Sitting of 21 October 2002

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

    COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [16 October],
    That Mr. John Hayes be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Peter Luff be added to the Committee—[Mr. Woolas.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WORK AND PENSIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Pensions
    Mr. George Osborne: If he will make a statement on the number of final salary pension schemes that have closed in the last year. [73059]
    Mr. Mark Hoban: If he will make a statement on the Government's response to the Pickering report. [73061]
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make a statement on the powers of employers to reduce employees' final salary pension scheme. [73063]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): Final salary schemes remain the most widespread form of pension provision. Where there is a shift to money purchase, the key thing is the level of contributions rather than the nature of the scheme as such. It is clearly crucial that we have proper partnership between employers, employees, the financial services industry and Government, with each meeting their responsibilities.
    A simpler regulatory framework, as both Sandler and Pickering emphasised, would make it easier for companies and workers to save through good schemes. As the Green Paper will be consultative, hon. Members and the public will have every opportunity to influence policy before decisions are taken.
    Mr. Osborne: I note that the Secretary of State did not answer my question at all. May I ask him this supplementary question? Confidence in personal and occupational schemes will have been severely damaged this weekend by news that the Government are considering abolishing higher-rate tax relief on pension contributions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear some cheering on the Labour Benches. The Government have tried to distance themselves from the story by saying that the adviser to Downing street is independent. To my mind, that reinforces the story. Will the Secretary of State give a simple yes or no answer: are the Government considering, at official or ministerial level, plans to abolish higher-rate tax relief on pension contributions? Yes or no?
    Mr. Smith: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, as hon. Members know, the review of statistics

    3
    from the Office for National Statistics recently made a number of recommendations as to how the collection of statistics might be improved. If the recommendation that more information should be collected through the employers and families surveys can be taken forward as we would like, it would give us better data.
    On the question about tax relief, as the hon. Gentleman and the House know, questions concerning taxation are matters for Budgets. We have no such plans; if we had such plans we would come to the House of Commons and say so. As hon. Members will understand, ahead of an important document such as the pensions Green Paper, Ministers receive all sorts of representations. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Ministers have taken no decisions of the sort suggested—it is all fevered speculation. It would be best to wait and see what is in the pre-Budget report and the Green Paper itself.
    Mr. Hoban: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the abolition of higher-rate tax relief on pensions contributions would make it less and not more likely that people would save towards their retirement? Will that not lead to a deepening of the crisis in funded pension provision?
    Mr. Smith: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to the reply that I have just given. He will not tempt me to engage in hypothetical speculation on this important matter.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns, following the actions of Scottish Widows and British Airways—to name but two—on final salary pension schemes? Will he consider a change in the law to ensure that employers hold full consultations so that those practices do not continue at the expense of people who work for such companies?
    Mr. Smith: As I said in my opening response, it is very important that all parties in pension provision—employers included—meet their responsibilities. I have discussed the issues with the CBI and we are encouraging the partnership discussions that are under way between the CBI and the TUC. It should be stressed hat good pension arrangements are crucial to business in recruiting and retaining a good work force. We shall address those issues further in the Green Paper.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: But is my right hon. Friend aware that management and ownership changes in companies can sometimes create problems? For example, management buy-outs sometimes give new managements the opportunity to tear up existing schemes. Does my right hon. Friend think that some additional measures to safeguard existing schemes should be provided in future to deal with such circumstances?
    Mr. Smith: Among the provisions that would address my hon. Friend's concern—which has been drawn to our attention—are the 401k arrangements that operate in the United States. As with other aspects of this matter, we shall be considering those as part of the Green Paper. As I pointed out earlier, hon. Members
    4
    and the general public, including trade unions and employers, will have full opportunity to make comments on the proposals in the Green Paper.
    Mr. Steve Webb: In my usual generous way, I fully accept that the Secretary of State inherited a complete mess in relation to pensions, for which he is not personally responsible, but does he accept that the situation now is urgent and that each day we have more bad news on final salary schemes and private sector pensions? Is he not concerned that, if we have a Green Paper in response to consultation papers, then consult on it, then legislate, it may be several years before workable legislation is in place, and that by then there may not be much of a pensions sector left? Does he not think that more urgent action is needed?
    Mr. Smith: This is an extremely important policy area to address, and to address properly. As the hon. Gentleman and the House will understand, pensions policy is, by definition, for the long term, and I believe that we will get the best policy on the basis of calm reflection. Yes, of course these are matters of urgency but with calm and proper consideration and consultation we can put something in place that is durable, and rebuild confidence in the pension promise. We would not do that through knee-jerk reaction to fevered press speculation.
    Mr. Clive Betts: Will the Secretary of State consider the position of workers such as those at United Engineering Forgings in Sheffield, which has gone into administration, putting their pension scheme at risk, and those whose employers decide to terminate a scheme against their wishes? In both cases, because the schemes are not fully funded and because of the prior claims of existing pensioners, additional voluntary contributions and so on, such workers find their expected future pensions cut in half or worse overnight. That is bad enough for any worker, but it is devastating for workers in their 40s and 50s, who have no chance of making up the loss. Will the Secretary of State take action to right what is a very obvious wrong in those cases?
    Mr. Smith: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the understandable anxiety—and in many cases anger—that workers feel having been put in that position. I have seen the reports of the comments of the independent Occupational Pension Advisory Service on the situation at Maersk, which is precisely such an instance. I have already asked that that sort of situation and the appropriate action that we can take be covered in the Green Paper.
    Mr. John Butterfill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many homeowners rely on a tax-free lump sum to help to pay off their mortgages and that, if that were to he abolished, it would compound the difficulty that exists with endowment policies at the moment? Does he agree that the position is anomalous because, although many people would be better off putting all their lump sum into their pension rather than taking the tax-free amount, there is no parallel incentive for them to do so? Would they not be

    5
    better getting a proportion of tax relief by putting that sum into an annuity, as happens in other European countries?
    Mr. Smith: I am of course fully aware of the importance of the tax-free lump sum. As I made very clear in my statement to the House on 11 July, the effectiveness of incentives and how well they are understood must be one of the criteria against which we judge the Green Paper. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have already said that we will say more about annuities when we produce the Green Paper.
    Ian Lucas: As pensions involve long-term financial arrangements, does the Secretary of State agree that any employer who is considering ending a final salary scheme should not only consult their work force but ensure that they consider the very substantial savings they have made when not contributing to pensions during a pension holiday in the past?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed, and we have urged all employers who are contemplating changes to their schemes to consult the workers effectively.
    Mr. David Willetts: I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want to leave millions of savers in any doubt about his intentions with regard to their pension contributions, so to ensure that there is absolutely no wriggle room—no room for evasion and no room for ambiguity—may I ask him to make it absolutely clear to the House that he agrees with the National Association of Pension Funds that abolishing tax reliefs
    "for higher-rate tax payers is a very bad idea at a time when the government is supposed to be encouraging people to save for their retirement."?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that?
    Mr. Smith: I have already made it abundantly clear—I cannot make this clearer—that we have no such plans. Before accusing us of wanting to increase taxes, the Opposition spokesman ought to explain why his own shadow Chief Secretary has his name on the pension reform pamphlet that urges us to put up national insurance contributions by 2 per cent. He might also do well to remember that the last party to come before the House proposing the abolition of tax relief on pensions contributions was not us but the Conservatives, in the form of the then Secretary of State for Social Security, on 11 March 1997.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State should remember that it is his policies that we want to hear about.
    Mr. Willetts: I am afraid that we know how skilful the Government are at inventing new stealth taxes. That is why we want to read the Secretary of State's lips. All he has to say is, "We will not remove the tax reliefs currently enjoyed by people saving for their pensions."
    6
    That is what we want him to say; that is what millions of people saving for their pensions want him say; that is what we want to hear him say now.
    Mr. Smith: We will take every action that is necessary to safeguard the future of security in retirement in this country. The hon. Gentleman tempts me to make commitments that must be brought forward in the proper way through the pre-Budget report and the Green Paper. He is not going to get me to engage in hypothetical speculation on an issue on which I have made it clear that the Government have no plans.
    Mr. Willetts: I know that we are not allowed the full Jeremy Paxman 14 questions, but let me try just one more time. I am not trying to tempt the Secretary of State. I am trying on behalf of millions of people saving for their pensions to request him to give them an assurance—plain and simple, with no delay, prevarication or weeks of uncertainty—that he will not remove the tax incentives that people currently have to save for their pensions. That is the assurance that we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to give the House. Why will he not do so?
    Mr. Smith: Because—I could not have been clearer—we have no plans, and these are properly matters for the pre-Budget report and the Budget.
    David Winnick: Should not the whole emphasis be on protecting the future pension plans of those on modest incomes? There is tremendous disappointment that so many people now find that the best provision—the final salary scheme—will not be awarded to them. Is it not interesting that a number of companies that have discontinued such schemes have made sure that their chief executives, chairmen and so on get the most generous pension schemes possible, involving £50,000, £100,000 and £150,000 or more in pension, while their employers are denied a decent pension when they retire?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is crucial that the conclusions that we reach on pensions policy are guided by equity, consultation and fairness to the workers concerned. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), we are looking at the 401k proposals in the United States, which seek to establish that sort of equivalence.

    Student Nurses (Benefit Entitlement)
    Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the benefit entitlement of student nurses. [73060]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): Full-time students, including student nurses, are not generally entitled to receive income-related benefits while studying unless they are in a vulnerable group, such as people with disabilities or lone parents. Student nurses receive a non-repayable bursary which in many cases is more generous than the help available to full-time students in mainstream higher education. All students may claim

    7
    other social security benefits, subject to their satisfying the normal conditions of entitlement for the benefits concerned.
    Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for his response. I understand that next year there will be changes to child care benefits for student nurses, and I welcome that. However, I press the Minister to tell us the advice that he would give today to a constituent of mine who is studying but who cannot afford to pay for her child care costs and whose housing association property is at risk of repossession. Should she abandon her course or risk the financial consequences of pursuing it?
    Malcolm Wicks: I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about that case, about which we have corresponded. I think that there has been a recent development whereby Sutton council, I assume, has been rather more helpful with housing benefit.
    In the national health service, we are now spending more than £300 million a year on NHS bursaries, and the first three rates increased by 10 per cent. last year. The NHS has its own child care strategy on which it will spend £100 million by 2004. As part of that strategy, there will be 150 on-site nurseries, which means that about a further 7,500 subsidised places will be available by 2004. However, I repeat that I am happy to talk about the particular case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: Does not my hon. Friend agree, however, that it is anomalous, not to say unjust, that in many cases the loan that students receive is treated as income for the purposes of deciding whether they are eligible for benefit? Does he not want to take steps to rectify that injustice in view of the fact that it has some of the consequences mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake)?
    Malcolm Wicks: It is appropriate that the help provided through loans and the non-payment of university tuition fees for low-income families is regarded as separate from the help we give people through the provision of income support and jobseeker's allowance when they are out of work. As I said, however, vulnerable groups have access to income-related benefits. It has always been the case that, subject to certain disregards, income sources are subtracted from income support entitlement. That is the case with student loans and it remains the policy.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the serious problem of the number of student nurses who are abandoning the profession simply because of the high cost of rentals in London? Is he aware in particular of the big problem at Barts, which many nurses are leaving because of the closure of the residential unit at Mile End? If he is interested in holding on to nurses, would it not be helpful to find a way in which the hospitals can assist with the provision of accommodation for student nurses at reasonable rents?
    Malcolm Wicks: We are certainly interested in retaining nurses and are sensitive to the issue of housing, not least in my city of London. Housing developments
    8
    are proceeding for key workers, who include nurses. Both housing policy and national health service policy are sensitive to that important issue.

    Disability Benefits (Home Visits)
    Mr. Win Griffiths: How many complaints were recorded against doctors carrying out home visits to assess people receiving disability benefits in (a) 1981, (b) 1991 and (c) 2001. [73062]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): No data are held about complaints for the period before the contract for medical services was let in September 1998. However, in 2001 there were 1,665 complaints out of a total of 236,028 home visits carried out by medical services doctors.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he consider how complaints against doctors who visit people on disability benefits are dealt with, given that at the moment it is the doctor's word against the word of the person who has been interviewed? When, as often happens, the two stories do not coincide, the doctor's word is taken against that of the person on benefit. How many of those complaints were found to be justified?
    Mr. Brown: I am afraid that I do not have an immediate figure for how many complaints were justified. It will not always be the case that the complainant is right and the doctor is wrong, or the other way around. The fact is that two people may see such exchanges from different points of view. If my hon. Friend has a specific case in mind that he wants to draw to my attention, I shall be happy to consider it. However, people approach those vexed questions on the basis of different circumstances and have different views accordingly.
    Bob Spink: Does the Minister not think that it would be appropriate for doctors to examine people physically rather than simply discussing how far they can walk and how much weight they can lift? That would ensure that there was objective information on which a decision to remove benefit could be based before such terrible decisions were imposed on vulnerable people who have no defence against a doctor's word.
    Mr. Brown: The doctor's assessment informs the decision maker. It is a medical gateway, but doctors do not make the decisions themselves. I have no reason to believe that there is a case for making the changes that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of our constituents unfairly have their disability benefit removed? Do

    9
    doctors follow a quota that is recommended by the Government? If not, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should examine the system as it is at present?
    Mr. Brown: If people believe that the system has treated them unfairly, there is an appeals mechanism that they can use. Indeed, many cases succeed on appeal.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister know that constituents of mine who receive incapacity benefit had to go all the way from King's Lynn to Norwich to undergo a fitness-for-work test? Would it not be easier if the test took place in King's Lynn? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the journey time from King's Lynn to Norwich by public transport is longer than the recommended 90 minutes? Will he please examine that matter?
    Mr. Brown: I shall examine the hon. Gentleman's specific point. However, many assessments are carried out through home visits; not everybody has to travel.

    Winter Fuel Payments
    Mr. John Robertson: What plans he has to increase winter fuel payments to over-60s. [73064]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): We have increased the level of winter fuel payments considerably since we introduced them in 1997. Most people aged 60 or over receive a payment of up to £200, which is a significant contribution towards their winter fuel bill. That means that almost 1 million pensioners in Scotland—more than 13,000 in my hon. Friend's constituency—will continue to benefit. We are committed to helping pensioners and we have given an undertaking that that level of payment will continue for the rest of the Parliament.
    John Robertson: I wholeheartedly welcome the winter fuel allowance and the increases in it. However, does my hon. Friend realise that although the death rate has decreased, more people die of cold in Britain than in the rest of Europe? That costs the national health service more than £1 billion a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that a winter fuel allowance increase of £50 to £250 would help to reduce fuel poverty in this country and help to alleviate the costs on the NHS? If so, when will the 13,000 households in Anniesland receive it?
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is well known for his assiduity in pursuing the interests of his pensioner constituents. However, he seems to believe that I have a little more power than I do.
    The winter fuel payment is not the Government's only policy to tackle fuel poverty. Of course, it is an important policy that helps pensioners in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere, but we have other policies. For example, the old home energy efficiency scheme, which is now known as warm front, gives grants of up to £2,500 for over-60s to improve the heating and insulation of their properties.
    10
    Between 1997 and 2002, gas prices have decreased by almost 12 per cent. in real terms and electricity prices by more than 21 per cent. So there are other factors that mean that people should find it easier to pay their winter fuel bills.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister give us the figures for the decrease in older people's deaths in the winter months? The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) described such deaths as a British phenomenon. Will the hon. Lady further emphasise that it is not only the winter fuel payment but tackling the substandard housing and lack of insulation in many older people's households that makes a difference?
    Maria Eagle: I cannot provide the exact figures governing the decrease in deaths because I do not have them with me. Of course, they vary from year to year. The 2000 spending review provided an extra £2.5 billion to renovate social housing. That will do much to improve insulation and heating. I have already referred to warm front, the home energy efficiency scheme, which the Government have greatly extended.
    I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman supported the policy because I was not a Member of Parliament at the time, but the Conservative Government introduced VAT on fuel, which we cut from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. We have therefore taken several measures to ensure that people who have difficulty paying their fuel bills can do so. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman wants to join us in that aim. I hope that he will dissent from any Conservative party policies that are not excellent on cutting winter fuel prices.

    New Deal
    James Purnell: What plans he has to increase the flexibility of delivery of the new deal for clients and providers. [73066]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): The new deals have already proved a success, helping nearly three quarters of a million people move into work. We are now building on that success. We have already introduced a range of further initiatives, including the tailored pathway pilots and the adviser discretion fund. Both of those give personal advisers, working with providers, more flexibility to tailor services to address the particular needs of individuals and the local labour market.
    James Purnell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. His Department's response to the Select Committee's report on the new deal says that it will consider more moves towards making this area more flexible. Will he look particularly at streamlining the new deal so that there is one overall scheme, which would provide more flexibility for advisers to give an individual package of help to claimants, designed around their needs rather than around the needs of large categories of claimants?
    Mr. Brown: We are looking at what greater flexibility can be given to advisers in particular circumstances. Initiatives to increase flexibility in the new deal include

    11
    the adviser discretion fund, which gives the personal advisers flexibility in the way they help people to overcome barriers to work. The tailored pathway pilots give advisers flexibility to combine new deal options to suit the needs of individual clients. There are also the ambition programmes, and employers have been given more flexibility in the way in which training is provided on the employment option. We have introduced short work-focused courses in the education and training option to meet the needs of local employers more flexibly, and, later this year, we will introduce more payment flexibility for small employers on the employment option.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Would the Minister be prepared to look at the current spending profile of the new deal for disabled people? Many of the job brokers involved are small specialist concerns—some are charities and agencies—that find it difficult to survive given that they are sometimes getting less than 10 per cent. of their fee up front. Sometimes it takes many months to get the rest of their fee for the scheme. The scheme is very welcome in concept, but some important aspects need to be considered carefully if we are to make it a realistic prospect for some of the agencies and job brokers who are anxious to help.
    Mr. Brown: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point. There is clearly an issue in relation to the way in which providers are paid, and strong representations have been made to us about the balance between outcome payments and payments made earlier in the programme. The matter is being given careful consideration in the Department now, and I hope that we shall have something further to say shortly.
    Angela Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the effectiveness of the new deal depends partly on the professionalism of the staff delivering it? In that regard, will he send his congratulations to Mr. Kevin Adderley and all the staff at the Wallasey Jobcentre Plus, whose latest results have just shown that, since it was set up as a pathfinder office, it has found work for 2,700 people, including 700 from the hardest to help groups? That makes it the top-performing pathfinder office in the country.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for standing up for the hard-working staff in Jobcentre Plus. I have been impressed by the levels of commitment and standards of service of our staff in Jobcentre Plus, and by their sheer enthusiasm for the ideas that underpin the Government's approach. I know that, when other Members have visited their Jobcentre Plus, they have received a similar impression. I am happy to extend my congratulations to my hon. Friend's constituents.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that the recent report of the Labour-dominated Public Accounts Committee found that 30 per cent. of leavers from the new deal for young people went to unknown destinations, will the right hon. Gentleman accept the report's recommendation that his Department and
    12
    Jobcentre Plus conduct further research into why people leave the scheme, in order better to identify those participants who need additional help and support?
    Mr. Brown: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I also welcome the constructive line of questioning that he is adopting. The Public Accounts Committee reports are, of course, delivered in a bipartisan setting. Indeed, it is one of the strengths of that Committee that it can arrive at its conclusions unanimously and strive to get recommendations to the Government that transcend traditional party lines. We will of course look at the PAC's recommendations, but I must say that I thought the report constituted an endorsement of what we were doing rather than the full-blooded criticism for which the hon. Gentleman may have been looking.
    David Cairns: My right hon. Friend will know. because I have discussed the issue with him, that in my constituency, although long-term unemployment is four times lower than it was in the 1980s, we still have a residual problem because of the large number of workers on short-term and fixed-term contracts. Would not a bolder and more radical solution be to make the expertise gained by new deal advisers accessible to people who are in work but who, owing to the nature of their contracts, know that in four to six weeks they will be out of a job for an unspecified period before obtaining another short-term contract? Can we help that group of workers to escape from the perpetual cycle of short-term and fixed-term contracts and into full-time work by applying such expertise?
    Mr. Brown: That is a good point, which we have discussed before. The labour market in my hon. Friend's constituency is slightly anomalous because of the impact and prevalence of the short-term contracts to which he has referred. I am not sure how much the Employment Service and Jobcentre Plus can do to deal with the core problem—the short-term nature of the contracts themselves—but I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend and see what more can be done.
    Andrew Selous: In relation to the hardest to help, can the Minister undertake to look carefully at the conclusions of the Select Committee report regarding the involvement of the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors in finding jobs for people who are dependent on alcohol or drugs?
    Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have programmes targeted at those recovering from drug addiction, and also at ex-offenders. Of course the voluntary sector has an important part to play in that work, as it already plays an important part in the provision of, for example, intermediate labour market schemes, which can provide a pathway to permanent employment. I take the recommendations very seriously indeed.

    Disabled People (New Deal)
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What assessment he has made of the impact of the new deal for disabled people. [73068]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): The new deal for disabled people is the first national employment programme specifically designed to help people with disabilities move into and keep jobs. Since the national extension of the programme began, it has helped over 4,000 people into jobs and more than 20,000 have registered with job brokers to actively pursue employment. We are working closely with job brokers, and are keen to make improvements to the new deal for disabled people as we proceed. As the NDDP progresses, a comprehensive programme of evaluation will measure the impact, and a report of that evaluation will be published.
    Dr. Iddon: The new deal for disabled people started in Bolton as a pilot scheme in 1998, and has now been rolled out to include Bury and Salford. I am pleased to say that last month was the most successful ever, with 45 people entering employment. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that many people with disabilities, especially those on incapacity benefit, are not engaging with the NDDP because they fear losing their benefits? Will he make it clear to those people that they can work therapeutically, without loss of benefits, and that in-work benefits are also available to people with disabilities?
    Mr. Brown: The combination of tax credits and the new earnings rules amounts to an attractive package. I do not think that the situation is well enough understood—we need to do more to explain the current circumstances—and I agree that people fear loss of benefits. They also fear that if they take on a job, perhaps part time, it may be difficult for them to return to benefits. In particular, people worry about housing benefit and council tax rebates, and if they have children, they worry about losing free school dinners.
    These are important issues. We want those who have tried work and been unable to sustain it to be able to return to benefits, and not to be disadvantaged by having tried work; but of course we still have some way to go to ensure that we can actually deliver that.

    Universal Bank
    Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on progress towards payment of pensions and benefits through the universal bank and post office card accounts. [73069]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Post Office assures us that it is on schedule for the start of universal banking services in April next year, including the post office card account. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that the banks have now signed detailed contracts with the Post Office to make their basic accounts available at Post Office branches.
    Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the universal banking proposals have been widely welcomed, but there is still much doubt and concern about whether the post office card account will be up and running in time. Why have his and other Departments done nothing to persuade or even advise people of the existence of the post office card account?
    14
    Why do the application forms for the new child tax credit ask for people's bank account details, and explain to them how to get a bank account, but do not tell them that they can still receive their benefit in cash at post offices through the post office card account?
    Mr. Smith: We have consulted widely on all the materials and on all the letters that we are sending on this matter. I would rebut any suggestion—some have been made—that we are trying to put barriers in the way of people accessing post office card accounts. We certainly are not. In our communications strategy, we are writing to different categories of benefit and pension recipients. The Veterans Agency started writing to its clients earlier this month, and our Department will write to pensioners and to recipients of child benefit, income support, jobseeker's allowance and disability benefit over a two-year period, because the introduction will be phased. The first invitation letters asking for account details will be sent to child benefit recipients from next week. We shall also mount a major advertising campaign at the beginning of the new year to ensure that people are fully informed of their rights in this matter.
    Mr. Ivan Henderson: Many pensioners welcome the fact that they will still be able to get their pensions in cash at post office counters. However, I am concerned that the high-tech nature of the new system that will come into operation next April will pose extreme difficulties for some pensioners. It will be stressful for some pensioners to collect their pension. I have seen the demonstration in the post office in Central Lobby, which involves small machines with PIN pads for pensioners to use to get their cash. Will the Minister consider providing a more user-friendly system for pensioners? Will he consult pensioner organisations before the new system comes about next April?
    Mr. Smith: There have been extensive consultations with organisations representing pensioners and post office users more generally, and they are continuing. I would not describe the new system as a high-tech solution to the challenge. Yes, people will have to remember a PIN number, but they will be able to change the number to one that is easier for them to remember. We appreciate that some people will not be able to use a PIN number, and alternative arrangements will be put in place for them.
    Annabelle Ewing: Are the UK Government prepared to make grants available to sub-postmasters to ensure that people with disabilities have ready access to post office card accounts, and that the equipment is user friendly for our pensioners?
    Mr. Smith: We have already committed huge sums of money to the changeover—£500 million has gone into the Horizon provision in post offices, the DTI will shortly announce further resources to assist rural post offices, and £270 million of investment is committed to carrying into effect the recommendations of the performance and innovation unit report to safeguard the future of the post office network. I can tell the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich

    15
    (Mr. Henderson) that, as this system is developed, if sensible improvements can be made in the light of experience, I should be pleased to consider them.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, despite all his Department's efforts to make the system seem simple and user-friendly, many elderly people are worried about it? Is it not important that, as well as providing the literature from his Department, we ensure that the national media put the change forward positively, so that people get the message on how simple it is? The media sometimes carry an even greater impact than official notices from his Department.
    Mr. Smith: Tempting though it is to imagine that I could take responsibility for how such things are portrayed in the media, I cannot do so. We shall make efforts not only through letters to clients, but through advertising, leafleting and other ways of communicating the message that the system is straightforward and simple. However, I also stress that where people have difficulties, of course special arrangements have to be made for them.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State sounds confident at a time when two fifths of households receiving disability benefits have no bank account, a third of those receiving jobseeker's allowance have no bank account and, as he confirmed in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 19 July, there are 250,000 more benefit recipients without bank accounts than at the time of the previous survey.
    Will the Secretary of State assure the House, first, that the proposal will not be driven through before the necessary systems are in place and the households have the appropriate accounts, and secondly, that no more post offices will close because of the loss of business caused by the introduction of the system?
    Mr. Smith: I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman and his party accepted that, through the great investment that we are making in the Post Office, including its modernisation and getting in proper IT, and by extending financial services through basic bank accounts as well as post office card accounts to people who do not have them, we will be tackling financial exclusion and opening up new and positive opportunities for post offices the better to serve not simply their traditional client group, important though that is, but also to win new business. This is a process of modernisation, which is the only way forward to safeguard the post office network in the way everyone in the House wants.

    Disabled People (Permitted Work)
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: If he will extend the categories of those people with disabilities who may undertake supported permitted work. [73070]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): The new permitted work rules give everyone claiming benefit because of a health condition or disability the opportunity to try out work
    16
    without fear of losing their benefit. That is designed to be a stepping stone to full-time work—that is, work of more than 16 hours a week.
    We responded to concerns raised during the consultation on the change by widening the rules to maintain the position of people with special needs who are supported in work by professional health or care workers. We will evaluate the permitted work rules over the next 18 months to see whether further improvements are required.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer and her indication that she will evaluate the way the rules work. In that evaluation, will she consider the cases of claimants who, under the old rules, could have undertaken paid therapeutic work while receiving incapacity benefit, but are unable to do so under the new rules, because they do not fall within the new definition of supported permitted work? That is because the work that they do does not easily fall into the categories of support that are normally given by local authorities. The same applies to voluntary organisations. She is aware of a case in my constituency, on which I have corresponded with her and her colleagues. Will she re-examine it, and also consider in the evaluation the detail of the wider issues raised by my constituent's case?
    Maria Eagle: I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers, and I have a great deal of sympathy for his constituent and the position in which she finds herself. I hope that he will come to see me about the case, so that I can see what we can do to help his constituent. I am also happy to tell him that I will consider the issue that he raises to see how widespread it is in the new scheme and what, if anything, ought to be done about it in the evaluation.

    Benefit Fraud
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: What his targets are for the reduction of benefit fraud. [73071]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): We have announced firm targets for reducing fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance for working-age customers. We are aiming for a 33 per cent. reduction by 2004 and a 50 per cent. reduction by 2006. We have also announced a new target aiming for a 25 per cent. reduction in fraud and error in housing benefit by 2006. Latest figures show that we have already achieved a 24 per cent. reduction in fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance for all customers—more than double our target of 10 per cent. To spell that out, it means a saving of some £240 million.
    Mr. Thomas: Perhaps as part of the plan to meet that new target, and given that many instances of benefit fraud involve the fraudster using an identity other than their own, what further measures will my hon. Friend's officials be developing, perhaps in partnership with

    17
    organisations such as the Council of Mortgage Lenders or the UK fraud prevention service, to tackle the specific problem of identity fraud within the benefit system?
    Malcolm Wicks: Identity fraud is a very sophisticated form of fraud. A special unit in the Department for Work and Pensions looks at that particular area. We work with partners both within and outside Government on that issue. It calls for a very sophisticated response from Government. I think that we have that response.
    Mr. John Redwood: Is the Minister aware that one of the main reasons for so many errors and so much fraud is the incredible complexity of the system? Would it not be helpful if the Minister tried to simplify it so that my constituents who really needed the support knew they could get it and knew how to get it, but those who were trying to work the system found it more difficult because it was much more transparent? Would he not then be able to set a proper target of getting rid of fraud almost completely, instead of living with the unacceptable, high levels that he is forecasting well into the future?
    Malcolm Wicks: What we are also forecasting is a determination to reduce fraud. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that this Government—I cannot speak for other Governments—are succeeding in reducing fraud. All of us want more simplicity. There is a balance to he struck: how to simplify the system when meeting the specific needs of specific members of the community. These are difficult issues, but only last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced pilots/pathfinders on housing benefit, which will produce much greater simplicity in that complex area of social security policy.
    David Taylor: No one in the House would condone and all would condemn any form of benefit fraud, but where there are tighter targets how will changes be introduced with sense and sensitivity? Surveys have often shown that savings from the failure to take up benefits have been greater than the cost of the fraud associated with them. Is there not a risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water if the targets are too tight and the framework too inflexible?
    Malcolm Wicks: We have to be tough minded about rooting out fraud. To put this in context, the £240 million that we have saved by tackling fraud on two benefits, income support and jobseeker's allowance, means that the Exchequer has more money available for police forces, for schools and for hospitals. They are the people's priorities. I often find in my constituency that the people who are most angry about fraud in their communities are hard-working families, often on low incomes, who want taxpayers' money to be spent properly.

    Child Support Agency
    Bob Russell: What procedures are undertaken by the Child Support Agency to check the
    18
    accuracy of declarations of income by absentee fathers who employ accountants or other financial advisers. [73072]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): All declarations of income are checked to verify their accuracy before child maintenance is calculated, where possible. The procedure does not differ if a non-resident parent employs an accountant or financial adviser. An accountant or financial adviser may be one of the third parties with whom information is verified.
    Bob Russell: It does not take Sherlock Holmes to work out that if a rich father employs accountants or financial advisers to produce figures that indicate that he does not have the financial wherewithal to pay maintenance to his children, there is a possibility that some fiddles will be going on. Where financial advisers and accountants are employed to suggest that a father cannot afford to pay maintenance for his children, surely there should be another system to check whether something may be wrong?
    Malcolm Wicks: All of us in our constituencies have come across cases of that kind, which have raised our suspicions. I recognise the importance of the question, but since 1999 the Child Support Agency has had powers that align with those of the Inland Revenue. That means that an inspector may call at any premises where he or she believes relevant information is held. The CSA and Inland Revenue can share information such as self-assessment returns. We may interview other people, such as accountants. We are determined that where someone parents a child, either as a mother or father, they support that child financially. We have new powers to do that and we are determined to implement those powers.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Is my hon. Friend aware that only two thirds of the families who apply for maintenance through the Child Support Agency receive such benefit? Clearly, the point raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) can be a factor in that. What is his Department doing to ensure that the Child Support Agency meets its commitments? The aim is to keep children out of poverty, but clearly, with a third of families not receiving maintenance, more children are forced into poverty.
    Malcolm Wicks: Family insecurity is now as important as economic insecurity as a force for poverty and disadvantage. We have new policies on child support, which we aim to implement as soon as possible. We are driving up the rate of payment—in terms of the cash that is now due, some 70 per cent. or more of maintenance is now paid. There remain some non-resident parents or absent fathers, however—perhaps 30 per cent.—who are not paying maintenance. The purpose of our new reforms is to spend less time on complicated assessment, in a move towards simplicity, and more time on enforcement. It is crucial that we undertake that as soon as possible.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Is not the reality that, although the CSA is relatively good at

    19
    recovering maintenance from PAYE people, as soon as a father submits any other kind of accounts or any other information that is in any way out of the ordinary, the CSA takes one look at it, gives up and goes home? If it cannot enforce payment in unusual circumstances, will the Minister consider subcontracting such work to professionals who might take a more determined, robust and forensic approach? At the moment, many women are being failed by the bureaucratic, inexperienced and toothless way in which the CSA operates.
    Malcolm Wicks: I do not think that that is an appropriate comment on our hard-working officials who do a very difficult job in sometimes very difficult circumstances in the Child Support Agency. If I may say so, it was not a nice comment. Under the new reforms, which we hope to implement as soon as possible, we will put much more emphasis on enforcement, as I indicated. It is right and proper that everyone who fathers a child should maintain that child financially, regardless of their social position and of what sophisticated employees, including accountants, are working for them.

    Benefit Take-up
    Mr. David Stewart: What assessment she has made of the role of the new pension centres in increasing benefit take-up. [73073]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): We are leading a fundamental overhaul of the welfare system, transforming it from a mainly passive organisation paying out benefits to an active system that fights poverty. The pension service will encourage people to claim the benefits to which they are entitled, create opportunity and help people to be self-sufficient and independent. To assist in that process, we have established three pension centres in Scotland, located in Motherwell, Dundee and Glasgow. As a result, approximately 800 new jobs are being created in Scotland.
    Mr. David Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. I recently visited Burnley pension centre, and was very impressed by the quality of the staff and the effectiveness of the service. Surely, however, the acid test is how effective the centres will be in maximising take-up by pensioners, particularly of the minimum income guarantee.
    Maria Eagle: Unlike the previous Government, we are committed to ensuring that those who are entitled to benefit and pensions receive them in full rather than putting them off. Three quarters of retirement pension claims are already made on the telephone, and the fact that our services will be much more accessible will help enormously. In addition, our people are better trained, our systems will enable us to have trigger questions to identify possible entitlement, and we will be out there searching to ensure that people who contact us receive their full entitlement. It will be easier to contact us, and we will therefore make sure that more people receive their proper entitlement.
    Mr. Paul Goodman: Since phone calls from the south-east will often be answered in Scotland, as the Under-Secretary said, what assurance can she give my ethnic minority constituents—those born in Pakistan or Kashmir or their descendants—that their calls will be understood?
    Maria Eagle: Generally, it is perfectly possible for members of the public to understand our Scottish staff. The hon. Gentleman has a particular concern about ethnic minority constituents, but a translation service is offered and his constituents will be able to access our services in the language in which they are happiest. He should not have any concerns that his constituents will be unable to contact the service or to get advice in the language in which they are happiest. Our Scottish staff are perfectly capable of communicating with anybody in this country.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can now communicate; I call the Foreign Secretary.

    Bali
    3.31 pm
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the terrorist attack in Bali on Saturday 12 October.
    In his statement to the House on Tuesday last, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the circumstances as we knew them about the attack and its consequences. The most up-to-date information is this. In total, more than 180 people of many nationalities are thought to have died in the attack. Of these, at least half were Australian. Many Indonesians died. Of the British citizens caught up in the blast, 11 are now confirmed as dead, and a further 22 are missing; sadly, presumed to be dead. At least 27 British citizens were injured, a number of whom have been medevaced to Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong. There may be other British injured among the unidentified in intensive care in Australia.
    The House joined the Prime Minister last week in sending its deepest sympathies to the relatives of the victims. It is every parent's worst nightmare to hear that their sons and daughters have been swept up in a tragedy. But when bereavement is compounded by having to travel halfway across the world to identify loved ones, the experience must be truly unimaginable.
    Yesterday we joined with the people of Australia, who held a day of national mourning for this, the worst terrorist outrage in that country's history. Flags were flown at half-mast at Buckingham palace and at our embassies and high commissions around the world. The Australian high commission is arranging a memorial service in St Paul's cathedral here in the city of London on 25 October. Tomorrow, the Indonesian embassy will be holding a multi-faith commemorative ceremony in London, which I shall be attending. The British Government will organise a British memorial service. We shall be consulting the families about what they think would be most appropriate.
    Let me now update the House on the action that we have taken to assist those injured and the relatives and close friends of all who were victims in this atrocity. The British honorary consulate in Bali provided the initial assistance to survivors of the attacks and to victims' relatives. This was reinforced early on Sunday 13 October by the British consul and then by the ambassador, Richard Gozney, other staff and volunteers from the British community in Bali. These staff and volunteers have worked tirelessly and I pay my tribute to them.
    However, on Thursday last, I learned of complaints by some families that they had not received the service that we should have provided. I asked the Foreign Office Minister, my noble Friend Baroness Amos, who was already travelling to Bali, to talk to all the families concerned and to make her own assessment about the complaints. In the light of this, my noble Friend apologised directly to the families concerned. I reinforced that apology on Friday last and, Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat it in the House. I am very sorry that shortcomings in getting sufficient extra staff on the ground in Bali early enough last week exacerbated the terrible burden that the families were under in any event.
    22
    As of today, there are 15 British officials in Bali, and 30 British police officers, including experienced family liaison officers and anti-terrorist experts working with the Indonesian and Australian police on the investigation into the attack itself. In London, the emergency consular unit was established overnight on Saturday 12 October and, working with New Scotland Yard, has continued in operation.
    Last Wednesday, I announced a package of measures designed to help relatives to travel to where their loved ones were being treated, or to where victims had died. The scheme—similar to that put in place after 11 September last year—covers the repatriation of the remains of those who died, and the medical evacuation of the injured. The FCO will pay the costs concerned wherever an insurance policy does not already cover them. I decided on these exceptional measures because of the exceptional nature of terrorism, in which individuals are random victims of attacks directed at society as a whole. As for the future, we shall work urgently with the insurance industry and others to see how between us we can ensure that the pain of victims of terrorism is not made worse by financial hardship.
    Immediately after the Bali attack, we advised against all travel to Bali and all non-essential travel elsewhere in Indonesia. On 17 October I announced a further strengthening of our travel advice, warning against any travel to Indonesia as a whole. I also advised UK citizens in Indonesia to consider leaving if their presence was not essential, and authorised the withdrawal of some dependants and non-essential staff from our embassy in Jakarta. On 18 October, we amended our travel advice to other countries in south-east Asia, urging UK nationals to exercise extreme caution. Unfortunately, further attacks cannot be ruled out. In the light of additional intelligence assessed this morning, I am strengthening the travel advice still further by giving additional warnings about threats to UK nationals at specific locations in Indonesia. That travel advice is being issued now and is available on the Foreign Office's website.
    I am placing in the Library of the House the travel advice issued by the FCO and the British embassy in Jakarta in respect of Indonesia before 12 October, and the equivalent advice issued by the United States and Australian Governments. Many of the relevant judgments in travel advice of this kind are based on intelligence. In the light of the atrocity on 12 October, the families and others have asked whether there was any intelligence that could have led us to issue specific warnings against travel to, or staying in, Bali. If I had lost a member of my family, I would be asking such questions. Indeed as Foreign Secretary, it is my responsibility to ask such questions.
    Like everyone else, I dearly wish that there had been intelligence, which could have prevented this atrocity and its appalling consequences. But the answer, sadly, is that there was none. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House last Tuesday,
    "We had no specific intelligence relating to the attack in Bali."—[Official Report, 15 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 177.]
    As is now well known, it is the case that there was received in late September a generic threat to a number of cities and provinces in Indonesia, including Bali but covering 55 per cent. of the land mass of Indonesia and

    23
    100 million of its population. As my Australian counterpart Alexander Downer told the Australian Parliament on 17 October, these threats
    "were non-specific and broad based across Indonesia".
    There has also been a question raised about the travel advisory issued by the United States Department of State on 10 October. Let me explain to the House what this was. That advisory was a "world-wide caution" of a kind first issued by the US after 11 September last year. It alerted US citizens to the need to remain vigilant in the face of terrorist threats. It was revised on 10 October following an audio tape broadcast attributed to Osama Bin Laden. Issued only two days before the attack in Bali, it contained no reference to Bali, Indonesia or even south-east Asia. We also received a classified warning from the United States on the same day. It too had no reference to Bali, Indonesia or south-east Asia. As our travel advice to Indonesia, last updated on 27 August 2002, already contained a clear warning to travellers to Indonesia about terrorist threats, we judged that there was no case for amending it further in the light of the United States' travel advisory.
    The United States, Australia and the United Kingdom all received similar intelligence in respect of Indonesia, but making their own independent judgments, all came to similar conclusions about travel to Indonesia. None of us had concluded that it was unsafe to travel to or remain in Bali. Both as Home Secretary and now as Foreign Secretary I have worked closely over the last five and a half years with all three of our intelligence services. Their standard of professionalism and competence is second to none. Each year they pick up literally thousands of pieces of intelligence. These vary between material provided by human sources, material provided by secret technical means, material openly available to the public, and sometimes just gossip.
    Terrorist groups operate in secret. They are often skilled in counter-intelligence techniques, and may be feeding false intelligence to compromise an intelligence source or to direct law enforcement resources to the wrong place, so the raw intelligence has to be skilfully and carefully assessed before judgments can be made upon it. I believe, on the basis of what I have seen, that correct judgments were made about the available streams of intelligence before 12 October. There were generic threats, but there was no information that could have enabled us to warn in advance of this atrocity.
    I do not want the relatives of those who died in this atrocity, nor those injured, to have nagging anxieties about whether different judgments should have been made. The Intelligence and Security Committee was established by Act of this Parliament to scrutinise the work of our intelligence agencies. Through the Prime Minister, it reports regularly to Parliament. It is made up of senior and respected Members of both Houses. It happens that the Intelligence and Security Committee is at present in Australia on a long-planned trip, and this morning I spoke to the Chairman of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor),who had just arrived in Canberra. I told her that I had asked the intelligence co-ordinator in the Cabinet Office to ensure that all intelligence was made available to her Committee. The ISC will of course consider that and then reach its own conclusions on it.
    24
    The atrocity in Bali was a brutal reminder that the campaign against terrorism did not end with the removal of the Taliban. The reality is that our campaign will take years, perhaps even decades. In Indonesia, our immediate aim is to help the Indonesian Government act quickly to deal with the terrorist threat. We are already discussing how we can help through an intensified programme of counter-terrorist assistance. My noble Friend Baroness Amos and the British ambassador met President Megawati this morning in Jakarta. My noble Friend was assured by the President that the Indonesian Government were determined to take swift and decisive action against those responsible for the attacks. President Megawati has already signed an emergency decree strengthening police powers to detain suspects and to enable the courts to make use of intelligence. The Indonesian authorities have also taken action against known extremist groups. On 19 October they arrested the founder of Jemaah Islamiyah, Abubakar Bashir.
    The terrorists' aim is to defeat the universal values of the United Nations, of tolerance, freedom and respect for human life, and replace them with brutality, fear and ethnic and religious hatred. I believe that the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, captured the international mood when he called on the world to pursue the campaign against terrorism with "unrelenting vigour". Today our grief at what happened is enormous, but our determination is unwavering.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: The Foreign Secretary, even if initially reluctant, was, I am sure, right to come to the House today to make a statement, and I am grateful to him for allowing me advance sight of it. He has reported on the latest situation, and I join him in his words of condolence to the suffering in Australia and Indonesia, and also here at home. They must be foremost in all our thoughts at this time.
    I welcome the help that the right hon. Gentleman and his office are providing to the relatives of those who have been killed or injured. I also join him in paying tribute to those who are providing that help on the ground. I believe, too, that the noble Lady Baroness Amos was right to go to Bali and to recognise the concerns on the ground, and to make the apology that has been repeated by the Foreign Secretary in the House today.
    We all realise that dealing with such tragedies is never easy, but at the same time lessons must be learned. I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will look again at the way that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office responds to such incidents. Is there not now a case for maintaining an ad hoc group within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on a reserve basis, for swift deployment to help handle the aftermath of such outrages?
    I believe that we are right—both in the wider public interest, and for the peace of mind of the injured and the bereaved—to ask direct questions today. As Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, said yesterday:
    "That does not denote a lack of confidence in the agencies. But when something of this magnitude occurs we have an obligation to have it thoroughly examined."
    On that basis, I also welcome the Foreign Secretary's stating that he is asking the Intelligence and Security Committee to examine the evidence on what

    25
    information was available, and what action was taken on it. I ask him, however, to request that Committee, which normally reports annually, to report separately and urgently on its findings. If it is to be a vehicle for looking into this important matter, not only should there be a separate report, but that report should form the basis of a debate in this House.
    In the meantime. the Foreign Secretary's statement still leaves unacceptable uncertainty in the public mind. The questions that still need to be answered do not risk compromising intelligence sources but allow the Government to show the public either that they acted appropriately in the light of information available, or that there are lessons to be learned. So I shall put a number of those questions to the Foreign Secretary today, because it is important that he address them.
    When, within the last 12 months, was information first received from the United States or other intelligence resources about potential terrorist activity in Indonesia? Is it true that the public assurance, which survived 11 September last year, that
    "Bali and north Sulawesi province remain safe"
    was removed from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website earlier this year? If so, why was it removed, and what was the information that caused its removal? Why was Jemaah Islamiyah not proscribed after last December's thwarted attempt to blow up the high commission in Singapore, when it appeared that the Government of Singapore were convinced that it was the alleged potential perpetrator?
    Why, following warnings from the United States, did we update our travel advice in relation to Indonesia in August, but not after further warnings in September, when the Americans saw fit further to update their travel advice? Why were no warnings passed on to United Kingdom tourists and residents after the United States Embassy in Jakarta advised its citizens in Indonesia on 9 September that the country was at risk of a "credible" terrorist attack? When did the Government first receive the United States intelligence warnings that referred to six Indonesian "hotspots", including Bali—that differs somewhat from what the Foreign Secretary has told us today—and which were mentioned by the Downing street spokesman in the briefing given last Thursday? How on earth can this information, on six out of 6,000 inhabited islands, be regarded as generic, rather than specific? Why did the Foreign Secretary, unlike Downing street, appear not to know about this information when he answered press questions last Thursday? Yet on Friday, on BBC radio, he admitted it on the basis of
    "one of the pieces of intelligence I have now seen."
    Had he really not been shown this vital intelligence before then?
    What is the right hon. Gentleman's response to the report attributed to United States intelligence officers in yesterday's edition of The Sunday Telegraph that
    "a CIA briefing that Bali was a target was passed to the Government two days before the bomb blasts but not made public";
    26
    or that
    "Britain was briefed that Islamic terrorists could be planning to attack nightclubs in Bali two days before the blasts"?
    Will he clearly indicate whether there is any truth in those statements? It is vital that those points are cleared up.
    Finally, why on earth, if Britain had the same information available to it as the Americans, did we not issue the same warnings to our citizens at the same time? Why did we not mention clubs and places of entertainment until after 12 October, when the Americans had seen fit to mention them before? Furthermore, as regards Indonesia, which is a very large country, where are the greatest preponderances of such venues and is not that, too, something that should have been taken into account?
    Those are the unanswered questions that have created the doubts. To dispel the fog of uncertainty created by the ambiguous and contradictory Government briefings of last week, the Foreign Secretary must answer them now.
    Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman asks me a number of questions.
    First, we always learn lessons in the light of events such as this, and plans are already afoot to ensure that better standing arrangements of the type that the right hon. Gentleman described are established in the Foreign Office and in relation to groups of British posts across the world. I intend to bring those forward. Not all the 15 staff currently in Bali come from Jakarta; a number of them come from other posts in south-east Asia.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Intelligence and Security Committee would report separately and urgently in respect of this matter. As he understands, that is fully a matter for the Committee, but I am sure that the Chairman will be made aware of the right hon. Gentleman's request. In any event, as I and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary know well, the reports of the Committee are always the subject of at least one full day's debate a year in the House, when thorough scrutiny takes place.
    Some of the right hon. Gentleman's questions on intelligence can be properly discussed only within the ISC, although I shall try to answer some of them. However, the right hon. Gentleman will realise, not least given the fact that he had four years of experience in handling intelligence when he was a Northern Ireland Minister, that it is extremely easy when dealing with such matters to raise possibilities that it is then difficult for those in possession of the intelligence to deal with in a way that provides complete reassurance. That is in the nature of intelligence. Would that one could lay out all the intelligence that we had received because that would provide reassurance, but the right hon. Gentleman knows from his own experience that it is not appropriate, responsible or sensible to do that.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked various questions about the position of the United States. There were differences in the detailed advice offered by the United States, the Australian Government and ourselves. Those can be seen clearly from comparing the different travel advisories that I have placed in the Library and to which the right hon. Gentleman already has access.

    27
    The key advice in all the advisories issued by the three Governments was the same; in none of them was travel to, or stay within, Bali advised against.
    The right hon. Gentleman talked about the position of the United States. Its position was the same as ours. Sadly, three United States citizens were among the casualties in Bali. However, the United States was sufficiently relaxed about travel to Bali that I am told authoritatively that at least six of its own staff from Jakarta were on holiday in Bali at the time of the blast. The right hon. Gentleman should bear that information in mind before coming to the type of conclusions that he drew.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the reference in the Downing street briefing last Thursday. We are talking about the same information. As far as I am aware, we first received that information on 27 September and it was then the subject of assessment by the Security Service.
    Was I aware of that information before I made my statement last Thursday? The answer is yes, but we had made a judgment that it would not be appropriate to give details about some of that intelligence. It happens that, for separate reasons, such information was given by my Australian counterpart, Alexander Downer, and that became clear between when I made my statement and when the Downing street press office answered questions at its briefings. What happened, as the right hon. Gentleman will see from the record, was that that was then referred to in the Downing street briefing, but we were talking about exactly the same statement.
    My view is that we should always err on the side of caution when sourcing intelligence. The crucial thing, about which there has never been the slightest uncertainty, is that the right hon. Gentleman describes this issue as referring to six islands out of 6,000, but it happens that those islands cover 55 per cent. of Indonesia's land mass, 40 per cent. of the total population—100 million people—and 60 per cent. of all western tourists go to those six islands. The judgment had to be made as to whether there was sufficient information in that intelligence to advise against any travel to any of those islands or to one of them—Bali. The judgment that was made here and in Australia and the United States was the same: there was not sufficient information in that intelligence to justify any significant change in the travel advice, and none therefore was made.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we must not allow our undiminished sense of horror or our natural anxiety about British citizens to stand in the way of a proper understanding of the consequence of those terrible events for the people of Bali, particularly in the long term?
    I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's reference of these matters to the Intelligence and Security Committee, but I am sure that he would agree that speed is of the essence and that, if there is any question of delay, will he consider again the suggestion, which I made earlier, that these matters should be remitted to a High Court judge or figure of similar calibre, with a
    28
    request to conduct a private investigation and to report to the Prime Minister, not for the purpose of seeking scapegoats or indulging in a witch hunt, but to see what lessons need to be learned for the future?
    In the matter of consular assistance, it is clear that, in spite of their valiant efforts, the United Kingdom consular staff were literally overwhelmed. Since the events in Bali may not be the last occurrence of that kind, will the right hon. Gentleman consider—to an extent, I echo the observations of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—establishing in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a unit ready to move at 24 hours' notice to give consular assistance where demands exceed the capacity of the staff already in place?
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks. My view is that the appropriate mechanism for an examination of the facts is the Intelligence and Security Committee. After all, it was established by the House and senior Members of the House and the other place serve on it, and they are well used to looking at intelligence. I have asked the intelligence co-ordinator in the Cabinet Office to ensure that, obviously, all the relevant intelligence is made available to that Committee, and it can then come to its own conclusions on it.
    Is there a case for establishing a unit to ensure that there is a faster response where the evidence emerges over a period of hours, as it did in Bali, that the atrocity was on a very large scale? The answer is yes, and as I told the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), we are bringing forward our plans to do just that.
    Donald Anderson: We grieve with those who lost loved ones in this outrage, but is not hindsight a wonderful thing? It gives a remarkable 20:20 vision. Is not it significant that, on the basis of the same evidence, our Australian allies, with their neighbours, reached the same conclusions as my right hon. Friend, but can he say a little more about the response of the Indonesian Government? We know that they have taken measures to combat Jemaah Islamiyah and that they have now arrested Mr. Bashir, the alleged leader of that group, but is it not true that certainly more than a year ago the Indonesian Government were advised that there was a training ground for al-Qaeda on Sulawesi? They have had a great deal of information about the way in which terrorist groups operated freely in Indonesia. Therefore, in the light of that record, is my right hon. Friend fully convinced that they have now taken on board the gravity of what they have allowed to develop on their territory?
    Mr. Straw: On my right hon. Friend's first point, he is right about hindsight. What the intelligence agencies have to do on the basis of imperfect and inadequate information—namely the intelligence that terrorist organisations try to keep from the intelligence agencies—is to make the best judgments that they can. At the same time, we must not shut down the world, which is exactly what the terrorists want. Such judgments are very difficult, and we always err on the side of caution because human lives are at risk. However, if we were not to make proper judgments on the basis of assessments, the world would literally be closed down and the terrorists would then have won.

    29
    On my right hon. Friend's point about the Indonesian Government, they are now showing an increased determination to recognise the very severe threat that terrorism poses to them and to their society as well as to the wider world. We are therefore grateful to them for the collaboration and co-operation that they are showing to our law enforcement agencies, obviously to the Australians and to the agencies of other countries that had people killed or injured in this atrocity.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, at least at present, there is no obvious connection between the bombing in Bali and the Iraqi Government? Does he understand that there is a real concern among many right hon. and hon. Members to the effect that, if we are to take military action against Iraq even if supported by the authority of the United Nations and probably in any event, we will increase the support currently seen in the Islamic countries for terrorist activity? That really is a matter that we must take account of.
    Mr. Straw: I find that a curious assertion. It seems to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that we should not do one thing that is right—namely deal with the threat posed by Iraq—while we are doing something else that is also right, namely fighting terrorism. I do not share his view.
    Ms Meg Munn: It is believed that my constituent Natalie Perkins died in the atrocity along with her cousin, Laura France, a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). Unfortunately, the families received contradictory information at different times from the Foreign Office regarding the availability of flights to the area. Can I seek my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's assurance that there is now improved liaison with the families and a clear point of contact to ensure that they are given whatever accurate information is available at the time? May I also suggest that, in these situations, there should be one clear contact point for Members of Parliament, who are often contacted at such times, so that they too can have the up-to-date, accurate information to help and support families through a traumatic period?
    Mr. Straw: I would like to express my very sincere condolences to the families concerned. I will look immediately into what my hon. Friend has today told me and the House. I am very sorry that that was the service that these families received.
    As I have already said, there are a number of lessons to be learned, albeit that the staff were working in very difficult circumstances and under very great pressure. We intend to learn those lessons, and I shall ensure that the House is fully informed about them.
    Mr. William Cash: Will the Foreign Secretary note that family friends of mine are the father and mother of Peter Record, who was murdered in Bali? They are obviously suffering grievously in these circumstances.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman also note that, as far as I can see, he has not answered the important questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes
    30
    (Mr. Ancram)? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that those questions are properly answered in due course and, furthermore, that we have a further opportunity to consider the matter when the Intelligence and Security Committee has reported to the House?
    Mr. Straw: I express my condolences to the hon. Gentleman's close friends on their loss.
    The burden of the questions asked by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) rests on the claim that evidence was available to warn against a specific threat in Bali on which we failed to act. There was none. It was also claimed that we did not issue warnings when the United States did, on which their citizens acted. That is also not the case. As I explained, the US judged Bali sufficiently safe that members of its embassy staff in Jakarta were on holiday there when the atrocity took place.
    Mr. Clive Soley: Although we do not know who was responsible for the barbaric act, will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that about a year ago bin Laden said on al-Jazeera television that Australia was a crusader state because of its role in the United Nations in East Timor, and that Bali is predominantly a Hindu island? In those circumstances, is he satisfied that we will do everything possible, both here and overseas, to ensure that countries such as Indonesia, which has a large Muslim population, recognise the danger of religious war, and that all of us who are involved in religion and politics do everything possible to avoid such a war?
    Mr. Straw: Yes. One reason why Bali was judged relatively safe was because 95 per cent. of its population is Hindu, a fact to which my hon. Friend alluded.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: I have no doubt that the House will share the Foreign Secretary's confidence that the ISC will do its job thoroughly and that the intelligence co-ordinator at the Cabinet Office will learn, as far as it is possible, whatever lessons there are to be learned from the terrible events of the past few days. Does the Foreign Secretary agree, however, that there is a fatal flaw? In the 1990s, the obsession with signals intelligence—SIGINT—over human intelligence left the west at a grave disadvantage, which needs to be made up. Even allowing for the real and welcome increases in expenditure on security services, which I wholly welcome, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that there is a constant build-up of our ability to decipher human intelligence in those parts of the world where the risk is greatest, so that we do not rely only on SIGINT?
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Everyone lowered their guard after the collapse of the Berlin wall. It was generally assumed that because the possible conflict between east and west was over, no significant threats to our interests and those of the west remained. We have sadly learnt to our cost that that is not the case. The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of human intelligence alongside electronic intelligence—the one complements the other—and I am glad that he highlighted the fact that there has been,

    31
    and will continue to be, a significant increase in resources to those parts of our intelligence apparatus that deal with human intelligence.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can we hark back to the question asked by the former Foreign Office Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)? The Foreign Secretary said that it was a curious question, but to some of us it is a self-evident question. Let me ask a direct question: in the view of the Foreign Office, is there any connection whatsoever between the monstrous events in Bali and Iraq? Can the Foreign Secretary imagine anything more likely to recruit terrorists from Algiers to the Philippines than raining down bombs on Baghdad from 15,000 ft?
    Mr. Straw: I have the same difficulty as my hon. Friend in remembering the name of what used to be Grantham. It is Sleaford and North Hykeham. On the main point of his question, I see no connection between the atrocity and the Iraqi regime.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: May I again return to the genuine problem of warning fatigue? Obviously, I urge the Foreign Secretary to continue to warn of genuine terrorist threat, but I stress that if too many warnings are issued about too many countries, the public will not believe them. For example, in the recent India-Pakistan crisis, the Foreign Secretary urged British nationals to leave. In such circumstances, warnings will be ignored, at everybody's peril.
    Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman spoke with greater wisdom to some extent than Conservative Front-Bench Members. He is right: we must achieve a balance. We always err on the side of caution—as I did at the end of May about travel to India and Pakistan—in the travel advisories that the United Kingdom and the United States issue together. However, the right hon. Gentleman was right about subsequent difficulty with the credibility of the warnings. We must be careful about the way in which we issue the warnings and the currency that we thus establish.
    We shall continue to issue warnings whenever we judge them appropriate and especially when we consider lives to be at risk. Let me repeat that we cannot simply act on unassessed, raw intelligence, some of which is presented to us precisely because it is inaccurate. The overall effect would be to shut down economic and social activity throughout the world, which is exactly what the terrorists want.
    Jane Griffiths: I am sure that those who lost loved ones in the Bali outrage will appreciate the support that the Department offered. However, will my right hon. Friend also consider those such as the group of five young people from my constituency who fortunately escaped injury but witnessed the carnage at close hand? Will he discuss the matter with his
    32
    colleagues and try to ensure that such people receive some support so that their lives are not blighted by terrorism?
    Mr. Straw: Yes is the answer to my hon. Friend's question. If she has any details, I am happy to follow up on the case that she described so that we can learn from her constituents' experience.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Hindsight may be wonderful, as was said earlier, but foresight is much better. Was it not blindingly obvious, after 11 September and the Government's rightly strong reaction to those events, that British citizens around the world would be in danger of assault? If so, why were no preparations made to have a team on stand-by to react in support of British citizens around the world when they were attacked?
    Mr. Straw: The fact that there is a worldwide threat is not only obvious but made clear in all our travel advice. For example, travel advice, which was last updated before 12 October on 27 August, said about Indonesia:
    "After the terrorist attacks in the US, there is a heightened terrorist threat to US and UK interests worldwide."
    It goes on to give advice about a series of precautions.
    We have been strengthening our consular and support arrangements since 11 September last year. Many were put in place quickly. For example, in the United Kingdom, the emergency consular department was established and operating fully by the small hours of 13 October. We may be able to do more here. Notwithstanding the difficulties of a remote location, where there was simply one British honorary consul on 11 October, not a full diplomatic staff, we must have more flexible arrangements that can respond more quickly to the possibility of atrocities.
    Mr. George Howarth: We welcome the decision to refer all the evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Will my right hon. Friend repeat or confirm that if all raw intelligence were taken at face value, the world would come to a standstill? As someone who also served in Northern Ireland, I can say that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) should know that.
    Mr. Straw: What my hon. Friend says is entirely correct. Those of us who work, or have worked, with intelligence have particular responsibilities in this area.
    Angus Robertson (Moray): While echoing the Secretary of State's condolences in relation to the Bali attack, may I ask whether he is aware of the security report produced by the Government of Spain on the operations of al-Qaeda in Indonesia, which was reported in The Herald today and, in depth over the weekend, in El Pais? Although the Secretary of State made no mention of other European intelligence agencies, or, indeed, of the role of the European Union, I know that this matter is on the agenda of the Council of Ministers today and tomorrow. What specific enhancements does the Secretary of State favour, in terms of intelligence sharing, to help to avoid this kind of catastrophe in the future?
    Mr. Straw: I have seen the report. It is important, particularly when dealing with intelligence, not to treat

    33
    one individual report—particularly one in a newspaper—as though it were somehow gospel. There is a stream of intelligence coming through all the time. We have very professional and competent intelligence services, as do many other countries. However, notwithstanding the high level of intelligence assessment and capacity available in the United States, there was no warning or intelligence whatever before 11 September last year that could have led the United States to take action to avoid that most appalling atrocity. There are standing arrangements by which we share intelligence and assessments with other intelligence agencies around the world, and those will continue to be strengthened in every way possible.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Is the Secretary of State in a position to make any observations on the significance of the Bali atrocity to the importance of continuing to fight against international terrorism, in terms both of this country acting alone and of international action?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend's question raises the importance of us continuing this fight. We must not let our guard fall, or be led into believing that the last atrocity is really the last. That cannot be the case. Within the al-Qaeda organisation, within the organisation likely to have been responsible for the Bali atrocity and within many other terrorist organisations, there are people who are determined to attack our way of life—not just the west's values, but universal human values enshrined in the United Nations charter—and randomly to make victims of our citizens in the course of their attacks on our society as a whole.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Are the Government planning to give any immediate assistance to the people of Bali, who have not only had to deal with many dead and injured among their own population, but will have almost totally lost their livelihoods as a result of this terrible event?
    Mr. Straw: We are giving immediate assistance, particularly in respect of the law enforcement inquiry—the anti-terrorist inquiry—in which we have a number of police officers on the ground working with the Indonesians and the Australians on the investigation. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will look carefully at any requests that we receive from the Indonesians for further assistance.
    Mr. Stuart Bell: May I come back to the question raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell)? Building on the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), may I ask whether it is not a fact that Balinese people have lost their lives in this tragedy? I am thinking of the six taxi drivers who plied their trade outside the nightclub, never to be seen or heard of again, and of the tragic consequences for their families. Is it not an incontrovertible truth that the terrorists, and only the terrorists, are responsible for this
    34
    atrocity, and that, no matter how much we seek to shuffle responsibility or blame, it lies on the terrorists and only the terrorists?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to point out that indigenous Balinese people lost their lives; I mentioned that at the beginning of my statement. On his second point, were I someone who had been injured in this atrocity or the relative of someone who had been killed, I would be asking all these questions. It seems to me entirely reasonable that they should be asked. I think, however, that those of us who are or have been responsible for dealing with intelligence must also be responsible for ensuring that all the intelligence available is properly scrutinised—which it will be, in this case, by the ISC—and, in addition, provide reassurance about the nature of intelligence. Would that we had had intelligence that could have warned us of this atrocity, because we would then have issued a warning within seconds; but we did not, and responsibility for the atrocity is that of the terrorists and the terrorists alone.
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: To what extent are the Indonesian authorities co-operating with Australian and British police investigations?
    Mr. Straw: My understanding is that they are cooperating thoroughly. That was a point made by President Megawati when she saw my noble Friend Baroness Amos, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, at her meeting earlier today.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Does not this terrible, savage, barbaric terrorist tragedy show us once again just how difficult it is to get at the al-Qaeda network, or whoever else may have been involved in the bomb attack on Bali? If the only warnings we in the west had of the tragedy were generic, is it not even more difficult for the Indonesian Government? We tend to forget that they are only a three-year-old democracy, still emerging from the tragedy of Suharto's dictatorship and trying to establish democracy and human rights. If they had rounded up all who we have been told were involved in this particular tragedy, half the Indonesian population would have been in jail and human rights organisations everywhere would have been shouting about them.
    Mr. Straw: Yes, it is difficult to get at such networks. As with criminal organisations, the first priority of terrorist organisations is to ensure that what they are doing does not come to the attention of law enforcers. They do not telephone the intelligence services and announce when their next atrocity will take place. That is why penetrating those organisations and gaining intelligence that can be relied on is inherently difficult. I believe that our agencies do it better than any other agency in the world, and they are joined in that high standard by a number of others; but it is still intrinsically difficult.
    My hon. Friend speaks about Indonesia and its new democracy on the basis of considerable experience. We have a responsibility to help support the forces of democracy and of law enforcement in Indonesia, and we are seeking to do just that.
    Michael Fabricant: As the Foreign Secretary will know, there have been a number of bomb

    35
    outrages in Indonesia over the past year, including the bombing of the Jakarta stock exchange. Can he confirm reports that the bomb was not made from professional explosives such as C4, but from fertiliser and oil? If so, what comfort does he have that the bomb outrage was linked with al-Qaeda, and was not part of a continuing internal war of terror in Indonesia?
    Mr. Straw: I cannot confirm those reports publicly.
    Paul Flynn: Experience has taught us that the best way of reducing the number of acts of terrorism of this kind is to win over the hearts and minds of supporters and potential supporters of terrorism. Does my right hon. Friend agree that among Muslims in this country and throughout the world there is a wholly misplaced but deep sense of grievance against the west and against Christian countries? While that does not excuse these terrible acts in any way, how does my right hon. Friend expect a land invasion of Iraq, before there is a settlement of the Palestine question, to affect that sense of grievance and the likelihood of more terrorist acts?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not go all the way in the direction in which he entices me. I will say, however, that nothing justifies this kind of atrocity. Yes, there is a separate issue. On the three occasions on which the west has intervened with military action on any scale during the last 12 years, we have saved hundreds of thousands, in some cases millions, of people who happened to be Muslims. That is what we should be saying. We should remind people that the last time we had to take military action against Iraq was because it had gratuitously invaded the law-abiding sovereign state of Kuwait, which is Muslim.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall first take the Standing Order No. 24 application.

    Fire Brigades Union
    4.25 pm
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate a specific and important matter that requires urgent consideration, namely,
    ."the proposed strike by members of the Fire Brigades Union."
    In this brief submission, I am well aware that I am not allowed to go into the details of the subject. All I would say is that if any subject meets the three criteria listed in Standing Order No. 24 it is this one. Our emergency services are on the brink of being disrupted, and it is not just the fire service that will suffer if the fire brigade strike goes ahead. There will be repercussions for the railways, the underground and for many other parts of our national life. The matter is specific because the strike is due to take place next week, and no one could suggest for a moment that this is not a matter of grave public importance.
    Mr. Speaker, you have at your discretion the opportunity to allow the House to debate this matter. Whatever one's views on the merits of the FBU's case, everyone in the House must feel that this subject should take precedence over other business before us, and that we should be able to debate it. Outside the House, people frequently say that we do not debate what is most relevant and pertinent in their lives: we are all accosted with that accusation. I submit that people who are likely to be affected by the strike will view with some incomprehension a House of Commons that does not debate it. I submit my application to you, Sir.
    Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said, and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. Therefore, I cannot submit the application to the House.

    Points of Order
    4.26 pm
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had a request from the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement clarifying the press reports that have created great anxiety among a number of people whose lives may be affected and who have to make preparations for a call-up of reservists? Surely there should be a statement in good time because, if that is to happen, people who have jobs as doctors, engineers or teachers will have to make some preparation and should be given maximum warning.
    Mr. Speaker: I have had no approach from the Minister.
    David Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the problems outlined so clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the risk to the public and to the economy, and the difficulties faced in the Fire Brigades Union dispute, yesterday I contacted the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to ask whether he would make a statement to the House. Have you heard anything from his Office to indicate that he will make a statement later today or tomorrow?
    Mr. Speaker: I have not heard from the Deputy Prime Minister.
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Deputy Prime Minister is not to make a statement, have you received an indication that any Minister is likely to make a statement on the important issue of the firefighters' strike?
    Mr. Speaker: All I can say is that Ministers do not seem to be contacting me.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the various points of order that we have heard from Conservative Members, have you had any notification from the Leader of the Opposition or from the Liberal Democrats that they want to use the Opposition day debate on Wednesday afternoon on the Government's mismanagement of the national lottery to pursue this subject?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) made a compelling case on a matter in respect of which the Prime Minister—belatedly, and astonishingly belatedly—has called the Cobra committee together only today. Do you recall, in your long years in the House, a Minister not coming to the House of Commons to make a statement on such a matter of the gravest and most fundamental national importance? If
    38
    no Minister has burnt the wires to you over the weekend, will you ensure that Ministers learn from you that you think they ought to do so?
    Mr. Speaker: In my long years in the House, the Speaker has never been drawn into an argument.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the Government's abject failure to come to the House to make a statement on this extremely worrying potential strike, may I appeal to you to use your discretion in the selection of certain topics for Adjournment debates to give due consideration to this important matter?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can make an application in the usual way.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for giving only very short notice of my point of order. On Wednesday last week, the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement to the press and media on some 92 schemes involving 145 million in a rolling programme to tackle congestion and improve safety at junctions across England's trunk roads and motorways. I made inquiries in the Library on Wednesday, but the only document available was a print-out from the Highways Agency website. There was no parliamentary announcement—neither a statement nor a written answer—and no possibility of holding the Secretary of State to account. I declare an interest, as one of the crossings is in my constituency. The local media phoned me, but I had no information to give at that time. Is that a proper way to make such an announcement? There was no democratic accountability, and there is no record of the matter in Hansard.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady gave me some notice on the matter. I can assure her that the Secretary of State has, in this case, met his obligations to the House.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following on from the point of order made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), it is a fact that about 19,000 members of Her Majesty's armed forces are being diverted to take over from the firemen when they go on strike. Will you tell the House whether you would warmly welcome the Secretary of State for Defence seeking your permission to make a statement? It seems astonishing that the House is not able to consider a matter of such urgency. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) made clear, it is of great concern not only to the ordinary people of this country, but to our armed forces, which may be called on to take part in operations elsewhere in the world, which, although they are not more serious, are certainly much more in line with what they are trained to deploy for.
    Mr. Speaker: Clearly, a Secretary of State does not require my permission to make a statement. He has only to inform me, out of courtesy, that the statement will be made.

Orders of the Day
  Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 2

      COMMISSION OF BODY TO STUDY THE EFFECTS OF ACT
      (1) The Secretary of State shall commission a reputable and appropriate qualified body to carry out a rolling study of the effects of this Act on—

      (a) the prevalence of smoking in the United Kingdom population, with particular reference to the uptake of smoking by persons between the ages of 16 and 19 and under the age of 16; and

      (b) the effect of this Act on market shares of different participants in the tobacco industry.

