to anticipated mergers]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 21, line 5, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
"(e) the European Commission is considering a request made, in relation to the matter concerned, by the United Kingdom (whether alone or with others) under article 22(3) of the European Merger Regulations, is proceeding with the matter in pursuance of such a request or has dealt with the matter in pursuance of such a request."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Questions to be decided in relation to completed mergers]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 21, line 31, at end insert "for which the annual output exceeds £500 million"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 concern questions to be decided in relation to completed mergers and parallel a discussion held in

797
Committee. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for having moved the amendments then. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present on that day. I have read carefully the debate and agree with my noble friend's comments on clogging the system.
However, I am anxious that we should reconsider an issue which I raised at Second Reading, which is of a different order. I raised then the desirability of having based in Britain as many world class companies as possible. At Second Reading the Minister chided me about that. He seemed to think that "world class" and "national champion" are the same phrase. It may be in his mind, but it is not in mine. The "national champion" concept implies a laying on of hands by the Government on a particular firm. It is a proactive selection of a company. I agree with the Minister that it is bound to fail; it has failed and will continue to do so.
"World class" means creating a supportive environment in which business can prosper so that businesses grow of their own volition to be world competitors. It is an enabling, permissive approach focused on 'the overall environment, not on single firms.
It is a commonplace that the United Kingdom is a tiny market by world standards. If UK firms are to compete in the new technologies within the European Union, let alone in the wider world, they need to achieve scale. The tests are the £45 million turnover test that we discussed under Clause 22(1)(b) and the 25 per cent of a market test under Clause 22(3) which, if exceeded, leads to a "relevant merger situation".
In an infant industry such as biotechnology, a sector of the UK market might have an assumed value of no more than £250 million—tiny by world standards, but fairly large in a UK context. The Minister may correct me, but as I understand it a UK company in this sector with a turnover of over £65 million; that is, more than a quarter of the market, could not make any acquisition without creating a "relevant merger situation". That is unnecessarily prescriptive.
An overseas firm could make such an acquisition. In this case the Bill actively disadvantages UK companies in achieving the scale that would enable them to compete on the world stage. My amendment—I do not suggest that it is perfectly drawn—seeks to exclude from consideration UK markets worth less than £500 million; that is, half a billion pounds. That would allow single firms to dominate markets, but only those that are so small as to be insignificant in the overall economy; certainly in the world economy. It would create an environment in which UK-based high-tech companies could compete more effectively on the world stage.
When the Minister replied in Committee he drew attention to Clause 21(2), where the OFT has,
"a discretion not to refer a merger where the market or markets concerned are not of sufficient importance to justify making a reference".—[Official Report, 18/7/02; col. 1453.]
I accept that as a way out, but the issue is whether such a fundamental choice, which might radically affect the UK's world competitive position in a particular
798
industry, should be left with the OFT. I think not. Flexibility has its attractions but there is a danger that the OFT will come down on the side of caution and not use its wider discretionary powers under Clause 21(2). I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in the previous debate I tried to point out that world class today is not created by reducing competition. All the evidence shows that where world class companies have been created—this is true of America as much as Japan—it is because there is intense national competition. Companies grow and become world competitors on that basis.
Any world class biotech company of such a size will be considering operating on a world scale and will probably already have offices in America and parts of Europe. World class companies are those that have already broken out of looking only at the UK market.
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 would prevent the Competition Commission from taking any remedial action against mergers which are expected to result in a substantial lessening of competition, but where the market concerned has an annual output of less than £500 million.
We think that this is the wrong approach. A merger that results in a substantial lessening of competition will have a serious impact on consumers and other businesses flowing from the fact that the merged business is now in a position to exercise market power. It does not matter whether the market is small or large—the impact on the consumers affected will be the same.
We are cautious about de minimis thresholds because markets are dynamic and not static. They are all at different stages of economic development. As I said in Committee when similar issues were raised, the current size of a market might not be a reliable indicator of its economic importance. Some markets, for example, might be large but declining and about to be superseded by new technology. Conversely, a small market in an emerging technology may have considerably greater longer-term significance, such that remedial action might very well be justified. This is an area where we think it would be unwise to make hard and fast rules for the competition authorities.
I should stress, however, that the new mergers regime does allow for, and in places makes extra provisions allowing the size or importance of markets to be taken into account. First, we have the basic jurisdictional tests—in other words, the turnover threshold and the share of supply test. These provide a rough and ready assessment of size and importance. We have, of course, taken powers in the Bill to adjust these basic jurisdictional thresholds in the light of experience.
As the noble Lord also said, once through the jurisdictional gateway, there is an express discretion in Clause 21(2)(a) for the OFT to decide not to refer a merger if it believes that the market concerned is not of sufficient importance to justify one. This discretion will ensure that trivial mergers are not given any

799
further attention. Once a merger is referred, there is no further specific reference to the size or importance of the merger in the tasks that the Competition Commission has to perform. However, the commission is required only to take the remedial action that it considers "reasonable and practicable". In certain rare cases, therefore, the commission would have scope to apply no or lesser remedies if it felt that remedies would be unreasonable because, for example, the costs would be disproportionate to the size of the markets concerned. That should ensure that the duties are exercised sensibly and only in an appropriate case.
I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that it is unnecessary to make further express provision for factoring in the size and importance of markets and that this is a matter where it is sensible to leave the commission and the OFT with a limited, but none the less real discretion to make their judgments. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He has prayed in aid the example of the United States and the extreme competition there as producing benefits for the consumer. He is absolutely right. But in an economy that is 10 times the size of ours, the eleventh largest US firm will, ipso facto, probably be larger than the largest UK firm. Therefore, they have advantages of scale—to a lesser extent, the same applies in the Japanese markets—which will enable them to outgun, in terms of research and development and their power base, UK firms.
My amendment seeks to make sure that UK firms are not disadvantaged if they want to agglomerate to try to reach that level of scale in order to compete more evenly.
I do not suspect that I shall convince the Minister of my point of view today. We shall have to rely on the discretion of the OFT under Clause 21(2). I therefore seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 41 [Intervention by Secretary of State in certain public interest cases]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 41 to 46:
Page 27, line 42, at end insert "or
(ii) Community law or anything done under or in accordance with it"
Page 28, line 21, at end insert—
"(aza) in relation to the making of a report by the OFT under section 43, the time of the making of the report;"
Page 28, line 42, after "State;" insert—
"(ga) the powers to extend time-limits under section 24 as applied by subsection (5) above, and the power to request information under section 30(1) as so applied, were not exercisable by the OFT or the Secretary of State before the giving of an intervention notice but the
800
existing time-limits in relation to possible references under section 21 or 32 were applicable for the purposes of the giving of that notice;
(gb) the existing time-limits in relation to possible references under section 21 or 32 (except for extensions under section 24(4)) remained applicable on and after the giving of an intervention notice as if any extensions were made under section 24 as applied by subsection (5) above but subject to further alteration by the OFT or the Secretary of State under section 24 as so applied;
(gc) in subsection (1) of section 30 for the words "section 21" there were substituted "section 44(2) or (3)" and, in the application of that subsection to the OFT, for the word "deciding" there were substituted "enabling the Secretary of State to decide";
(gd) in the case of the giving of intervention notices, the references in sections 22 to 31 and 33 to the making of a reference or a reference were, so far as necessary, references to the giving of an intervention notice or an intervention notice;"
Page 29, line 16, at end insert—
"(1A) Where the Secretary of State believes that it is or may be the case that two or more public interest considerations are relevant to a consideration of the relevant merger situation concerned, he may decide not to mention in the intervention notice such of those considerations as he considers appropriate."
Page 29, line 24, after "undertaking" insert "or group of undertakings"
Page 30, line 4, after "undertaking" insert "or group of undertakings"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 45 [References under section 44: supplementary]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 32, line 32, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(e) the European Commission is considering a request made, in relation to the matter concerned, by the United Kingdom (whether alone or with others) under article 22(3) of the European Merger Regulations, is proceeding with the matter in pursuance of such a request or has dealt with the matter in pursuance of such a request."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Decision of Secretary of State in public interest cases]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 40, line 6, leave out "or" and insert "and"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 [Specified considerations]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 42, line 42, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I return to an issue which we have covered before. That is, the specified considerations about national interest. In part the amendment relates to Clause 57 and the powers of the Secretary of State to modify the section by order. The Minister has already spoken to an amendment which inserts additional words in Clause 57(3). My concern is the way in which the wording overlaps and duplicates Clause 41(3), and appears to achieve the same outcome.
Secondly, my amendment seeks to remove the open-ended nature of Clause 57, subsections (3) and (4). Therefore, the subsections are duplicative and open-ended. The concept of national security is easily understood. I support it. But this catch-all seems to be a very blunt instrument. I find catch-alls dangerous.
The Minister earlier was after me about the importance of the market and how my suggestion, when speaking to amendments with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was soft on the importance of the market. I assure the noble Lord that I am not soft on the importance of the market. Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 57 seem to me to say that the market is very important, but that if we do not like the way that the market is working we have subsections (3) and (4) and we can offset the market by using our powers under those subsections. What the Minister said in Committee did not give me huge confidence that the provisions might not be used in that way. If we are going to be marketeers let us be marketeers. We should not have clauses where there is an open-ended issue. National security is fine, but we should stick to national security and not have the ability to bring in all kinds of other criteria as per that clause. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hasten to say that there is no weakening at all of our belief in competition, but there is a question of whether we can at present foresee all circumstances in which a Secretary of State may have legitimate grounds to intervene. The provision deals with that uncertainty about issues that we cannot today foresee. The amendment would remove the mechanism to amend the list of public interest considerations. We believe that that power is a necessary safeguard to ensure that the Bill can be adjusted in future.
As we have previously said, only national security will be defined as a consideration by the Bill, but we cannot predict all future circumstances. During consideration of the Bill in Committee, I tried to give a flavour of how the power could be used in future, with respect to new technology that we may need to control. I can do no more than that. National security is clearly provided for in the Bill and the forthcoming Communications Bill will make provision for plurality in newspaper mergers. We cannot foresee further specific considerations. However, we believe that it is sensible to provide for a transparent mechanism to deal with unforeseen circumstances.
Our clear intention is to deliver a system in which the vast majority of cases are decided by the independent competition authorities against a competition-based test. We have, however, recognised that the interests of national security need to be provided for in the regime, and we think it sensible to provide a mechanism for further public interest considerations to be specified in future. I understand the concern that the Government should not be able to abuse that power, but we have ensured safeguards in the Bill. The power to alter the considerations specified will operate transparently and the Secretary of State will publish her reasons for any
802
order. Most importantly, the Secretary of State is prevented from taking a final decision based on a non-finalised public interest consideration.
I hope that I have been able to give sufficient reassurance. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I repeat that there is no weakening in our belief in competition.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, there is one thing that I could not understand from our earlier debate. Will the order be made by affirmative or negative resolution?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that it will be by affirmative resolution of Parliament. I shall check that point and, if I am not right, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that and grateful that he has understood people's concern about the open-ended nature of Clause 57(3) and (4). If there is an affirmative resolution, at least we will have an opportunity to debate the order fully when the new powers come to be used. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 42, line 43, leave out "adding to," and insert "specifying in this section a new consideration or"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Intervention by Secretary of State in special public interest cases]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 55:
Page 43, line 15, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
Page 43, line 21, leave out "a" and insert "one or more than one"
Page 43, line 28, at end insert "and the conditions mentioned in subsection (3A) are satisfied.
(3A) The conditions mentioned in this subsection are that, immediately before the enterprises concerned ceased to be distinct—

(a) at least one of the enterprises concerned was carried on in the United Kingdom or by or under the control of a body corporate incorporated in the United Kingdom; and

(b) a person carrying on one or more of the enterprises concerned was a relevant government contractor."