      (2) Following the third anniversary of this Act coming into force, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall arrange for an annual report of the findings of the study commissioned in accordance with subsection (1) above to be laid before Parliament.'.—[Tim Loughton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.34 pm
      Tim Loughton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a reputable and appropriate qualified body to carry out a rolling study of the effects of the legislation on the prevalence of smoking in the UK population, with particular reference to those between the ages of 16 and 19, and those under 16, as well as its effects on market share. Furthermore, a report should be made to the House after three years and annually thereafter.
      Throughout the passage of the Bill, our major concern has been with gaining the evidential basis for banning tobacco advertisements, not with the harmful effects of smoking, on which we are all agreed. The new clause is no more than what we and all right-minded people have been asking for throughout the progress of this long-travelling Bill.
      John Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the point he just made? Is he saying that tobacco advertising has no effect on the age group that he mentions and that it does not encourage them to smoke, giving them a chance of dying prematurely?
      Tim Loughton: Without going over old ground, the hon. Gentleman well knows that the case that has been made by hon. Members and by people in various industries is that there is no firm evidential basis. There are a number of reports. Some support the case that advertising has an effect on young people and some contradict that. The point is that there is no firm definitive study that without doubt can directly link tobacco advertising with the prevalence of smoking, particularly among children. That is the basis on which we proceed. As we have said all along, it is up to the Government, if they are to ban advertising, to make their case. The point is the link between advertising and smoking. No one disputes that smoking is harmful. It is.
      40
      It is a filthy habit. We hate it. We would like it to be rather less prevalent among the population, particularly the young. That point is not in dispute.
      Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: To look at the argument the other way, why do tobacco companies spend countless billions on advertising tobacco if there is no evidence that it has any effect?
      Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee. He knows the arguments that have gone backwards and forwards. There are arguments of market share between different brands and a host of other arguments. That is not the point that we are debating in new clause 2. He will have ample opportunity to come up with the new evidence that the Government have signally failed to come up with over the several years that this legislation has been the subject of debate in the House.
      The intention of all of us is to do anything we can to reduce the consumption of tobacco products, especially to prevent take-up among young people. All we are asking for in the new clause is good practice, a facility in the Bill to make changes if new evidence comes to light that the Act is having no effect, or even that it is proving to be counter-productive. Many people have made claims, some of them spurious, some not so spurious, that one of the main influences on prevalence of tobacco smoking is price. That is very dependent on the prevalence of smuggling and cheap availability of cigarettes. There is more evidence to suggest that those factors have more effect on smoking and on young children having access to cigarettes and taking up smoking than advertising does. If in a few years, when the Act has come into force and we have had enough time to judge its effects, a proper independent study deems that the Act is not having the intended consequences or worse still is proving counterproductive, the Secretary of State should have that information and be able to act on it. That is all we are asking for.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: As my hon. Friend is aware, I have a big interest in the effect of the legislation on sport, particularly minority sports such as darts and fishing. He knows that the world darts championship takes place every year at Frimley Green in my constituency. If it turns out that these very popular sports are severely disadvantaged by the legislation, is that one of the aspects that could be reviewed?
      Tim Loughton: Again, that is a major consideration that the Committee and many hon. Members have raised on numerous occasions. It is an important consideration because it potentially affects sports that are good for people—good for the health of young people. Without those sports, there will be other health implications.
      Mr. Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Tim Loughton: I would like to answer one point at a time before I do so.
      Of course, the point to which my hon. Friend referred is an implication of the new clause, but I am primarily concerned with studying the effect on the prevalence of

      41
      smoking. If, in a few years' time, the study shows that far from going down, the prevalence of smoking has increased, we need to know why. We will need to know whether the Act has had a counter-productive effect in some respects. Some would say that, without recourse to advertising, tobacco companies will resort to price-cutting among various brands, and, as I said, price is one of the most sensitive aspects of the prevalence of the smoking. If the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) wants to intervene now, I shall take one more intervention and then try to make progress.
      Mr. Hopkins: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the health-giving qualities of playing snooker, playing darts and driving fast motor cars counters the damage to millions of people's health from smoking?
      Tim Loughton: I am not in the business of trying to undermine two very popular sports—darts and snooker. The international darts competitions ban smoking—the players certainly do not idle up to the oche with a fag in their hands. Those two sports have merits, which may not be health-related but give people an interest that keeps them out of trouble in many respects. I do not want to single out those two sports, but there are many other sports that currently have tobacco sponsorship that will lose that money. Those sports may have many beneficial effects in making sport available to young children who would not otherwise have such opportunities.
      To return to new clause 2, the proposed rolling study would in no way undermine the ban in the Bill. It does not oppose the ban in the Bill; it purely raises the question of the circumstances in which that ban should remain on the statute book if research in a few years' time shows that that ban is not having the desired effect. That is right and sensible, and I would hope that Members on both sides of the House could agree with that. The noble Lord Clement-Jones, who resurrected the Bill in another place, said:
      "the burden of proof lies squarely on the Bill's opponents, in view of the achievable public health benefits."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2001; Vol. 627, c. 1710.]
      I disagree. Surely the onus of proof is on the Govt's shoulders if they want to ban something: somebody or something is innocent until proven guilty.
      I repeat that we are not arguing about the public health benefits of giving up smoking—we are all agreed on that—but about whether advertising is linked to the prevalence of smoking. The new clause does not even go the whole hog towards inserting a strict sunset measure into the Bill, which, if it came into effect, would negate the whole legislation in certain circumstances. We are not going the whole way. Instead, the new clause is a paving clause, so that the Secretary of State can be improperly informed about the effectiveness of the Act, make that research transparent and available to Parliament, and, if the research shows that there is a problem, the Secretary of State will no doubt wish to reverse the legislation of his own accord, without any prompting. That is all we are asking—we are not forcing him to terminate the legislation but making sure that that research is available to all, as, so far, we have not had definitive research that proves the link conclusively.
      Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I notice that my hon. Friend's new clause would only produce such a
      42
      study after three years. Is he aware that Mr. Martin Taylor carried out a report for the Treasury in the last Parliament showing the effect of the accelerated duty increases after 1997, particularly on smuggling? That report remains secret in the Treasury, although its conclusions were widely leaked. Would he consider calling for a study to be produced more quickly—perhaps immediately—before further damage is done by the growing gap between the price of tobacco in this country and on the continent?
      4.45 pm
      Tim Loughton: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. There is not only one influence on smoking, namely tobacco product advertising, if that is an influence. There are many other influences, of which smuggling probably is one of the biggest. Anyone who has visited schools in their constituency will be only too aware of people selling cheap cigarettes outside playgrounds, or people at car boot sales selling cheap cigarettes that have been illicitly brought into this country from the continent. That is having an enormous effect on the prevalence of smoking, which is why smoking has gone up again since 1997. If the Government published that report and did rather more to act upon what I judge to be its findings, that might contribute more to reducing smoking in this country than concentrating on this one unproven measure.
      Mr. David Ruffiey: Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on the reasons why Her Majesty's Government have declined to publish in full the Taylor report?
      Tim Loughton: I would but I fear that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me to be wayward in terms of the new clause. My hon. Friend will have ample opportunity to challenge the Chancellor on that subject when he produces his pre-Budget report in a few weeks. I urge him to do so.
      I am slightly disappointed that the Government have not introduced a full sunset provision into the Bill in the first place. Certainly there are several precedents for doing so. The Government have justified their Bill not on the facts, but on two principal beliefs. The first is that the Bill will reduce tobacco consumption and the prevalence of smoking within the population by 2.5 per cent. in the long term. The second is that only a comprehensive advertising ban will be sufficient to bring about that result.
      We know that the United Kingdom tobacco companies strongly contest those claims. In their view, the Bill will have perverse effects and tobacco consumption and the prevalence of smoking will be at levels higher than would otherwise be the case. However, one does not have to accept what the industry says to justify serious questioning of the Government's speculative approach to the Bill.
      The Opposition are prepared to accept neither the industry's nor the Government's arguments, neither of which offers any certainty. That is why we would have preferred the Bill to be the subject of a sunset provision. Such provisions are not unheard of from the Government: indeed, they took great pains to point out that the Electronic Communications Act 2000 started

      43
      with such a provision. How much better it would be if that had been the case with this Bill also and the Government had provided the opportunity for voluntary and agreed self-regulation to achieve their policy objectives.
      The Government's resistance to a sunset clause in the Bill is most puzzling, given that it was a manifesto pledge of the Government to review all major legislation after three years. As paragraph 3.26 of the Cabinet Office's recently published guidance for policy makers on the use of the regulatory impact assessment states:
      "You will need to plan for this and include details of your plans in the RIA. Guidance on how to undertake these three-yearly reviews will be issued by the Cabinet Office"
      —hence the three-year rolling research requirement in the new clause.
      Earlier paragraph 2.17 of the same Cabinet Office guidance recommended the consideration of sunsetting "where there are significant scientific uncertainties and more information might lead to a different solution."
      That is certainly the case with the Bill, as those uncertainties and more information may well become evident from its outcomes. Paragraph 2.18 of the guidance states that where sunsetting—a horrible word—
      "may not be appropriate consider a review mechanism instead. The RIA should give details including whether it is to be a statutory review (for example put on the face of the legislation) or a political commitment to be done within a number of years."
      Our thoughts on this matter are not that far removed from those of the Cabinet Office. The only point at issue is the appropriateness of the review and of sunsetting to the Bill. We believe that it is appropriate. The Opposition's position is clear. Serious health risks have been associated with smoking. Those risks are well known and understood by smokers and the public generally. Children should not smoke and should not be allowed access to tobacco products. Adults, on the other hand, should be free to make an informed choice about whether to smoke. It is an objective of public health policy to reduce total tobacco consumption and the prevalence of smoking in the population—we all agree with that. While it is not against the law to manufacture, sell, buy or smoke tobacco products, it is appropriate that the advertising and promotion of tobacco products should be regulated.
      The key questions therefore include, first, whether the Bill will reduce total tobacco consumption and the prevalence of smoking, especially among children and young people. The Government believe that such a ban could reduce tobacco consumption in the longer term by 2.5 per cent. The second question is whether the comprehensive bans are necessary and proportionate as between the public interest ends that might be served by the prohibitions imposed and the means used to achieve them. The burden of proof lies with the Government and we do not believe that they have provided definitive proof.
      Numerous studies have considered whether tobacco advertising affects consumption and have considered the tobacco market after the imposition of controls or an advertising ban. Reviews of such studies in the aggregate have endeavoured to form conclusions,
      44
      but none of the studies has been conclusive or produced conclusions that have not been contradicted by another similar study. Importantly, a significant empirical literature finds little or no effect of tobacco advertising on smoking. None of the studies is of a nature that makes them predictive of the consequences in the UK of the kind of prohibitions that the Bill contains.
      New clause 2 would provide an opportunity to fill the gap that I have just described with rolling research by a reputable and qualified body, selected by the Secretary of State. If research finds that the Act is deficient, measures could be taken.
      Pete Wishart: Who would the hon. Gentleman expect to serve on the committee?
      Tim Loughton: We have left it described in the new clause as a "reputable and…qualified body". We are not trying to constrict the Secretary of State. New clause 2 is an innocuous measure that would ensure that research is done. I do not mean the contradictory research that has been done so far. but proper research that specifically monitors the effects of the Act on an ongoing basis. If the Secretary of State would like to suggest a firm, a body or a group of people to carry out that study, we would be interested in that. It should also be up to Parliament to decide. The findings required by the new clause should be made available to Parliament. However, nothing in the Bill requires the Secretary of State to do any further research into whether it is effective.
      New clause 2 contains innocuous and helpful suggestions and I find it odd that several other hon. Members find it contentious. We all surely agree with what we are trying to achieve. The issue is the means, not the end result. I commend new clause 2 as an improvement to the Bill.
      Mr. Hopkins: The suggestion that advertising has no effect on the amount of smoking is extraordinary. Tobacco companies cannot believe that, otherwise they would not spend countless billions of pounds across the world on tobacco advertising and they would not be so keen to avoid the Bill. New clause 2 is unnecessary, bureaucratic and, indeed, somewhat cynical.
      Tim Loughton: Does the hon. Gentleman think that if the Government had approached tobacco companies five years ago and asked for a voluntary ban on tobacco advertising, the companies would have acquiesced? There is evidence to suggest that that is the case.
      Mr. Hopkins: I suspect that tobacco companies have been aware for a long time that there is a threat of a compulsory ban on advertising, and perhaps they were desperate to find a way—[HON. MEMBERS: "The middle way."] The middle way, indeed. They were desperate to find a way to avoid the Bill.
      I regard the Bill as a starting point, and I would like to go rather further than the Government have gone. I hope that in time we shall go further.
      Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I asked whether he thought that tobacco companies would have agreed to the proposal five years

      45
      ago. I think that there is strong evidence that they would have done, regardless of what might have been coming. If they had, what the Bill proposes would already be in force, and instead of the Government's several attempts to reincarnate the Bill, we would have had no tobacco advertising for the last five years.
      Mr. Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but I am deeply suspicious of tobacco companies, and I suspect that a voluntary ban would have been a soft option for them. They would have found a way round it, and it would have been obvious that it was their way of preventing a ban from being built into the law.
      To suggest that the Bill will have no effect is an attempt to undermine its credibility. It would be simple to count the number of cigarettes consumed and the number of smokers. Some civil service office could do it every year, and if the Bill were having no effect, there might be other factors.
      The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to price-cutting; clearly price is an important consideration. I would like to ensure that there is no further price-cutting. If tobacco companies want to substitute a cut in price for their spending on advertising, so as to sell more of their products, let us put up the taxes on cigarettes to fill the gap, so that the Government have a bigger tax take to help with the appalling cost of cigarette smoking to the national health service.
      Mr. Ruffley: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's remarks with care. Does he think that there is any argument that tobacco companies may advertise, not necessarily to sell more cigarettes in total, but to drive down their competitors' market share? Has he not ignored that argument so far?
      Mr. Hopkins: I am sorry, but I must say again that I am deeply suspicious of tobacco companies, and I suspect that they work in collaboration. We have heard the market share argument many times, and my belief, although I may be shot down for it, is that the whole idea of tobacco advertising is to create a culture in which tobacco usage is seen as a good thing, cosy and friendly—something that we can all do and enjoy, like many other harmless pursuits. Cigarette smoking is not harmless; it is very harmful, and we must take steps to stop it, initially by persuasion through Bills such as this.
      We have talked about cigarette smoking as if it were an "informed choice". In my youth I was addicted to cigarette smoking, and I gave up 32 years ago. Smoking was not an informed choice, but an addiction. I had great difficulty in giving up, and so do most people. The whole idea of tobacco advertising is to create a world that makes smoking acceptable, colourful and part of one's identity, so that young people become addicted. Once they are hooked, they find great difficulty in giving up, as all of us who have known addicts, or who have been addicts ourselves, will know. That is the sole objective of advertising: to get people hooked. After that, the companies make their money.
      46
      The new clause proposes a bureaucracy to put a smokescreen round the real problem, which is to find ways—through the Bill and other measures—to reduce and eventually end all cigarette smoking.
      Mr. Boris Johnson: Is the ultimate tendency of the hon. Gentleman's argument to ban tobacco smoking altogether? Is that what he would like to do? Only the other day, I heard him—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That is inviting the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) to go well beyond the confines of the new clause.
      Mr. Hopkins: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I have every confidence that in the end people's intelligence will prevail and they will choose not to become smokers, because they will realise that it is dangerous and addictive. That is what we are trying to get across to people, but they will make a free choice.
      Richard Ottaway: I am trying to keep within the confines of the debate. If such a group were established, it could look at the anomaly that may well arise from clause 10, which deals with the prohibition of sponsorship. Its definition of sponsorship agreements could fall foul of internal agreements within the trade, which I doubt the Bill intends. That is just the sort of issue that the group could look at, opine on, and report back on to the Minister. In the absence of such a group, how could such a flaw in the Bill be exposed?
      5 pm
      Mr. Hopkins: I am sure that some of the technicalities will be addressed by my hon. Friend the Minister, but my concern is the proposal to establish a bureaucracy to look at the effects on cigarette smoking. I am surprised at Opposition Members: they constantly go on about quangos, bureaucracies and unnecessary additional bodies, yet their proposed body is completely unnecessary. It would be the simplest thing in the world to measure the number of cigarettes smoked, the amount of smoking that goes on, and the effect of an advertising ban over a particular period. However, given that cigarettes are so addictive, such impact will take time. Changing the culture of smoking that exists among many young people—sadly, it is increasing among young women—will take time. However, we have to start changing it, and this Bill constitutes a very good start.
      Dr. Evan Harris: It is a long time since we considered the Bill in Committee. It was first promised in the governing party's 1997 general election manifesto, and it seems to be taking a very long time for it to reach the statute book. None the less, it is my pleasure to welcome the Minister to her relatively new position. The Committee that considered this Bill was one of the few places in which we could get away from her hyperactivity in health matters, but she is certainly welcome to join us. I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to her predecessor, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who did a fantastic job on this Bill in particular and who is

      47
      regarded as an excellent Minister. She did not deserve her fate of being moved sideways—allegedly—to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) will be unsurprised to learn that we will not be supporting the new clause. However, because he has been very consistent in his approach to the Bill—he deserves credit for that—it is worth explaining to him why we will not support it. It is important to have an evidence-based policy, particularly given that, by curtailing the liberty to advertise, we are to some extent curtailing civil liberties. As the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) mentioned, we should recognise that we are curtailing not the liberty to be addicted—that is a liberty not worth protecting—but to advertise, so we need to ensure a good evidence base. However, in taking issue—by arguing that one should be innocent until proven guilty—with the contention of my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones that the burden of proof is on the tobacco industry, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham uses the wrong analogy. To me, the evidence is clear that the tobacco industry and the associated advertising have been proven guilty. The burden of proof is on those making the appeal; they need to provide new evidence if they want to reopen the case.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Surely the point of the new clause is to look at the whole problem. We face a fiscal problem, involving billions of pounds being lost in smuggling and cross-border shopping; a law and order problem, through the epidemic of smuggling through the white van trade; and a health problem, through the sale of smuggled cigarettes to youngsters, who take up smoking for the first time as a result. It is not just a question of advertising. This well-drafted new clause and the generality of the study are precisely concerned with looking at the whole problem, rather than pretending that an advertising ban will prove anything more than a pin-prick.
      Dr. Harris: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about there being other issues of concern. I also accept that tackling them might achieve an even greater health gain than can be obtained by this measure, which I do not consider the be-all and end-all. However, I would not describe it as a pin-prick—the hundreds of lives that are reckoned to be saved are more than a pinprick. Nevertheless, the issues that he raises do exist, and I and many other hon. Members, including a couple from his own party, talked about them on Second Reading.
      The only possible impact of the measure to ban advertising, according to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, would be price reduction in lieu of advertising. However, if anything, that would serve to undermine, or weaken the pressure for, a parallel trade in smuggled goods, so I accept the premise of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. HeathcoatAmory) but not his conclusions.
      The burden is on the tobacco industry to demonstrate that the measure is counter-productive, if that is what it believes. That is why we do not need a Government-sponsored research programme. Research will be
      48
      undertaken; there will certainly be research sponsored by the tobacco industry and the tobacco advertising industry, although I would not trust it. However, the subject is one of interest and contention. There is extensive literature about the effects of advertising bans in other countries and I suspect that independent bodies will produce such research for this country.
      Government-sponsored research is not necessarily best in such a highly politicised field. I am concerned about the Government's approach to their research contracts—for example, the inappropriate control that they exercise over publication dates and other matters. If possible, independent research would be best. That is another reason why the new clause is wide of the mark.
      Dr. Andrew Murrison: The hon. Gentleman has partially answered my question. If he does not trust research sponsored by either the industry or the Government, what research would he trust?
      Dr. Harris: As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, I have already answered his question. There are still some thriving academic institutions in this country—just about—and, indeed, throughout the world, which are capable of undertaking such research. I certainly should not dismiss out of hand research from any source. I merely point out that the hon. Gentleman's party would do best to promote—
      Dr. Murrison rose—
      Dr. Harris: Perhaps I could answer the hon. Gentleman's first question. His party would do better to promote the health of independent research in this country and in the wider world rather than calling for Governments of any complexion to fund research into highly politicised issues.
      Dr. Murrison: The hon. Gentleman misconstrued my words. I was talking about sponsorship not active research. I am sure that he agrees that academic institutions can be relied on to produce objective research. Sponsorship is a separate matter.
      Dr. Harris: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the work that has been done and the concerns that have been raised about the control of the publication and content of research sponsored by Departments. There is an extensive literature and it does not make for happy reading. I am not saying that there is necessarily a relationship with the control-freakery of the present Government, but the concerns are well established. Indeed, some more outspoken Ministers have expressed concern about the quality of research in the social field and that has given rise to anxiety about future funding in those areas.
      Mr. Hopkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only today the British Medical Association published a document entitled "Tobacco under the Microscope: The Doctors' Manifesto for Global Tobacco Control", which might relate to the objective research about which Members are asking?
      Dr. Harris: I was a member of the BMA board of science when some of that work was being undertaken,

      49
      so I did not think it appropriate to blow that particular trumpet, but there are sources of sponsorship that are even more independent than Government sources for such research.
      I question whether the people who argue against a ban on tobacco advertising would ever accept such findings. The history of the passage of the measure and of scientific findings about tobacco has been one of resolute refusal to accept what has clearly been shown by evidence not only about advertising but about the causation of disease by tobacco. I would have more faith that tobacco companies would accept the results of independent research if they apologised for their obstructive approach to the public acceptance of the case—clearly accepted by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham—that tobacco smoking and addiction to tobacco is extremely damaging.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to anxiety that price cutting might be used to get around a ban on advertising. That could certainly be a factor, but if we were to argue that it was of overriding importance—especially before it had even occurred—we should never have banned the advertising of things that are currently banned. Indeed, one would want there to be an advertising free-for-all on all products to ensure that prices went up on undesirable substances. If there is clear evidence that an advertising ban would reduce addiction, particularly among young people, we should do what we are doing, even if there is a risk of price cuts—although the major component of the price of tobacco is of course taxation.
      The Conservatives have prayed in aid darts and snooker. I support darts and snooker having recognition as sports. They are small sports, but they should not be recognised as sports on the basis of the health impact of the exercise associated with them, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Luton, North. Some of us feel that the definition of sport could be wider. Indeed, even Ministers share that view in relation to mind sports. All those sports would thrive better if they were not associated with the stench, literally and figuratively, of tobacco.
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham argued in an intervention on the hon. Member for Luton, North that, somehow, the tobacco industry might have been interested in a voluntary ban five years ago, but I am not convinced that that is the case. I should be interested to see what evidence there was for that. However, we are where we are: there has been no voluntary ban, and Bernie Ecclestone's actions in trying to get round a ban five years ago is clear evidence that few other options were on the table.
      Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because he has been talking about some of the sports issues that I raised in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). The hon. Gentleman talks about the embarrassment of various people in the history of the Bill, but does he agree that the greatest embarrassment must lie with the Government? They were in the extraordinary situation of accepting a huge amount of money from Mr. Ecclestone and apparently doing favours for Formula 1 and, as a result of all that being revealed, Mr. Ecclestone got his money back. So the Government hardly come to this issue without
      50
      embarrassment. Lucrative sports, such as Formula 1 and snooker, have a dispensation; less well-off sports, such as darts and fishing, which I mentioned, have no dispensation, so the Bill is in a mess and it needs the review that is set out in the new clause.
      Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman may be seeking to lead me out of order and I do not intend to go down that path. In relation to the first part of his intervention, yes, what happened certainly embarrassed the Government, and the Government should accept that.
      Richard Ottaway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Harris: I may give way in a moment, but I want to bring my remarks to a close.
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham discussed other ways to achieve what he seeks to achieve. For example, he was driven to such an unusual approach by the absence of sunset provisions. I should be interested to know whether he considered proposing sunset provisions so that we could discuss them now, because the Liberal Democrats are not automatically opposed to them, although the Conservatives have opposed such provisions in the past.
      I do not know what happened to new clause 1, which was an alternative to new clause 2, as it would have given the Government order-making powers of the type that I always thought those on the Conservative Front Bench sought to oppose. That would have been a worse alternative, but the new clause is pretty poor, so we shall oppose it.
      John Robertson: I will keep my remarks fairly short because hon. Members have touched on just about everything that I wanted to say. While I was considering the new clause, I had to ask myself why a rolling study of the legislation's effects is needed, but I could not find out anything. Perhaps the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) could answer that question, but he obviously cannot be bothered to listen to me.
      I asked myself, "If tobacco advertising does not cause any deaths or harm, why should it be there; it is obviously a waste of money?" I decided to read previous speeches that other hon. Members had made, and a came across a statement that Mr. Philip Morris had made back in 1981.
      He said:
      "Today's teenager is tomorrow's potential regular customer, and the overwhelming majority of smokers first begin to smoke while in their teens. It is during the teenage years that the initial brand choice is made: At least a part of the success of Marlboro Red during its most rapid growth period was because it became the brand choice among teenagers who then stuck with it as they grew older."
      That was said by someone well entrenched in the tobacco industry and who has made billions of pounds from it. Advertising is there to entrap the young.
      5.15 pm
      Tim Loughton: Does the hon. Gentleman know who Mr. Morrison is?
      John Robertson: I said "Morris". The hon. Gentleman may have heard of him. He is big in the

      51
      Marlboro world and he is probably a personal friend—[Interruption.] I have another point to make. Why should someone who has said that he is totally against smoking want to speak on behalf of someone who has already said that his idea is to entrap young people into taking up smoking? As we know, it takes about 500,000 lives a year in this country alone.
      Tim Loughton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to pin that one on me. Like other Conservative Members, I have made it absolutely clear that we hate and abhor smoking and would like to do everything that we can to reduce the prevalence of smoking in this country. To be inquisitive about the measures in the Bill is not to be pro-smoking. Will the hon. Gentleman get that into his mindset before he makes any further comments?
      John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman; I obviously hit the right note—methinks the gentleman protests too much.
      We must stop children becoming addicted to smoking, and the Bill's provisions are a small price to pay if they stop people making money out of smoking. The sooner we stop tobacco advertising and stop children smoking, the better.
      Mr. Ruffley: I support new clause 2 and the trenchant comments of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). The clause is not about support for increased tobacco consumption. It is entirely consistent with Her Majesty's Opposition's view that we should reduce the number of deaths from tobacco smoking. It is consistent with our public health policy to make sure that tobacco consumption should not increase and with our policy that children should not smoke and should not have further access to tobacco products. It is consistent with our policy that adults should not be forced to smoke, but make an informed choice. It is consistent with our view that manufacturing cigarettes is not illegal, but that tobacco consumption and its advertising should be regulated.
      The debate is about means and about creating good law. I genuinely do not believe that there is much difference between Labour and Conservative Members on the issue. The Conservative party—I make no apology for this—is a modernising and forward-looking party and, above all, a party that is interested in good law and in making bad clauses better not worse. That is the thrust behind the new clause.
      Dr. Murrison: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is one thing making good law, but that the setting up of a body that has little prospect of showing the effects that it is intended to show is not consistent with that process?
      Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend is not giving due credit to the thought behind the new clause, which is that an independent body could better judge the statistics than Ministers. They seem to be rather prejudiced on this subject. I say to my hon. Friend with the utmost humility that all we are trying to do is to improve the process. The independent body envisaged by the new clause would add to the debate and the quality of regulation rather than detract from it.
      52
      New clause 2 would ensure that the regime is reviewed if consumption increases, and the Government may have to introduce new legislation to extend the ban. We do not want a flawed policy: we do not want the Bill as it stands to get on the statute book, consumption to increase and the regime to continue for ever. We want to have the ability to review what is going on. That is only common sense. It is rational, reasonable and fair. We are saying, "Let's take stock in three years." That is a no-risk policy for the Government, whom I hope want good law, not bad law.
      Bob Spink: I am listening carefully. I support the Bill, which is a good piece of legislation. The problem is that it is long overdue. I am trying to grasp my hon. Friend's argument and hope that he will explain how the new clause would help us to reduce the number of young people who take up smoking at 16, 17 and 18. I cannot understand how it would deliver that result and, if it does not, I am sceptical about it.
      Mr. Ruffley: If my hon. Friend reads the new clause carefully, he will realise that we intend to review what happens after three years. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, the evidence is ambiguous. There are no obvious rights and wrongs. We are merely suggesting that we review the evidence after a period of time.
      Bob Spink: My hon. Friend says that the evidence is ambiguous. Will he accept an invitation to join me at Southend hospital? I was there last Friday and there was no ambiguity in the evidence I saw when I spoke to someone with lung cancer who had been given four months to live.
      Mr. Ruffley: I do not want to trade anecdotes with my hon. Friend, for whom I have much respect. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham explained, the hard statistical evidence is moderately ambiguous. All we are saying is that we should take stock by having a proper review after three years, which is reasonable and fair. It may well be that after that time has elapsed and after the statistics have been considered, the independent body reaches the same conclusion as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). I do not prejudge the issue; I merely support the new clause, which makes a reasonable argument for an independent body to take stock.
      The Government talk, no doubt with good intentions, about reducing regulation and the burden of red tape on British industry, of which tobacco manufacturing is one part. That is a noble aim, but I fear that in too many regulations since 1997 the Government have demonstrated an unwillingness to embrace the culture of sunset clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is right to jib at the coining of the verb "to sunset" and the word "sunsetting", but the concept is valid. Many Labour Members understand its virtues. They will have seen, as I have, how the burden of justifying the continuation of new regulation in many parts of the United States is passed to the Government. A sunset clause ensures that if a regulation is no longer necessary after a specified time, it is incumbent on the Government and officials to say that the regulation is still good and should remain in place. They then have to take the time and trouble to reintroduce it.

      53
      We are not claiming that there should be no regulation, but that it should be reviewed sensibly. The new clause provides that if the reason for the regulation disappears, it would fall, and it would be up to the Government of the day to take the time and trouble to pass it again. The onus would be on the Government to pass red tape. The American experience supports my instincts that such a provision would mean less unnecessary red tape.
      The new clause is in the tradition that I described of reviewing a policy after a time. If the reasons for the regulation no longer pertain, and if it is an unnecessary encumbrance on commerce and civil society, it should fall. The new clause merely states that the jury is out and that the policy will be examined in future. It could contribute to the greater goal that we should all share: less red tape in British government and society. I therefore strongly support the excellent reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham adduced, and the thrust behind new clause 2.
      Pete Wishart: I shall be brief. All hon. Members who served in Committee or participated on Second Reading will be familiar with the issues and arguments that have been bandied about in the past few months.
      The Conservatives' position is curious. I tried to follow its logic at length in Committee and today. I have no doubt that Conservatives want to reduce smoking-related disease, ensure that young people do not begin smoking and want as many people as possible to come off cigarettes. However, they appear torn between wanting to do something positive—the Bill obviously offers an opportunity to do that—and a strange commitment to a curious form of free speech that extends only to tobacco manufacturers.
      In Committee, the Conservative Members who served on it devoted their time to, in their words, "improving the legislation". They believed that the drafting was sloppy, and generously made it their mission to improve the Bill so that the Government would be spared time and expense in the courts. However, the new amendments may increase that time and expense.
      New clause 2 proposes the creation of
      "a reputable and appropriate qualified body to carry out a rolling study".
      I asked the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) who would serve on the body. I had an awful nightmare of an ad hoc committee made up of health professionals on one side and tobacco manufacturers on the other, chaired by Bernie Ecclestone.
      The new clause is superfluous. We have seen the evidence from other countries and Conservative Members have considered it. In Norway, Finland, New Zealand and France, where a full tobacco advertising ban was introduced as a part of a comprehensive antismoking policy, adult consumption of cigarettes has fallen per capita between 15 per cent. and 34 per cent. The Government cautiously believe that we will reduce smoking by some 2.5 per cent. That is a modest estimate. However, if only one person gave up smoking through an advertising ban, it would be worth while. Many of us believe that there is something wrong with tobacco companies being able to advertise their poisonous product as if it were a benign household commodity.
      54
      At first, I was interested in the new clause because I thought that the Conservatives were being helpful and introducing a provision that would ensure that the Bill remained rigorous and that any attempts by tobacco companies to find loopholes in the measure were examined. Many studies about the tobacco industry show that it displays appalling cynicism and makes continued attempts to flout the rules. It does not care about the health and welfare of its clients and consumers, except to minimise health concerns.
      Tobacco companies are getting desperate. Their marketing exercises have been cranked up in the past few months before the Bill becomes law. Direct mailing and free distributions where young people congregate have increased. I do not get out much of an evening, but when I was at the Edinburgh festival a few weeks ago, it was almost impossible to move in some pubs for representatives of tobacco companies giving out free products and exchanging them for half-empty packets to try to get young people hooked. They are shamelessly trying to get young people hooked before the Bill becomes law.
      Mr. Hopkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such actions are not too distant from those of heroin peddlers who try to get people addicted? They often target the mentally ill. Perhaps tobacco manufacturers do not see themselves in that light, but there is a parallel.
      5.30 pm
      Pete Wishart: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman; he makes a very good point. Tobacco companies sending their representatives into pubs where young people congregate constitutes a shameless attempt to flaunt their product, and I am thankful that the Bill will now become law and that that practice will come to an end. That cannot happen a day too soon.
      The Conservatives see the new clause as a means of considering the deficiencies of the Bill. They could have used it as a useful way of looking at the progress of the legislation and of ensuring that it remained rigorous. The only thing that seems to concern them in the new clause is the market shares of the different participants in the tobacco industry. I have to say that I could not give a fig about the market shares of those participants; I hope that they fall into ruin and are unable to peddle their poisonous products any longer. I am concerned only about how they might try to get round the legislation and exploit potential loopholes that might be uncovered.
      There should be a rolling study of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, but it should he carried out in conjunction with tackling the environment in which so many young people are becoming hooked on smoking. I also agree with the comment made earlier that this should be seen as part of a process and not just a one-off event. We have to try to challenge the culture that exists among young people between the ages of 12 and 17. That is the real danger period for young people who become hooked on cigarettes. This is perhaps even more important now, in the light of the recent evidence showing an increased prevalence of breast cancer among women who smoked as girls.
      The tobacco industry will try to circumvent this new legislation. When they are losing hundreds of smokers a day, they need new recruits and they will attempt to find

      55
      them. We must remain vigilant and, if necessary, revisit the legislation if loopholes appear, but not under the arrangements proposed in the new clause. I therefore urge hon. Members to vote against it.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): This is my first opportunity to participate in proceedings on the Bill, and I am delighted to be able to do so. I pay tribute to my predecessor as Minister of Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), for the way in which she steered the Bill through Committee. She did an incredible amount of preparatory work for it, and I hope that we shall finally get a result today.
      I have some sympathy with the motivation behind new clause 2. We shall certainly not be able to sit back when the Bill is on the statute book. As the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) has just pointed out, tobacco companies may invest considerable resources and ingenuity in trying to redirect some of the £130 million that they spend every year on advertising their products in this country.
      I support evidence-based policy making, but it is odd to put such a commitment to evaluation in a Bill as a statutory obligation. That is simply not necessary. The Government can already commission such studies, and to put that requirement into legislation would reduce their flexibility over what they might cover and how often they were done. I think that it was the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) who pointed out that such evidence and research is highly complex and difficult to obtain. We are not simply dealing with quantifiable research: this is about behaviour change.
      Richard Ottaway: In my intervention on the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), I brought up the weakness in clause 10, which relates to sponsorship agreements and is vague, woolly, ambiguous and unclear. How is that sort of thing going to be flushed out? Surely a body such as that we propose would flush the problems out and bring them into the open.
      Ms Blears: I do not accept that the provisions on sponsorship are woolly or ambiguous. We have the provisions in the Bill and we are also consulting—as I speak—on the sponsorship transitional provisions. I think that they are extremely clear, and I commend the consultation document to the hon. Gentleman, if he has not already read it.
      Richard Ottaway: If the Minister is saying that the provisions are clear and unambiguous, will she tell me whether they apply to sponsorship agreements within the trade between suppliers and retailers?
      Ms Blears: Certainly. Whether or not the provisions apply to agreements will depend on the terms of the agreements.
      Richard Ottaway: That is rather woolly.
      Ms Blears: It is not woolly. I am saying to the hon. Gentleman that whether the agreements are caught by
      56
      the legislation will depend on whether they fall within the definition in the Bill and the regulations. He knows that it is part of the normal course of legislation that we define something, and whether it falls within that definition is a matter for the legislation and, ultimately, the courts.
      I know that, in some countries, wholesalers pay retailers to ensure that products are displayed prominently, perhaps even above those of their rivals in certain circumstances. If that were a sponsorship agreement in that the effect was to promote a tobacco product, it might well fall foul of the sponsorship provisions. The sponsorship provisions are clear. I do not think that they are woolly. If the effect is that companies are paying to promote tobacco products to the public, we will want to prohibit that. If such agreements fall into that category, we will prohibit them.
      We have reserve powers in the Bill to introduce regulations on display. We went into that at great length in Committee. If a display is abused to a point at which it becomes an overt representation of the goods, we may have to use such powers.
      Subsection (2) of the new clause suggests that there should be an annual report. If that requirement were in the Bill, however, it might become burdensome after 10 years. We might have conclusive results during that period. We need flexibility, not simply to respond to the ban and to ensure that the right sort of research is taking place, but so that we can respond to new needs for research in other areas as they arise. Much of the legislation has been framed to ensure that it is fluid enough to react to developments as they happen. The history of the action of tobacco companies shows that they are ingenious in finding other ways of promoting their product, so it is important for us to have flexibility in relation to research as well as in relation to the statutory provisions that are in place.
      Mr. Adrian Flook: The Minister spoke at length about promotion of products by tobacco companies. What would happen if a tobacco company demoted a competitor's product?
      Ms Blears: That argument too was considered in Committee—an arcane one, I feel. We discussed what would happen if advertising dissed other companies' products, as happens sometimes in America. "Diss" is an advertising term meaning to have a go at a competitor's product. If a company said that another company's cornflakes were not as good as its own, would that have the effect of promoting the product? It would be a question of interpretation. If an advertisement had the effect of promoting a tobacco product, it would clearly fall foul of the prohibition. If it did not have that effect, it would not be caught by the prohibition.
      I suspect that the Opposition Members who tabled the new clause were being disingenuous. I suspect that they tabled it because they were doubtful about the effectiveness of an advertising ban in helping to reduce consumption. We have discussed that before, at great length, but I am happy to repeat the reasons for our belief that the weight of the evidence suggests a link between an advertising ban and reduced tobacco

      57
      consumption, and also a link between the promotion of cigarettes and the decision of young people to start smoking.
      The Smee report, produced by the Department of Health's chief economic adviser in 1992 at the request of the last Government, contained important research. It analysed existing evidence of the effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption. Smee reviewed 19 studies, mainly from the United Kingdom and the United States, most of which analysed the effect of year-to-year fluctuations in advertising expenditure within countries. The report concluded:
      "The preponderance of positive results does indicate that advertising has a positive effect on consumption".
      Smee went on to consider countries that had introduced comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising. The most significant were Norway and Finland, where bans had been in place for more than a decade. He also considered Canada and New Zealand, where there had been more recent bans. He acknowledged the complications of such studies, the main one being that advertising bans were often introduced in conjunction with other tobacco control measures, but concluded:
      "In each case the banning of advertising was followed by a fall in smoking on a scale which cannot reasonably be attributed to other factors".
      Other work has reached similar conclusions. A 1999 report from the World Bank, "Curbing the Epidemic", said:
      "policymakers who are interested in controlling tobacco need to know whether cigarette advertising and promotion affect consumption. The answer is that they almost certainly do, although the data are not straightforward. The key conclusion is that bans on advertising and promotion prove effective, but only if they are comprehensive, covering all media and all uses of brand names and logos."
      The World Bank suggests that implementation of the EU directive could have reduced cigarette consumption in the European Union by almost 7 per cent. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) referred to the advertising ban as a pinprick. I do not consider the possibility of saving up to 3,000 lives a year a minor effect.
      Other evidence comes from the American researchers Saffer and Chaloupka, who studied data from 22 countries and concluded:
      "tobacco advertising increases tobacco consumption. The empirical research also shows that comprehensive advertising bans can reduce tobacco consumption, but that a limited set of advertising bans will have little or no effect. A limited set of advertising bans will not reduce the total level of advertising expenditure but will simply result in substitution to the remaining non-banned media. When more of the remaining media are eliminated, the options for substitution are also eliminated."
      On the effect of tobacco advertising on children, university of Manchester researchers in the mid-1990s found:
      "Awareness of certain brands of cigarette was linked to an increased risk of onset of smoking in 11–13 year olds, especially girls. Awareness of the most advertised brands was a strong predictor of smoking, while awareness of other brands, probably known from other sources, was a less likely predictor. Children appear to take in the messages of cigarette advertising and interpret them as generic to smoking rather than brand specific."
      58
      A study of adolescents in California between 1993 and 1996 found
      "clear evidence that tobacco industry advertising and promotional activities can influence non-susceptible never smokers to start the process of becoming addicted to cigarettes."
      We do not claim that advertising is the only, or even the most significant, factor in the decisions of young people to start smoking, but it is an important one. As a result, we believe that there is clear evidence of a link between tobacco consumption and advertising, and that public health will benefit from a comprehensive ban as proposed in the Bill.
      David Taylor: Would my hon. Friend care to extend the social groups on which tobacco advertising has an impact from the young to those in manual occupations? The evidence shows that the highest levels of tobacco advertising are in areas of low income and high unemployment. The fact that 34 per cent. of men and 29 per cent. of women in manual occupations, compared with 23 per cent. of men and 22 per cent. women in non-manual occupations, continue to smoke shows that the tobacco companies recognise that their advertising reinforces the commitment to smoking.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, I hope that she will not be too tempted by the remarks of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). I remind her that she is replying to a debate on new clause 2, and I hope that she does not anticipate the speech that she may like to make if she catches my eye on Third Reading.
      Ms Blears: Certainly not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend made an important point, and I am sure that we shall return to it.
      Quantification of the effects of a ban is not an exact science, but I think that we are about right in estimating that the provisions of the Bill could lead to a 2.5 per cent. reduction in smoking prevalence. We will keep the legislation under review in case circumstances change, just as we do for all legislation, but it is not necessary to prescribe that in the Bill.
      I want to deal briefly with the issue raised by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). He referred to the sunset clause in the Electronic Communications Act 2000. The circumstances of this Bill are entirely different from those in that Act. The sunset clause in part I of the 2000 Act relates to the registering of providers of cryptography and confidentiality services. It provides that, while there is a voluntary agreement that is working well and fulfilling the Government's objectives, there is no need for the legislative provisions in part I. The key point is whether the voluntary code is fulfilling the Government's objectives. I draw to his attention the comments of Joy de Bayer, the tobacco control co-ordinator at the World Bank, who said:
      "We know what works and what doesn't. Voluntary codes have proved to be a failure. A World Bank—WHO study…found that interventions like comprehensive advertisement bans and price increases have a measurable and sustained impact on decreased tobacco use."
      Tim Loughton: In that case, can the Minister explain how the United Kingdom produced one of the largest falls in the prevalence of smoking up till 1997 in the context of only a voluntary ban?
      5.45 pm
      Ms Blears: Again, a combination of factors is involved: price increases, fiscal measures and health promotion measures. All were no doubt instrumental in achieving the dramatic reduction in smoking, which I hope that we all welcome. The hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am of the fact that that reduction flattened out in the 1990s and that, therefore, there is a need—
      Tim Loughton: It has gone back up.
      Ms Blears: Exactly. The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. There is a need to take firmer and more stringent measures, because voluntary codes simply do not work. That is why this situation is different from that involving the 2000 Act.
      We shall, of course, continue to commission research on smoking prevalence. That is one of the Government's top priorities in improving public health. I therefore ask the House to reject the new clause.
      Tim Loughton: First, I welcome the Minister, luckily for her late in the day, to consideration of the legislation, which has been round the houses many, many times. Many of us have spent much time examining it in Committee.
      I was optimistic when the Minister began by saying that she had some sympathy with our motives, but she subsequently lost that sympathy and, predictably, her comments were rather one-sided. Of course she referred to certain reports, but she did not mention the KPMG report and a host of others that counter much of the so-called evidence that she produced. Of course the fall in the prevalence of smoking—such a success up to 1997—is down to a combination of factors, but the situation has worsened since then.
      That worsening is largely down to smuggling, as my hon. Friends have said, but that does not counter the argument as to why the Government did not go back to the industry to try to negotiate a much tougher voluntary agreement. That was never tried, so the Minister should not say that it would not have worked—the Government did not even bother. If a voluntary agreement had worked, we would not need the Bill now, because an advertising ban would have been introduced voluntarily five years ago. That is an important point.
      The Minister made an interesting comment in response to the accurate observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) that a lot of the Bill is woolly. Clause 10, if it is not woolly, is certainly slightly shaggy, as it is open to all sorts of interpretation, which, I am afraid, she and her hon. Friends seem content to leave up to the courts. I am disappointed that the debate has again been sidetracked by the red herrings involving the horrors of breast and lung cancer. We all agree that smoking kills and that it does terrible things to our bodies, which we do not want to happen, but those are not the points at issue.
      We have heard some interesting contributions, but the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) was again unable to answer my point about the success of the voluntary ban. He wants more extreme measures, including banning price-cutting. The obvious implication of that, I am afraid, disappointing though it
      60
      might be, is that he wants the Government to put up tax. The obvious implication of that would be yet more smuggling and yet more cheap fags being sold outside school playgrounds. We cannot have such a wish list and say, "It is going to happen."
      John Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Tim Loughton: I will continue, but I shall mention the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), in wholly typical form, spoke in support of the intentions behind the new clause and then, as he did at every instance on those few occasions when he turned up in Committee, said he would vote against. He then made the bizarre suggestion that we should rely on research from the tobacco industry, which will no doubt be producing research along with everybody else.
      The hon. Gentleman also questioned whether we have achieved a full sunset clause, which is what I want, but I had trouble getting one on the selection list. Indeed, I had trouble getting new clause 2 on the selection list, which is why it has taken a somewhat diluted form and why it would give the Secretary of State far greater flexibility. That is what the Minister is asking for.
      The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) is right: we should not treat the banning of tobacco advertising as the panacea for the ills of smoking. It is but a component, perhaps, but that case has not been proven.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) again fell into the trap of saying that it is a cheek for anyone to go through the due processes of this place in scrutinising a Bill to make it better and force the Government to justify why they are trying to ban something. That is all we are about. It is not impertinent to want to question the mechanics of the Bill. It would be absurd to say that just because he was not in favour of capital punishment, he was in some way pro-murder. It is entirely the same absurd contention, so please can we accept that we are all anti-smoking but there are many ways of doing it and we are not convinced of the evidence? The Minister started by saying that we should deal on an evidential basis.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) made some helpful points, not least that we do not see the downside of the new clause. which in no way undermines the ban that the Bill would bring about.
      Mr. Bill Tynan: If, because this new clause were accepted, someone died of, say, lung cancer or became a smoker, would that be a price worth paying?
      Tim Loughton: One would have to prove that there was a direct link and no one has been able to prove one. Equally, if it were proven that the Act increased the prevalence of smoking because companies resorted to price-cutting and therefore young children were more susceptible and better able to get hold of cigarettes, the hon. Gentleman would be guilty of supporting a measure that had resulted in the deaths, or lung cancer, of those children. It works both ways.

      61
      The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) asked what the logic of our approach was but, more reasonably, appreciated where we are coming from and that we are all trying to achieve the same ends. The logic that we are trying to promote is that we should all have available proper research to justify the ban on an ongoing basis. The make-up of the committee is something for the Secretary of State to propose to the House and for us to scrutinise at the time.
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned the successes in other countries that have instituted a ban but I repeat that the biggest fall in the prevalence of smoking in just about any European or major western country occurred in this country up to 1997, when there were voluntary agreements with the industry, rather than bans on advertising or any other particular aspect.
      New clause 2 is an innocuous measure that improves the Bill and its acceptability to Conservative Members and, I hope, all reasonable people. If after three years the research shows incontrovertibly that the measures are a success and that the ban on tobacco advertising has seriously affected the prevalence of smoking and reduced it, particularly among younger people, I will be the first to hold up my hand and embrace it. We do not have to wait 10 years. As the Minister said, it might be onerous to have reviews after 10 years. In a few years, we might be able to show whether the Act and its implications had worked. That is all we are asking for, without even the compulsion of the trigger mechanism of a full sunset clause. We are not trying to undermine the ban. We are certainly not trying to promote smoking—anything but.
      This is a reasonable new clause. We think that it improves the Bill, that it will be much more acceptable to everyone if the new clause were passed and that the Govt should be forced to have proper research at their fingertips, available to all of us. On that basis, I urge hon. Members to vote for it.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 329.

      Division No. 324]

      [5:54 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Bacon, Richard

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Baldry, Tony

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway & U Nithsdale)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Bercow, John

      Evans, Nigel

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fabricant, Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fallon, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Brazier, Julian

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Flight, Howard

      Burns, Simon

      Flook, Adrian

      Butterfill, John

      Forth, rh Eric

      Cash, William

      Francois, Mark

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

      Goodman, Paul

      Chope, Christopher

      Gray, James

      Clappison, James

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Greenway, John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Grieve, Dominic

      Collins, Tim

      Hague, rh William

      Conway, Derek

      Hammond, Philip

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hawkins, Nick

      62

      Hayes, John

      Randall, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Redwood, rh John

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hendry, Charles

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Hoban, Mark

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Horam, John

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Howard, rh Michael

      Ruffley, David

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jack, rh Michael

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Key, Robert

      Soames, Nicholas

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lansley, Andrew

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Spring, Richard

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New F E)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Steen, Anthony

      Lidington, David

      Swire, Hugo

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Syms, Robert

      Loughton, Tim

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Trend, Michael

      Maclean, rh David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Malins, Humfrey

      Viggers, Peter

      Maples, John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Maude, rh Francis

      Watkinson, Angela

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Whittingdale, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Norman, Archie

      Willetts, David

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Wilshire, David

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Yeo, Tim

      Paterson, Owen

      Pickles, Eric

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Chris Grayling and

      Prisk, Mark

      Mr. Desmond Swayne

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Allan, Richard

      Bryant, Chris

      Allen, Graham

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Burden, Richard

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Burgon, Colin

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Burnett, John

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Burnham, Andy

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Burstow, Paul

      Austin, John

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cairns, David

      Banks, Tony

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Battle, John

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Beard, Nigel

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Challen, Colin

      Bell, Stuart

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Benn, Hilary

      Chaytor, David

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Betts, Clive

      Clapham, Michael

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Blunkett, rh David

      Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bradley, Peter (The wrekin)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Breed, Colin

      Clelland, David

      Brennan, Kevin

      Coaker, Vernon

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      63

      Cohen, Harry

      Heppell, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Heyes, David

      Colman, Tony

      Hill, Keith

      Connarty, Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hoey, Kate

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Cotter, Brian

      Hope, Phil

      Cousins, Jim

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cranston, hon. Ross

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Crausby, David

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Cummings, John

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Hutton, rh John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Illsley, Eric

      Davidson, Ian

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jamieson, David

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Doran, Frank

      Joyce, Eric

      Doughty, Sue

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Dowd, Jim

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Keetch, Paul

      Edwards, Huw

      Kemp, Fraser

      Efford, Clive

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kidney, David

      Etherington, Bill

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Flint, Caroline

      Lamb, Norman

      Flynn, Paul

      Laws, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Laxton, Bob

      Foster, rh Derek (Bishop Auckland)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Lepper, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Levitt, Tom

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lloyd, Tony

      Gerrard, Neil

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Love, Andrew

      Gidley, Sandra

      Lucas, Ian

      Gilroy, Linda

      Luke, Iain

      Goggins, Paul

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Grogan, John

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      MacDougall, John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McFall, John

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McKechin, Ann

      Hancock, Mike

      MacShane, Denis

      Hanson, David

      McWalter, Tony

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      McWilliam, John

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Healey, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Heath, David

      Mendelson, rh Peter

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mann, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marris, Rob

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      64

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marshall-Andrews, hon. Robert

      Skinner, Dennis

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Miliband, David

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Miller, Andrew

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mole, Chris

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

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Moore, Michael

      Soley, Clive

      Moran, Margaret

      Southworth, Helen

      Morley, Elliot

      Speller, rh John

      Mountford, Kali

      Spink, Bob

      Mudie, George

      Steinberg. Gerry

      Mullin, Chris

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Norris, Dan

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Oaten, Mark

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Hara, Edward

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Olner, Bill

      Stunell, Andrew

      Organ, Diana

      Tami, Mark

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Owen, Albert

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St. Austell)

      Picking, Anne

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Pike, Peter

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Plaskitt, James

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Pond, Chris

      Thurso, John

      Pope, Greg

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pound, Stephen

      Touhig, Don

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Trickett, Jon

      Truswell, Paul

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Tynan, Bill

      Purchase, Ken

      Vaz, Keith

      Purnell, James

      Ward, Claire

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Rapson, Syd

      Watson, Tom

      Reed, Andy

      Watts, David

      Rendel, David

      Webb, Steve

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Weir, Michael

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Rooney, Terry

      Williams Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Winnick, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wishart, Pete

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Woolas, Phil

      Ryan, Joan

      Worthington, Tony

      Salter, Martin

      Wray, James

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wright David (Telford)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Sheerman, Barry

      Sheridan, Jim

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and

      Short, rh Clare

      Mr. Bill Rammell

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6.12 pm
      Ms Blears: I beg to move. That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      After that rather surprisingly swift canter through the rest of the agenda, I am delighted that, at this early stage of the evening, we have arrived at the Third Reading of what I believe to be a tremendously important, significant and, dare I say, historic Bill.
      The Bill has been extensively debated in Committee; I was going to say that it was extensively debated today, but clearly that is not the case. No amendments have been made to the Bill at either stage. That is not surprising as, first, it has had the benefit of lengthy debates in another place, where several amendments were made. I pay tribute to Lord Clement-Jones for his resourcefulness in promoting the Bill there and taking it through as a private Member's Bill. Secondly, the Bill is of course largely the same measure as the Government Bill of the same name that was before the House in the previous Parliament, when it was improved in a number of ways.
      It is worth repeating just what this Bill will do and why it is necessary. It will ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship in this country in order to protect public health and to protect children. Smoking eventually kills one out of every two smokers, 120,000 of our fellow citizens every year. Advertising of tobacco products promotes a deadly product. We know, too, that children tend to smoke the most heavily advertised brands. We cannot turn the clock back and legislate tobacco out of existence, even if we wanted to, but we can act to help the majority of current smokers who want to stop and, as importantly, to control the marketing of this lethal product so that fewer people take up this lethal habit in the first place.
      The evidence is clear and demonstrates the importance of a ban on tobacco advertising. We have talked about the Smee report, commissioned by the Department of Health in 1992 under the previous Government, which examined international evidence from Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand. Smee concluded:
      "in each case the banning of advertising was followed by a fall in smoking on a scale which cannot reasonably be attributed to other factors".
      The report was commissioned by the previous Conservative Government, but we do not need to rely on it alone. The World Bank's report "Curbing the Epidemic" said:
      "A recent study of 22 high-income countries based on data from 1970 to 1992 concluded that comprehensive bans on cigarette advertising and promotion can reduce smoking, but more limited partial bans have little or no effect."
      The evidence, then, is that banning tobacco advertising does reduce consumption, but only if the ban is comprehensive. That is a very important point. It explains why the Bill introduces a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising and promotion, with very limited and tightly drawn exceptions. We know that only if we introduce such a ban will we make a real impact on smoking consumption and prevalence. It has been shown in other countries that where there is a ban only on direct advertising, and not indirect advertising, the effect is lessened.
      We have estimated that the impact of this ban will be to reduce smoking consumption and prevalence by around 2.5 per cent. in the longer term. Some people
      66
      may think this a small reward for the banning of advertising of a legal product. However, we estimate that a 2.5 per cent. reduction in consumption could, in the longer term, save 3,000 lives a year. Even in the shorter term, it could save up to 1,600 lives a year. Every single life saved means less grief, heartache and sorrow for people and families. It is a prize worth having. The Bill will make a huge contribution to creating a healthier nation.
      The tobacco industry has consistently claimed that its advertising merely affects market share of different brands. I do not think that that is a credible position, and the evidence from Smee and others undermines it. The Select Committee on Health looked in detail at the industry's marketing strategies. It had access to evidence that had not previously been in the public domain, and that evidence was incredibly revealing. The former chairman of the board of the advertisers McCann-Erickson, which handled $20 million in tobacco account sales, said:
      "The cigarette industry has been artfully maintaining that cigarette advertising has nothing to do with total sales. This is complete and utter nonsense."
      Those are the words of someone who was involved intimately in the advertising of tobacco products. He went on to say:
      "I am always amused by the suggestion that advertising, a function that has been shown to increase consumption of virtually every other product, somehow miraculously fails to work for tobacco products."
      That illustrates the naivety and disingenuousness of those who seek to present the case that there is little evidence that an advertising ban will lead to a reduction in smoking. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) has said that the advertising companies spend in excess of £100 million a year in this country, so they must believe that that money is well spent in terms of investing for their future profits.
      The industry claims that it only wishes adults to smoke. Let me accept that claim for the sake of argument. However, the evidence is that, regardless of that avowed intention, 14 and 15-year-old children see and react to the industry's advertising just as much as 16-year-olds. An interesting exchange of views took place in the Health Select Committee, where witnesses from advertising companies gave evidence. They were pressed to explain the distinction in an advertising brief, whereby they could pitch an advert at young adults and avoid it having an effect on 14 and 15-year-old children.
      Despite their valiant attempts to make that distinction to the Select Committee, the people involved in the advertising pitches and briefs—the creatives involved in drawing up advertising campaigns—were forced to admit, after being pressed intensely on the issue, that it would be difficult to provide advertisements aimed at young adults that did not also appeal to the fantasies of teenagers. Therefore, that evidence is extremely important.
      Once one starts smoking, it is very hard to stop: the Royal College of Physicians' report, "Nicotine Addiction in Britain", made it clear that nicotine addiction is about as addictive as heroin and cocaine. It is therefore a very serious issue.
      The Bill gives Ministers a number of regulation-making powers. That is deliberate, because we wish to ensure that we can keep up in legislative terms with any

      67
      developments that occur. We have said that some of those powers will be kept in reserve in case there are abuses or problems that need to be sorted out. However, we have said all along that we intend to make regulations as quickly as possible on point of sale advertising, brand sharing and transitional arrangements for sponsorship. We issued a consultation document in August and are seeking views now on the detail of those regulations. The consultation period ends on 15 November. I commend the consultation documents to hon. Members, because they go into the regulations in great depth and illustrate the Government's determination to ensure that we have good and effective regulations in that area.
      We have already said that we reserve our right to bring in regulations in relation to displays of products. If we feel that manufacturers are beginning to abuse displays of products, we will not hesitate to introduce regulations to try to control that activity. I do not wish to be vindictive in pursuing the tobacco companies, but the history of the industry shows that the companies have been ingenious in finding other ways to advertise and promote tobacco products in places that have introduced restrictions. Those other methods include sponsorship and brand sharing—or brand stretching, as it is increasingly called. The debate in the other place gave some interesting examples of brand sharing. There is, for example, a Benson and Hedges bistro in Kuala Lumpur, which is there to promote the Benson and Hedges brand. Before the bistro was opened, the Benson and Hedges market share had declined dramatically. After the bistro opened, the brand's trading position was secured. The person running the bistro said that he wanted to be "smoker-friendly" and that people associated cigarettes with a cup of coffee. He said:
      "After all, they are both drugs of a kind."
      I found that very revealing.
      Mr. Hopkins: My hon. Friend points out that coffee is also a drug, but does she agree that recent evidence suggests that coffee drinking can be beneficial, unlike cigarette smoking?
      Ms Blears: As a confirmed tea drinker, I am well aware of the health benefits of the antioxidants in tea and if coffee has similar effects, I look forward to seeing that evidence. My hon. Friend makes the serious point that tobacco is a dangerous and lethal substance that has led to the deaths of thousands of people—in fact, of millions of people worldwide.
      Baroness Jay gave some interesting examples of the use of cartoon characters to promote cigarettes in the United States. Joe Camel, a character promoted in connection with Camel cigarettes, had a high recognition factor with young children. By the age of six, children recognised Joe Camel as much as they did Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck. That is very worrying in relation to the provisions on brand sharing and brand stretching.
      We have also introduced consultation on the transitional arrangements for sponsorship to ensure that once advertising is outlawed the money does not go on extensive and glamorous sponsorship arrangements.
      68
      We want to outlaw sponsorship for all sports by 2003 and for global sports by 2006. After that date, no sponsorship will be allowed.
      Some hon. Members have raised concerns about the ability of companies to continue trading in what are legal products, but the Bill does not compel people who want to carry on smoking to stop. Smokers will continue to be free to contact suppliers and request information about the products available. It would not be right to allow suppliers, even specialist tobacconists, to send out tobacco advertisements to people who had bought tobacco products from them in the past when many of those people are likely to be among the 70 per cent. of smokers who say that they want to give up. We want to ensure that those people are not bombarded with regular advertisements so that every time that they resolve to give up they are undermined by the next lot of glossy leaflets and special offers that come through the post to entice them to carry on smoking.
      The issue of corporate sponsorship by tobacco companies has been raised on several occasions. The Bill does not prevent a tobacco company from giving money to support an event or activity, as long as the tobacco company's products are not given any promotion in return. If a tobacco company wishes to support the ballet, the opera or other artistic activities, it will be entitled to do so, as long as the purpose or effect is not to promote its tobacco products. It is conceivable that some advertisements linked to the corporate sponsorship of events could have the effect of promoting tobacco products even if they do not mention the name of specific products. If that does happen then the parties involved might be liable to be prosecuted under the Bill. Companies will need to be vigilant about the kind of corporate sponsorship that they undertake in the future.
      It has been suggested that the Bill will impede the freedom of the tobacco industry to develop products that are less harmful to health. However, we have seen what happened in the past when people were encouraged to smoke particular brands on the basis that they were light or mild. We are supporting action to outlaw those terms, because experience has shown that they were not helpful and that the best way to confront the health risks of tobacco is to stop smoking. Descriptions such as "light" or "mild" did encourage people to take up those products. Descriptions of products as "low tar" made people think that they were safer and less harmful.
      Experiments showed that if the smoke from those cigarettes was extracted by a machine, it was less harmful, but people who smoked them changed their smoking habits. They would inhale more deeply or cover up the ventilation filters on the cigarettes to ensure that they got an amount of nicotine that maintained the drug in their system at the level to which their bodies were accustomed. People might have been smoking lower tar products, but the way in which they smoked them meant that the harmful effects on their health were just as great. Indeed, the adoption of low tar products often meant that people made no effort to give up. That marketing was, therefore, more harmful than helpful.
      If new tobacco products appear which are genuinely less harmful than those now available, we will consider how they should be marketed, but it would be wrong to give the tobacco industry carte blanche to market them

      69
      as it sees fit. We would be failing in our duty if we were to allow that, and that is why it is right that the Bill will impose a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising.
      The Bill is part of our broader strategy to tackle smoking. Smoking is the biggest cause of early death in this country. It causes one in seven deaths from heart disease and 85 per cent. of deaths from lung cancer. It causes cancer of the mouth, the larynx, the oesophagus, the bladder, the kidneys, the stomach and the pancreas. It is one of the principal causes of the health gap between rich and poor. Some 120,000 of our fellow citizens die each year from smoking-related diseases. The loss and misery is shared by their loved ones. Those are needless deaths caused by an industry that hides the truth from consumers.
      Tobacco is the only legal product that kills one in two people who use it. The Government are determined to tackle this epidemic. That is why we have made a commitment to reduce the number of smoking-related deaths. That is why we have introduced the best smoking cessation services in the world. And that is why we will ban tobacco advertising and promotion. I call on Members from both sides of the House to join us to support this Bill which will help to save lives.
      6.29 pm
      Tim Loughton: I do not demur from the Minister's final comments and her grisly catalogue of horrible diseases, conditions and implications that are caused by cancers linked to smoking. I repeat that smoking is a killer and we want less of it, but that was not the point of contention between us in the Bill.
      The Minister said that she was surprised to reach Third Reading a little more quickly than she had anticipated. I do not think that she should be surprised, given that new clause 2 made it clear that we were not trying to undermine the Bill or the ban that it introduces by the amendments that we have tried to make to it. We think that the Bill is flawed and that it is bad law in some cases, but we do not disagree with the wish to do anything to deter people from smoking. We are not convinced, however, that the Bill is directly linked to that end.
      The Bill has been around for quite a long time. The Minister comes to it rather late in the day—some of us have been with it longer, in the previous Parliament. The Bill was lost before the last election; it was almost scuppered by the Germans over the summer but survived to come before us this evening. In fact, the Bill is before us because a private Member of the upper House reincarnated it earlier in the year, so for all the Minister's proud words, the Government are not responsible for it.
      I repeat my earlier point that there is evidence to suggest that if, soon after the Government came to power in 1997, they had gone to the tobacco industry for a tougher voluntary agreement, which had been successful in reducing the prevalence of smoking until then, the Bill might not have been necessary, because tobacco advertising would have disappeared, by voluntary agreement, five years ago. The Minister cannot say otherwise and neither can other hon. Members who question that. It is a shame that we have had to go through all these processes and false dawns five years on to achieve what the Government said that they wanted to achieve in their 1997 election manifesto.
      70
      It is also slightly odd that only now, five and a half years on, are we in the midst of the consultation exercise on the draft regulations accompanying the Bill that I pulled off the internet. With great respect to the hon. Lady, I think that members of the Committee would have expected to be sent a copy of them when they came out in the middle of August because they were relevant to the work of the Committee and are relevant to Report and Third Reading. It is a shame that that did not happen.
      We are united, on both sides of the House, in trying to achieve the same ends—to deter people from smoking and especially to deter young people from taking up a foul pursuit. We all want to improve public health; the cost of unhealthy life styles to the national health service and to us all is enormous, and that includes people who choose, against all the advice, to continue smoking.
      It is rather arrogant of Labour Members to suggest that in wishing to scrutinise the Bill, Conservative Members are somehow pro-smoking. I have always approached the Bill with an open mind. I am a committed non-smoker: I have hassled my father about smoking over many decades, without success, and frown when people smoke in my presence. The Government have not had the courage of their convictions to go the whole way and ban smoking outright; indeed, I do not think that anybody would agree with that action. However, the implication of many of tonight's contributions is that smoking itself should be banned, not only the advertising of its products.
      Our approach to the Bill over the weeks, months and years of our involvement has been to ask whether it will have the desired effect or be counter-productive. I repeat my comments about the measures on price competition being far more dangerous than price-cutting in inducing young people in particular to smoke. As for the loss of £130 million worth of advertising revenue, I said on Second Reading that I would be in favour of measures that obliged cigarette advertisers to cover virtually the whole billboard with grisly warnings about smoking killing and leading to long, lingering deaths, thereby leaving only a small space to advertise the product, in whatever obscure form. That would be an effective way of getting £130 million of free advertising for a health promotion campaign. There are other ways of doing it, but we need to tackle the legislation, as we have done all the way through, on the basis that, whether we like it or not, it remains legitimate and legal to smoke, produce and sell tobacco and that, however much we may hate it, many of our fellow citizens, for their own good reasons, continue to do so.
      The Bill, along with other public health promotions that the Government quite rightly carry out, will not induce the tobacco manufacturers to shut up shop and go home. The Government must justify a ban by saying whether it will work in practice, whether it is watertight and whether it is fair and proportionate. For all the reports that the Minister rightly trots out, other reports contradict those findings, and they are non-conclusive. Other countries have tried tobacco advertising bans or other forms of obligatory legislation, yet smoking prevalence in the United Kingdom fell faster than in virtually every other country in the west, for a whole raft of reasons, when a voluntary agreement with the

      71
      industry was in place. The Government did not seek to renegotiate a voluntary agreement with the industry. Had they done so, the result might have been different.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: If the hon. Gentleman's argument were followed to its logical conclusion, no company would spend any of its revenue on advertising. He has outlined a set of circumstances in which the Department of Health could make gains out of tobacco advertising. Surely he must agree that advertising works, and that in these circumstances it should be banned.
      Tim Loughton: I was simply giving an example of how such advertising could be used: we have not agreed on what effect advertising has. We covered all the schools of thought about brand switching and so on before the hon. Gentleman appeared in the Chamber. My idea was that advertising would be turned against the person paying the advertising bill in the interests of public health promotion. It might be a fanciful idea, but it was worth investigating. However, the Government chose not to follow a voluntary route and I think that they may have missed a trick.
      Mr. Hopkins: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that a billboard should be used to advertise the terrible effects of smoking. If that depressed cigarette smoking and cigarette sales, would the tobacco companies carry on with it?
      Tim Loughton: Probably not, in which case this legislation would not be necessary. We would have the desired effect and everybody would be happy. We are all trying to achieve the same thing.
      Passing the Bill without definitive evidence requires a leap of faith. The regulatory impact assessment gives a fairly wide spread of 0 per cent. to 5 per cent. as the likely reduction in smoking that such a ban will bring about, and the Government have plumped for the mid-range figure of 2.5 per cent. As one of my hon. Friends said earlier, that is fairly woolly science. The Conservatives are far more concerned about the many other practical measures that the Government should pursue far more aggressively, and give greater priority than this one piece of legislation.
      The prevalence of smuggling is probably the single largest factor that has led to the increase in smoking over the past five years. The Government need to tackle that more seriously. They should clamp down with more vigour on the illicit selling of bootleg cigarettes in the vicinity of school playgrounds. Flogging bootleg cigarettes from car boots should be better policed. I would conjecture that a combination of such measures could be more effective in decreasing smoking, especially among young people, than the Bill will be.
      The Government could also tackle the influence of product placement. We have all seen the weekend report that the cast of "EastEnders" and "Coronation Street" are more widely recognised than most members of the Cabinet. Soaps, like the rest of television and the media, have an enormous influence on people's observations
      72
      and habits, yet time and again we see brands of alcohol and cigarettes appearing in socially acceptable scenes. What are the Government doing about that?
      Judy Mallaber: I am slightly puzzled. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the logic of his argument is that advertising does work? If showing a brand of alcohol or cigarettes on a soap affects people, that means that it is an effective form of advertising. Has he not proved that advertising works?
      Tim Loughton: If that were the case, according to the hon. Lady's logic, the tobacco companies would not have to pay for any of their advertising. My point was that having famous actors smoke cigarettes in a socially acceptable context is harmful and has an effect on people who want to emulate those in virtual reality television shows.
      Pete Wishart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; we are all aware of the dangers of product placement—but would it not have been more helpful if he and his colleagues had tabled some amendments to combat product placement, rather than making innocuous suggestions?
      Tim Loughton: I am talking about a far greater issue than simply amending the Bill. Of course, when cigarettes appear in soaps there are no health warnings, whereas adverts and close-ups of the products, have severe health warnings attached. That is another difference.
      We all agree that those things are not helpful. The Government could be examining them more closely, yet they are considering, almost exclusively, the banning of tobacco advertising as the panacea to reduce smoking.
      As many of us said earlier in the passage of the Bill, another aspect that the Government could be tackling is the European Union's continuing subsidising of tobacco production by some £600 million a year. When we, rightly, are taking all the public health promotion measures that we can to reduce smoking, it is nonsense that as taxpayers we are still subsidising the tobacco farmers in southern Europe who produce the vile weed, to the tune of £600 million a year. The Bill would have greater credibility if the Government were taking that problem more seriously and pursuing it more vigorously.
      In passing the Bill we are taking a large leap of faith. We chose to scrutinise it in Committee as fully as we could in the time available, which was not nearly long enough. We were contemptuously questioned about why we had to go through the "rigmarole" of scrutinising the Bill, although on our side of the Standing Committee there were completely new Members, who had not been involved with the legislation when it was scrutinised previously in the House of Lords and in this House.
      We scrutinised the Bill in Committee without any help from the Liberal Democrats, who followed the Government hook, line and sinker, and tabled no amendments. On their rare appearances, they always voted with the Government.