Page 43, line 39, at end insert—
"(aza) in relation to the making of a report by the OFT under section 60, the time of the making of the report;"
Page 44, line 8, after "State;" insert—
"(fa) the powers to extend time-limits under section 24 as applied by subsection (4) above, and the power to request information under section 30(1) as so applied, were not exercisable by the OFT or the Secretary of State before the giving of a special intervention notice;
(fb) in subsection (1) of section 30 for the words "section 21" there were substituted "section 61(2)" and, in the application of that subsection to the OFT, for the word "deciding" there were substituted "enabling the Secretary of State to decide";

803
(fc) in the case of the giving of special intervention notices, the references in sections 22 to 31 and 33 to the making of a reference or a reference were, so far as necessary, references to the giving of a special intervention notice or a special intervention notice;"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 59 [Special intervention notices under section 58]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 56 to 58:
Page 44, line 38, at end insert—
"(1A) Where the Secretary of State believes that it is or may be the case that two or more considerations specified in section 57 are relevant to a consideration of the special merger situation concerned, he may decide not to mention in the special intervention notice such of those considerations as he considers appropriate."
Page 45, line 1, after "undertaking" insert "or group of undertakings"
Page 45, line 28, after "undertaking" insert "or group of undertakings"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 60 [Initial investigation and report by OFT]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 59 and 60:
Page 46, line 3, leave out ", in particular,"
Page 46, line 4, after "believes" insert "(disregarding section 58(3A)(b))"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 65 [Decision and enforcement action by Secretary of State]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 49, line 19, after "the" insert "special"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 62 and 63:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
"EUROPEAN MERGERS: INTERVENTION TO PROTECT LEGITIMATE INTERESTS

(1) Subsection (2) applies where—

(a) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for suspecting that it is or may be the case that—

(i) a relevant merger situation has been created or that arrangements are in progress or in contemplation which, if carried into effect, will result in the creation of a relevant merger situation; and

(ii) a concentration with a Community dimension (within the meaning of the European Merger Regulations), or a part of such a concentration, has thereby arisen or will thereby arise;

(b) a reference which would otherwise be possible under section 21 or 32 is prevented from being made under that section in relation to the relevant merger situation concerned by virtue of Community law or anything done under or in accordance with it; and

(c) the Secretary of State is considering whether to take appropriate measures to protect legitimate interests as permitted by article 21(3) of the European Merger Regulations.

804

(2) The Secretary of State may give a notice to the OFT (in this section "a European intervention notice") if he believes that it is or may be the case that one or more than one public interest consideration is relevant to a consideration of the relevant merger situation concerned.

(3) A European intervention notice shall state—

(a) the relevant merger situation concerned;

(b) the public interest consideration or considerations which are, or may be, relevant to a consideration of the relevant merger situation concerned; and

(c) where any public interest consideration concerned is not finalised, the proposed timetable for finalising it.

(4) Where the Secretary of State believes that it is or may be the case that two or more public interest considerations are relevant to a consideration of the relevant merger situation concerned, he may decide not to mention in the intervention notice such of those considerations as he considers appropriate.

(5) No more than one European intervention notice shall be given under subsection (2) in relation to the same relevant merger situation.

(6) Where the Secretary of State has given a European intervention notice mentioning a public interest consideration which, at that time, is not finalised, he shall, as soon as practicable, take such action as is within his power to ensure that it is finalised.

(7) For the purposes of deciding whether a relevant merger situation has been created or whether arrangements are in progress or in contemplation which, if carried into effect, will result in the creation of a relevant merger situation, sections 22 to 31 (read together with section 33) shall apply for the purposes of this section as they do for the purposes of Chapter 1 but subject to subsection (8).

(8) In their application by virtue of subsection (7) sections 22 to 31 shall have effect as if—

(a) references in those sections to the decision-making authority were references to the Secretary of State;

(b) for paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 22(9) there were substituted ", in relation to the giving of a European intervention notice, the time when the notice is given";

(c) the references to the OFT in section 23(2)(a) and (b) included references to the Secretary of State;

(d) sections 24, 30 and 31 were omitted; and

(e) the references in sections 22 to 28 and 33 to the making of a reference or a reference were, so far as necessary, references to the giving of a European intervention notice or a European intervention notice.

(9) Section 41(3) shall, in its application to this section and section (European mergers: scheme for protecting legitimate interests), have effect as if for the words "intervention notice" there were substituted "European intervention notice"."

After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—
"EUROPEAN MERGERS: SCHEME FOR PROTECTING LEGITIMATE INTERESTS

(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the taking of action, where a European intervention notice has been given, to remedy, mitigate or prevent effects adverse to the public interest which have resulted from, or may be expected to result from, the creation of a European relevant merger situation.

(2) In subsection (1) "European relevant merger situation" means a relevant merger situation—

(a) which has been created or will be created if arrangements which are in progress or in contemplation are carried into effect;

(b) by virtue of which a concentration with a Community dimension (within the meaning of the European Merger Regulations), or a part of such a concentration, has arisen or will arise; and

805

(c) in relation to which a reference which would otherwise have been possible under section 21 or 32 was prevented from being made under that section by virtue of Community law or anything done under or in accordance with it.

(3) Provision made under subsection (1) shall include provision ensuring that considerations which are not public interest considerations mentioned in the European intervention notice concerned may not be taken into account in determining whether anything operates, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest.

(4) Provision made under subsection (1) shall include provision—

(a) applying with modifications sections 22 to 31 (read together with section 33) for the purposes of deciding for purposes of this section whether a relevant merger situation has been created or whether arrangements are in progress or in contemplation which, if carried into effect, will result in the creation of a relevant merger situation;

(b) requiring the OFT to make a report to the Secretary of State before a reference is made;

(c) enabling the Secretary of State to make a reference to the Commission;

(d) requiring the Commission to investigate and report to the Secretary of State on such a reference;

(e) enabling the taking of interim and final enforcement action.

(5) An order under this section may include provision (including provision for the creation of offences and penalties, the payment of fees and the delegation of functions) corresponding to any provision made in, or in connection with, this Part in relation to intervention notices or special intervention notices and the cases to which they relate.

(6) In this section "European intervention notice" has the same meaning as in section (European mergers: intervention to protect legitimate interests)."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 67 [Water mergers]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 51, line 42, at end insert—
"(4) Where two or more enterprises have merged or will merge as part of transactions or arrangements which also involve an actual or prospective merger of two or more water enterprises, Part 3 of the 2002 Act shall apply in relation to the actual or prospective merger of the enterprises concerned excluding the water enterprises; and references in that Part to the creation of a relevant merger situation shall be construed accordingly.
(5) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), Part 3 of the 2002 Act shall not apply in a case in which the OFT is required to make a reference under section 32 above except as applied by virtue of Schedule 4ZA."".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Effect of undertakings under section 70]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 65 to 67:
Page 54, line 30, after "undertaking" insert "or group of undertakings"
Page 54, line 32, after "undertaking" insert "or group of undertakings"
Page 54, line 36, leave out "the" and insert "any"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Provision of information and advice to Ministers etc.]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 68 to 70:
Page 217, line 37, after "undertaking" insert "or group of undertakings"
Page 217, line 41, after "undertaking" insert "or group of undertakings"
Page 218, line 1, leave out third "the" and insert "any"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Promoting good consumer practice]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 228, line 38, at end insert—
"(4) An order may—

(a) make different provision for different cases or classes of case or different purposes;

(b) make such transitional, transitory or saving provision as the person making it considers appropriate."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Part 2 of the 1973 Act]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 246, line 24, leave out "revokes an order under that enactment" and insert "is a revoking order of the kind dealt with by paragraphs 6 to 8 below"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 94 [Section 94: supplementary]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 73 and 74:
Page 70, line 13, leave out "or is" and insert "(but is not yet"
Page 70, line 21, leave out from "Kingdom" to end of line 22.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 104 [Further publicity requirements]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 79, line 6, after "shall" insert "(after the acceptance of the undertaking or (as the case may be) the making of the order)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 106 [Attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 79, line 43, leave out "it" and insert "the Commission"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 108 [Penalties]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 81, line 37, leave out from "earlier," to end of line 39 and insert "the day on which the report of the Commission on the reference concerned is published (or, in the case of a report under section 49 or 64, given) or, if no such report is published (or given) within the period permitted for that purpose by this Part, the latest day on which the report may be published (or given) within the permitted period."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 117 [Review of decisions under Part 3]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 86, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) For this purpose "any person aggrieved" shall mean any person who is a party to the relevant merger situation or special merger situation."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I first read what is now Clause 117, entitled "Review of decisions", I could not quite believe what the Government propose, which is that "any person aggrieved" by a decision of the Office of Fair Trading may apply to the Competition Appeal Tribunal for a review of that decision. As I have already said, this is one of the most damaging clauses in this entire part of the Bill. Just to check that I have not been subject to an idiosyncratic quirk, I have consulted widely outside the Chamber. I discovered that that is also the view of an overwhelming proportion of business and commerce. In particular, in the view of the Confederation of British Industry, it is one of the most damaging clauses in this entire part of the Bill.
However, I then turned my attention to government Amendment No. 79. Whereas I was going to say that there is a safeguard because "any person aggrieved" does have to comply with a three-month time limit, I found to my horror that the Government propose to remove even that safeguard so that at any time "any person aggrieved" may apply to the Competition Appeal Tribunal for a review of the decision.
I am well aware that sitting on the Government Front Bench are people who know a great deal about business and commerce. I find incredible the idea that they would be party to legislation that will allow "any person aggrieved" to apply for a review, especially now that we have that safeguard removed. In future, it will mean that parties whose mergers are approved will not have a definite ruling but will instead face the risk that someone somewhere will appeal. Of course, as with any appeal, there is the opportunity for success. This will cause huge, unnecessary uncertainty to business and risks undermining the competition focus of merger control by potentially placing excessive reliance on the views of others.
I suppose that the Minister will say that the only people aggrieved will be competitors. But given that competition law is about protecting competition and not competitors, that surely is entirely appropriate. This issue is not resolved by the wording in paragraph 11 of Schedule 4, Part 2, which deals with tribunal rules. These proposed rules are permissive in nature and not adequately restrictive of the persons who may apply for a review. Of course it is accepted that it will always be open to a third party to seek judicial review under established procedures, but the lack of such actions in the past shows that the risk of successful challenge is very small and that it is seen as such in the market-place. But this clause now opens the way for third party challenges; it opens the door. I give way.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I wonder whether the problem is being exaggerated. If one refers to subsection (6) of Clause
808
117, one reads that the application is confined to grounds on which judicial review could be sought. The noble Lord will no doubt also speak to Amendment No. 80 on this very subject. But only if he is successful with that amendment would the alarm that he is expressing be justified. If the application is confined to judicial review grounds as set out in subsection (6), does not a good deal of what the noble Lord has been speaking about fall to the ground?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, if the noble Lord would not mind, I think I should put the amendment that has been moved before he continues, which we shall wait anxiously for him to do—
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I believe that I was giving way to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. If I may, I should like to continue to address the House for a little while longer.
I have the good fortune to be senior partner of a firm of solicitors that specialises in judicial reviews. Therefore, I am well aware of the situation as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. However, it is no restriction when one is allowing anybody to make an application for judicial review and, indeed, encouraging anybody who believes that he is aggrieved—not just any corporate body, but any person who is aggrieved. What one needs is certainty. I suppose that I am now referring back to the 16 years when I had the honour and privilege of being a member of successive governments. Judicial review is something of a nightmare for Ministers. It can result in hugely important decisions being delayed and enormous costs being incurred, which is just part and parcel of the democratic/judicial process.
Judicial review is a procedure to which Ministers are subjected. Perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that it is not here a question of judicial review of a ministerial decision. As the clause is drafted—the noble Lord rightly points out that I shall seek in a moment to amend that part of the clause—anyone can go through those enormously complex processes of judicial review if he is aggrieved by a decision of the OFT. It widens hugely the basis for judicial review.
Outside business and commerce were somewhat horrified by the clause. The Minister has removed even the safeguard that anyone aggrieved would have to make an application within three months. A person who feels aggrieved can apply for judicial review at any time. That imposes enormous uncertainty in a complicated process.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for trailing what I shall now say. I seek to leave out subsection (6) and in Amendment No. 80 insert the words on the Marshalled List. I do so only in these circumstances. If the Minister is not disposed to accept Amendment No. 80 I do not wish to change the existing wording in subsection (6). I believe that the Minister should accept Amendment No. 80. Then

809
judicial review becomes something of the past. The clause then provides that the test for review of a merger decision should be the same as that applied in judicial cases; that is, concerned more with matters of procedure than of substance. If Amendment No. 78 were accepted,
"'any person aggrieved' shall mean any person who is a party to the relevant merger situation or special merger situation".
Only if Clause 117(1) is amended as suggested in Amendment No. 78 would I wish the Minister to amend Clause 117 so that any appeal could consider also the substantive merits of the decision. Judicial review is a narrow focus. It can be time consuming, particularly when it is brought by a member of the public. I shall not mention the cases but I speak with the scars of months of delay caused by one single, aggrieved person testing a ministerial decision. It is too narrow a basis for review of what are substantive economics-based findings and is inconsistent with the position under the 1998 Act under which decisions may be appealed on their merits. A right of appeal on the merits to a tribunal which is skilled in competition law would represent a necessary safeguard in those cases where economic analysis and legal principles have been incorrectly applied by an administrative body. As a case in point, perhaps I may mention the European Commission's conduct of the Airtours case. Amendment No. 80 is based on the assumption that the Government will accept Amendment No. 78. I beg to move.
The Deputy SpeakerMy Lords, Amendment No. 78 has now been moved. The noble Lord has, of course, spoken to Amendment No. 80, which is grouped with it.
Lord Sainsbury of TurvilleMy Lords, at almost every stage of the Bill's progress we have discussed the issue of whether there should be a full appeal on merits in merger cases. At every stage, we have put the case that judicial review was, and remains, the appropriate basis for reviewing decisions taken in merger investigations. One of the reasons why we keep coming back to the matter is that the Opposition have still not recognised just how effective a judicial review-type appeal would be in holding the competition authorities to account for their actions.
I shall give some examples. If the OFT or the Competition Commission misinterpreted their duties under the Enterprise Act, they would be caught by a judicial review-type appeal. If a panel of the Competition Commission failed to observe due process, such as failing to comply with the chairman's procedural rules, and that amounted to a material procedural unfairness, a judicial review-type appeal would cover that. If the OFT or the Competition Commission had, to a material extent, based a decision on an incorrect factual assessment of the conditions of competition in a market affected by a merger, the appeal mechanism that we propose would, again, catch that. If the authorities acted unreasonably, if their decision fell outside the range of conclusions that
810
could reasonably be reached on the evidence before the competition authorities or if the remedies were disproportionate in the circumstances, a judicial review-type appeal would pick that up.
The right of review therefore provides a high level of protection for the parties—more, perhaps, than noble Lords might have realised, although the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, will be aware of the situation, given the work that he has done. It is also sufficient to protect their rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. We recognise that a full right of appeal, as envisaged, would go even further in allowing the parties to revisit all the issues discussed during a merger investigation and to hold a full hearing of the merits of the case. However, as we have said before, that is not the best way to deal with such decisions.
The problem, as we have tried to explain on numerous occasions, is that there is no right or wrong answer on whether a merger should be allowed to go ahead. Two groups of competition experts looking at the same merger situation could well come to different conclusions as to whether there was a competition problem and what the remedies should be. That means that a full rehearing would merely substitute one set of views for another, which may or may not make for a more just outcome. The more workable appeal mechanism is one that considers whether the decision was reasonable and was based on a fair process.
The right to bring an action should be open to more than just the parties to the merger in question. Some third parties—for example, customers, suppliers and competitors—may have an interest in a case and should, therefore, have access to the tribunal. However, we are keen to prevent frivolous or vexatious applications or those from parties with no direct interest in a case. That is why Schedule 3 provides that tribunal rules may be made to allow the Competition Appeal Tribunal to reject proceedings if it considers that the person instituting them does not have a sufficient interest in the decision or has disclosed no valid grounds for bringing the proceedings. The tribunal will also be able to reject proceedings that it considers vexatious. A time-limit will be specified in the tribunal's rules. We are consulting on the length of time, but it will be three months or less. We have removed that from the clause to avoid confusion.
We are also aware that any limit that we place on the scope of any review mechanism in the Bill will not affect the rights of third parties to seek judicial review of decisions in the High Court. We should, therefore, create a two-tier system, in which merger parties would have access to the tribunal, while third parties relied on the High Court. We cannot stop the judicial reviews taking place; the only question is whether we create a two-tier system.
In general, I am surprised that the noble Lord is pushing so hard for full appeal. I should have thought that, from a business perspective, full appeal would be more of a concern. It could well cause delays and add to the costs; it would create a two-tier approach, with

811
third parties relying on judicial review through the courts; and it would not necessarily always lead to what the parties would regard as a more just outcome.
Finally, the review mechanism should not be seen in isolation. It needs to be assessed alongside the wide array of safeguards we are introducing to strengthen decision-making; the new requirement on the Competition Commission to have clear procedural rules; greater transparency requirements, including the publication of reasons for decisions; and other safeguards, such as the two-thirds voting requirement for key decisions. Backed by these, we are convinced that a judicial review type appeal mechanism is the right one. It leaves the taking of these complex decisions to the competition authorities, which will build up a body of expertise in the effective discharge of their functions. It leaves the tribunal to become expert at policing their decisions, ensuring that the process is fair and the outcome reasonable; and it leaves those businesses and others affected by the decisions with a clear, fast and effective mechanism for resolving any disputes. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister's response. All I can deduce is that he has not yet been subjected to a judicial review of any of his decisions. The noble Lord laughs and indicates that he has not. It is good to hear that, and I admire him for it. However, he might have a word with one or two of his ministerial colleagues who have been so subjected. He might then understand better some of the points that I have sought to make.
On the point that he has made about Amendment No. 80, I am arguing for the situation as it applies under the 1998 Act, where an appeal can be on merit. With some of these highly complicated decisions, which are very much based on economics, the narrow confines of judicial review are inappropriate. I shall, of course, take time to reflect on what the Minister has said and we may return to this subject yet again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 86, line 20, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Clause 118 [Fees]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment Nos. 81;
Page 87, line 36, at beginning insert "special"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 82 and 83:
After Clause 118, insert the following new clause—
"PRIMACY OF COMMUNITY LAW

(1) Advice and information published by virtue of section 103(1) or (3) shall include such advice and information about the effect of Community law, and anything done under or in accordance with it, on the provisions of this Part as the OFT or (as the case may be) the Commission considers appropriate.

(2) Advice and information published by the OFT by virtue of section 103(1) shall, in particular, include advice and information about the circumstances in which the duties of the OFT under sections 21 and 32 do not apply as a result of the European Merger Regulations or anything done under or in accordance with them.

(3) The duty or power to make a reference under section 21 or 44(2) or (3), and the power to give an intervention notice under section 41, shall apply in a case in which the relevant enterprises ceased to be distinct enterprises at a time or in circumstances not falling within section 23 if the condition mentioned in subsection (4) is satisfied.

(4) The condition mentioned in this subsection is that, because of the European Merger Regulations or anything done under or in accordance with them, the reference, or (as the case may be) the reference under section 21 to which the intervention notice relates, could not have been made earlier than 4 months before the date on which it is to be made.

(5) Where the duty or power to make a reference under section 21 or 44(2) or (3), or the power to give an intervention notice under section 41, applies as mentioned in subsection (3), references in this Part to the creation of a relevant merger situation shall be construed accordingly."

After Clause 118, insert the following new clause—
"POWER TO ALTER SHARE OF SUPPLY TEST

(1) The Secretary of State may by order amend or replace the conditions which determine for the purposes of this Part whether a relevant merger situation has been created.

(2) The Secretary of State shall not exercise his power under subsection (1)—

(a) to amend or replace the conditions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of section 22;

(b) to amend or replace the condition mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of that section.

(3) In exercising his power under subsection (1) to amend or replace the condition mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 22 or any condition which for the time being applies instead of it, the Secretary of State shall, in particular, have regard to the desirability of ensuring that any amended or new condition continues to operate by reference to the degree of commercial strength which results from the enterprises concerned having ceased to be distinct.

(4) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall consult the OFT and the Commission.

(5) An order under this section may provide for the delegation of functions to the decision-making authority."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 119 [Orders and regulations under Part 3]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 84 to 90:
Page 88, line 32, at end insert—
"(2A) The power of the Secretary of State under section (Power to alter share of supply test) (including that power as extended by subsection (2) above) may be exercised by modifying any enactment comprised in or made under this Act, or any other enactment."
Page 88, line 34, after "57(3)" insert ", (European mergers: scheme for protecting legitimate interests)"
Page 88, line 37, after "27" insert "(including that enactment as applied by section 41(5), 58(4) and (European mergers: intervention to protect legitimate interests)(7))"
Page 88, line 41, after "section" insert "(European mergers: scheme for protecting legitimate interests)",.
Page 88, line 41, after "99" insert ", (Power to alter share of supply test)"
Page 89, line 5, after "repealed" insert "(and the previous enactment revived)"
Page 89, line 7, at end insert "and without prejudice to the making of a new order"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 124 [Other interpretation provisions]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 92, line 13, at end insert—
""Community law" means—

(a) all the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Community Treaties; and

(b) all the remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Community Treaties;"

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 125 [Index of defined expressions]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 92 and 93:
Page 93, line 29, at end insert—
"Community law
Section 124(1)"
Page 94, line 26, leave out "Section 41(3)" and insert "Sections 41(3) and (European mergers: intervention to protect legitimate interests)(9)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 126 [Power of OFT to make references]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 95, line 24, after "competition" insert "to a significant extent"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may explain that on Amendment No. 791 was reassured by the Minister's statement that this will now form part of the tribunal's rules. Although I expressed the doubt that these would only be permissive in nature, I should like to reflect further on the position. That is why we did not oppose Amendment No. 79.
Turning to Amendment No. 94, market investigations impose significant costs on business. It is important that they are initiated only where there are sound reasons to believe that there is a significant adverse effect on competition. I emphasise the word "significant". That is a principle which is commonly found in UK and EC competition law. Without this change, conduct outside the market concerned could be grounds for making a reference, and any effect, however minor, can be referred by the OFT.
The Government seem to agree that only important cases should be referred to the Competition Commission. If that is the case, I hope that the Minister will recognise that that is not reflected on the face of the Bill but it will be if he is disposed to accept
814
this amendment. I contend that business needs clarity, and this clause does not provide it. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, which I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. The use of the word "significant" is critical. I once had the dubious pleasure of being a director of a company that was being bid for by another company and which became the subject of an OFT investigation. The position of companies in victim mode, as we were, is unenviable. In trying to hold the company together, management and staff are very concerned, so such investigations are not to be entered into lightly for reasons of data-gathering or in response to political or economic pressure. The insertion of the word "significant" is entirely in keeping with the thrust of the Bill to ensure that we have a fully competitive market in this country. I hope that the Minister will look upon it favourably.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I have been surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has not produced any examples of the OFT over the years failing to comply with what he wants; that is to say that investigations are sought and references made only when it is likely that competition will be restricted "to a significant extent". He wants those words on the face of the Bill, yet only a few moments ago he expressed concern on behalf of those who might be subject to judicial review that it can be a painful process. The only effect of inserting "to a significant extent" would be that the OFT would proceed as it invariably has done, namely in line with the sensible policy that the noble Lord advocates, but it would face a greater possibility of judicial review if someone wanted to argue about the precise meaning of those words in a precise situation.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the trouble with having the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on one's side on these matters is that all the best lines are taken before one can speak. He put the point extremely well.
Amendment No. 94 provides that the OFT may make a market investigation reference only when it has reasonable grounds to suspect that one or more features of market prevents, restricts or distorts competition in the UK market to a significant extent. We have made it clear in both this House and the other place that we intend that market investigations should be used only to pursue potentially significant competition problems. For its part, the OFT states clearly in its draft guidance on making market investigation references that it will take account of the scale of any suspected adverse effects on competition and the extent to which they are likely to have significant detrimental effects on customers before making a reference. The draft guidance goes on to outline some of the factors that the OFT will take into account when deciding whether a reference is an appropriate response to the apparent scale of any competition problem; for example, the size of the market and the proportion of the market affected by the feature giving rise to the adverse efforts.