      73
      Ministers in this House have resisted any attempt to amend the Bill, despite the fact that it had wider implications than those for tobacco products.
      Sandra Gidley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as the Bill was introduced by Lord Clement-Jones and we felt that he had got it about right, there was no need for us to table a vast number of amendments, especially as the Bill had already had a Committee stage in this House, albeit in another Parliament?
      Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady says that she did not feel the need to table a vast number of amendments; in fact she did not table a single amendment in the entire Committee stage, and on her rare appearances she seemed content blindly to accept the Government line. I had not realised that Lord Clement-Jones had achieved such godlike status.
      Of course there are things in the Bill that need to be questioned. That is why we spent a long time in Committee raising questions, many of which were not properly answered. That is what a Committee stage is all about. I fear that there are still many unanswered questions, as the questions that my hon. Friends and I asked were all greeted with a look of glazed indifference by the former Minister responsible, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who is now the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, but who is still here today. She seemed to think that it was a cheek for anybody to be going through the proper parliamentary processes of scrutinising the Bill and daring to find fault with it—but find fault with it we did, and she gave only a few assurances in response.
      The catch-all response, which made us most sceptical, was that it was up to the courts to decide on the definitions and interpretations in the Bill. Apparently, it was not for us to define what the law was about; we were to leave it to the courts, for lots of lawyers to argue about among themselves. That is surely unsatisfactory. The House should legislate to provide a high degree of certainty, so that people know precisely where they stand and do not have to rely on courts, long drawn-out legal processes and highly paid lawyers. With this Bill, that has not been the case.
      I shall concentrate on the terms of the Bill rather than the horrors of what smoking does; we all agree about that, and we can bank it. However, in the context of clause 1, we did not resolve in Committee the definition of what constitutes an advertisement. I appreciate the spirit of that part of the Bill, but at the end of our deliberations it was still not clear whether an advertisement included the tobacco product itself, its packaging, invoices and letterheads relating to the selling of the product, business signs used inside premises, or the effects of brand sharing, Dunhill shops and so on.
      The Minister went to some lengths to avoid such questions, saying that she did not want to open loopholes. However, she was unable to define what some of those loopholes were, despite the fact that previous legislation, such as the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Medicines Act 1968 and the Gaming Act 1968, contains proper enforceable definitions of what constitutes an advertisement.
      74
      Will the Bill cover smoking avoidance products? It would be nonsense if it did, but no clear assurance was given that the various nicotine substitute products that help to wean people off tobacco would not fall foul of it.
      There were many unanswered questions about the impact on internet communications about tobacco products, which are beyond the reach of UK legislation. Questions about unwitting printers and publishers of magazines and newspapers in which tobacco advertisements appear were also unanswered. There was a fine line with regard to trade publications, whether they were available to the public through subscription or off the shelf, and whether they fell foul of the provisions. Under the Bill, will shareholders in tobacco companies still be able to get information about the advertising campaigns for products promoted by the companies in which they have invested?
      Also questioned was the role of specialist tobacco businesses—legitimate businesses with clearly targeted ranges of specialist adult clients that play no role in encouraging children to take up smoking, but which could be seriously curtailed. There are also serious implications for in-flight magazines and airlines that earn revenue from legitimate duty-free sales—a point understandably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), whose constituency includes Heathrow airport.
      We welcomed clause 17, which reversed earlier changes to the burden of proof defence, a principle that was debated in the upper House. We did not get satisfactory answers, however, to clause 7—the Henry VIII clause—under which the Secretary of State can change virtually anything in the legislation under the guise of technological advances. We then came, of course, to the thorny issue of sponsorship and the very special treatment meted out to tobacco company sponsorship of Formula 1 racing—a leading player that bunged the Labour party £1 million. Coincidentally, it found itself the beneficiary of special treatment.
      Mr. Stephen Pound: That is ancient history.
      Tim Loughton: It may well be ancient, but it is highly relevant to legislation that still has not gone through, until we approve it—or not—this evening. Extraordinarily, the Minister declined to support the helpful amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, which would have avoided all hint of accusations of double standards by not extending special exemptions to groups that have made political donations in the previous 10 years. Not surprisingly, that was another case of the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) —he is no longer here—praising the amendment and the spirit of it, and then voting against it. Again, the amendment was a legitimate attempt to reduce the Bill's vulnerability to further allegations of sleaze by the Government or any other party.
      We were dealing with clause 20 and the effect on world professional darts and other global sports, when we were cut off in mid-flow. Unlike Formula 1, such sports are not flush with cash. They may not seem the healthiest of pursuits, but they are worthwhile as they

      75
      encourage young people to take up activities that are much more positive than some others that they might get up to.
      We also had a problem with the guillotine in Committee—we should have properly scrutinised the clauses, but we were unable to do so because we were limited to just five sittings. As a result, many clauses were not debated. However, we did not pursue that point this evening. In the interests of pushing the Bill on, we were happy not to table further amendments. In the spirit of seeing this Bill through, we were prepared not to revisit those clauses and to concentrate instead on a paving provision for a sunset consideration. That would have required the Government to keep up to date with research on the legislation's impact, and to change it accordingly if it had no effect, or a detrimental effect. It is a shame that the Government were not prepared to accept that new clause.
      We all want the same end. We all hate smoking and we all want to deter it wherever possible.
      Bob Spink: My hon. Friend is treating the House to an extraordinarily eloquent summary of the issues surrounding the Bill, and I am very grateful to him. However, I wonder if I could tempt him to explore an issue on which he has yet to pontificate: the negative publicity that one company might dish against another. Will the Bill deal with that satisfactorily, or will we need to reconsider it at some stage? Will that issue provide the lawyers with a great deal of work and money in future?
      Mr. Miller: He is a lawyer.
      Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I am a lawyer but I never have been and I never will be. My hon. Friend has picked up the lingo sharpish. He uses a technical term—to "diss"—that was used by the Minister, the meaning of which had to be explained. The use of that phrase was as offensive as my use of sunsetise, so we are both guilty in that regard. His question is one for the Minister to answer, not me, and she will doubtless deal with it at the end of the debate.
      As I said, we all want the same end. I hope that the Government will keep closely under review the implications and effects of this legislation—if it is enacted—and not just treat it as a box to tick, saying, "We've banned tobacco advertising, we've done the stuff against smoking—that's it." There is much more to it, as the Minister said. We have serious reservations, as we made clear throughout Committee stage. Parts of the Bill are bad law, but it has been much more closely scrutinised than a lot of other legislation, and we are prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. As such, we will not oppose Third Reading.
      6.56 pm
      Mr. Hopkins: I wish that the Bill had been enacted years earlier, but it is welcome even at this stage. It is a necessary measure to reduce smoking and the prevalence of the terrible diseases that smoking causes, but it is not sufficient in itself. We have to go much further in reducing smoking and avoiding the terrible health damage that it causes. In particular, we must try
      76
      to persuade young people not to take up smoking. As I said and as we all appreciate, it is extremely addictive. My hon. Friend the Minister suggested that it is as addictive as certain of the hard drugs that are currently illegal, and I am sure that that is true. I remember the terrible struggle that I had when I gave up smoking all those years ago. I smoked considerably, and giving up was that hard that it took 10 or 11 weeks before I stopped dreaming about cigarettes. Fortunately, I managed to overcome it in a "cold turkey" manner—I believe that that is the terminology used in these circles; it is not a phrase I use frequently—and came greatly to dislike smoking. I do feel, however, for those who continue to smoke. They are clearly still addicted, and many of them desperately want to give up.
      I believe that tobacco advertising that is associated with pleasurable events such as sporting fixtures, and which makes use of nice settings, does not help people to give up smoking. It gives them a degree of comfort, and a warm feeling about this dreadful habit. We have done the right thing in moving toward banning such advertising. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) argues that we should somehow establish a voluntary ban. That is fine if it works, but why oppose a compulsory ban if we do not have a voluntary one? If a compulsory ban would not have any effect, why would a voluntary one be necessary? Any economist would say that advertising is a clear attempt to induce people to purchase and use a product. If one takes away that inducement, less of it will be purchased and consumed. That is what the Bill is about—reducing the attractions of smoking, and changing its image.
      We must address the culture of smoking. We live in a society that, historically, has smoked for a long time—since Sir Walter Raleigh brought tobacco back from America. In doing so, he did not do us any favours, but I suppose that its discovery was inevitable at some point. It is still a fact that, among young people, smoking is seen as adult and attractive. It provides an image, and it is that image that we must dent somehow. The Bill will help take us further along that route. Certainly, in the circles in which I mix, smoking is not fashionable these days; indeed, it is very unfashionable. A small number of people do smoke—some members of my family do so—but they know that it is not fashionable. However, they are addicted, and they have to leave the building and stand outside the back door—even if it is someone's home—in order to smoke. That is very embarrassing, but it is right for us to try to change the culture so that we make people feel that smoking is bad not only for them but for everyone and that they should try their best to give it up.
      One of the attractions of giving up smoking is financial, although I accept that that point has nothing to do with the Bill. Since I gave up, I have not spent on smoking about £75,000—a substantial sum. Unfortunately, I do not have it to hand. From time to time, I advocate the benefits of giving up smoking and I find that health arguments are not as persuasive with young people. They think that lung cancer might not affect them in early life and that later on they would die anyway, but the financial arguments are often persuasive, especially to those who are not well-off: £75,000 sounds like a great deal of money to a young

      77
      person, whereas the possibility of being ill when one is 40, 50 or 60 is not as convincing. so I use the financial argument frequently.
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to price-cutting. I hope to persuade my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that point because price-cutting is a real risk. If tobacco manufacturers are banned from advertising, they will spend less on their products so they will have extra income and could, conceivably, reduce their prices while making the same amount of profit. They might even increase their profits because they might induce more people to smoke; clearly, there is a demand curve. In addition, existing smokers might smoke even more. Will my hon. Friend have a word with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor and point out that one way of overcoming that problem would be for him to raise the tax by the same amount as the reduction in the costs of cigarette advertising? For example, if that reduction amounted to 10 per cent. of the price, the tax should be raised by 10 per cent. The price to the consumer would not change, but the take for the Chancellor would increase. That would be a sensible approach and I can see no arguments against it, although smokers and tobacco manufacturers would probably not be terribly keen on it. However, such a measure would certainly help to finance the health service and to deal with some of the problems caused by smoking.
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham also mentioned smuggling. I strongly agree that it is a serious issue. It is distressing that, recently, there has been pressure on Customs and Excise to be less fierce with people who smuggle alcohol and cigarettes into the country. I should like a stronger regime, with lower limits on the number of cigarettes one can legitimately bring in; much fiercer regulation of sales of imported tobacco products; higher penalties and much more rigorous investigation. For example, I understand that ice-cream salespeople, driving around with their bells and their jingles, frequently sell rolling tobacco and cigarettes under the counter.
      Mr. Pound: Will my hon. Friend give me the details?
      Mr. Hopkins: We all know that my hon. Friend is a smoker, so I shall certainly give him what information I have.
      Obviously, ice-cream causes no harm and we can all enjoy it.
      Mr. Pound: What?
      Mr. Hopkins: I do not care for ice-cream, but that is not the point. Selling illicit, cheap, imported tobacco or cigarettes, especially to the less well-off, is not acceptable and could easily be effectively policed.
      Some corner shops sell such illicit tobacco products and they, too, could be policed easily. If there were serious penalties, the practice would be stopped. At the same time, we must police our borders, which is much easier for us as an island than if we had land boundaries. We should address smuggling; it is a serious problem. Cigarettes and tobacco products are easier to smuggle than alcohol because they are so small and light, but we should take steps to stop, or at least severely reduce, smuggling.
      78
      When my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Luton, North-John Carlisle—left this place, he took up employment in the tobacco industry and, for a salary several times larger than that of a Member of Parliament, speaks for the industry on television programmes such as "Newsnight". He has done extremely well out of the tobacco industry.
      Mr. Pound: Is my hon. Friend aware that his distinguished predecessor has never, despite the financial emoluments, allowed himself to savour the sweet, aromatic produce of the glorious tobacco plant? He is a non-smoker.
      Mr. Hopkins: In that sense my predecessor is altruistic, because he is advocating something that he does not do himself. He advertises the pleasures of smoking without actually being a smoker, although there are of course financial inducements. I digress, however, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will not test you further.
      It is significant, however, that the tobacco companies found it useful to employ an extremely articulate former parliamentarian to speak on their behalf, to promote their products and the idea that smoking is fine.
      Mr. Martin Salter: Does my hon. Friend agree that even more pernicious than the employment of ex-Members of Parliament, whether or not they smoke and whatever their salary, is the way that tobacco companies have permeated sports sponsorship? It will be a Herculean task for many sports to wean themselves from their dependency on tobacco advertising. Will my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister bear in mind the problems for my sport—angling—due to its sponsorship by Embassy? The company is currently sponsoring the Embassy pairs final. All the qualifying heats are due to be completed by May 2003 for an event that will take place in Spain the following year. However, the event may fall foul of the regulations as currently drafted. Has my hon. Friend given any consideration to the introduction of the regulations?
      Mr. Hopkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention although I have no immediate answer to his difficulty. I appreciate the problem: regrettably, sports have learned to depend on tobacco producers for sponsorship and will have to look elsewhere. One hopes that they are successful. However, that is not an argument for sustaining such sponsorship for longer than necessary. When the Bill is enacted, one hopes that it will disappear quickly.
      Branding is extremely powerful. The mere use of a colour, with no reference to cigarettes, is enough to make people think of Benson and Hedges, John Player or Silk Cut. When I was a young person—some years ago—and a smoker, we all favoured our own brand; one's identity was bound up with the cigarettes one smoked—
      Mr. Pound: Hopkins king-size?
      Mr. Hopkins: It may seem humorous now, but we were all addicted to cigarette smoking.

      79
      One or two of my friends were Francophiles and chose to smoke Gauloises or Gitanes. Others liked king-size cigarettes—as my hon. Friend pointed out. I mixed with amateur jazz musicians and in those circles it was fashionable to smoke roll-up cigarettes—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman really should confine his remarks to Third Reading.
      Mr. Hopkins: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall move to a conclusion.
      I wanted to emphasise that branding and personal identity are very powerful indeed—the idea that "I'm a Park Drive man" and so on. We must address that issue because brands will continue, even without advertising. I am not suggesting that all cigarettes should be sold in brown paper packets, numbered "1", "2" or "3". Nevertheless, we must deal with branding because I am sure that tobacco companies will persist in trying to reinforce our loyalty to cigarette smoking and to particular brands by every subtle means at their disposal, so we have to look beyond the Bill to further measures.
      I shall end my speech very soon, as I have made my points, but I want to make a final point, which I made in Committee as well: alcohol is very different from cigarettes, although there are some similarities. Alcohol is not addictive for most people, and most people drink it in moderation. Indeed, some people consider that it is healthy in small quantities. However, one cigarette is bad; 100 cigarettes are 100 times worse. All cigarettes are bad. They are fairly quickly addictive, and most people who smoke are addicted, which is not true of people who consume alcohol. So I emphasise the difference between cigarettes and alcohol, although, in time, we must address the problems of alcohol, too.
      Finally, I thank the House for giving me this opportunity to speak, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on picking up the reins so effectively and skilfully on the Bill at a late stage.
      7.11 pm
      Sandra Gidley: I am here tonight as a substitute in many ways for my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris); it is his birthday, so I thought it would be useful to let him have the chance to get away.
      As has been said by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), apart from a passing interest, I have had little involvement in the Bill this time round, but I served on the Committee that considered the Bill when it was first introduced during the previous Parliament. I should like to pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who was here earlier this evening, for displaying a strong commitment to the previous Bill, and she has since publicly expressed her disappointment that it was not included in the Queen's Speech in 2001.
      I question why we had to go through things in so much detail again. I have listened to the litany of amendments that the Conservatives have tabled—all
      80
      very valid, but I can remember all of them being discussed in Committee during the 2000 Session. In fact, most of them were probably debated at great—some would say, over-great—length by the then Member for South Dorset. Obviously, that seat has changed hands and he is no longer with us, but I can remember him bringing in items of clothing with logos to show the power of branding. At that stage, there was much emphasis on various vested interests, and I feel that that has not been escaped because the Conservatives still seem to stand up for an industry that funds something that is not in the best interests of health.
      The Bill interests me on a personal level because my father died from lung cancer. He was a non-smoker, but I have absolutely no doubt that he was a victim of passive smoking in his work environment, so I personally support anything that will reduce smoking. Not many people smoke in my circle of friends, so it is very easy to fall into the trap of believing that smoking is declining, but I used to work in the retail sector, where the situation was very different.
      I worked as a pharmacist in supermarkets, and nearly all the young people used to head for the smoking box at break time. Most of them had started smoking at school. I do not know how influenced they were by advertising, but I am fairly sure that allowing fewer images of smoking, fewer reminders and fewer prompts suggesting that a brand is sexy in some way can be only to our benefit.
      The Minister has said that the Bill is historic. In fact, I am sure not whether she intended to use those words because the historic bit seems to be that the pledge to introduce it has been hanging around since 1997. I am not quite sure of the reasons why we could not agree about the Bill sooner. If the Conservatives were so keen for the Bill to go ahead, there is no reason why it could not all have been worked out through the usual channels when the election was called.
      I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones. He saw the opportunity to reintroduce the Bill that had fallen. He called himself
      "the frail instrument by which we hope to reintroduce the Bill"— [Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2001; Vol. 627, c. 1647.]
      However, his attitude toward progressing the Bill has been anything but frail, and I express my admiration and respect for his tenacity. It goes to show that Liberal Democrats can make a difference. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I had to get that in, didn't I?
      The Minister has said that smoking eventually kills one in two smokers, so does she accept that the delay has been unfortunate and has cost lives? I need to make that point, but I do not want to be too churlish. It is clear that the Bill will make a significant contribution to reducing the number of deaths, and I am glad that it will have the support of the House, but it is not a stand-alone measure.
      Much has been said about smoking cessation initiatives, but they are still too few and still not advertised widely enough. The health education messages are not getting across, and we must do something to tackle the problem. Most children in my constituency are dead set against smoking when they leave primary school, but something happens to change that. We need to look closely at why that change occurs.

      81
      I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that soaps and films have a very powerful influence. If people see someone smoking whom they admire or think is attractive, it adds to the package and sends the wrong message. Somehow, we have to get the message through to the media that we should have a few more positive health messages, rather than negative ones.
      I also wish to add my comments on bootleg cigarettes and alcohol. Again, I was working in the supermarket sector when the duty-free arrangements changed, and nearly every supermarket in the south of England experienced a dramatic drop in its cigarette sales. I do not believe that that drop occurred because everyone was jumping on to a booze cruise to stock up on personal supplies at the weekend. Many people spent a lot of time and effort making a lucrative living from the change in duty-free arrangements. It is bit rich for the Conservatives to complain at length about that issue because they cut down the number of Custom and Excise staff considerably when they were in government, but I am glad to say that they appear to have seen the light now.
      On Second Reading, Conservative Members claimed that there was insufficient evidence that the Bill would lead to a quantifiable reduction in tobacco consumption. There may be no such evidence, but there is certainly no evidence that introducing the Bill will increase tobacco consumption. I happen to believe that reducing such images will decrease tobacco consumption, and if we tackle the other problems together, perhaps the rate of smoking will fall dramatically.
      7.19 pm
      James Purnell: I must start by declaring an interest as an occasional smoker.
      Mr. Pound: Montecristos, I take it.
      James Purnell: Marlboro Lights, actually. That is the last piece of free advertising that I shall give any cigarette company.
      I started smoking when I was about 12. I clearly remember the influence that advertising had on my decision to start smoking as a teenager, which is not quite so long ago as it is for my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). As the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) said, children leave primary school absolutely determined not to smoke, but they then get the idea that it is glamorous. That idea is partly imparted by their peers, but largely through advertising, Hollywood films and television. The current restrictions on advertising somehow make the situation worse because the tobacco industry does not advertise the product but instead something like a purple stripe or a strange part of middle America. That increases the mystique of smoking.
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) suggested greater reliance on a voluntary code, but that idea is doomed to failure. Previous examples of voluntary codes trying to reduce the amount of advertising to children and teenagers show that, as long as the industry regulates itself, it will find ways of being able to adopt a position that it can just about defend while continuing to advertise as it
      82
      seeks the 120,000 new customers that it needs each year to replace those whom it kills. The point was made in the debates in the Lords and in this House that the industry would not spend so much on advertising if it did not think that it had any effect. That point is unanswerable. I first tried to give up smoking after I had been to hospital and saw someone being wheeled out to the smoking room and painfully putting a cigarette not to their mouth, but to a hole that had been put in their throat. That experience of the consequences of cigarette smoking shocked me out of my complacency at that time.
      As all the previous speakers have said, the Bill cannot stand alone. It must be accompanied by smoking cessation programmes and education in schools. However, to suggest that we should do other things does not invalidate the arguments for the Bill, which will be a building block in trying to reduce the amount of smoking, in particular, by young people.
      However, there are good liberal arguments against such a measure. For example, Lord Naseby has referred to the potential conflict with article 10 of the European convention on human rights, and his argument deserves to be heard. It is important to show the problems that the Bill may cause, and I have some sympathy with those arguments. I would not want freedom of expression to be curtailed except when there is a strong case for doing so. In this case, I think that the case has been made. It is worth repeating that tobacco kills one in two of the people who take it up and undermines people's willpower and ability to make a rational decision. As such, Mill's hope that free speech and a discussion of the arguments would result in the truth coming out and the desired effect on behaviour seems slightly idealistic. The fact that the product undermines people's willpower and ability to make choices for themselves and kills many more than the drugs that are currently banned justifies the drastic moves to ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship.
      The Government must, however, take account of the effects on sponsorship companies and on the sponsorship deals for sport. I know that the Government have done much to wean sport off such deals, but it is worth bearing in mind those who work in the tobacco industry. Through no fault of their own, they have become involved in an industry on which restrictions will be placed. In that context, I wish to mention the Gallagher factory in Hyde in my constituency. It closed at the beginning of the Government's term of office, because the company received an incentive to move it to Northern Ireland. The Gallagher building, which dominates Hyde, is empty and the hundreds of people who worked there lost their jobs. Many of my constituents have not found other work since the company moved to another part of the country.
      I therefore urge the Government to consider what can be done to provide much greater transitional aid to people who are affected by such industrial change. People who had worked for a lifetime in the tobacco industry lost their employment and did not receive the help that they might have expected. I know that the Department for Work and Pensions now puts in place much more quickly effective transitional work programmes when mass redundancies occur, but I hope that we learn the lessons of my constituents' painful experience.

      83
      The clinching argument to justify the Bill is that about health inequality. If one compares prosperous neighbourhoods with those such as mine, it is clear that smoking plays a central role in the greater rate of early death in working-class families. However, it is all too often easy to forget that, behind those figures, lies a personal tragedy for each of those families. People do not only lose a relative but may lose the household's whole income. We cannot deal with health inequality just by building more hospitals and by investing in primary care. We must deal with the causes, and a central cause is the higher rate of smoking among people from low-income households.
      David Taylor: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that billboard advertising, in particular, is focused in areas of low incomes and high unemployment? That is a particularly cynical move by the tobacco companies to reinforce tobacco consumption in those sections of the population who are most damaged by it.
      James Purnell: That is an extremely good point. Anyone who works in such areas notices that. It is not the only cynical action that the tobacco industry has taken. For example, the marketing to young people and the cocktail of glamour, Hollywood or sport to encourage people to smoke by association are all in its catalogue of cynicism. Furthermore, the industry denied the link between smoking and cancer. For as long as possible, tobacco companies tried to pretend that something that they must have known was the case was not actually the case. That, combined with what continues to happen despite the good words that the industry uses about voluntary codes and not advertising to children, are testament to what it is up to.
      I am not suggesting that people should be prevented from smoking. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham suggested that the Government did not have the courage of their convictions in not banning smoking. Such action would be deeply illiberal. Smoking is legal and to ban it entirely would not be justified. It is not a question of not having the courage of one's convictions but of doing what is appropriate to deal with a particular evil. Banning would be excessive, but the consequences of smoking on young people, in particular, are sufficient to justify the Bill's drastic provisions.
      I hope that we will not use the Bill as an excuse not to concentrate on other measures to promote smoking cessation. For example, I congratulate the Department of Health on its "don't dare" campaign that has run over the past couple of years and particularly at Christmas to encourage people to give up smoking. The use of a broken cigarette is an extremely good way of reminding people of the slightly pathetic side of smoking.
      My problem with smoking is that I find it easy to give up. Whenever I give up, I decide to start again because I will find it easy to give up again. That happens quite often, and one finds that one has not really given up. We should put the emphasis on getting the Government to advertise as effectively as possible and to continue their campaign to discourage smoking; we should not allow
      84
      tobacco companies to advertise to young people in their attempt to keep them addicted to smoking. That would be a major step in reducing health inequality, and would save hundreds and perhaps thousands of families from the tragedy of losing someone to lung or tongue cancer. Such provisions would be widely welcomed in the community.
      7.29 pm
      Mr. Flook: First, I declare an interest, which can be found in the Register of Members' Interests. I also declare an interest as a heavy ex-smoker who smoked well over 30 a day for about 10 years. I did not need hypnosis to give up. Unlike the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), however, I found it so easy to give up 30 a day that I would not dare take it up again.
      As a neighbour of mine for many years, the strictures on smoking by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) were such that I had to have a puff before I visited him. Every time I wanted another cigarette I had to go home, three doors away. I also recall that on an armed forces parliamentary scheme trip, the bus was held up while the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) had yet another puff and continued his way with the wicked weed.
      I am concerned that attempts on both sides of the House to scrutinise the Bill, which has been five years in the making, seem to come down to the fact that the Government cannot make their mind up. Instead, they say, "Don't worry. We'll ask the courts." Although the measure was a commitment in the 1997 Labour party manifesto, the Government decided that rather than introduce domestic legislation immediately, they would support and promote a European directive. That was mistake number one. The contentious legal basis of the directive meant that the European Court of Justice annulled it in October 2000. The Government were forced to introduce a Bill to ban tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, but it ran out of time. It is a great pity that they should try to make political capital and blame the Conservative party for that. The Bill needed amending and the important amendments were not just in our name, but in those of Labour Members and Cross-Benchers in another place.
      We have gone over the arguments time and time again. It is important that we consider the Bill in that light. The Liberal Democrats make great play that the Bill is their Bill. I am sorry to say, therefore, that this Bill is their Bill improperly scrutinised. It is distressing that the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) contradicted herself. She said in an intervention that there was no need to add to Lord Clement-Jones's Bill in the other place. However, in her speech she said that the Conservative amendments were valid. She cannot have it both ways.
      I want to address the failure of parliamentary scrutiny. The Government have tried to stifle the process of scrutiny by resisting every amendment that we tabled. Indeed, the Minister said that she had some sympathy for new clause 2, but she would still not accept it. Her predecessor, now the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), refused to

      85
      accept amendments. The only way out of the problem is for the Government to ask the courts. However, the consultation paper on the draft regulations, which they intend to make as soon as the Bill is passed, baldly states that a picture of a packet of tobacco is an advertisement. It also says that an indication of a special price or offer is an advertisement, according to the Bill. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that is for the courts to decide what is and what is not an advertisement and then provide for us their determination of what is or what is not an advertisement. In that respect the Bill lacks a high degree of certainty.
      Twice I have raised the issue of whether promotion can be matched with dissing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) raised. I have yet to receive a proper answer.
      Bob Spink: The term is dishing.
      Mr. Flook: Either will do, although dissing is the more correct terminology for people of my generation.
      Dissing a competitor's product would have the same impact as, for example, Benson and Hedges against Marlboro—
      Mr. Pound: No contest.
      Mr. Flook: There may well be no contest for the hon. Gentleman who, if memory serves me right, smokes a particularly wicked brand of tobacco.
      It is of great concern—[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Flook: Many Conservative Members are greatly concerned that the ability of the tobacco companies to spend their way to success by advertising their products will be replaced by the tobacco companies employing lawyers to run circles around the Government by being inventive with such poorly drafted legislation.
      7.35 pm
      Judy Mallaber: It is not stifling scrutiny for Labour Members to say that we do not agree with amendments. There has been plenty of time to discuss and make the case for them.
      I am pleased that the Opposition will not vote against Third Reading, but they have come up with the most extraordinary smokescreens to prevent tobacco companies from being stopped in their attempts to addict people, which is what they are about. They are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think that tobacco manufacturers will happily agree to effective voluntary measures. Those companies have spent a fortune defending claims that they have given people cancer. A chilling John Grisham thriller, which was made into a film, portrayed tobacco manufacturers going through the courts to ensure that they did not have to pay big damages. I am sure that that depiction was close to the truth. Tobacco manufacturers have spent a fortune on targeting young people. They now want to get cigarettes more widely smoked within the third world and developing countries. There is no way that they will voluntarily do anything that stops them making profits.
      86
      The next smokescreen concerns the prevalence of smuggling. No one says that a ban on advertising is the only measure or the panacea. It has to work alongside measures to tackle smuggling, but smuggling would not be profitable if people had not been persuaded into becoming addicted to smoking. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said that we were suggesting a ban on smoking. The argument on Second Reading that we were removing civil liberties did not stand up. Conservative Members were pushed into admitting that the only limitation on civil liberties was the liberty of the tobacco manufacturers to addict people to smoking. People will still have the freedom to choose whether they will smoke.
      As a non-smoker, my civil liberties have been abused for years by people blowing smoke in my face and forcing me to participate in passive smoking, but I have never sought to ban that. I could easily make that argument, however, because my civil liberties have been impinged.
      Mr. Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the right to breathe fresh air is a prior liberty to the right to smoke?
      Judy Mallaber: I agree. The right to roam across our beautiful countryside is another such right, and I am pleased that we have introduced it.
      This morning I launched a healthy living centre in Amber Valley to encourage healthier communities. Its role is to promote a range of measures, in particular the reduction of health inequalities, as discussed so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell). The centre promotes measures on healthy eating, deals with health in the workplace and highlights proposals on exercise and on mental nourishment through arts programmes. It also promotes ways to help elderly people to live independently. But what is the point of promoting that range of public health measures if we still allow the promotion of a drug that is one of our biggest killers? What is the point of putting all that extra money into our hospitals to pick up the pieces created by the appalling promotion of that drug? What is the point of including all the measures in primary care, which is doing wonderful things in my area? They enable the setting up of anti-smoking clinics, which pick up the pieces. The Bill is essential and I am delighted that it is making progress.
      On Second Reading, I mentioned several issues that related to young people from my experience in my constituency. I visited a school and read out a poem that a young child had written about how awful smoking was. It was effective and moving, and I spoke to many young children about the desperation that they felt because their father or grandfather smoked.
      We went on to the early teen stage, when children are vulnerable. I drew attention to a theatrical project in one of my schools in which a year 7 boy talked about why he believed that he might smoke. He said that he had not smoked because he thought that it was dangerous. He then paused and said straight to camera in a video booth by himself, "But I think I probably will start smoking when I get older and I just don't know why." We know why. This evening, hon. Members have mentioned the

      87
      glamour, the soap stars who smoke, the brand promotion and the advertising. They appeal to young teenagers. That is the age group that tobacco manufacturers target. That is what we must stop, and why the Bill is so important. Those who have not smoked by the time they are 20 are unlikely to take up smoking. We must stop the blatant advertising that promotes smoking as cool.
      Tobacco manufacturers will not voluntarily give up advertising. They want to be able to promote their products. They need to get children addicted. If they cannot do that in this country, they will do so in third world countries and try to spread smoking there.
      I am delighted that the Bill will be passed. Tomorrow morning, members of the Stroke Association will take a petition to Downing street that argues for more facilities for stroke patients. We want to move quickly on that. I shall be pleased to join them and be able to say that at least we are introducing a measure that will result in fewer strokes.
      I visited my local branch of the Stroke Association a couple of weeks ago in stroke awareness week. I talked to people about the problems that they had experienced as stroke patients. My dad died of a stroke. He was a smoker who gave up smoking after his first stroke. However, soon after he retired, he had a second stroke. He never had a chance to enjoy his retirement. I shall be pleased to tell people from the Stroke Association tomorrow that today we took steps to ban tobacco advertising.
      I congratulate everybody who has played a part in getting the measure through. It has taken far too long, but I welcome what has happened tonight.
      7.42 pm
      Pete Wishart: Again, I am the sole representative on these Benches. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber). I have heard her speak on the matter on a couple of occasions, and she speaks elegantly and with commitment. It is unfortunate that we have reached the last few speeches on the subject, which has been kicking around both Houses for some time.
      I am delighted to contribute to Third Reading and to reach that stage. People who work in health care, including primary care and cancer wards, will be prepared to congratulate the House this evening. There will be general delight throughout the country. Only the tobacco companies will be unhappy about today's proceedings. They will no longer be able to promote their poisonous product with impunity.
      The journey towards the measure began in Edinburgh when the Scottish National party MSP Nicola Sturgeon promoted her private Member's Bill to attempt to ban tobacco advertising in Scotland. We believed that the Government prevaricated this time last year, and that Ministers' statements were ambiguous. Perhaps we were impatient, and the Government fully intended to introduce a Bill as soon as possible. However, last summer, we believed that the Government needed gentle encouragement along the road to ensure that we reached our current position. I am glad that we played our little part in the Scottish Parliament.
      88
      We were disappointed that the Queen's Speech did not include a Bill to ban tobacco advertising. If we could not have a full United Kingdom ban, at least the Scottish Parliament had the power to ban tobacco advertising in Scotland. However. let us be clear: we wanted a full UK ban, which is superior, just as a full European Union ban would be superior to UK legislation alone.
      Since that time, Lord Clement-Jones's Bill has been adopted and we withdrew our measure in the Scottish Parliament. However, let us give credit where it is due. Nicola Sturgeon and our colleagues on the Health and Community Care Committee of the Scottish Parliament deserve credit for helping us to reach our current stage. They formed part of the tapestry that led us to Third Reading. I do not believe that we would be here without the gentle encouragement of Lord Clement-Jones, Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Parliament at a time when a great deal of backtracking was going on.
      The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru are satisfied that the Bill is comprehensive and will significantly reduce smoking and thereby smoking-related disease. It was important that the Bill was amended but remained comprehensive. I am pleased that the Conservatives' amendments were not supported. The Bill is now comprehensive, leaves tobacco advertisers nowhere to go and gives them no hope for future advertising opportunities.
      Several hon. Members have talked about culture and the dangerous age between 12 and 17 when young people appear to be attracted to smoking. I have an 11-year-old son, and he and his friends can be pious when they talk about smoking. They can cite chapter and verse about why smoking is bad for people but I fear for them when they go to secondary school because something dramatic happens then. We should undertake a qualitative study to ascertain what happens between the ages of 12 and 17 that encourages young people to start smoking.
      I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) who was worried about product placement. The Bill does not cover that comprehensively and I share his anxieties about cigarettes and drinks being advertised in soap operas. My previous honourable profession in the music industry has a part to play. We need role models and people who will champion an anti-smoking cause. One rock star or film star with a cigarette in his hand is worth more than 100 tobacco-advertising billboards. We must do more to challenge that culture. We must try to adopt champions for that and make progress.
      As the Minister said, the tobacco industry will try to circumvent the Bill. When tobacco companies lose hundreds of smokers a day, they need new recruits and they will do anything to find them. We must remain vigilant and, if necessary, revisit the measure if loopholes appear.
      I congratulate the Government on pushing the Bill through this evening. I also congratulate the House of Lords and the Scottish Parliament on their work in ensuring that we reached our current stage. We have a good Bill that will significantly reduce smoking and smoking-related disease throughout the United Kingdom.
      7.47 pm
      Mr. Pound: In the interests of balance, it may be appropriate to hear the gasping tones of at least one smoker. Oscar Wilde said:
      "A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied."
      However, he also said:
      "As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular."
      That is the key factor.
      I support the Bill, although I have grave doubts and reservations about it, as part of a wider initiative that is right. There is no question about that. However, can we be honest for a moment about cigarette advertising? Twenty or 30 years ago, it was aggressive and influenced people to smoke. People felt that there was something distinctly wrong with them if they did not smoke. I remember the advertisement for Rothman's, which featured an airline pilot gracefully landing his jet at Heathrow, leaning back in the cockpit and lighting a revivifying Rothman. Often, my nine-year-old and 10-year-old schoolmates and I leaned back in our soapbox carts and said, "Now it's time for a Rothman."
      "You're never alone with a Strand." I remember the enigmatic figure in a raincoat in the days when men wandering the streets the London at night in raincoats were comparatively innocent. That man satisfied himself on the bridge at midnight with a Strand. [Laughter.] It was immensely seductive. [Laughter.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has unmanned me.
      In those days, an innocent child with no thoughts of nicotine could wander the streets of Fulham and be ensnared by aggressive advertising, and many of us were. In my case, I distinctly remember going to see the doctor on a matter that I do not choose to share with the House. The doctor invited me in and said, "Sit down, old chap, you look frayed. Have a cigarette." He whipped out his case—Turkish cigarettes on one side and Virginia on the other—and we sat and smoked. But that was then; this is now.
      I cannot, in all conscience, believe that anyone who has never thought of smoking wanders down the street and, seeing a sign advertising Lambert and Butler, says, "Well, stone me, I think I'll start smoking!" It simply does not work like that. It might persuade people to smoke brand X rather than brand Y, but it is not the reason that people start smoking. I have teenage children at secondary school, and I know damned well why many of their classmates will smoke. It is because smoking is perceived as cool. To revert to the comment by Oscar Wilde, as long as smoking is wicked, it will be popular, and as long as we say, "This is evil and must be stopped", there will be children saying "Yes! I'll have some of that!" A few years ago, it was—allegedly— possible to import via the internet cigarettes that had a skull and crossbones on the packet and were called Death cigarettes. They sold by the bucket load—not that I wish to declare an interest in this in any way whatever. This is not the way to do it.
      I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), the Minister and others talking about another real problem: the issue that
      90
      we blithely call product placement. As long as some sensual siren who reaches peaks of sexuality that people like me can only dream about leans back in her silken sheets after a hard night and lights a cigarette—and if the closest that I can ever get to Gwyneth Paltrow is to have a cigarette after thinking about her—it is inevitable that many other people will also do that. That is the problem. We have heard about villains on television, such as those on EastEnders, who smoke cigarettes and are perceived as hard, ruthless people who just do not care. That, sadly, is attractive to teenagers, and we have to address this issue.
      I am going to support the Government because, well, frankly, I always do. I will support them, but not entirely with a full heart or even, possibly, working lungs. The reason is that this ban on tobacco advertising will not ban tobacco. Not for the first time, I am disappointed in Her Majesty's Opposition. Had they but had the courage to say, "This is a foul, evil business. We'll ban the lot! Let's go for prohibition!", I would have admired their intellectual honesty. They could quite easily have gone for that. Instead, they have been dancing around tabling these different amendments and I have to say that, in some cases, they have been rather foolish. The Government have accepted a pragmatic response and offered a pragmatic solution involving a range of options. I agree with that, and I will support them, but I implore the Minister and other hon. Members to realise that every time we send out the message that cigarette smoking is vile and wicked, some teenager somewhere—for the same reason that they buy those appalling Eminem records—will choose to smoke.
      I do not wish to detain the House further, as many people wish to go to the smoking room after this debate. I will, of course, support the Government, but nobody should kid themselves that taking the names of tobacco companies off racing cars or ocean-going yachts is going to end cigarette smoking. That is not going to do it. It may cause great pain in the world of sports sponsorship—indeed, it probably will. My predecessor as Member of Parliament for Ealing, North is still sponsored for a pensioners' tea party every year by Gallagher. Fair play to him: it is legal and he continues to do it. I choose not to do so. But the Bill is part of a wider package involving cessation and health warnings, and I wish the Government a fair wind. I only wish that I could muster one myself, but my lungs are not quite up to it.
      7.54 pm
      Ms Blears: I am delighted to have the vulgar loyalism of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). If that is the most support that he can give us, I am grateful for it.
      I want to deal with some of the issues raised by hon. Members as briefly as I can, because we have been over this ground many times before. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said that he was still not convinced that there was a link between advertising and smoking. I wonder how much more he wants to see. He described his new clause as a paving clause for a sunset clause. One cannot get much more indirect than that. We saw his true colours there. That new clause was a last-gasp attempt to allow the industry to continue to ply its trade of advertising and promoting tobacco. We need to be honest about that.

      91
      The hon. Gentleman also talked about smuggling. He is well aware that the Government have put an extra £200 million into tackling smuggling, along with X-ray machines at all our ports and thousands of extra customs officers, and that 3 billion cigarettes have been seized this year. There is a lot more to be done to tackle smuggling, but he is well aware of the Government's determination to crack down on the problem. He also said that there was not enough time fully to scrutinise the Bill in Committee. The way in which he has failed to move his amendments this evening gives the lie to that. He had every opportunity to spend another couple of hours scrutinising the Bill and moving his detailed amendments, but he chose not to do so.
      The hon. Gentleman and others mentioned product placement and the impact of the activities of celebrities such as soap stars on young people taking up smoking. That important point was raised by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North. We intend to do whatever we can to get some champions for our anti-smoking campaigns, to ensure that we get the message across as powerfully as we possibly can, particularly to young people. If any hon. Member can suggest anyone who might be prepared to help that cause, we would be grateful for that information.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) made an important point about price cutting, and asked whether the Chancellor might look at that in the Budget. I assure him that the Chancellor takes into account the effects of price in his Budget process, and he will certainly continue to examine that area. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) raised an important point about the National Federation of Anglers, which is proposing to hold an event in 2004. The consultation on sponsorship is out, and people have until 15 November to respond to it. I shall ensure that the National Federation of Anglers is properly consulted in that process.
      I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) for the Bill. She also raised smoking cessation services. Several hon. Members have seen the Bill as part of a package, and they are right. Zyban is now available on prescription, and 40 per cent. of the prescriptions issued for it are free. The evidence is, therefore, that we are reaching the poorest communities, which are targeted by tobacco companies to promote their products. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) raised an important issue about his constituency and the impact on employment of measures to reduce smoking. He made a good point about the need for proper transitional provisions for retraining, reskilling, diversification and ensuring that people can get into other forms of employment.
      The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook), who is no longer in his place—I understand that he had another
      92
      engagement—asked about negative advertising, which I dealt with earlier. If the effect of negative advertising is to promote a tobacco product, it will be caught by the prohibition. The crucial question will be: what is the effect of the advertising? My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) made a passionate and committed contribution to the debate. I had the pleasure of reading the speech that she made on Second Reading, and it was one of the most persuasive speeches that I have read. It was based on the real experiences of people in her constituency, particularly those of young people. She rightly raised the issue of the cost to the national health service of picking up the pieces as a result of tobacco promotion in this country over many years.
      We have seen the true colours of the Opposition this evening. They will the ends but not the means, and they are afraid to make the hard choices that are the test of any Government. I also believe that they are out of step with public opinion in this country. Sixty per cent. of the people support an advertising ban, and 70 per cent. of smokers want to give up. The Opposition are also out of step with the rest of the world.
      A worldwide convention on tobacco control is taking place in Geneva today. Doctors from every part of the world have joined to present a manifesto intended to ensure an end to misleading claims that some cigarettes are safer than others, and an end to all tobacco advertising. They want clear, informative health warnings on every packet of cigarettes. They want non-smokers to be protected from tobacco smoke, and they want tobacco taxes to be increased. World opinion says that we should end tobacco advertising.
      I genuinely think that the Opposition are clinging to the myth that a ban on advertising, sponsorship, brand-sharing, coupons and free gifts is not justified by the evidence. We have proved here today that stopping advertising and promotion will help to save lives.
      If the Tories are genuine in their desire to change, to reflect the views of people in this country today and to speak up for the most vulnerable in society, they will have to think carefully about how they vote. They must think about the children drawn into addiction at the age of nine or 10. They must think about the teenagers who are bombarded with images of glamour and macho dynamic sports. They must think about people living on low incomes in poor communities such as mine, who proportionately spend far more on cigarettes than better-off people do. They must think about pregnant mothers whose smoking damages not just themselves but their babies. All those people are vulnerable—vulnerable to the predatory actions of the tobacco companies that have to promote their products knowing that they maim and kill, just to maintain their profits. They made £3 billion in pre-tax profits last year.
      Tonight's vote will be very revealing. It will show whose side the Opposition are on. If they are really on the side of the vulnerable in this country they will not merely abstain, but support the Bill and ask every other Member to take that positive action.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

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

      EU ACTION PLAN ON DRUGS
      That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 10207/01, Commission Communication of the implementation of the European Union Action Plan on Drugs (2000–2004); welcomes the mid-term review of the plan; and urges that it should be revised to ensure that priority is given to achievable, timebound targets that will contribute measurably to the European Union's contribution to the fight against drug abuse and trafficking.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
      Question agreed to.

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

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved. —[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
      Question agreed to.

      Urban Design (Crime)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
      8.2 pm
      David Wright: I am pleased to be able to speak about a subject that is not just close to my heart—given my background in urban regeneration—but crucially to communities throughout our towns and cities.
      The quality of urban design is important for many reasons, but perhaps the main reason is the fact that well-designed urban environments promote a sense of self-worth. I want to focus on the potential of good urban design to reduce crime and promote the creation of sustainable communities where people want to live, work, shop and enjoy their leisure time.
      I believe that if people have a well-designed neighbourhood that is well maintained they will treat it with respect, and will endeavour to police it themselves. They will create an atmosphere that tells criminals "You are not welcome here." If an area is poorly designed and poorly maintained, however, people will respond to their environment in a negative way and will accept decline as being the natural trend. As I said earlier, people derive a sense of their own self-worth from the condition of the environment around them: their aspirations for themselves and their families are shaped by their locality.
      In terms of general principles, our objective as a Government must be to encourage the creation of physical environments that are conducive to the overall security of communities. To do that, we need to examine some of the dynamics of modern urban living and adapt our approach accordingly. Increasingly nowadays, geographical communities are breaking down and being replaced by communities of interest. People now have a series of social contacts that are not necessarily linked to the location of their homes. Friends from work, for example, often live many miles away, but they see more of them than they do of their neighbours.
      People do not have as much contact with their neighbours as they used to, which creates a sense of isolation in communities. More people are living alone as well, and many do not speak to their neighbours at all. A friend of mine once told me that he was more likely to hear the voice of Nelson Mandela on television that evening than to hear the voice of his neighbour.
      Those changes in social infrastructure are compounded by the poor design of many neighbourhoods, which at worst encourage crime and at best fail to provide any deterrents. I also believe that some people nowadays have expectations that are unachievable in relation to quiet enjoyment of their homes. That is difficult for many to acknowledge, but we must understand that our society is changing. People often do not want their children to play a long way from their homes; they want them to play in the street outside. Although they may not like it, people must accept that that is a growing trend.
      Why is the issue important? Antisocial behaviour and crime on estates are the number one issue in my advice surgery and in my postbag. There is a feeling that many estates are, in the words of Telford residents, "out of

      95
      control", and gangs of predominantly young people are behaving in an increasingly lawless manner. The fear of crime is of course more significant than its incidence in most cases, but the quality and structure of the local environment is a major contributory factor in the level of fear.
      The amount of police cover available in many areas will never meet the needs of local communities, and recent research by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders has shown that closed-circuit television is not necessarily the panacea that many think it to be. Effective design that reduces the incidence of crime and the fear of it is not a luxury today, but a necessity.
      It is easy to highlight practical design problems in parts of my constituency that lead to crime and the fear of it. Telford contains a number of housing estates built in the 1960s and early 1970s with the Radburn layout. On those estates, the housing and street pattern is the reverse of the traditional layout, with vehicular access to the rear of the property and pedestrian access to the front. Residents cannot see their vehicles once they have parked them, and unless they fence off their front gardens they merge into the wider public realm.
      The access-ways on those estates are a maze, and public space is ill defined. The planting is often overgrown, and makes pedestrian routes through the estates dark and unwelcoming. Local facilities—shops and community centres—are provided in small arcades that are themselves visually unattractive and at night are literally steel-shuttered bunkers.
      Some of the potential solutions to those problems are just common sense. I am thinking of the creation of defensible space, which I will return to shortly; the promotion of mixed-use development, often with higher densities of housing, so that areas in towns do not close at 5.30 pm and become no-go zones; the creation of distinct neighbourhoods in housing areas with their own character, or legibility as the professionals like to call it, so that people begin to recognise and associate with their neighbours again; and the removal of unwanted areas of public open space through, for example, the incorporation of rear access ways into gardens, better lighting, and better allocation of pedestrian space.
      Those things sound so simple, but on many estates throughout Britain they have not been achieved. We are not seeing significant improvements in the physical environment.
      The design of new housing is obviously important. Design features that reduce crime need to be incorporated—for example, doors and windows overlooking the street and public spaces to provide natural surveillance opportunities. Developers need to consider that when submitting proposals to planning authorities. However, the issue does not relate exclusively to the design of new homes; in fact, most problems occur in existing residential environments. The refurbishment of homes needs to be done with crime-reduction principles in mind, and as much attention needs to be paid to the external street scene as to the fabric of the properties.
      So how can we move forward? I want to recommend four key areas of action. First, we need to ensure more cross-departmental working at national level,
      96
      particularly between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office. Designing out crime should be a core activity in regeneration initiatives, and should be measured in terms of project outputs. Government should at an early stage consider consolidating the complex array of legislation relating to the design, management and use of the street. That can be coupled with the development of public realm strategies, which should bring together all the players involved in designing the urban environment. Tackling crime and antisocial behaviour can form a cornerstone of that work. The excellent homezone initiative that is being rolled out across the whole country, including in Woodside in my constituency, could be used as a starting point and pilot for much of this work.
      Secondly, communities should be encouraged to work together to resolve problems of crime and antisocial behaviour. I would particularly like to compliment the Urban Design Alliance, which is supported by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and English Partnerships, for its work on the placecheck initiative. That initiative encourages local people to identify problems in their own neighbourhoods and develop practical solutions. Much of the work being done in this area by the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Design Council is also excellent. Local parish councils can play a particularly important role in drawing out community perspectives and providing seedbed funding for local initiatives. A number of parish councils in my area have been particularly good at drawing up parish plans. St. George's and Priorslee parish councils are leaders in this area.
      Thirdly, local authorities should vigorously apply crime prevention criteria when evaluating planning applications. That is a material consideration. The planning system must be used to generate attractive and easily managed environments. There is no excuse for local authorities, as the planning guidance is already in place. Circular 5/94, PPG 1, PPG 6 and PPG 12 all contain guidance on addressing crime through the planning system. Local community safety partnerships are beginning to move these issues up the agenda in many areas, and the police flagship scheme "Secured by Design" is extremely important.
      However, I feel that the services being offered by police architectural liaison officers are often seen in the police service and locally as a luxury add-on and not a fundamental tool through which to reduce crime. Government, local authorities, various agencies and players and the police service need to put that right.
      That links to my fourth point, which is that developers need to ensure that designing out crime is at the centre of their work. It is not a fringe activity, whose principles can be discarded once projects are on site.
      Those are the four key areas of work that I hope the Minister will consider this evening and in coming weeks and months.
      Rob Marris: My hon. Friend is an expert in this area, having spent many years

      97
      working on local authority housing. Could he help me in my constituency? A couple of estates have the Radburn layout, which he has explained to us.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the hon. Member that he should address the Chair.
      Rob Marris: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was hoping that my hon. Friend could explain what could be done in older areas of terraced housing. There are some excellent initiatives in my constituency on alley gating, some of which have been funded through the Government's new deal for communities. Is there anything else that could be done in older, terraced areas? I know that they are not as prevalent in my hon. Friend's constituency, but he is an expert.
      David Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. One of the key things is to close off access points, as is being done in parts of his constituency. The main problem with that is the mixed ownership pattern in terraced streets. Many people have purchased their home with the right to gain access at the rear of the property, and they often do not want to give that up. It is up to the people in those streets and communities to come together and reach agreement about how to manage rear access ways. With common agreement, closure of access ways can be achieved. The Government have recently issued additional guidance on the closure of rights of way in urban areas, and local authorities should consider those issues carefully.
      The issue of designing out crime in neighbourhoods is not new. In the early 1990s, the Conservative Government funded a project called the design improvement controlled experiment.
      Mr. Tom Watson: My hon. Friend will be aware that there was a DICE project on the Durham estate in my constituency. Despite initially giving great hope to the community, it is now popularly considered a failure because the community buy-in and response to the proposals was inadequate. Does he agree that the role of elected councillors is vital in designing out crime? They amplify the voice of a community. In that ward in the past 20 years, my constituents have been miserably let down by their three Liberal Democrat councillors.
      Mr. Stephen Pound: 'Twas ever thus.
      David Wright: As my hon. Friend says, 'twas ever thus. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) will be aware that I did some work on that project, which I shall refer to in a moment. As he rightly says, one of the key issues is to ensure that communities buy into those initiatives. It is not just about change to the physical environment.
      Professor Alice Coleman led the DICE initiative, and I worked on one of the projects in the west midlands. The concept involved the redesign of council estates to reduce the incidence of crime. Much of the work was good, but it did not address some of the underlying socio-economic problems that people in deprived neighbourhoods face. The simple fact is that designing out crime needs to be part of a wider approach to
      98
      regeneration: it cannot stand alone. Investment in the social infrastructure of areas is as important as investment in the fabric.
      The architect Oscar Newman spent a considerable time working on issues relating to urban design and its impact on crime, and he particularly focused on the theory of defensible space. That process involves reassigning the perceived ownership of residential space, thus allowing residents to assert control over their environment. Newman said:
      "Once residents re-establish control of their environment the criminal is isolated because his turf is removed".
      How right he was. That seems to me an excellent statement of intent for future design in relation to crime reduction.
      In closing, I say to the Government and all the agencies involved in urban regeneration and design that we should use the design process to give people their areas back and communicate to people that we care about their environment and about them.
      8.17 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) on securing this debate and raising this important issue. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) on their insightful comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West referred to alley gating, which, together with local councils, we are trying to do something about, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East tutted and made telling comments about the failure of Liberal Democrat councils. Such comments are all too frequent, and sadly that is an experience that we all know only too well from our own constituencies.
      I would also echo the comments made about the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Telford in regeneration and urban design. Recently, I was in Sandwell where he did much of his work, and he was still fondly and lovingly regarded by all in West Bromwich. Like many hon. Members, my hon. Friend understands that regeneration has for too long been separated from urban design and many of the other areas to which he referred. If the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does anything, it will be to ensure that regeneration, housing, planning and designing out crime are all part of one key policy, which is to build and sustain our vibrant communities. That cannot be an afterthought or an add-on; it must be rooted into plans for regeneration at the start of the process. For most of the summer I have been visiting places around the country. I do not want to be less than generous to the architectural profession, but it seems to me that in the 1960s and 1970s, architects up and down the country were awarded prizes for designing crime in rather than designing crime out. I have been through a number of dark alleyways abutting railway stations, as well as walkways and covered ways around a variety of estates, which are beyond belief, although any fool could tell that they would be dens of iniquity and criminality. Even though much money from the public purse has been spent by a range of councils from all parties to design out crime after architects designed it in, such places are a sight to behold.

      99
      The Government are fully committed to tackling crime and the fear of crime, and I want to return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Telford made about social capacity, social capital and designing out crime not being sufficient of themselves. They must be part of a wider context and a wider policy framework. Designing out crime and tackling the fear of crime must be the key to the regeneration programme for our urban areas and to producing sustainable communities.
      We are spending more money than ever on crime reduction initiatives. For example, over the past three years through the crime reduction programme, we have invested more than £340 million in 1,470 projects to build on proven approaches to tackling local crime problems and to develop evidence of what works.
      Our plans also mean more police and more modern and efficient police forces throughout the country. The Police Reform Act 2002 contains measures to create a police service that will be flexible, responsive and in a better position to give local communities the ability to live free from crime and the fear of crime.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Telford said, we are developing and mobilising our partnerships with local authorities, agencies, private industry and community groups to deliver crime solutions that work for local people. If the solutions do not have the ownership and buy-in—for want of some other, far less clumsy phrase—of the local community, they will not work. That is the point that my hon. Friend made. We are working across the Government effectively to focus our efforts on the shared goal of community safety and neighbourhood renewal.
      Rob Marris: The Minister has mentioned a number of partnerships which, laudably, the Government are setting up and getting involved in to tackle this important issue. Have they had a chance to tackle the architectural profession, to which he has referred, in terms of its training and awareness of those issues? If so, will he say a few words about that?
      Mr. McNulty: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I have plenty of nice words to say about the architectural profession as well, but at least part of the legacy of previous architects is there for us all to see.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Telford said, the planning system also has its part to play in tackling crime. While good planning alone cannot solve the problem of crime, its contribution, when co-ordinated with other measures, can be significant. Well-designed developments can reduce the fear of crime, make crime harder to commit and increase the risk of detection, but once a development is complete, the main opportunity to incorporate crime prevention measures has been lost. Much has been done subsequently in many estates to build out and design out crime, but that is far more expensive and disruptive than designing out crime at the start of the process. The Government want community safety not to be seen as an optional add-on, but to be integrated in the design of new developments.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Telford said, we have already produced Government guidance on planning out crime that sends out hard-hitting messages.
      100
      Crime prevention can be a material consideration—in English, a relevant factor—when local planning authorities consider planning applications, and it must be considered when reviewing their development plans.
      To be entirely fair, much of local government, certainly in its latter-day initiatives such as unitary development plans, is taking designing out crime and its crucial importance in the pre-development stage far more seriously. Initial research shows that incorporating crime reduction features in buildings and environments at the planning stages reduces crime. For example, a 2000 Home Office study of the effects of the principles behind "Secured by Design", which is promoted by police forces throughout the country, showed that burglary levels in homes built to the "Secured by Design" standard in West Yorkshire are 30 per cent. lower than in non-standard homes. There is tangible evidence of what my hon. Friend the Member for Telford has chosen to highlight in the debate—this is a serious matter—and it does work.
      We have therefore stressed how important it is for local planning authorities to take advice on developments from police architectural liaison officers at an early stage. That is especially important where there is potential to eliminate or reduce crime, such as in new housing estates. Much of what my hon. Friends have said involves existing estates and housing developments, where such measures are equally important. In too many instances, however, criminals' work has been made far too easy and people's lives have been blighted unnecessarily, so the Government still need to take further action.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Telford and for Wolverhampton, South-West mentioned the Radburn design for housing estates, which may be seen in some of our new towns dating from the 1960s and 1970s, and elsewhere too. With access to property from front and rear, and limited natural surveillance, in some cases burglary has been more of a problem than it should have been. As my hon. Friends attested, residents have suffered.
      The Government can take action, which is why we are committed, as stated in the urban White Paper, to driving home the fact that crime prevention is and must remain a key planning objective. We will review and update the existing Government guidance, "Planning Out Crime", and produce a good practice guide to accompany the guidance. The guide will set out what works in designing out crime, and will be relevant to both local planning authorities and the police. It will also be practicable and robust in a wide range of circumstances.
      We have already underlined the key messages in "Planning out Crime" in planning policy notes as they have been reviewed and updated. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford alluded to that. For example, PPG 3, on housing, encourages local authorities to promote layouts that are safe and to take account of
      "crime prevention and community safety considerations".
      More recently, PPG 17, on sport, open space and recreation, published this summer, states that "security and personal safety" must be principles for planning new facilities and open space. My hon. Friend is right: we must consider not just design and layout on housing estates, new or old, but the spaces between the places

      101
      where people live and work, whether they are parks and green spaces or the wider urban realm and public domain in which we all live and work. I shall come to that in more detail shortly.
      The Government are committed to higher-quality design, including in residential developments, which is key to providing thriving, inclusive and sustainable communities. The updated guidance on crime will reinforce and complement existing guidance and good practice advice that we have already issued on housing design. My hon. Friend was robust in his lyrical description of at least the PPG titles to the extent that I might be knocking on his door for further planning expertise and advice. As he said, we already have clear planning guidance—PPG 1—on the importance of securing good design. We underlined in the urban White Paper the Government's commitment to good design, and we shall restate that in the promised update of PPG 1. Good design means safe as well as sustainable places.
      For my sins, I am, among other things, the design champion for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I am keen to ensure that good design is embedded in the ethos of my Department's work. My hon. Friend mentioned the Urban Design Alliance. I had the great pleasure of launching its urban design week, and I shall continue to work closely with it in all the good work that it does.
      To spread good practice, in 2000, something called the DTLR published with the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment the guide "By Design", which looks at the tools local authorities have to help to deliver better design and how to use them effectively. Last September, we published "Better Places to Live", a companion guide to PPG 3, which provides sound, practical guidance on how the planning system can help to achieve quality residential environments. It emphasises that by giving attention to the urban design principles and approaches that underpin successful housing such as safety, community, attractive and clearly defined public and private spaces, the quality of housing layout and design can be improved and everyone benefits.
      Equally, high-quality, accessible and safe urban parks and green spaces rely on good design. The recent urban green spaces taskforce report highlighted the need for a design-led approach in providing new, and improving existing, green spaces. Green spaces and parks are as important as spaces on estates. We will be launching our response to the taskforce's report later this month at the urban summit on 31 October to 1 November in Birmingham; tickets are available at a very reasonable price, if there are any left.
      For my sins, I am also the Minister with responsibility for parks and green spaces. I work with the Minister for Social Exclusion, who leads for the Department on the cross-cutting review that has just been concluded on open spaces. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford is right: unless we tackle the urban realm, open spaces, parks and green spaces on a cross-governmental basis, taking account of the concerns of other Departments such as the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, schemes will not be as
      102
      successful. Our conclusions from the cross-cutting review will form part of our wider response at the urban summit.
      As my hon. Friend said, home zones can also play a key role in improving the quality of life in residential streets. By reorganising the road space to strike a better balance between the needs of drivers and others, principally pedestrians, there is scope to engender more of a sense of place and community. I cannot remember whether it was my hon. Friend the Member for Telford or my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West who said that all this is very good but if it is not accompanied by a real sense of pride and ownership, recapturing the essence of what our communities are about, it will not be as effective as it should be.
      Through good design we can secure safe neighbourhoods where people want to live, which are well connected to an inclusive town, city or locality. Modern practices in urban design are being brought forward through local strategic partnerships. In many cases, crime and community safety are key priorities.
      It is not rocket science. In some instances, it is simply about better lighting—lighting that is more thought through. It is about imagining what a walkway or hidden path would be like late at night in an ill-lit environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford will know that, in Telford, English Partnerships is working in partnership with the council, the Housing Corporation and the regional development agency on the redevelopment of the Woodside estate, which will embrace current policy on urban design and designing out crime. I am keen that the same principles apply also to the millennium community proposed for East Ketley.
      I think that it was a constituent of the Deputy Prime Minister who told him on one occasion, "I love living here but not like this." That goes to the heart of the problem of designing out crime and recapturing and reclaiming our communities from the criminal and those who would indulge in antisocial behaviour.
      Most crime is opportunistic. Design principles based, frankly, on common sense, such as encouraging natural surveillance or providing defensible space, can help to improve an area's security for both people and property, and defend communities and areas against the opportunistic criminal, which is crucial. There is no reason why community safety and crime prevention should not be central concerns for local authorities when exercising their planning responsibilities and every reason why they should.
      In the three or four months since I have been in this position, one of the most impressive schemes for me, which has made a tangible difference and is tangential to what we are talking about—designing out crime and the fear of crime—has been our programme for street and community wardens. Almost wherever I go, they instantly attract a sense of ownership and pride back to local communities and allow people to reclaim streets that previously they would not walk down at all. They are not policing on the cheap or special constables in different T-shirts or uniforms. As with designing out crime, the ethos behind street and community wardens

      103
      is about reclaiming our space for our communities, giving people back a sense of ownership and pride, which is important in developing social fabric and capacity.
      Of course local authorities should be careful that they do not step beyond what they can legitimately pursue under the planning Acts, but implement policies that make real improvements to the quality of people's lives. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Telford for
      104
      drawing this matter to the attention of the House. It is a serious matter. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West and for West Bromwich, East for their comments, which I shall take on board too. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford can be assured that I have taken note of the serious concerns that he has raised and look forward to meeting him on this and other issues such as English Partnerships in the very near future.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Nine o 'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 1) what was her Department's(a) planned and (b) actual expenditure on services from the Central Science Laboratory in 2001–02: [74700]

  (2) if she will list the net income derived by the Central Science Laboratory in (a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 from (i) her Department, (ii) each other relevant Government department or agency and (iii) the private sector; [74702]

  (3) what her Department's planned expenditure is on the Central Science Laboratory in (a) the current financial year and (b) each of the next three financial years. [74701]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Central Science Laboratory provides a wide variety of primarily scientific services connected with agriculture, food and the countryside to my Department and other customers. Those services are provided on the basis of contracts for specific projects and expenditure by the Department on the Central Science Laboratory will be dependent on the totality of those contracts from individual departmental customers.

  2001–02 was not a typical year since the Foot and Mouth outbreak required the Department to make exceptional calls on Central Science Laboratory staff and facilities.

  The net planned income from Defra for 2001–02 was £25,621m, the actual income was £30,560m. The difference is largely accounted for by income on FMD activity of £3.8m.

  The net income derived by Central Science Laboratory in (a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 is shown in the table below:

  2000–01 £,000

  2001–02 £,000

  Defra

  26,269

  30,560

  FSA

  1,923

  2,273

  Other Government Departments

  930

  390

  Lew Bodies

  677

  563

  Private Sector*

  4,753

  6,207

  Note:

  * includes income from the EU.

  Fuller information is available in the Central Science Laboratory's Annual Report and Accounts available on their website at: www.csl.gov.uk/news/publication/
  2W
  Central Science Laboratory's planned income from its departmental customers for the current financial year is expected to total £27,919m.

  CSL current forecast income for the next three financial years is as follows:

  2003/04 £

  2004/05 £

  2005/06 £

  28,187

  28,328

  28,404

  Polluters
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to spend the money raised by fining polluters on environmental improvements. [75144]

  Alun Michael
  Pollution is tightly regulated under a range of legislation. For example, industrial activities with a significant polluting potential must prevent or minimise emissions by applying the "Best Available Techniques", in accordance with the new Pollution Prevention and Control regime (The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000). Where polluters are prosecuted in the Courts, any fines that might be imposed are paid to the Exchequer. These payments are not ring-fenced for environmental improvement purposes but imposed by the Courts as a penalty. The Courts can also order payment of regulators' costs.

  As regards the Pollution Prevention and Control regime, in line with the "polluter pays" principle, polluting companies are required to meet the cost of any necessary improvements and fees in relation to the cost of regulation. There is also a provision under the Pollution Prevention and Control legislation enabling regulators, in certain circumstances, to require operators to prevent or remedy the effects of pollution at their own expense and to recover the costs where the regulator itself arranges for the work to be done.

  Flooding
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria are used by her Department to determine entitlement to new investment to protect residential areas at risk from flooding. [75896]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department provides funding to local operating authorities for new and improved flood and coastal defences that are technically sound, economically worthwhile and environmentally acceptable, and also achieve an appropriate priority score. The priority score system has been revised and, for schemes starting after April 2003, will be based on three elements—economic, people issues and environmental protection and enhancement.

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much of the(a) Parish Plan scheme, (b) Community Services Grant

  3W
  and (c) Parish Transport Grant was (i) bid for and (ii) spent in (A) 2001–02 and (B) 2002–03 to date broken down by organisation. [75182]

  Funds Spent

  Scheme

  Organisation

  Bid 01/03 (to Oct 1)

  Spent 01/02

  Spent 02/03 (to Oct 1)

  Parish Plans

  Parish & Town Councils

  £0.92m

  £0.39m

  £0.53m

  Community Service Grant

  Commercial/Retail

  £2.09m

  £1.02m

  £0.87m

  Charities

  £1.22m

  £0.56m

  £0.56m

  Other1

  £1.18m

  £0.11m

  £0.97m

  Parish Transport Grant

  Parish and Town Councils

  £0.97m

  £0.35m

  £0.6m

  Note:

  1 "Other" includes private individuals, the voluntary sector and not-for-profit groups.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent on supporting rural sub-post offices broken down by county since September 2001. [75187]

  Alun Michael
  The Department for Trade and Industry established a £2 million fund in November 2001 of which £822,337 has been approved up to 30 September 2002. Of this £528,991 has been paid out. The breakdown of funds by English county and devolved administration is:

  County

  Money Approved

  Money Paid Out

  Avon

  £370

  £370

  Bedfordshire

  £44,411

  £24,411

  Buckinghamshire

  £1,206

  £0

  Cambridgeshire

  £34,974

  £19,267

  Cheshire

  £12,355

  £0

  Cleveland

  £1,500

  £828

  Cornwall

  £22,141

  £7,550

  County Durham

  £2115

  £1,998

  Cumbria

  £23,231

  £21,480

  Derbyshire

  £72,944

  £24,977

  Devon

  £42,467

  £30,574

  Dorset

  £24,576

  £4,200

  East Sussex

  £3,663

  £3,663

  Essex

  £29,265

  £20,030

  Gloucestershire

  £7,000

  £5,471

  Hampshire

  £35,313

  £28,329

  Herefordshire

  £6,161

  £208

  Humberside

  £19,429

  £19,429

  Kent

  £31,391

  £24,621

  Leicestershire

  £43,678

  £23,444

  Lincolnshire

  £45,075

  £39,167

  Norfolk

  £9,277

  £5,025

  North Yorkshire

  £394

  £394

  Nottinghamshire

  £9,803

  £9,803

  Shropshire

  £15,950

  £15,950

  Somerset

  £10,475

  £10,475

  Staffordshire

  £27,689

  £13,590

  Tyne and Wear

  £9,864

  £0

  West Midlands

  £1613

  £1,613

  Wiltshire

  £9,441

  £9,221

  Worcestershire

  £9,187

  £8,107

  Yorkshire

  £38,952

  £33,035

  Northern Ireland

  £43,822

  £33,575

  Scotland

  £55,528

  £30,100

  Wales

  £77,077

  £47,726

  Since April 2001 the Vital Villages programme has supported 35 schemes, which included support for rural
  4W
  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the figures below. Annual figures for the amount of money bid for are not currently available. Cumulative figures for the whole programme period, split by organisation, have been given.

  post offices. Figures broken down by county are not available but £373,211 has been spent on these schemes in total.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 987W, on the Rural White Paper, what information on expenditure and assistance has since been carried out by her Department on market towns; and if she will publish it. [75837]

  Alun Michael
  Expenditure on market towns in 2001–02 is estimated at some £2.5m by the Regional Development Agencies and some £2.5m by the Countryside Agency. Information for the current financial year is not yet available but as most towns have now completed their action plans this should result in a substantial increase in project expenditure by RDAs and other partners.

  Tenant Farmers (Right to Buy)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce a right-to-buy scheme for tenant farmers. [75021]

  Alun Michael
  The Government has re-established the Tenancy Reform Industry Group to help it take forward the recommendations on agricultural tenancy issues made by the Policy Commission on Food and Farming and in the report produced by Plymouth University on the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. The group is expected to hold its first meeting shortly. I can confirm that the Government has no plans at present to introduce a right-to-buy scheme for tenant farmers in England and Wales.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people are employed by her Department. [76137]

  Alun Michael
  Details of the number of people employed by Defra are available in table 5.6 of the 2002 Departmental Report.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who the
  5W
  independent members appointed by her Department to the Agricultural Wages Board are; and how many of the meetings of the AWB each has attended in (a) 2001 and (b) 2002. [75916]

  Alun Michael
  There are five independent members of the Agricultural Wages Board (AWB) for England and Wales. All are nominated jointly by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the National Assembly for Wales. The current independent members are:

  Professor John Andrews (Chairman)

  Mrs. Jacquie Findlay

  Mrs. Myra Hodgson

  Dr. Hugh Billot

  Professor Ian Smith

  The AWB Secretary has confirmed that the meetings attended by the independent members are as follows:

  2001

  2002

  Number of Board meetings held*

  3

  4

  Number of meetings attended:

  John Andrews

  3

  4

  Jacquie Findlay

  1

  1

  Myra Hodgson

  2

  3

  Hugh Billot

  3

  4

  Ian Smith

  2

  1

  Note:

  * This excludes working party or other informal meetings

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 19 August regarding a constituent, reference 174365. [74913]

  Mr. Morley
  My hon. Friend's letter was transferred to Defra from another Department on 24 September. My Noble Friend Lord Whitty responded to the letter on 17 October.