815
In our view, it would be unreasonable for market investigation references to be used to look at trivial competition policy, there is no reason to suppose that the OFT will attempt to use them in such a way, and nothing would be gained by referring explicitly to the "significance" of potential adverse effects in Clause 126.
I reiterate the two important points that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, made. No evidence has been given that the OFT's role has been abused in the past, therefore there is no reason to suppose that it will be in the future. I am not certain that to introduce "to a significant extent" would add any clarity, but it would leave more room for debate, argument and judicial review. On that basis I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, it is curious that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, argues that it is unnecessary to include the word "significant" in the Bill because that has always been the way in which the OFT has operated. We are dealing with a new body and with legislation that will stand for a significant time. It is important to ensure that the good practices of the past continue into the future.
The noble Lord says that it would give additional ammunition to the lawyers who no doubt would be seeking judicially to review the decision. However, surely it is important to have on the face of the Bill the situation as it is and as it ought to be and to leave whatever the processes—I failed to persuade the Minister as to the correct process—to take their course if they are called into effect.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts that it is important to ensure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, described it, the practice of the past continues into the future. However, I shall reflect not only on all the best lines, which the Minister seemed to believe were possessed by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, but on his comparatively good lines. I shall go away and think further and, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 95, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) In considering the making of a reference under subsection (1) affecting the regulation or obligations of the legal profession the OFT shall have regard to the duties of lawyers in relation to the sound administration of justice and to the interests of consumers of legal services and of those lacking the same."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I must declare an obvious interest as a solicitor. Amendments Nos. 95, 102 and 105 are relevant to the legal profession. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, who is unavoidably absent, was a former chairman of the Bar Council. It is relevant to point out that the Bar Council and the Law Society are taking an interest in the amendments, although they were tabled before that was apparent.
The overall purpose of the amendments is to give the legal profession in the shape of the Law Society, which is responsible for solicitors, and the Bar Council, which is responsible for barristers, the power to make regulations for the two professions in the public interest. They will write on to the face of the Bill allowances which would mean that anti-competitive references made under Clause 126 can be considered in the light of the special and particular position of legal services.
In turn, the amendments will allow the Competition Commission, in deciding market investigation references, to make the same allowance. Without these amendments, or something like them, there would be no power for either the OFT or the Competition Commission to have regard to the particularities and importance of legal services.
I want to comment briefly on the special nature of legal services. Lawyers pleading their own cause, pleading a special position in relation to any legislation, will be a sensitive task, but it is not we who have made the legal profession and the services it renders special. All solicitors and barristers are officers of the Supreme Court. They have special obligations with regard to the court and to justice. They have special duties and are subject to statutory discipline. They have a special role as advocates. They have special obligations to clients; for example, the cab-rank rule which applies to barristers. They are subject to special accounts rules and to special indemnity arrangements. Perhaps most importantly, they have a unique legal privilege in terms of the confidence they can maintain vis-a-vis their clients' affairs. All those aspects of the nature of the legal profession, whether solicitor or barrister, relate to the importance of their function at the heart of society; namely, in relation to the courts.
I should like to say a few words about the particular importance and nature of legal services. In a law-bound culture and an age when this place seeks daily to legislate rights for citizens, access to requisite legal services is not an optional extra—it is not any old other service. The delivery of social rights, for example, whether in terms of housing or social welfare or whatever else, is nugatory and pointless without the availability of lawyers who are both affordable and accessible geographically. Equality before the law, one of our proudest boasts, becomes a sham unless we recognise that the provision of legal services occupies a very particular position. That is the background.
I should like to refer briefly to the case of Klopp, which was heard in the European Court in 1984. This case confirmed a point that has been consistently upheld—that in the absence of specific community rules in the field, each member state is in principle free to regulate the exercise of the legal profession in its territory. Consequently, the rules applicable to the legal profession differ greatly from one member state to another, so that, for all the reasons I have mentioned, EU jurisprudence puts the legal profession into a special position. The other point is that the provisions dealt with in these amendments—Clauses

817
126 and 129—hark back to Article 81, formerly Article 85, of the Treaty of Rome, which is the central pro-competition section of the treaty.
We need these amendments for the following reasons, which are only illustrative. The regulatory borderline between solicitors and the Bar, maintaining the two as separate professions, is one competition issue; an issue of anti-competitive arrangements. Partnerships at the Bar currently are not allowed. Although one might regard the fact that every barrister must act on his or her own as a competitive ideal, some might say that that is an anti-competition issue. The position on partnerships between barristers and solicitors is another such issue, as is the matter of multidisciplinary partnerships between solicitors, barristers and accountants, for example. All of those are potentially anti-competition issues. Without these or similar amendments, we cannot address those issues in a manner that pays proper regard to the circumstances of the UK legal profession and the particular circumstances of the client.
Each of the three amendments in this group deals expressly with the issue of availability. At the end of Amendment No. 95, for example, we talk not only about the interests of the consumers of legal services, but about "those lacking the same". The same wording is used in Amendment No. 102. The words that Amendment No. 105 proposes will enable the Competition Commission, in considering a market reference from the OFT, to have regard not only to the possibility of a detrimental effect on the price of legal services, the quality of legal services and the choice of legal services, but also to the availability of legal services. One might think that that is a quibble, but it is not. One is not a consumer of anything if one cannot purchase the item to be consumed.
As we know, legal services in this country are, like those in other countries, hugely expensive. The legal aid scheme, sadly, is being run down. The truth is that an increasing minority of our population are not consumers of legal services when they need them because those services are not in truth available. The question of availability is central to these three amendments and central also to the current disposition of legal services between small and medium-sized, cheap high street solicitors firms on the one hand and, on the other, a populous Bar with a cheap end.
I shall not say more than that as the issues are complex. However, I considered that I needed to illustrate why the amendments are necessary. It is not a question of prejudging the issues but merely of allowing them to be properly judged when the time comes, if the time comes, by the Office of Fair Trading and, indeed, by the Competition Commission.
Finally, I am reluctant to drag in another European Court case at this time of night but I believe that it is necessary. I refer to the case of Wouters which was decided in February of this year. That case made abundantly clear that as regards Article 81—formerly Article 85—the key anti-competitive provision, so long as the domestic legislation of the member state
818
involved allows, the court can take account of these public interest factors. I have short-handed the key elements of the Wouters decision in mentioning in my amendments the,
"duties of lawyers in relation to the sound administration of justice and to the interests of consumers of legal services and of those lacking the same".
In order more vividly to explain why Wouters is relevant, I wish to quote from paragraph 97 of the judgment. The case involved the refusal of the Netherlands Bar to allow multidisciplinary partnerships. The European Court at the highest level upheld that anti-competitive—as some would say—provision because, as it stated,
"account must first of all be taken of the overall context in which the decision of the [Netherlands Bar] was taken or produces its effects".
It is crucial that we consider the whole context, social as well as economic. The judgment continues,
"More particularly, account must be taken of its objectives, which are here [in the Wouters case] connected with the need to make rules relating to organisation, qualifications, professional ethics, supervision and liability, in order to ensure that the ultimate consumers of legal services and the sound administration of justice are provided with the necessary guarantees in relation to integrity and experience".
I hope that I have not wholly confused the House in trying to explain a none-too-easy set of amendments. I also hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the purpose of the amendments which I assure the Government is not driven by a professionally self-interested motivation. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for raising in these amendments issues which are of great importance not only to members of the legal profession but also to society as a whole. The sound administration of justice and the promotion of access to justice are matters of the utmost concern to this Government, as, of course, is the promotion of competition. I wish to quote from a consultation document recently issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department in response to the work which the OFT has been doing on competition in the legal and other professions:
"The Government starts from two propositions. First, the professions should be fully subject to competition law and unjustified restrictions on competition should be removed. Second, when considering competition in the legal professions, the need to keep clearly in view the public interest in maintaining an independent, honest and diverse profession and ensuring the protection of consumers, while encouraging healthy competition to promote new, better and affordable services and wider consumer choice".
The amendments relate to the considerations that the OFT should bear in mind when making any market investigation reference relating to the legal profession, to the circumstances in which the Competition Commission may make a finding of adverse effects on competition when considering such a reference and, where there is such a finding, on the definition of customer benefits that may be held to outweigh such adverse effects. I shall deal with each of those in turn.

819
As regards any future reference decision affecting the legal profession, the amendment requires the OFT, in essence, to take account of the non-competition-related public interest considerations which underlie the regulation of that profession. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is concerned that in its zeal to promote competition, the OFT may initiate a process that could be damaging to the administration of justice and the ultimate interests of consumers. Those concerns are entirely proper, but in my view they are unfounded.
Some rules that regulate the provision of professional services clearly restrict competition in the provision of such services, but are so essential to other aspects of the public interest that one would not expect the OFT to found a market investigation reference on them. For example, the importance of ensuring that professional services are supplied only by those properly qualified to supply them clearly outweighs the restrictions on competition that result from rules requiring doctors or lawyers to be properly qualified. Of course, one may take issue on the question of whether particular qualifying requirements laid down by the regulatory bodies are justified in those terms, but the basic principle is beyond dispute.
Suppose, then, that the OFT was considering the effects on competition of certain Law Society rules, and believed that the restrictions that exist on solicitors entering into partnership with accountants significantly restricted competition. The OFT might take the view, as the Court of Justice did in the Wouters case, that a complete ban on the formation of such partnerships was a reasonable way of maintaining the integrity of the legal profession. On the other hand, it might take the view that it was at least worth exploring in more detail whether there was not some less absolutely restrictive means of achieving the same goal; in other words, whether strict rules governing the conduct of solicitors who entered into such partnerships would not adequately safeguard the interests of clients and the sound administration of justice.
I stress that I cite that as a hypothetical example and that I have no wish to be drawn into a discussion of the competition or public interest effects of any existing professional rules. What matters, I believe, is that that is the kind of thought process that we would expect the OFT to go through with regard to Clause 126 as currently drafted. There is no need for Amendment No. 95, any more than there is any need to include in Clause 126 a provision explicitly permitting the OFT to take account of relevant customer benefits generally when making a reference decision. The power to make market investigation references necessarily involves the exercise of a wide-ranging discretion to take into account all matters that it is reasonable to take into account in the circumstances of any particular case. Given the many markets and issues within those markets that the OFT may have occasion to consider under this legislation, we believe that making special provision for what it should consider in one particular market or in relation to one particular profession, or even specifying that certain matters should be
820
considered in all cases, would call the breadth of the OFT's discretion as regards other matters into question.
Moreover, as the OFT makes clear in its draft guidance, when it is considering making a market investigation reference, it will have particular regard to the suitability of a reference as against other investigation or enforcement options, and to the availability of remedies through the market investigation process to any competition problems that it perceives in the market concerned. While we would not wish to prejudge the decisions that the OFT might make in any future proceedings involving rules governing the provision of legal services, there are at least reasons to doubt whether a market investigation reference is likely to be a useful way of dealing with such matters. Those rules are generally made either by statute or by professional associations with a regulatory function, such as the Law Society. Statutory rules that the OFT could address by making its own report and recommendations to government under Clause 7, or any recommendations to change such rules—whether made by the OFT or by the Competition Commission following a reference—would have to be interpreted by the Government in the light of other public interest concerns, such as the administration of justice.
On the other hand, rules made by a professional association may well amount to a "decision of an association of undertakings" within the terms of Article 81 of the EC treaty or Section 2 of the Competition Act 1998. They would thus be more appropriately dealt with by a consideration under the relevant EC law or the Competition Act.
I turn now to the amendments to Clause 129. Let us suppose that the OFT has referred one or more markets for legal services to the Competition Commission and that the commission is considering certain regulatory provisions which restrict competition. If those provisions are imposed by law or are required in order to comply with a legal requirement, it will be for Ministers or those responsible for the requirement to decide whether to implement any recommendations for change which the commission may make. If not, first, the commission will have to consider whether they should be examined by the OFT rather than by itself on the basis that they may be decisions of association of undertakings. Such decisions should be considered either under Article 81, where they affect inter-state trade and where the so-called "modernisation" of EC competition law has given the OFT the power to apply Article 81, or under the Competition Act 1998, where they do not affect inter-state trade.
Alternatively, there may be cases where the Competition Commission should assess the matter further. However, in that event, whether or not a rule is found to have an adverse effect on competition and whether or not it is within the legal power of the commission to do anything about it, we believe that there would be ample scope to consider the public policy justifications for such a rule under the customer benefits provisions.