WALES

  Consultancies
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list external(a) public relations/communications companies, (b) advertising and marketing companies,(c) management consultancies (d) accountancy companies, (e) banking firms, (f) individual consultants and (g) other specialist consultancies used by his Department since June 2001; what actions those consultancies/companies have performed within his Department; and what costs have been incurred through use of these consultancies/companies. [74679]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since June 2001 the Wales Office has employed no consultants under(a), (b), (c), (d), or (e).

  Since June 2001 the Wales Office has employed a firm of consultants called Inbucon who undertook a staffing review, one legal consultant called Helen Bennett Associates, who gave specific legal guidance to the Wales Office and Open Connections a records
  6W
  management consultancy firm, who advised on improving the document and records management systems.

  The cost of using these consultants is commercially confidential.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Catering Services
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, (1) what plans the Commission has to cap the subsidy for catering over the period of the Three Year Strategic Plan; [73759]

  (2) what steps the Commission is planning to reduce the annual subsidy for catering set out on page 16 of the 24th Annual report of the Commission. [73760]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission is satisfied that the Refreshment Department achieves value for money in the delivery of its services, given the nature of the services required by the House's sitting patterns.

  Both the Commission and the Finance and Services Committee see these issues as important elements in the House's three-year financial plans. The Commission has asked the Finance and Services Committee to examine the recommendations of the Catering Committee's recent Report on Refreshment Facilities in the House of Commons, 1especially in the light of the Modernisation Committee's proposals for changes to the House's working patterns. It would be premature for the Commission to make any long-term decision about the appropriate cost of catering services until the extent of these changes has become apparent and the Finance and Services Committee has considered these matters. No doubt my hon. Friend, as a member of the Committee. will contribute fully to that consideration.

  Note:
  1 Refreshment Facilities in the House of Commons, Catering Committee, First Report 2001–02

  New Palace Yard
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the total cost of the works to install new security infrastructure in New Palace Yard, carried out during the summer adjournment. [74953]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, it is longstanding practice not to comment on the details of security expenditure or arrangements on the Parliamentary Estate.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Operating Companies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rail operating companies have achieved their targets for passenger services in the last 12 months; how many have been fined for noncompliance; how many franchises have now been
  7W
  continued; and how many operating companies are complying with the terms of their original franchises in relation to payments to the S.R.A. [74787]

  Mr. Spellar
  All franchise agreements contain thresholds for cancellations which, if breached, can result in enforcement action. Arriva Trains Northern is the only company to have paid a penalty in the last 12 months as part of enforcement action.

  Most train operators are also subject to a contractual performance regime. Details of monies paid under this regime are contained in the Strategic Rail Authority's On Track publication, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. Train operators also have performance targets in their Passengers' Charters against which compensation to passengers is based.

  No further extensions to franchises have been agreed since my answer to the hon. Member for Bath on 24 May 2002, Official Report, column 616.

  Only a small number of train operating companies are contractually required under their original or revised agreements to have paid premiums to the Strategic Rail Authority. To date, all of those companies have complied with their franchise terms in that respect. Information on payments to and from train operators can be found in the Authority's Annual Report, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Alconbury Airfield
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the forecast regularity of flights is in(a) 2015 and (b) 2030 in connection with the proposals relating to Alconbury airfield contained in the Department's Consultation, The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East). [74830]

  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. Chapters 12 and 15 of the Stage Two appraisal findings report presents the findings relevant to Alconbury for both passenger and freight movements.

  This indicates that, in a scenario where no additional runway capacity is provided at major airports in the region, Alconbury is forecast to handle nearly 70,000 passenger air transport movements (PATMs) and 11,000 freight ATMs in 2015. This rises to just over 70,000 PATMs and 30,000 freight ATMs in 2030.

  If additional runway capacity is provided at major airports in the south east, both passenger and freight forecasts indicate that only around one-fifth of this traffic will be attracted to Alconbury.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the consultation findings are to be made public so far as they relate to Alconbury airfield; what further procedures and consultation will take place; and when. [74829]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) main consultation document sets out the process relating to
  8W
  the disclosure of responses (Annex G, page 172). Responses to this consultation will inform Minister's decisions on the policies to be included in the air transport White \Paper, which we plan to publish next year.

  If the White Paper favours the Alconbury option, it would then be for a promoter to work up the detailed development plans, discuss these with affected parties and apply for planning permission through the normal land use planning system.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what areas and how many people will be exposed to different amounts of aircraft noise(a) at night in (i) 2015 and (ii) 2030 and (b) in 2030 based on an average six hour day in connection with the proposals relating to Alconbury airfield contained in the Department's Consultation, The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East). [74822]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS) analysis included illustrative examples of night-time noise footprints for all airport options. The approach adopted is set out in paragraph 6.9.4 of the SERAS stage two appraisal findings report and the results of this work, relevant to the Alconbury option, are presented in paragraphs 12.8.3 and 12.8.4.

  These indicate that, using the 90dBA SEL (sound exposure level) footprint for the noisiest aircraft envisaged operating at night, between 300 and 10,600 people might be contained within the footprint—subject to airport operation.

  The numbers of people affected with this option by different amounts of aircraft noise (daytime) was not assessed at 2030.

  Copies of the above report are available in the House libraries.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent local residents will be entitled to compensation; what the qualifications or compensation will be; how the level of compensation will be assessed; and who will pay such compensation in connection with the proposals relating to Alconbury airfield contained in the Department's Consultation,The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East). [74836]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) on 15 October 2002,Official Report, columns 721W-22W.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what types of aeroplanes will be capable of using the proposed airport at Alconbury. [74826]

  Mr. Jamieson
  With a runway length of over 2,700 metres aircraft up to Boeing 747 size could use Alconbury (but not at maximum loads).

  The option of a small-scale development at Alconbury, presented in The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) consultation document, allows for the use of a typical aircraft of the Boeing 737–700 type.
  9W
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the passenger terminal at Alconbury airfield will be built to accommodate the maximum capacity of five million passengers from the outset of operation. [74825]

  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.

  If the White Paper favours the Alconbury option, the level of development and how it would be phased would depend on the commercial judgement of the proposer/ developer of the airport.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what impact the ADL Planning Inspectorate report will have on the proposals relating to Alconbury airfield contained in the Department's Consultation,The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East). [74833]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 721W.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review the CHUMMS proposals with regard to airport traffic (a) in connection with Huntingdon to Cambridge public transport and (b) in connection with proposed changes to the A14; and what estimate he has made of the increase in use of the A1 in connection with the proposals relating to Alconbury airfield contained in the Department's Consultation, The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East). [74832]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no plans at present to review the findings of the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal study (CHUMMS) in the light of the public consultations that are currently taking place with respect to the South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS). The consultation is seeking views on a range of airport development options in the South East and East of England, one of which is a small-scale airport development at Alconbury. It would be inappropriate at this stage to review the findings of CHUMMS with respect to all these options. If Alconbury is supported in the Air Transport White Paper, the implications will then have to be considered by the Regional Planning Body.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many jobs are forecast(a) by 2011 and (b) by 2012 in connection with the proposals relating to Alconbury airfield contained in the Department's Consultation, The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East). [74823]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS) identified, in broad terms and for all options, the employment that might be generated. A summary of the employment methodology used is outlined in the SERAS stage two appraisal findings report (section 6.11).
  10W
  The results of this appraisal, relevant to the Alconbury option, are shown in section 12.10 of the SERAS stage two appraisal findings report. This indicates that around 12,000 direct jobs might be associated with Alconbury, based on 5 million passengers per annum (mppa) and around 1 million tonnes of freight in 2015.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the probability of water flooding in connection with the proposals relating to Alconbury airfield contained in the Department's Consultation, The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East; and what contingency plans he will put in place to deal with this. [74831]

  Mr. Jamieson
  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 Alconbury option, are summarised in paragraphs 12.7.1 and 12.7.2 of the same document. Copies of this report are available in the House libraries. The report notes that the airfield footprint does not coincide with the 1 in 100 year flood plain.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the Government's policy is on permitting an airport to proceed on the basis of(a) only passenger flights but no freight flights and (b) only freight flights and no passenger flights in connection with the proposals relating to Alconbury airfield contained in the Department's Consultation, The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East. [74824]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The consultation on the Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) includes the option for a small-scale development of Alconbury as a possible new airport to provide a mixture of dedicated air freight, express parcel handling, third party maintenance, and low cost passenger operations. We are not consulting on any other options for Alconbury airfield, but we will, of course, consider all responses we receive.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent the completion of the proposals relating to Alconbury airfield contained in the Department's Consultation, The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East, is reliant on the expansion of existing airports. [74828]

  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.

  As the document makes clear (chapter 12), the precise future role of the other south-east airports depends on two main factors; firstly the amount and timing of any future capacity provided at the main airports and elsewhere and secondly, the commercial choices made by passengers and airlines. Paragraph 12.23 indicates the forecast use of the Alconbury option under scenarios where runways are provided at major airports in the region and where they are not.
  11W
  Responses to this consultation will inform Minister's decisions on the policies to be published in the air transport White Paper.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what indication of interest the Government have received from(a) (i) air passenger companies and (ii) freight carriers to use and (b) airport operating companies to operate Alconbury airport. [74835]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) is seeking views from all interested parties, including passenger and freight airlines and airport operators, on a range of options, one of which is a small-scale development at Alconbury.

  If this option is supported in the air transport White Paper, it would then be for a promoter to submit detailed proposals through the land use planning system.

  Focus Group Research
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what use he and his Department has made of focus group research since June 2001; if he will identify for each research project the topics covered, the person or organisation carrying out the research, and the total cost; and if he will publish the research on his Department's website. [74992]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Focus group work forms an element in a number of projects that fall within the Department's research programme. This is not always costed separately. The general conclusions of the focus group work are incorporated, where relevant, in the reports of the research projects carried out.

  However, the Department's Communication Directorate regularly carries out specific focus group research in order to gauge the effectiveness of particular advertising approaches and to assess audience reaction to different creative concepts for developing its advertising programme. This research relates wholly to road safety advertising. Details of the research findings are not published as they relate to work in development, are of an ephemeral nature, contain views given in confidence which are highly subjective, and will often contain approaches that advertising companies would not wish to share with competitors.

  The sums paid to each company in respect of any particular piece of work are regarded as commercial in confidence. However, since June 2001, the total amount spent on focus group research in respect of road safety campaigns is £112k. The companies which have carried out this research for the Department are Abbot Mead Vickers BBDO, Andrew Irving Associates, Came Martin, Cragg Ross Dawson, Ruth Foulds Qualitative Research, and Campbell Keegan.

  Manchester-London Flights
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West of 15 October 2002,Official Report, columns 162–23, if additional
  12W
  slots will be provided for domestic flights between London and Manchester during periods when the West Coast Main line is closed. [75204]

  Mr. Spellar
  Alternative rail links between Manchester and London will be in operation during the closure of the West Coast Main Line. London-Manchester is one of the busiest air routes in the UK. If demand for flights on this route rises, airlines could increase the size of the planes they operate on that route, or increase the frequency of services. This will be a commercial decision for them.

  New Road Schemes
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) bypass, (b) road widening and (c) other new road schemes which have been completed since 1997. [75011]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following trunk and local road schemes costing over £5m* have been opened since 1997:

  Bypasses—Trunk

  M65 Blackburn Southern Bypass Contracts 1 & 2

  M66 Denton—Middleton Contracts 1 to 3

  Al2 Hackney Wick—M11 Link Contracts 1 to 4

  A13 Wennington—Mar Dyke

  A13 West of Heathway—Thames Avenue Improvement

  A13 Thames Avenue—Wennington

  A16 Market Deeping Bypass

  A27 Polegate Bypass

  A30 Honiton-Exeter Bypass

  A34 Newbury Bypass

  A35 Puddletown Bypass

  A43 Silverstone Bypass

  A419 Latton Bypass

  A419 Stratton Bypass

  A564 Derby Southern Bypass & Derby Spur Contract A

  A564 Doveridge Bypass

  Bypasses—Local

  A 131 Great Leighs Bypass (Essex)

  A143 Broome/Ellingham Bypass (Norfolk)

  A174 Skelton and Brotton Bypass (Redcar & Cleveland)

  A511 Ashby Bypass Stage 2 (Leicestershire)

  A617 Rainworth Bypass (Nottinghamshire)

  Wainscott Northern Bypass (Kent)

  Chippenham Western Bypass (Wiltshire)

  Burntwood Bypass (Staffordshire)

  Biddulph Inner Bypass (Staffordshire)

  A421 Tingewick Bypass (Buckinghamshire)

  Widenings—Trunk

  MI-Al Link Road

  M5 J18–19 Widening

  M25 J8–10 Widening

  M40 Denham-Warwick

  Al(M) Alconbury-Peterborough

  Al(M) Walshford-Dishforth

  A19/A168 Dishforth-Tyne Tunnel

  A43 Whitfield Turn-Brackley Hatch Improvement

  A43 M40-B4031 Dualling

  A406 Silver Street—Fore Street Improvement

  A406 East of Falloden Way—Finchley High Road,

  A417 Nettleton Improvement

  Widenings—Local

  13W

  A22 Dualling Nightingale Farm

  A6002/A6007 Coventry Lane Improvement

  Other—Trunk

  M1/M621 Link Road

  Al Tempsford Junction Improvement

  A50 Blythe Bridge—Queensway Phase 1(B) & 2

  A50 Derby Southern Bypass (Contract B)

  Other—Local

  A6042 Manchester/ Salford Inner Relief Road Phase 1 (Manchester/Salford)

  Avon Ring Road II: B4465 Shortwood—A420 Warmley (South Gloucestershire)

  Dearne Towns Link Road (Barnsley)

  West Central Route (Newcastle upon Tyne)

  Dawdon to Seaham Town Centre Link Road (Durham)

  A46/47 Link Road (Leicester City)

  A 179 Improvement (Hartlepool)

  Werrington to Glinton Phase 2 (Peterborough)

  A16 Peakes Parkway Stage 3 (North East Lincolnshire)

  A289 Gillingham Northern Bypass (Medway)

  A22 New Route Dittons to Seaside Eastbourne (West Sussex)

  Park Lane Improvement Scheme (Sefton)

  South Ribble M65 Interface Improvements (Lancashire)

  * This excludes schemes funded by private developers.

  10 Year Plan
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish an updated version of the 10 Year Plan; and when he intends to publish an updated version of Table A3 published in the plan. [75010]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We will be publishing a progress report on implementation of the 10 Year Plan for Transport in due course. This will include updated details on expenditure under the Plan along the lines set out in the table referred to.

  Aircraft Noise (Compensation)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what precedents there are for his Department's paying compensation to people in the UK in connection with disturbance from flying activities in the last five years. [75395]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Compensation for depreciation in the value of properties may be payable under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 for certain physical factors caused by the use of new or altered public works, including aerodromes. Compensation would be paid by the aerodrome manager. The physical factors are noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting and the discharge of any solid or liquid substance.

  Normally, the physical factors are those arising from the works themselves, but for aerodromes, this is extended to those from aircraft arriving or departing.

  Railways (European Policy)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations have been received from and discussions have taken place with the railway industry on the forthcoming Third Railway Package of the European Commission; and if he will place copies in the Library. [75594]
  14W
  Mr Jamieson
  The European Commission indicated its intention to bring forward further measures over the next three years to improve the quality of passenger and freight rail services in the covering Communication (COM(2002)18) to its 2nd railway package.

  A number of industry parties and individuals commented on these future plans in response to the Government's consultation exercise on the 2nd railway package, which ran from May to 23 August 2002. Copies of the replies (excluding those from respondents who have requested confidentiality) will he placed in the library. My Department holds regular discussions with rail industry parties on the Commission's current and future proposals for the rail sector.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what submissions have been made by his Department to the(a) European Commission and (b) European Parliament with regard to the Directive on the Interoperability of Trans-European Rail Transport being discussed within the European Parliament; and if he will place copies in the Library; [75597]

  (2) what submissions have been made by his Department to (a) the European Commission and (b) the European Parliament on the Directive on Safety, Licensing and Levying of Charges Certification of Community Railways being discussed within the European Parliament; and if he will places copies in the Library; [75619]

  (3) what submissions have been made by his Department to (a) the European Commission and (b) the European Parliament on the Directive on European Rail Agency Interoperability and Safety being discussed within the European Parliament; and if he will place copies in the Library. [75611]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No written submissions have been made to the European Commission. However, Ministers and officials from my Department participate on a regular basis in Council meetings convened by the Presidency to discuss these elements of the Commission's proposed Second Rail Package. The European Commission is represented at those meetings.

  My officials provided written briefing to UK Members of the European Parliament on these proposals in April, July and September 2002. I will arrange for these sets of briefing to be placed in the libraries of the House.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what submissions have been made by his Department to the European Commission with regard to progress on the implementation of the First Railway Package; and if he will place copies in the Library. [75605]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Journey Planners (Cycling)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish findings of research into putting cycling into journey planners; and what steps are being taken to act upon these findings. [75598]
  15W
  Mr. Jamieson
  As part of the development work for Transport Direct Sustrans undertook a piece of research to look at how cycling could be incorporated into a journey planner. The research highlighted difficulties in doing this on a national scale. The biggest issue is the lack of cycling information being held electronically, cycle routes need to be geo-coded, and these codes need to be held in frequently updated databases to be used successfully in journey planners. Transport Direct does aim to include cycling, but due to the problems outlined above this may have to wait until later versions.

  The Executive Summary and a link to the full paper (which is on the Sustrans website) has been placed on the Department's website www.d ft. gov. uk/itw p/ transdirect/cyclene/index.htm.

  The recommendations outlined in the report highlighted work needed to progress this issue. The Department will be working with other bodies, including local authorities, Sustrans and other cycling bodies to progress the issues discussed above.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes have been made to legislation with regard to revenue raised from bus lane enforcement since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [75607]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Local authorities with decriminalised parking enforcement (DPE) powers may issue penalty charge notices in the case of vehicles parked in contravention of bus lanes. Use of surplus income from parking penalty charge notices is governed by the provisions of section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. This section was amended by the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to enable London authorities to use surplus income in connection with implementation in their area of the Mayor of London's transport strategy.

  The London Local Authorities Act 1996 enables London authorities, including Transport for London, to issue penalty charge notices on the basis of evidence provided by a prescribed device in respect of vehicles being driven illegally in bus lanes. Use of surplus income from the enforcement of moving bus lane contraventions in London is governed by Schedule 2 to the 1996 Act.

  Otherwise, responsibility for enforcement of bus lanes is the responsibility of the police and fine income accrues to the Exchequer.

  We are currently preparing regulations to be made under section 144 of the Transport Act 2000 which will enable local authorities outside London with DPE powers to issue penalty charge notices in respect of vehicles being driven illegally in bus lanes.

  Heathrow Airport (Rail Links)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of rail links between Waterloo and Heathrow Airport; and what support the Government plans to make available to private companies to use(a) existing tracks and (b) new tracks in order to connect Waterloo and Clapham Junction to Heathrow Airport. [75202]
  16W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) consultation is seeking views on a range of options, one of which is for an additional short runway at Heathrow. The main consultation document indicates in paragraphs 7.10 to 7.15 the type and scale of rail infrastructure that would be needed to connect the Heathrow airport option to the wider rail network. The analysis has not attempted to identify the precise location and design of these connections. However, our intention is for the aviation White Paper to contain proposals for improved surface access to Heathrow whether or not a further runway is provided. The level of financial support the Government might make available depends on: the likely net benefit to non-airport rail users; negotiations to maximise funding from aviation; and, the extent to which any public sector contribution would divert funding from other SRA priorities.

  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had on Heathrow Airport rail links with(a) the Strategic Rail Authority and (b) interest groups. [75203]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I, and other departmental Ministers, meet the Strategic Rail Authority on a regular basis; as part of wider industry meetings and specifically to discuss the Authority's work—which includes rail access to airports. We are currently undertaking a wide-ranging consultation on aviation issues that will include discussion about airport rail links with a variety of groups including local authorities.

  Shoreham Port Authority
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with the management of Shoreham Port Authority regarding the appointment of a new Chief Executive; [75551]

  (2) who sits on the interview panel for the selction of the new Chief Executive of Shoreham Harbour; who appointed them; and when; [75550]

  (3) how many applications were received for the post of Chief Executive of Shoreham Harbour; [75548]

  (4) what stages have been completed in the appointment of the new Chief Executive of Shoreham Harbour; and what the appointment timetable is. [75549]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 37W, where I stated that the recruitment of employees of the Shoreham Port Authority is not a matter for my Department.

  Port Safety
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those ports, sub-divided by type, which do not meet the standards of the Port Marine Safety Code; what assessment his Department has made of those which do not meet this standard and what steps have been taken as a result; what further steps are planned; and if he will place the assessments in the Library. [75009]
  17W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The following competent harbour authorities have not yet demonstrated compliance with the Port Marine Safety Code:a) Company ports (4)

  Eastbourne (Sovereign Harbour)

  Irvine Harbour Company

  Porthleven Harbour & Docks Company

  Port of Mostyn Ltd

  b) Local authority ports (8)

  Argyle and Bute Council (Rothesay)

  Canterbury District Council (Whitstable)

  Carmarthenshire County Council (Llanelli)

  Exeter City Council

  Isle of Wight Council (Newport)

  Waveney District Council (Southwold)

  West Dorset District Council (Bridport)

  Worthing Borough Council

  c) Trust ports (7)

  Coleraine Harbour Commission

  Crouch Harbour Authority

  Looe Harbour Commission

  Maldon Harbour Improvement Commission

  Maryport Harbour Commission

  Mousehole Harbour Commission

  Sandwich Port & Haven Commission

  d) Other (3)

  Duchy of Cornwall (Isles of Scilly)

  Environment Agency Wales (River Dee)

  Broads Authority

  We have corresponded or met with the authorities that have not yet fully implemented the Code and we are undertaking an overall review of its implementation, which we hope to complete in the New Year; indications so far are that implementing authorities have achieved a high overall standard. The Code makes it a matter for the port to publish compliance statements.

  Road User Charges
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether guidance to local authorities on introducing the work place parking levy and road user charging schemes will supersede guidelines already adopted by individual authorities; and what assessment has been made of the impact on local authorities of changes to guidelines where guidelines on work place parking levy and road user charging schemes have already been adopted. [75016]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Local authorities will be given adequate time to bring any existing road user charging or workplace parking levy schemes into line with any national guidance, should that be necessary.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the process for consultation on the draft guidance to local authorities on introducing the work place parking levy and road user charging schemes. [75017]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am still considering the nature and scope of guidance on the workplace parking levy and on road user charging.
  18W
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the guidance to local authorities on introducing the work place parking levy and road user charging. [75018]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A number of local authorities and representative organisations have enquired about guidance on the workplace parking levy and on road user charging, I am still considering the nature and scope of the guidance.

  Train Movements
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Strategic Rail Authority will publish the findings of a feasibility study on real time train movements; and what steps it and his Department are taking to act upon these findings. [75606]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that the Strategic Rail Authority has undertaken a feasibility study of Real Time Train Movements (RTTM) in order to create an outline design specification and resolve technical issues. The SRA is not proposing to publish the study, but is proceeding with the implementation of RTTM, which will provide the essential database for public information systems and other uses.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road signs have been(a) vandalised, (b) stolen, (c) replaced, (d) lost and (e) erected belonging to the Highways Agency in each year since 1997. [75818]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ms Hilary Chipping to Mr. Don Foster, dated 21 October 2002:
  I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent parliamentary question about how many road signs have been vandalised, stolen, replaced, lost and erected that belong to the Highways Agency in each year since 1997. I am replying because Tim Matthews is currently away on HA business.
  Unfortunately, I cannot provide this information. The Highways Agency does not currently collect this data and it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, it might be possible to obtain some of the requested information for a specific location. Please let us know if you like us to do this.

  Traffic Levels
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish a report on progress in reducing road traffic levels as specified in the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998. [75613]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State fulfilled his statutory obligations under the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998 with the publication of "Tackling Congestion and Pollution" in January 2000. Section 2(5) of the Act makes provision for the Secretary of State to publish progress reports "at such times as he deems appropriate". Paragraph 84 of "Tackling Congestion and Pollution" promised that a second
  19W
  report under the Act would detail our progress in developing new benchmarks. It remains our intention to publish such a report in due course.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what data he has collated on(a) forecast traffic levels and (b) actual traffic levels since their opening of the (i) A5190 at Burntwood, (ii) Newbury,
  (iii) A130, Rettendon turnpike to Howe Green, (iv) Silverstone and (v) Ashby bypasses (A) on the bypass concerned and (B) on other roads in the area, including the impact on town centres. [75014]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The A5190 Burntwood, the A130, Rettendon turnpike to Howe Green and the Ashby-dela-Zouche bypass are not trunk roads and are thus the responsibility of the respective local highway authorities. The Department for Transport has therefore not collated data on these schemes.

  Continuous traffic count data is being collected by the Highways Agency on several sites on the A34 Newbury Bypass and on the A339. Data is also being collected on other roads in the area by the local highway authority. The recorded traffic flows will be compared with the original traffic predictions in an evaluation report now being prepared for the situation one year after opening. Further surveys, including journey time surveys, are planned for next year in order to create a five-year post-opening report.

  Count data at Silverstone was collected over the British Grand Prix weekend, and also just before and just after the opening of the bypass on 18 September this year. A traffic impact study is being drafted, in partnership with Northamptonshire County Council, and will be available to the public when complete. Further evaluation studies will be carried out in one and five years time.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department projects the level of traffic in the United Kingdom to be by 2004–05; and how this was calculated. [75610]

  Mr Jamieson
  Traffic in Great Britain in 2001 was estimated to be 473.7 billion vehicle-kilometres. The Department's publication "National Road Traffic Forecasts (Great Britain) 1997" projects that traffic will grow at a rate between 1.35 per cent. per annum and 1.99 per cent. per annum. Applying these growth rates over a period of 34 years, traffic in 2004–05 is expected to be between 494.8 and 505.0 billion vehicle-kilometres.

  Measures in the Government's Ten Year Plan for Transport were projected to reduce traffic levels below trend by around 5 per cent. by 2010, but that forecasting exercise did not consider how such reductions would be spread over different years within the ten-year period. The impact of Ten Year Plan measures is generally expected to be greater in the second half of the period, because of the time needed for major capital projects to come on-stream.

  Traffic forecasting for Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Roads Service, part of the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland).
  20W

  Concrete Barriers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been conducted and is planned by or for his Department on the benefits of slipformed concrete barriers on motorways and other Highways Agency roads. [75601]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency led the development of concrete vehicle containment barriers in the UK. The bulk of this work was completed by the early 1990s. This supported the use of concrete barriers in road widening schemes, where space was at a premium. The Agency has subsequently undertaken further research and development to refine the systems. Concrete barriers have been promoted as one of the options acceptable to the Highways Agency in tender documents for new work.

  The Agency has also recently contributed with industry towards the costs of investigating the procurement practices in mainland Europe where concrete barriers appear to be used more extensively. Further research is also examining whole life benefits and costs of all vehicle safety barriers to gain a better understanding of the whole life performance of the different types of barrier. There is some evidence that concrete barriers have higher performance characteristics that could be of benefit in particular locations.

  Trunk Road Advisory Committee
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made by his Department of the performance of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment Sustainable Development Education Panel, including performance targets; what reports are produced on its performance; an if he will place copies of such reports not readily available in the Library. [75615]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment published its last report in 1999 entitled "Transport and the Economy". The government published a response to the SACTRA report in May 2000 to assess the report and to respond to the committee's recommendations.

  Both these reports are available in the Libraries of the House.

  The Sustainable Development Education Panel is the responsibility of the Department for Education and Skills.

  Road Hauliers' Licences
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when the computerisation of the compliance and local bus registration systems under the auspices of the Transport Area Network was introduced; what changes there have been to the timetable for introduction and nature of this scheme; and what assessment has been made and is planned of its progress; [75618]

  (2) what changes have been made to the timetable for the development and introduction of the TAN21 self service online service for road hauliers to update

  21W
  operators' licences; what the reasons for the changes were; and what costs were incurred as a result of these changes; [75593]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the research contracts relating to the TAN21 self service online service for road hauliers to update operators licences; and if he will place copies in the Library. [75617]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The TAN 21 project computerises all the key business functions of the Traffic Area Network. The compliance function was introduced in Jan 2002, 10 weeks behind schedule. Bus registration was introduced in April 2002, 20 weeks behind schedule. The self-service component is 18 months behind schedule and no changes have been made to the original plan. The self-service development was part of a fixed price contract, so the delay resulted in no extra costs. There were no research contracts for the self-service module. TAN21 has been widely welcomed by operators and will be increasingly used by them as the project develops.

  South West Trains
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the fares incentive adjustment payment mechanism which applied to journeys operated by South West Trains Ltd. [75167]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's fares regime for London commuter operators—the Fares Incentive Adjustment Payment regime (FIAP)—links permitted fares increases to operators' performance over the previous 12 months. FIAP allows for a variation on the national cap (RPI-1 per cent.) of up to 2 per cent. to reflect improved performance and minus 2 per cent. to reflect deterioration in performance.

  In the year to 31 July 2002 the number of trains arriving on time for most London operators, including South West Trains, improved significantly when compared with the preceding 12 months. This improvement means that the cap on these operators' regulated fares from January 2003 has been set at RPI—1 per cent. The SRA is currently reviewing the fares regime for London operators as part of its policy review of fares regulation. It will make recommendations to Ministers in due course. Any changes in policy will be introduced in 2004.

  Air Transport (Consultation Document)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment was made of the cost of using(a) Omega, (b) other private distribution companies and (c) the Royal Mail to deliver The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: A National Consultation Document; and what assesment has been made of the reliability of the service provided. [74904]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All consultation documents are being sent out by the Department's distribution contractor, using either the Royal Mail or their sub-contracted courier service, Securicor Omega. The decision on which carrier is used depends on which is most cost-effective for the weight of each individual consignment, and to a lesser extent on its size. Omega is used to deliver heavier items as they offer the best rates to our contractor.
  22W
  Securicor make available national service level reports which the contractor monitors, as well as any individual complaints. There are no reliability figures available from Royal Mail. The Department monitors the performance of its distribution contractor, and resolves any complaints as they are reported.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many copies of, The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: A National Consultation Document—Midlands, have been distributed; [74907]

  (2) how many requests there have been for, The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: A National Consultation—Midlands.[74908]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As of today around 108,063 copies of The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: A National Consultation Document—Midlands have been requested and distributed or accessed as set out in the table below.

  Midlands

  Main Document

  Summary Document

  Total

  Hard Copies Issued

  20,997

  30,563

  51,560

  Downloads from website

  31,115

  25,388

  56,503

  Total

  52,112

  55,951

  108,063

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses have been received in response to the Future Development of Air Transport consultation document, broken down by region. [75047]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have received to date around 6,065 responses to the NOP questionnaire and 15,728 letters. This is set out by region in the table below.

  Region:

  NOP Paper Q're Returns

  NOP Web Responses

  Total to Date

  Letters Received

  Scotland

  292

  128

  420

  29

  South East

  1956

  1311

  3267

  5121

  Midlands

  527

  657

  1184

  10500

  North England

  430

  219

  649

  39

  South West

  415

  61

  476

  24

  Wales

  14

  11

  25

  7

  N. Ireland

  19

  15

  44

  8

  Total

  3663

  2402

  6065

  15728

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration was given to the evaluation of RAF Turnhouse by the Home Office for an asylum seeker accommodation centre in the formulation of options for the expansion of Edinburgh Airport as outlined in the Future Development of Air Transport consulation document. [75063]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The consultation document for Scotland sets out, factually and neutrally. a wide range of options for more runway capacity at both Edinburgh and Glasgow airports. We have not come to any view on the way forward and want to have the views of consultees before we address this. In preparing this document we liaised with many departments including the Home Office and were aware of each other's plans and their potential implications.
  23W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many copies of the consultation documents, Future Development of Air transport in the United Kingdom-Scotland, were requested by(a) telephone, (b) e-mail and (c) letter; and how many such documents were issued in total. [75061]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As of today around 37,122 copies of The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: A National Consultation Document—Scotland have been distributed or accessed as set out in the table below. We do not have a breakdown on how the requests for hard copies were received.

  Scotland

  Main Document

  Summary Document

  Total

  Hard Copies Issued

  4,890

  10,014

  14,904

  Downloads from website

  9,425

  12,793

  22,218

  Total

  14,315

  22,807

  37,122

  East London Line
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the business case for the southern extensions of the East London Line from the Strategic Rail Authority; and if he will make a statement. [75172]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have received the business case for the project, which my officials are discussing with the SRA.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will issue advice to local authorities on the implementation of lower speed limits; and if he will make a statement. [75211]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department plans to revise the current guidance to local authorities on the setting of local speed limits later next year.

  Departmental Schemes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the schemes and initiatives sponsored by his Department and its agencies which are not the subject of national roll out, showing(a) the authorities or areas covered by the scheme and (b) the budget of the scheme in the last year for which information is available. [75676]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Many thousands of local transport schemes and projects are currently being funded by my Department under the 10 Year Plan for transport through local authorities, the Highways Agencies, the Strategic Rail Authority and other agencies. Details on every individual scheme are not collected centrally, but major schemes and aggregated data on smaller schemes will be listed in the forthcoming progress report on the 10 Year Plan.

  South Coast Multi-modal Study
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the South Coast Multi-modal Study. [75155]
  24W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The final report from the South Coast Multi-Modal Study was passed to the South East England Regional Assembly on 9 September and we now await their advice. We will then consider the study's recommendations in the light of their comments.

  Low-cost Airlines
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how often the Civil Aviation Authority carry out safety checks on low-cost airlines. [75146]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Civil Aviation Authority's Safety Regulation Group carries out regular audits and flight inspections on all UK airlines. In terms of safety oversight and the frequency of inspections, no distinction is made between low cost and other operators.

  Air Ticket Refunds
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to require airlines to accept and refund customers who return air tickets within a specified period of time. [75193]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The terms and conditions applying to the refund of tickets are set out in each airline's conditions of carriage. The International Air Transport Association publishes recommendations on conditions of carriage, applying to international flights provided by member airlines (Recommended Practice 1724). Following the intervention of the UK Office of Fair Trading, changes were made to RP 1724 in September 2000, principally extending the rights of passengers who, for reasons beyond their control, are unable to use a purchased ticket. This recommendation is not, however, binding on carriers and does not apply to domestic flights.

  Any legislative proposals affecting the air transport market within the European Community are a matter for the European Commission. In June 2002 the Commission published a consultation paper on airline conditions of carriage. This includes a proposal to require all EU airlines to apply conditions of carriage similar to those in the amended RP 1724.

  Many European airlines, including all significant full service UK airlines, have signed up to a set of voluntary commitments on passenger service. These include a commitment to allow telephone reservations to be held or cancelled without commitment or penalty within 24 hours, and a commitment to provide prompt refunds where a passenger claims and is entitled to a refund.

  Air Slots
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the annual Exchequer income which would derive from auctioning take-off and landing slots at(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick and (c) Manchester airports, in line with the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister on 9 November 2000, using as a basis the estimates of slot values provided by the Civil Aviation Authority in its recommendations to the Competition Commission on airport price caps in February. [75033]
  25W
  Mr. Spellar
  No such estimations have been made and could only be done at disproportionate cost. There are large uncertainties on the values of individual slots, and the amount of income would depend on the design of an auction scheme.

  Rural Buses
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of the(a) Rural Bus Subsidy Grant and (b) Rural Bus Challenge was spent in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03 to date, broken down by county. [75186]

  Shire Counties

  RBC payments in 2001–02

  2001–02 payments Total RBSG Grant paid in 2001–02

  RBC payments in 2002–03

  2002–03 payments RBSG Payments in 2002–03

  Bedfordshire

  116,791

  565,644

  151,573

  258,969

  Buckinghamshire

  172,565

  672,000

  12,330

  328,035

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  1,009,112

  0

  462,003

  Cheshire

  0

  782,514

  140,807

  358,259

  Cornwall

  462,000

  1,559,210

  343,000

  713,855

  Cumbria

  343,500

  1,222,506

  0

  559,701

  Derbyshire

  200,000

  911,879

  103,875

  417,487

  Devon

  271,000

  1,799,210

  272,000

  823,735

  Dorset

  201,092

  739,801

  130,508

  338,704

  Durham

  0

  771,913

  0

  353,406

  East Sussex

  466,888

  714,092

  150,000

  326,934

  Essex

  571,805

  1,341,087

  347,500

  613,992

  Gloucestershire

  73,956

  1,013,984

  197,500

  464,234

  Hampshire

  521,260

  1,142,167

  127,340

  522,920

  Hertfordshire

  87,692

  566,589

  620,935

  259,402

  Kent

  368,000

  1,647,217

  278,000

  754,147

  Lancashire

  396,914

  959,529

  277,856

  439,302

  Leicestershire

  279,540

  710,177

  703,421

  325,141

  Lincolnshire

  39,708

  1,525,138

  1,351,445

  698,256

  Norfolk

  75,055

  2,035,846

  165,000

  932,074

  North Yorkshire

  509,000

  1,750,000

  701,522

  806,913

  Northamptonshire

  101,075

  889,715

  716,699

  407,340

  Northumberland

  372,600

  608,253

  286,000

  278,477

  Nottinghamshire

  185,764

  667,430

  0

  305,570

  Oxfordshire

  373,579

  1,183,588

  0

  541,884

  Shropshire

  238,176

  804,914

  0

  368,515

  Somerset

  94,817

  1,299,640

  333,439

  595,016

  Staffordshire

  97,548

  875,000

  92,435

  473,041

  Suffolk

  186,471

  1,534,342

  0

  702,470

  Surrey

  404,025

  779,797

  0

  357,015

  Warwickshire

  135,405

  761,540

  0

  348,657

  West Sussex

  223,773

  739,752

  0

  338,682

  Wiltshire

  481,080

  1,003,848

  23,000

  459,593

  Worcestershire

  757,645

  862,568

  592,480

  394,911

  Passenger Transport Authorities

  Greater Manchester

  0

  130,160

  0

  77,357

  Merseyside

  0

  106,590

  0

  48,800

  South Yorkshire

  318,500

  432,581

  1005617

  198,049

  Tyne and Wear

  630,050

  104,768

  0

  47,966

  West Midlands

  0

  110,837

  0

  50,745

  West Yorkshire

  208,928

  709,628

  0

  324,890

  Unitaries

  Bath & NE Somerset

  40,000

  178,731

  150,000

  81,829

  Blackburn with Darwen

  0

  33,000

  0

  22,815

  Bracknell Forest

  0

  51,125

  0

  23,407

  Bristol

  0

  8,328

  0

  3,813

  Darlington

  0

  61,742

  0

  28,267

  East Riding

  166,863

  682,342

  592,271

  312,397

  Halton

  0

  11,810

  0

  7,416

  Hartlepool

  0

  21,544

  45,000

  9,864

  Herefordshire

  41,518

  667,144

  179,077

  305,439

  Isle of Wight

  0

  203,377

  0

  93,112

  Medway

  0

  91,533

  0

  51,139

  Middlesbrough

  0

  12,542

  0

  6,748

  26W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The table below shows all payments made to County Councils, Unitary Authorities and Passenger Transport Authorities under the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) and Rural Bus Challenge (RBC) schemes during 2001–02 and 2002–03 to date. Total allocations to authorities for RBSG in 2001–02 were £41.5 million and for 2002–03 are £47.5 million. The payments shown for RBC schemes relate to projects that were approved in different years since the RBC competitions started in 1998. Further payments will be made under both RBSG and RBC schemes during the remainder of 2002–03.
  27W

  Shire Counties

  RBC payments in 2001–02

  2001–02 payments Total RBSG Grant Paid in 2001–02

  RBC payments in 2002–03

  2002–03 payments RBSG Payments in 2002–03

  Milton Keynes

  101,965

  91,265

  124,741

  41,798

  NE Lincolnshire

  0

  54,463

  0

  24,935

  North Lincolnshire

  114,313

  328,744

  57,157

  150,509

  North Somerset

  0

  150,000

  0

  77,669

  Peterborough

  0

  107,313

  0

  49,131

  Plymouth

  141,400

  12,139

  73,400

  5,704

  Poole

  0

  0

  0

  4,338

  Redcar & Cleveland

  20,000

  72,142

  0

  33,029

  Rutland

  0

  136,644

  0

  62,560

  South Gloucestershire

  80,000

  244,422

  0

  111,904

  Stockton-on-Tees

  12,000

  43,201

  0

  19,779

  Stoke-on-Trent

  0

  6,925

  0

  3,170

  Swindon

  0

  58,300

  0

  32,606

  Telford and The Wrekin

  184,000

  97,107

  742,895

  44,459

  Thurrock

  97,000

  48,748

  0

  22,318

  Torbay

  111,340

  8,488

  0

  4,901

  Warrington

  26,000

  76,161

  0

  34,869

  West Berkshire

  0

  297,015

  67,806

  135,983

  Windsor & Maidenhead

  0

  64,592

  0

  29,572

  Wokingham

  0

  98,880

  0

  45,270

  York

  95,200

  93,491

  0

  42,803

  Totals

  11,197,801

  41,157,824

  11,156,628

  19,000,000

  Mayor of London
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the matters discussed and the conclusions reached at his meeting with the Mayor of London on 26 September. [76125]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A range of transport issues was discussed.

  Congestion Charges
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the future impact of congestion charges in London on his Department's PSA targets relating to congestion in London; and if he will make a statement. [76123]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my Answers of 24 July 2002,Official Report, column 1257W.

  Cars (Taxes and Licences)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to reduce the number of(a) unlicenced and (b) untaxed cars on UK roads. [75552]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government takes the problem of the use of unlicensed and untaxed vehicles on the United Kingdom's road seriously and is pursuing a wide range of initiatives to deal with the problem. We are currently developing proposals for the reform and modernisation of vehicle registration and licensing, to reduce evasion and to bear down on vehicle crime. In response to the recommendations of a report commissioned by my Department from the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science—a copy of which was placed in the Library in June 2002—we have established a Modernising Vehicle Registration Implementation Board (MVRIB), including representatives of motorists' organisations. the motor trade, the police and the insurance industry to advise on and develop those proposals.
  28W
  The 2002 Finance Act contained provisions under which the responsibility for licensing and taxing vehicles will be placed on the registered keeper, who will remain liable for doing so until such time that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) has properly been notified of a change of keeper. These proposals will mean that it is not necessary for a vehicle to be detected on the road for effective enforcement action to take place. The implementation of these new powers is at the heart of MVRIB's agenda.

  Detection of unlicensed vehicles on the public road is currently carried out by police and traffic wardens, who pass offence reports to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) for enforcement action. Last year 800,000 offenders were brought to book, bringing in £110in in fines, penalties and relicensing revenue. Since 1997 a nationwide scheme has been operating to wheelclamp and impound untaxed vehicles seen on the public road. Over 100,000 vehicles have been clamped since the scheme started. The scheme has been a success and we are looking to increase the level of wheelclamping across the country. A pilot scheme has proved the feasibility of local authorities using DVLA's powers to wheelclamp and impound untaxed vehicles. Following a succesful pilot in the London Borough of Newham, this is being rolled out to local authorities that wish to join the scheme. In addition, mobile digital camera technology has been introduced to detect untaxed moving vehicles.

  DVLA is also working closely with other enforcement agencies in schemes to target both unlicensed and abandoned vehicles, in particular through Operation Cubit, a joint operation between DVLA, the police, fire service and local authorities which removes offending vehicles from the road immediately, and has been run in a number of locations including Kent, Hastings, Brighton, Liverpool, Belfast and Cleveland.
  29W

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the funding of water treatment projects in and around Kabul. [75219]

  Clare Short
  There are three main organisations working in various areas of Kabul's water system, KFW (German Development Bank), CARE International and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Projects currently being worked on or considered include linking the Loghar Valley Water Supply Scheme to South East Kabul to serve an additional 40 per cent. of its population; a new reservoir for North Kabul; a geological survey to identify deeper aquifers; and a proposal to feed Kabul from the Pansher valley, a project that would include substantial water treatment facilities. Some 5,000 water supply household connections have been repaired and piped water supply has almost doubled in the city since June 2002.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) deaths and (b) injuries it is estimated have been caused by unexploded bomblets following the use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan. [75224]

  Clare Short
  UNMAS is currently collating information from the International Committee of the Red Cross on mine and unexploded ordnance casualties throughout Afghanistan as well as additional reports from mine action organisations.

  Unfortunately the information gathered is not comprehensive due to the lack of a complete surveillance system. Consequently accurate national level estimates of casualties from specific types of ordnance are not available. However, an upcoming landmine impact survey will provide additional data, and the introduction of the Information Management System for Mine Action, which includes this information as an element of incident reporting, will enhance the capacity for such analysis.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress being made in the safe disposal of the unexploded bomblets remaining following the use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan. [75225]

  Clare Short
  A total number of 234 BLU Strike areas have been reported to UNMAS by the US forces to date. So far 108 of these areas have been cleared by organisations working as part of the Mine Action Programme for Afghanistan, and the capacity for clearance of CBU has been greatly increased over the last 12 months to increase the rate of completion. At current rates of clearance UNMAS estimate that all known areas will have been cleared in 2003.

  Malawi
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Government of Malawi regarding the cholera control programme; and what plans are in place to implement a sanitisation programme. [74881]
  30W
  Clare Short
  The lead agency supporting Malawi on cholera control is WHO. The National Cholera Task Force Ministry of Health (MoH) and relevant donors have pre-positioned cholera treatment supplies, completed field investigations of recurrent outbreaks, set up a Rapid Reaction Force, and prepared simplified surveillance tools. WHO has concluded agreements direct with districts and collaborating NGOs to conduct training on preparedness and case management.

  WHO is supporting community-based sanitisation campaigns on cholera prevention, including key household practises (water storage, handwashing, home sanitation). Government, UNICEF, NGO partners and district authorities are cooperating to ensure that "hardware" (treatment supplies, borehole placement) and the "software" (health worker training, community awareness) are reaching the worst affected areas.

  Debt Repayments
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her policy on whether(a) Malawi, (b) Mozambique and (c) Zambia should be granted an immediate suspension of their HIPC debt repayments. [76103]

  Clare Short
  Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia have all qualified for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. Malawi and Zambia have reached their Decision Point, and are already receiving debt relief. Mozambique has passed its Completion Point and is now receiving full debt relief. All three countries have completed a full poverty reduction strategy paper setting out how resources, including savings from debt 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.

  HIPC Initiative
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which countries she estimates, on current projections, will exit the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative with unsustainable debt. [75060]

  Clare Short
  Largely as a result of the global economic slowdown and falls in commodity prices, the prospect of most HIPC countries exiting the process with sustainable debt are poor, unless they are provided with further relief. The UK has successfully pressed for the provision of additional relief at Completion Point, but the present arrangement still does not provide a generous enough level of debt relief to those countries with unsustainable debts. We are continuing to press for a more systematic approach to topping up to bring all countries back to a sustainable debt level at Completion Point, so that no country will exit the HIPC process with unsustainable debts.

  Additional financing will be required to meet the costs of topping up. At their Summit in Kananaskis, last July, G8 leaders agreed to provide their share of up to an additional US$1 billion for the HIPC Trust Fund. This will not only help meet the current shortfall in the

  31W
  financing of the Initiative, but will also ensure that there are sufficient funds available to finance the additional debt relief required at Completion Point. At the Annual Meetings of the World Bank and the IMF last month, the international community reconfirmed their commitment to the implementation of the HIPC Initiative, and its 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 that we have already committed. We hope that other donors will be able to announce their contributions this week.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Lottery Funding
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her policy is on the provision of Lottery funding to groups with a political agenda. [75621]

  Mr. Caborn
  It is for individual Lottery distributors to decide upon the eligibility of individual applicants according to the powers given them under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 and in consideration of the directions issued to them under that Act.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport under what provision of the arrangements for managing the National Lottery grant finance was provided to the Community Empowerment Network. [75620]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under the powers given to it by the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, the Community Fund awarded a grant of £198,823 to the Communities Empowerment Network in June 2000 for work in the Greater London area. This grant completed in July 2002 and the Community Fund do not fund the organisation currently.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to improve access to Lottery funds for village hall projects. [75242]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have asked Lottery distributors to work together to make it easier for groups to access funding for multi-purpose community buildings, including village halls. Earlier this year they launched a £2 million trial programme in the West Midlands with a shared application process for groups seeking up to £100,000 to improve their community building and the sports, arts or community activities that happen there.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much National Lottery funding was granted to ex-servicemen's welfare organisations in West Sussex last year. [75531]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am not aware of any Lottery funding granted to such organisations in West Sussex last year.
  32W

  Sport England
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects the Council of Sport England to have a full complement of members. [75195]

  Mr. Caborn
  We expect to appoint a chairman and other members to the Sport England Council shortly.

  Sport (Performance and Innovation Unit)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received on the draft Performance and Innovation Unit report on the future of sport. [75197]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has received representations from a number of sporting organisations. In addition, meetings have been held with those Ministers with responsibility for sport in the Devolved Administrations. All comments received have been passed to the Strategy Unit, (formerly the PIU).

  Football (Racist Abuse)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions the Department will have with the football authorities and other Government Departments about the racist abuse of members of the England football squad by Slovakian football fans in the recent international match between the two nations. [75207]

  Mr. Caborn
  I discussed events during England's match in Slovakia with representatives of the English football authorities on 16 October. My officials have also discussed the issue in detail with the Home Office, which is responsible for co-ordinating work with overseas police forces in respect of England's away matches.

  The Government and the football authorities now await the results of UEFA's enquiry into these events, following the official complaint made the Football Association.

  Swimming
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the development of Specialist Sports Colleges and School Sport Coordinator partnerships is contributing to increasing facilities available for swimming. [75819]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government recently announced the investment of more than £450 million over the next three years to transform the quality of sports teaching in schools. The funds will, amongst other things, contribute to the further development of the Specialist Sport College (240 new Colleges by 2005) and School Sport Co-ordinator (from 700 to 2,400 Co-ordinators by 2005) schemes, and will bring a step change in the quality of sports teaching by promoting expertise and developing opportunity. The investment builds on the £750 million being invested in sports facilities across the UK as part of the New Opportunities Fund PE and Sport programme.
  33W
  The Government recognises the importance of swimming to young people and the role it—along with sport more generally—can play in raising standards, improving behaviour and tackling disaffection, as well as improving health levels. On 17 October, as part of the Government's response to the Swimming Advisory Group's recent Report, the Government launched a swimming initiative which will include: a new swimming and water safety website; proposals for a swimming charter (to be published next year); two pilot schemes for children in the final year of primary school and who cannot swim 25 metres; and increased training for teachers.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of the cost of refurbishing local authority swiming pools; and what resources are expected to be available over the next five years for this purpose. [75820]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England estimate that the costs for modernising public sector swimming pools alone (not including educational sites) is approximately £2 billion. The Lottery Sports Fund has invested £244 million in the development of new swimming facilities and the refurbishment of existing swimming pools, making swimming the largest beneficiary sport of Lottery Sports Funding to date.

  Grants from the Lottery Sports Fund are allocated by Sport England according to the policies and priorities set out in their Lottery strategy. We believe that any investment in swimming pool infrastructure should both meet the need of local communities and those of elite swimmers and above all, should be sustainable in the long term.

  Gambling
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what research she has commissioned(a) on the effect of allowing children to gamble and (b) on the effect of lifting the ban on gambling by credit card. [75463]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has commissioned no such research; but the gambling industry's charitable trust will be considering priorities for research in the light of the strategy which it is now developing.

  Public Buildings
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will include sustainability as a criteria to be considered during the application process for funding from the Community Fund for public buildings. [75150]

  Mr. Caborn
  Directions issued to the Community Fund under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 include sustainability as a criterion to be considered during the application process for public buildings.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Russia
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what 34W
  commitments and obligations made by Russia on acceding to the Council of Europe in 1996 remain outstanding. [75198]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) takes responsibility for monitoring accession obligations and commitments, and appoints Rapporteurs for that purpose. The Rapporteurs on Russia made an extremely comprehensive report to the April session of PACE which is available on the PACE website; http:// assembly.coe.int. HMG agreed with the report's conclusions.

  Opium
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the conflict with the Taliban in Afghanistan has reduced the production there of opium; and if he will make a statement. [75421]

  Mr. MacShane
  After the fall of the Taliban the Afghan Interim Administration adopted a tough line on drugs: in January they introduced a ban on drugs production, trafficking and processing, and in April implemented a compensated eradication programme. The Afghan authorities estimate that approximately 16,500 hectares of poppy fields were destroyed. This equates to 76 tonnes of heroin, which is approximately three times the UK's annual consumption and worth around £5 billion at UK street level prices. But poppies continue to be cultivated.

  Eradication alone will not solve Afghanistan's drug problem. The sustained elimination of opium poppy cultivation will require long-term international support for the building up of Afghan drug law enforcement and the provision of licit livelihoods for poppy farmers.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will refer the question of Gibraltar's constitutional standing to the International Court of Justice. [75102]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 632W.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what grounds he holds the integration of Gibraltar into the UK to be in contravention of the Treaty of Utrecht. [75104]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 12 April 2002,Official Report, column 646W.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to consult the people of Gibraltar about the future of British sovereignty over the colony. [75697]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to the House on 12 July,Official Report, column 1166.

  Plutonium
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the en route
  35W
  countries for the rejected plutonium MOX nuclear fuel returned to Sellafield from Japan in July to September; and which (a) made representations to United Kingdom embassies and (b) direct to her Majesty's Government opposing the shipment and objecting to the shipment, entering their territorial waters. [75687]

  Mr. MacShane
  The shipment of MOX returned from Japan, which arrived at Sellafield in September 2002, did not pass through the territorial waters of any States, save those of Japan and the UK. Vanuatu, South Africa, Mauritius and Chile made representations to United Kingdom Embassies. New Zealand made a representation to Her Majesty's Government through its High Commission in London. The Pacific Islands Forum troika made representations to a UK delegation. Ireland expressed some concerns through Ministerial statements, press releases and in discussions with the British Embassy in Dublin.

  United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom nationals are working for the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission; and if he will list their qualifications. [75827]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As far as we are aware, there are seven UK nationals working full-time for UNMOVIC. Additionally, one UK national is currently working on a short-term contract to deliver a training package for potential UNMOVIC inspectors.

  All UNMOVIC staff are UN employees and are recruited directly by the UN. UNMOVIC are under no obligation to inform us of their intention to employ UK nationals, or to divulge the qualifications of any staff that they employ.

  International Terrorism
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the involvement of Pakistan's IST in terrorism in Kashmir; if he has raised with President Masharraf concerns with regard to ISI's alleged involvement in terrorism; and what reports he has received implicating Pakistan's IST in terrorism elsewhere than in Kashmir; [75485]

  (2) what information he has received in the last three months indicating whether progress is being made in dismantling terrorist camps in Azad Kashmir administered by Pakistan; and if he will make a statement on Indian army allegations that the Pakistan army co-operates with terrorists infiltrating across the border into Kashmir. [75486]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In his speech of 10 June to Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to the link between ISID and certain terrorist organisations. We are encouraged by the banning of five such terrorist organisations in Pakistan. Our concerns about cross-border infiltration have been raised regularly with the Pakistanis, including during the Foreign Secretary's 19–20 July visit to Islamabad and when he met Pakistani Foreign Minister Inam ul-Haq on 16 September in the margins of the UN General 36W
  Assembly. The Pakistanis have reassured us that President Musharraf's pledge that there will be no movement across the Line of Control still stands and the Pakistani Army are doing all they can to stop infiltration. A permanent end to cross-border infiltration and terrorism in Kashmir are critical to a sustained and substantive dialogue leading towards a lasting settlement of the Kashmir issue.

  We welcome the recent announcements by both India and Pakistan of the phased withdrawal of a significant number of troops from the International Border. We hope that his will be followed by further de-escalatory steps and a resumption of dialogue.

  We are aware of regular allegations of ISI involvement in Afghanistan.

  Afghanistan
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in establishing a national security force in Afghanistan. [75222]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK is working closely with Afghan and international partners, in particular the Americans, to help establish an effective and democratically accountable national army, and with the Germans to create a national police force.

  To date, five battalions of Afghan troops have been trained, one by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) when under UK leadership, three by the US and one by the French. Further battalions are under training. The UK is also contributing to the German-led national police force reform programme which is training over 1,500 recruits in the newly rebuilt Police Academy.

  Work is progressing with the Afghan Transitional Administration to agree the structure of the Afghan police, army and border forces under democratically controlled security institutions. The UK is contributing to this process with a £5.7m project to assist with the creation of the office of the National Security Adviser.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the security situation in Afghanistan outside Kabul. [75221]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The security situation in Afghanistan outside Kabul remains unstable. There are occasional outbreaks of fighting between different Afghan groups, while the absence of effective law and order forces means that little is being done to combat crime.

  A secure environment in Afghanistan is key to extending the rule of the Transitional Administration, to enabling humanitarian aid to be delivered and to allowing reconstruction work to continue. The UK continues to work closely with the United Nations and other interested states to help develop effective and democratically accountable Afghan security and law and order forces under Transitional Administration control.
  37W
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the most recent assessment is of the total area of land in Afghanistan under cultivation for poppies in each of the past 12 years; and what changes have occurred in the past year for which figures are available. [75020]

  Mr. MacShane
  The United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention has reported Afghanistan's opium poppy cultivation as follows:1990–41,300; 1991–50,800; 1992–49,300; 1993–58,300; 1994–71,470; 1995–53,759; 1996–56,824; 1997–58,416; 1998–63,674; 1999–90,583; 2000–82,171; 2001–7,606 (areas in hectares). The results of the 2002 survey have not yet been published.

  Poppy cultivation remains concentrated in the provinces of Helmand, Nangarhar, Badakhshan, Oruzgan and Kandahar.

  Lombok
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the political and economic situation on the island of Lombok, Indonesia. [76034]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The political situation in Lombok has stabilised since the widespread violence between Christians and Muslims in 2000, though reports of isolated incidents of violence continue. Lombok is one of Indonesia's poorer provinces and its tourism industry will undoubtedly suffer following the terrorist attack in Bali and advice to overseas visitors to stay away.

  UN Security Council Resolutions
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each of the United Nations Security Council resolutions which have not been implemented by UN member states since August 1990; and if he will set out what the United Kingdom has done in each case to press for implementations. [75872]

  Mr. MacShane
  Between August 1990 and 17 October 2002 the United Nations Security Council adopted 779 resolutions.

  The UK expects all Member States to implement Security Council resolutions, and has called on the States concerned to do so, as has the Security Council itself. When the Security Council has taken a decision all Member States have an obligation to accept it and carry it out under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations.

  The United Kingdom has also fully supported the establishment of a number of committees of the UN Security Council, monitoring mechanisms and expert panels whose mandates include monitoring member states' implementation of Security Council resolutions (eg, those imposing sanctions regimes, or demanding that states take action against terrorism).

  International Criminal Court
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his counterparts within the European Union 38W
  regarding a common EU position on bilateral agreements with the United States regarding the exemption of US citizens from the ICC. [76014]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has had a number of discussions with his EU counterparts about the US government's request for bilateral agreements under Article 98.2 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in the period leading up to the GAER Council on 30 September. At that meeting, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Europe (Peter Hain), agreed Conclusions and General Principles on the handling of the US request, consistent with the ICC Statute.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Student Loans
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what procedures are in place to allow those repaying student loans to obtain up to date balances of the total sum owed. [74309]

  Margaret Hodge
  Borrowers under the pre-1998–99 scheme of mortgage style loans receive annual statements from the Student Loans Company (SLC) showing what has been repaid and the outstanding balance owed.

  For most borrowers under the income-contingent loans scheme, repayments are collected by their employers through deductions from their earnings, with tax and national insurance contributions. These borrowers receive a statement from the SLC after the end of the tax year, once the SLC has received details of what has been collected by the Inland Revenue. As well as the yearly statement, borrowers' payslips contain details of their repayments. If a borrower contacts the SLC, the company can provide an estimate of the amounts that have been repaid and what is outstanding using the information on the borrower's payslips. Borrowers can contact the SLC over the phone for this information.

  Self-employed borrowers receive their statements after making their self-assessment return to the Inland Revenue.

  The SLC is introducing a service by the end of November 2002 for borrowers under the income-contingent loan scheme who have nearly completed repayment of their loan. Based on a projection of earnings from the borrower, the SLC will tell the Inland Revenue when repayments should stop being collected. This is designed to prevent employers collecting too much and the borrower having to obtain a refund.

  Higher Education Access
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average extra cost is of a marginal student under the programme of widening access to higher education. [74669]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: The information requested is not available.
  39W
  We are determined to encourage more people from under-represented groups to enter higher education. Through the Excellence Challenge we are spending £190 million over 3 years to raise the attainment and aspirations of young people in some of the most deprived areas of the country. Our AimHigher campaign, which includes a roadshow for schools and colleges in Excellence Challenge areas is promoting the benefits of higher education. We have also introduced significant extra financial help for students who need it, including increasing Access and Hardship Funds fourfold, a child care grant and a travel books and equipment grant for student parents, and, as part of the Excellence Challenge, we have introduced Opportunity Bursaries for young people from low income backgrounds. We have also significantly increased support for part-time students through fee waivers and loans. Additionally the Higher Education Funding Council for England also provides significant funding for widening participation including the postcode premium for institutions which they increased to £41 million this year. Their funding for widening participation totals about £180 million in 2002–03, including student support.

  Student Numbers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average unit cost of capital to support increased student numbers is. [74670]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: Capital funding for FE colleges is not paid on a cost per student basis, so unit cost figures are not available. Where capital investment is needed for expansion of places, colleges can apply to the Learning and Skills Council for separate capital grants for specific projects. They may also fund capital from revenue funding for

  Area Based Initiative

  Website Address

  In year Budget for 2001–2002 (£m's)

  Neighbourhood Nurseries

  Not all areas decided yet but will cover 20% of wards selected as those with highest deprivation as per the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Index of multiple deprivation. Or pockets of equivalent deprivation.

  46

  Sure Start

  www.surestart.gov.uk

  206

  Education Action Zones

  www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/exellence

  90

  Children's Fund

  www.cypu.gov.uk

  85

  Community Champions

  www.dfes.gov.uk/communitychampions

  3

  Neighbourhood Support Fund

  www.dfes.gov.uk/nsf

  19

  Research (Primates)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the use of primates in research in British universities. [75630]

  Margaret Hodge
  Use of animals for research is regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This specifies that non-human primates can only be used where there are no alternatives. In addition to regulatory testing to help ensure the safety of medicines, non-human primates are also used for other important areas of fundamental research. For example they contribute to programmes of work relating to Parkinson's disease, visual impairment, stroke, diabetes, disorders of reproduction and vaccine
  40W
  students, through borrowing, and through Private Finance Initiative projects. Funding for the Further Education sector included no ear-marked capital in 1997–98; we plan to provide over £250 million in 2003–04.

  The Higher Education Funding Council for England provides capital funding for a variety of purposes, for example for improving poor estates, and providing access for students with disabilities. Higher education institutions are invited to bid for this funding. If capital investment is needed for the expansion of student places, higher education institutions are expected to fund this from recurrent grant, reserves, from charities, endowments or other gifts, through PPP/PFI projects or through borrowing. Our planned funding for the Higher Education sector included ear-marked capital of £256 million in 2001–02, rising to £364 million in 2003–04.

  Sponsorships
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the schemes and initiatives sponsored by her Department and its agencies which are not the subject of national roll out, showing(a) the authorities or areas covered by the scheme and (b)the budget of the scheme in the last year for which information is available. [75669]

  Estelle Morris
  Details of area based initiatives operated by my Department are set out below.

  The number of authorities or areas covered by these initiatives is too numerous to list here.

  Therefore, where available, website details are included.

  Budget details listed for each initiative are for financial year 2001–2002.

  development. Non-human primates were used in only 0.15 per cent. of regulated scientific procedures in 2001. Detailed information is available in the "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2001" which is published by the Stationery Office and is available on the Home Office website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/animalsinsp/index.htm.

  Funding
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what impact her Department's new funding options will have on redistributing funding to areas with high rates of poverty and low levels of educational achievement. [74959]
  41W
  Mr. Miliband
  In introducing the new funding system we want it to reflect better authorities' differing circumstances and needs. All the options are based on evidence that suggests that authorities with significant deprivation, and in particular poverty, need to spend significantly more to achieve the same results for their children. There are two options in which the main indicator for deprivation—the number of children of parents on income support—is supplemented by the numbers of children of parents in receipt of Working Families' Tax Credit. This picks up those children whose parents are in low paid work, and its aim is to reflect a wider definition of poverty. The distributional impact of the options is set out in the consultation document issued on 8 July by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what plans she has to introduce top-up fees; [75154]

  (2) what plans she has to increase the level of interest charged on student loans; [75159]

  (3) what plans she has to consult students on the review of student support; [75160]

  (4) if she will consider reintroducing targeted maintenance support for those students from the poorest backgrounds; [75161]

  (5) what plans there are to increase the threshold at which students are required to begin repaying their student loans. [75162]

  Number of childcare places created by Local Authority

  Local Authority

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  Barking & Dagenham

  523

  373

  15

  Barnet

  727

  1182

  172

  Barnsley

  451

  368

  55

  Bath & North East Somerset

  430

  516

  53

  Bedfordshire2

  1391

  1006

  N/K

  Bexley

  986

  487

  369

  Birmingham

  3105

  2235

  192

  Blackburn

  578

  645

  162

  Blackpool

  730

  429

  233

  Bolton

  1203

  462

  53

  Bournemouth

  394

  396

  20

  Bracknell Forest

  236

  503

  54

  Bradford

  7569

  1223

  91

  Brent

  754

  436

  145

  Brighton & Hove

  779

  462

  94

  Bromley

  874

  731

  15

  Buckinghamshire

  2767

  1613

  140

  Bury

  468

  628

  32

  Calderdale

  494

  563

  61

  Cambridgeshire

  2208

  1807

  972

  Camden

  801

  534

  0

  Cheshire

  2987

  1606

  245

  City of Bristol

  1023

  689

  950

  City of London

  278

  49

  15

  Cornwall

  2610

  2657

  578

  Coventry

  1212

  1142

  101

  Croydon

  1064

  913

  163

  Cumbria

  1287

  1049

  295

  Darlington

  435

  526

  223

  Derby

  661

  520

  47

  Derbyshire

  2496

  1897

  429

  Devon

  2845

  2249

  184

  Doncaster

  1006

  597

  76

  42W
  Margaret Hodge
  We have announced our intention to publish a strategy document setting out our 10-year vision for the development and reform of higher education, including the outcome of the review of student support. The document will be out shortly; it would not be right to pre-empt it here by saying what is or is not planned. Once the document is published there will be opportunity for all interested parties to comment.