821
Ultimately, the sound administration of justice is inseparable from the quality of the legal services provided. Quality is one of the set of relevant customer benefits which may, in so far as they result from a feature of a market which prevents, restricts or distorts competition, outweigh an adverse effect on competition.
The last amendment in this group—Amendment No. 105—proposes to qualify the reference to "choice of goods or services" in the context of detrimental effects on customers by adding a reference to the "availability" of goods and services. I do not consider that to be necessary. If particular services are less available to customers than they might otherwise be, that must be because the total supply of such services is limited, or because the variety of types of such services is limited, or because the number of different providers of such services is limited.
All those possibilities are covered by the existing drafting. A restriction in total supply will result in higher prices, while restrictions in the types of service available or the number of suppliers on the market are both covered by the concept of choice. Therefore, we do not believe that the amendment adds anything of substance to Clause 129(5).
I hope that the noble Lord will accept that we have considered this issue very carefully. However, we believe that there is currently sufficient within the legislation to protect the whole issue of equality of legal services and the access to them. Therefore, there is no need for the amendments because what they seek to achieve is already built into the legislation.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his extremely careful and detailed response. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not respond instantly to all that he has said. I, along with other people, will consider it very carefully. If necessary, we shall return and, if necessary, we may come to the Minister to talk about certain matters. However, in the meantime, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 96 and 97:
Page 95, line 31, leave out ", in the course of business,"
Page 95, line 34, leave out ", in the course of business,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 127 [Ministerial power to make references]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 97A:
Leave out Clause 127
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to remove the ability of the Minister to make references to the commission. This matter was debated in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, stated that the prime aim of the Bill is to take Ministers out of the final decision-making process in competition cases. We
822
accept that, with the exception of public interest criteria, that has been done for market investigations and mergers.
Clause 127, of course, only gives the appropriate Minister the power to refer to the Competition Commission. We nevertheless believe that there is a serious risk of politically motivated references, requiring companies and bodies to incur considerable expenditure. All references should be left to the expert competition body. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it has been clear for some time that there is a difference of views on Clause 127, which we see as providing a sensible backstop provision—a reserve power to be used in exceptional circumstances. Others have portrayed the clause as contradicting a policy pursued in the Bill of taking Ministers out of decision making in competition cases.
Ministerial references are permitted under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and monopolies regime but have only been made rarely. We do not expect that they would be a more regular feature of the operation of the new regime. Primary responsibility for considering possible references and deciding what references to make lies with the OFT and those sectoral regulators with the relevant concurrent powers.
We expect that only very rarely will Ministers have reasonable grounds to be dissatisfied with a decision of the OFT not to make an investigative reference or with the speed or apparent failure of the OFT in reaching a decision one way or the other on a possible reference. It would be imprudent, however, to assume that such circumstances will never arise or, given the complexity of the economic issues that can arise in potential market investigation cases, that both the OFT and a Minister who disagrees with an OFT decision may not have valid points of view. In such a borderline case, it is appropriate that the Competition Commission should look at the matter thoroughly, rather than risk potentially significant competition problems going uninvestigated.
In no sense is the role that we are proposing for Ministers determinative. They are merely being given the right to ask a question. The valid exercise of that right depends on Ministers having a reasonable and reasoned economic assessment of competition in the market or markets concerned. Ultimately, all reference decisions will stand or fall not on their political merits or demerits but on the economic justification. If Ministers make an unreasonable market investigation reference, they will—like the OFT—be open to the possibility of challenge before the CAT. Their decision and the reasoning behind it will have to be capable of withstanding that level of scrutiny if a ministerial reference is to be validly made. Any ministerial reference decision would no doubt receive some degree of publicity. As Ministers will be accountable to Parliament in respect of such decisions, they would be expected to defend them in Parliament.

823
On that basis, the power is justified and does not contradict the policy pursued in the Bill of taking Ministers out of decision making in competition cases. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am partially reassured by the noble Lord the Minister. He indicated that the circumstances would be rare, indeed, in which the power to intervene would be exercised. I wonder whether the Minister can go further and speculate on the kind of circumstances in which he would expect this rarely exercised power to be used.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot really add anything. There may be situations where there is disagreement by the Secretary of State, who ultimately may feel that there is a competition issue that needs seriously to be examined. The key issue is that the clause offers the possibility only of making a reference—it is not determinative. There are no circumstances in which Ministers would not take great care in making references. Because they might be thought to be political, Ministers would be carefully scrutinised. Unless the references can withstand the review which takes place by the Competition Commission, they will fall and in that case will not be valid. The fact that it is not determinative—it is the power only to make a reference—should give everyone security that this power will be rarely used: only where the Secretary of State feels strongly that a competition situation has not been properly considered.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful for that further explanation by the Minister, which has helped me to understand the circumstances in which the noble Lord foresees the power being exercised. I shall reflect on his comments. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 128 [Contents of references]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 98 and 99:
Page 97, line 16, after "persons" insert "by or"
Page 97, line 16, after "or" insert "by or"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 129 [Questions to be decided on market investigation references]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 97, line 21, after "market" insert "significantly"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now turn to the determination of references and to the questions to be decided on market investigation references. Here we return to the word "significant". I suppose I could go away satisfied with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that one should read in the word "significant" because that describes the attitude of mind of the previous regime in that it would not seek to decide a matter unless it was a significant measure which restricted, distorted or prevented competition.
However, it would be a great reassurance to the world of business and commerce if the word "significantly" could appear in Clause 129(1) as is suggested by Amendment No. 100, after the word "market", so that it would read:
"The Commission shall, on a market investigation reference, decide whether any feature, or combination of features, of each relevant market significantly prevents, restricts or distorts competition".
I believe that without that qualifier on the face of the Bill the commission would have to decide the issue no matter how minimal the effect on competition, which would be an unreasonably wide test.
Subsection (2) contains the definition of the phrase "adverse effect on competition", which is used throughout Part 4. Here, again, Amendment No. 101 seeks to insert the word "significantly" after the word "market", to read:
"For the purposes of this Part, in relation to a market investigation reference, there is an adverse effect on competition if any feature, or combination of features, of a relevant market significantly prevents, restricts or distorts competition".
Subsection (5) reads;
"For the purposes of this Part, in relation to a market investigation reference, there is a detrimental effect on customers".
Amendment No. 103 would insert the word "significant", to read:
"there is a significant detrimental effect on customers".
The subsection then continues to explain the circumstances in which that would be found.
I believe that that change is also needed to prevent insignificant effects driving action which would be costly and burdensome for business. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I support my noble friend. Noble Lords will probably have received the CBI's briefing on this point—certainly the Minister's officials will have—about how this meshes with the European Court of Justice's decisions and the implications drawn from a number of cases that the CBI describes as John Deere, New Holland-Ford and the 1999 Italian banks case, where it was decided that where restrictive agreements have an insignificant effect on competition they fall outside the prohibitions.
The CBI draws attention to the publication last year of the
"Commission Notice on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 81(1)…".
The CBI makes the powerful case that a de minimis test is an important principle of competition law, helps to free businesses from regulatory burden and gives them some security that small-scale activities will not be subject to investigation. I therefore support my noble friend and I hope that the Minister, seeing that it will mesh closely with the decision of the European Court of Justice, will see fit to accept the amendments.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, these amendments share a common theme with Amendment

825
No. 94, except that Clause 129 is concerned not with a threshold for investigation but with the final finding by the Competition Commission of adverse effects on competition and any detrimental effects on customers arising from them.
There are two aspects to these findings: they are the formal record of the competition problems which the commission has found in its investigation, and they trigger the Competition Commission's duty to take remedial action.
It would not be right to limit the formal conclusions of the commission's economic analysis of the markets which it has investigated to setting out only those adverse effects or detrimental effects which the commission considers "significant". These are lengthy and detailed investigations, and the commission should reach formal conclusions on the existence of any adverse effects on competition, or detrimental effects on customers which it has found.
It has long been recognised that the published analysis provided by Competition Commission reports has an importance independent of any remedial action taken as a result of that analysis, and it would not be appropriate to blunt the sharpness of that analysis by excluding some of its conclusions by reference to some criterion of "significance".
With regard to remedial action, I agree that the commission should not intervene in markets without adequate justification. But we believe that the way the commission's duty to remedy is framed provides an adequate safeguard against excessive regulatory interference. The commission's remedies must be "reasonable and practicable". As the commission has recognised in its draft guidance on market investigations, a remedy cannot be reasonable if it is not proportionate to the magnitude of the adverse effects on competition or detrimental effects on customers that it addresses.
That means that it is possible for the commission to find that a particular adverse or detrimental effect is so negligible that no proportionate remedy can be found to address it—and so leave it unremedied. On the other hand, if a remedy can be found which is proportionate to some relatively minor adverse or detrimental effect, by virtue of being sufficiently unintrusive, and having a sufficiently low implementation cost, we think it right that the adverse or detrimental effect should be remedied. There is no need for "significance" to be included in either aspect and therefore no need for the amendments.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for his supportive words. We are facing a difficult and slightly paradoxical situation where the Minister seeks to reassure us that there is no need to insert the word "significant" because the commission would go down this road only if there was a significant effect. Therefore, I ask myself—probably too simplistically—why "significant" cannot be inserted.
826
However, the Minister has sought to reassure me about the proportionate effects and the proportionate situation which would govern the way that the commission would operate. I shall take time to reflect on what he has said. But I say once again that there are some strong views held outside this place that instead of implying the word "significant", it should be expressly on the face of the Bill. As I said, I shall take time to consider. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 101 to 103 not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 98, line 12, after "customers" insert "or future customers"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 98, line 27, after "customers" insert "or future customers"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 133 [Duty to remedy adverse effects]:
10.30 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 101, line 12, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) no detrimental effect on customers has resulted from the adverse effect on competition; and"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 135 [Intervention notices under section 134(1)]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 108 and 109:
Page 102, line 23, at end insert—
"(1A) Where the Secretary of State believes that it is or may be the case that two or more public interest considerations are relevant to the case, he may decide not to mention in the intervention notice such of those considerations as he considers appropriate."
Page 103, line 16, at end insert—
"(6) In subsection (5)(d) the reference to the acceptance of the undertaking concerned or the making of the order concerned shall, in a case where the enforcement action under section 142(2) involves the acceptance of a group of undertakings, the making of a group of orders or the acceptance and making of a group of undertakings and orders, be treated as a reference to the acceptance or making of the last undertaking or order in the group; but undertakings or orders which vary, supersede or revoke earlier undertakings or orders shall be disregarded for the purposes of subsections (4)(g) and (5)(d)."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 142 [Remedial action by Secretary of State]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 110 to 112:
Page 107, line 11, at end insert "; and
(b) has published his decision within the period required by subsection (3) of that section."
Page 107, line 19, leave out "resulting" and insert "it has resulted from, or may be expected to result"
Page 107, line 41, leave out from beginning to second "and" in line 43 and insert "no detrimental effect on customers has resulted from the adverse effect on competition"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 143 [Reversion of the matter to the Commission]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 113 to 115:
Page 108, line 3, after "make" insert "and publish"
Page 108, leave out line 8.
Page 108, line 13 after "137" insert "(if still unpublished)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 144 [Intervention notices under section 134 (2)]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 109, line 13, at end insert—
"(1A) Where the Secretary of State believes that it is or may be the case that two or more public interest considerations are relevant to the case, he may decide not to mention in the intervention notice such of those considerations as he considers appropriate."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 148 [Specified considerations: Part 4]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 111, line 15, leave out "adding to" and insert "specifying in this section a new consideration or"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 149 [Undertakings in lieu of market investigation references]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 112, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) no detrimental effect on customers has resulted from the adverse effect on competition"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 151 [Effect of undertakings under section 149]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 119 to 122:
Page 113, line 38, after "undertaking" insert "or group of undertakings"
Page 113, line 40, after "undertaking" insert "or group of undertakings"
Page 114, line 1, leave out "the undertaking" and insert "any undertaking concerned"
Page 114, line 4, leave out "the undertaking" and insert "any undertaking concerned"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 122, line 21, after "section" insert "and in sections (Regulations relating to appeals against decisions of sectoral regulators) and (Preliminary consultation on regulations),"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 123. As noble Lords know, the Bill contains some provisions which are specific to the activities of the utility sector.
The sector provides goods, services and facilities whose combined value accounts for about one-quarter of our gross domestic product. They are all heavily
828
regulated under their own sectoral statutes by agencies which are Crown bodies: so in these industries there is effectively state control over prices, the quality of service and market conduct. There is one unique feature to the regulation of the utility sector, and that is the limited scope for appeal against regulatory decision.
Our amendments seek to remedy that situation by providing for more effective rights of appeal against the sectoral regulators. We believe that such mechanisms would encourage better decision-making by regulators because their decisions would be subject to the ultimate sanction of proper scrutiny on appeal. We also believe that this would improve the transparency and consistency of regulation and strengthen its accountability across the whole utility sector. In turn that would bring the sector more into line with the evolving principles of legal due process and fundamental fairness, improve both the credibility and legitimacy of regulatory decision-making and enhance investor confidence in the long-term stability of regulated industries.
Our concern is not about decisions that sectoral regulators may be entitled to take under their competition law powers; it is about the inadequate rights of appeal available to regulated companies against the much more extensive range of decisions taken by regulators acting under their sector-specific statutes. With only slight differences between the various industries, the current position is that challenges to such decisions or actions of a utility regulator can be mounted only in one of two ways: by forcing the referral of a disputed matter to the Competition Commission, on terms of reference drafted by the regulator alone; or via judicial review of the regulator's decision. It is increasingly clear that neither option is helpful to resolve disagreements between utility companies and their regulators.
In making that generalisation, perhaps I should make an exception for price control reviews. But even there, forcing a reference of a disputed price cap to the commission has come to be known among the industries as the "nuclear" option. That is because the aggrieved company must submit to a fresh examination by the commission of all the elements in the price cap—although many of those may not be in dispute with the regulator. Meanwhile, the introduction of collective licence modification procedures in gas and electricity has restricted the ability of those industries to have disputed issues examined by the Competition Commission.
On the other hand, judicial review can normally be used only to challenge regulators on limited grounds, such as misinterpretation of their legal powers or a failure to observe due process. It cannot be used to attack the substance of their decisions. Even challenge by way of judicial review is excluded in relation to some important types of regulatory action, such as enforcement proceedings, where sectoral statutes provide only for a so-called appeal on even narrower grounds. In most utility industries, the regulators also exercise quasi-judicial powers to determine customer-company disputes about terms of service, legislative