  Schools Distribution
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many English settlements with a population of 3,000 have(a) one, (b) two, (c) three and (d) four or more (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools by broken down by region. [75180]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Care Places
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many child care places were created in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 to date broken down by county. [75181]

  Mr. Miliband
  Annex 1 shows the number of childcare places created in each local education authority area in 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03 to date. The available data has been collated from quarterly reports submitted by local authorities' Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships.
  43W

  Number of childcare places created by Local Authority

  Local Authority

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  Dorset

  712

  784

  212

  Dudley

  638

  823

  252

  Durham

  1861

  1344

  144

  Ealing

  935

  1152

  108

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1398

  745

  203

  East Sussex

  1697

  1699

  214

  Enfield

  593

  901

  195

  Essex

  3461

  2983

  616

  Gateshead

  791

  507

  55

  Gloucestershire

  3350

  3390

  154

  Greenwich

  1047

  939

  163

  Hackney

  592

  821

  307

  Halton

  548

  309

  m

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  459

  904

  29

  Hampshire

  7599

  6322

  500

  Haringey

  1399

  188

  56

  Harrow

  466

  229

  3

  Hartlepool

  307

  231

  88

  Havering

  361

  115

  17

  Herefordshire, County of

  509

  894

  115

  Hertfordshire

  2781

  2650

  532

  Hillingdon

  635

  870

  44

  Hounslow

  342

  299

  71

  Isle of Wight

  440

  472

  79

  Isles of Scilly

  59

  60

  12

  Islington

  519

  361

  23

  Kensington & Chelsea

  272

  167

  116

  Kent

  2668

  3822

  96

  Kingston upon Hull

  647

  727

  997

  Kingston upon Thames

  714

  206

  22

  Kirklees

  1275

  1328

  83

  Knowsley

  682

  531

  84

  Lambeth

  1474

  464

  36

  Lancashire

  3587

  4067

  375

  Leeds

  2224

  1291

  337

  Leicester

  485

  625

  48

  Leicestershire

  1705

  1057

  2509

  Lewisham

  350

  375

  6

  Lincolnshire

  1412

  1814

  831

  Liverpool

  955

  1213

  119

  Luton

  1092

  923

  350

  Manchester

  1109

  1142

  87

  Medway

  619

  528

  344

  Merton

  353

  298

  300

  Middlesbrough

  540

  269

  111

  Milton Keynes3

  1137

  N/K

  N/K

  NE Lincolnshire

  760

  344

  69

  Newbury/West Berkshire

  922

  589

  201

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  664

  717

  85

  Newham

  585

  598

  120

  Norfolk

  1529

  1628

  406

  North Lincolnshire

  187

  387

  64

  North Somerset

  747

  HV

  178

  North Tyneside

  651

  408

  35

  North Yorkshire

  2679

  1622

  177

  Northamptonshire

  2228

  1383

  216

  Northumberland

  797

  756

  57

  Nottingham

  663

  1026

  317

  Nottinghamshire

  2427

  2006

  538

  Oldham

  598

  1078

  73

  Oxfordshire

  1486

  1350

  811

  Peterborough

  1241

  843

  435

  Plymouth

  1520

  357

  512

  Poole

  301

  210

  117

  Portsmouth

  673

  960

  67

  Reading

  999

  424

  74

  Red bridge

  485

  354

  19

  Redcar & Cleveland

  347

  454

  101

  44W 45W

  Number of childcare places created by Local Authority

  Local Authority

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  Richmond upon Thames

  828

  736

  53

  Rochdale

  752

  564

  185

  Rotherham

  805

  511

  70

  Rutland

  316

  83

  15

  Salford

  721

  1116

  180

  Sandwell

  551

  536

  89

  Sefton

  405

  401

  174

  Sheffield

  1212

  1288

  90

  Shropshire

  914

  923

  122

  Slough

  304

  356

  133

  Solihull

  738

  654

  142

  Somerset

  1638

  2749

  212

  South Gloucestershire

  595

  582

  136

  South Tyneside

  385

  185

  73

  Southampton

  672

  727

  83

  Southend

  421

  288

  25

  Southwark

  940

  719

  53

  ST Helens

  479

  375

  154

  Staffordshire

  2313

  918

  359

  Stockport

  781

  424

  77

  Stockton-on-Tees

  380

  538

  98

  Stoke-on-Trent

  491

  620

  63

  Suffolk

  1009

  1427

  388

  Sunderland

  671

  377

  90

  Surrey

  3543

  2322

  1874

  Sutton

  875

  640

  14

  Swindon (Thamesdown)

  924

  437

  214

  Tameside

  513

  433

  283

  Telford & Wrekin

  644

  348

  183

  Thurrock

  510

  239

  64

  Torbay

  391

  251

  121

  Tower Hamlets

  356

  247

  72

  Trafford

  605

  1023

  36

  Wakefield

  533

  862

  174

  Walsall

  910

  671

  286

  Waltham Forest

  834

  975

  40

  Wandsworth

  464

  303

  182

  Warrington

  556

  298

  135

  Warwickshire

  754

  1160

  379

  West Sussex

  2989

  1817

  235

  Westminster

  1044

  327

  5

  Wigan

  700

  989

  360

  Wiltshire

  1734

  2149

  305

  Windsor & Maidenhead

  812

  1248

  108

  Wirral

  747

  684

  91

  Wokingham

  590

  690

  204

  Wolverhampton

  625

  784

  140

  Worcestershire

  2376

  1927

  270

  York

  1123

  1073

  139

  Notes:

  1 Figures for 2002–03 are for the period April to June 2002

  2 Bedfordshire—figures for 2002–03 have not been finalized

  3 Milton Keynes—figures for 2001–02 and 2002–03 have not been finalized

  Post-16 Education
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the study commissioned by the National Rates Advisory Group of the Learning and Skills Committee into the costs of disadvantage in post-16 education has been considered by the group. [75139]

  Margaret Hodge
  The work of the Learning and Skill Council's National Rates Advisory Group relates to the operational responsibilities of the Council. John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to 46W
  the hon. Member providing the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Small Schools Fund
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much of the Small Schools Fund was spent in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 to date, broken down by local education authority. [75188]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the original amounts allocated from the Small Schools Fund and the amounts finally accepted by each local education
  47W
  authority (LEA) for 2000–2001, 2001–2002 and 2002–2003. The table also show how much of their final allocation each LEA spent in 2000–2001. Expenditure

  Expenditure and allocations on Small Schools Fund 2000–2003

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  2002–2003

  Original Allocations

  Final Allocations

  Expenditure

  Original Allocations

  Final Allocations

  Original Allocations

  Final Allocations

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  201 City of London

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  202 Camden

  152,892

  152,892

  152,892

  136,245

  136,245

  136,000

  136,000

  203 Greenwich

  205,876

  202,845

  183,596

  216,390

  216,390

  248,000

  248,000

  204 Hackney

  110,504

  121,368

  119,687

  136,245

  136,245

  128,000

  128,000

  205 Hammersmith

  116,952

  116,952

  114,248

  136,245

  136,245

  144,000

  144,000

  206 Islington

  106,484

  106,484

  106,484

  120,216

  120,216

  112,000

  112,000

  207 Kensington & Chelsea

  82,862

  82,862

  80,486

  88,159

  88,159

  104,000

  104,000

  208 Lambeth

  233,647

  233,647

  233,344

  216,390

  216,390

  208,000

  208,000

  209 Lewisham

  159,211

  159,211

  158,298

  192,346

  192,346

  192,000

  192,000

  210 Southwark

  167,894

  167,894

  164,687

  208,375

  208,375

  208,000

  208,000

  211 Tower Hamlets

  199,750

  199,750

  182,371

  200,361

  200,361

  200,000

  200,000

  212 Wandsworth

  191,259

  191,259

  191,259

  192,346

  192,346

  192,000

  192,000

  213 Westminster

  159,147

  159,147

  141,312

  160,289

  160,289

  160,000

  160,000

  301 Barking

  33,961

  33,961

  33,202

  32,058

  32,058

  40,000

  40,000

  302 Barnet

  218,451

  25,000

  17,191

  168,303

  168,303

  184,000

  184,000

  303 Bexley

  116,759

  93,918

  74,722

  104,188

  104,188

  112,000

  112,000

  304 Brent

  91,546

  —

  —

  128,231

  0

  104,000

  0

  305 Bromley

  125,313

  125,313

  90,580

  144,260

  144,260

  168,000

  168,000

  306 Croydon

  195,279

  192,348

  187,822

  216,390

  216,390

  224,000

  224,000

  307 Ealing

  89,631

  89,631

  75,000

  136,245

  136,245

  144,000

  144,000

  308 Enfield

  68,180

  68,180

  47,863

  88,159

  88,159

  88,000

  88,000

  309 Haringey

  129,463

  129,463

  89,562

  136,245

  136,245

  128,000

  128,000

  310 Harrow

  44,558

  44,558

  44,372

  56,101

  56,101

  48,000

  48,000

  311 Havering

  91,288

  91,288

  88,652

  104,188

  104,188

  112,000

  112,000

  312 Hillingdon

  175,870

  175,870

  165,424

  160,289

  160,289

  136,000

  136,000

  313 Hounslow

  144,272

  144,272

  139,083

  160,289

  160,289

  160,000

  160,000

  314 Kingston upon Thames

  95,436

  73,728

  73,728

  72,130

  72,130

  64,000

  64,000

  315 Merton

  190,552

  157,989

  156,498

  168,303

  168,303

  160,000

  160,000

  316 Newham

  55,606

  55,606

  53,254

  112,202

  112,202

  120,000

  120,000

  317Redbridge

  42,581

  41,061

  40,555

  72,130

  72,130

  72,000

  72,000

  318 Richmond upon Thames

  101,692

  101,692

  92,972

  96,173

  96,173

  96,000

  96,000

  319 Sutton

  80,691

  80,691

  79,334

  88,159

  88,159

  80,000

  80,000

  320 Waltham Forest

  125,185

  106,227

  101,815

  168,303

  168,303

  176,000

  176,000

  330 Birmingham

  777,418

  758,038

  750,857

  913,645

  913,645

  992,000

  992,000

  331 Coventry

  220,751

  220,751

  204,557

  232,418

  232,418

  272,000

  272,000

  332 Dudley

  106,355

  —

  —

  144,260

  144,260

  136,000

  136,000

  333 Sandwell

  273,606

  —

  —

  256,462

  256,462

  216,000

  216,000

  334 Solihull

  152,763

  152,763

  115,859

  136,245

  136,245

  128,000

  128,000

  335 Walsall

  280,183

  280,183

  274,330

  232,418

  232,418

  280,000

  280,000

  336 Wolverhampton

  273,864

  273,864

  265,098

  288,519

  288,519

  280,000

  280,000

  340 Knowsley

  171,915

  171,915

  171,913

  152,274

  152,274

  136,000

  136,000

  341 Liverpool

  538,979

  538,979

  517,843

  536,967

  536,967

  576,000

  576,000

  342St. Helens

  178,427

  128,498

  128,498

  200,361

  200,361

  184,000

  184,000

  343 Sefton

  329,019

  329,019

  297,083

  328,591

  328,591

  344,000

  344,000

  344 Wirral

  218,901

  203,811

  188,407

  280,505

  280,505

  328,000

  328,000

  350 Bolton

  292,887

  272,546

  245,600

  304,548

  304,548

  344,000

  344,000

  351 Bury

  182,512

  136,924

  132,286

  200,361

  0

  192,000

  192,000

  352 Manchester

  456,504

  456,504

  424,275

  424,765

  424,765

  424,000

  424,000

  353 Oldham

  297,164

  297,164

  297,164

  280,505

  280,505

  320,000

  320,000

  354 Rochdale

  200,007

  200,007

  197,487

  256,462

  256,462

  272,000

  272,000

  355 Salford

  255,227

  255,227

  241,105

  384,692

  384,692

  272,000

  272,000

  356 Stockport

  329,147

  329,147

  318,899

  376,678

  330,000

  384,000

  384,000

  357 Tameside

  248,328

  240,460

  214,582

  264,476

  264,476

  256,000

  256,000

  358 Trafford

  224,899

  224,899

  170,628

  224,404

  224,404

  224,000

  224,000

  359 Wigan

  363,110

  363,110

  353,318

  368,664

  368,664

  376,000

  376,000

  370 Barnsley

  354,169

  344,182

  304,414

  288,519

  288,519

  280,000

  280,000

  371 Doncaster

  295,057

  295,057

  274,403

  304,548

  304,548

  344,000

  344,000

  372 Rotherham

  479,611

  479,611

  466,702

  440,793

  440,793

  464,000

  464,000

  373 Sheffield

  479,546

  479,546

  476,849

  416,750

  416,750

  376,000

  376,000

  380 Bradford

  1,137,183

  1,137,183

  1,016,003

  1,049,890

  1,049,890

  432,000

  432,000

  381 Calderdale

  430,583

  423,738

  398,452

  384,692

  384,692

  400,000

  400,000

  382 Kirklees

  695,956

  689,235

  688,004

  673,212

  673,212

  704,000

  704,000

  383 Leeds

  689,249

  689,249

  670,427

  657,183

  657,183

  768,000

  768,000

  384 Wakefield

  562,409

  533,623

  533,623

  536,967

  536,967

  544,000

  544,000

  48W
  figures for 2001–2002 and 2002–2003 are not available. The figures include both Government grant and LEA contributions.
  49W

  Expenditure and allocations on Small Schools Fund 2000–2003

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  2002–2003

  Original Allocations

  Final Allocations

  Expenditure

  Original Allocations

  Final Allocations

  Original Allocations

  Final Allocations

  390 Gateshead

  348,170

  348,170

  339,090

  328,591

  328,591

  336,000

  336,000

  391 Newcastle upon Tyne

  331,126

  —

  —

  328,591

  328,591

  376,000

  376,000

  392 North Tyneside

  205,876

  205,876

  205,876

  232,418

  232,418

  216,000

  216,000

  393 South Tyneside

  184,875

  184,875

  184,712

  224,404

  224,404

  208,000

  208,000

  394 Sunderland

  272,208

  272,208

  269,093

  320,577

  320,577

  328,000

  328,000

  420 Isles of Scilly

  42,452

  42,452

  41,963

  40,072

  40,072

  40,000

  40,000

  800 Bath & NE Somerset

  390,559

  370,023

  369,674

  376,678

  376,678

  392,000

  392,000

  801 City of Bristol

  446,164

  —

  —

  544,981

  0

  520,000

  50,000

  802 North Somerset

  312,038

  303,658

  303,658

  264,476

  264,476

  280,000

  280,000

  803 South Gloucestershire

  356,725

  337,418

  297,204

  320,577

  320,577

  328,000

  328,000

  805 Hartlepool

  89,181

  89,181

  76,960

  96,173

  96,173

  104,000

  104,000

  806 Middlesbrough

  78,392

  -

  -

  80,144

  0

  88,000

  0

  807 Redcar and Cleveland

  165,209

  163,124

  160,730

  168,303

  168,303

  168,000

  168,000

  808 Stockton-on-Tees

  231,154

  224,800

  202,912

  192,346

  192,346

  232,000

  232,000

  810 Kingston-upon-Hull

  150,977

  148,702

  141,515

  200,361

  200,361

  200,000

  200,000

  811 East Riding of Yorkshire

  724,048

  724,048

  714,257

  713,284

  713,284

  712,000

  712,000

  812 North East Lincolnshire

  184,682

  184,682

  180,073

  160,289

  160,289

  208,000

  208,000

  813 North Lincolnshire

  347,978

  347,978

  306,192

  336,606

  336,606

  328,000

  328,000

  815 North Yorkshire

  2,194,221

  2,194,221

  1,944,971

  2,131,837

  1,975,837

  2,168,000

  2,168,000

  816 York

  305,397

  302,513

  269,305

  264,476

  264,476

  248,000

  248,000

  820 Bedfordshire

  1,115,169

  914,687

  914,686

  1,170,106

  1,170,106

  1,184,000

  1,184,000

  821 Luton

  186,660

  177,977

  166,399

  168,303

  168,303

  144,000

  144,000

  825 Buckinghamshire

  921,690

  921,690

  921,690

  1,001,803

  1,001,803

  960,000

  960,000

  826 Milton Keynes

  326,913

  326,913

  322,154

  384,692

  384,692

  368,000

  368,000

  830 Derbyshire

  2,151,448

  2,151,448

  2,014,807

  1,907,433

  1,907,433

  1,944,000

  1,944,000

  831 Derby

  259,054

  259,054

  253,911

  304,548

  304,548

  288,000

  288,000

  835 Dorset

  916,384

  916,384

  867,846

  937,688

  937,688

  920,000

  920,000

  836 Poole

  44,558

  44,557

  43,979

  48,087

  48,087

  56,000

  56,000

  837 Bournemouth

  33,961

  33,961

  1,363

  40,072

  40,072

  32,000

  32,000

  840 Durham

  1,537,469

  1,537,469

  1,537,469

  1,578,842

  1,578,842

  1,536,000

  1,536,000

  841 Darlington

  100,035

  100,035

  92,185

  128,231

  128,231

  120,000

  120,000

  845 East Sussex

  732,474

  732,474

  727,479

  721,298

  721,298

  720,000

  720,000

  846 Brighton & Hove

  188,895

  141,137

  140,750

  192,346

  192,346

  200,000

  200,000

  850 Hampshire

  1,656,143

  1,048,681

  963,312

  1,739,130

  1,739,130

  1,744,000

  1,744,000

  851 Portsmouth

  136,039

  136,039

  136,039

  160,289

  160,289

  160,000

  160,000

  852 Southampton

  216,794

  209,768

  209,768

  248,447

  248,447

  232,000

  232,000

  855 Leicestershire

  1,070,996

  1,070,996

  1,025,047

  1,065,919

  1,065,919

  1,024,000

  1,024,000

  856 Leicester

  186,596

  -

  -

  184,332

  0

  168,000

  0

  857 Rutland

  133,676

  34,250

  34,250

  120,216

  120,216

  120,000

  120,000

  860 Staffordshire

  1,560,513

  1,560,513

  1,558,341

  1,610,900

  1,610,900

  1,640,000

  1,640,000

  861 Stoke-on-Trent

  259,569

  238,948

  233,847

  336,606

  336,606

  296,000

  296,000

  865 Wiltshire

  1,313,519

  1,190,064

  1,183,881

  1,282,308

  1,282,308

  1,288,000

  1,288,000

  866 Swindon

  256,818

  256,818

  256,818

  240,433

  240,433

  200,000

  200,000

  867 Bracknell Forest

  80,691

  80,691

  68,688

  104,188

  104,188

  112,000

  112,000

  868 Windsor & Maidenhead

  333,039

  313,827

  299,133

  352,635

  352,635

  352,000

  352,000

  869 West Berkshire

  369,429

  369,429

  335,934

  384,692

  384,692

  384,000

  384,000

  870 Reading

  144,401

  144,401

  127,933

  176,317

  176,317

  192,000

  192,000

  871 Slough

  95,630

  89,867

  83,607

  128,231

  128,231

  128,000

  128,000

  872 Wokingham

  256,690

  256,690

  239,677

  208,375

  208,375

  232,000

  232,000

  873 Cambridgeshire

  915,114

  915,114

  883,953

  937,688

  937,688

  944,000

  944,000

  874 Peterborough

  146,572

  101,806

  99,590

  160,289

  160,289

  168,000

  168,000

  875 Cheshire

  1,464,112

  277,000

  262,222

  1,346,424

  1,346,424

  1,392,000

  1,392,000

  876 Halton

  240,095

  240,095

  236,840

  280,505

  280,505

  288,000

  288,000

  877 Warrington

  271,499

  271,499

  271,293

  232,418

  232,418

  256,000

  256,000

  878 Devon

  1,944,301

  1,548,070

  1,509,227

  1,931,477

  1,681,477

  1,896,000

  1,896,000

  879 Plymouth

  238,118

  164,309

  159,489

  296,534

  165,278

  336,000

  170,000

  880 Torbay

  106,162

  104,070

  94,837

  104,188

  104,188

  104,000

  104,000

  881 Essex

  1,988,731

  1,988,731

  1,968,861

  1,867,361

  1,867,361

  1,896,000

  1,896,000

  882 Southend-on-Sea

  80,755

  80,755

  80,755

  88,159

  88,159

  80,000

  80,000

  883 Thurrock

  129,269

  129,269

  129,269

  104,188

  104,188

  128,000

  128,000

  884 Herefordshire

  621,713

  621,713

  613,176

  601,082

  601,082

  608,000

  608,000

  885 Worcestershire

  1,223,823

  1,223,823

  1,223,823

  1,274,294

  1,274,294

  1,288,000

  1,288,000

  886 Kent

  2,031,119

  2,012,823

  1,983,517

  2,067,722

  2,067,722

  2,080,000

  2,080,000

  887 Medway Towns

  188,895

  180,235

  165,708

  240,433

  240,433

  264,000

  264,000

  888 Lancashire

  2,607,775

  2,522,852

  2,421,449

  2,708,876

  2,708,876

  2,704,000

  2,704,000

  889 Blackburn with Darwen

  216,794

  216,794

  198,784

  240,433

  240,433

  224,000

  224,000

  890 Blackpool

  65,752

  64,233

  64,230

  80,144

  80,144

  80,000

  80,000

  891 Nottinghamshire

  1,685,810

  1,430,555

  1,375,308

  1,498,698

  1,498,698

  1,544,000

  1,544,000

  892 Nottingham City

  479,033

  479,033

  450,034

  448,808

  448,808

  464,000

  464,000

  893 Shropshire

  920,726

  661,800

  661,800

  857,544

  857,544

  880,000

  880,000

  894 Telford & Wrekin

  286,439

  286,439

  286,429

  280,505

  280,505

  280,000

  280,000

  50W 51W

  Expenditure and allocations on Small Schools Fund 2000–2003

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  2002–2003

  Original Allocations

  Final Allocations

  Expenditure

  Original Allocations

  Final Allocations

  Original Allocations

  Final Allocations

  908 Cornwall

  1,506,564

  1,506,564

  1,506,564

  1,410,539

  1,410,539

  1,400,000

  1,400,000

  909 Cumbria

  1,986,368

  1,459,416

  1,454,049

  1,907,433

  1,907,433

  1,928,000

  1,928,000

  916 Gloucestershire

  1,381,764

  1,220,767

  1,209,687

  1,378,481

  1,378,481

  1,440,000

  1,440,000

  919 Hertfordshire

  2,081,032

  2,081,032

  2,079,207

  1,851,332

  1,851,332

  1,792,000

  1,792,000

  921 Isle of Wight

  398,405

  398,405

  238,852

  408,736

  408,736

  408,000

  408,000

  925 Lincolnshire

  1,875,156

  1,798,418

  1,773,608

  1,867,361

  1,867,361

  1,832,000

  1,832,000

  926 Norfolk

  2,313,023

  2,233,023

  2,233,023

  2,179,924

  2,179,924

  2,168,000

  2,168,000

  928 Northamptonshire

  1,527,435

  1,164,905

  1,152,800

  1,538,770

  1,538,770

  1,520,000

  1,520,000

  929 Northumberland

  1,331,063

  1,055,366

  1,050,379

  1,306,351

  1,306,351

  1,328,000

  1,328,000

  931 Oxfordshire

  1,528,272

  1,528,272

  1,524,516

  1,546,784

  1,546,784

  1,608,000

  1,608,000

  933 Somerset

  1,383,549

  1,383,549

  1,383,549

  1,370,467

  1,370,467

  1,360,000

  1,360,000

  935 Suffolk

  1,757,432

  1,381,877

  1,381,680

  1,739,130

  1,739,130

  1,728,000

  1,728,000

  936 Surrey

  1,468,839

  1,073,063

  1,073,063

  1,474,654

  1,474,654

  1,520,000

  1,520,000

  937 Warwickshire

  1,014,700

  1,014,700

  1,012,425

  1,081,948

  1,081,948

  1,008,000

  1,008,000

  938 West Sussex

  1,048,532

  1,048,532

  1,034,813

  1,081,948

  1,081,948

  1,136,000

  1,136,000

  79,999,945

  72,201,944

  69,836,946

  80,000,000

  78,278,018

  80,000,000

  79,004,000

DEFENCE

  Software
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is towards using open source software; and what percentage is used in his Department. [69327]

  Dr. Moonie
  Software applications used in the Ministry of Defence are selected on their ability to meet business needs, taking full account of value for money, long-term viability, security and interoperability. The MOD currently has no explicit policy on the use of open source software, but does follow the Government Open Source Software policy published and announced in Parliament on 22 July 2002. This policy is available on the e-Envoy website (www.e-envoy.gov.uk) or the Office of Government Commerce website (www.ogc.gov.uk). A record of open source software in use across the Department is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what public consultations have been commenced by his Department since 1 April; and what the(a) closing date and (b) website address of each were. [72071]

  Dr. Moonie
  None.

  Strategic Sealift
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (1) pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2001,Official Report, column 359W, on strategic sealift, if he will list the reasons for his issuing a ministerial direction; and if he will make a statement; [74652]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 9 March 2001, Official Report, column 359W, on strategic sealift, if he will place the advice of his accounting officer of 8 March 2001 in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [74653]

  Dr. Moonie
  The reasons for the Ministerial Direction on the Roll-On Roll-Off ferry (RORO) Strategic Sealift are as follows. In October 2000, AWSR Shipping Ltd 52W
  were selected as the preferred bidder in the PFI competition to provide the Ministry of Defence with a strategic sealift service of six ships. Their bid involved subcontracts with the German company Flensburger for four ships and Harland & Wolff for two. The bid had the particular advantage of early delivery. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, (Mr. Hoon) announced on 9 March 2001, Official Report, column 359W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) difficulties arose in the detailed commercial arrangements which could have threatened the timely completion of the PFI negotiations and early delivery of the service to the MOD. My right hon. Friend, Mr. Hoon, therefore decided that the MOD would take over the commercial shipbuilding contract with H&W, as part of the overall PFI arrangements. The contract would be managed by AWSR and on delivery of the ships to them, AWSR would provide the full six ship service on PFI terms.

  This approach was not foreseen as part of the original PFI deal and officials were concerned about the potential risks to the MOD arising from the decision. Ministers judged that, on balance, these risks were outweighed by the risk of losing the benefits of the original AWSR bid involving H&W, including timely delivery.

  The procedures surrounding Ministerial Directions and the responsibilities of Accounting Officers in this area are set out in the Accounting Officer Memorandum. The Memorandum requires an Accounting Officer in receipt of a Direction from a Minister to comply with his instructions. The Accounting Officer is then required to inform the Treasury of what has occurred and should communicate the papers to the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) without delay. On receipt of such material it is for the C&AG to determine what action to take. These procedures exist to protect the relationship between Ministers and officials while at the same time enabling the C&AG to consider, on behalf of Parliament, whether further investigation is required.

  The circumstances surrounding the RORO Direction were duly communicated to the Comptroller and Auditor General and we understand that the C&AG

  53W
  subsequently conveyed them to the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. As the established procedures have been correctly followed, I am withholding the advice tendered by my Accounting Officer on 8 March 2001 in accordance with Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, relating to internal discussion and advice.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 September 2002,Official Report, column 322W, on nuclear weapons accident exercises (a) what assessment has taken place of the exercises and (b) what recommendations have been put forward for the nuclear weapons accident exercises his Department held at (i) Convoy NAR team standardisation and (ii) RAF Station NAR team standardisation; and if he will make a statement. [75394]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Convoy NAR team Standardisation Exercise held in Leicestershire in August and the RAF Station NAR team Standardisation Exercise held in Northamptonshire in September were both assessed as SATISFACTORY. A number of recommendations have been made which include arrangements for the reception and interface with emergency services, the deployment of Convoy resources, command and control, and media handling issues. The UK/US Table Top Exercise held in Norfolk in October was not an assessed exercise. The RAF NAR team Standardisation Exercise in Suffolk has taken place but the assessment report has yet to be written.

  Royal Military Music School
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had in the last year, on the future of the Royal Military Music School, Kneller Hall, Twickenham; and if he will make a statement. [75115]

  Dr. Moonie
  There have been no Ministerial discussions on the future of the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller Hall within the last year. However, the school is part of the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst (RMAS) budgetary grouping and the Army Training and Recruiting Agency, which is responsible for RMAS and Kneller Hall, are examining options for the future provision of the services provided there. Once a way forward on these is agreed, interested parties will be kept informed.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement about the Defence Fire Services PPP and Fire Study 2000; [75086]

  (2) what savings he anticipates as a result of the PPP on Defence Fire Services; [75093]

  (3) when he intends to announce the outcome of the study in the prioritisation of air base services including the Defence Fire Service. [75090]
  54W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Airfield Support Services Project (ASSP) is seeking to achieve the most viable and cost effective solution for the provision of airfield support, and wider fire services, to the Ministry of Defence world-wide, without compromising operational effectiveness or safety. The options include both PPP and in-house solutions.

  The Fire Study 2000 is specifically to review the current organisation of the Defence Fire Services and to develop an optimum strategy for meeting the Department's current and future requirements for Fire Risk management. The results of Fire Study 2000 will inform the in-house Public Sector Comparator (PSC) for ASSP.

  The Airfield Support Services Project is currently in the detailed assessment phase. The outcome of this phase of the work will provide a clearer view of the expected savings and benefits of the various options. A decision on the outcome of ASSP is expected to be announced in the second half of 2003.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use will be made of(a) Defence Fire Services and (b) RAF Fire Service in the event of a local authority firemen's strike. [75089]

  Mr. Ingram
  Defence Fire Service personnel have been providing advice and training to the Armed Forces as part of the contingency preparations for a potential national firemen's strike. They will continue to provide advice to Military Commanders deployed on Op FRESCO, should there be a strike, undertake duties at military headquarters in support of the deployment and will also contribute towards the provision of fire cover on the Ministry of Defence estate. Elements of the RAF Fire Service who have specialist skills will, in the event of a strike, be deployed around the country to assist in the provision of emergency fire and rescue cover.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about Operation Fresco military assistance to the civil powers in the event of a local authority firemen's strike; and what effect this would have on military capabilities. [75083]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Armed Forces role during any strike by firemen would be to provide emergency cover, thus seeking to save lives and ensure that essential services were maintained. They would not be capable of replicating the current fire fighting capability. Assistance would be provided to and at the request of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and not the civil power.

  Obviously, Op FRESCO would place an added burden on Service personnel who have been particularly busy over the last few years performing their primary duties. Any deployment to provide emergency fire and rescue cover would impact on their ability to continue those duties, but emergency cover would, as far as possible, be maintained for as long as the strike continued and balanced with other demands on military resources.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost to the public purse for each of the last five years of(a) the Defence Fire Service, (b) the RAF Fire Service and (c) the RN Fire Service. [75091]
  55W
  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions he has had with the USAF about the privatisation of Defence Fire Services at US Air bases in the UK; [75087]

  (2) what steps he has taken to ensure that the US Air Force is content with the proposed contractorisation of fire services at air bases in the UK. [75088]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ministry of Defence officials have been in discussion with US Air Force officials about the Airfield Support Services Project from its early stages. The dialogue is ongoing.

  The US Air Force requirements were included in the Invitation to Tender, against which the Consortia were invited to bid. Every effort will be made to ensure that the Project meets their requirements.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which local authority fire services are assisting commercial companies in the preparation of bids for the privatisation of Defence fire services; [75084]

  (2) under what authority the West Midlands Fire Service is assisting one of the consortia bidding for the Defence Fire Services contract. [75085]

  Mr. Ingram
  West Midlands Fire Service is working as a partner of one of the Consortia bidding for the Airfield Support Services Project contract.

  It would be for the West Midland Fire Service to comment on their relationship with any commercial organisation.

  Belfast City Cemetery
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the re-instating of the headstones of the war graves situated in Belfast City Cemetery which were removed after being vandalised in 1979; and if he will make a statement. [75068]

  Dr. Moonie
  Ministers take a close interest in the proper maintenance of war graves wherever they are, but this is a matter for Belfast City Council and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

  Fire Study 2000
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings in costs are envisaged in the Fire Study 2000. [75092]

  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not yet available. Fire Study 2000 continues to be developed to inform a robust Public Sector Comparator for the Airfield Support Services Project. When the Study is complete we will have a clearer view of the potential savings.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 October, Ref 36810, what reasons underlay the length of time needed to provide a substantive reply. [76176]
  56W
  Dr. Moonie
  I apologise for the lengthy delay in replying which was due to an administrative error.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the written questions asked of him between(a) 1 to 30 June 2001, (b) 1 to 31 July 2001, (c) 1 to 30 September 2001, (d) 1 to 31 October 2001, (e) 1 to 30 November 2001, (f) 1 to 31 December 2001, (g) 1 to 31 January 2002, (h) 1 to 28 February 2002, (i) 1 to 31 March 2002 and (j) 1 to 30 April 2002 that had not received a substantive answer by 30 April; and if he will state (i) the name of the hon. Member asking the question and (ii) the reasons the question had not received a substantive answer. [54087]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding reply 2 May 2002]: The number of questions that have not received a substantive answer is set out in the table below.

  Month

  No still to receive a substantive reply

  1–20 June 2001

  Nil

  1–31 July 2001

  1

  1–30 September 2001

  0

  1–31 October 2001

  2

  1–30 November 2001

  3

  1–31 December 2001

  1

  1–31 January 2002

  13

  1–28 February 2002

  25

  1–31 March 2002

  29

  1–30 April 2002

  11

  Officials are working to provide substantive answers to the questions as soon as possible. In some cases the information is not immediately available in the form requested, and additional time is required to answer.

  Ministers aim to answer named day written questions on the day named and ordinary written questions within five working days.

  The name of the hon. Member asking the question could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  HAARP Programme
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the HAARP programme; and what contribution Britain is making to it. [75022]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is fully aware of the HAARP project. However the MOD has made no specific assessment of the project for defence purposes nor has it contributed towards it.

  Military Trucks
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the contract for military trucks. [75028]

  Dr. Moonie
  Bids for the military trucks contract were received from four companies on 25 June 2002 and are currently being assessed.

  Staff Relocation
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the decision to agree in principle the relocation of DST L staff from Winfrith has taken into account the
  57W
  economic impact (a) on rural areas and (b) of supporting locally based defence contractors in the South Dorset area. [75939]

  Dr. Moonie
  A Regional Impact Assessment was carried out by staff in the office of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) Director General Management and Organisation. The assessment concluded that the loss of approximately one hundred jobs from the Winfrith area, though regrettable, should not significantly affect the area in the longer term. The plans do though, offer significant benefits to Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) and MOD in terms of improved technical synergy and operational effectiveness and also to staff through better career development opportunities.

  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has conducted to assess the cost benefits to be gained from moving DSTL staff from Winfrith to Portsdown Main; and what evidence has been gathered to prove the scientific benefits of co-location of staff. [75940]

  Dr. Moonie
  Options for the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) site rationalisation were considered on the issues of improved technical synergy and operational effectiveness and on affordability. The selected option demonstrates the greatest improvements in technical synergy and operational efficiency while remaining affordable.

  To examine the financial benefits, an investment appraisal model was produced. To meet Treasury requirements financial modelling has to cover a 25-year period. Dstl plans fully meet all Ministry of Defence and Treasury financial targets. This appraisal has been subject to an independent review by the MOD Senior Economic Adviser.

  Studies show that to preserve, sustain and develop the essential technical capabilities found in Dstl a critical mass of staff is required that cannot be achieved with the current dispersed organisation. Geographical fragmentation of the workforce inhibits our ability to build technical excellence and the dispersion of staff significantly degrades the effectiveness and efficiency of the organisation.

  Dartmoor National Park
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will renegotiate the leasing arrangements with the Duchy of Cornwall to exclude the two highest points in the Dartmoor National Park for live firing purposes. [74933]

  Dr. Moonie
  The implications of the Ministry of Defence's use of Yes Tor and High Willhays are currently under consideration and officials will meet shortly with Duchy representatives to discuss the position.

  Gulf War
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the pension award made to the former Territorial Army medical auxiliary Shaun Rusling following illness he suffered after the Gulf War. [75461]
  58W
  Dr. Moonie
  Ex-Reserve Forces personnel who have served during the Gulf conflict, and who are injured or fall ill as a result of that Service, may be entitled to benefits under the War Pensions Scheme and the Reserve Forces (Attributable Benefits etc) Regulations. It would not be appropriate for the Ministry of Defence to disclose details of the benefits awarded to Mr. Shaun Rusling under these schemes, as they are of a personal and private nature. I am therefore withholding them in accordance with Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Afghanistan
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) murders and (b) kidnappings have taken place in Kabul in each month since ISAF was established. [75223]

  Mr. Ingram
  We do not hold the information requested.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Housing (Right to Buy)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place a copy of the research commissioned by his Department by the universities of Bristol and Birmingham into the impact of the February 1999 changes to the limits on right to buy discounts in the Library. [74821]

  Mr. McNulty
  A copy of the report will be placed in the library of the House when it is published. This is expected to be early in 2003.

  Alconbury Airfield
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will decide on the Planning Inspectorate's report concerning the proposed development at Alconbury Airfield, Cambridgeshire. [74834]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Inspector's report has not yet been sent to the Deputy Prime Minister for decision. At this stage, therefore, it is not possible to say when the decision will be issued.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities are in the Fire Service; and what targets have been set in this area.

  Mr. Leslie
  As at 31 March 2002 there were 6,277 women and 1,040 staff from minority ethnic background in the fire service in England and Wales as a whole. The following table shows the breakdown by service areas:
  59W

  Operational Staff (Uniformed) (Wholetime and Retained)

  Control Staff (Uniformed)

  Total Uniformed Staff

  Non Uniformed 4248

  Total

  Women

  806

  1223

  2029

  4248

  6277

  Percentage of total employed in service area

  1.7%

  80%

  4%

  59%

  11.0%

  Minority Ethnic Staff

  698

  13

  711

  329

  1040

  Percentage of total employed in service area

  1.5%

  0.85%

  1.4%

  4.6%

  1.8%

  Fire service targets are to work towards 15 per cent. of operational staff to be women by 2009, and 7 per cent. of the uniformed and 8 per cent. of the non uniformed work force to be from minority ethnic background, also by 2009.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many incidents firemen were called out to for each of the last five years, broken down by fire authority. [75178]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have placed the information on incidents attended by Local Authority Fire Brigades in the UK for the last five years for which data are available in the library of the House.

  South Gloucestershire

  Population as at 30 June

  Population group used in 2002–3 formulae for service block

  (rounded to the nearest hundred)

  2001

  2000

  Education

  PSS1

  Police

  Fire

  Highways Maintenance

  EPCS2

  Total resident population

  246000

  247900

  ✓

  ✓

  ✓

  ✓

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident population aged 0 to 4

  15200

  15800

  ✓

  Resident population aged 0 to 15

  51100

  51200

  ✓

  Resident population aged 0 to 17

  57100

  56700

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident population aged 5 to 10

  19900

  20000

  ✓

  Resident population aged 11 to 15

  16000

  15400

  ✓

  Resident population aged 16 to 24

  23600

  23400

  ✓

  Resident population aged 18 to 64

  153400

  156300

  ✓

  Resident population aged 65 to 74

  19900

  19700

  ✓

  Resident population aged 75 to 84

  11800

  11300

  ✓

  Resident population aged 11 and over

  210900

  212100

  ✓

  Resident population aged 65 and over

  35500

  34900

  ✓

  Resident population aged 85 and over

  3900

  4000

  ✓

  The population of working age3

  147300

  150200

  ✓

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident males aged 18 to 64

  76600

  79900

  ✓

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident females aged 18 to 59

  70700

  70300

  ✓

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident males aged 0

  1400

  1500

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident males aged 1 to 4

  6500

  6700

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident males aged 5 to 9

  8500

  8500

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident males aged 10 to 14

  8400

  8000

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident males aged 15 to 19

  7600

  7000

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident males aged 20 to 24

  6200

  6600

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident males aged 25 to 29

  7600

  8700

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident males aged 30 to 34

  9700

  10900

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident males aged 35 to 39

  10800

  11300

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident males aged 40 to 44

  9200

  9200

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident males aged 45 to 49

  7900

  7900

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident males aged 50 to 54

  8600

  9000

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident males aged 55 to 59

  7700

  7400

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident males aged 60 to 64

  6100

  6200

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident males aged 65 to 69

  5200

  5200

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident males aged 70 to 74

  4300

  4300

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident females aged 0

  1400

  1500

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident females aged 1 to 4

  6000

  6200

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident females aged 5 to 9

  8000

  8300

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident females aged 10 to 14

  7900

  7600

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident females aged 15 to 19

  6700

  6500

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident females aged 20 to 24

  6200

  6200

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident females aged 25 to 29

  7900

  8300

  ✓

  ✓

  60W

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which elements of the local government funding formula are based on data derived from the Census; and what are, for each of the main local government spending blocks that use such data,(a) the latest sub-population estimate used for South Gloucestershire Unitary Authority in the most recent settlement and (b) the corresponding estimate from the 2001 census. [74850]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information requested is given in the table below. The most recent settlement, for the year 2002–03, used population estimates as at 30 June 2000. The corresponding figures for 30 June 2001, derived from the 2001 census, are also given.
  61W

  South Gloucestershire

  Population as at 30 June

  Population group used in 2002–3 formulae for service block

  (rounded to the nearest hundred)

  2001

  2000

  Education

  PSS1

  Police

  Fire

  Highways Maintenance

  EPCS2

  Resident females aged 30 to 34

  10200

  10400

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident females aged 35 to 39

  10800

  10500

  /

  ✓

  Resident females aged 40 to 44

  8900

  8500

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident females aged 45 to 49

  8100

  7800

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident females aged 50 to 54

  8600

  8600

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident females aged 55 to 59

  7700

  7500

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident females aged 60 to 64

  6100

  6100

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident females aged 65 to 69

  5600

  5700

  ✓

  ✓

  Resident females aged 70 to 74

  4700

  4600

  ✓

  ✓

  1 Personal Social Services

  2 Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services

  3 Resident population of working age = resident males aged 18 to 64 plus resident females aged 18 to 59

  Poultry Units
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will issue planning guidance to local authorities concerning the erection of mobile and static free-range poultry units. [72376]

  Mr. McNulty
  We have no plans to issue specific planning guidance on this issue. Advice about agriculture-related development, including temporary agricultural structures, is contained in Annex C of Planning Policy Guidance Note 7,The Countryside.

  Disability Facilities Grant
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the eligibility criteria for disability facilities grant. [73074]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local housing authorities have a statutory duty under the Housing Grants, Regeneration and Construction Act 1996 to offer mandatory Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) to homeowners and tenants in both the private and social rented sectors who require adaptations to help them live independently in their homes. The range of purposes for which the grants are available are set out at section 23(1) of the 1996 Act.

  In June the Government issued a consultative document, Housing Renewal Guidance, which contains more detail and guidance on DFG eligibility at annex D. A copy of the guidance has been placed in the library of the House.

  Rough Sleepers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many under-16s are living rough in(a) West Sussex and (b) London; and what plans he has to reduce this number. [75559]

  Mrs. Roche
  As far as we are aware, our information which includes street counts and client lists, suggests that there are no under 16s sleeping rough. Voluntary sector workers are highly skilled and, if they knew of a child under the age of 16 sleeping rough, they would immediately liaise with the local police and local authority social services department.

  However, the Government is aware that there are a large number of children who run away each year. The SEU is shortly publishing a report which considers the immediate safety of young runaways and examines the policies and services available to young runaways or those at risk of running.
  62W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also worked closely with the Connexions Service to produce guidance for homelessness agencies working with vulnerable young people to deliver effective services for 13 to 19 year-olds.

  Vacant Council Houses
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many vacant council houses, by local authority area, there are in West Sussex; and what plans he has to work with West Sussex County Council to reduce the vacancy numbers. [75557]

  Mr. McNulty
  The number of vacant council houses, by local authority area, in West Sussex at 1 April 2001 (latest data available) is shown in the table below.

  Local authority vacant dwellings in West Sussex by local authority area at 1 April 2001

  Local authority

  LA vacant dwellings

  Adur

  9

  Arun

  22

  Chichester

  -

  Crawley

  63

  Horsham

  -

  Mid Sussex

  -

  Worthing

  -

  Total

  94

  Notes:

  Chichester, Horsham, Mid Sussex and Worthing no longer own any dwelling stock, having transferred them through the Large Scale Voluntary Transfer (LSVT) scheme.

  Source:

  ODPM's 2001 Housing Strategy Statistical Appendices completed by local authorities.

  On 1 April 2001 there were 94 vacant council houses in West Sussex (0.6 per cent. of the stock). A proportion of housing will always be vacant at any given time as a result of the normal process of letting housing, which becomes available to new tenants. We will continue to support authorities in developing effective council housing business plans, which minimise the numbers of vacant dwellings, but have no plans to take any specific action on vacant dwellings with housing authorities in West Sussex (where the proportion of vacant council house dwellings is well below the national average of 2.9 per cent.).
  63W

  Solar Energy
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans his Department has to increase the number of new houses with solar tiles; and if he will make a statement. [74837]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The DTI has a research and development programme to assess various aspects of PV product development, installation and operation on domestic buildings. In particular, the Domestic PV Systems Field Trial is supporting several projects on clusters of houses. This should result in around 500 PV roofs with a total capacity of around 800 KWp and a budget of over £5 million. This trial will use the design, construction and monitoring of the installation as a learning opportunity for utilities, building developers and other key players in the process of PV installation. Information will be gathered on the buildability, operating performance, reliability and maintainability of building-integrated PV (BIPV) systems, thus paving the way for improvements in know how in the home PV industry.

  In addition, the recently introduced First Phase of the Major Photovoltaic Demonstration Programme aims to distribute grants to households and businesses wishing to install PV arrays onto their buildings. The programme seeks to increase public awareness and drive down the market cost of installation by offering 50 per cent. grants on the installation of PV systems. A third of the £20 million budget has been allocated to small PV installation on individual dwellings, which should result in 1500 roof systems being installed. A further third of the budget has been allocated to private and social housing developers, resulting in a further 1500 roof systems. Up to the end of September the programme has had 70 successful small scale applications and has approved 8 larger scale applications.

  With regard to building regulations, these were changed on April 2002 to enable the benefits of low carbon and zero carbon technologies, such as PV, to be more readily taken into account and to encourage industry and consumer take-up. The economics of making the installation of PV solar panels a compulsory element of new building regulations are not yet favourable, as the price of PV remains high.

  Housing
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish the latest available figures in descending order for the average number of households per 1,000 in each local authority area which are accepted as being in priority need for housing. [74858]

  Mrs. Roche
  Available information reported by local authorities in England on the number of households accepted per 1,000 under statutory homelessness provisions for the quarter ending 30 June 2002 is available from the library of the House.
  64W

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inflation
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the level of inflation in the public sector. [75230]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply

  Inflation in the public sector—as defined by growth in the implied government consumption deflator—is currently close to its average over the past 5 years, and is significantly lower than its average from 1979 to mid-1997. Nevertheless the data need to be interpreted cautiously, because the non-marketed nature of public services and the difficulty of making appropriate adjustments for quality change complicate the measurement of prices and inflation in the public sector.

  Public Sector Deflator
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the level of the public sector deflator in each month of the last 10 years. [75239]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply

  The implied government consumption deflator is not available on a monthly basis, as it is derived from quarterly nominal and real government consumption data.

  Consultations
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the consultations being undertaken by her Department. [75232]

  Ms Hewitt
  Consultations which are currently being undertaken by the Department, and their opening and closing dates, are as follows:

  Consultation on Commission proposal for a directive on the working conditions of temporary (agency) workers

  01/07/02

  18/10/02

  Managing the Nuclear Legacy—A strategy for action (White Paper)

  04/07/02

  18/10/02

  EU Regulation concerning sales promotions, promotional competitions and games

  02/08/02

  25/10/02

  The Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC)—UK Implementation

  07/08/02

  31/10/02

  Draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2002

  22/07/02

  01/11/02

  Employment Agencies: consultation on new regulations

  23/07/02

  01/11/02

  Disclosure of beneficial ownership of unlisted companies (joint DTI/Treasury)

  23/07/02

  14/11/02

  A consultation document on the early settlement of credit agreements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

  28/08/02

  22/11/02

  Consultation on the extension of the application of the EU Regulation on International Accounting Standards

  02/09/02

  26/11/02

  Possible Introduction Of "Promote" Licences To Encourage Exploration Activity On The UKCS

  27/09/02

  29/11/02

  Companies Bill—Modernising Company Law White Paper Cm 5553

  16/07/02

  30/11/02

  Consultation on Topics for Forsight

  65W

  Projects

  10/09/02

  04/12/02

  High Performance Workplaces: The Role of Employee Involvement in a Modern Economy

  11/07/02

  11/12/02

  Employment status in relation to statutory employment rights

  11/07/02

  11/12/02

  Consultation on Competition Commission Monetary Penalties

  18/09/02

  16/12/02

  Consultation on Competition Appeal Tribunal Draft

  18/09/02

  16/12/02

  Aircraft Fuel
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average price of aircraft fuel was in September. [75032]

  Mr. Wilson
  The average spot price was $263 a tonne (source: Platts Information Agency).

  Electricity and Gas Prices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether pre-tax(a) electricity and (b) gas prices were above or below the EU/G7 median for 2001; and if she will make a statement. [75129]

  Mr. Wilson
  Average annual electricity and gas prices for 2001 are not yet available for all EU and G7 countries.

  In 2001 average pre-tax electricity prices for industrial consumers in the UK were 5 per cent. below the EU/G7 median, based upon the 5 countries for which data are available. Average pre-tax electricity prices for domestic consumers in the UK were 13 per cent. above the EU/G7 median, based upon the 7 countries for which data are available.

  Average pre-tax gas prices for UK industrial consumers in 2001 were 20 per cent. below the EU/G7 median, based upon the 7 countries for which data are available. Average pre-tax prices for domestic gas consumers in the UK were 4 per cent. below the EU/G7 median, based upon the 10 countries for which data are available.

  Estimates based on data from Eurostat (the EU Statistical Office) and Energy Advice Ltd (a private sector consultant) suggest that in July 2002 industrial electricity and gas prices in the UK, both including and excluding taxes, were generally below the EU median price. Similarly, the estimated data suggests that UK domestic electricity and gas prices, including taxes, were below the EU median price, but were above the EU median price if taxes are excluded.

  The DTI regularly publishes this comparison in "Quarterly Energy Prices", which is also available on the DTI web site.

  Single Market Directives
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of single market directives had been transposed by September; and if she will make a statement. [75130]

  Ms Hewitt
  Provisional indications from the Commission are that the Internal Market Scoreboard for November 2002 will show the UK as having 66W
  transposed around 98.5 per cent. of single market directives. This was also the percentage shown for the UK in the last Scoreboard published in May 2002.

  Corus
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 14 February 2002,Official Report, column 529W, on Corus, how much of the aid that was announced in May 2001 to provide suport to communities affected by Corus redundancies has been spent in respect of each of the projects listed; and if she will make a statement. [75437]

  Alan Johnson
  The majority of the £48 million package of regeneration measures for areas in England affected by the closures announced by Corus in May 2001 consisted of major infrastructure projects funded by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  The announcement also indicated that the Government intended to approach the Commission under Article 56 of the ECSC Treaty with a view to introducing an ISERBS type of programme to provide social aid to redundant steelworkers. A scheme involving a one off lump sum payment of £2,480 per individual was implemented. By end of October 2002 £28.6m will have been disbursed to eligible workers.

  Infrastructure projects are necessarily slow moving, and little money is spent in the early stages. Progress on the projects is as follows:
  Durham University Stockton Campus (budget £19.4 million)—Work has started on site reclamation but there is no significant expenditure to date.
  Phase 2 of the Middlehaven scheme—One NorthEast is planning to spend some £16 million on Phase 2 which includes a contribution to a new junction on the A66 to access the site. Design work on the junction has been started and development of the Phase 2 site, which will involve the private sector, is planned to start in 2003.
  New Tees crossing and Teesside Light Rapid Transit system feasibility studies (combined budget £500,000)—£300,000 has been spent so far and further work has been commissioned to start in 2003.
  A66 Longnewton Junction improvements (budget £4.7 million)—the project is included in the Highways Agency programme and work will start in 2003.
  Projects funded by the UK broadband fund are seeing One North East in the Tees Valley area and Yorkshire Forward in the North Lincolnshire are a spending £500,000 each on supporting these communities. One North East are spending their money on connecting SMEs to broadband services and Yorkshire Forward on connecting business parks. £130,000 has been spent on feasibility so far in the North East.
  Enterprise Grants in Scunthorpe and some additional wards in Glanford (budget of up to £500,000)—expenditure is dependent on applications from companies wishing to expand. So far 11 applications have been received of which 5 have been approved and offers of grant totalling £149,000 have been made.

  The remainder of the package announced in 2001 consisted of an extension of the Job Transition Service to the areas affected by the closures, and is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Expenditure on the regeneration package for Wales also announced on that day is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
  67W

  Electricity
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) interruptions there were per 100 customers and (b) minutes were lost to electricity power supply interruptions in 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [75128]

  Mr. Wilson
  (a) The average number of consumer interruptions per 100 customers in Great Britain in 2001–02 was 89.49.

  (b) The average number of customer minutes lost per customer in Great Britain in 2001–02 was 88.94.

  The industry regulator, OFGEM, has this year introduced measures that will create financial incentives to network operators to further improve performance.

  Minimum Wage
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the advertising campaign for the increase in the minimum wage run in association with the Inland Revenue costs; if she will be running an assessment of the success of the campaign; and if she will make a statement. [75118]

  Alan Johnson
  The advertising campaign this year to publicise the October 2002 increases in the national minimum wage cost £353,000 exclusive of VAT. Research is presently being undertaken on the effectiveness of the campaign.

  Sellafield
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which reprocessing plant at Sellafield has the technical capacity to dissolve the unirradiated MOX fuel en route from Japan to Sellafield. [75453]

  Mr. Wilson
  BNFL have advised that the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) has the technical capacity to dissolve the unirradiated MOX fuel, subject to appropriate regulatory consents.

  Nuclear Energy
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether civil safeguarded magnox plutonium from British reactors has been used in MOX fuel sent to Japan. [73566]

  Mr. Wilson
  The arrangements for manufacture and delivery of MOX fuel are a commercial matter for BNFL and its customers.

  Gas
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to consult the people of Canvey Island on the provision of(a) new and (b) re-furbished gas storage facilities on Canvey Island. [74331]

  Mr. Wilson
  If planning permission is sought for gas storage facilities at Canvey Island, it would fall to the local planning authority, or on appeal to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, to determine. The planning process provides an opportunity for the public to express their views on a proposal.
  68W
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what policies she has to increase gas storage facilities. [74297]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government's policy is to ensure an appropriate regulatory regime for the gas market in Great Britain, and to keep security of gas supply under review through the work of the DTI-Ofgem Joint Energy Security of Supply (JESS) Group. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Ofgem (the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets) both act under a duty to exercise their relevant functions under the Gas Act 1986 (as amended) so as to protect the interests of consumers. The 1st Report of JESS, dated June 2002, drew attention to the possibility that peak gas demand could exceed maximum gas supply within the next few years if investment in gas storage/infrastructure is delayed. My Department has this year written to two local planning authorities considering proposals for new gas storage facilities about the national need for additional gas storage capacity.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the constituencies where there are(a) operational and (b) potential bulk gas storage facilities suitable for transmission into the National Grid. [74325]

  Mr. Wilson
  The major gas storage facility serving the market in Great Britain is the partially depleted Rough field in the Southern North Sea. The main existing onshore facilities are: Hornsea, east Yorkshire; five LNG (liquefied natural gas) storage facilities which are integral to the national transmission system and are owned and operated by Transco (at Avonmouth, Avon; Dynevor Arms, mid-Glamorgan; Glenmavis, Lanarkshire; Isle of Grain, Kent; and Partington, Lancashire); and two facilities which recently commissioned, at Hatfield Moor in east Yorkshire and Hole House Farm in Cheshire. A proposed facility at Aldborough, east Yorkshire. has secured planning permission and is under development. In addition a project at Byley in Cheshire is currently seeking planning permission, and a project at Fleetwood in Lancashire is understood to be close to applying for planning permission.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what policies she has to expand the pan-European gas transmission network to improve UK access to imported gas; what estimate she has made of the cost of expanding the network; and if she will make a statement. [74356]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government's policy is to ensure an appropriate regulatory regime for the gas market in Great Britain, and to keep security of gas supply under review through the work of the DTI-Ofgem Joint Energy Security of Supply Group. There are a number of commercial projects to increase UK access to imported gas. These include new contractual arrangements and improved connections from the Norwegian Continental Shelf; increasing the import capacity of the existing gas interconnector pipe-line between the UK and Belgium; an additional interconnector between the Netherlands and the UK; and a number of projects to import LNG (liquefied natural gas) into the UK. The costs in each case are a commercial matter. The new price control that Ofgem
  69W
  has put in place to regulate Transco as transmission system operator is designed to make Transco's investments in the national transmission system for gas more responsive to market needs, including new patterns of supply as we become increasingly dependent on imported gas.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in which constituencies there are(a) operational and (b) potential liquified gas unloading facilities for the importation of liquefied gas by sea; and what plans she has to utilise these facilities. [74358]

  Mr. Wilson
  There are no existing operational LNG (liquefied natural gas) importation facilities. I understand that there are commercial plans for the development of LNG import facilities at the Isle of Grain and Milford Haven. Utilisation of such facilities would be a commercial matter.

  Disposable Nappies
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures have been taken to ensure that disposable nappies containing tributyl tin are excluded from UK markets; and if she will make a statement. [73990]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No measures have been necessary. Whilst trace levels of tributyl tins (TBT) were reported in certain brands of disposable nappies on sale in Germany in May 2000, this was claimed to be due to contamination during the manufacturing process and was subsequently eliminated. Organotins such as TBTs are not intentionally added to these products. A survey undertaken for the DTI by LGC Ltd (formerly the Laboratory of the Government Chemist), showed that there was no risk to the health of babies in disposable nappies sold in the UK.

  European Procurement Policy
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when in 2002 the inclusion of environmental criteria in respect of European procurement policy was discussed by her Department and the European Commission; and if she will make a statement. [74054]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In the context of discussions with the European Commission and other Member States on the proposals to update, clarify and simplify the EC public procurement directives, my officials have covered a number of aspects of procurement policy, including the scope to use environmental criteria at each stage of the procurement process.

  Political agreement on the proposals was reached at the Internal Market and Tourism Council on 21 May 2002.

  Broadband Communications
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate the proportion of people in each region who are served by(a) broadband-enabled telephone exchanges, (b) cabled-based
  70W
  broadband services and (c) either of the above: and if she will estimate the numbers in each category who make use of that facility. [74849]

  Mr. Timms
  As of the end of June 2002, the proportion of the population in each region and nation able to access broadband through DSL enabled exchanges, cable modem services, and in total, was estimated by independent consultants to be as follows:

  Per cent households with broadband access

  Region/Nation

  DSL

  Cable modem

  Total

  North East

  64

  43

  72

  North West

  66

  52

  75

  Yorkshire and Humber

  59

  42

  64

  West Midlands

  68

  53

  75

  East Midlands

  55

  39

  61

  East of England

  54

  36

  57

  South West

  48

  22

  51

  South East

  66

  33

  68

  London

  98

  53

  98

  Scotland

  39

  3

  53

  Wales

  32

  24

  38

  Northern Ireland

  46

  30

  47

  Oftel figures for September 2002 show the number of broadband users nationally was over 885,000, of which around 390,000 used ADSL and 490,000 used cable. Since then, Oftel have announced that there are now in excess of one million broadband users in the UK.

  Post Offices
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many (a) rural and (b) urban post offices have closed in each of the last five years; and how many new ones have opened. [75699]

  Mr. Timms
  In the last five years net annual figures for post office closures are:

  March 1998

  243

  March 1999

  233

  March 2000

  382

  March 2001

  547

  March 2002

  262

  I understand from Post Office Limited that gross closure and opening/reopening figures, broken down between rural and urban post offices have only been available since April 2001. In the year ending March 2002, 371 rural offices closed and 177 rural offices opened/reopened and 114 urban offices closed and 46 opened/reopened.

  RDA Members
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the process by which(a) chairmen and (b) members of regional development agencies are appointed. [75238]

  Alan Johnson
  The process for appointing both the Regional Development Agency Chairs and Board Members is run according to the Code of Practice issued by the Office for the Commissioner of Public Appointments (OCPA).
  71W
  Appointments are made on merit, following open competition, application and formal interviews. Each applicant is assessed against the selection criteria, as set out in the person specification for the post. Some candidates for the RDA Chair positions were identified through executive search. These candidates went through the same process (including interviews) and were assessed on the same criteria as candidates who responded to the advertisement.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the members of each regional development agency stating for each member the(a) date of, (b) length of, their appointment and (c) their qualifications for the job. [75237]

  Ms Hewitt
  The dates of appointment for current Regional Development Agency (RDA) board members are detailed in the table below.

  The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 states that in appointing members to the RDA Boards, "the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of appointing a person who has experience of, and has shown capacity in, some matter relevant to the functions of the agency.

  Board members' backgrounds include trade unions, the voluntary sector and rural interests; and at least half the members have current or recent business experience. On each RDA board, four of the board members are drawn from local government.

  Before being appointed to the boards, potential board members are assessed against the criteria set out in the person specification for the posts.

  Date of first appointment

  Date of re-appointment

  Expiry date of appointment

  Advantage West Midlands

  Stephenson Alex

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  Barnes Richard

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Bhattacharyya Kumar

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  Bore Albert

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  Davies Sue

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Harris Anthony

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  Holmes Bill

  11/02/02

  13/12/04

  Kaur Stubbs Sukhvinder

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  King Christine

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  Moore Isabella

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Price Norman

  14/04/00

  13/04/03

  Sealey Tony

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Sparkes David

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  Tilsley Paul

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Woods-Scawen Brian

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  East of England Regional Development Agency

  Watts Vincent

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  Ali Roger

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Bagnall Ruth

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Brinton Sal

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Cereste Marco

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Cherry Alan

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  Grant Greg

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  Martin Peter

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  Murray Leo

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Paveley Chris

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Powell Richard

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  72W

  Date of first appointment

  Date of re-appointment

  Expiry date of appointment

  Reyner Neville

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  Shariff Yasmin

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Skinner Marie

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  East Midlands Development Agency

  Mapp Derek

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Bilgan Kashmir

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Bradford Jane

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Carr Bryan

  14/12/99

  14/12/02

  13/12/05

  Chapman Graham

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Gadsby Peter

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  Gardner Gill

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  Gemmell Samantha

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  McLeod Jonathan

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Patel Rita

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Ramsden Peter

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Scarborough Andrew

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Morgan-Webb Patricia

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Whittaker Ron

  14/12/99

  14/12/02

  13/12/05

  Wood Christine

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  North West Development Agency

  Gray Bryan

  01/04/02

  31/03/05

  Chamberlain Neville

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Doyle Miichael

  14/12/98

  14/12/02

  13/12/02

  Dunning John

  14/12/98

  14/12/02

  13/12/04

  Goodey Felicity

  14/12/98

  14/12/02

  13/12/02

  Harris Martin

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Jeanes Clive

  14/12/98

  14/12/02

  13/12/03

  Lane Pauleen

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Leese Richard

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  Manning Alan

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  Mendoros Dennis

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Reade Kath

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  Ruia Anil

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Smith Brenda

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Storey Michael

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  One North East

  Bridge John

  14/12/98

  16/07/01

  13/12/03

  Arkley Alistair

  14/12/98

  19/12/01

  13/12/03

  Cantle-Jones Tim

  07/12/01

  13/12/04

  Dennis Barbara

  14/12/98

  19/12/01

  13/12/03

  Edwards Christopher

  07/12/01

  13/12/04

  Fisher Jackie

  07/12/01

  13/12/04

  Hodgson Geoff

  07/12/01

  13/12/04

  Hughes Philllip

  14/12/98

  19/12/01

  13/12/04

  Maudslay Richard

  14/12/98

  19/12/01

  13/12/04

  Nolan Jane

  07/12/01

  13/12/04

  Stringfellow Rita

  14/12/98

  19/12/01

  13/12/02

  Walsh David

  07/12/01

  13/12/04

  Williams John

  14/12/98

  07/02/02

  13/12/02

  Wilson Susan

  14/12/98

  19/12/01

  13/12/01

  South East England Development Agency

  Willett Allan

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  Bodfish Ken

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  Booth Clive

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Brathwaite James

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Brighouse Elizabeth

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Camfield Barry

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/03

  Douglas Robert

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Kong Janis

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  McAnally Mary

  01/11/00

  31/10/03

  Oliver Kit

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  Read Peter

  01/11/00

  31/10/03

  73W

  Date of first appointment

  Date of re-appointment

  Expiry date of appointment

  Thornber Thomas (Kenneth)

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Ward Sarah

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  Williams Caroline

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  Wilson Kevin

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/02

  South West of England Regional Development Agency

  Lickiss Michael

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  Ansari Doris

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  Buckland Nicholas

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Chalke Peter

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  Costley Nigel

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  Holland Helen

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  Kemp Brian

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Leece Michael

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  Morris Alfred

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  Nicholl Robin

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Pope Jeremy

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  Porritt Jonathon

  15/12/99

  15/12/02

  14/12/02

  Skellett Colin

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Yorkshire Forward

  Hall Graham

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  Ashcroft John

  15/12/99

  14/12/02

  Barker Muriel

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  Bosomworth Eileen

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Coburn Jeanne

  17/10/00

  16/10/03

  Cummins Julian

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  Greenwood Brian

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  Gregory Richard

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  Haskins Christopher

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  Hougton Stephen

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  Jagger Paul

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  King Christopher

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Malik Adeeba

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  Pinnock Kathryn

  14/12/01

  13/12/04

  Warhurst Pamela

  14/12/98

  14/12/01

  13/12/01

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the known political affiliations of members of the regional development agencies, stating whether she and her predecessors(a) had this information at the time of appointment of and (b) took account of the information when making the appointment. [75235]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 8 July 2002,Official Report, column 674W, which listed the political affiliation of Regional Development Agency (RDA) board members as declared under the Office for the Commissioner of Public Appointments (OCPA) Code of Practice.

  This information is required under the OCPA code as part of the application process for all public appointments. It is not part of the information used when deciding whom to appoint. The exception to this is the four local authority posts on each RDA board. Information on political affiliation is taken into account by Ministers making these appointments, as the aim is for RDA boards to reflect generally the political make up of their region. However, even for local authority appointments, political balance is a secondary consideration to the overriding principle of appointment on merit.
  74W
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the number of applicants for each vacancy for membership of the regional development agencies. [75236]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information on the current appointments process for RDA board members (outside London) is set out in the table below.

  RDA

  Post

  Number of Applications1

  AWM

  Business

  34

  Local Authority2

  13

  Multiple3

  2

  NWDA

  Business4

  52

  Local Authority

  13

  Voluntary Sector4

  22

  Multiple3

  1

  EMDA

  Local Authority

  12

  Trade Union

  3

  Business5

  7

  Higher/Further Education5

  1

  Multiple3

  2

  SEEDA

  Business2

  59

  Local Authority2

  33

  Rural

  6

  Voluntary Sector5

  1

  Social Enterprise5

  2

  Higher/Further Education5

  1

  Multiple3

  2

  Yorkshire Forward

  Business6

  37

  Higher/Further Education5

  3

  Local Authority5

  3

  Rural6

  4

  Multiple3

  4

  ONE

  Business2

  33

  Local Authority

  24

  Trade Union

  7

  Multiple3

  1

  EEDA

  Business

  42

  Local Authority2

  15

  Trade Union5

  1

  Multiple3

  3

  SWRDA

  Business

  51

  Higher Education

  12

  Local Authority

  23

  Social Enterprise

  15

  Trade Union5

  1

  Voluntary Sector5

  2

  Multiple3

  5

  Notes:

  1 Some candidates applied for posts in more than one region.

  2 2 posts.

  3 Applicant claimed primary experience in more than one sector.

  4 NWDA needs 1 business person and 1 either business or voluntary sector.

  5 No vacancy in this field on this board.

  6 Yorkshire Forward needs 2 business people, ideally 1 with a strong link to the rural economy.

  Regulations
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list those regulations proposed by other Departments that have been amended after comments from her Department since 2 May 1997. [75233]
  75W
  Ms Hewitt
  Records relating to those regulations proposed by other departments, that have been amended after comments from the Department, are not held centrally. However, both the Department of Trade and Industry and Small Business Service see many consultations, both formally and informally, and where appropriate make comments to be taken into consideration on regulatory issues.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date her Department began discussing with the Treasury the increase in the rate of National Insurance contributions in the last budget. [75231]

  Ms Hewitt
  It has not been the practice of successive governments to disclose details of discussions between Ministerial colleagues (under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information).

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what guidance he gives to local authorities on collecting revenue from telecommunications masts.[73960]

  (2) what the average rateable value is of a telecommunication mast. [73403]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply. In addition to the guidance provided on the collection of business rates generally, local authorities were given specific

  Performance Indicator12

  1996–975

  1997–98

  1995–99

  1999–006

  2000–01

  % achieving 2 + "A" Levels A-E3

  NI

  91

  92

  92

  93

  93

  England

  81

  81

  81

  81

  82

  % achieving 5 + GCSEs A*-C4

  NI

  54

  55

  56

  57

  57

  England

  45

  46

  48

  49

  50

  % achieving 5+ GCSEs A*-G4

  NI

  85

  87

  87

  87

  86

  England

  86

  88

  88

  89

  89

  % achieving no GCSEs4

  NI

  4

  3

  3

  4

  4

  England

  8

  7

  6

  6

  5

  Sources: 1 DE, DfES

  2 Excludes special and independent schools in Northern Ireland.

  3 A level figures are expressed as a percentage of pupils in the final year of an A level course in Northern Ireland and as a percentage of pupils in school and sixth form colleges in England.

  4 GCSE figures are expressed as a percentage of pupils in year 12 in Northern Ireland, and as a percentage of 15 year olds in England and Wales.

  5 From 1996/97 GCSE figures include GNVQ Part 1 Qualifications.

  6 From 1999/00 A level figures for Northern Ireland are from the University of Bath GCE Database.

  Performance information for England by LEA is available on the DfES Website, www.dfes.gov.uk/ statistics/DB/SBU/b0334/index.html.

  Police Service
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) Roman Catholics, (b) Protestants and (c) others have been recruited to the Police Service of Northern Ireland since its inception. [76154]

  Jane Kennedy
  As at 18 October 2002, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has appointed 479 trainees. Of these, 243 have declared themselves to be Roman Catholic; 232 have declared themselves to be Protestant;
  76W
  information in respect of rates and telecommunication masts in December 2000. This followed the coming into force of the Non-Domestic Rating (Telecommunication Apparatus) England Regulations 2000, which simplified for the future the payment and collection of rates on masts. The Regulations provided that where there were a number of separate entries in a rating list for a single mast—because the mast had equipment belonging to more than one telecommunication operator—then these entries would be replaced by a single entry. Where this happened, one of the operators would assume responsibility for the rates on behalf of all of the operators, and the local authority would need to bill accordingly.

  The current average rateable value of masts is estimated to be about £5,000.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  School Exam Performance
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will rank the(a) GCSE and (b) A level performance in Northern Ireland's schools with that in English local education authority areas. [75228]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is not available in the format requested. Information on comparative performance between pupils in Northern Ireland and England for the 5 years ending in 2000–01 (latest available data) is, however, set out below:

  and 4 are non-determined. The balance of appointments during the course of each competition can be subject to some slight fluctuation.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what costs were incurred by the Parades Commission in the organisation of conferences in the financial year ending 31 March; what the costs were of each event; what the advertising costs were; how many people attended each; if he will breakdown the attendance of each by(a) perceived community background and (b) gender; and what assessment has been made by the Commission of these events. [74796]
  77W
  Jane Kennedy
  The overall cost of the two conferences held in the financial year ending 31 March 2002 was approximately £70,575.

  The first conference cost £53,278 and the second conference cost £17,297. A significant portion of the costs of the first conference (for example planning and design work) represented outlay that was utilised also in the second conference.

  No advertising costs were incurred as attendance at both conferences was by invitation.

  There were 196 people in attendance at the conference on 26 January 2002. There were 175 people in attendance at the conference on 9 March 2002.

  The Parades Commission does not hold the necessary information to enable them to provide a breakdown of attendance, but it was clear that the nationalist viewpoint was more strongly represented at the second conference and the unionist viewpoint more strongly represented at the first. There were more men than women at both conferences. This may reflect to some extent a greater predominance of men involved in parading organisations.

  The Parades Commission issued evaluation forms to delegates at the end of each conference. The delegates were asked to provide an assessment of the conference and submit any suggestions on how to make progress with regard to the parading issue. The Commission provided a summary report of the key issues raised at each conference and a copy was issued to each delegate who attended.

  Based on feedback from both conferences, the Commission is seeking to build on this positive initiative. It has also been able to establish more constructive relationships with some parading interests as a direct result of the conferences.

  Police Retention
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he will take to stem the loss of experienced Northern Ireland police officers. [75067]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government is committed to ensuring the police service of Northern Ireland is resourced to deliver an effective and efficient police service. It is the Chief Constable who sets the criteria for admission to the severance scheme and the Government continues to be guided by his assessment of policing requirements.

  The Government has welcomed the PSNI workforce plan, endorsed by the Policing Board, which gives careful consideration to the policing needs of Northern Ireland and how the police can most efficiently and effectively provide the service which the public is entitled to expect.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Devolution
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Advocate-General if she will make a statement on the devolution issues that have been raised with her in the past three years. [73707]
  78W
  The Advocate-General
  I have received intimation of more than 1,500 cases in which devolution issues were raised. In some of these cases additional devolution issues were raised by further minutes. These devolution issues have referred to a great variety of matters, both civil and criminal in nature, and many of these raise issues under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights relating, for example, to the right to a fair trial and undue delay in trial.

PRIME MINISTER

  Standing Order No. 13
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will propose changes to Standing Order No. 13 to extend his power to make representations to the Speaker for the earlier meeting of the House in certain circumstances to all hon. Members. [74871]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring forward proposals to make it a requirement for Parliament to be consulted on the use of his power under Royal Prerogative to take the country to war; and if he will make a statement. [75214]

  The Prime Minister
  There is no need for a formal requirement for Parliament to be consulted since the House is already given the opportunity to debate such decisions.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what the basis is of the assertion at page 17 of his dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein is determined to retain the weapons of mass destruction that the dossier discusses; [75830]

  (2) if he will set out the technical basis for the assertion made at page 19 in the dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that chemical or biological weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes of an order to do so; [75829]

  (3) what the basis is for the assertion at paragraph 30, page 30 of the dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein remains committed to developing longer-range weapons. [75828]

  The Prime Minister
  These points reflect specific intelligence information. In the area of longer-range weapons, paragraph 28 of the dossier also explains the significance of the new engine test stand at al-Rafah, which has a capability to test engines for missiles with ranges over 1000km.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reasons hon. Members were not provided with copies of his dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the day it was debated in Parliament. [75686]
  79W
  The Prime Minister
  The Government was working to a tight deadline. The dossier was made available at 8am on Tuesday 24 September in order for Members and Peers to be able to consider it before the debate.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment Her Majesty's Government made of the report on Iraq's military production and deployment capabilities published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in September; and whether Iraq could assemble nuclear weapons within months if it had sufficent fissile materials. [75868]

  The Prime Minister
  The International Institute for Strategic Studies report was an independent and well-researched overview of the evidence available in the public domain. Our assessment, as the dossier states, is that if Iraq obtained fissile material and other essential components from foreign sources, it could produce a nuclear weapon in between one and two years.

  Iraq Dossier
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether information from United States sources was used in the Iraq dossier on weapons of mass destruction; [75871]

  (2) whether representatives of the United States Administration were shown the Iraq dossier prior to its publication on 24 September. [75870]

  The Prime Minister
  The sources used in the dossier were mainly those of the United Kingdom's intelligence and analysis agencies—the Secret Intelligence Service, the Government Communications Headquarters, the Security Service, and the Defence Intelligence Staff. The dossier also reflected our access to intelligence from close allies, but details of discussions on these matters are confidential.

  Cabinet Committees
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an exception from the rule covering non-disclosure of information from Cabinet committees and subcommittees under Part II of the code of practice on access to Government information to permit details of progress made at meetings of the Cabinet subcommittee ENV of green ministers to be given to Parliament on a more regular basis than its annual report to the Environmental Audit Committee. [75455]

  The Prime Minister
  The Sustainable Development in Government Report is published annually and outlines the contribution of all departments to sustainable development. Key developments during the year are posted on the Sustainable Development in Government website, http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/ sdig/index.htm. The Environment Audit Committee is able to call for reports and evidence at any time.

  It is established practice under Exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of the Cabinet and its committees.
  80W

  Russian Convoy (Campaign Medal)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet a group of Royal Navy and Merchant Navy Russian convoy veterans to discuss the offer of a campaign medal made by the Russian Government. [75472]

  The Prime Minister
  We have received no formal request from the Russian Government asking that permission be granted to issue the Defence of the Soviet Arctic Region Medal to British veterans. Were the Russian authorities formally to ask for this campaign medal to be officially recognised in this country, the Government would consider it carefully and discuss with relevant groups.

  Convention on the Future of Europe.
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet M Valery Giscard d'Estaing to discuss the Convention on the Future of Europe. [75662]

  The Prime Minister
  I met M Giscard d'Estaing to discuss the Convention in February and May. I hope to arrange a further meeting with him later this year. He reported to the Seville European Council in June on the progress of the Convention, and is due to address the Brussels European Council, 24–25 October, on the same subject.

  Swill Feeding
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had on a ban on swill feeding in the last two years. [76173]

  The Prime Minister
  I have of course been made aware of the ban on swill feeding as part of the discussions I have had with regard to Foot and Mouth Disease.

  On 20 November 2001, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs met with the Associated Swill Users and agreed to investigate the possibility of providing free business advice to those former swill feeders affected by the ban. The Government applied for, and has now received, approval from the European Commission to fund, via the State Aid process, a scheme to provide free business advice to those affected by the ban on swill feeding.

CABINET OFFICE

  E-Government
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the promotion of(a) e-democracy and (b) e-Government. [75240]

  Mr. Alexander
  To promote e-democracy and to further inform our policy thinking, we are currently running a wide-ranging public consultation. The consultation paper—In the Service of Democracy—was launched by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons on 16 July. The consultation is due to close on 31 October 2002.
  81W
  To promote e-government we have developed ukonline.gov.uk, a portal for government services and information. It is indexed on popular search engines and other government department websites.

  In addition we have created a platform for government services on Sky DiTV and we deliver some government services and information through interactive kiosks.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what schemes the Government intend to implement to increase public knowledge and awareness with regard to emergency planning; and if he will make a statement. [73774]

  Mr. Alexander
  The provision of advice and guidance to the public remains central to the government's approach to contingency planning.

  Extensive arrangements are in place at central government and local authority level to ensure the provision of information on specific issues. Government Departments and agencies use a range of tools including web-sites to disseminate relevant facts and advice. In cases of particular emergency, such as flooding, publicity would be given to the risks as well as sources of help and advice. This would be through regional or national activity including the use of broadcast media. The Cabinet Office provides central co-ordination where required.

  Work is in hand to revise and update the document "Dealing with Disaster", a key statement of guidance on the arrangements for emergency response nation-wide. in consultation with local authorities and the emergency services.

  Thinking on public information and guidance is regularly exchanged between central, local and devolved government through courses and seminars held under the auspices of the Emergency Planning College (EPC). Further details can be found on the EPC web-site at www.ukresilience.info/college.

TREASURY

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the impact on Treasury revenues of the European Food Supplement Directive and the proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products; and if he will make a statement. [75815]

  Mr. Boateng
  The impact on Treasury revenues, as a result of the European Food Supplements Directive and the proposed Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive, is likely to be negligible.

  Commercial Property Valuation Tribunals
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many commercial property valuation tribunal hearings are listed for hearing in 2004. [74801]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.
  82W
  There are no hearings currently listed to take place in England in 2004. In some areas there is an intended programme of hearing dates shown on the valuation tribunal website, but these will not be formally listed until a notice of hearing is issued by the relevant valuation tribunal not less than 4 weeks before the hearing date.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual income to Exchequer funds which would arise from extending the present rate of road fuel duty on unleaded petrol to aviation fuel. [75037]

  John Healey
  Levying duty on aviation turbine fuel at the same duty rate as that charged on ultra low sulphur petrol (ULSP), which is 45.82 pence per litre, would have raised approximately £5.7 billion in 2001–02, assuming no reduction in demand.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the delay occurred in transferring the letter of 19 August from the hon. Member for Walsall, North concerning a constituent, reference 5/07848/2002, to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. [74912]

  John Healey
  There was initial discussion within the Treasury and then with HM Customs and Excise as to which department was best placed to address the issues raised. Following further discussion with DEFRA the hon. Gentleman's letter was transferred to that department on 16 September.

  Insurance Mediation Directive
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the Government's proposals for implementing the European Union's Insurance Mediation Directive. [76573]

  Ruth Kelly
  As I announced on 12 December 2001 (WA 890–891W) the Government proposes to give the Financial Services Authority (FSA) responsibility for regulating general insurance and reinsurance mediation. I have today published a consultation document that sets out the intended approach to regulating the sale of general insurance products following adoption on 30 September 2002 by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers under the co-decision procedure of the Insurance Mediation Directive (the Directive).

  The consultation document explains that the FSA will regulate the following activities:
  introducing, proposing or carrying out other work preparatory to the conclusion of contracts of insurance or reinsurance;
  assisting in the administration and performance of such contracts, in particular in the event of a claim; and
  concluding contracts of insurance or reinsurance.

  The Directive requires the regulation of mediation activities in relation to all contracts of insurance. However, it provides certain exemptions for insurance sold as part of a package, including travel insurance sold with a holiday and extended warranties that are contracts of insurance.
  83W
  It is for the UK Government to decide whether to regulate those insurances that are exempted from the Directive and I have decided to defer a decision on whether the FSA should regulate extended warranties pending the outcome of the Competition Commission enquiry into extended warranties for electrical goods.

  As to travel insurances that are sold with a holiday, we need carefully to weigh the consumer protection issues against regulatory costs. The Government also needs to weigh fairly the competition issues between those intermediaries that sell travel insurance direct and travel agents that sell insurance alongside a holiday. I have decided, therefore, to consult on whether to give the FSA responsibility for regulating these products. There are three options:
  No statutory regulation of sales of travel insurance sold as part of a package;
  FSA regulation to cover these sales in the same way as stand alone sales of travel insurance; or
  Industry specific regulation, requiring sellers of these products to be authorised by the FSA unless they are subject to an ABTA code which would be certified by the FSA. Sellers who were subject to the ABTA code but who also carried on other FSMA regulated activity, including selling any insurance other than packaged travel insurance, would be subject to FSA authorisation in relation to all of their regulated activities (including the activities to which the ABTA code applied).

  Responses to the consultation on general insurance and reinsurance regulation, and on the options for travel insurance sold as part of a holiday, should be sent to HM Treasury by 31 January 2003.

  Tax Credits (Fraud)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the claim form of working families' tax credit does not ask if claimants are currently receiving income support; and what plans he has to include this question in future versions of the form. [74844]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The qualifying conditions for Income Support and Working Families' Tax Credit are mutually exclusive to the extent that Income Support is available to people who work for less than 16 hours a week and Working Families' Tax Credit is available to people who work 16 hours or more a week. There are no plans to amend the Working Families' Tax Credit claim form.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are employed by the Inland Revenue to work on anti-fraud measures in respect of the working families' tax credit; and what plans he has to take on additional staff for anti-fraud work in respect of his new system of tax credits. [74852]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As at 17 October 2002, there are a total of 755 Inland Revenue staff involved in investigating possible incorrect applications for Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC) and Disabled Persons' Tax Credit (DPTC). We are currently developing our staffing plans for the introduction of Child Tax Credit (CTC) and Working Tax Credit (WTC), the likely number of staff which will be involved in this work is approximately 1,100.
  84W

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what form the balance of the National Insurance Fund is held. [74838]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Any working balance is invested and provides additional income for the Fund. The Fund may only invest in Government and Local Authority stocks, in accordance with directions given by the Treasury.

  Commercial Flights
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual income to the Exchequer which would arise from the imposition of a 17.5 per cent. sales tax on the purchase of tickets for commercial flight departures from United Kingdom airports. [75036]

  John Healey
  The lack of price data means it is not possible to estimate accurately the revenue from a 17.5 per cent. sales tax on the purchase of tickets for commercial flight departures.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised from taxation of private medical insurance cover offered by employers as a benefit in kind in each of the last five years. [75695]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information on the total income tax liability of employees and Class 1A National Insurance liability of employers on the benefit of private medical and dental treatment or insurance provided by employers is shown in the table.

  Year

  Amount £million

  2001–021

  390

  2000–011,2

  390

  1999–2000

  270

  1998–99

  260

  1997–98

  250

  Notes:

  1 Projected.

  2 From 6 April 2000, Class 1A NICs liability was extended to cover medical and dental treatment or insurance provided by employers.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the cost of re-introducing tax relief for pensioners paying for their own private medical insurance cover. [75696]

  Ruth Kelly
  The abolition of tax relief on premiums for private medical insurance for the over-60s was estimated to yield £135 million for 1999–2000 as shown in the July 1997 Financial Statement and Budget Report. A reliable updated estimate could only be produced at a disproportionate cost.

  Cancer
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the five year survival rates for(a) breast, (b) lung, (c) stomach and (d) colo-rectal cancer types; and on what authority they are based. [75692]
  85W
  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. Tim Loughton, dated 21 October 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the five year survival rates for (a) breast, (b) lung, (c) stomach and (d) colorectal cancer types; and on what authority they were based.
  The latest available five year survival rates for cancer of the breast (female), lung, stomach and colon are for patients diagnosed in 1993–95 and followed up to 31 December 2000.
  Five year survival rates by sex and age group for England are available on the National Statistics website at: http:// www statistics.gov. ulc/stat base/Expodata/Spread sheets/ D4924. xls
  Five year survival rates for cancers of the lung, stomach and colon for all persons, and for cancer of the breast for females, all ages combined, are available for NHS regions and health authority areas in England as they were up to 1st April 2001, on the National Statistics website at: htt p://www.statistics.gov.uk/Stat Base/ Expodata/Spreadsheets/D5389.xls http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ StatBase/E xpodata/Spreadsheets/D5392.xls
  The methodology used to calculate the survival rates is closely based on that used to analyse cancer survival trends over the period 1971 to 1990, which is described in Cancer Survival Trends in England and Wales, 1971–95: deprivation and NHS Region1.

  Note:

  1Coleman MP, Babb PJ, Damiecki P, Grosclaude P, Honjo S, Jones J, Knerer G, Pitard A, Quinn M, Sloggett A, De Stavola B. Cancer Survival Trends in England and Wales, 1971–95: deprivation and NHS Region. Studies in Medical and Population Subjects No. 61. London: The Stationery Office, 1999.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mobile Phone Thefts
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are serving sentences of(a) theft and (b) robbery involving phones. [40009]

  Applications Relating To Child Abuse

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Number of Applications Received

  Total for Great Britain

  5,164

  4,887

  5,056

  4,607

  4,606

  Scotland Only

  840

  728

  724

  576

  583

  Resolution of Applications Money Awards

  Total for Great Britain

  3,189

  4,113

  3,861

  3,578

  3,678

  Scotland Only

  328

  481

  420

  410

  417

  No Award

  Total for Great Britain

  795

  1,287

  1,382

  1,254

  1,229

  Scotland Only

  111

  209

  236

  201

  147

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if it is the policy of the CICA/CICB to retain records of applications and papers submitted in respect of applications on behalf of children until such time as the child would attain the age of majority; [72787]
  86W
  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 5 March 2002]: There is no data held centrally on the number of persons in England and Wales who have committed an offence of theft or robbery that involves a phone.

  Targeted Policing Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) those schemes which have received funding under the Targeted Policing Initiative in the Buckingham constituency, (b) the amount received and (c) the targets set to reduce crime under the schemes. [22625]

  Mr. Denham
  No schemes have been funded in the Buckingham constituency under the Targeted Policing Initiative.

  Police Horses
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent guidelines he has issued on the tethering of horses by police forces; and if he will make a statement. [55876]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no Home Office or Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) guidance on this matter. The equine training standards adopted by police forces are that the horses should not be tethered by the reins.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation (Children)
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications submitted to the CICA/CICB on behalf of children who have been victims of sexual abuse in each of the last five years have been successful, broken down by nation and region; [72789]

  (2) how many applications have been submitted to the CICA/CICB on behalf of children who have been victims of sexual abuse in each of the last five years, broken down by nation and region. [72788]

  Hilary Benn
  The readily available information, which has been provided by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, is summarised in the following table. The awards resolved in any given year do not necessarily relate to the applications received in that year.

  (2) what length of time papers presented to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and its predecessor the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board relating to applications are held by the authority. [72792]
  87W
  Hilary Benn
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) advise that, prior to 4 December 2001, it was the general policy of both CICA and Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) to retain papers relating to applications for compensation for six years from the date of the last action on the case. The retention period was then reduced to five years because the increased throughput of resolved cases under the new tariff scheme was creating additional pressures on the available storage space.

  The CICA's policy is to retain case files for applications submitted on behalf of children until the child reaches 21 years of age. In addition, in any case

  Merseyside

  Greater Manchester Police

  England & Wales

  TSS

  Special

  Capital3

  Total

  TSS

  Special Grant2

  Capital3

  Total

  TSS

  Special Grant2

  Capital3

  Total

  £million

  £million

  £million

  £million

  £million

  £million

  £million

  £million

  £million

  £million

  £million

  1997/98

  227.4

  0

  6.6

  234.0

  351.2

  0

  7.6

  358.8

  6,824.7

  1.5

  169.5

  6,995.7

  1998/99

  233.2

  0

  3.5

  236.7

  364.7

  0

  4.3

  369

  7,035.5

  5.8

  144.4

  7,185.7

  1999/00

  236.3

  0.09

  3.1

  239.5

  375.7

  0.1

  4.3

  380.1

  7,213.6

  8.1

  144.4

  7,366.1

  2000/01

  242.3

  4.3

  3.9

  250.5

  386.0

  6.6

  4.8

  397.4

  7,415.3

  113.1

  144.4

  7,672.8

  2001/02

  252.6

  6.3

  3.9

  262.8

  404.5

  29.0

  6.5

  440.0

  7,778.8

  330.9

  157.4

  8,267.1

  2002/031

  253.1

  17.4

  5.6

  276.1

  407.4

  24.0

  9.3

  440.7

  7,831.5

  460.9

  209.4

  8,501.8

  Notes:

  1 Total Standard Spending figures (TSS) for 2002/03 are not directly comparable with 2001/02 owing to the change in funding arrangement for the National Crime Squad/National Criminal Intelligence Service. On a like-for-like basis the comparable figures for 2001/02 are £247.2million for Merseyside, £395.8million for Greater Manchester Police and £7,613.7million for England & Wales.

  2 Special grant includes Home office Crime Fighting Fund, Rural policing grant, Airwave grant, payments from the DNA programme, National Intelligence Model payments, grant to tackle robbery, Fuel distribution emergency payments, grant to tackle robbery, execution of warrants grant, Beacon scheme payments, grant to tackle street crime and one-off payments of special grant for specific events.

  3 Capital allocations include capital grant and supplementary credit approvals. General capital allocations from 1997/98 to 2000/01 included an element of grant for major capital schemes allocated under the Priority Planning List scheme that has now concluded. The general capital allocation for 2002/03 includes £l0million held as a reserve and £20million set aside for the Premises Improvement Fund. All police authorities have been invited to bid for a share of the Fund.

  Central support services cannot be broken down for individual forces.

  In addition to the above, forces benefited from additional funding for Targeted Policing Initiatives 1997–98 to 2002–03. Overall spend for Merseyside was £2.32million, Greater Manchester £1.4million and all England and Wales £29.6million.

  Police
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are in post(a) in total and (b) in each police authority area. [52157]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 April 2002]: I apologise for delay in responding to this Question. The table shows, for 31 March 2002, the total number of police officers for each police authority area in England and Wales.

  Police Strength—England and Wales

  Government Region

  Police force

  Strength as at 31 cMarch 2002

  7,004

  North East

  Cleveland

  1,461

  88W
  where the medical condition is likely to deteriorate, the policy is to retain the file for 25 years after the last action has been taken.

  Police Finance
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the(a) total standard spending, (b) special police grants and central support services and (c) capital investment in (i) Merseyside Police, (ii) Greater Manchester Police and (iii) England and Wales in (A) 1997–98, (B) 1998–99, (C) 1999–2000, (D) 2000–01, (E) 2001–02 and (F) the projected levels for 2002–03. [71275]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 23 July 2002]:

  On 31 March 2002 total police numbers, including secondments to National Crime Squad, National Criminal Intelligence Service and central services in England and Wales were 129,603 an increase of 3,922 or 3.1 per cent. since March 2001. This is a record number of police officers and the largest annual increase in police numbers since March 1976.

  I am also pleased to report that on 31 March 2002, 19 forces in England and Wales had record numbers of police officers.

  The substantial investment we are putting into the police service is delivering the improvements that we promised. We have delivered record numbers of officers ahead of our target of April this year and police strength in March 2002 was only 400 short of the target of 130,000 police officers for 31 March 2003.

  A detailed breakdown of police personnel data can be found in Home Office Statistical Bulletin No. 10/02 ("Police Service Strength-England and Wales, 31 March 2002") which was published on 17 September 2002. A copy has been placed in the Library. It can also be found on the internet at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ hosbpubs1.
  89W

  Police Strength—England and Wales

  Government Region

  Police force

  Strength as at 31 March 2002

  Durham2

  1,614

  Northumbria2

  3,929

  North West

  17,804

  Cheshire

  2,059

  Cumbria

  1,100

  Greater Manchester2

  7,217

  Lancashire2

  3,304

  Merseyside

  4,125

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  11,564

  Humberside2

  2,058

  North Yorkshire2

  1,417

  South Yorkshire

  3,199

  West Yorkshire

  4,889

  East Midlands

  8,690

  Derbyshire

  1,848

  Leicestershire2

  2,100

  Lincolnshire

  1,198

  Northamptonshire2

  1,214

  Nottinghamshire

  2,330

  West Midlands

  12,801

  Staffordshire

  2,133

  Warwickshire

  969

  West Mercia

  2,018

  West Midlands2

  7,681

  Eastern

  9,872

  Bedfordshire

  1,069

  Cambridgeshire2

  1,362

  Essex

  2,946

  Hertfordshire

  1,825

  Norfolk2

  1,468

  Suffolk

  1,203

  London

  26,987

  City of London

  764

  Metropolitan Police

  26,223

  South East

  15,482

  Hampshire2

  3,480

  Kent

  3,355

  Surrey

  1,992

  Sussex

  2,893

  Thames Valley

  3,762

  South West

  9,870

  Avon & Somerset2

  3,096

  Devon & Cornwall2

  3,053

  Dorset2

  1,381

  Gloucestershire2

  1,183

  Wiltshire

  1,157

  Wales

  7,194

  Dyfed Powys2

  1,132

  Gwent2

  1,333

  North Wales2

  1,506

  South Wales

  3,222

  England & Wales (exc. Secondments)1

  127,267

  Secondments

  2,336

  TOTAL (incl. secondments)1

  129,603

  Notes:

  1 Because of rounding, constituent parts may not necessarily sum to the totals.

  2 Forces with record published numbers.

  Queen Mother's Funeral
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what costs fell to his Department arising from the funeral of HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. [65257]

  Mr. Denham
  The only direct cost that has fallen to the home Department from the funeral of the Queen Mother was £1,817 for the notification mourning envelopes and letterhead stationery.
  90W
  The Metropolitan Police Authority has estimated additional costs to policing arising from the Queen Mother's funeral at £2million. The operation involved the deployment of 7,955 police and 1,302 civilian staff between 31 March and 9 April.

  The Home Office provides a special grant to the Metropolitan Police Service each year to take account of those costs specific to policing the capital and national events.
  91W

  Yarl's Wood
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to the fire at Yarl's Wood on 14 and 15 February 2002, how many detainees are unaccounted for. [75402]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of detainees that are unaccounted for following the incident at Yarl's Wood removal centre has been reduced to 14 individuals. Efforts to trace and apprehend these remaining individuals continue. The Bedfordshire police conducted an exhaustive search of the site and concluded that it was highly improbable that anybody had perished in the fire.

  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those charged with violent disorder arising out of the Yarlswood incident have been convicted and sentenced. [75400]

  Beverley Hughes
  Twelve individuals have been charged with offences of violent disorder arising from the incident at Yarl's Wood removal centre on 14/15 February. Their trial is set for April 2003.

  IND
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the advertised salary is for the new head of IND. [75661]

  Beverley Hughes
  The advert for this post described the salary as an attractive six-figure package. In the notes for candidates, it was stated that the post was in Senior Civil Service Pay Band 3 for which the usual maximum salary was £124,000 and that more may have been available for an exceptional candidate.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons applied for the post of head of IND; and how many were(a) men, (b) women and (c) from ethnic minorities. [75658]

  Beverley Hughes
  This post attracted a total of 52 applicants, of which 45 were men and seven were women. Of those who completed the Equal Opportunities monitoring form, three stated that they were from ethnic minorities. 12 forms were not returned.

  Ms Yana Figurova
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for theHome Department when he expects to reach a decision on the case of Ms Yana Figurova (Ref. No. F 1025919). [75158]

  Beverley Hughes
  Ms Figurova's applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom have been now allocated to a caseworker in the Integrated Casework Directorate of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. The caseworker will be making a decision shortly. Ms Figurova's legal representatives will be notified of the decision.

  Rural Police Forces
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the HomeDepartment (I) which police forces he classifies as rural; [75184]
  92W
  (2) how much of the Rural Policing Fund was spent by forces in (a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03 to date. [75185]

  Mr. Denham
  The Rural Policing Fund was introduced in June 2000 to support the particular needs of forces with the most widespread populations. £15million was allocated in 2000–01 and £30million a year in 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  There is no formal definition of a rural force. Many police force areas will cover both rural and more urban areas. The Rural Policing Fund is allocated to police authorities with the most dispersed populations, weighted for the degree of sparsity of population. Thirty one of the forty three police forces in England and Wales benefit. A table of grant allocations is given in the table.

  Rural Funding Allocations—2000–01 to 2002–03

  Police Authority:

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Avon & Somerset

  £494,892

  £992,875

  £993,718

  Bedfordshire

  £81,390

  £163,540

  £163,555

  Cambridgeshire

  £561,585

  £1,125,169

  £1,126,395

  Cheshire

  £115,058

  £228,487

  £227,493

  City of London

  0

  0

  £0

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  £0

  Cumbria

  £690,613

  £1,370,910

  £1,360,324

  Derbyshire

  £208,347

  £416,190

  £415,196

  Devon & Cornwall

  £1,554,673

  £3,114,489

  £3,128,806

  Dorset

  £221,858

  £442,209

  £443,158

  Durham

  £124,270

  £246,803

  £245,259

  Dyfed Powys

  £1,297,570

  £2,588,337

  £2,583,979

  Essex

  £251,315

  £503,710

  £504,105

  Gloucestershire

  £387,093

  £776,548

  £775,749

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  Gwent

  £102,895

  £204,476

  £203,489

  Hampshire

  £110,175

  £220,430

  £219,680

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  Humberside

  £357,640

  £710,250

  £705,395

  Kent

  £298,863

  £599,342

  £599,700

  Lancashire

  £32,228

  £64,054

  £63,835

  Leicestershire

  £216,758

  £433,988

  £433,164

  Lincolnshire

  £985,951

  £1,978,690

  £1,984,449

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  0

  Metropolitan

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  £1,036,848

  £2,078,830

  £2,085,509

  North Wales

  £770,617

  £1,533,723

  £1,530,130

  North Yorkshire

  £1,005,224

  £2,013,806

  £2,018,359

  Northamptonshire

  £350,892

  £704,141

  £705,137

  Northumbria

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  South Wales

  0

  0

  0

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  £138,358

  £275,072

  £273,147

  Suffolk

  £711,353

  £1,422,627

  £1,424,923

  Surrey

  £5,463

  £11,048

  £11,006

  Sussex

  £273,834

  £550,563

  £549,849

  Thames Valley

  £629,559

  £1,262,860

  £1,261,933

  Warwickshire

  £282,108

  £562,546

  £561,338

  West Mercia

  £1,157,670

  £2,311,653

  £2,309,690

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  £544,900

  £1,092,634

  £1,091,530

  All Police Authorities

  £15,000,00

  £30,000,000

  £30,000,000

  It is a matter for the Police Authority and the Chief Officer to decide how the money will be spent for the benefit of rural communities. Police authorities which

  93W
  have been allocated a share of the rural policing fund are required to publish a statement on the use of the grant, in their Annual Policing and Best Value Performance Plan. Records are not collated centrally of spending by each force.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each site which he is considering as a possible accommodation centre for asylum seekers. [75410]

  Beverley Hughes
  On 14 May, we announced a shortlist of the following six sites:

  Defence Storage & Distribution Centre (DSDC) Bicester, Oxfordshire

  RAF Newton, Nottinghamshire

  Throckmorton Airfield, Worcestershire

  AirWest, Edinburgh

  Sully Hospital, Cardiff

  Hemswell Cliff, Lincolnshire

  Initial decisions1,2,3 made on applications for asylum in the UK, lodged at port and in-country, excluding dependants

  Total Initial Decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Total refusals

  Granted asylum or exceptional leave under backlog criteria4,5

  Refused under backlog criteria4,6

  Total

  Port

  In Country

  Total

  Port

  In Country

  Total

  Port

  In Country

  Total

  Port

  In Country

  Total

  Port

  In Country

  Total

  Port

  In Country

  1997

  36,045

  14,845

  21,200

  3,985

  1,475

  2,510

  3,115

  1,525

  1,590

  28,945

  11,845

  17,100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1998

  31,570

  14,650

  16,920

  5,345

  2,100

  3,245

  3,910

  2,505

  1,405

  22,315

  10,045

  12,270

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1999

  33,720

  17,335

  16,385

  7,815

  3,565

  4,250

  2,465

  1,950

  515

  11,025

  7,420

  3,605

  11,140

  3,830

  7,310

  1,275

  570

  705

  2000

  109,205

  52,775

  56,435

  10,375

  5,475

  4,900

  11,495

  6,410

  5,085

  75,680

  36,990

  38,690

  10,325

  3,530

  6,795

  1,335

  370

  965

  2000p

  119,015

  38,755

  80,260

  11,180

  3,685

  7,495

  19,845

  7,230

  12,610

  87,990

  27,840

  60,150

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications received in the same period.

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  3 Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  4 Cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum application backlog.

  5 Includes cases where asylum or exceptional leave has been granted under the backlog criteria.

  6 Includes some cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds. P Provisional figures.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if children with special educational needs who are living in accommodation centres will receive full-time education in(a) a local school or (b) the accommodation centre. [76146]

  Beverley Hughes
  There will be an initial assessment of learning needs when children enter an accommodation centre. If any children are identified as having needs that can only be meet outside the centre, then the Local Education Authorities (LEA) will be able to arrange for suitable education to be provided. However, we believe there will be very few such children. Most children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) should be educated with their peers within the centre, just as other children with SEN are mostly taught in mainstream schools.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the categories of children who will be considered as special cases for the purpose of education provision in accommodation centres. [76145]
  94W
  Site searching has continued since we made our initial announcement, as we said it would. We shall not be putting into the public domain details of such sites unless and until they are considered to be serious prospect for the siting of an accommodation centre.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the last five years for which statistics are available the number of asylum applicants(a) granted refugee status, (b) granted exceptional leave to remain and (c) refused, classified in each case as (i) post or (ii) in-country applications. [75484]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information available is shown in the table.

  The initial decision outcome data shown may reflect the different mix of nationalities who apply at port and in-country as well as any difference between port and in-country applications in the type of cases. In-country applications constitute a mix between those who apply at the Asylum Screening Unit in Croydon, postal applications, and those who apply through Local Enforcement Offices (including efforts by South East Ports Surveillance Team and as a result of operations against illegal working).

  Beverley Hughes
  It is important to take account of those children whose individual needs cannot be met in the centres and that is why the Government has made provision for flexibility in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. Having said that, those who are gifted but lack good English are likely to benefit from the intensive language support they will get in the centre, and those with good English should also be catered for in that the centre will be providing a wide curriculum at all levels.

  Parents, and the Centres themselves, will be able to ask Local Education Authorities (LEA) to carry out a Special Educational Needs (SEN) assessment, which will help determine whether a centre can make suitable provision for particular pupils with SEN or whether additional support from LEA services is required on a continuing (rather than occasional) basis by way of a statement. If a statement is made, the child may continue to be taught in the Centre with additional support from the LEA. Alternatively, if this is not possible, placement in a special school may be arranged. LEAs will also be able to conclude that a mainstream

  95W
  school placement is necessary, for example in circumstances where local specialist provision is made wholly in units in such schools.

  Most children with SEN should be educated with their peers within the centre, just as other children with SEN are mostly taught in mainstream schools.

  Mandatory Sentences
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were given a mandatory sentence for(a) domestic burglary and (b) drug dealing in 2001. [74717]

  Hilary Benn
  Statistics for 2001 will be available in December.

  However, information held centrally on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, relating to England and Wales, shows that in 2000 no mandatory sentences for domestic burglary were passed but that two mandatory sentences were passed for drug trafficking.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter of 2 May to the former Immigration Minister from the hon. Member for Aylesbury on behalf of Mr. D. C. about Miss S. A. (reference PO 9135/2). [74911]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 21 October. I am sorry he did not receive an earlier reply.

  Hospitals (Charitable Status)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for altering the charitable status of hospitals and other medical facilities outside the NHS. [75693]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Strategy Unit report "Private Action, Public Benefit", published on 25 September 2002, recommends to Government that charitable status be redefined in a way that includes the advancement of health as a charitable purpose.

  None of the objects currently recognised as charitable would be excluded in the new definition. The Government is currently consulting on the proposals.

  Work Permits
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have applied for work permits in Scotland in the last 12 months. [73678]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information is not recorded onto the system by employer location therefore details regarding the number of work permits issued for Scotland cannot be extrapolated.

  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for work permits have been rejected in the last 12 months. [73679]
  96W
  Beverley Hughes
  In the last 12 months to date (16 October 2001–15 October 2002) 14,063 work permit applications have been refused. This is 10.6 per cent. of the total number of applications in that period.

  Personal Data
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to personal data linked to fingerprints or DNA stored on national police computers, whether the personal data are marked to identify those personal data which are associated with individuals who are not criminals or who are not suspected of any criminality; and if he will make a statement concerning compliance with the Third and Fifth Data Protection Principles in relation to these personal data. [74484]

  Mr. Denham
  The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 allows for the retention of all fingerprints and DNA samples taken on suspicion of involvement in a criminal offence. These may be used only for the purposes of prevention and detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution.

  The legislation has been challenged in the courts under the European Convention of Human Rights. On 12 September 2002 the legislation was ruled in the Court of Appeal to have not contravened the Convention. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Home Office have been looking at how the police can best use the opportunities provided by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. A revision of the rules governing the weeding of records from the Police National Computer is being examined in parallel with consideration of the best way to retain data on fingerprints and DNA from individuals who have been acquitted. The Information Commissioner's Office is being fully consulted on this exercise.

  The DNA profiles of individuals who have had samples taken lawfully under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but against whom the prosecution was not proceeded with or who were subsequently acquitted by the courts, can be identified on the National DNA Database. DNA samples are retained and used solely for the purposes of prevention and detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution and such use does not contravene data protection legislation. Currently the fingerprints of persons who are acquitted or against whom charges have not been proceeded with are weeded from the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS) system. Once the acquittal/not proceeded with information is put on the Police National Computer a message is sent to NAFIS and the fingerprint record deleted. 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.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances a police officer can take(a) fingerprints and (b) DNA samples from those stopped for motoring offences. [74586]
  97W
  Mr. Denham
  Whether the police can take fingerprints or samples in relation to an alleged motoring offence will depend on the specific circumstances.

  Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), fingerprints or samples can only be taken with the consent of a suspect detained at a police station unless specific provisions apply.

  Fingerprints can be taken without consent with the authority of an officer of at least superintendent rank who has reasonable grounds for suspecting the involvement of the person in a criminal offence and for believing that the fingerprints will tend to confirm or disprove his involvement or will facilitate ascertaining his identity; from a person who has been charged with a recordable offence or informed that he will be reported for such an offence and has not previously had his fingerprints taken in relation to that offence; or from a person convicted of a recordable offence.

  Non-intimate samples can be taken without consent with the authority of an officer of at least superintendent rank who has reasonable grounds for suspecting the involvement of the person in a recordable offence and for believing that the sample will tend to confirm or disprove his involvement; from a person who has been charged with a recordable offence or informed that he will be reported for such an offence and either has not had a sample taken from him in the course of the investigation of the offence or has had a sample taken which was either unsuitable for analysis or insufficient; or from a person convicted of a recordable offence.

  Asylum
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum were received at Stranraer port during each of the past five years. [73795]

  Beverley Hughes
  The figures are not available for all of the period in question.

  The number of new asylum applications lodged at Stranraer is as follows:

  1 January—31 December 2000

  10

  1 January—31 December 2001

  36

  1 January—12 October 2002

  127

  These figures may be subject to revision.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities for processing asylum applications are available at Stranraer port. [73794]

  Beverley Hughes
  Passenger traffic at Stranraer is within the Common Travel Area between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, it is not designated as a Port of Entry within the provisions of the Immigration Acts. Immigration Service staff operate at Stranraer in support of Police controls operated by Dumfries & Galloway Constabulary, from whom suspected immigration offenders are referred. Any person who claims asylum during such enquiries is initially processed by the Immigration Service within police accommodation at Stranraer Police Station. Such 98W
  persons may then be granted temporary release or transferred to Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre pending resolution of their asylum applications.

  Drug Dealers, Brixton
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of drug dealers in the London Borough of Brixton in(a) 1999, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) 22002. [73884]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information requested is not available.

  Distraction Burglaries
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much he spent last year on public awareness campaigns about distraction burglaries. [73922]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: £664,000 was spent in 2001–02 by the Home Office Distraction Burglary Taskforce on activities to raise awareness of distraction burglary. The activities included producing publicity and educational materials such as a Good Practice Toolkit, videos for use with members of the public and for practitioners, a leaflet for householders, newsletters and other promotional materials and equipment.

  In addition, between November 2001 and March 2002 the Task Force held a series of 11 regional seminars on distraction burglary, which received substantial press coverage.

  We have also provided funding for projects targeting distraction burglary in Sheffield (£288,000 by March 2002) and Leeds (£554,000 by March 2003), which involved substantial elements of publicity and education of vulnerable groups.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many distraction burglaries took place last year; and what steps he is taking to inform elderly, disabled and infirm people about bogus house-callers. [73924]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: There is no separate recordable offence category of distraction burglary. However, the figures we have received from police forces indicate that some 19,500 offences were recorded as distraction burglaries in 2001–02.

  We set up the Distraction Burglary Taskforce in 2000 with £1 million funding to tackle the problem. Its membership is drawn from a wide range of organisations involved in different ways with older adults and other vulnerable groups, including the police, utility companies, local authorities and voluntary bodies.

  Amongst other things, the Taskforce has produced a Good Practice Toolkit, which is available on the Crime Reduction Website (www.crimereduction.gov.uk/ burglary48.htm), and is being distributed to key practitioners. It has also produced two videos and a leaflet on distraction burglary, together with posters and door stickers. The Taskforce held a series of regional seminars on distraction burglary between October 2001

  99W
  and March 2002. These were attended by representatives of a wide range of organisations with an interest in the needs of older adults.

  We have also funded a two-year programme to provide home security upgrades such as better door locks, window locks, door chains and spy-holes for low income pensioners in areas with burglary rates above the national average. Over 55,000 homes have received upgrades together with advice on home security. The scheme has been run in conjunction with the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA's) Warm Front scheme, which provides heating and insulation improvements.

  Special Constables
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables were serving in(a) Sussex police and (b) Highdown division in each year since 1997. [73923]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: Police Personnel statistics are collected by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate every six months. The figures are collected per force and not at divisional level. The figures available for the Sussex Special Constabulary as a whole at 31 March each year since 1997 are given in the table below:

  1997

  472

  1998

  442

  1999

  393

  2000

  352

  2001

  306

  2002

  306

  Note:

  * Statistics provided by Research Development and Statistics Directorate.

  The special constabulary is a key element of the reform agenda. Specials have a vital role to play in reducing crime and providing reassurance to the public. We are committed to increasing the number of specials. In May we announced a new headline role for specials, focusing on intelligence led patrolling and crime reduction initiatives. Also in May we introduced a new foundation training package for specials. With the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) we are preparing, good practice guidance which will help forces to develop their strategies for improving both the recruitment and retention of specials.

  Hilda Murrell
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress made in the Hilda Murrell murder investigation. [73717]

  Mr. Denham
  A major crime review of the 1984 murder enquiry into the death of Hilda Murrell was launched in April 2002. It is being conducted in line with West Mercia Police force policy and guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), issued in 1998, which states that undetected major crimes should be periodically reviewed. The review is proceeding according to plan.
  100W
  The objectives of the review, drawn up by West Mercia Police force's Chief Officers, are:

  1 To attempt to identify and report on what investigative opportunities exist within the current enquiry that may assist in detecting the crime.

  2 To ensure the existing enquiry paper, audio, exhibits and other documents are maintained in the best possible state for subsequent investigative action and review.

  3 To produce a report with recommendations for further action.

  I understand that in order to ensure that the potential of the review is fully explored, experts from a range of fields including the National Crime Operations Faculty (CENTREX)—are being consulted.

  The original enquiry was paper-based and pre-dated the HOLMES computerised enquiry system. It ran for over two years, nearly 3,000 statements were taken, over 2,500 exhibits seized or referred to and many thousands of other documents contained within the investigation file. A significant part of the review involves capturing the case information on modern computerised systems to allow more efficient analysis. Whilst this process is ongoing other material held by the enquiry is being assessed and reviewed for forensic potential and opportunities.

  Due to the size and complexity of the review, the process of data capture will not be completed before the end of 2002. The forensic review will require a staged submission of identified items, and it is therefore difficult to accurately predict when that process will be complete. However, the current estimate is the last quarter of 2003 at the earliest.

  Jubilee Celebrations
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has received from the Metropolitan Police of the numbers of people present in and near the Mall on each day of the Jubilee celebrations. [73434]

  Mr. Denham
  The Metropolitan Police inform me that the following numbers of people were estimated to be present in and near the Mall on each day of the Golden Jubilee celebrations.1 June—Classical concert within the grounds of Buckingham Palace relayed to screens located in the Mall. The estimated attendance in and near Mall was 50,000 to 70,000.
  2 June—No event.
  3 June—Music event at Hyde Park. Concert within the grounds of Buckingham Palace relayed to screens in the Mall, followed by a fireworks display outside Buckingham Palace. The estimated audience during the course of the day was 800,000 to 1,000,000.
  4 June—State procession from Buckingham Palace to St. Paul's Cathedral, followed by pageant. All of these events were also relayed to screens in the area of the Mall, St. James's Park, Green Park, Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square. The estimated attendance for these events was in the region of 1,000,000.

  Roadside Checks
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many roadside checks were carried out
  101W
  by each police force during the last 12 months for the purposes of (a) speed, (b) use of seat belts and child restraints, (c) vehicle safety and roadworthiness and (d) influence of alcohol or drugs. [73432]

  Motoring Offences (Speeding, seat belts, vehicle condition & driving after consuming alcohol/drugs) dealt with by official police action and police force area. England and Wales 2000

  Speed limit offences1

  Seal belt offences2

  Vehicle defect offences1

  consuming alcohol/drugs4

  Written Warnings

  Fixed Penalties

  Proceedings at magistrates' courts

  Total dealt with

  Written Warnings

  Fixed Penalties

  Proceedings at magistrates' courts

  Total dealt with

  Written Warnings

  Fixed Penalties

  Proceedings at magistrates' courts

  Total dealt with

  Written Warnings

  Proceedings at magistrates' courts

  Total dealt with

  Avon & Somerset

  70

  36,122

  4,671

  40,863

  3

  4,360

  102

  4,465

  75

  107

  1,446

  1,628

  1

  2,719

  2,720

  Bedfordshire

  12,862

  16,707

  2,316

  31,885

  —

  3,841

  37

  3,878

  1

  44

  198

  243

  —

  884

  884

  Cambridgeshire

  2

  8,708

  1,692

  10,402

  1

  1,639

  73

  1,713

  1

  62

  333

  396

  —

  882

  882

  Cheshire

  223

  15,356

  4,805

  20,384

  1

  3,229

  68

  3,298

  8

  149

  685

  842

  —

  1,899

  1,899

  Cleveland

  1,317

  23,228

  1,126

  25,671

  2,469

  1,653

  87

  4,209

  89

  112

  1,219

  1,420

  —

  858

  858

  Cumbria

  4

  4,103

  1,610

  5,717

  9

  1,360

  145

  1,514

  38

  323

  862

  1,223

  1

  874

  875

  Derbyshire

  16

  18,291

  5,308

  23,615

  —

  3,535

  84

  3,619

  68

  106

  1,116

  1,290

  —

  1,599

  1,599

  Devon & Cornwall

  39

  28,091

  5,324

  33,454

  9

  5,588

  118

  5,715

  26

  178

  1,102

  1,306

  —

  2,421

  2,421

  Dorset

  —

  18,305

  1,456

  19,761

  —

  4,959

  32

  4,991

  3

  198

  294

  495

  —

  1,244

  1,244

  Durham

  4

  9,180

  1,458

  10,642

  6

  3,146

  89

  3,241

  8

  37

  1,164

  1,209

  2

  1,218

  1,220

  Essex

  7

  102,326

  6,887

  109,220

  1

  6,734

  125

  6,860

  4

  77

  787

  868

  1

  2,702

  2,703

  Gloucestershire

  28

  5,781

  2,675

  8,484

  2

  1,393

  25

  1,420

  1

  46

  661

  708

  —

  891

  891

  Gt Manchester

  89

  59,765

  15,263

  75,117

  21

  10,241

  706

  10,968

  22

  647

  2,478

  3,147

  —

  5,186

  5,186

  Hampshire

  264

  27,566

  6,498

  34,328

  6

  4,246

  209

  4,461

  28

  93

  1,877

  1,998

  12

  3,812

  3,824

  Hertfordshire

  124

  23,956

  2,635

  26,715

  19

  3,639

  81

  3,739

  239

  80

  919

  1,238

  3

  1,691

  1,694

  Humberside

  2

  22,209

  2,181

  24,392

  5

  3,963

  81

  4,049

  10

  258

  818

  1,086

  —

  1,468

  1,468

  Kent

  25

  24,617

  2,501

  27,143

  2

  4,707

  54

  4,763

  30

  543

  2,786

  3,359

  1

  2,807

  2,808

  Lancashire

  3

  29,683

  5,932

  35,618

  —

  9,787

  348

  10,135

  20

  706

  2,291

  3,017

  —

  2,879

  2,879

  Leicestershire

  1

  8,094

  2,124

  10,219

  3

  2,086

  102

  2,191

  33

  280

  669

  982

  6

  1,651

  1,657

  Lincolnshire

  22

  26,319

  3,724

  30,065

  7

  2,359

  64

  2,430

  18

  20

  627

  665

  —

  911

  911

  London, City of

  1

  353

  206

  560

  —

  186

  5

  191

  1

  22

  302

  325

  —

  193

  193

  Merseyside

  1,943

  7,385

  1,651

  10,979

  874

  2,831

  261

  3,966

  111

  170

  807

  1,088

  7

  2,515

  2,522

  Met Police

  32

  54,843

  9,175

  64,050

  44

  6,270

  630

  6,944

  45

  1,725

  7,479

  9,249

  7

  14,166

  14,173

  Norfolk

  —

  4,783

  1,482

  6,265

  —

  3,547

  62

  3,609

  —

  71

  540

  611

  —

  1,014

  1,014

  Northamptonshire

  —

  35,489(5)

  288

  35,777

  —

  1,245

  15

  1,260

  3

  9

  412

  424

  1

  898

  899

  Northumbria

  747

  24,265

  3,920

  28,932

  584

  3,952

  281

  4,817

  166

  819

  2,339

  3,324

  1

  2,958

  2,959

  North Yorkshire

  3

  5,295

  1,303

  6,601

  —

  1,293

  58

  1,351

  18

  112

  390

  520

  —

  1,160

  1,160

  Nottinghamshire

  347

  23,766

  1,497

  25,610

  —

  1,391

  83

  1,474

  —

  7

  1,007

  1,014

  —

  1,915

  1,915

  South Yorkshire

  2

  20,987

  2,769

  23,758

  5

  5,782

  135

  5,922

  17

  470

  1,607

  2,094

  —

  2,322

  2,322

  Staffordshire

  26

  13,969

  ..

  16,5186

  18

  2,212

  ..

  2,2916

  78

  130

  ..

  1,9176

  4

  ..

  2,0146

  Suffolk

  2

  12,596

  1,292

  13,890

  18

  1,423

  65

  1,506

  19

  83

  474

  576

  —

  1,002

  1,002

  Surrey

  34

  12,072

  3,127

  15,233

  —

  1,696

  88

  5,784

  27

  112

  804

  943

  2

  1,729

  1,731

  Sussex

  17

  24,990

  4,681

  29,688

  1

  5,349

  85

  5,435

  17

  105

  540

  662

  32

  2,327

  2,359

  Thames Valley

  87

  71,888

  8,784

  80,759

  2

  7,142

  174

  7,318

  10

  288

  1,061

  1,359

  1

  3,921

  3,922

  Warwickshire

  3,260

  2,099

  4,825

  10,184

  1,183

  881

  49

  2,113

  231

  48

  652

  931

  —

  855

  855

  West Mercia

  144

  22,150

  2,989

  25,283

  —

  2,266

  116

  2,382

  38

  543

  1,351

  1,732

  —

  1,741

  1,741

  West Midlands

  9

  5,668

  4,099

  9,776

  3

  3,411

  310

  3,724

  29

  380

  2,229

  2,638

  1

  5,212

  5,213

  West Yorkshire

  13

  24,595

  6,222

  30,830

  9

  4,484

  236

  4,729

  21

  285

  1,715

  2,019

  1

  3,798

  3,799

  Wiltshire

  212

  16,351

  2,606

  19,169

  —

  3,047

  78

  3,125

  12

  64

  561

  637

  —

  997

  997

  Total England

  21,981

  891,951

  143,625

  1,057,557

  5,305

  144,873

  5,422

  155,600

  1,565

  9,307

  48,311

  59,183

  84

  89,329

  89,413

  Dyfed Powys

  3

  8,840

  1,035

  9,880

  3

  1,617

  48

  1,668

  50

  105

  476

  631

  1

  985

  986

  Gwent

  45

  16,518

  4,123

  20,686

  3

  3,288

  61

  3,352

  15

  95

  755

  865

  4

  1,341

  1,345

  North Wales

  21

  16,980

  2,987

  19,988

  4

  2,533

  55

  2,592

  20

  173

  624

  817

  —

  1,430

  1,430

  South Wales

  2,051

  54,383

  2,898

  59,332

  848

  2,990

  154

  3,992

  61

  241

  1,326

  1,628

  2

  3,075

  3,077

  Total Wales

  2,122

  96,721

  11,043

  109,886

  858

  10,428

  318

  11,604

  146

  614

  3,181

  3,941

  63,124

  7

  6,831

  6,838

  Total England & Wales

  24,103

  988,672

  154,668

  1,167,443

  6,163

  155,301

  5,740

  167,204

  1,711

  9,921

  51,492

  91

  96,160

  96,251

  Notes:

  1 All speed limit offences: Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 secs 16, 81, 84, 86, 88 amp;& 89. Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973. Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926 and byelaws made thereunder

  2 Seat Belt offences: Road Traffic Act 1988 secs 14 (3), 15 (2) amp;& (4).

  3 Vehicle or part in dangerous or defective condition: Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, Regs 7, 8, 11, 16, 18, 22 to 24, 25 to 27, 29, 30 to 39, 45 to 48, 61, 63, 71, 100. Schedule 3, Road Traffic Act 1988 secs 40A (a) amp;& (b), 41A, 42 as added by the Road Traffic Act 1991, sec 8.

  4 Driving etc after consuming alcohol or taking drugs: Road Traffic Act 1988 secs 4 (1) & (2), 5 (1) (a) amp;& (b), 6 (4), 7 (6). (Fixed Penalty Notices not issued for these offences).

  5 Amended data Northamptonshire Police have revised figures down from published figures of 70,298.

  6 Proceedings at magistrates' courts—estimates made for Staffordshire Police Force, who were only able to supply data for a sample of weeks in 2000, have been included in totals only.

  ..Not available

  Safety Cameras
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the safety camera initiative on the numbers of police officers employed on speed enforcement duties in those areas where it has been implemented. [73430]

  Mr. Denham
  The use of automatic road safety cameras, which operate at all times, and act as a continuous deterrent to speeding, does not need uniformed attendance. It therefore frees up police resources for other purposes, including other traffic law enforcement.
  102W
  Mr. Denham
  Information is not available centrally on the number of roadside checks carried out by the police on motorists. However, available information by type of police action is given in the table.

  Air Weapons
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had in relation to air weapons including(a) minimum age for possession of such weapons and (b) a licensing system. [74099]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  In addition to meeting a delegation lead by the hon. Friend for Gateshead East and Washington West, I have met other MPs and the victim of a very serious assault with an air weapon and his parents. In order to obtain an overall assessment of the effectiveness of existing controls, I have also been in contact with organisations such as the British
  103W
  Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Gun Trade Association, the Forensic Science Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  We are determined to tackle the problem of air weapon misuse and are looking very carefully at all aspects of the problem with a view to determining whether or not any changes in the present age limits or the introduction of a suitable registration system might help to ensure that air weapons are used safely and responsibly at all times.

  Football Banning Orders
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long after the issue of a banning order for travelling to an overseas football match a relevant reason remains a consideration for the maintenance of the banning order. [74466]

  Mr. Denham
  The duration of a football banning order is determined by the court in accordance with criteria set out in section 14F of the Football Spectators Act 1989. An individual may apply to the court for the order to be terminated once it has been in force for two-thirds of the period determined by the court.

  Guns
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps the Government are taking to ensure that deactivated guns are not reactivated; [73854]

  (2) what the Government's role has been since 1997 in deactivating guns; if he will make a statement on the process of deactivating guns; and where such guns are stored once deactivated. [73855]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Under section 8 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 any gun may be considered to be deactivated and thus no longer a firearm if it bears a proof mark to that effect and has had a certificate of deactivation issued by one of the two Proof Houses. To assist in this process the Home Office issued a set of specifications in 1989 against which a deactivated firearm could be compared. These were subsequently revised and more stringent specifications have applied since 1995. There is no substantial evidence to suggest that guns deactivated to these later standards are being successfully restored to working order.

  The Proof Houses have the authority to reject any deactivated firearms submitted to them which do not conform with the approved specifications. However, section 8 is only an evidential provision and does not preclude the possibility that a firearm which has been deactivated in some other manner may also have ceased to be a firearm within the meaning of section 57(1) of the Firearms Act 1968. In the event of a prosecution it would be for the courts to decide whether or not this was the case.

  There are no legal requirements regarding the storage of deactivated firearms.

  We are looking in conjunction with the European Commission at the need to establish stricter controls on deactivation standards throughout Europe.
  104W

  Immigration
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people failed to comply with the conditions associated with their temporary immigration status in each year since 1997; and how many were reprimanded as a result; [73739]

  (2) how many persons have been temporarily admitted to the UK in each year since 1997; and what sanctions are used in the event of non-compliance with the conditions associated with their temporary status. [73747]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested, on the number of persons who have been temporarily admitted to the United Kingdom, have failed to comply with the conditions associated with their temporary immigration status, and were reprimanded as a result, is not available.

  Failure to comply with the conditions attached to a grant of temporary admission or release without a reasonable excuse is an offence under section 24(1)(e) of the Immigration Act 1971. Depending on the circumstances, consideration may also be given to varying the conditions or detaining the person concerned.

  Information from the Home Office Court Proceedings database on a principal immigration offence basis indicates that in 2000, four persons were prosecuted under section 24(1)(e) of the Immigration Act 1971, and three were found guilty. Information for 2001 is due to be published in the Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2001" on 29 November 2002.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to modify the systems for tracking illegal immigrants. [73777]

  Beverley Hughes
  The nature of illegal entry is such that it is not possible to track every individual who has entered the United Kingdom unlawfully.

  However, on detection, those liable to removal may be granted temporary admission pending a decision whether to grant leave or remove.

  Temporary admission may be subject to conditions of residence, employment and reporting to the Police or an Immigration Officer. Failure to comply with these conditions is an offence. A person detained under Immigration Act powers may be released on bail, subject to conditions, which may include a requirement to report.

  I outlined in my reply to the hon. Member of 16 July, Official Report, column 224W, measures for contact management which are in place to track and monitor all failed asylum seekers whether illegal entrants or not. This is to ensure that they are removed from the United Kingdom if they do not appeal or as soon as possible after their appeal rights have been exhausted. Since my earlier reply the number of designated reporting centres has been increased to eight, and plans are in hand to enhance contact management further by the use of mobile reporting centres, Immigration Service teams using specified police stations for reporting and for visiting asylum seekers at their accommodation.
  105W
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate are currently undertaking a project to amalgamate their Ports, Enforcement and Casework Information Technology Systems into a joint database. This project is in its early stages. However, once completed, it should enhance our ability to track those illegal entrants who have been detected.

  Additionally, the Government is developing strategies to detect clandestine illegal entrants before they get to the United Kingdom. On 12 July my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agreed a range of measures with his French counterpart to reduce the level of illegal immigration between France and the United Kingdom. As part of this the Immigration Service is committed to deploying new detection technology (such as heart beat detectors and millimetric wave imagers) at Calais and other continental ports.

  The government has also created Reflex, a multi-agency forum to direct all activity against organised immigration crime targeting the United Kingdom. Reflex aims to reduce the profits made by the criminal gangs, raise the risks they face and reduce the opportunities for them to exploit individuals, thereby reducing the flow of illegal migrants to the United Kingdom. It achieves this through a combination of overseas and United Kingdom based activity. Since April 2002, 16 organised crime groups involved in people smuggling and trafficking have been disrupted and there are currently 60 operations targeting serious criminal involvement ongoing. Nine Immigration Liaison Officers have been posted overseas to work closely with local law enforcement to disrupt the flows of illegal migrants to the United Kingdom and a United Kingdom-led project assisting the State Border Service in Bosnia has seen a reduction of over 90 per cent. of potential illegal migrants passing through Sarajevo airport.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) car, (b) bus, (c) taxi, (d) coach drivers and (e) cyclists have been prosecuted for offences involving the use of a hand held mobile phone in each of the last three years; [74242]

  (2) how many tourist coach drivers have been prosecuted for offences involving the use of a hand held microphone in each of the last three years. [74243]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: There is no separate offence for driving a motor vehicle (of any type) using a hand-held mobile telephone. In the main prosecutions are likely to be for driving without due care and attention or not being in proper control of a vehicle. For drivers of public transport these offences are also covered under specific regulation, a pedal cyclist is likely to be prosecuted for the offence of careless riding.

  Firearms
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes involving firearms occurred in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [74109]
  106W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The number of recorded crimes involving firearms in the year ending March 2002 is not yet available. The numbers of such crimes in the previous year, which were published in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2000" in December 2001, were 7,362 recorded crimes in which a firearm other than an air weapon was used, and 10,227 recorded crimes in which an air weapon was used.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  European Union Institutions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council what percentage of hon. Members have used the facility of a visit to an EU institution in each of the years for which figures are available; and what steps he has taken to encourage greater take up of this facility. [73725]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The number of hon. Members who have visited EU institutions under this scheme is as follows:

  Year

  No of Members

  Percentage (%)

  1998–9

  65

  9.9

  1999–00

  61

  9.3

  2000–1

  72

  10.9

  2001–2

  80

  12.1

  2002–3 (first six months)

  76

  11.5

  The "quick guide" to members' allowances contains details of the entitlement. This was sent out to all Members in May, and further copies are available from the Department of Finance and Administration.

  The House itself approved an amendment of the scheme on 9 May, to allow up to three visits each year to national parliaments of EU member states and those of candidate countries, in addition to EU institutions in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg.

  I understand that Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) officials are ready to assist Members using the allowance, and I am pleased my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to remind Members of its existence.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Structural Unemployment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many parliamentary constituencies have levels of unemployment of 2 per cent. or less. [73075]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The number of constituencies with claimant unemployment rates of 2 per cent. or less is 187. In 1997 there were only 44.

  Our policies have reduced claimant unemployment by over 40 per cent. in the last five years. And it is not just these constituencies that have benefited; unemployment has fallen in every area across the country.
  107W

  New Deal
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the New Deal for 50 plus. [73076]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  New Deal 50 plus has been successful with over 81,000 people so far moving into work and claiming the Employment Credit. Evaluation of the programme has shown that it is providing people with the increased motivation and confidence they need to find work.

  The success of New Deal 50 plus is contributing to our wider campaign to tackle age discrimination and improve prospects of older people.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the take-up of the New Deal for Lone Parents. [73077]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  By the end of June this year nearly 300,000 lone parents had participated in the New Deal and over half of these had found work, including 170 in my hon. Friend's constituency.

  We are continuing to roll out compulsory Personal Adviser meetings for lone parents claiming Income Support. These meetings ensure that lone parents find out about the New Deal and all the other help and support we have introduced to enable them to move into work.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the New Deal for lone parents. [73088]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We know that nine out of ten lone parents want to work and the New Deal for Lone Parents, along with a wide range of measures we have introduced, is helping them to help themselves. Since 1997 the number of lone parents dependent on Income Support has fallen by over 150,000.

  The New Deal for Lone Parents is part of our longterm investment to make a real difference to the lives of lone parents and lift them and their children out of poverty.

  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to increase the involvement of employers in the formulation of New Deal programmes. [73094]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Employers are a key partner in the achievement of our objectives to tackle poverty by helping more people move into work. We want employers to have a strong voice in the development of our welfare to work policies and services.

  The National Employment Panel is an employer-led body that provides independent advice to Ministers on the design, delivery and performance of the UK Government's labour market policies and programmes. Its remit encompasses all the New Deals and other welfare to work activities delivered by the Department and its partner organisations at both national and local levels.
  108W

  Progress 2 Work Scheme
  Ann Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the Progress 2 Work Scheme for recovering drug mis-users. [73078]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are introducing progress2work to give unemployed people who are recovering from their drug problem the extra help they need to get into work.

  Progress2work provides additional specialist support to help recovering drug users to make the best use of our welfare to work initiatives. It will also equip Jobcentre Plus staff with the skills and knowledge they need to better identify, and refer to appropriate provision, people whose drug misuse puts them at a disadvantage in the labour market. And it will bring more local and national co-ordination to provision in this field.

  We launched the first progress2work projects in the spring in 27 pathfinder areas throughout the country. The second phase of the initiative begins in a further 36 areas from this month, and we plan to roll out the programme nationally from next year.

  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what help he will give to people considered by employers to be unemployable. [73087]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are committed to the goal of employment opportunity for all. Building on a foundation of a strong and stable economy, we have introduced measures to ensure that everyone of working age has the chance, and is encouraged, to be in work.

  In April we launched Jobcentre Plus to deliver work focused support for all people claiming working age benefits. Jobcentre Plus will provide a single, integrated service, providing people with the help they need to move into work, and working closely with employers to encourage them to open up more job opportunities to Jobcentre Plus clients.

  Our New Deals are providing the help people need to overcome the barriers they face when trying to move into work. The New Deals have already helped nearly three-quarters of a million people move into work and improved the job prospects of thousands more by giving them the skills, experience and confidence to succeed in the labour market.

  We are also introducing further measures to help those people who continue to face significant barriers to work. For example:
  we are introducing 20 StepUP pilots to provide transitional jobs for long-term unemployed people;
  we will shortly roll out the second phase of progress2work, providing recovering drug mis-users with the extra help they need to get into work;
  and later this month we will begin piloting extra support for other disadvantaged groups such as ex-offenders and homeless people.

  Rural Employment
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what policies he is pursuing to assist the long-term unemployed in rural areas. [73090]
  109W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since 1997 long-term unemployment in rural areas has been cut by 78 per cent. Our policies, based on the foundation of a strong and stable economy, have played an important part in this success.

  The New Deals have helped nearly three quarters of a million people in all parts of the country move off benefit and into work. They have performed particularly well in rural areas. For example, nearly 60 per cent. of those leaving the New Deal for Young People in rural areas have moved into jobs.

  Employment Zones and Action Teams for Jobs are helping people from the most deprived areas of the country move into work. The Action Teams and Employment Zones operating in predominantly rural areas have between them helped over 11,500 people into jobs.

  With the introduction of Jobcentre Plus, we aim to make our services more accessible to a wider group of people. We are building on the services we already offer over the telephone and internet such as Jobseeker Direct and Worktrain. We are also developing new ways of bringing Jobcentre Plus services to those who need them through, for example, mobile offices covering remote areas.

  We have introduced a number of initiatives to help unemployed people in rural areas overcome the transport barriers they may face. The New Deal can, for example, help participants meet the costs of travelling to their work or training placement. The Adviser Discretion Fund, which we introduced in July 2001, allows New Deal Personal Advisers to spend up to £300 to help individuals overcome barriers to work, including transport difficulties.

  Employment Zones and Action Teams for Jobs are also helping overcome transport problems in rural areas, for example, by giving grants to clients for the purchase of scooters, bicycles or other vehicles to help them get to work. They can also help with the cost of taxing or insuring vehicles. In addition, they have helped to set up and subsidise bus routes to take jobless people to areas where work is available and run car lease schemes.

  To build on this success, in April we launched the Transport Projects Fund, worth £5 million a year. Action Teams can bid for additional money from the Fund to support innovative transport projects that will benefit the local community.

  Transport Difficulties
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help unemployed people for whom transport difficulties are an obstacle to getting back to work. [73091]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We recognise that the cost and availability of transport can be a barrier to work for unemployed people and have measures in place to help jobseekers overcome such difficulties and move into work.

  Jobseekers can receive help with the costs of travelling to job interviews through the Travel to Interview Scheme. Last year, the scheme helped nearly 40,000
  110W
  people attend interviews. In my hon. Friend's constituency, following a survey of local people, Jobcentre Plus and the Local Authority will be setting up a working group, involving the bus companies and local MPs, to improve the bus links for people who are in work or looking for work.

  New Deal participants can also receive help to meet the costs of travelling to their work or training placement. Through an agreement between Jobcentre Plus and the Association of Train Operating Companies, New Deal clients can receive a reduction in the cost of rail travel. Similar agreements exist with other transport providers at regional and local level. In the Jobcentre Plus District serving my hon. Friend's constituency, this has led to the availability of reduced fares with 9 public service operators, including First Cymru.

  The Adviser Discretion Fund, which we introduced in July 2001, allows New Deal Personal Advisers to spend up to £300 to help individuals overcome barriers to work, including transport problems. The help provided can include, for example, paying for travel passes or helping with the cost of taxing a car. Up to May 2002, well over 120,000 awards has been made from the Fund.

  Employment Zones and Action Teams for Jobs are also helping overcome transport difficulties, for example, by giving grants to clients for the purchase of scooters, bicycles or other vehicles to help them get to work. They can also help with the cost of taxing or insuring vehicles. In addition, they have helped to set up and subsidise bus routes to take jobless people to areas where work is available and run car lease schemes.

  To build on this success, in April we launched the Transport Projects Fund, worth £5 million a year. Action Teams can bid for additional money from the Fund to support innovative transport projects that will benefit the local community.

  Nottingham
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what contribution his Department has made to employment in Nottingham North since 1997. [73095]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Since 1997 the employment rate in Nottingham North has risen by 8.2 percentage points and the number of unemployed claimants has fallen by 31 per cent. Long term unemployment (12 months and over) has fallen by over 60 per cent. and the number of young people unemployed for 6 months or more is down by 70 per cent.

  Building on the foundation of a strong and stable economy, the New Deals have helped nearly three-quarters of a million people in all parts of the country move off benefit and into work, including 1,700 people in my hon. Friend's constituency. An Action Team for Jobs and, Progress2Work and Ambition: construction initiatives are also operating in Nottingham North, providing further help and support to people moving from welfare to work.

  Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what help he will give to offenders to find work as part of the resettlement process. [73096]
  111W
  Malcolm Wicks
  We offer ex-offenders a wide range of help to move into work, including early access to employment programmes such as New Deal and Work Based Learning for Adults. Last autumn we also introduced Freshstart, a £3 million initiative to improve the links between prisons and Jobcentres and ease the transition from custody into work.

  Earlier this year we introduced progress2work to offer individually tailored specialist support to help people find work or improve their prospects of doing so. The first stage of progress2work focused on unemployed people who are recovering from drug problems. Ex-prisoners referred by drug counselling teams are a priority target group for progress2work. Later this month we will begin piloting the extension of the progress2work approach to other groups facing particularly difficult barriers to work. This will include all ex-offenders.

  Incapacity Benefit (Fraud)
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he is taking to prevent fraudulent claims of incapacity benefit. [73079]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are continuing to work hard to prevent fraud and error before it happens, to detect it when it does occur and to change public attitudes by showing that fraud is not a victimless crime. We are also taking further steps to tackle those who commit fraud, through new powers available under the Fraud Act.

  Our last review of incapacity benefits in 2000 estimated that fraud accounted for less than 1 per cent. of benefit spend.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many people in the Kettering constituency are entitled to a stakeholder pension. [73080]

  Mr. McCartney
  Anyone who meets the Inland Revenue requirements is eligible for a stakeholder pension. The main requirement is to be a UK resident under the age of 75 who is ordinarily resident in the UK. Those who are members of an employer's occupational pension scheme can also join a stakeholder pension scheme if they do not earn more than £30,000 a year and are not a controlling director. Stakeholder pensions mean that everyone now has access to a good value pension arrangement. Figures from the Association of British Insurers show that nationally 1,011,934 stakeholder pensions had been sold by the end of June 2002 and 330,296 employers have given their workforces access to a stakeholder pension through designating a stakeholder scheme.

  Stakeholder pensions are helping to increase the size of the overall pensions market. They have driven down charges on other types of personal pension. Some employers have widened access to their occupational pension schemes and other employers have set up group personal pensions with an employer contribution.
  112W

  Jobcentre Plus
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of customer reaction to Jobcentre Plus. [73081]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The first 56 integrated Jobcentre Plus offices are now open and we will extend that network to cover the whole of Great Britain over the next four years.

  Research carried out as part of the early evaluation of the new Pathfinder offices indicates that first reactions from both individual customers and employers have been overwhelmingly positive. We plan to publish these results shortly.

  Jobcentre Plus will also be undertaking a National Customer Satisfaction Survey at the end of this year and will be publishing the findings in the spring of 2003.

  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will encourage Jobcentre Plus to work in partnership with local voluntary sector organisations. [73082]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Working in partnership is fundamental to the success of Jobcentre Plus. We recognise that working in partnership at national, regional and local level offers opportunities to harness the diverse skills and experiences that many other organisations have to offer. Not only will this help to provide a comprehensive service both to jobseekers and employers but it also helps our many partners to meet their own objectives.

  In particular, we support, and will continue to encourage, closer working with local service providers and voluntary organisations through Local Strategic Partnerships and in a wide variety of other bodies.

  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the range of personal advice available to users of Jobcentre Plus. [73083]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  With the introduction of Jobcentre Plus we are delivering a single, integrated service to all benefit claimants of working age.

  Jobcentre Plus provides a full range of advice on employment and training opportunities combined with comprehensive benefit advice. This advice is tailored to the individual needs of the people using the service and will help them to move from welfare to work whilst ensuring they have the support they need whilst doing so.

  56 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices are already providing the fully integrated and work-focused service which we will extend progressively to cover the whole of Great Britain over the next four years. As part of this upgrade to the service, everyone of working age who is making a new or repeat claim for benefit in these offices will participate in a work-focused interview with a Personal Adviser and be offered their continuing support.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assistance is provided by Jobcentre Plus in cases of large scale redundancies. [73084]
  113W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In April we launched the Rapid Response Service. The Rapid Response Service works in co-operation with representatives of employees, employers and the local community to co-ordinate a response to redundancies that helps everyone affected and is tailored to their needs.

  The Rapid Response Service offers a range of information, advice, training and other help so that those people made redundant can move quickly back into work. Since its launch the Rapid Response Service has provided support to 158 companies and made its services available to over 50,000 people.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress is being made to extend Jobcentre Plus across the UK. [73092]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are progressively extending the new integrated Jobcentre Plus office network across Great Britain over the next four years. By April 2003 we aim to introduce Jobcentre Plus services in over 200 more sites across 25 of our 90 Districts. A list of those Districts is available in the Library.

  Child Support
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to meet the Chief Executive of the CSA to discuss the progress of changes to the CSA; and if he will make a statement. [73085]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Secretary of State holds regular meetings with the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency to discuss the introduction of the new child support scheme and other operational issues.

  Pensioners
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of persons of pensionable age there will be in(a) 10 and (b) 20 years' time; and if he will make a statement on the implications for public expenditure of these estimates. [73086]

  Mr. McCartney
  It is estimated that there will be around 12 million people of pensionable age in 10 years time and around 12.5 million in 20 years time. The impact of an ageing population on the UK's public finances is expected to be manageable. The UK's public finances are sound and sustainable over the long term.

  The Government's long-term reforms will ensure that everyone has the chance to save for a decent income in retirement. Stakeholder pensions now provide a new option of safe, flexible, value for money pensions for people on moderate and higher earnings who do not have access to a good occupational scheme.

  The Government also wants private pensions to remain attractive to members and to scheme providers. That is why steps are being taken to simplify the private pensions system while at the same time safe-guarding the security of scheme members.

  The State Second Pension, introduced in April 2002, means that low earners will get at least double what they would have got from SERPS, while carers and disabled people with broken work records will be entitled to a second pension for the first time.
  114W
  The next stage in the Government's strategy is the Pension Credit. From 2003, this will tackle both poverty amongst today's pensioners and complement stakeholder pensions by boosting the incentive for future pensioners to save for their own retirement.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the take-up of income related benefits by pensioners. [73098]

  Mr. McCartney
  As a result of the national Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) take up campaign, over 139,000 pensioners are on average £20 a week better off. Over 2 million people now benefit from the MIG.

  We have introduced a range of initiatives to improve the take up of MIG, including, a revised and substantially shortened claim form and a new leaflet explaining MIG in simple terms. We have also put in place measures to identify those pensioners who may be entitled to the MIG. Since October 2001 callers to the Retirement Pension telecentre who are not in receipt of MIG, but identified as possible claimants, have been encouraged to claim. Since April 2002 non-recipients of MIG who have potential entitlement following certain key life events, such as reaching age 75 or 80, or who are awarded another benefit such as Attendance Allowance, are automatically identified and invited to claim.

  We are working with pensioner organisations and Local Authorities on take up initiatives which ensure pensioners on low incomes claim what they are entitled to.