829
powers to set standards of performance under virtually unchecked subordinate legislation and entrenched rights to modify parties' rights and obligations under a bewildering array of industry operating agreements and formal codes of practice.
Even where companies mount an appeal, regulators have been unwilling to accept the decisions of the appellate body. For example, during its most recent price control review, the Office of Water Services, the water industry regulator, consulted companies on a financial concept known as "broad equivalence". Put simply, that means aligning the allowance for accounting depreciation in a water company's price limits with the projected profile of its maintenance spending.
The industry opposed that approach, and two companies forced a reference of Ofwat's proposals to the Competition Commission. The commission rejected the proposals on the grounds that Ofwat had no good case for using the broad equivalence approach—not just for the two companies but in principle. However, Ofwat would not then apply that finding to all the other companies on which it had imposed the methodology, although the impact of doing so would have been materially favourable to their price limits.
In a similar vein, three years ago the Northern Ireland electricity service had to go all the way to the Court of Appeal to force its regulator to accept the findings of a public interest report by the Competition Commission about the prices that its network businesses could charge. More recently, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, the mainland electricity and gas regulator, also tried to ignore a finding by the commission that the public interest did not require a so-called market abuse licence condition to be inserted into generation licences. That campaign was stopped in its tracks only because the Secretary of State was unwilling to help Ofgem to impose that condition.
That last incident also revealed an unsatisfactory state of affairs concerning the cost of regulatory reference to the Competition Commission. After the commission had rejected the case for a market abuse licence condition, Ofgem sought to impose all of the costs of the commission's inquiry on the two referred generating companies—although they had roundly defeated Ofgem and although the issues involved in the reference were clearly of general relevance to the industry as a whole.
On any reasonable view of the matter, such action would have been perverse. But this was only a particularly acute example of a significant defect in the current position. For, whichever industry is involved, the regulator, besides being a party to the proceedings, also has discretion over how to allocate the costs of the reference. This approach is fundamentally flawed. It is unfair to referred companies, and it also makes the method of allocation that will be used, in any particular case, wholly unpredictable.
It seems quite wrong for such critically important industries to be regulated by agencies that are effectively able to operate in their own cause as
830
policeman, prosecutor, judge, and jury. This almost seamless mingling of functions within one executive body appears to deny the industries the right to have their obligations determined by an independent and impartial tribunal.
I am aware that the Minister for Competition, Consumers and Markets in the DIT has already informed the Electricity Association in her letter of 22nd September that,
"it is simply not practicable to regard the Enterprise Bill as a potential vehicle for any legislation on this matter".
I find that impossible to believe. After all, the only direct legal effect of these amendments is to provide a regulation-making power that the Government could exercise at any appropriate time after consulting extensively with all relevant stakeholders in the utility sector.
In brief, deficiencies in the present regulatory treatment of the utility sector could be remedied, while also taking account of actual or potential inconsistencies between individual regulatory regimes, so as to achieve an optimal outcome for all relevant interests.
Some important procedural issues are raised here. Under the amendments, very thorough public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny are necessary before the Government are permitted to make any regulations at all. This process is set out in three proposed new clauses—Clauses 163B to 163D—which specify detailed requirements for consultation on any proposals to make regulations, the contents of the proposals document to be laid before Parliament, and the nature and duration of the process for parliamentary consideration.
The procedure to be followed under these clauses is closely modelled on that laid down in Sections 4 to 8 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001—an Act passed by the Government. It includes provision for a published cost-benefit analysis of the effect of any proposed regulations—in other words, the Government's proposals would be subject to a formal impact assessment of the kind that the sectoral regulators persistently fail to provide for their own pet projects.
The House can, therefore, see that, in addition to specifying a robust consultation process, these special requirements are also designed to afford a substantially greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny than that which ordinary affirmative resolution orders usually receive. On this side of the House, we regard such a procedure as an essential safeguard, since, under the empowering clause, the Government would be able to amend, extend, or, indeed, repeal any relevant piece of regulated utility legislation in order to achieve the purpose of the appeals regulations.
These amendments are specifically supported by the energy and water industries, and have wider general support from other great utility industries that are equally concerned about the limitations and injustices of the existing system. We believe that a better structured appeals regime will provide the right checks and balances between regulators' discretion and companies' interests. It would deliver optimal

831
incentives on both sides and would also address growing inconsistencies between the appeals framework in the utility sector and that in other sectors. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I congratulate noble Lords on a brilliant and ferocious attack on the legislation produced by previous Conservative governments. The noble Lord made many telling points about the weaknesses in that legislation.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. He has no doubt heard what the Conservative Party Conference has been saying about the previous Conservative government.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, presumably this is the new Conservative government. I congratulate also the Electricity Association on this ingenious and elegant amendment. However, this is not the way to remedy any defects which may exist in the current legislation. One should be clear what one wants to do; and legislation should carry out that aim whereas permissive legislation allows a range of issues to be inserted in it.
The systems of regulation which exist in the water, electricity, gas, postal services, telecommunications, railway and air navigation sectors are of great economic importance to the UK. The decisions which the sectoral regulators in these areas take can and do have significant effects on all of us. It is important, therefore, that we achieve the best regulatory procedures we can, and to that end we have given and continue to give considerable attention to the regulatory framework, including appeal mechanisms. While we are grateful to the noble Lord for bringing to the House's attention some of the concerns raised in some sectors about the present appeal arrangements, we would prefer to look at any possible changes to those arrangements in the context of the wider regulatory issues to which they are linked and the sectors in which they operate.
We want a secure, long term, stable and effective regulatory framework. It is important that we achieve the right balance and make changes only where it is clear that there will be real benefits. Further work would be needed before we can contemplate any kind of across-the-board, potentially wide-ranging changes to the appeals mechanisms.
The Government are already keeping the appeals mechanisms under review. The proposed amendment takes us no further in developing the appropriate policies or framework for appeals mechanisms. It might facilitate some changes in the future, and we appreciate that those responsible for drafting the proposed new clauses have been at pains to draft a power which is permissive rather than prescriptive, at least in so far as it does not force the Secretary of State to adopt one possible approach to reform of the appeals processes rather than another. However, no decisions have yet been taken as to whether change is
832
in fact desirable in this area and, if so, what the correct approach to reform is. It is possible, therefore, that the new clauses might act as a constraint on possible future reforms.
Even if the proposed clauses were to prove appropriate in taking forward any desirable and across-the-board changes these do not seem likely for some little time yet. In the meantime, the new clauses would create an expectation of action on appeals without it being clear what form such action would take, or when it might be taken. This would inevitably create uncertainty for everyone involved: and we are talking here about very large sectors of the economy, some of which are already in the throes of significant regulatory or commercial changes. Rather, we prefer streamlined, clear and efficient regulation that is well targeted.
We are aware of the work which has been done by and on behalf of various utility firms and associations in this area which will no doubt assist us in addressing a number of questions in relation to regulatory appeals mechanisms. However, the work done to date is only a start: a large number of stakeholders would be affected by any change to the regulatory regimes and they would need to be fully involved at every stage of policy development and any eventual change would need to be considered and consulted on fully.
It might seem odd for one government Minister to decline to accept on behalf of another a power to modify substantial parts of nine Acts of Parliament. On the other hand, Ministers are usually criticised for wanting to take too many powers to amend primary legislation, not too few. It may be argued that the amendment does not itself change the appeals mechanism: it merely facilitates change in the future after appropriate consultation. So why do we object to it? My answer is that for all the sophistication of their drafting, the new clauses take us no further in developing the policy or making any substantive changes to the regulatory frameworks. They could act as a constraint on future changes. Further, the clauses are—no doubt, deliberately and for good reasons—unspecific on certain points and are likely to create uncertainty for firms and those involved. Providing for changes to be made before it is clear which changes, if any, are even needed would, in this instance, lead to poor legislation.
I stress that I am not saying that the Government are simply opposed to the appeals mechanisms. We want to ensure that the best and most appropriate mechanisms are established for each regulatory regime in a coherent manner and according to the needs of the individual sector. The new clauses do not help us to do that. Rather than make legislative changes now, we should be clear about whether the proposed changes are needed.

833
The amendment is not needed to ensure the success of the other provisions in the Bill. For the reasons that I have given, it would be best if the amendment were withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful for the Minister's full response. In particular, I know that the industry will be pleased to have been complimented on the ingenuity of its drafting.
I am surprised that the Minister is not prepared to take up the remarkable opportunity offered by the amendment. It would provide for a flexible approach to the issues. Not only does it allow for differential treatment between the utilities, but it caters for temporal variation in the introduction of any provisions that the Minister might contemplate.
I am also surprised that the Minister is not struck, to a greater degree, by the huge imbalance between the kind of protective powers given to companies subject to the competition regime and those granted to utilities under the regulatory regimes. The powers wielded by regulators under those regimes are draconian compared to the powers exercised by the Competition Commission and the OFT. In Committee and today, noble Lords have heard Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition complain frequently that the protective powers given to firms subject to the scrutiny of the OFT and the competition regime are not as great as they should be. However, compared to the protective powers given to the utility industries suffering under the lash of the regulators, they are most generous.
The Minister must be aware of that contrast. He must recognise that there is an urgent need to change the balance of power between the regulators and the regulated companies. To use the word "distressed" would, perhaps, be to over-emphasise the sentiments that I am experiencing; but I am certainly sad that the Minister has not taken the opportunity that we offered to insert the clauses, so that he can move swiftly, once the Bill is on the statute book, to a long and careful consideration of the balance of power between the regulators and the regulated in the utility sector.
Between now and Third Reading, I shall reflect on what the Minister said tonight. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 124 and 125:
Page 122, line 34, after "(c. 44)" insert "or section 6 of the Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29)"
Page 122, line 42, at end insert "or (as the case may be) section 3A(4) of the Act of 1989"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 126 to 129 not moved.]
Schedule 9 [Certain amendments of sectoral enactments]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 133:
Page 230, line 26, leave out from "is" to second "or" in line 28 and insert "carried on by an airport operator"
Page 230, line 41, at end insert—
"(b) for "the reference" there shall be substituted "references"; and
(c) for "a reference" there shall be substituted "references"."
Page 236, line 25, leave out from "is" to second "or" in line 27 and insert "carried on by an airport operator"
Page 236, line 40, at end insert—
"(b) for "the reference" there shall be substituted "references"; and
(c) for "a reference" there shall be substituted "references"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 166 [Advice and information: Part 4]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 134 and 135:
Page 124, line 43, at end insert—
"(5A) Advice and information published by virtue of subsection (1) or (3) shall include such advice and information about the effect of Community law, and anything done under or in accordance with it, on the provisions of this Part as the OFT or (as the case may be) the Commission considers appropriate."
Page 125, line 7, at end insert—
"(10) In this section "Community law" means—

(a) all the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Community Treaties; and

(b) all the remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Community Treaties."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 167 [Further publicity requirements: Part 4]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 126, line 26, at end insert "(after the acceptance of the undertaking or (as the case may be) the making of the order)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 169 [Investigation powers of OFT]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 137 and 138:
Page 126, line 37, leave out "(6)" and insert "(5)"
Page 126, line 41, leave out "(6)" and insert "(5)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 171 [Investigation powers of the Commission]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 139 and 140:
Page 128, line 15, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsections (2) and (3)"
Page 128, line 29, at end insert—
"(3) Section 108(5)(b)(ii) shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect as if—

(a) for the words "section 49 or 64, given" there were substituted "section 137, published or given under section 138(1) or (3)"; and

(b) for the words "(or given)", in both places where they appear, there were substituted "(or published or given)"."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 174 [Review of decisions under Part 4]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 129, line 23, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
Clause 176 [Orders under Part 4]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 143 and 144:
Page 130, line 43, after "repealed" insert "(and the previous enactment revived)"
Page 131, line 2, at end insert "and without prejudice to the making of a new order"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 178 [Interpretation: Part 4]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 145 to 148:
Page 132, line 1, leave out "Section" and insert "Sections 122(1)(b) and (4) to (6) and"
Page 132, line 1, leave out "it applies" and insert "they apply"
Page 132, line 5, after "notice" insert "under section 134(1)"
Page 133, line 13, at end insert—
"(5A) In subsection (4)(c) the reference to the acceptance of the undertaking concerned or the making of the order concerned shall, in a case where the enforcement action concerned involves the acceptance of a group of undertakings, the making of a group of orders or the acceptance and making of a group of undertakings and orders, be treated as a reference to the acceptance or making of the last undertaking or order in the group; but undertakings or orders which vary, supersede or revoke earlier undertakings or orders shall be disregarded for the purposes of subsections (3)(a)(iv) and (b)(viii) and (4)(c)."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 11 [The Competition Commission]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 149 and 150:
Page 249, line 27, after "of"" insert—
"( ) in sub-paragraph (1), after paragraph (d) there is inserted—
"(e) one or more members appointed by the Secretary of State to serve on the Council.";"
Page 249, line 38, after "Commission"" insert—
"( ) in sub-paragraph (2), before paragraph (c) there is inserted—
"(bb) the member or members appointed under paragraph 2(1)(e);""
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 182 [Commission rules of procedure]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 135, line 24, leave out "section" and insert "paragraph"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Competition Commission: certain procedural rules]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 252, line 41, after "under" insert "section 59 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 (c. 41), section 32 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (c. 56) or"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 183 [Cartel offence]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 137, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) "Dishonestly agrees" means, for the purposes of subsection (1), making an agreement knowing that it has one or more of the consequences set out in subsections (2) to (6) in breach of the prohibition contained in section 2 of the 1998 Act (agreements etc. preventing, restricting or distorting competition) and not meeting the criteria in section 9 of that Act (the criteria for individual and block exemptions), with the dishonest intention of causing detriment to consumers or customers."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we turn now to the cartel offence. In this amendment, we seek to insert a definition of the phrase "dishonestly agrees".
Perhaps I may make it clear once again that these Benches do not oppose the principle of criminalisation. Although I have made the comment that it is moving to some extent in the opposite direction to the rest of the European Union, it is nevertheless right that those who engage in hardcore cartels should be punished severely. Criminalisation will indeed boost deterrence. That is a very important aspect of this debate.
So, if we do have the cartel offence, it must be made absolutely clear to all those who become aware of this legislation exactly what sort of activity could lead a business person to gaol. We therefore believe that some amendments are required to clarify the scope and effect of the proposed offence.
The concept "dishonestly agrees" will be difficult to explain in court in the context of competition law. It is important, therefore, to include the concept of intent. That is the purpose of Amendment No 153, which would insert a definition of "dishonestly agrees", which means:
"for the purposes of subsection (1), making an agreement knowing that it has one or more of the consequences set out in subsections (2) to (6) in breach of the prohibition contained in section 2 of the 1998 Act…and not meeting the criteria in section 9 of that Act…with the dishonest intention of causing detriment to consumers or customers".
So, not only does the offence need to include the concept of intent; it should also be directly linked to infringements of the Competition Act, to make clear that normal business activities are not caught. I very much hope that the Minister will agree to include this definition in the clause.
Amendment No. 154 seeks to delete the words in Clause 183(2):
"if operating as the parties to the agreement intend, would",
so that the subsection would state simply:
"The arrangements must be ones which"—
followed by paragraphs (a) to (f). Unless the words referred to in the amendment are deleted, it would appear that the offence could theoretically be committed, even where the relevant arrangements provided for in the agreement could not in practice lead to any of the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) to (f).
If the agreement should have any of those consequences unintentionally, the parties would presumably not be acting dishonestly. So we seek to improve the definition of a cartel offence in the way I have described. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I support this amendment. The issue was discussed at significant length in Committee, and it is a simple one. Those from the Conservative Benches and ours who support the amendment do so not because we are against the principle of criminality for cartelisation. We believe that legislation to criminalise cartel activity in this country is long overdue.
No doubt the Minister, when he replies to the amendment, will indicate, as he did in Committee, that two approaches to tests for cartelisation were considered in the consultation document. No doubt he will say, as he did in Committee, that the definition of dishonesty in the Ghosh case ought to prevail because it is long tried and tested in case law. That is true. However, the concept of the offence of dishonesty, which could lead to significant criminal offences, touches upon areas of activity that hitherto have not normally been subject to criminal penalties in this country. We support the Conservative Benches' view that it is much better to have the definition of dishonesty with the requisite intent described on the face of the Bill than to rely on a case that did not originally apply to this type of activity, and which, had it done so, may not have been applied as the Government intend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support for the criminalisation of hardcore cartels. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, is trying to anticipate what I will say, and he is doing so with reasonable accuracy. Amendment No. 153 alters the new offence by defining a dishonesty on the face of the Bill rather than relying on the Ghosh case in case law. The definition in Amendment No. 153 would require the prosecution to prove that the defendant had made an agreement knowing both that it fell into one of the categories of hardcore cartel and that it breached Section 2 of the Competition Act 1998 and did not meet the criteria for exemption in Section 9 of that Act.
The second part of the definition is a real problem. A requirement of knowledge of a breach of the Competition Act would render the offence virtually unprosecutable. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant who had concluded a cartel agreement did so knowing that he was breaching particular sections of the Competition Act 1998. That would undermine our ability to create a real deterrent. I note the points that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made about the need to boost deterrence.
838
We do not have the same problem with the first part of the amendment. However, it is not necessary, as the Bill already provides that for the offence to be committed, the agreements must be ones which,
"if operating as the parties to the agreement intend",
would result in one of the cartel activities. The Bill requires the Crown to prove that the defendant acted with a dishonest state of mind, which is a critical part of the Ghosh definition. That implies both intent and knowledge of the consequences of the agreement.
We share the concern that these new offences should be tightly drawn. The offence as it stands targets "dishonest" agreements precisely in order to avoid catching bona fide activity which would be exempted under existing competition law; for example, Article 81 of the EC treaty or the equivalent provisions in the Competition Act 1998.
"Dishonesty", as we use it, creates a high hurdle for the prosecution. In any event, the Serious Fraud Office would not prosecute where the agreement would not be anti-competitive under existing civil competition law.
Amendment No. 153 also seeks to require the prosecution to prove that the agreement is made,
"with the dishonest intention of causing detriment to consumers or customers".
The problem is that as soon as one brings "dishonest" into the definition it becomes circular. One would have to reintroduce the "Ghosh" test meaning of "dishonesty" in order to defend it. I do not know whether that is what is intended, but that is what it does. In any event, one does not need to refer to the detrimental effect on consumers or customers. The primary intention of the defendant is likely to be to earn supra-normal profits, not detriment to consumers. We are criminalising cartels because of their damaging effect, but bona fide business agreements which do no harm will not be "dishonest" agreements. As can be seen, I am unhappy with Amendment No. 153.
I turn to Amendment No. 154. The policy intention behind the words which would be removed is specific and important. The intention is that the offence should criminalise individuals who reach agreements to operate the various sorts of hard-core cartels, which are set out in paragraphs (a) to (f) If we were to leave it until they were implemented, we would find a prosecution knowing that it was going to take place and having to sit on its hands waiting for the detriment to occur.
Where individuals have entered into a dishonest agreement to operate a cartel, none of this reduces the seriousness of what they have done. An offence is committed whether or not the agreement reached between the individuals is implemented by the undertakings as the individuals intended. It is only right that they should be exposed to criminal sanctions, whether or not circumstances mean that the agreement is not implemented. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that that includes where they could not in practice be implemented.

839
I hope we all agree that a key purpose of the offence is to deter agreements being reached in the first place. The proposed amendment would undermine the deterrent effect.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he accept that in the Ghosh case the definition of dishonesty, on which the Government are relying in this case, is that juries must ask themselves, first, whether what was done was dishonest by the standards of reasonable people and, secondly and more importantly, whether the defendant understood that that was the case?
As regards prosecutions in this area, the defendant in order to be caught by the Ghosh case must understand that it was dishonest in the context of the provisions referred to in the amendment. Otherwise, no reasonable person could regard it as being dishonest. If the Minister believes that it is impossible to prosecute under the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would he not accept that the arguments apply equally to those two tests in the Ghosh case?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said that the Ghosh case implies both intent and the knowledge of the consequences of the agreement. Under Amendment No. 153, the Crown would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant who had concluded a cartel agreement did so knowing that he was breaching particular sections of the Competition Act 1998. That does not make sense.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, at this late hour I have no wish to engage in semantics with the Minister, and certainly no wish to engage in circular semantics. Therefore, I will take time to reflect on what he said and on the perceptive questioning and interesting points made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
Clause 185 [Cartel offence: penalty and prosecution]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 138, line 42, leave out ", or (b) by or"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, stated that the SFO and the OFT would work together both in cartel investigations and on decisions to prosecute. However, it will be the SFO that will undertake any prosecution in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As I understand it, the Government believe that this approach will link the SFO's expertise in criminal prosecution with the OFT's expertise in competition investigations. We also learned from the noble Lord that the Government do not expect a large number of prosecutions. He said that on 18th July 2002 at col. 1542 of the Official Report.
The envisaged procedure appears to be that the OFT will undertake the initial investigation using powers broadly modelled on the SFO powers in the
840
Criminal Justice Act 1987. The OFT will inform the SFO as soon as the case appears likely to lead to a criminal prosecution. At that point, either the decision may be taken to hand over the case to the SFO to prosecute, or the OFT may remain involved for a period—called "extended vetting"—before a decision is taken.
In fact, even though the OFT is included as an additional prosecutor of the offence, it is neither expected nor adequately resourced to do so. The OFT has only been included to facilitate any change of circumstances in the future that will justify it being able to perform a prosecution role. This was made clear on 18th July 2002 at col. 1542 of the Official Report and on 22nd July at col. 134.
We remain of the view that there is a serious risk of confusion over the exercise of these powers if the OFT is to have both criminal investigatory powers under this Bill and civil investigatory power under the Competition Act 1998. These are different procedures and, perhaps of even greater importance, engage different rights of defence. If the Government intend the SFO to be the lead prosecutor, in my most respectful submission, the Bill should say so. If this proves inappropriate, extending the powers to the OFT can be debated as an amendment to the Bill as enacted at a later stage.
We believe, firmly, that criminal investigations of cartel offences should be carried out exclusively by the SFO. The OFT has no experience of criminal investigations. It should not, therefore, have the burden and responsibility of complying with the different standards that apply in criminal matters. Its responsibility should be limited to the enforcement of civil remedies. I beg to move.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 155, which is identical, I think, to the one that my noble friend Lord Sharman moved in Committee. When, quite late at night, this matter was debated in Committee, the Minister gave a rather extensive explanation of how in his view the SFO and the OFT would operate in this sphere, giving those of us who proposed the amendment some food for thought.
The critical remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are set out at col. 1542 of the Committee stage debate where, having explained in detail that it was envisaged that the SFO and OFT would operate very much in the way that my noble friend Lord Sharman and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, wanted, he said that it was nevertheless necessary to have the Bill drafted in the way that it is for the following reasons. He stated:
"The OFT is included in the Bill as an additional named prosecutor but it is neither expected nor resourced to prosecute initially. It has only been included so that if circumstances justify it in future, the OFT will be able to perform a prosecution role. That might arise if the number of cartel prosecutions created a conflict with other SFO priorities".—[Official Report, 18/7/02; col. 1542.]
What the Minister will say, if he is not on this occasion prepared to accept the noble Lord's amendment, is that he accepts that the matter will be tackled in the