  As at May 2001, there are 1,939,000 pensioners are in receipt of Housing Benefit and 2,891,000 pensioners are in receipt of Council Tax Benefit.*

  Source:

  * Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information Annual 1 per cent. sample enquiry taken in May 2001

  Carer's Allowance
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will review regulations which reduce the value of carer's allowance and other benefits when recipients attain pensionable age; and if he will make a statement. [73089]

  Maria Eagle
  It is a basic principle of the Social Security system that only one benefit at a time can be paid for income maintenance. This is known as the overlapping benefit rule and has been a feature of the welfare state since its inception. State Pension is an income replacement benefit for those who have reached pensionable age. Invalid Care Allowance (ICA), which will be re-named "Carer's Allowance" in April 2003, provides a measure of financial support to those who give up the opportunity of full time paid employment to care for a severely disabled person. It too is an income replacement benefit. Even if it is not payable, underlying entitlement to ICA continues and if the carer is entitled to any of the income related benefits, carer premium can be paid. This is worth £24.80 per week.

  There are no plans to change these arrangements.
  115W

  Occupational Pensions
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will require employers and employees to make compulsory second pension contributions. [73093]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) on 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 640W.

  Labour Market
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on recent trends in the labour market in the manufacturing industry. [73097]

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

  There are consistently high numbers of vacancies being created, with approximately 10,000 jobs being notified to Jobcentres every day. Our welfare to work policies, such as the New Deal, are aimed at helping those who lose their job, whether in manufacturing or any other sector, access these vacancies and return to work as quickly as possible.

  In the United Kingdom, manufacturing employment has been on a downward trend since the mid-1960s. The trend towards a larger proportion of total employment being accounted for by services is common amongst industrialised countries. However, manufacturing matters. It creates a fifth of our national output, employs four million people and produces the majority of our exports. The success of United Kingdom manufacturing is therefore crucial to our country's prosperity, now and in the future.

  One of the pillars of the Government's manufacturing strategy is raising skills and education levels and the Department is playing a key role in this area. Jobcentre Plus is one of the five key partners involved in the production of Frameworks for Regional Employment and Skills Action within the context of the Regional Economic Strategies. The Frameworks offer the opportunity to bring together various agencies to work towards a common employment strategy. They include plans for dealing with skills shortages, helping to ensure that industry has access to a pool of potential employees with the right skills for the modern labour market.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what further steps he will take to help communities with high levels of long term unemployment. [73065]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Economic stability and active labour market programmes have helped people move from welfare to work in all parts of the country. Unemployment has in general fallen fastest in the areas 116W
  where it was highest, so that the gap between the employment rate in the poorest areas and the average has narrowed.

  As well as the New Deals, we have Action Teams for Jobs and Employment Zones operating in areas with persistently high levels of unemployment.

  Of course we want to do more. We are piloting the mandatory StepUp jobs initiative, working on extending Employment Zones to more client groups and investing new funds to help Action Teams support employment and transport projects that will benefit their local communities.

  Deafness
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is on funding under the Access-to-Work Scheme to prelingually deaf people who need language support at work in connection with reading and writing English. [74134]

  Maria Eagle
  The Access to Work programme provides help for disabled people with additional costs in travelling to work, adaptations to workplaces, special equipment and funding for support workers. The budget has been increased every year since 1997, and 32,798 people benefited from the scheme in 2001–02 compared to just 10,000 in 1996–97.

  Help through Access to Work can include funding for English language support for prelingually deaf people to enable them to fulfil their responsibilities at work.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when information about disability living allowance will be made available in sign-language video format. [74137]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information about Disability Living Allowance, along with the rest of the Department's benefit and pensions information, is currently being reviewed across the Department for Work and Pensions.

  The review is driving the establishment of new corporate standards for the production of information in alternative formats. This includes the use of British Sign Language and the production of videos.

  Disability Rights Commissioners
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the process for filling the five vacancies for Disability Rights Commissioners that will occur in April 2003. [74732]

  Maria Eagle
  The posts have been advertised openly in a range of national and specialist publications including the disability and ethnic minority press. The closing date was 4 October. The sift and interview processes will involve an independent assessor and the names of the successful candidates will be announced publicly by means of a press release, expected to be issued in March 2003. This process is in line with the Code of Practice for Public Appointments and guidelines issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA).
  117W

  Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people who have made a claim for the basic state pension have been asked to complete form BF195 on the status of their marriage during the last 12 months; how many of these people have been allowed to make a claim as a married person; and how many complaints have been received about the form. [74721]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with pensioner organisations about developing initiatives to encourage the take-up of the proposed state pension credit. [73311]

  Mr. McCartney
  Ministers and officials meet with pensioner organisations on a regular basis to discuss initiatives to encourage the take-up of pension credit.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the additional weekly amount of state second pension accrued at current rates by a person who undertakes one year of full-time caring responsibilities and is in receipt of invalid care allowance. [74839]

  Mr. McCartney
  Expressed in current terms, for each complete tax year that people are entitled to invalid care allowance, they will receive an additional pension of £1.08p.

  Motability
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if his Department was consulted on the recent awarding of the motability tender. [75857]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department was advised of two Motability tender exercises this year. The first was for inspection services for adapted vehicles, the contract for which was awarded in June 2002. The second was in relation to the future provision of powered wheelchairs and pavement scooters under the Motability scheme. A number of bids were received and the evaluation process is nearing its end, but no contract has yet been awarded. The Department has taken no part in the selection process in either exercise.

  Disability Benefit
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average wait was for a disability benefit appeal hearing in the last 12 months; and what plans he has to improve the service. [73067]

  Maria Eagle
  The average waiting time over the 12 month period, ending August 2002, for Disability Living Allowance appeals, from date of receipt by the Appeals Service until first hearing, was 13.1 weeks. A modernisation programme is currently underway which aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness in the handling of appeals.
  118W

  Pension Rights
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with EU counterparts on protection of employees' pension rights. [75029]

  Mr. McCartney
  We regularly take the opportunity to exchange views with EU counterparts on respective national approaches to pensions issues, including exchanging information and best practice. The UK also continues to participate fully in the ongoing development of the draft EU Directive on Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision, which aims to put in place common requirements for the supervision of occupational pension schemes, including appropriate provisions for scheme members, in order to promote mobility.

  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to ensure that advancements in information collection are used to inform pension-holders of their rights and opportunities. [75030]

  Mr. McCartney
  Pension providers, including occupational pension schemes, are required to provide information to pension holders and members of pension schemes at certain times or following specific events. They are able to make use of developments in information technology in order to meet these requirements, provided the person to whom the information is intended has access to the technology and is able to receive the information intended for them. The Government encourages schemes to consider the most appropriate routes for distributing information to members and to make full use of the advancements in information technology.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment has been made of the current arrangements for winding up pension schemes; and what consideration will be given to providing greater protection to pension funds. [75024]

  Mr. McCartney
  The current provisions for winding up occupational pension schemes set out in the Pensions Act 1995 and subsequent regulations are intended to provide a fair and equitable distribution of assets.

  In April of this year the Government introduced a package of measures designed to speed up the winding up process. This legislation places greater visible accountability on those people who are involved in winding up a pension scheme and will help to ensure that the benefits that members are entitled to are secured more quickly.

  The Government is determined to protect the longterm security of pensioners and other pension scheme members in occupational pension schemes.

  In his report to the Government Alan Pickering proposed a number of measures designed to protect pension scheme members on wind up, and ease the administrative burden faced by trustees. These issues, along with others in the Pickering Report will be addressed in the forthcoming Green Paper on Pensions.
  119W

HEALTH

  Asylum Accommodation
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Government stars were awarded to hospitals within the NHS trusts whose boundaries include the proposed asylum accommodation centre sites; and how

  Non-statutory public local planning inquiry to be held

  Local Trust

  Rating

  Defence & Storage Distribution Centre, Bicester, Oxfordshire

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust

  1*

  RAF Newton, Notts

  Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust/Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  3*/2*

  Planning notification to be submitted/

  Local Trust

  Rating

  Throckmorton Airfield, Pershore, Worcs.

  Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  3*

  Decision on whether to proceed to planning notification stage still to be taken

  Local Trust

  Rating

  Hemswell Cliff, Lincolnshire

  Northern Lincolnshire & Goole Hospitals NHS Trust

  3*

  Airwest, Edinburgh

  N/A

  N/A

  Sully Park Hospital, Cardiff

  N/A

  N/A

  Decision taken not to proceed with proposed site

  Local Trust

  Rating

  Hooton Park, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire

  Wirral Hospitals NHS Trust

  3*

  Killingholme, North Lincolnshire

  Northern Lincolnshire & Goole Hospitals NHS Trust

  3*

  Care Homes
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private care homes do not comply with the equivalent standard of care provided by public authorities; if he will specify the improved conditions he has now abandoned; and if he will encourage local authorities to re-open or open premises providing aftercare services for the elderly. [74469]

  Jacqui Smith
  The degree to which individual care homes conform to national standards cannot be quantified in detail at the moment. The National Care Standards Commission will form a more detailed picture of care homes' compliance with the national standards as it completes its first cycle of inspections of providers in England during 2002–03.

  We have not abandoned standards. We are simply proposing to change a few of the more challenging physical environment standards so that care homes which existed before 1 April 2002 which do not already meet these standards will not be expected to meet higher standards than those they already meet. National standards will continue to apply to new care homes and extensions and will be regarded as best practice to which all care homes should aspire.

  The standards proposed for amendment are as follows:

  Care homes for older people

  Care homes for younger adults

  1.2 users' guide

  1.2 users' guide

  20.1/20.4: communal space

  24.2: living space

  21.3: assisted baths

  24.9: wheelchair access

  22.2: passenger lifts

  25.3: single rooms

  120W
  many such stars were awarded to hospitals covering the short-listed asylum accommodation centre sites not chosen. [74522]

  Mr. Lammy
  The table below identifies the main local acute National Health Service Trusts and their current star rating in the areas which the Home Office has identified as potential sites for accommodation centres for asylum seekers. Performance ratings published by the Department do not cover hospitals in Scotland and Wales.

  Care homes for older people

  Care homes for younger adults

  22.5 doorways

  22.5 shared bedrooms

  23.3/23.4 single room floor space

  27.2/27.4 toilets & bathrooms

  23.11 single rooms

  28.2 shared space

  As part of the additional investment for intermediate care and related services announced in the NHS Plan, £66 million has been made available over two years (2002–03 and 2003–04) for intermediate care capital development schemes. All but £4 million of this funding has now been allocated. Some of this funding is being used to develop council premises to increase intermediate care capacity.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is putting in place to compensate care homes which have already complied with the national minimum standards on room sizes. [74530]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 October 2002]Under the Care Standards Act the Government is able to review standards at any time and all national standards are due to be reviewed within three years of their introduction. Many home owners meet or exceed the national standards and have no reason to be concerned about them.

  We have no plans to provide financial assistance to those providers who needed to improve their care homes to meet national standards, including those standards which we are now consulting on. Care homes are independent businesses. Any improvements they make should be viewed as adding to the value of their property. However, in contracting with independent sector providers of care we expect local authorities to take into account a range of provider costs such as

  121W
  implementing national standards. Providers will also be able to detail the facilities they offer in their prospectuses, so that those purchasing or using the services can make an informed choice.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the change in the requirements of the national minimum standard on room sizes for care homes. [74534]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 October 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement to the House on 23 July 2002 explaining the policy context for the consultation now underway. The consultation document published on 16 August 2002 also sets out the issues, which are to ensure that:
  Care home owners are in no doubt about the standards they should meet;
  Good local care homes do not fear closure because they may not meet all the environmental standards such as sizes of rooms and doors, the availability of single rooms, the number of lifts and baths:
  People using care home services can make an informed choice by knowing what a particular home will be offering, with each care home spelling out where they do or do not meet the standards.

  Copies of the consultation document are available from Department publications or on the Department's internet website at: www.doh.gov.uk/ncsc.

  The consultation exercise runs until 8 November 2002 and we will carefully consider all representations we receive, and the full implications of any changes to the national standards for the care home sector, before coming to conclusions. We will publish our conclusions as soon as possible.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he proposes to publish his response to the consultation exercise on interpretation of regulations for care homes under the Care Standards Act 2000; and if he will place copies of the consultation responses in the Library. [75519]

  Jacqui Smith
  The consultation document issued on 16 August sets out proposals to change certain national minimum standards for care homes for older people and care homes for younger adults (18–65) which relate to the physical environment. The consultation does not propose making any changes to the Care Homes Regulations 2001 issued under the Care Standards Act.

  The consultation exercise ends on 8 November. We will carefully consider all the comments we receive and publish revised national minimum standards for care homes for older people and for care homes for younger adults (18–65) as soon as possible.

  A report summarising the responses to the consultation exercise will be placed in the Library.

  Alzheimer's
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding the mechanisms in place to ensure equitable uptake for new treatments for Alzheimer's; and if he will make a statement. [74208]

  Jacqui Smith
  According to our records we are not aware of any recent representations regarding the mechanisms in place to ensure equitable uptake for new 122W
  treatments for Alzheimer's. In January 2001 the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommended that donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine should be made available on the National Health Service as one component of the management of those people with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. Patients whose clinicians prescribe the drugs in line with NICE'S guidance should now receive the appropriate treatment.

  Implementation of the national service framework for older people will ensure that people with Alzheimer's receive the treatment and care they need.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent in the last 12 months on Alzheimer's treatments; how many patients benefitted from Alzheimer's treatments in that period broken down by(a) health authority and (b) health trust; and if he will make a statement. [74207]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not routinely collected. Information is, however, available on the cost of the three drugs—donepezil, rivastigme and galantamine—currently used for the treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer's and on the number of finished consultant episodes where the primary diagnosis is Alzheimer's.

  The 2001–02 cost of the three drugs (excluding discounts) dispensed in the community was around £13.3 million (information is not available on their cost when dispensed in hospitals). The 2000–01 information for finished consultant episodes has been placed in the Library.

  Transplants
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received about the viability of existing NHS hospitals providing open transplant surgical facilities. [74239]

  Mr. Lammy
  United Kingdom Transplant regularly publishes reports on transplant activity in each organ transplant unit in the UK. The most recent comprehensive report is the Transplant Activity Report 2001, which gives details of organ donation and transplant rates by centre for renal, cardiothoracic (heart and lung/heart/lung) and liver transplantation. The Department also receives annual reports on renal transplantation from regional specialty commissioning groups. The national specialist advisory group produces an annual report on national services, including cardiothoracic and liver transplantation.

  Treatment Options
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he plans to ensure that clinicians provide patients with full information about treatment options available to them. [73941]

  Mr. Lammy
  In March 2001 the Department published a "Reference Guide to Consent for Examination or Treatment", setting out the current law on consent to treatment. In November 2001 we published, with a Health Service Circular (HSC 2001/ 023) the "Good Practice in Consent Implementation Guide", which contains model consent forms. These
  123W
  documents make clear the requirement that patients should be given full information about what is proposed and the treatment options that are available to them.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to ringfence grants to fund purchases of wheelchairs and other community equipment; [74502]

  (2) what his response is to the Audit Commission's, Fully Equipped 2002: Assisting Independence—and if he will make a statement; [74513]

  (3) what action he has taken to ensure that funding given to health authorities, hospital trusts, primary care trusts and social services to improve community equipment services, prosthetics departments and wheelchair services has increased capacity in all areas; [74512]

  Jacqui Smith
  The government welcomes the Audit Commission's report Fully Equipped 2002: Assisting Independence. Since the Audit Commission's original Fully Equipped report in 2000, we have set up a programme to improve disability services. The programme includes NHS Plan targets for integrating community equipment services and for increasing the numbers of equipment users by 50 per cent., both by 2004. The latter target has recently been extended to cover a further 250,000 people by 2006. The follow-up report Fully Equipped 2002 indicates that at this half way stage progress has clearly been made in areas such as community equipment services, hearing aid services and neonatal hearing screening. However, it highlights other areas where further work is needed and where we are now taking action such as wheelchairs, prosthetics and orthotics.

  Waiting times data, Mid-Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust, Patients waiting for elective admission

  Month

  Total waiting

  Patients waiting for admission by month waiting

  0–2

  3–5

  6–8

  9–11

  12–14

  15 plus

  Mar-02

  9,732

  4,427

  2,625

  1,526

  834

  320

  0

  Apr-02

  9,874

  4,462

  2,616

  1,662

  865

  269

  0

  May-02

  9,986

  4,352

  2,607

  1,880

  915

  232

  0

  Jun-02

  9,838

  3,946

  2,884

  1,690

  1,061

  257

  0

  Jul-02

  9,928

  4,096

  2,923

  1,590

  1,103

  216

  0

  Aug-02

  9,804

  4,108

  2,763

  1,569

  1,156

  208

  0

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH07 and Monthly Monitoring

  Waiting time for first outpatient appointment, patients still waiting to be seen

  Quarter

  13 to 26 weeks

  26 plus weeks

  Total over 13 weeks

  Mar-02

  794

  0

  794

  Jun-02

  1,241

  0

  1,241

  Source:

  Department of Health form QM08
  124W
  Funding is given to the National Health Service with which to commission community equipment services, prosthetics, orthotics, hearing aid and wheelchair services. We have made available to the NHS an additional £105 million to improve community equipment services alone in the previous, current and next financial years. It is for local commissioners of services to determine how best to meet national priorities for improving health, tackling inequalities and modernising services and the extra investment in health and social care will help them do that.

  In addition to the current tranche of additional NHS funding for community equipment services, local councils have also received an additional amount in the personal social services settlement to improve their community equipment services. Furthermore, on 23 July 2002, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement to the House on older people and the reduction of delayed discharges from hospital. In it he indicated that community equipment has an important role to play in facilitating discharges and that there will be additional ring fenced funding for community equipment and minor adaptations for social services in the years 2003–04 to 2005–06. In the same statement, my right hon. Friend announced both the intention to remove the power of councils to charge for the loan of community equipment (subject to legislation) and new targets to speed up the time it takes to deliver equipment and to make minor adaptations. All these measures will directly benefit people who need such items.

  Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting(a) for in-patient treatment in each of the last three months and (b) over 13 weeks for an out-patient appointment in the last two available quarters in the Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust area. [75691]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is given in the table. In-patient data is available monthly, but out-patient data is only published quarterly.

  Hospital Building Programme
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's assessment is of the likely financial and staffing implication for the new building criteria for new hospitals. [74954]

  Mr. Hutton
  Affordability of all hospital building schemes, whether public finance initiative or publicly funded, has to be assessed alongside the resources for the clinical service commitments involved at new
  125W
  hospitals, following guidance set out in the NHS Capital Investment Manual (1994). The commissioners have to clearly set out in the outline business case that they agree to the level, mix and cost of clinical services upon which the business case is based and that they can afford to pay for the services along with costs arising from the building project.

  Delayed Discharge and Emergency Readmission
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place copies of the Quarter two delayed discharge and emergency readmission figures in the Library. [74543]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 October 2002]: The quarter two (September 2002) figures on delayed discharge and emergency readmission are not yet available. I am placing in the Library all the available information on delayed discharge and emergency readmission for June 2002, which is the latest available.

  Health Care (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential care home places for elderly people were closed in the Portsmouth, South constituency during the last two months; and if he will make a statement. [75996]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  Care Standards Act
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses have been received to the consultation exercise regarding interpretation of regulations for care homes under the Care Standards Act 2000. [75518]

  Jacqui Smith
  As at 17 October 2002, the Department had received 51 responses to the consultation document setting out proposed revised physical environment standards for care homes for older people and younger adults. The closing date for comments is 8 November 2002.

  English Standards
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued by his Department to hospital trusts to ensure standards of spoken English for newly recruited nurses and doctors. [75528]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health Service Circular 1999/137 Employment of European Economic Area (EEA) Nationals: Ensuring Language Competency was issued on 14 June 1999. This circular clarifies the respective roles of registration authorities and employers and includes good practice guidelines to help employers ensure that they appoint staff who are able to speak and write English to an appropriate standard. Arrangements for testing the language and professional skills of non-EEA nationals are a matter for the appropriate professional regulatory body.
  126W

  Organ Donors
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been registered as organ donors in each of the last five years. [75542]

  Mr. Lammy
  The number of people registering on the National Health Service organ donor register in each of the last five years are as follows:

  1997–921,810

  1998–867,257

  1999–2,907,788

  2000–=1,237,005

  2001–1,109,433

  Operation Costs
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost to the NHS is of(a) hip replacement, (b) knee replacement, (c) heart bypass surgery and (d) cataract operations. [75547]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national average costs of the listed procedures in 2000–01 are as follows:

  Primary hip replacement

  £4,179

  Primary knee replacement

  £4,576

  Coronary Artery Bypass Graft

  £5,483

  Cataracts

  —Phakeoemulsification cataract with lens implant

  £583

  —Other cataract extraction with lens implant

  £572

  Source:

  Reference Costs 2001

  The costs quoted are for elective inpatient stays for the first three procedures listed. Cataract surgery is primarily performed as a day case procedure, and the costs shown for cataract extraction are based on day case activity. If any procedure requires a stay in critical care, these costs are not included in the above figures but are reported separately. The time, and therefore associated costs, spent in critical care is patient specific and is therefore excluded.

  The 2001–02 figures are currently being compiled and will be available shortly.

  Renal Medicine
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants specialising in renal medicine were employed in the NHS in each of the last five years. [75539]

  Mr. Lammy
  Between Sept 1997 and March 2002, the number of consultants in renal medicine increased by 35 per cent.

  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Hospital, medical consultants within the renal medicine specialty by year

  Year

  Numbers

  2002

  270

  2001

  260

  2000

  230

  1999

  210

  1998

  210

  1997

  200

  127W
  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  Data for 1997–2001 is at 30 September and 2002 data is at 31 March.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which renal units in hospital trusts in England and Wales operate at weekends. [75535]

  Mr. Lammy
  We do not collect this information, but it is normal practice for main renal dialysis units, and most satellite dialysis units, to dialyse patients on Saturdays.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish his NSF on renal conditions. [75534]

  Mr. Lammy
  Advice on the renal national service framework is being developed by an external reference group in four modules covering, dialysis, transplantation, prevention and primary care, and end of life care. These will be published in due course.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the assessment is of his Department of the proportion of kidney failure cases linked to diabetes. [75533]

  Mr. Lammy
  The latest information is from the December 2001 Report from the United Kingdom renal registry covering the year 2000, copies which are available in the Library. This shows that diabetes accounted for 16 per cent. of new cases of end stage renal failure and 10 per cent. of prevalent cases.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people received dialysis treatment in the NHS in each of the last five years. [75537]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information in the table is derived from survey data commissioned by the Department for the years 1993, 1995 and 1998 and shows the prevalent patients receiving dialysis. A further survey is planned for 2002.

  England

  1993

  1995

  1998

  Dialysis

  9,045

  10,988

  13,405

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being funded by his Department into the prevalence of renal complaints amongst ethnic communities. [75532]

  Mr. Lammy
  We are not funding research specifically into the prevalence of renal complaints among ethnic communities although there are other research projects on related aspects of renal disease. There is already good evidence to show that the prevalence rates for most kidney diseases are three to five times higher among the Asian and African/Caribbean minority ethnic groups.

  We are presently investing £0.5 million on two major publicity campaigns, and we have provided a three-year grant of £65,000 to the national kidney research fund's "A Better Life Campaign", all aimed at raising awareness of kidney disease among minority ethnic groups.
  128W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost is to the NHS of providing annual dialysis treatment for patients with kidney disorders. [75538]

  Mr. Lammy
  The average cost data in the reference costs collection for renal dialysis is collected on a session, not a patient basis. The figures in the table are based on the four main categories currently used for analysis of these costs. The data is for the 2000–2001 financial year, and is based on data submitted by all National Health Service trusts in England.

  Most haemodialysis patients dialyse three times a week although some may require fewer dialysis sessions depending on the severity of their condition. Patients on peritoneal dialysis will normally exchange fluids three of four times a day and patients using automated peritoneal dialysis will carry out exchanges at night.

  Reference Costs 2000–01: Renal Dialysis

  No of Sessions

  Mean Average £

  Hospital Based Haemodialysis (including, inpatients, outpatients and ward atttenders)

  1,276,797

  145

  Home Haemodialysis

  92,045

  104

  Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis (CAPD)

  3,736,733

  21

  Automated Peritoneal Dialysis (APD)

  899,800

  18

  Source:

  Reference Costs 2001 Publication

  Overseas Nurses
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contracts have been signed by his Department to bring teams of doctors from continental Europe to work in the NHS. [75517]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not sign contracts with overseas clinical teams. Contracts are negotiated between individual National Health Service trusts and overseas providers.

  Social Workers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many social workers have(a) been recruited, (b) left before normal retirement age, and (c) retired since the launch of his social worker recruitment campaign in 2001. [75520]

  Jacqui Smith
  Recruitment and retirement figures on social workers are not collected centrally.

  The aims of the Department's recruitment campaign are to:

  Raise the number of people applying for social work training by 5000 by 2004.

  Inform the public about what social workers actually do

  Make existing social workers realise that their work is valued.

  The campaign is generating a lot of interest, and the provisional figures for the number of applications for social work training show that there has been an increase this year over last, the first increase in the number of applications since the mid-1990s.
  129W

  Resource Allocation
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Advisory Committee on resource allocation will report on its review of the Your NHS Funding Formula: and if he will make the report public. [75179]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are currently considering the recommendations of the advisory committee on resource allocation for a new National Health Service funding formula. Later this autumn when we announce the revenue allocations for the next three years we will explain changes to the formula. The team who carried out the research into the new formula plan to publish a full report of their findings.
  130W
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department has made available for community equipment services in each of the last three years. [75858]

  Jacqui Smith
  Community equipment services are funded from National Health Service and social services general allocation and the amount made available by local commissioners each year is not collected centrally.

  In addition to general funding allocations, additional funding has been made available. In 2001–02 and 2002–03, £11.7 million and £15.4 million were included in baseline allocations to health authorities. The Government also took account of the need for additional investment in the personal social services settlement for 2001–02 to 2003–04, to enable councils to contribute an appropriate share to the expansion of these services. These additional allocations are recurring amounts.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

UN Rights of the Child Report
Baroness Massey of Darwen Baroness Massey of Darwen asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will respond to the report of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in relation to United Kingdom procedures and practices.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, although we are under no formal obligation to respond to the report, the Government, together with the devolved administrations, are closely examining the report of the UN committee. We will consider its recommendations in developing an overarching strategy for children—a development that the UN committee welcomed.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. This has been a good government for children, but there are areas of concern that are clearly expressed in the report. How will the consultation carried out by the Children and Young People's Unit feed into a strategy that will then reflect the concerns of the report?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that this has been a good government for children. The Children and Young People's Unit based in the Department for Education and Skills has undertaken wide public consultation. We are looking to build a 10-year strategy that will help to design and develop our policy-making so that we think about how we support our children across government over the next 10 years.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the national service framework for children, which is now being produced, contribute to the responses that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child would like?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the national service framework is the responsibility of the Department of Health. Within the framework that is being developed, issues to do with the broad welfare of children will be paramount across the preventive, acute and other strategies that it will encompass. That will obviously be an important part of the overarching work.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that there is still serious disquiet about the special educational needs toolkit, which affects a large number of children, particularly in the early years for assessment? What are the Government doing to respond to those who have that disquiet?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is aware, we have developed the toolkit alongside organisations that have been able to work with us. It has been well received within schools. Some organisations have raised particular issues of concern and we are in dialogue with them. The toolkit is meant to be helpful and supportive for schools. It is not meant to be something that they have to follow exactly. The examples in it are pertinent to the different needs of children. Of course we shall continue that dialogue.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Will the Minister ask her colleagues in the Home Office to look carefully at cases of unaccompanied minors coming into this country? I have seen a number of cases of children in their mid-teens—who are still minors—who are not accorded the observation and care that is expected of the Home Office when they come in.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government are very concerned to ensure that minors arriving in this country are well looked after. They are protected under the 1951 UN convention on refugees, which the Government support. We are looking to ensure the protection of children who arrive here so that they are well cared for.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, how do the Government plan to respond to Recommendation 36 of the report, which asks them to respond with urgency and to,
"adopt legislation throughout the state party to remove the 'reasonable chastisement' defence and prohibit all corporal punishment in the family and in any other contexts not covered by existing legislation"?
Do the Government accept the results of a recent MORI poll that shows that the public are behind such a change to the law, as long as it does not criminalise caring parents, who might give the occasional light smack?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government are absolutely opposed to violence and abuse against children. Noble Lords will be aware that the law allows only what is reasonable. We have recently conducted a web-based poll that showed that 82 per cent of people are in favour of that position. I acknowledge the work of the noble Baroness with the NSPCC as an ambassador. We want to ensure that parents recognise their responsibilities. Hence we have developed Quality Protects, Sure Start and the supporting organisations, such as Parentline and the National Family and Parenting Institute. We all recognise the need to make sure that our children are

1063
well cared for and to ensure that the Government play their part responsibly, but do not get involved in the normal course of family life. We are with the noble Baroness in opposing violence and the abuse of children.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one way to ease the disquiet felt by a number of us would be to appoint a commissioner for children for England? Given that that is totally acceptable in other parts of the United Kingdom, why is it not yet acceptable here?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in answer to other questions in your Lordships' House I have talked about the value that we place on our relations with the devolved administrations. We are talking and working with them and looking at the way in which their commissioners are evolving their roles and responsibilities. It is worth noting that of the 14 million children who live in our nations, 11.9 million live in this country. We have approached the issue by looking at a range of responses from different departments to ensure that we represent children's rights and responsibilities. We are considering the issue and keeping open our discussions with the devolved administrations.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report published last week by senior inspectors of services across the range for vulnerable children in education and probation in social services? The report found that children were being put at risk through lack of funding, lack of resources, lack of staff and inadequate co-ordination in multi-agency work. Does she recognise those concerns?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government recognise the concerns expressed in the report; indeed, they are the reason why, at last week's conference, the Secretary of State for Health announced his proposals on children's care. Multi-agency working is something to which we all aspire. Across government, we recognise the need to ensure that children are protected and properly cared for. Multi-agency reports are clearly necessary to achieve the objective of ensuring that children are well looked after.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I think that I heard the Minister say "in this country", meaning England. May I suggest to her that, when she is in the Westminster Parliament, she is in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I think that I referred to "nations". However, I accept the noble Baroness's point.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, can the Minister briefly tell us the Government's policy on the imprisonment of children? The United Kingdom has more children in prison than any other country in Europe. I am also not referring only to children of 15 or older, but am particularly concerned about those under 15.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, reform of the criminal justice system has been central to the Government's agenda, and reducing and preventing youth crime is a major part of that agenda. As noble Lords will be aware, prevention has a huge part to play in ensuring that children do not end up in the prison system. We have to keep children safe and secure by working with them when they are at risk of becoming involved in criminal activity and offending. There is a huge amount to be done in that respect. We also have to work very closely with children who are guilty of criminal activity. My noble friends and other colleagues will know that the Home Office is working very closely with others on a preventive system.

Houses in Multiple Occupation
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to regulate houses of multiple occupation.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, some of the worst unregulated housing conditions exist in properties of multiple occupation in the private rented sector. It also accommodates some of the most vulnerable in our society. That is why the Government remain committed to introducing further legislation to license these properties, in order to improve the safety and the welfare of occupants.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, does the Minister share my disappointment that the Government have not found time to put that commitment—made not only in the 1997 Labour Party manifesto but in the 2001 manifesto and the Government's housing Green Paper—into practice? The Minister has outlined the dreadful conditions in houses in multiple occupation and stated that such housing accommodates some of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. Given the Government's commitments on health spending and eradicating fuel poverty, is it not extraordinary that they have not found time to include the issue in their legislative programme?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, although I accept the noble Baroness's comments about the 1997 manifesto, people tend to forget that we are still in the first parliamentary Session after the most recent general election. The department is working on this legislation—it is not on the back burner—because some 2 million people live in houses of multiple

1065
occupation and many are at risk. Generally speaking, HMOs are less safe than single-family households. We are actively pursuing legislation, which will be introduced as quickly as possible.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, will much of the housing in which students live therefore be regulated? It may be very difficult for students to find the money to pay for any eventual regulations.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as we envisage that a five-year licence for a dwelling in multiple occupation will cost about £100, I will have no argument about licence fees forcing landlords to price students out of property. There is, however, an argument about the definition of property in multiple occupation. We therefore intend to license the properties at greatest risk—those of three storeys or more and accommodating five people or more. Although regulation would cover much student accommodation, such houses are very unsafe places to live. On average, every week in this country three people in dwellings of multiple occupation die because of fire.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that any further sale of local authority-owned or public housing can only exacerbate this situation?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is estimated that there are around half a million HMOs, and it is essentially a private sector problem because that sector is unregulated. There are multiple-occupied properties in the public sector, in local authorities and housing associations, but those sectors are regulated and action can be taken against them. Local authorities already have the ability to license such properties, but, unfortunately, most choose not to do so.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am glad to hear that the department is actively working on legislation; it is a great comfort to us. I wonder whether my noble friend—who will be driving forward this legislation with his usual vigour—can give us a slightly clearer idea of when it will appear. Will it be 2003, 2004 or 2005?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it may appear more quickly than some people think, but I do not know the contents of the Queen's Speech. It is currently being decided whether the legislation should appear first as a draft Bill or a full Bill. As I said, however, we are actively working on it. We have already consulted on it, and there is no secret about the proposals. I accept that the matter requires urgency.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that houses in multiple occupation constitute a very valuable part of the rented market? Does he also recognise that the number of such properties is decreasing very substantially as they are
1066
sold off as private fiats or houses? Does he think that a form of regulation is likely to stem or encourage this trend away from houses in multiple occupation?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, if regulation encourages a reduction in the number of unsafe dwellings, we should applaud it. The objective is not to remove such houses from the private rented market, but to make them safe places to live. Safety is at the root of the issue. I hope that landlords will not try to argue that, because we have to get the numbers up, we need to have more unsafe accommodation. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is not seeking to make that argument—which would be wholly unsatisfactory, particularly in view of the statistics I cited on the number of people killed. I accept that HMOs are a valuable part of the private-rented market, but I do not think that anyone can defend unsafe properties.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that many houses in multiple occupation are in a poor state of disrepair and that that applies particularly to energy? I refer to poor insulation and poor energy efficiency. Will that issue have particular attention paid to it in the forthcoming legislation?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it will. I do not want to criticise all homes in multiple occupation but it is certainly the case that at least a fifth of them are not fit for human habitation under the present criteria. The safety of such properties and, of course, the capability of landlords properly to manage their properties will form part and parcel of the legislation.

NHS Managers: Performance Targets
2.50 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether senior public health service managers are being pressed to claim falsely that they are meeting targets, in the light of the recent BBC survey of 400 members of the Institute of Healthcare Management alleging such pressure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, NHS managers are not being pressed falsely to claim that they are meeting targets. NHS managers must act with integrity and the new managerial code of conduct will hold them to account for their professional behaviour.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the survey shows clearly that NHS managers are—and certainly feel—under considerable pressure to fiddle performance figures. Does not the new code just divert the blame from where it should lie; namely, on ministerial micro-management and the failure to give real managerial freedom to NHS staff?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. The survey was highly selective. Two-thirds of those asked to respond did not do so. As regards micro-management, if I had followed the advice offered by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, over the past four years, as expressed in his countless Questions, debates and amendments moved to Bills, the NHS would indeed have been submerged by hundreds of targets.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the amount of fiddling of target figures in the NHS that is found out is just the tip of the iceberg? Does he therefore agree that the Government's NHS Plan targets are now not worth the paper they are written on?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree with that at all. I have made clear that we expect NHS managers to operate with integrity. I believe that the great majority of NHS managers do so. As regards the NHS Plan, I believe that the Government have made a great deal of progress. I refer to success in reducing waiting lists, making progress with regard to targets to build 100 new hospitals, speeding up access to GP clinics, increasing the number of training places for doctors and nurses, and increasing retention and recruitment among nurses. There is abundant evidence of real progress with the NHS Plan.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, has the Minister considered in the light of each performance target whether they create perverse incentives? Is there any process for doing away with those targets which have that effect—a process which I understand is now increasingly widely adopted in the private sector?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand that the noble Baroness wishes to see a culture in which there is trust between the Government, the Department of Health and people working in the NHS. I very much echo that sentiment. Indeed, I believe that the new managerial code of conduct will help that process. However, it is absolutely right that tough targets are set for the NHS. We are in the middle of turning the service round and delivering a first-class service to the public. We have to set targets to ensure that the NHS uses its extra resources as wisely as possible.

Iran: Human Rights
2.53 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in relation to the report from the National Council of Resistance of Iran which alleges serious breaches of human rights, such as public executions, stonings and gouging of eyes.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we have serious concerns about human rights in Iran which we and our EU partners address through dialogue, UN resolutions and practical projects. We use a wide range of independent sources to assess the situation. But we do not rely on the often inaccurate reports of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which undertakes fundraising and propaganda activities on behalf of the Mojahedin-e Khalq, a terrorist organisation proscribed in the United Kingdom.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. I recognise, as I am sure do many noble Lords, that there are practical reasons—so called "realpolitik"—for encouraging the positive elements in Iran and developing links with an important country as regards the Middle East crisis and the Gulf crisis. However, is the noble Baroness aware that there have been 292 public executions this year alone, endless instances of stoning to death, eye gouging, amputations and other horrific barbarities? Will she therefore ensure that no opportunity is lost in the future, whether through her visits or those of the Foreign Secretary or other Ministers, to tell Iran that those are intolerable practices which are completely incompatible with a serious and civilised role for Iran in global affairs?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is not just a question of realpolitik. The United Kingdom Government recognise the efforts of the Iranian Government and Parliament towards improving the human rights situation in Iran. We believe that those efforts have been genuine. However, as the noble Lord pointed out—and we also very much regret this—not least because of the political stand-off between the reformists and their conservative opponents, including, of course, the opponents in the judiciary, there has recently been a deterioration in the human rights situation. The figures that I have are deplorable. I refer to the number of people under sentence of death and those who have been subjected to public execution. However, they are not as dramatic as the figures which the noble Lord indicated. I should be happy to talk to the noble Lord about the figures that I have. It is important that we place some of the NCRI material in the right context. Some of it is exaggerated and is not borne out by reports from those on the ground.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is critical engagement still the basis of the Government's approach to Iran? We are all conscious that there are many different elements within the current Iranian regime, some a great deal more reactionary than others, while others are trying to bring Iran into a much more open relationship with the rest of the world. Is critical engagement the way forward?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we hope that the EU/Iran human rights dialogue will go ahead. There are no preconditions on either side. There may, indeed, be a United Nations resolution to follow. It is important to recognise that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has on three occasions visited the country in the past year. On all occasions he raised human rights issues. The special rapporteur on violence against women of the UN Commission on Human Rights is due to visit Iran soon which we welcome. We also welcome the invitation by the Iranian Government to the EU and Australia to establish a dialogue on human rights. These are not solutions in themselves but they are indications of a willingness to engage on the issue.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I remind the House that I chair a committee on freedom in Iran. Has the Minister seen reports in the state-controlled press in Tehran that 20 public hangings and death sentences were passed in a recent three-day period? Although I welcome what the noble Baroness said about the Government's serious concern about the human rights situation in Iran, will she make clear what position the United Kingdom is taking today in discussions among EU foreign ministers about the tabling of a resolution for the UN General Assembly condemning the worsening abuse of human rights in that country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have indeed noted a high number of death sentences in recent days. As my noble friend knows, we do not ever support the death penalty. However, I point out that the individuals concerned have almost without exception been found guilty of serious crimes such as murder or rape. I do not believe that we have evidence of quite the high number that my noble friend suggests. I have evidence before me of about 15 such sentences. I accept that they are deplorable but I do not have the same figure as my noble friend.
My right honourable friend will engage with our colleagues in Europe as regards a UN resolution. The Foreign Secretary favours launching an Iran/EU human rights dialogue but at the moment there is some hesitation over sponsoring a resolution at this autumn's General Assembly.
Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in her initial response to the noble Lord who tabled the Question she referred to the National Council of Resistance of Iran as a terrorist
1070
organisation and apparently produced as justification for that the fact that it is proscribed in this country? Does she agree that that proscription is contested?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord may possibly have misheard me. I said that the National Council of Resistance of Iran undertakes fundraising and propaganda activities on behalf of the Mojahedin-e Khalq—the MeK—and that the MeK is a terrorist organisation proscribed in the UK. We believe that it is proscribed for very good reasons: it publicly acknowledges its responsibility for terrorist actions against government buildings in Iran and carried out a series of mortar bomb attacks in central Tehran in 2000, which resulted in death and injury. It is not the NCRI but the MeK that is proscribed.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in the other place on Bali.
While I am on my feet, I also say that although I am aware of the conventions governing formal tributes, many noble Lords will have heard the sad news of the death of a splendid Member of this House, Lady Serota. She gave tremendous service to this House for more than 30 years, not least when she chaired the Select Committee on the European Communities. I know that I speak for everyone here when I express my most sincere condolences to all her family.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

Enterprise Bill
3.1 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now further considered on Report.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 204 [Reform of Community competition law]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 168 and 169:
page 152, line 1, at beginning insert—
"( ) confer power to make subordinate legislation;"
Page 152, line 8, at end insert—
"(8) Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 2 to the European Communities Act 1972 (c.68) (restriction on powers to legislate) shall not apply to regulations which implement or give effect to a relevant Community instrument made after the passing of this Act."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 205 [Consumers]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 169A:
Page 152, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) A consumer is also a person (whether an individual or not) who receives or seeks to receive goods or services from another person who supplies the goods to services in the course of a business carried on by him and—

(a) the goods or services are to be used in the course of the business of the person receiving or seeking to receive the goods, but

(b) the goods or services will not be supplied to another person in the course of the business of the person receiving or seeking to receive the goods."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a late amendment, for which we apologise to the Minister. The issue was drawn to our attention by Trading Standards North West, which I believe is a group that represents trading standards officers. The purpose of the amendment is to give the same protection to small businesses that consumers will be given under the Bill. It would cover sole traders, partnerships and limited companies, all of which have been the target of traders seeking to make money by unattractive commercial tactics.
While we recognise that it can be argued that limited companies should be able to look after their own affairs, the truth is that many of them are small businesses in which the directors are also the only employees and often members of the same family. Even when the company is large, rogues specifically target them hoping that inertia and bad communications will work to their advantage. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I declare an interest because this amendment comes, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, from a group of trading standards officers in the North West, Greater Manchester, parts of Lancashire and so on, and I am the vice-president of the Trading Standards Institute.
When a business buys goods to resell, it is clear that the person buys them not as a consumer but as a business to sell on. It is therefore fair enough that the consumer protection provisions of the Bill that will be enforced by trading standards officers should not apply to such business-to-business situations. However, when a business buys goods not to resell but to use within the business, the business is behaving in many ways like an ordinary individual consumer. The theory may be—the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised this when he discussed the reasons why a business should not normally be given consumer protection—that a business is always able to look after itself and its interests. In relation to goods that it does not buy to sell, it may be no more knowledgeable and no more expert about goods or services in order to protect itself than an individual.
In a letter to me, Trading Standards North West cited the case of a printer supplying headed writing paper to an ordinary individual consumer. In that example, the work was poorly done, frequently badly done and full of mistakes. That is covered by the Bill as a practice that trading standards officers could "go
1072
for". However, if the printer switched to supplying businesses, he would be outside the sanctions of the Bill. I shall not bore noble Lords with other examples cited by the group; they are examples of businesses supplying to other businesses goods and services that are not fit for the purpose or shoddy.
If the amendment is agreed to—noble Lords will understand that I feel that there is much merit in it—it would not be wholly without precedent. The Unfair Contract Terms Act applies when, for example, a firm buys cars for its staff—I refer to a firm that is not itself in the business of cars and does not know any more about cars than anyone else. Why not make the enforcement powers in the Bill available when businesses buy goods or services other than for resale? There is much merit in the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to have had an opportunity to read the submission from the Trading Standards North West group, which represents not just small and medium-sized local authorities but all of the local authorities in Merseyside and Greater Manchester. It is a significant and serious group and we must take its arguments seriously.
The focus of the Bill is to strengthen the enforcement of consumer protection legislation. If we allowed enforcement orders to be made to stop unlawful conduct that harms the collective interests of businesses when they are purchasing goods and services for their own use, that would be a significant extension of the scope of this part of the Bill. That is true whether or not one adopts the presumed restriction to the amendment suggested by my noble friend Lord Borrie; that is, to goods that businesses buy for their own use rather than for onward sale, although the amendment does not say that.
The fundamental rationale for consumer protection legislation is that consumers are in a weak bargaining position when they deal with businesses. Consumers can be expected to have less knowledge of their legal rights and of how to enforce them than the business with which they are dealing. Consumer protection legislation, including the provisions in this part of the Bill—it is concerned with the effective enforcement of that legislation—seeks to address that imbalance. I do not deny the cases that the trading standards group raised and I recognise the point cited by my noble friend Lord Borrie about stationery that was poorly done or full of mistakes. However, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 requires traders who contract to provide a service, whether to individual consumers or to businesses, to do so with reasonable care and skill. Any supply of goods—for example, printed stationery—must be of satisfactory quality and fit for the purpose. Failure to observe those requirements would constitute a breach of contract, and the purchaser could reject the goods and refuse to pay for them.
Of course, there is a grey area between small businesses, which often buy goods in areas in which they do not have expertise, and consumers. But, when a person goes into business, he is supposed to do so

1073
knowing that he will have to negotiate, bargain and form relationships with other businesses. As we recognise that small businesses have particular difficulties, we have resources available to help them. I refer, in particular, to the DTI's Small Business Service and Business Links.
When we were producing the consumer White Paper of 1999, we consulted on the idea of extending some consumer protection measures to small businesses. We recognised that small businesses can find themselves in disadvantageous negotiating positions similar to those faced by individual consumers. But we did not find widespread support for that proposal. Since then, we have not come under pressure from business groups—for example, the national association of trading standards officers—for the Bill to be amended to allow for enforcement orders to be made against businesses which act unlawfully. As I said, the trading standards community has not been pressing for it.
It would be quite wrong to amend the Bill in such a significant way at this late stage without having consulted stakeholders—particularly business and small business representatives—to discover whether there is any appetite for it. Careful consideration would be needed of precisely which businesses should be covered—that is, small businesses only or goods bought for the businesses' own use. The amendment would apply to all businesses, regardless of their size, when they are purchasing goods or services for their own use. That may well not be appropriate.
We need to ensure that widening the scope of Part 8 in this way would not result in trading standards officers devoting less effort to mainstream consumer protection, which is their primary function, and we would need to consider whether organisations which represent the collective interests of business should be designated as enforcers under Clause 208. These are very different questions from those which concern designating consumer organisations as enforcers because trade bodies are almost invariably funded by their member companies.
As I indicated when responding to the question about stationery, we are not leaving businesses without protection. Some of the legislation and common law obligations that we intend to specify in the orders already apply to businesses as well as to consumers; for example, in the Sale of Goods Act, the Supply of Goods and Services Act, the Trade Descriptions Act and the Control of Misleading Advertising Regulations.
Important protection for businesses also exists in company law. Under the Insolvency Act 1986, the Secretary of State can ask the court to wind up a company where she judges that to be in the public interest on the basis of investigations undertaken under the Companies Acts. That power is exercised to remove from the market place companies whose misconduct offers a threat to others, including other businesses. The DTI is reviewing the operation of company law powers and, in that context, is considering the protection for responsible enterprises
1074
available under company law. I can assure the House that the DTI has taken note of the concerns raised in the amendment, which I hope will not be pressed.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for dealing with the amendment so thoroughly at such short notice. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, very much for his support.
In responding, the Minister said two things. First, he said that, frankly, the amendment was too late. The Bill has been devised and to make such a radical change to Part 8 at this stage would mean that there would be consequential implications for other parts of the Bill which would be too complicated to introduce.
However, at the same time, the noble Lord also said that, to the extent that the Government had consulted on the matter, they were confident that the problem was not as widespread as the Trading Standards North West group believes it to be. That. I understood, was what the Minister said but I believe that he is about to correct me.
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not go quite that far. I said that no one else had drawn it to our attention. I did not express any confidence or otherwise in the degree of mis-selling to businesses. Rather, I argued that there are other remedies.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that response because it leads me to ask him whether, if such further evidence were to become available, the Government would give urgent consideration to the matter. It is clear that this problem worries trading standards officers in the North West. If it transpires that there are equally strong feelings among trading standards officers from other parts of the country, will this be a matter to which the Government, at an early stage, will give careful attention?
As I understand it, the theory behind consumer protection is the imbalance in the market between powerful commercial interests supplying, on the one hand, and the individual consumer purchasing, on the other. But there is not that great a distinction between powerful commercial interests, on the one hand, and, on the other, commercial interests which are more or less in the same position as individual consumers. I refer to the sole trader or the very small company—the type of company that obviously concerns trading standards officers.
Therefore, if the core of this issue concerns commercial power—differential commercial power in the market—that suggests that, if the evidence that the Minister's investigations establishes supports the case set out in the Trading Standards North West group's own paper, then the Government should give consideration to early legislation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have been asked a direct question. My argument was that we had already carried out the

1075
consultation—in other words, we consulted organisations representing business and, of course, the national association of trading standards officers. They did not express that view, and I believe it unlikely that they will express that view before we come to consider the matter at Third Reading.
However, I am certainly glad to say to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that we always keep these matters under review and we always take representations of this kind very seriously. If a body of opinion and evidence builds up, of course we shall seek to respond to it.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, again, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am sure that the trading standards officers, not only in the North West but in other parts of the country, will have their attention drawn to this exchange. I believe we can say that it is now for them to raise this issue with the Government if they feel that it is as widespread as some suggest. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 208 [Enforcers]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 155, line 2, after "be)" insert "is not itself a trading body and"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 170, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 171 to 173. These amendments deal with the enforcement order aspects of the Bill. They are intended to be helpful to us and to the Minister by clarifying a number of matters.
As a preamble, the Bill introduces enforcement orders. They are basically "stop now" orders extended to UK consumer protection legislation. Although there will be one regime, they will also replace "stop now" orders in relation to EU legislation. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill claim that these are similar to injunctions.
Although there will be one regime, there will be differences within the regime for domestic and EU legislation. In the case of domestic legislation a consumer will be an individual who receives, or seeks to receive, goods or services other than in the course of his business or, with a view to setting up a business, from a person who supplies them in the course of business. This inclusion of prospective business people is intended to cover individuals who participate in "homeworking" schemes. For Community infringements, consumers must include all people who are consumers for the purposes of the nominated directives. I understand that the department will list the laws to which each of those apply.
The Secretary of State will have the power to make an order conferring enforcement powers on other UK public bodies and private consumer organisations that have as one of their purposes the protection of the collective interests of consumers. Such a private organisation will need to meet specific criteria set
1076
down by the Secretary of State by order. Different criteria may be set for Community and domestic purposes.
From experience on this Bill and others, I am well aware that it is possible that the words in the amendment, the case that I make, and the impact of that on the Bill may not be as one. It may help the Minister if I raise one or two points for clarification. I have previously declared a marginal interest in that I still have contacts with the Co-operative movement and with the British Retail Consortium with whom I have consulted on these matters. There is a need for clarity as to the character of the orders; a need for legislative confirmation of damages and costs for a business where appropriate; a need for guidance to be issued prior to action being undertaken; a need for co-ordination; and a need to avoid the use of the orders to clarify the law rather than to prevent an action that is clearly beyond the law.
Reputable retailers, both large and small, believe that their reputation and profitability rely on serving their customers to the best of their ability. As such they strongly support measures to root out rogue traders who rip off consumers and undermine consumer confidence. The new enforcement orders introduced in the Bill to replace and to supplement the "stop now" orders introduced earlier in the year should have that as their primary purpose. However, the Bill gives us an opportunity to put behind us the disappointing experience of the "stop now" orders which were introduced hastily without proper consultation and which the OFT used to clarify the law in ways that had not been foreseen and without the necessary guidance having been produced. That guidance has still not been forthcoming. The guidance is essential to allow retailers to understand what is required of them. I hope that the Government will consider not bringing this part of the Bill into force until such guidance has been produced by the OFT. The main thrust of the provisions should be directed against rogue traders.
I am sure that the Minister will understand the tentative way in which I have put the case. In seeking to clarify the respective powers and responsibilities concerning businesses and consumers, I am well aware that there is a great deal of misunderstanding. In my view, the Minister can help the British Retail Consortium and the many bodies that it represents to understand better the thrust of the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Graham for his strong support for the orders and I am grateful for the way in which he introduced his amendments. I shall speak about them first and then turn to the guidance and the consultation.
Amendment No. 170 seeks to ensure that consumer organisations that carry on a commercial activity are not eligible to be designated as enforcers under this part. Amendment No. 171 is an alternative to Amendment No. 170 which would allow the Secretary of State to designate a consumer organisation with a

1077
trading arm as an enforcer but only in respect of those areas where the organisation does not have a trading interest.
We believe that the fact that a consumer body has a trading arm should not of itself disqualify it from being designated as an enforcer, provided that the trading arm does not control the body and that any profits made by the trading arm are used only for the purposes of furthering the stated objectives of the body. Excluding bodies with trading arms would exclude many, if not most, charities that use commercial activities to fund their stated objectives.
I understand the point about the potential conflict of interest, which is why the draft criteria I have made available to the House and on which we shall consult fully after Royal Assent includes the strict requirement that before the Secretary of State can designate a private consumer organisation as an enforcer, she must be satisfied that the organisation is so constituted, managed and controlled as to be expected to act independently, impartially and with complete integrity. If, after being designated, a consumer organisation uses its powers to further its own commercial interests it would be breaching that criterion and the Secretary of State would remove its designation.
We shall consult widely on the draft criteria giving all interested parties the chance to raise their concerns. The consultation will also include draft guidance, to which my noble friend referred, on the applications and designation process, including pragmatic proposals on dealing with potential conflicts of interest where an applicant has a commercial trading arm, and on removing a body's designation if it ceases to meet the criteria. I welcome comments on the consultation on the draft criteria.
Amendment No. 172 seeks to substitute the existing power for the Secretary of State to make orders under this clause subject to negative resolution procedure with one subject to affirmative resolution procedure. I appreciate that the power will be used to make statutory instruments setting out the criteria that private consumer organisations will have to meet to be given enforcement powers, but I point out that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has examined all the proposed delegated powers in the Bill and is content for the power in this clause to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Amendment No. 173 seeks to ensure that this part could not be used solely for the purpose of clarifying legislation where the intention of that legislation is in doubt. It is for the OFT or another enforcer to decide whether it is appropriate to initiate the enforcement procedure provided for in any given circumstance. I recognise that there may be some situations where the enforcer and the trader disagree as to whether a breach has taken place because they have different views as to what the legislation means. However, Clause 209 generally requires enforcers first to consult the OFT (if it is not the enforcer) and the person against whom the enforcement order may be made and give the latter the
1078
opportunity to stop the infringement without the need for court action. I would expect that discussion period to be used to try to resolve any different views.
I accept that there may be some cases where a genuine difference of view remains, but in those cases only the courts could resolve such a difference. The courts can find that there is an infringement only if the collective interest of consumers is being harmed. I understand the concerns, but I hope that I have reassured my noble friend Lord Graham that those points are already being dealt with.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and his colleagues who have taken seriously the points I wanted to raise. We are talking about the consumer population of this country who could be affected by the manner in which the interpretations take place. The Minister has satisfied me that all my points have been considered in one way or another by himself and his colleagues. I do not believe that I shall return to the matter again. I am grateful to the Minister for his action. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 not moved.]
Clause 210 [Applications]:
[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
3.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 157, line 4, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are all grateful for the Minister's guidance. He is extremely skilled in dealing with these matters—even when it comes to battling with things that apparently do not mean very much. It would be interesting to know more about the injunctions directive. I am not as intimate with every line of the Bill as the Minister, so he is in a much better position to guide us. Perhaps he could say who or what is the injunctions directive to which Clause 210(8) refers:
"The purpose of a Community enforcer must be construed by reference to the injunctions Directive"
I do not have a clue what any of that means. I may be simple, but I consulted my noble friend on the Front Bench and he was unable to enlighten me. Perhaps we may both be enlightened by the Minister.
As to Amendments Nos. 178 and 179, Clause 217 seems cast very wide to catch people, including an associate of an individual—he can hardly help being that—who can be
"the spouse of a relative of the individual's spouse".
The Minister has never been able to conceal the fact that he has a sense of humour. I am sure that he has a lively sense of the ridiculous. I wonder whether the noble Lord does not find that provision somewhat ridiculous. I will not make a long speech because I do not know what that subsection means. If the Minister would be good enough to provide guidance on those two matters, I would be extremely grateful. Then I

1079
might be in a position to make a slightly more sensible reply than has been possible with my opening speech. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I support my noble friend in Amendments Nos. 178 and 179. As I understand Clause 217(10)(e),
"the spouse of a relative of the individual's spouse"
could be the wife or husband of a relative of my wife—which is a wide net to cast. When read in conjunction with subsection (13), where the definition of a relative is also extremely wide, it seems that the Bill has created a huge pool of people—many of whom will not be aware that they are or could be associates.
The key to this is whether an associate could reasonably be expected to know that he or she was an associate. The clauses are drawn so wide as to mean that all sorts of people will, quite unwittingly, find themselves dragged into the net. In the case of a second or third-generation family firm, together the family might control one-third of the voting power and therefore fall within the provisions of the clause but, after three generations, family members might have spread all over the country or the world. I have acted for long-standing family businesses where the relatives have dispersed as far as New Zealand and the United States. For them to be considered associates and therefore caught by Clause 217 seems a catch-all too far.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I will do my best to enlighten the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and to persuade him that the Bill is not entirely trivial or pointless.
Amendment No. 174 seeks to remove the requirement that where a court may examine whether the purpose of a Community enforcer justifies its making the application, the purpose of the Community enforcer must be construed by reference to the injunctions directive. That is set out on page 80, paragraph 452, of the Explanatory Notes:
"Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests (known as the 'Injunctions Directive')…permits consumer protection bodies"—
which are called "qualified entities" in the directive—
"designated by the Member States"—
so it is up to them to say who they should be—
"to apply to the courts or competent administrative authorities for orders to require traders to cease conduct that constitutes a breach of any of the consumer protection directives listed in the annex to the Injunctions Directive and that harm the collective interests of consumers. Qualified entities can bring proceedings in their own Member State and in another Member State if an infringement there has effects on consumers in the qualified entity's home State".
That really means that if rogue traders operate in one member state against consumers in another, those traders cannot escape. That is why there must be European rather than national legislation. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that seeking injunctions to stop traders acting in a roguish way is a well-established
1080
principle and form of consumer protection. The injunction directive ensures that rogue traders cannot get away with it by targeting consumers in a different country.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is interested in pursuing Amendment No. 174. Perhaps he is more concerned about the meaning of the injunction directive. I hope that I am not misjudging him. The directive only gives Community enforcers the right to make applications for enforcement orders in respect of those interests protected by the enforcer in its home state. Removing subsection (8) could inhibit a court from refusing an application from a Community enforcer that was taking action in respect of infringements that it could not act to prevent in its home state. It is a case of, "Do as I do, not as I say".
Clause 215(3) gives enforcers the discretion, where a person has failed to comply with an undertaking given to the court, to apply for an enforcement order or interim enforcement order instead of an order finding that the infringer is in contempt of court. Subsection (5), which Amendment No. 176 would remove, disapplies certain procedures of the original enforcement process that are inappropriate. I will explain why the provisions in subsection (5) are right.
First, although we would certainly expect the enforcer to approach the infringer before bringing further court proceedings, we do not see a need for the enforcer to consult the Office of Fair Trading under Clause 209 and delay bringing action for 14 days, for enforcement orders, or seven days, for interim enforcement orders, where successful court action has already been taken but the infringer has then breached an undertaking that he has given to the court.
Secondly, the power for the OFT to make directions as to which enforcer may make an application for an enforcement order is unnecessary in these cases because Clause 215(2) means that only the enforcer who made the original application or the OFT can make an application to the court to enforce the order or undertaking.
Thirdly, we think it only right that the court which heard the original application, and which therefore knows and understands the background to the case, should hear the further application.
Finally, we see no reason why the court should be able to accept a further undertaking from a person who had already breached an undertaking that he had given. What we are doing here, I hope it will be agreed, is simplifying the procedures; we are removing unnecessary steps but maintaining the necessary protection.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 178 and 179, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, spoke. The definition of an "associate" is relevant for the purpose of determining whether an application for an enforcement order can be made against a person who consents to, or connives at, conduct by a body corporate that constitutes an infringement.

1081
Amendments No. 178 and 179 seek to remove two elements from the definition of "associate" in subsection (10), namely, paragraphs (e) and (g). I understand concerns that paragraphs (e) and (g) might be seen as defining the word "associate" too widely. But we do not want a person to be able to avoid enforcement action being taken against him simply by placing shares nominally in the name of a member of his extended family—for example, his wife's sister's husband. They could be living in the same house or be close friends. Paragraph (e) is intended to prevent that.
Paragraph (f) covers unmarried couples, including same sex couples who live together in an established relationship. In exactly the same way as paragraph (c) includes within the definition of an "associate" a person who is a relative of the individual's spouse, paragraph (g) covers relatives of a person's established partner. We see no good reason to make a distinction between relatives of an individual's spouse and relatives of an individual's partner. I hope that that deals with the points raised.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I remind him of my purpose, which was slightly clearer than the clause. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for reading out that illuminating passage from the Explanatory Notes. It would not be the first time that an explanation has resulted in greater length and more obscurity. That is in no way his fault. To ask the noble Lord to exert his talents in improving on these things without much notice would, I realise, be asking far too much and be more unreasonable than even I could ever dream of being.
It was never my intention to spoil the clause or to lacerate it in some way by leaving out such gems of language as these two amendments cover. What I had hoped to do was to penetrate slightly its opaqueness. I realise that that was taking on rather a big task and was asking the noble Lord to do really more than he had the time to do today, despite his immense talents. In the circumstances, there would be no point in going back to this rather wearing subject. I merely take the opportunity to appeal to the noble Lord's good nature and wisdom, and to ask whether he could exert these great qualities, which we know he has, to leave out, wherever possible, such awful language, instead of marring that wastepaper basket which is familiarly known as the statute book with more garbage than it already has. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Clause 213 [Interim enforcement order]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 159, line 19, at end insert—
"(5A) An application for an interim enforcement order must refer to all matters—

(a) which are known to the applicant, and

(b) which are material to the question whether or not the application is granted."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 175, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 180, 181 and 182. Amendment No. 175 responds to the opinion of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that it would be beneficial to draw attention on the face of the Bill to the need for the courts to take account of the whole picture when considering an application for an interim enforcement order under Part 8 and not to simply accept the applicant's ipse dixit. I thought we did not do that any more—I am shocked—but it comes from the Joint Committee on Human rights and not from the Government.
Clause 224 requires the OFT to publish advice and information to explain the provisions of Part 8 and to indicate how it expects them to operate. It would be inappropriate to legislate to tell the court to look at the evidence before it in deciding whether to make an interim enforcement order. However, when an application is made without notice being given to the person named in the application, the whole picture is necessarily limited to the evidence put before it by the applicant.
It is our view that on an application without notice the applicant will be obliged to put before the court all material facts and the court will consider them in deciding whether to make an interim enforcement order. The Joint Committee agrees that this is likely to be the case. But, for clarity, Amendment No. 175 includes the obligation on the face of the Bill.
The amendment, which applies to applications made both with and without notice, matches a similar provision in practice direction 25 in England and Wales on interim injunctions. The obligation to disclose all matters which are known to the applicant and which are material to whether or not the application is granted will enable the court to consider the whole picture. This will be true both when an application is made without notice and when an application with notice is not contested by the defendant. Where an application with notice is contested, the defendant will be able to put before the court any additional considerations against making the order sought and which may not be known to the applicant.
Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 are in response to an amendment tabled in Committee which the Government agreed to consider. The amendment recognises that the existing wording of Clause 224(5), which states:
"If the OFT is preparing advice or information",
is inappropriate, given that this section requires the OFT to produce such guidance.
I turn to Amendment No. 182. Clause 227(4) and (5) set out the circumstances in which the supply of goods or services wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom are to be regarded as being supplied to a consumer in the UK so that the provisions on domestic infringements will apply to those transactions. The existing definition of the arrangements for supply which had to be satisfied mirrored those currently in Section 138(3) of the Fair Trading Act 1973. That Act

1083
uses rather old-fashioned language about documents and correspondence which are too restrictive in today's world of Internet transactions and other forms of electronic communication. Amendment No. 182 updates those provisions to include arrangements made by electronic means. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 215 [Further proceedings]:
[Amendment No. 176 not moved.]
Clause 217 [Bodies corporate: accessories]:
[Amendments Nos. 178 and 179 not moved.]
Clause 224 [Advice and information]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 180 and 181:
Page 165, line 39, leave out "If the OFT is" and insert "In"
Page 165, line 39, leave out "it" and insert "the OFT"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move formally.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 227 [Goods and services]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 167, line 16, leave out from "made" to end of line 20 and insert "by any means and—

(a) at the time the arrangements are made the person seeking the supply is in the United Kingdom, or

(b) at the time the goods or services are supplied (or ought to be supplied in accordance with the arrangements) the person responsible under the arrangements for effecting the supply is in or has a place of business in the United Kingdom."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 233 [Information]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 169, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) In subsection (1) the reference to an enactment includes a reference to an enactment contained in—

(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(b) Northern Ireland legislation;

(c) subordinate legislation."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 183, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 184, 186 and 187, which are government amendments. I shall also refer to Amendments Nos. 185 and 188 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
Amendments Nos. 183 and 184 are minor technical amendments. They ensure that the definition of "enactment" in Clause 233 can include Scottish and Northern Ireland legislation, and subordinate legislation. This is to ensure that Scottish and Northern Ireland legislation can be added to Schedule 14 by order after Royal Assent, and so brought within Part 9.
Amendments Nos. 186 and 187 bring the disclosure gateway for criminal proceedings in Part 9 into line with the equivalent gateway in the Anti-terrorism,
1084
Crime and Security Act 2001. Amendment No. 186 amends the gateway to allow disclosure to any person for the purpose of criminal proceedings. We propose that change after listening to concerns expressed by the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services and the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy that Part 9 as drafted would prevent trading standards officers from disclosing information to consumers and private bodies to assist them in bringing private prosecutions.
We are aware of a number of successful cases in which industry bodies, in particular, have used such information to assist with private prosecutions for copyright theft. We do not want to prevent such cases being taken in future and see no reason why the gateway for criminal proceedings in the Bill should be narrower than that in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
We are accompanying that widening of the gateway for criminal proceedings with an additional safeguard that must be taken into consideration by a public authority before information is disclosed under that gateway. Amendment No. 187 adds a requirement that, before disclosing information for the purposes of UK criminal proceedings, the disclosing authority must have satisfied itself that the disclosure is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it. That responds to an amendment tabled in Committee which my noble friend Lord Sainsbury agreed to consider. It also brings Clause 237 into line with the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
Amendment No. 188, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is virtually identical to the amendment that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury agreed partially to consider in Committee. I hope that our version is satisfactory.
Finally, No. Amendment 185, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and others, would prevent an investigator or prosecutor from using any information obtained under Part 6 of the Bill for the purpose of subsequent proceedings under the Competition Act 1998 unless that information could have been obtained by the Office of Fair Trading or the Serious Fraud Office in any event using their existing powers. All of the powers contained in Part 6 are modelled on existing powers contained in Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1987, but for one exception that I shall describe. So those powers are not novel and are regularly applied during criminal investigations. Furthermore, the powers are also available to the OFT under existing provisions of the Competition Act 1998.
The exception is the intrusive surveillance powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which are not provided for in earlier legislation but which are appropriate and necessary for the investigation of cartels. It is accepted and common practice by law enforcement agencies that if, during a properly conducted investigation, evidence is uncovered that points to a different civil or criminal offence having being committed, that evidence can be used in a court of law.
The decisive point is that evidence must be obtained using proper powers and observing all existing safeguards. Information gathered under the Part 6 powers will have been obtained to the highest standard. In particular, any investigation using powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is subject to high safeguards. That Act was passed by both Houses to ensure that any type of surveillance powers are exercised in such a manner as to ensure the safeguarding of the human rights of those under investigation.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed itself as content with Part 6 of the Bill. In its 18th report, it stated:
"In our view the rights of suspects, including the privilege against self-incrimination, are adequately protected".
If we were to accept the amendment, we should put in question any evidence currently obtained under the Criminal Justice Act 1987 subsequently used in civil proceedings.
For all those reasons, evidence obtained through an investigation under Part 6 should be admisssible for the purpose of civil proceedings under the Competition Act 1998. I hope that in anticipating the speech to be made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, or his colleagues, I have accurately expressed the intention behind Amendments Nos. 185 and 188. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, in calling this group of amendments, perhaps this is the appropriate time to say that, were Amendment No. 187 agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendment No. 188.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. On Amendment No. 188, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, was kind enough to say during Committee that he would go away to reflect on our draft. He has done that; the Minister has returned with his preferred version. Although it does not meet everything that we would have wanted, in my view it is sufficiently comprehensive for us to allow our amendment to fall by the wayside.
On Amendment No. 185, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, gave us no ground for hope in Committee and that approach has been largely mimicked by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The matter was dealt with in Committee on 29th July 2001 at col. CWH 739 of Hansard. Our concern was that powers that could quite properly be used under Part 6 of the Bill in respect of the new cartel offence—powers that were the equivalent of powers in Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1987—could be used in relation to purely civil offences. I accept that many of those powers could also be used in purely civil offences under the terms of the Competition Act 1998.
The Minister rightly pointed out the one exception to that are the intrusive surveillance powers, which, for obvious reasons, did not exist when the Competition Act was passed in 1998. The Minister is saying that those powers ought, in certain circumstances, to be
1086
available to the authorities for civil offences under that Act. I think that the use of those powers would be inappropriate and, for that reason, I shall reflect on whether to table the amendment again on Third Reading. Meanwhile, I shall not press it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. I shall think carefully about what he said about Amendment No. 185.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 169, line 20, at end insert—
"( ) The power to make an order under subsection (4) includes power to add, vary or remove a reference to any provision of—

(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(b) Northern Ireland legislation."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 236 [Statutory functions]:
[Amendment No. 185 not moved.]
Clause 237 [Criminal proceedings]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 186 and 187:
Page 170, line 38, leave out from "to" to end of line 4 on page 171 and insert "any person—

(a) in connection with the investigation of any criminal offence in any part of the United Kingdom;

(b) for the purposes of any criminal proceedings there;

(c) for the purpose of any decision whether to start or bring to an end such an investigation or proceedings."

Page 171, line 5, leave out from "the" to end of line 11 and insert "person to whom it is disclosed for any purpose other than that for which it is disclosed.
( ) A public authority must not make a disclosure under this section unless it is satisfied that the making of the disclosure is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 188 not moved.]