841
way that we want but just in case in the future it might be necessary because of resource implications for it to be done another way, we have to have the Bill phrased in the way that it is.
I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, or I will be able this evening to persuade the Minister to give any ground. However, perhaps I may draw to his attention the fact that as we have progressed through the Bill and we on this side of the House have produced amendments with regard to what might happen in the future, we have always been told, "We do not need to do that because the Government will be able to deal with the situation in a different way were that eventuality to arise". I cast noble Lords' minds back to the debate that we had on what could be called "the Sir Jeremy Lever amendment" where the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, told us that were the situation we were considering likely to arise, the Government would be able to deal with it in a certain way.
I was persuaded completely by what the Minister said in Committee about how he envisaged that the measure would operate. However, I was not persuaded that that was a reason for not accepting what was the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sharman and what is now the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Therefore, I support the amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know why the House needs me as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, makes my speeches for me and anticipates what I am going to say. That saves time up to a point. However, I still have to make the points.
Amendment No. 155 seeks to amend the arrangements for the prosecution of the new offence by making the SFO the sole prosecutor, but subjecting its prosecutorial role to the consent of the OFT. That is a new element on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman.
The Bill provides for the SFO and the OFT to prosecute the new offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but it is our expectation, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, anticipated, that the SFO will carry out all prosecutions in the first instance. It has the necessary resources and experience for the criminal prosecution of this type of case, having prosecuted other white-collar crime such as insider dealing for many years.
However, it may become appropriate at some time in the future for the OFT, whose role initially will be as investigator, to take on a prosecutorial role. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested that there might be a conflict between the prosecutorial role and the investigatory role. I remind the noble Lord that we commissioned an independent review of OFT procedures carried out by Sir Anthony Hammond and Roy Penrose. They concluded that if the OFT were to prosecute,
"it would be possible to ensure, by creating suitable internal structures, the separation of the investigatory from the prosecutorial function, thus complying with what has become
842
known as "the Phillips Principle" ie: that those taking the legal decision to prosecute should be seen to be separate from and independent of the investigators".
Therefore, I believe that we have already answered that question.
The OFT would have to take time to develop the necessary capability and resource before it could take on a prosecution role. That is consistent with the Government's stated policy in the response to consultation; namely, that the SFO should be the lead prosecutor in England, Wales and Northern Ireland with the OFT as an additional named prosecutor. The amendment also proposes to give the prosecution role to the SFO but to deny it the discretion to take the final decision on which cases to prosecute. I do not know whether that is intended but that is what it would do. It will of course work closely with the OFT on cartel cases that look likely to lead to criminal prosecution but the final decision will rightly be its own. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his reply and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, for the sharp illumination that he focused on the dustier corners of the analysis that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made in Committee.
I am not as happy as I would like to be about the reply of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but I am aware that I am unlikely to make much more progress. I shall reflect on this matter between now and Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 190 [Exercise of powers by authorised person]:
[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]
Clause 191 [Privileged information etc.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 141, line 27, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "the reference in subsection (1)—

(a) to proceedings in the High Court is to be read as a reference to legal proceedings generally; and

(b) to an entitlement on grounds of legal professional privilege is to be read as a reference to an entitlement by virtue of any rule of law whereby—

(i) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client, or

(ii) communications made in connection with or in contemplation of legal proceedings and for the purposes of those proceedings,

are in such proceedings protected from disclosure on the ground of confidentiality."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 194 [Surveillance powers]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 158:
Leave out Clause 194.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we believe that the surveillance powers that were introduced by the RIPA to combat serious crime and terrorism should not be available to a public authority whose responsibilities

843
are the regulation of competition. Protection of our liberties justifies the security forces having these new intrusive surveillance powers. But surely it is not right to grant the same powers to OFT officials. Surely the fight against terrorism cannot be equated with the task of eliminating the more dubious commercial practices of, for example, a cartel of provincial taxi drivers. I beg to move.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. This is probably a rare example in this House on which I can observe that everything has been said that I wanted to say; I have certainly said it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept that with gratitude.
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, or, de facto, the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, are saying that we do not need appropriate surveillance powers to investigate cartels. The very nature of cartels is that they involve agreements reached between private individuals in private places. If one does not have surveillance powers one will simply not learn what is happening. That is very often a matter not even of documentation but of verbal agreement.
Clause 194 amends the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to grant the OFT access to intrusive surveillance powers for the United Kingdom. With those powers the chairman of the OFT may authorise the planting of surveillance devices in residential premises, including hotel accommodation, and private vehicles. In the chairman's absence and in an urgent case, a senior officer of the OFT designated for the purpose may also grant an authorisation.
As I indicated, cartels operate under cover and are notoriously difficult to detect. I shall not resist the temptation to talk about the cartel that I know best. In the 1960s I worked in the electric lamp industry, which was one of the most blatant cartels. Everything was written down, and that was achieved by the heads of the company that I worked for and of the other companies that produced electric lamps in this country going to a luxury hotel in Switzerland and agreeing the prices of all electric lamps and the discounts for super-wholesalers, wholesalers and retailers. As they went to Switzerland, they probably would not even be caught by these provisions.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in those circumstances, the Minister must be most relieved that the new provisions on the criminalisation of cartels will not be made retrospective.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, is the Minister going to confirm that this evening?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they are not retrospective and I had no personal part in reaching these agreements. I hasten to add that they went back even before my time to the Phoenix agreements of the 1920s. However, the point is still the same. The meetings are held on neutral territory and records are
844
not necessarily kept. Surveillance powers could provide irrefutable evidence in court of participation in a cartel. It is in the public interest to gain evidence about a cartel which can lead to a successful prosecution. In the case of the cartel for Lysine, an additive widely used in animal feed, the US authorities obtained video evidence which showed cartel members in hotel rooms concluding their deals. They provided decisive evidence in securing convictions for offences that were committed over a period of four years.
Of course, the powers are strong. They will be used only in the most serious cases and where the OFT has specific information about a meeting from an informant. But there are important safeguards, which come from the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The RIPA establishes a framework under which the powers can be operated to uncover crime.
For an application for intrusive surveillance under the RIPA to be authorised, its use must be proportionate to what is sought to be achieved and it must meet one of three criteria. The one that will apply for the cartel offence is that the intrusive surveillance is necessary,
"for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime".
It must be the case that the information could not reasonably be obtained by other means. All applications for authorisations are subject to the scrutiny and approval of the surveillance commissioners.
The clause restricts the purpose for which the OFT can use intrusive surveillance to preventing or detecting the cartel criminal offence. The OFT is not able to apply the powers for the purpose of any of its civil investigations. When an authorisation is granted, the OFT intends to outsource the technical deployment of the intrusive surveillance activity to other public authorities which already have access to the powers and experience of exercising them.
The powers are strong but they are necessary and proportionate. Cartels are secretive arrangements which can be successfully detected and prosecuted only with adequate powers of investigation.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full reply. I find this one of the most worrying clauses in the whole Bill. The powers that the Government seek' under the clause are, in my submission, wholly disproportionate to the objective that they wish to achieve. Even in circumstances where the powers, as exercised, exceed the purported control framework, there is very little that the object of their use can do about it.
There is a real possibility that we shall bring back this matter at Third Reading and put the Government to the test on it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 158 A not moved.]
Clause 199 [Disqualification]:
[Amendments Nos. 159 to 166 not moved.]
11.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 167:
Leave out Clause 199.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no comment on the nearly five pages of complicated provisions on director disqualification. My purpose is to seek an explanation of why the clause differs so dramatically from the White Paper, by extending director disqualification orders to directors of companies infringing competition law.
In last year's White Paper, the Government suggested that disqualification would only come into operation for those who had committed a serious breach of competition law. Clause 199 goes much further, by extending disqualification to any breach of competition law—not only UK but European. Any such breach, however minor, could be used as a basis for disqualification. Does the Minister think that is an appropriate balance between the alleged offence and the punishment? Also, can the Minister confirm that the OFT draft guidance envisages seeking disqualification of entire boards of directors?
Given that competition law is seldom easy to determine and is never black and white, there are often legitimate differences of opinion as to whether conduct is pro-competition or anti-competitive. The blanket approach could be extremely unfair. If disqualification is to be introduced in the way suggested, changes are needed to limit it to serious breaches. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, we began the afternoon talking about corporate governance and a key part of that is a board that has independent members—non-executive directors in the modern parlance. Under Clause 199, non-executive directors, who perforce are members of the board, are equally liable. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh' said, things are often done secretly, away from non-executive directors. It is not always easy to determine rights and wrongs but such directors could still be the subject of a disqualification order.
In my experience—not direct experience, I hasten to add—the operation of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 is sometimes capricious in the way that it lands on a particular individual. The power is likely to deter people of probity and integrity from taking on non-executive directorships because they may run foul of Clause 199. It must be in all our interests that high-quality people take up such posts, because that is an essential part of good corporate governance. Unless the clause can be made a great deal more sensitive, it is likely to deter such people.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have a number of difficulties with the amendment and with the arguments put forward. My fundamental area of disagreement is with the assumption that disqualification is somehow a form of punishment. It is not intended as a punishment; it is intended to protect the public from directors whose actions or omissions have shown them to be unfit to be involved in the management of a company.
846
Breaches of competition law do real harm to consumers and other businesses and may indicate that the people involved are unfit to be company directors. This is not so different from the White Paper published in July 2001, which referred to breaches of UK and EC competition law. The clause defines a breach of competition law as a breach of either the Competition Act 1998 prohibitions or Articles 81 and 82 of the EC treaty.
Disqualification will not be automatic. In order for a disqualification order to be made, the court must be satisfied that two conditions have been fulfilled. First, the company must have committed a breach of competition law. As I have stated, that is defined as either a breach of the prohibition on anti-competitive agreements contained in Chapter 1 of the Competition Act 1998 or Article 81 of the EC treaty, or a breach of the prohibition against abuse of a dominant position in Chapter 2 of the Competition Act 1998 or Article 82 of the EC treaty.
Secondly—this is most important—the court must consider that the person's conduct in respect of the competition breach makes him unfit to be involved in the management of a company. In considering whether that condition is fulfilled, the court will consider whether the director was actively involved in the competition breach; or while not actively involved in the breach, the director had reasonable grounds for suspecting the breach but did nothing; or whether the director did not know but should have known about the competition breach. If under those definitions someone is found by the court to be unfit to be involved in the management of a company, I find it difficult to argue on what basis there should be no disqualification of that director.
There are a number of safeguards in the clause. It is for the court to decide on the facts of each particular case whether or not the person is fit to be involved in the management of a company. If the court is not satisfied it will not make a disqualification order. In addition, before any disqualification application can be made, the director must be given notice and an opportunity given to make representations.
We have to consider this in perspective. The vast majority of companies in business operate responsibly. The disqualification provisions will potentially apply only to the small minority of directors whose companies have been found to have breached competition law. It is right that disqualification should be available to protect the public where a director's conduct in breach of competition law has shown him to be unfit to be involved in the management of a company.
I turn to the question raised regarding a board of directors as a whole. A board of directors might resolve that the company should engage in an activity which constituted a breach of competition law. I suggest that the OFT would view that as a particularly serious case. It might consider applying for orders against each member of the board of directors of the company in question, but when doing so it is likely to take into account the conduct of each individual

847
director in relation to that resolution. However, that is in those cases where there is a formal resolution of the board which is thought to be in breach of competition. Therefore, it is possible for a whole board to be disqualified, but only under the specific circumstances I have outlined. Fundamentally, the proposal to remove this clause suggests that a person who is found by the court to be unfit to participate in the management of a company should not be disqualified. I cannot believe that that is the case.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I always believe that it is not a good idea for those responding to debates to move to an extreme position. I shall make two points. First, I shall look again at last year's White Paper. However, it was certainly my understanding that in that document the Government suggested that disqualification would be available only to those who have committed a serious breach of competition law. As I understand it, the Minister is saying that that is not the case. I do not have the White Paper to hand; obviously I should like to re-read it to see whether he is correct.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not have the White Paper either. I do not want to deny what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says. I base my argument not on that, but on the unfit argument.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, the Minister wriggles. He even denies that he wriggles, but he does, because that was my basic question. If the Government in their White Paper said that disqualification would be available only for those who committed a serious breach of competition law, why have they changed their mind? The Minister rested his case on the fact that he did not believe the Government had changed their mind. We need to reflect on that matter.
848
I endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: who would be a non-executive director in these turbulent times? My good friend at university Mr Derek Higgs is considering that question at present. He is eminently well qualified to produce recommendations. But that is a key question given the state of law on liability; the way in which the corporate veil is being lifted; the extent of responsibilities as well as rights; the Turnbull report and all the previous reports; and now a criminal sanction and possible disqualification where a non-executive director might not have known of the anti-competitive behaviour, but should have done.
There are all sorts of problems, but the Minister has taken a great deal of time and trouble in responding. I would like to take an equal amount of time to consider the effect of what he said. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment and a Special Report made; the Chairman of Committees directed pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 121(1)(b) that the Bill be not recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee; it was ordered that the Special Report be printed. (HL Paper 171)
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before midnight.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres: Archaelogical Surveys
  Asylum Accommodation Centres: Archaelogical Surveys
  Disability Rights Commission
  Disability Rights Commission
  Public Transport: Health and Safety Commission's role
  Public Transport: Health and Safety Commission's role
  Health Professions Council
  Health Professions Council
  NHS: Registered Nursing Care
  NHS: Registered Nursing Care
  Human Tissues Act 1961 and Anatomy Act 1984
  Human Tissues Act 1961 and Anatomy Act 1984
  Abortion
  Abortion