Bali
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the terrorist attack in Bali on Saturday 12th October.
"In his Statement to the House last Tuesday, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister set out the circumstances as we then knew them about the blast and its consequences. The most up-to-date information is this.
"In total, more than 180 people of many nationalities are thought to have died in the attack. Of those, at least 120 were Australian. Many Indonesians died. Of the British citizens caught up

1087
in the blast, 11 are now confirmed as dead and a further 22 are missing—sadly, presumed to be dead. At least 27 British citizens were injured, a number of whom have been medevaced to Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong. There may be other British injured among the unidentified in intensive care.
"The House joined the Prime Minister last week in sending its deepest sympathies to the relatives of the victims. It is every parent's worst nightmare to hear that their sons and daughters have been swept up in a tragedy. And when bereavement is compounded by having to travel half way across the world to identify loved ones, the experience is truly unimaginable.
"Yesterday we joined with the people of Australia who held a day of national mourning for this, the worst terrorist outrage in that country's history. Here flags were flown at half-mast on Buckingham Palace and on our Embassies and High Commissions around the world. The Australian High Commission is arranging a memorial service in St Paul's on 25th October. The Indonesian Embassy will be holding a commemorative ceremony on 22nd October. The Government will organise a British memorial service. We shall be consulting the families about what they think would be most appropriate.
"Let me now update the House on the action we have taken to assist those injured and the relatives and close friends of all who were victims in this atrocity. The British Honorary Consulate in Bali provided the initial assistance to survivors of the blast, and to victims' relatives. This was reinforced early on Sunday 13th October by the British Consul and then by the Ambassador, Richard Gozney, other staff, and volunteers from the British community. These staff and volunteers have worked tirelessly and I pay my tribute to them.
"However, on Thursday I learnt of complaints by some families that they had not received the service we should have provided. I asked my noble friend Baroness Amos, who was already travelling to Bali, to talk to all the families concerned and to make her own assessment about the complaints. In the light of this, my noble friend apologised direct to the families concerned.
"I reinforced that apology on Friday and would like to repeat it in the House. I am very sorry that shortcomings in getting sufficient extra staff on the ground in Bali early enough last week exacerbated the terrible burden the families were under in any event. As of today, there are 15 British officials in Bali, and 32 British police officers—including experienced family liaison officers and anti-terrorist experts working with the Indonesian and Australian police on the investigation into the attack itself. In London the emergency consular unit established overnight on Saturday 12th October, and working with New Scotland Yard, has continued in operation.
1088
"Last Wednesday, I announced a package of measures designed to help relatives to travel to where their loved ones were being treated, or to where victims had died. The scheme—similar to that put in place after September 11th last year—covers the repatriation of the remains of those who died, and the medical evacuation of the injured.
"The FCO will pay the costs concerned wherever an insurance policy does not already cover them. I decided on these exceptional measures because of the exceptional nature of terrorism, in which individuals are random victims of attacks directed at society as a whole. As for the future, we shall be working urgently with the insurance industry and others to see how between us we can ensure that the pain of victims of terrorism is not made worse by financial hardship.
"Immediately after the Bali attack, we advised against all travel to Bali and all non-essential travel to Indonesia. On 17th October I announced a further strengthening of our travel advice, warning against any travel at all to Indonesia as a whole. I also advised UK citizens in Indonesia to consider leaving if their presence was not essential, and authorised the withdrawal of some dependants and non-essential staff from our Embassy in Jakarta.
"On 18th October we amended our travel advice to other countries in South East Asia, urging UK nationals to exercise extreme caution. Sadly, further attacks cannot be ruled out. In the light of additional intelligence assessed this morning, I am strengthening the travel advice still further by giving additional warnings about threats to UK nationals at specific locations in Indonesia. That travel advice is being issued now. It is available on the FCO's website.
"Let me now deal with questions about travel advice before 12th October. I am placing in the Library of the House the travel advice issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and British Embassy in Jakarta in respect of Indonesia before 12th October, and the equivalent advice issued by the United States and Australian governments.
"Many of the relevant judgments in travel advice of this kind are based upon intelligence. In the light of the atrocity on 12th October, the families and others have asked whether there was any intelligence which could have led us to issue specific warnings against travel to, or staying in, Bali. If I had lost a member of my family I would be asking such questions. Indeed, as Foreign Secretary, it is my responsibility to ask such questions.
"Like everyone else, I dearly wish that there had been intelligence which could have prevented this atrocity and its appalling consequences. But the answer, sadly, is that there was none. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister told the House last Tuesday, 'we had no specific intelligence relating to the attacks in Bali'.
"As is now well known, it is the case that there was received in late September a generic threat to a number of cities and provinces in Indonesia,

1089
including Bali, but covering altogether 55 per cent of the land mass of Indonesia and 100 million of its population. As my Australian counterpart, Alexander Downer, told the Australian Parliament on 17th October, these threats 'were non-specific and broad based across Indonesia'.
"There has also been a question raised about the Travel Advisory issued by the United States Department of State on 10th October. Let me explain to the House what this was. The Advisory was a 'world-wide caution' of a kind first issued by the United States after September 11th last year. It alerted United States citizens to the need to remain vigilant in the face of terrorist threats. It was revised on 10th October this year following an audio tape broadcast attributed to Osama bin Laden. Issued only two days before the attack in Bali, it contained no reference to Bali, Indonesia or even South East Asia.
"We also received a classified warning to a similar effect from the US on the same day. It too had no reference to Bali, Indonesia or South East Asia. Since our travel advice to Indonesia, last updated in this country on 27th August 2002, already contained a clear warning to travellers to Indonesia about terrorist threats, we judged that there was no case for amending it further in the light of the United States Advisory.
"The United States, Australia and the United Kingdom all received similar intelligence in respect of Indonesia, but making their own independent judgments about this, all came to similar conclusions about travel to Indonesia. None of us had concluded that it was unsafe to travel to or remain in Bali.
"Both as Home Secretary and now as Foreign Secretary I have worked closely over the last five and a half years with all three of our intelligence agencies. Their standard of professionalism and competence is second to none. They pick up literally thousands of pieces of intelligence. These vary from material provided by human sources, that provided by secret technical means and material that is openly available to the public, and sometimes just gossip.
"Terrorist groups operate in secret. They are also often skilled in counter-intelligence techniques and may be feeding false intelligence to compromise a source or direct law enforcement resources to the wrong place. So the raw intelligence has to be skilfully and carefully assessed before judgments can be made upon it. I believe, on the basis of what I have seen, that the correct judgments were made about the available streams of intelligence before 12th October. There were generic threats. There was no information which could have enabled us to warn in advance of this atrocity.
"But, Mr Speaker, I do not want the relatives of those who died in this atrocity, nor those injured, to have nagging anxieties about whether different judgments should have been made. The Intelligence and Security Committee was established by Act of this Parliament to scrutinise the work of our
1090
intelligence agencies. Through the Prime Minister, it reports regularly to Parliament. It is made up of senior and respected Members of both Houses of Parliament. It happens that the ISC is at present in Canberra on a long-planned trip. This morning I spoke to the chairman of the ISC, my right honourable friend the Member for Dewsbury, who had just arrived there. I told her that I had asked the Intelligence Co-ordinator in the Cabinet Office to ensure that all intelligence was made available to her committee. The ISC will of course consider this and then reach its own conclusion upon it.
"The atrocity in Kuta was a brutal reminder that the campaign against terrorism did not end with the removal of the Taliban. The reality is that our campaign will take years, perhaps even decades.
"In Indonesia, our immediate aim is to help the Indonesian Government act quickly to deal with the terrorist threat. We are already discussing how we can help through an intensified programme of counter-terrorism assistance.
"My noble friend Lady Amos and the British Ambassador met President Megawati this morning in Jakarta. My noble friend was assured by the president that the Indonesian Government were determined to take swift and decisive action against those responsible for these attacks. President Megawati has already signed an emergency decree strengthening police powers to detain suspects and to enable the courts to make use of intelligence.
"The Indonesian authorities have also taken action against known extremist groups. On 19th October, they arrested the founder of Jemaah Islamiyah, Abubakar Bashir.
"The atrocity in Bali confirmed that our citizens are vulnerable wherever they are in the world. The terrorist's aim is to defeat the universal values of the United Nations of tolerance, freedom and respect for human life and replace them with brutality, fear and ethnic and religious hatred. I believe that the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Howard, captured the international mood when he called on the world to pursue the campaign against terrorism with 'unrelenting vigour'.
"Our grief at what happened is enormous, but our determination is unwavering".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, like all noble Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the detailed Statement made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. At the outset, I want to emphasise—it is hardly necessary—that in no sense do we regard this as a party issue or one to be a matter of debate between the parties. It is much too tragic, big and serious an issue for that.
Furthermore, we appreciate that we must await the return of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, from the difficult mission which she has been performing ably in Bali. As the Statement points out, she has creditably

1091
and frankly apologised for certain shortcomings which arose and which we hope will be put right in case they are needed in future.
The fact that the Statement is being made today indicates that certain questions need clarification beyond doubt in both the interests of the public and those bereaved. We on this side of the House fully understand about general or generic warnings, over-reaction to any of which plays into the hands of terrorists. Moreover, when one is dealing with thousands of items of intelligence, it is virtually impossible to expect open and public warnings to tourists and everyone else each time a rumour or warning comes through. It may be a hoax or even intended to achieve a result without a real incident taking place.
I welcome the setting up of the inquiry by the Intelligence and Security Committee. I hope it will be swift and that we in your Lordships' House will have an opportunity to debate it. Nevertheless, I want to press some questions and I hope that the noble Baroness will have no difficulty in answering them.
First, are the noble Baroness and the Foreign Secretary in the Statement dismissing completely, beyond all doubt and peradventure, that there ever was a CIA briefing two days before the events in Bali—that is, on 10th October—which mentioned Bali as a target and urged night clubs to be avoided? That was a widespread report and I hope that it is untrue. If it is untrue, could the Minister once again confirm that in none of the reports she has mentioned was reference made to night clubs or to Bali? If there were a report, it would be almost specific.
Secondly, will she confirm that on 9th September warnings were given in general terms to US nationals about the Bali region? Was it stated that the area was becoming high risk, but were they, too, regarded as insufficiently specific to merit further action? Were there warnings, as has been suggested, that six specific islands in the Indonesian archipelago of 6,000, which included Bali, were about to be a target? That would be specific and one would like to hear a firm and definitive answer, removing all the nagging worries, which the Statement rightly mentions.
Thirdly, are any lessons being immediately drawn about the procedure for issuing travel warnings? Will they be revised? Fourthly, will the Minister confirm that the Jemaah Islamiyah, apparently a vicious group, is currently proscribed in this country? If not, is the intention now to do so?
The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, when in Bali mentioned the thought of setting up a permanent disaster relief team which would be mobilised in such instances, which I fear may be repeated. Will the Minister assure us that we will be able further to examine that idea, perhaps when the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, returns? We would like to see how it might shape up and develop so that we can all learn lessons from this horrific atrocity in the grim knowledge that the likelihood is that it will happen again.
1092
Finally, I note—and I believe that I will have the Minister's agreement—that the atrocity was committed not so much against Americans, two of whom were slaughtered, but against the citizens of the free and open world generally; Australians, Swedish, British and many other nationalities. Does that not confirm that the horrific attack on New York and Washington on 9/11 was not just an attack on quirks in American foreign policy—not something that could be put right by a sudden change in Washington's policy approach—but an indication that we are dealing with a world-wide murderous assault associated in some ways, rather sickly and unfairly, with Islam against the entire pattern of liberal values of the civilised world? We must therefore be on our guard everywhere and anywhere, as never before, to defeat such killing and evil.
Those are the comments I want to make and I should be grateful if the Minister could answer my questions.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. First, I should like a brief assurance that the papers to which the Minister has referred will be placed in the Library of both Houses. I assume that they will be.
We all share the shock of what happened in Bali. I am one of the hundreds of thousands of British people who have been with their families on holiday in Bali in recent years. It is an extremely popular holiday spot. The island is heavily dependent on tourism. One consideration as we judge our appropriate response to this incident must be that we do not want to ruin the economies of such countries by banning Western tourists from going there.
We appreciate that it is possible to criticise the Government's response in assisting relatives of the victims for not being fast enough. However, in such circumstances it is always difficult to provide early assistance. We are grateful to the Government for the efforts that they are now making to assist those who are affected.
We on these Benches recognise that there is always a problem with intelligence in terms of "noise". One receives a huge amount of information and a number of unspecific warnings, and one has to sort out which are the most serious. I attended a conference in Washington in mid-September with Indonesian and Singaporean participants, who said clearly that we had to recognise that their countries were at risk from terrorist groups. That is clearly stated, but it is difficult to say when, how, what, and under what circumstances.
There are unavoidable risks in an open, global world for all who travel around. We need to remember our own experience. London was for many years a pretty unsafe place to visit during the IRA campaign. Manchester and Birmingham were not entirely safe either. I have a vivid memory of my son and many of his classmates being trapped in Westminster underground station when the IRA launched its

1093
mortar bomb attack on No. 10. We should have been extremely upset if at that period a number of other governments had issued warnings to their citizens that they should not under any circumstances visit the United Kingdom.
We should also have received protests from the United States if, in the year when a number of British tourists visiting Florida were attacked and one or two were killed, the British Government had issued instructions that no British tourist should visit Florida. We have to be very measured in our response. We must recognise that under these circumstances one cannot guarantee that all tourists will always be entirely safe.
It is very important not to shut the developing world off from the developed world. That would be partly to grant the terrorists' aim: to close down our open world and to encourage a divide between the rich world and the poor.
The Statement refers to our immediate response. I want to ask the Minister about the thinking as regards our longer term response. The Statement says that our campaign will take years, perhaps even decades. It seems important, therefore, as in Northern Ireland, to have a strategy which is not simply one of counter-terrorism. It should deal also with dialogue, with building better relationships between potentially hostile communities and between different religions—between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland—and with building links between the developed world and moderate Islam. Do the Government have such strategies under discussion?
Finally, mention was made of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We welcome the attention that the Government are now giving to that. Have they considered that now may be the time to make that committee—which to some extent hangs in limbo between government, the executive and the legislature—a formal Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament? That would make it clearer that it is part of the normal processes of parliamentary accountability.
4.24 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their measured responses to the Statement. I want to say how pleased I am to hear the noble Lord, Lord Howell, say that this is not a party-political issue. As he said, it is far too tragic. I thank him for his kind words for my noble friend Lady Amos—who is indeed working in very difficult circumstances and learning the lessons of the last few days.
As the Statement indicated, we presently have some 15 diplomats in Bali. They have not all come from Jakarta; they have been drawn from around the region. We have drawn on the expertise of those available in the region in our attempt now to get the best support that we can to the families.
1094
I thank both noble Lords for the way in which they handled questions of intelligence. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is right: it is difficult to discuss these matters openly. Some intelligence may be there for hoax purposes; it may be there deliberately to direct attention away from the real intentions of groups of terrorists. I thank the noble Lord for the way in which he dealt with the issue.
The noble Lord raised the question of the swiftness with which the ISC will report. As he would expect, that is a matter for the ISC. I imagine that it will want to deal with the matter fairly quickly, although that is for the committee to decide. I shall draw the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my right honourable and honourable friends in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked whether it is time for the ISC to become a formal Joint Committee of both Houses. Again, that is a matter for the committee itself to consider. However, I shall draw his comments to the attention of my right honourable and honourable friends.
I turn to the questions raised about intelligence. Given what the noble Lord said about understanding the sensitivities involved, I know that he will understand if I cannot always go into as much detail openly on the Floor of the House as might be possible in other circumstances. That said, there has been no attempt to dismiss any of the briefing. The warning, referred to on a number of occasions, from our friends in the State Department on 10th October was what is called a world-wide caution. I have the papers in front of me and they do not mention Bali. I am happy to show that to the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, at the close of these exchanges, but they will also find them in the Library.
The reference is not specific to Bali. It makes the point about giving Americans warnings, including facilities where Americans are generally known to congregate, such as clubs, restaurants, places of worship, schools or outdoor recreational events. But it does not relate that to Bali or to Indonesia, as my right honourable friend's Statement made clear.
The noble Lord raised questions in relation to 9th September. Again, I am happy to show the noble Lord the United States' advisory of that date. It is a very general advisory and it does not refer to Bali. Again, I have it in front of me and I am happy to show both noble Lords the statements, which I hope will reassure them on those points. Where there were references to particular places in Indonesia, as I hope my right honourable friend's Statement makes clear, these were of a very general nature in intelligence terms. I am sure that when the ISC has the opportunity to look at that, it will be able to bear out what I am telling the House.
Turning to questions of procedure in general, both noble Lords raised questions about how we deal with such appalling incidents when they arise. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, mentioned, my noble friend made reference to attempting to get some standing arrangements in place. I hope that the Statement has made clear that my right honourable

1095
friend the Foreign Secretary believes that we ought to have further discussions with, for example, the insurance industry about such arrangements. We believe that it is important to consider what we might be able to do in terms of being able to get people with particular expertise in these terrible and appalling atrocities to places very quickly to help bereaved families and those waiting for information. We are talking about a particular type of skill in terms of counselling. We are examining ways of trying to take that forward.
Jemaah Islamiyah is not proscribed in the United Kingdom as yet, but, as the noble Lord would expect, this matter is under urgent consideration. I agree with the noble Lord when he talks about a "world-wide murderous assault". Yes, it is. As my right honourable friend said in his Statement, it will take years to try to come to grips with this kind of terrible, indiscriminate terrorism. Indeed, it may even take decades to defeat this sort of terrorism. However, as the Statement made absolutely clear, we shall be unwavering in our determination so to do.
I return to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. It is, of course, important to deal with this situation in a number of different ways. Yes, we can do so through dialogue. The noble Lord is right to suggest that it is important not to cut off certain parts of the world. However, it is also most important to keep our own citizens as safe as we can. Therefore, the role of the intelligence services in sifting the information that we have is vitally important in making our own people safe, and, as the noble Lord indicated, ensuring that the passage of commerce, travel, and exchanges round the world is kept as intact as possible. There are many causes of terrorism in the world. We must do our best to tackle them at all levels.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, perhaps I may join my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in thanking the Minister for repeating a very full Statement; and, indeed, for the supplementary answers that she has just given. The noble Baroness's remarks about the long-haul situation surely sum it up. Does she agree that we are entering a period where there will be no such thing as total knowledge or safety? That applies especially at the present time when the Middle East and Asia are awash hour by hour with rumours, secret reports, and secret meetings. As Mr Alan Judd, who is very experienced in these matters, powerfully pointed out in the press yesterday, not even the most distinguished of intelligence services can be confident that they will be able to differentiate between fact and fantasy.
I have a specific question for the noble Baroness about warnings. Does she agree that the Foreign Secretary has a particularly difficult task here: on the one hand, there are the obvious immediate dangers following this appalling atrocity but, on the other hand, he has to bear in mind what sometimes gets forgotten in immediate comment; namely, that in all these countries there are thousands of deeply-rooted
1096
British citizens? I have in mind India and Pakistan, which received such warnings in recent months, and now this has happened in Indonesia. However, this applies everywhere else. I am referring to people who are trading, teaching, or helping to develop aid projects, and so on, who are actually well-rooted in those countries. As the noble Baroness said, they have the right to be given specific warnings.
Many of those people would then be in a good position—indeed, better than anyone else—to make up their own minds about their future plans. If they all packed their bags and left because of a general danger, does the noble Baroness agree that that would cause deep damage to this country and to the countries where those people live? Indeed, would she also agree that that would be a substantial second success for the terrorists—that being exactly what they have in mind? Is this not an important part of the balance that the Foreign Secretary has to strike?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, who better understands the situation than many of your Lordships, and who speaks with the experience of his own period in office. It is particularly true to say that now there can be no total knowledge and, therefore, no total safety as regards what is going on in the world. I stress to the House that it is up to citizens themselves to check with the Foreign Office over travel advisories, which do change on a daily basis. One cannot always rely on all parts of the travel industry to pass on such information. However, many in the industry do so, and are extremely conscientious in that respect. It is also the responsibility of the travelling citizen to acquaint himself with those travel advisories.
The Foreign Secretary has the unenviable task of distinguishing between what may, on the one hand, be pure gossip, and, on the other, a hoax, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Howell; or, indeed, what may be a substantial threat. He approaches that task on the advice of the intelligence community. I agree with what the noble Lord said about the thousands of British citizens living overseas, who have intimate knowledge of the countries within which they live. Where we believe that specific warnings are credible, they should be delivered to those citizens through the Foreign Office travel advisories. But if everyone tried to leave a country all at one time that might pose very particular problems, especially if we are talking about difficult outlying regions.
However, I say this with a certain caution. Although none of us wish to do the terrorists' work for them, it is also very important that we do deliver as speedily and as accurately as we can what we genuinely believe are real matters of concern for those either in a certain country or travelling to such a country.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that excellent Statement. Does the noble Baroness agree that terrorism now is miles easier to

1097
accomplish than it was in the days when the Viceroy was assassinated in Phoenix Park, when the Tsar was murdered, or when Gabriel Princip killed Franz Ferdinand? Moreover, the damage that it can do now is far worse to human life and to our surroundings. One of the consequences of the Bali bomb to the people of that island has been the ruination of their economy. They will suffer far worse because the damage will last for much longer.
I do not intend, or mean, to sound callous, because my words could be interpreted in that way. Australians, or English people, can go clubbing elsewhere. But the people in Bali will suffer. If they continue to suffer economically, they will become a further feeding ground for terrorism. However, that is an observation, not a question. In view of the increase in international terrorism and the fact that it looks as if Ireland might be going mildly pear-shaped yet again, is the Minister satisfied that the intelligence services have the money, the intellectual resources, and the intelligence people behind them to do the best that we shall undoubtedly demand of them?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course, with the explosion in international travel and the ease of communications, the ability to obtain the means to cause terrible physical damage is far greater now than some years ago. However, we also have electronic communications on the side of law and order. We are able to trace a great deal of what is happening in the world. In his Statement my right honourable friend spoke of the ways in which we are able to gather intelligence, in a very general way. Those, too, are very much more sophisticated than they used to be. In addition, we now have the ability to look at DNA that may be left at the scene of some of these apalling crimes in an attempt to track down who is responsible. The noble Earl is right, but our ability to track down these people has also improved and our determination to do so is absolute.
The noble Earl said that the consequences for Bali are far worse. As a parent, I cannot imagine anything worse than losing a child in such an atrocity. It is about the worst human tragedy that could befall any of us. I am sure that the noble Earl will agree. However, I take his point about the consequences for Bali in terms of its economic future and security. It is enormously important that that is addressed. I hope that we will be able to discuss that further with my noble friend Lady Amos when she returns.
The noble Earl asked whether I am satisfied that the security and intelligence services are properly resourced. They are resourced as well as Her Majesty's Government can currently provide. These issues are under constant review. I know from my period of close association with the intelligence services that there is always more that one can do with additional resources; that is axiomatic. I am confident that the Government's emphasis on obtaining the best possible service is also constant.

Enterprise Bill
4.40 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 238 [Overseas disclosures]:
[Amendment No. 189 not moved.]
Lord Sharman Lord Sharman moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 172, line 13, at end insert—
"( ) whether disclosure would include commercial information whose disclosure might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 189 to 191 deal with the disclosure of confidential commercial information to an overseas authority. As matters stand, where a UK agency is able to obtain commercial information that is subjective in terms of its competitive relevance, that information remains confidential. If such information were disclosed to an overseas authority under the Bill's provisions, the purpose of making the disclosure would by its very nature enable that information to enter the public domain in that foreign territory.
Amendment No. 190 seeks to require that in making a decision on whether such information is to be disclosed, the Secretary of State should have regard to,
"whether disclosure would include commercial information whose disclosure might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates".
I cannot believe that it is the Government's intention that such a situation should prevail and that such information should find its way overseas into the public domain. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we raised this matter in Committee, where the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said,
"As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, the Joint Committee on Human Rights made some important recommendations to ensure that the overseas disclosure provisions were subject to even tighter safeguards. The committee recommended that the considerations that will be used by UK public authorities when making decisions on disclosure to overseas authorities should not be left to be drafted by the OFT, as currently required, but should be placed on the face of the Bill.
The committee also recommended that the criteria should include a consideration on whether the disclosure being contemplated would be proportionate to a pressing social need that the disclosure would address, and whether the matter for which disclosure is sought is sufficiently serious to justify disclosure… The Government have listened carefully to these recommendations and agree to them".—[Official Report, 29/7/02; cols. 743–744.]
The amendment that we tabled then addressed the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is encouraging to see that the Government are thinking about the needs raised in relation to disclosure by public authorities. We are not entirely satisfied that the Secretary of State is meeting our concerns. While we accept that he should be able to modify and add to the list of considerations, the protections under Clause 238(6) would be eroded if at a later stage any of the considerations were removed.

1099
We would not wish to see them added now for the purpose of enabling the Bill to obtain Royal Assent; and then removed at the earliest opportunity.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I had better speak to Amendment No. 189 even though it was not moved, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has spoken to it. The argument hangs together for all three amendments. I shall speak first to government Amendment No. 191, which is designed to ensure that we have the desired read-across between Parts 8 and 9 of the Bill. Clause 238 permits a public authority to disclose information to an overseas authority for the purpose of facilitating investigations or the bringing of civil proceedings by that authority to enforce "relevant legislation".
Relevant legislation is defined as the legislation to be covered by Part 9, and foreign legislation which is equivalent. The amendment will ensure that the legislation which is to be specified for the purposes of Community or domestic infringements in Part 8 will fall within the definition of "relevant legislation".
Amendment No. 189 would add a set of considerations to Clause 238 to which the Secretary of State must have regard when considering whether to make a direction that a disclosure to an overseas public authority must not be made. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that we must ensure that the overseas disclosure provisions are subject to adequate safeguards. That is why in Committee we added to the Bill a number of considerations to which a public authority must have regard before disclosing information to an overseas authority. Those considerations mirror in content those set out in this amendment. In addition to the considerations set out in Clause 238 a public authority must also have regard to the considerations set out in Clause 239.
These considerations will ensure that information is disclosed only when public authorities are satisfied that the matter for which the information is requested is sufficiently serious rather than speculative and little more than a fishing expedition. Clause 238 also allows the Secretary of State to direct that a disclosure otherwise permitted by this clause must not be made if he considers that it is more appropriate for any investigation to be carried out or proceedings brought in the United Kingdom or in another specified country or territory. This power, which mirrors provisions in Section 18 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, reserves the right of the Secretary of State to decide that disclosure may not be in the interest of the United Kingdom; for example, in circumstances where an overseas authority requests information that may be more appropriately restricted to an investigation by UK authorities. We anticipate that this power will be invoked sparingly.
The role of the Secretary of State is therefore confined solely to protecting the legitimate jurisdictional interests of the UK and is quite distinct from the general duty that Part 9 places on public
1100
authorities that hold information to which Clause 232 applies to assess requests for disclosure against the considerations laid out in this clause and in Clause 239 before deciding whether to disclose information under this clause. It would not be consistent with the granting of such discretionary powers for the Secretary of State to have the ability to second guess how public authorities exercise their statutory duties.
I turn to Amendment No. 190. I have every sympathy with the objective, but it is unnecessary. Clause 239 contains considerations which public authorities must have regard to before disclosing any specified information covered by Part 9, regardless of to whom it is being disclosed. Clause 239(3) requires consideration of the need to exclude from disclosure so far as practicable,
"commercial information whose disclosure the authority thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates".
There is an equivalent consideration in respect of information relating to the private affairs of an individual. That subsection therefore has the same effect as the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, but with the benefit of covering all disclosures of specified information, not just those to overseas authorities.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and his explanations. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 172, line 35, at end insert—
"(aa) any enactment or subordinate legislation specified in an order under section 206(2);
(ab) any enactment or subordinate legislation specified in an order under section 207(3);"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Third party appeals]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 258, line 5, at end insert "with the objective of"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 193,197 and 205. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, may well move Amendment No. 196, as his name is attached to it.
The "purpose of administration" was discussed at some length in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, expressed some concerns about the objective of rescuing the company, suggesting that this could exclude a company's most valuable assets—often its people and business. I stated at the time that I had some sympathy with those concerns and I agreed to consider the issue and come back with an appropriate amendment on Report. We have done just that. While we are not changing our policy on the issue—and have not been asked to do so—we agree

1101
that further clarification on the face of the Bill would be particularly useful to those charged with making administration work.
Company rescue is at the heart of the revised administration procedure. It is, and always has been, our intention to ensure that viable companies do not fail unnecessarily. By that I mean that not only the legal entity alone is preserved, but at least a substantial part of the business of that company is also preserved with it. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred in Committee to the former as "empty shells". As I have said before, it is not our policy that rescuing the company could mean simply keeping the legal entity alone intact. The Government tabled an amendment on that point, but we were happy to withdraw it and support Amendment No. 196 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Hunt, which makes the point crystal clear.
In addition, in Committee I confirmed that we wished to make it clear that the administrator will not be required to pursue the first objective of rescuing the company if the second objective would provide a better result for the creditors of the company as a whole. It has been suggested that this could undermine company rescue by allowing and even encouraging administrators to sell off assets in a quick and dirty sale simply to cover the secured creditor's debts, justifying such actions as being better for the creditors in the short term—in other words, business as usual for receivers turned administrators. That is simply not true.
The new purpose also does not imply that the administrator will be constrained to take the short-term view. Administrators working under the new purpose should weigh up the options in the light of their duty to the creditors as a whole. That could well result in preferring a long-term return over what could be realised in the short term.
However, there may be times when company rescue is not the best option, when the medium to longer-term viability of the business is poor. We do not want the administrator to be constrained to attempting to rescue every company irrespective of whether there is a business worth preserving. We do not want an administrator to have to pursue a company rescue that may be reasonably practicable but would result in a lower return to creditors as a whole, which could have been a consequence of the current drafting of paragraph 3. One criticism that has been made against Chapter 11 in the United States is that it can lead to cycles of repeated failure and rescue of non-viable businesses. The amendment will allow an administrator the flexibility to provide the best result to all the creditors while still maintaining the primacy of company rescue.
I am sure that we all agree that the changes that the Bill introduces to the way that floating charge holders can deal with their security marks a decisive break from the past. The Government's intention is that in all administrations the administrator should consider the possibility of rescuing the company. He must bear in mind the interests of all creditors when deciding how
1102
to deal with the company and its assets. While the Government and Parliament can set out the policy and legislative framework to achieve that, it is now for those involved—insolvency practitioners, lenders and others—to put it into practice.
The administrator's opinion was also raised in Committee and is addressed in this group of amendments. The Government remain of the view that the administrator is best placed to judge whether a particular objective is reasonably practicable, in the light of his experience and professional judgment. In the light of concerns expressed during the debate, we have made it clear that what the administrator thinks should determine which objective is followed.
The new paragraph 3 will therefore allow an administrator not to pursue the first objective if he thinks either that the second objective will achieve a better result for the creditors as a whole or that it is not reasonably practicable to achieve the first objective. This means that the creditors will not be disadvantaged in cases where the administrator thought it reasonably practicable to rescue the company as a going concern but the second objective would obtain a better return.
The Opposition have tabled a number of amendments that similarly deal with the issue of company and business rescue, and whether it should be for the administrator to decide whether particular objectives are reasonably practicable. I believe that these matters have all been addressed in the Government's amendments. I therefore hope that the other amendments will not be pressed. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister. Much of what he said met the thrust of the amendments, but I should like clarification on two points. Amendment No. 194 makes clear that the rescue does not have to cover the company as a whole, by inserting,
"and the whole or part of its business".
It is not clear to me that the government amendments will give an administrative receiver or administrator the chance to deal even-handedly with the whole or part of the company's business.
The second point relates to the administrator's professional judgment. I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to that as the pre-eminent issue. That is very important. I am not clear about how the Government's amendments deal with the issue of "in his opinion". Amendment No. 199, tabled by my noble friends and myself, makes it clear by inserting "in his opinion". Part of the Government's amendment seems to meet that, but not all of it.
I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify those two points: whether the whole or part of the company is covered; and whether the administrator's opinion is pre-eminent. I am not sure that either point is covered.
Lord Hoffmann: My Lords, I am contributing to the debate having been for seven years a judge of the

1103
Chancery Division and having had some experience of dealing with receiverships and administrations. I am anxious about two aspects of the amendments.
The centrepiece of this area of the Bill is the part of the schedule that deals with the purposes of administration. When I first read those paragraphs, they appeared admirably drafted and entirely clear, setting out in the proper order what those purposes should be. I would have thought that no judge would experience any difficulty understanding what the paragraphs meant and applying them in a practical and common-sense way. As the Minister said, the great break with the past that those paragraphs represent is giving primacy to the prospects of rescuing the company.
As I said, two aspects of the amendments concern me. The first is the provision that now appears to place the objective of rescuing the company more or less on a par with the objective of achieving a better result for the company's creditors as a whole. It seems to me that judges faced with these clauses as they stand would in no way insist on the rescue being pursued in circumstances where this was not going to do anybody any good. However, to put the realisation of the assets in the old style—for the benefit of the creditors—as on an equal footing with the rescue seems to me to be giving a wrong signal to the profession.
The other aspect is the provision saying that what really matters is the opinion of the administrator. In my experience as a judge, the greatest respect has always been paid to the opinion of the administrator. He was the man who was in touch with the facts and who had to make the practical day-to-day decisions. It would be rare indeed for a judge to say, "No, we think that you are doing it the wrong way". If, with hindsight, one were looking at any criticism of something that the administrator has done, it would be virtually impossible to hold any administrator liable for something that he had done in good faith on the footing that the judge thought that it would have been better to take some other course.
What this amendment does, however, is to put the whole matter, even as to the future, into the hands of the opinion of the administrator. The amendment therefore precludes interested parties from coming to the court and saying, "Let us examine this matter rationally. It appears that the administrator is going about it the wrong way. It would be better, to achieve the statutory objectives, if it were done differently". The court would then be able to assess that matter. There might be occasions when the court, giving full weight to the experience and knowledge of the administrator, feels that it has to say, "No. It is quite clear that, in the best of faith, you are going about this the wrong way and you ought to do something different. The company can be rescued even though you seem to have formed the opinion that it cannot".
These amendments seem to take that power out of the hands of the court entirely and leave everything to the opinion of the administrator. In my view, both those changes represent retrograde steps.
5 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, an intervention in the debates of your Lordships' House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, is always an occasion for celebration. I know that the Minister will be keen to reply to the testing and apposite observations of the noble and learned Lord. I rise simply to thank the Minister and his officials for their careful work in response to the amendments that we tabled at Committee stage.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, I rise simply to echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. The Minister and the Government have come a very long way in meeting our concerns on this matter and I am grateful.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is teasing me: the thought of arguing a point of law or legislative text with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, fills me with dread. The noble and learned Lord has known that for the 50 years that I have known him. Nevertheless, I shall do my best.
I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Sharman, and I am interested in the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. I am not sure, however, that I understood the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. He asked whether Amendment No. 194 provided for the administrator to seek to rescue a whole or a part of the business.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I appreciate the points made by the Minister, my noble friend Lord Kingsland and the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. The question was whether the Minister's comments covered the essence of Amendment No. 194. Can the administrator rescue a part of the business, or is he still compelled to rescue "the business" or "the whole of the business"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said "part" in my speech. I think that I had better write to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about how that is implemented in paragraph 3 as redrafted. I asked for paragraph 3 as incorporating the Government's amendments to be sent round, but unfortunately I only asked for it to be sent round to the Front Benches. I have now given it to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, but the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, did not have a copy.
I hope that, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, reads it, he will agree that it is not the case that rescue is "more or less on a par"—I hope that I am quoting him correctly—with the interests of creditors. I hope that sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) make that clear. The administrator must perform his function with the objective specified in sub-paragraph (1)(a)—that is, rescuing the company as a going concern—unless he thinks that it is not reasonably practical to achieve that. In other words, although the interests of creditors

1105
are of course important, subject to sub-paragraph (4), they are not on a par with the company rescue. These are in an order of priority.
I think that the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was on the question of "think" and "reasonably believe". The point about the wording in the Bill is that it does not second guess the administrator's professional or commercial judgment. If necessary, we would expect the courts to assess whether the office holder, in this case the administrator, has been rational in his decision. We are not seeking to apply any other test.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 258, line 6, leave out "with the objective of"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 194 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 195 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 258, line 6, after "company" insert "as a going concern"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 258, line 7, leave out from beginning to "achieving" in line 8.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 198 to 200 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 258, leave out lines 11 and 12.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 202 to 204 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 258, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
"(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), the administrator of a company must perform his functions in the interests of the company's creditors as a whole.
(3) The administrator must perform his functions with the objective specified in sub-paragraph (1)(a) unless he thinks either—

(a) that it is not reasonably practicable to achieve that objective, or

(b) that the objective specified in sub-paragraph (1)(b) would achieve a better result for the company's creditors as a whole.

(4) The administrator may perform his functions with the objective specified in sub-paragraph (1)(c) only if—

(a) he thinks that it is not reasonably practicable to achieve either of the objectives specified in sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b), and

(b) he does not unnecessarily harm the interests of the creditors of the company as a whole."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 258, line 19, at end insert—
"3A The administrator of a company must perform his functions as quickly and efficiently as is reasonably practicable."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 206, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 210, 212, 213, 214, 215, 224, 226 and 230. I ask that the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Hunt, move Amendment No. 229 from the Opposition Front Bench as it is in their names as well as that of the Government.
In Committee, I described the subject of time scales for administration as a "major issue". The subject certainly attracted a lot of attention and discussion both during our debate in Committee and in debate in another place. I acknowledge the force of the arguments that have been put to us. Currently, no limits are placed on the length of administration. This has led to some criticism that some administrations have gone on too long, and that the lack of certainty of when the process will conclude can be a distinct disincentive for businesses and lenders when considering administration.
The need for the inclusion of a time limit for the process of administration has been generally accepted but, as I explained in Committee, it is important that limits are set at a level that reflects the practicalities of administration and at a length that commands the confidence of those with an interest in administration. As a result of the clear concerns surrounding the issue of the time limits, the Government undertook to give this matter further consideration in consultation with interested parties and to table any appropriate amendments that were identified as necessary.
Officials have met with the relevant interested parties, not only the insolvency profession itself but also representatives of both lenders and business, including the CBI, the British Bankers' Association and the Finance and Leasing Association. Those discussions were constructive and these amendments take into account the points made.
We are all in agreement that the Bill should be amended so that the administrator will now have up to 12 months, as opposed to three months currently proposed in the Bill, before having to seek an extension from either the creditors or the court and the Government were happy to withdraw their own amendment and be associated with Amendment No. 229 in the name of the Opposition and the Government. Amendment No. 230 will allow creditors to extend this period by a further six months, rather than three as the Bill presently states, while the court will continue to be able to extend the administration for a specified period.
The amendments also lengthen the time limits for the administrator bringing forward his proposals and holding a creditors' meeting. Proposals will now have to be brought forward within eight weeks and a

1107
creditors' meeting held within 10 weeks compared with the Bill's current provisions of 28 days and six weeks respectively.
Although we accept the need to lengthen the time limits we are keen for administrations to be concluded as quickly as is reasonably practicable in the circumstances of each individual case. The time limits should not become the norm. For example, we would expect administrations that are straightforward because of their size or lack of complexity, to be capable of being completed within the new initial 12-month period.
In order to reflect this approach, new paragraph 3A proposed in Amendment No. 206 places a general duty on the administrator to perform his functions as quickly and efficiently as reasonably practicable. We have also included a specific duty for the administrator to act,
"as soon as is reasonably practicable",
in bringing forward his proposals to creditors and calling a creditors' meeting. Our intention remains for streamlined administration to be a quick and practical business recovery vehicle that will attract the confidence of practitioners, companies of all sizes, lenders and the business community as a whole. Striking the right balance on time limits between the concerns of all those with an interest in administration is a key element in meeting that objective. We believe that the amendments achieve that balance.
However, while the Government and Opposition Members were all in agreement on overall time limits for an administration, the same cannot be said for Opposition Amendments Nos. 211 and 216, which seek to extend the period during which the administrator must send out proposals and hold an initial creditors' meeting to three months and four months respectively. I am a little surprised at those amendments in view of the constructive discussions that officials had with not only the insolvency profession itself but also representatives of both lenders and business, including the CBI, the British Bankers' Association and the Finance and Leasing Association. During the discussions a general consensus was reached, and it was that consensus that formed the basis of the Government's amendments.
In most cases it should be reasonable to expect the administrator to send proposals out to creditors and to hold an initial creditors' meeting within the time limits that we are now proposing. In those exceptional cases where the proposals are likely to take longer to prepare, perhaps as regards a particularly large company or one with a complex business structure, the administrator will continue to have recourse to the creditors and/or the court to agree an extension to the time limits. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the work that his officials have done over the past few days to try to resolve a number of issues. People have worked exceedingly hard and a series of
1108
meetings have been held. However, these concerns were expressed when the legislation was debated in the other place over some considerable time. I accept criticism all the time but I hope that on reflection the Minister will not criticise me as severely as he just has for not yet having adapted to amendments that were tabled only last week. It has taken a little time to assimilate all the hyper activity that has occurred over the past few days and weeks.
I refer, first, to Amendment No. 206, which the Minister has just moved and which states:
"The administrator of a company must perform his functions as quickly and efficiently as is reasonably practicable".
Who could possibly oppose the amendment? Its purpose is recognised and is laudable. However, I am advised by the many legal brains who have focused on it that its actual wording imposes something of an impossibly high standard in that every administrator must always, every minute of every day and every day of every week and month, perform with the greatest reasonably practicable speed and efficiency. It is suggested that he should be required to perform with such speed and efficiency as would be expected of a reasonably competent insolvency practitioner in the circumstances of the particular case.
In addition, that standard of performance should be subject to the fundamental duty of the administrator to act in the interests of the company's creditors as a whole as cases may occur where quick action may not lead to the best outcome for creditors. We have already dealt with the consequences of some of the legal phraseology in the notable and effective contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann.
I hope that the Minister might reflect that the court's power to remove the practitioner—I refer to paragraph 88 of Schedule B1—will alone suffice. Perhaps I may reconstruct for the Minister what is at the present time the courts' attitude in the case of the liquidator which is summarised in the judgment of Mr Justice Neuberger in AMP Enterprises Ltd V Hoffman, [2002] All ER (D) 393 (Jul). All I would say to the Minister is that any legislation which he now proposes will be held, in my belief, alongside that very clear judgment. Mr Justice Neuberger said:
"As a matter of ordinary statutory interpretation, s 108 of the 1986 Act gave the court discretion as to whether or not to remove a liquidator. In such cases, the court might have to carry out a balancing exercise. On one hand, it would expect any liquidator to be efficient, vigorous and unbiased in his conduct of the liquidation, and should have no hesitation in removing him if it was satisfied that he did not live up to expectations. On the other hand, if the liquidator was honest, the court should think carefully before removing him, and it was not enough to say that his conduct had fallen short of ideal, as that would encourage disgruntled creditors to make such applications when their agent was not appointed a liquidator".
I believe that the Minister will appreciate that that is a clear statement of the circumstances in which the court would use its existing power to remove the practitioner.
I hope that between now and next Monday the Minister will give some thought to whether the wording of Amendment No. 206 does not impose an

1109
impossibly high standard and may also conflict with existing judicial directives and ratio decidendi on that particular aspect.
I am very grateful to the Minister, as I said previously, for proposing the time limits in the government amendments; they are welcomed and broadly acceptable. However, he referred to Amendments Nos. 211 and 216. Amendment No. 211 would leave out "28 days" and insert "three months" and Amendment No. 216 would leave out "six weeks" and insert "four months". I realise that the purpose of these amendments is to set realistic and achievable targets. I am grateful to the Minister for having said that he will provide limits that will command a wider consensus and for the extent of the consultations. It might be helpful if he reminded the House of the details of those consultations; I believe that a number of parties may not have been consulted during the time available.
Amendment No. 227 would leave out paragraphs 76 to 78. As the Minister knows, we should have preferred there to be no time limit relating to administrations. In relation to complicated administrations, in many cases one year would be far too short. In the time available, I have not yet been able to consult the practitioners sufficiently on the end time limits, but I should like to do so. I realise—such is the situation in this Session—that that means before next Monday; however, I hope that the Minister will allow me sufficient time to consult on the final backstop time limit. I am very grateful to him and his colleagues for having advanced a more realistic approach to the time limits following consultation.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, from these Benches, I, too, express my thanks and recognition of the extremely hard work that has been done on the time limits. We have moved forward a considerable distance in that regard and, by and large, I am content with where we are.
I have one comment to make on Amendment No. 206. Until the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke, I was content with that amendment. My point follows the line of the questions raised by the noble Lord. I should appreciate confirmation from the Minister that the responsibility should be read in conjunction with paragraph 3 and that it is almost subsidiary to paragraph 3(2), which states:
"The administrator must perform his functions…in the interests of the creditors of the company as a whole".
The amendment will add that that should be done,
"as quickly and efficiently as is reasonably practicable".
If the arrangement worked in that way, I should be a little more content than when I started.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their general welcome to the amendments. If I sounded critical of Amendments Nos. 211 and 216, I am sorry; of course it is true that the consultation has taken time over the summer and that the amendments were tabled during a short period. If that means that the noble Lord, Lord
1110
Hunt, is now content and that we have answered the points raised in Amendments Nos. 211 and 216, I am very happy.
I do not believe that Amendment No. 206 imposes an impossibly high standard. I do not see it as saying that the administrator somehow has to be active 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in order to perform, his functions quickly and efficiently. The relevant phrase is "as reasonably practicable" and we believe that the courts will take a practical line on construing the new duty. The duty of a given administrator is clearly to be interpreted in the light of what is reasonably practicable in the particular circumstances of a case. The same standards will not be not applied across all kinds and varieties of cases. We also believe that the courts are unlikely to entertain frivolous claims from applicants relating to trivial delay or delays that are unavoidable or cause no harm.
At the end of the day there is a potential for conflict in this regard. Yes, there are time limits and, yes, we have agreed to extend a number of them. We have also recognised that the process of administration may be more complicated than was allowed for in our original time scales. There are other people—those affected by the process of administration—who want it to be as quick as possible. That is why Amendment No. 206 is necessary. That is also why—this responds to the later remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on time limits—we believe that there should be time limits. The present procedure has very few time limits. It has tended to make administration appear slow. A key point that came out of our consultation is that administration takes too long and provides no certainty for creditors about when they might get paid; we are also concerned with creditors in this regard. We must reassure the lending community that we are not relaxing any controls relating to the speed of administration.
Some of the critical views of the short time scales have been influenced by insolvency practitioners and those dealing with very large cases. I understand their interest. We believe that the time scales proposed in the amendment are adequate for dealing with many—if not most—cases without the need to go to court. We have taken soundings from those practitioners who specialise in smaller cases, who believe that the time scales will be more than adequate for cases at the smaller end of the market. That is why we want to add Amendment No. 206 to the Bill.
I am not sure whether I have offered any further details about the consultation process. We of course consulted insolvency practitioners. As I said when I moved the amendment, we talked to the CBI, the British Bankers' Association, the Finance and Leasing Association and representatives of business.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, it would help if the Minister's office could let me have details of those bodies that attended so that I can check that all necessary people who have expressed their concerns to me were involved in the consultation process; I am sure

1111
that they were. I do not want that information now but if I could have a list within 48 hours that would be helpful.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should be glad to do that as soon as I can and in advance of Third Reading next Monday. I believe that the general welcome justifies me in urging the House to agree to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 261, line 23, after "appointed" insert "on a winding-up petition presented by a creditor"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 208 and 209.
I understand that Amendments Nos. 208 and 209 will be dealt with by the rules. We discussed the rules in Committee and there was a promise—I well understand why it has not been fulfilled—that I might have a copy of the rules sufficiently in advance to enable me to consult. Unfortunately, it arrived only comparatively recently. The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, and I have done our best to assimilate it. I might need a little longer to consult with those who raised relevant points with me. In those circumstances, I shall not seek at a later stage to press Amendments Nos. 208 and 209.
The purpose of Amendment No. 207 is to permit secured creditors whose loan is in default to proceed quickly and cheaply to appoint an administrator of their choosing. Where a provisional liquidator has been appointed on a creditor's winding-up petition, it is fair to require that the secured creditor should apply to the court for the appointment of an administrator who will, in effect, replace the provisional liquidator.
However, it is my contention that it would be wrong in principle to require that where the provisional liquidator is appointed on the company's own petition. It is acutely undesirable that the company should be given a further opportunity to compete with the secured creditor over the choice of the insolvency office-holder. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must confess to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that, after I said in Committee that I would do my best to get a copy of the first draft of the rules to noble Lords in good time, I was greeted with a storm of protest by officials. They said, "It's impossible to achieve this. We are nowhere near doing that and there are all sorts of consultations still in process. We cannot do it". To their immense credit, they have succeeded in getting something both to the Opposition Front Benches and to me in time for the debate this afternoon. However, I acknowledge, of course, that that is not in time for the draft to be fully studied and taken account of. If, as a result of studying the draft rules, amendments are tabled at Third Reading, I shall not complain.
1112
I turn to Amendment No. 207, which is familiar because it has been debated on a number of occasions. I think we are all agreed that the holder of a floating charge should be one of the people who has access to a "quick route" into administration. The Bill achieves that. However, as I said previously—I know that my colleagues in the Commons have said the same thing—where the court has already appointed a provisional liquidator, it is right that only the court can replace that person with an administrator. To allow otherwise would be to usurp the powers of the court. It is not a matter between a creditor and the company; it is a question of the court making the appointment.
I want to say a word about Amendments Nos. 208 and 209, although the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has made conciliatory noises about them. Following our discussion in Committee about the "weekend" situation—that is, the problem of court opening hours—I want to acknowledge that it is a real problem. Administration is fundamentally a court-based procedure. Therefore, we do not intend to amend the provision concerning when the administrator's appointment takes effect. However, we do intend that the amended insolvency rules will allow for appointments to be made other than during court opening hours.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, who called it the "weekend problem"—that is, the question of what happens when the court adjourns on a Friday afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, who I am sorry to see is not in his place today, raised the issue of a kind of fax-back arrangement, whereby something would be faxed to the court and the court's fax would acknowledge it by sending a reply. The Notice of Appointment would be sent to a dedicated central point by fax and the subsequent acknowledgement would show the date and time of receipt—that is, the date and time of appointment. The appointor would then be required to attend at the appropriate court at the first opportunity in order to file the original documents in the relevant court. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for putting forward the suggestion, which forms the basis of the amendments that we shall make to the insolvency rules.
With my renewed apologies for not getting the draft rules to the Opposition Benches before today, and with my renewed appreciation of officials for their achievement in getting the draft to those Benches, I hope that Amendment No. 207 will not be pursued.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I join the Minister in thanking his officials very warmly for having met today's deadline, and I look forward to the bedtime reading. Undoubtedly, the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, has already assimilated the draft rules because he has an extraordinary expertise. But I am only a mere solicitor, and it may take me a few hours longer to do so. However, we appreciate the way that officials have responded. As I have said in previous debates, they always seem to manage to achieve the most unrealistic targets and objectives, which they are often given by Ministers. I am very grateful to the Minister.

1113
I am also grateful to him for his words in relation to Amendment No. 207 and for his assurance that, if further amendments prove necessary in the light of further scrutiny of the rules, he will have no objection to that. Of course, we have to move reasonably swiftly because it is anticipated that the next stage of the Bill may be held next week. However, in all those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 208 and 209 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel): My Lords, I have to tell your Lordships that, if Amendment No. 210 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 211 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 271, line 43, leave out from "proposals" to end of line 45.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 206. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 211 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 212 to 215:
Page 272, line 3, at end insert—
"( ) The administrator shall comply with sub-paragraph (4)—

(a) as soon as is reasonably practicable after the company enters administration, and

(b) in any event, before the end of the period of eight weeks beginning with the day on which the company enters administration."

Page 272, line 4, leave out "have complied" and insert "comply"
Page 272, line 5, leave out "before the end of the period referred to in that sub-paragraph"
Page 272, line 26, leave out "not be after the end of the period of six" and insert "be—

(a) as soon as is reasonably practicable after the company enters administration, and

(b) in any event, within the period of ten"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 206. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 216 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 275, line 11, at end insert—
"FINANCING ADMINISTRATIONS
Powers of court to approve financing of companies in administration
57A (1) The administrator of a company may at any time following his appointment apply to the court for approval of super priority financing.
(2) In this paragraph "super priority financing" means financing for a company in administration provided by a lender who shall enjoy repayment priority over existing secured and unsecured creditors of that company.
(3) The court shall not make an order granting an application for super priority financing under this paragraph unless it is satisfied that—

(a) the monies to be borrowed are to be used for expenditure necessary to preserve the company's business for the benefit of the company's creditors; or

(b) the monies to be borrowed are necessary to continue the operation of the business of the company in order to assist in meeting the administrator's aims under paragraph 3(1)(a); and

(c) the secured creditors are not prejudiced by the provision of super priority financing; and

(d) in all the circumstances it is appropriate to make an order in the interests of the administration."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this provision follows a debate that we had in Committee, when I sought to deal with the key issue of super priority finance in company and business rescues. I should tell your Lordships that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, explained to me, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will shortly confirm, that the Government's position is essentially that the decision to lend to a company should be left to the commercial judgment of the lending market, based on whether free assets are available to use as security, among other things.
However, with the greatest respect, I believe that that approach appears to misunderstand the position that many small and medium-sized companies find themselves in when facing serious problems involving insolvency. Of course, if assets are available to lend against, why would such a company seek administration at that point? The key is to give a company protection from its creditors. That is why we have the moratorium on creditor action. Then, of course, it must have the finance to carry on while a rescue plan is put into place; otherwise, in many cases, the company would not have the funds to carry on and another potentially viable business would be lost.
I understand that much of the international community still considers our insolvency system within the UK to be essentially a liquidation process. Many small and medium-sized businesses view the system in the same way—that is, as something to be avoided at all costs, often until it is too late.
I believe we are making great progress with this Bill in reforming the whole structure. But if the new administration process does not allow a business properly to restructure and to be adequately financed while it does so, we risk making no real improvements to the rescue culture and nothing much will change. That is why I make no apology for raising again the issue of financing because I believe that it needs to be considered and properly debated.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, noted that the Government would take part in any debate on the issue. I am informed by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, that some debate has taken place during the Recess. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, mentioned to me a meeting with some former members of the review group on the company rescue and business reconstruction review and some United States bankers. I have not had time to speak to all the members of the review group but those

1115
members to whom I have spoken were unaware that the meeting had taken place. Following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that he or his officials would be in touch with the review group, several members have been awaiting a telephone call but have heard nothing further. The report took some degree of effort and commitment by those who participated. The group has not met since the report was presented, nor has it been asked to attend any meeting. There is need for further debate and discussion.
It may help if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, could let me know who attended that meeting, the views expressed and conclusions reached. It is a vital issue which has to be considered further in order to have the positive effect on the whole rescue business that the Bill admirably seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a difficult and complex issue. It is true that there are some parallels with practice in the United States; but it is also true that there are differences about which we have to be careful. Yes, we debated the issue in some detail in Committee. There has been correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, wrote to me on the matter within the past 10 days or so. I hope that he has received the letter in which I replied to him this morning.
I go back to the origins of the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, again referred to them. The report of the joint DTI/Treasury review group, entitled A Review of Company Rescue and Business Reconstruction Mechanisms, was published in November 2000. The review was quoted in Committee. However, as I said then, I have to record the fact that the report did not make any recommendation in relation to "super priority" financing because of the difficulty of the issue and its view that it would be necessary to have courts that were able to take largely commercial decisions to consider applications under such a procedure.
Having published its report, the work of the review group was completed. I do not know who its members were. The group does not exist at present. But it is true that the Insolvency Service has continued to draw on the expertise of members of the group. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue that former members of the group—I do not know which of them but I shall find out—met with US bankers to consider the issue of "super-priority" funding, but concluded only that this was a complex issue which would need careful consideration. That is, after all, what the review group said two years ago.
One major reservation on such funding for a company that is in administration is that it would essentially guarantee a return to lenders advancing funds on the basis of such priority irrespective of the commercial viability of the rescue proposals. The decision to finance such companies must be an
1116
economic one based on the viability of the company. The review group thought that that was not necessarily within the skills of the courts as presently constituted. It is not the intention of this Government that all companies should be given the chance of rescue irrespective of their viability, but rather that an administrator, on being appointed, should determine whether the company and/or its businesses can be rescued. Therefore—it is the point I made in Committee—whether to finance such a rescue should be a commercial decision, best left to the judgement of the lending market and not the court. The courts have made clear on a number of occasions, and it is generally recognised, that it is not the role of the courts to make judgements on commercial matters. That is for the parties concerned. That has been acknowledged in our discussions on other aspects of the administration process.
When considering the substance of Amendment No. 217, it difficult to see in the context of UK corporate lending, where lenders take fixed and floating charges usually over all of the property of a company, how the court could satisfy itself in relation to proposed new paragraph 57A(3)(c), where it may not make an order for super priority financing, unless satisfied that,
"the secured creditors are not prejudiced by the provision of super- priority financing".
In practice, there may be few occasions where that could be possible.
The review group's report concluded, and former members of that group found when they subsequently met with US Bankers, that the whole issue of super priority financing is an extremely complex one, with far-reaching potential effect. Legislative changes should be proposed only following extensive consideration and wide consultation. That is not something that should be dealt with in the Bill's progress.
Having said that, of course, I shall give the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the information he seeks about who took part—unless they wish me not to give that information, although I cannot imagine that. I shall continue to keep the need for insolvency reform under review. As part of that process we are happy to consider any comments. I have said in a letter sent this morning to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—I am sorry to learn that he has not received it—that we continue to be concerned about the issue and willing to discuss it with him. With reference to his kind offer to host a dinner, it would probably be more appropriate for us to do so, if there were to be such an occasion.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am a little overwhelmed. I have never before been offered a free dinner by a Government Minister. Perhaps I may consult a little. I am grateful to the noble Lord. The Minister is noted for his courtesy. He has exceeded even his own expectations as well as mine.

1117
On super financing, there are a number of occasions where important businesses of immense size, with huge implications for jobs and the UK economy, at present seek to reconstruct against a backdrop which gives them no protection from creditors. An unreasonable, and often small, creditor can bring the edifice crumbling down because under our present law there is no protection.
The Minister has stated how complicated and difficult the issue is to resolve. Against that background, I welcome his words and shall reflect on them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I have to inform the House that Amendments Nos. 218 and 219 have been marshalled incorrectly. I propose to call Amendment No. 219 and then Amendment No. 218.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 275, line 42, leave out paragraphs 64 to 66 and insert—
"64 (1) The administrator of a company may make a distribution to a creditor of the company.
(2) Section 175 shall apply in relation to a distribution under this paragraph as it applies in relation to a winding up.
(3) A payment may not be made by way of distribution under this paragraph to a creditor of the company who is neither secured nor preferential unless the court gives permission.
65 The administrator of a company may make a payment otherwise than in accordance with paragraph 64 or paragraph 13 of Schedule 1 if he thinks it likely to assist achievement of the purpose of administration."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 218 and 219 cover the same subject. As I explained in Committee, the drafting of the provisions allowing an administrator to make payments to creditors did not work as we had wanted. Amendment No. 219 makes clear the type of payments that must be made in accordance with the standard order of priority set out in Section 175 of the Insolvency Act 1986. In addition, it clarifies the distinction between payments and distributions.
First, the provision will allow an administrator to make distributions to creditors as a body, in accordance with the standard order of priority. A distribution to unsecured creditors will require the permission of the court. In order to distinguish between such payments and those, usually one-off payments, that are made to individual creditors, outside of the order of priority, we have referred to the first category of payments as distributions.
Secondly, the administrator will continue to be able to make payments, by virtue of paragraph 13 of Schedule 1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, to one or more creditors in respect of debts that were owed at the date of administration as well as expenses and liabilities that arise during the course of the administration, where such payments are necessary or incidental to the performance of his duties.
Thirdly, the amendment will allow the administrator to make payments that he believes are likely to assist the achievement of the purpose of
1118
administration. That will involve the administrator using his commercial judgment. Examples of such a situation could be payment of outstanding debts to the supplier of equipment that requires regular safety inspections and maintenance or payment to the franchisor of a franchise business to enable necessary goods to be supplied. Payments such as those would need to be made out of the standard order of priority and to a specific creditor or creditors, rather than by way of distribution to creditors generally.
That is an important point and is not provided for in the opposition Amendment No. 218. With that one exception, we believe that the issues in Amendment No. 218 are covered in Schedule 16, as amended by Amendment No. 219. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am curious to know why these amendments have been marshalled incorrectly. I would like to have had the opportunity to open the batting and to invite the Minister to tell me how government thinking had developed since the probing way in which I introduced this matter in Committee. From what the Minister has said, I believe that I can infer that government thinking has moved on; indeed; it has moved so far that not only have all the issues raised by us in Committee been dealt with, but an additional imaginative insertion has been made. In those circumstances I thank the Minister for dealing with the matter in the way that he has. I shall withdraw my amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is excessively kind and it falls to me to thank him for the way in which he raised the matter in Committee and enabled us; to respond as we have.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 277, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) Where the goods are used by the administrator to continue running the business, the administrator must make payments to the owner of the goods under the terms of the hire-purchase agreement."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put the case for Amendment No. 220 in the following terms. If the administrator uses any goods under a hire purchase or lease agreement the owner of the goods should continue to receive payment under the terms of the agreement. The administrator should not delay disposing of the goods if they are not in use and payments are not being made under the agreement. The amendment reflects the ruling in Re Atlantic Computer Systems plc (I) [1992] I All England Reports 476. On the face of the Bill that will bring clarity to administrators and lenders.
Amendment No. 221 would insert the words:
"to include any additional value attributable to the owner's ability to rehire the goods".
The market value of the equipment will not in all cases compensate the lender for the goods on hire. The rehire value is often worth more than the market value

1119
and, where the equipment is still within its life expectancy, the lender will seek to rehire to capitalise on his investment. The court should be able to use its discretion in such cases. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept Amendments Nos. 220 and 221. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I am no more sympathetic to these amendments than I was when my noble friend Lord Mitchell moved them in Committee. I understand the concerns of the Finance and Leasing Association. We have considered carefully the views expressed to us, but as I explained in Committee, the Government do not want to amend the current legislation. Clearly, where assets that are subject to such an agreement continue to be used during the administration, the hire purchase companies would suffer a loss through lack of payment during that period. But the purpose of administration is to provide a breathing space in which to put forward rescue proposals or proposals for improving the outcome for creditors. It would not be right to allow such proposals to fail as a result of a legal requirement to continue making payments of this kind throughout such a breathing space, as suggested by Amendment No. 220.
The Bill as drafted does not make a change in the existing law. It replicates existing provisions whereby it falls to the courts to resolve the difficult act of balancing the interests of the hire purchase creditor, and their need for continued payments, and the interests of the general body of creditors which requires that the breathing space is sufficient for workable proposals to be developed and implemented.
We believe that existing case law on the ability of creditors to enforce their rights during the moratorium will continue to be fully relevant to the hire purchase provision in the revised administration procedure. It remains the Government's view that the courts are best placed to resolve such matters on a case-by-case basis, taking full and proper account of the facts of each case.
Amendment No. 221 would require additional money to be paid to the owner of hire purchase goods, over and above their market value in order to account for the owner's ability, or not, to rehire the goods; that is, to pay the owner in excess of the market value of the goods to enable him or her to replace them. However, if the owner believes that some additional value attaches to the goods as a result of their capacity to be hired, it is up to that creditor to persuade the court that such an additional sum should be included in its estimation of the market value. But surely as a matter of principle all that an owner can really expect must be the market value of the goods, thus allowing the owner to replace the goods and thereafter to hire them out. I am sorry to be so negative.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on Amendment No. 220, although I regret his refusal to understand the point raised in Amendment No. 221. In the circumstances, I
1120
accept what he has said. I shall consider the matter further, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 221 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 278, line 22, leave out "harm" and insert "prejudice"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, currently the Bill provides that a creditor can apply to the court for relief if he thinks that the administrator has acted in such a way as unfairly to harm his interests. I contend that "harm" is a wide term and there is little or no jurisprudence on it. It is not a word that, in this context, has been considered judicially.
I am advised by lawyers who consider these matters in everyday terms that "harm" will cause confusion as to its scope. During the course of administration, many creditors could say that they are harmed by the action of an administrator. It is therefore far too wide a term. The scope of "prejudice" is less wide and, in its favour, it is commonly used—for example, in Section 459 of the Companies Act 1989, so has a body of judicial opinion already around it. The same change should be made to government Amendment No. 205, where the word "harm" also occurs. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a case where the non-lawyers have to stand up for their rights. The Lord Chancellor is trying to update legal language. I found myself repeating a latin phrase because somebody else had used it. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, did so earlier without any such justification. We are trying to get this stuff out of legal language. For the purposes of Pepper v. Hart, I am advised that there is no distinction between "harm" and "prejudice"—but "harm" is a common word and more understandable to lawyers. In the cause of updating the language of law, I will resist Amendments Nos. 222 and 223.
The noble Lord did not speak to Amendment No. 225 but I will say a word, in the hope that he will not move it. Its purpose is to prevent successful actions being taken against the administrator where he has acted reasonably in all the circumstances. There is no real prospect of a successful challenge to the actions or inactions of an administrator where he or she has acted reasonably in all the circumstances. Proposed paragraph 74 in Schedule 16, which provides the right to challenge the administrator where unfair harm is alleged is based squarely on Section 27 of the Insolvency Act 1986. There is no such proviso in that section. We would not expect the courts to act significantly differently in relation to paragraph 74 than in the past in relation to Section 27—though no doubt case law will develop in light of the revised administration procedures.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I was awaiting the Minister's response to Amendments Nos. 222 and 223 before speaking to Amendment No. 225. I am not sure whether the Minister has yet made his will, but I will caution the noble Lord and give him some free legal advice. He should not try to remove the jargon because huge areas of jurisprudence govern the words that his will may use. If he uses everyday language, he will find that when the sad event arrives and he departs for the next world, all his goods will go in precisely the opposite direction to that which he might intend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall not be there.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: Yes, my Lords, but the noble Lord might like the assurance that his wishes would be fulfilled. Although the Minister may excite for a moment approval from the House by saying that he much wants to use everyday language, I caution him that where words have already been subjected to lengthy legal debate, it is often wiser to stick with the established words. But of course the Minister's brave attempt to justify the unjustifiable—which I remember doing on many occasions when I was in the noble Lord's position—gives me cause to think and ponder.
As to Amendment No. 225, the Minister is saying "Do not concern yourself. Those words will be implied. There is no need to include them expressly because the court will only act in circumstances where it is satisfied that the administrator has acted reasonably". In those circumstances, I accept the Minister's assurance. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 278, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) A creditor or member of a company in administration may apply to the court claiming that the administrator is not performing his functions as quickly or as efficiently as is reasonably practicable."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 225 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 278, line 41, leave out "under this paragraph" and insert "on a claim under sub-paragraph (1)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 227 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 228 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 279, line 41, leave out "three months" and insert "one year"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am in the wonderful position that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, has added his name to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 280, line 2, leave out "three" and insert "six"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 231 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 232:
Page 280, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) a majority in value of the secured creditors."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 233 to 237 and to Amendments Nos. 251 to 253—which were first tabled in Committee. They dispense with the need to obtain the consent of every secured creditor, recognising that companies increasingly borrow from a wide variety of secured creditors; and that, as a result, it may not be timely or practical to obtain the consent of every one.
The amendments either provide for a simple majority or a 75 per cent majority. The latter figure is adopted because it represents the commonly used figure internationally for the approval of "cram downs" in insolvencies.
I know that the Government are concerned that the amendments might have the effect of disenfranchising smaller secured creditors; but we consider that, for the reasons mentioned, it is impractical to require the consent of every single one. If the concern is about larger secured creditors, the preferred amendment should be for a 75 per cent majority.
So far as Amendment No. 253 is concerned, paragraph 98 provides that an administrator is discharged from liability in respect of any action in his capacity as an administrator once he has ceased to be the administrator of the company. In the case of an administrator appointed by the holder of a floating charge, the company, or its directors, his discharge takes effect at the time appointed by a resolution of the creditors' committee; or, if there is no committee, by resolution of the creditors.
Paragraph 98(3) provides that such a resolution shall be taken as passed if passed with the approval of each secured creditor of the company and a majority of the preferential creditors in value if the administrator has made a statement, in his statements of proposal, that he thinks the company has insufficient property to enable a distribution to be made to unsecured creditors. In those circumstances the unsecured creditors are disenfranchised.
That must be wrong as regards the time at which the administrator is discharged from liability in respect of any action of his as administrator. It may be his fault that there will be no distribution to unsecured creditors. The date on which he is discharged from liability is a decision that concerns them. They should be entitled to have a say; and to insist on some

1123
explanation as to why a dividend will not be paid to them before they decide on the date that his discharge will take place. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the period of an administration can be extended by the consent of the creditors instead of requiring the administrator to apply to a court. The time limits for sending out the statement of proposals, for the period of notice for a creditors' meeting and for the holding of the initial creditors' meeting can also be extended by consent. Currently, consent is defined as being the majority of those unsecured creditors who respond, plus all the secured creditors. Amendments Nos. 232, 235, 237 and 252 allow for consent to be considered as the majority of the secured creditors rather than all of them, whereas Amendments Nos. 233, 234, 236 and 251 seek to define consent as referring to a 75 per cent majority of secured creditors.
If I understand correctly the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, he prefers the 75 per cent option to the majority option. But we think that the decision to extend the period of an administration and the moratorium on legal and other actions that go with it, should be one that is taken following consent of all of the secured creditors.
There may be times when it is difficult or even impossible to obtain consent of each of the secured creditors. But the administrator will, in that or any event, be able to apply to the court for an extension to the administration as an alternative. That has always been the case. It would then be up to the court to weigh up the potential benefits of the extension against the interests of creditors, including the secured creditors.
Although it is a tempting idea to provide for a bare majority or 75 per cent majority of secured creditors for the purposes of consent, we do not think it would be practical. First, the administrator always has the option to go to court for an extension for a specified period. Secondly, and more importantly, in reality the administrator must elicit the support of the secured creditors—perhaps as funders of the administration, but certainly to avoid them enforcing their security immediately at the end of an administration moratorium thus probably destroying the possibility of a rescue.
On the other hand, paradoxically, Amendment No. 253 seeks to broaden the extent to which the consent of creditors is required by including those unsecured creditors who are not going to receive any distribution from the administration, and therefore have no financial interest in it.
While I believe that it is right and proper to include all creditors in those decisions in which they have a financial stake, in those cases where this is not the case, this would simply add unnecessary administrative burdens and costs to the administration; costs that could reduce the returns for those creditors who do have a financial interest. In summary, I am opposed to relaxing the rules in all these amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full response. So far as concerns the question of the majority or the 75 per cent, I shall go away and reflect on whether it would be sensible to return again with a similar amendment at Third Reading. I shall also reflect on what he says about the position of an unsecured creditor. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 233 to 237 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 238:
Page 282, line 32, at end insert "and"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 238, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 244. The potential for a company to move directly into a creditors' voluntary liquidation from administration is new and is introduced by paragraph 83 of new Schedule B1—that is, Schedule 16 of the Bill. This will facilitate, for example, distributions to unsecured creditors.
These amendments are simply consequential on that new procedure. We have provided that certain requirements necessary where a company goes directly into voluntary liquidation will not be necessary or appropriate where a company moves from administration into creditors' voluntary liquidation. These matters include the requirement to publish a notice of the resolution to wind up, to hold a meeting of creditors, to lay a statement of affairs before the creditors and to appoint a liquidator. This latter requirement is addressed specifically by paragraph 83. The others will have already been undertaken as part of the administration process. There is no value in repeating them simply for the purposes of the creditors' voluntary liquidation.
In addition, the possibility of a declaration of solvency has no place in this procedure. Where a creditors' committee has already been formed in administration it will continue to exist as if it were a liquidation committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 282, line 41, leave out "file with" and insert "send to"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 239 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 240 to 243 and Amendments Nos. 245 to 250. These are technical amendments. They make reference to documents being filed with the Registrar of Companies; references to documents being sent to him and thereafter registered by the Registrar.
The Bill includes various references to the administrator filing documents with the Registrar of Companies, but in technical terms this merely means the document arriving in whatever state it may be in at Companies House. In other words, Companies House

1125
considers that it has been filed when it arrives in the post room. In most instances in the Bill this is acceptable since nothing substantive flows from the filing. However, there are two occasions on which an action or change in circumstance is instigated on a document being accepted by the Registrar of Companies. It then becomes particularly important that the terminology used in the Bill is precise, to mean that the substantive effect is from when the document is put on the register, not merely when it has arrived at Companies House.
The two occasions are those dealt with in the two paragraphs affected by these amendments, which deal with the end of the administration, when the company is either to move into creditors' voluntary liquidation, in order that the administrator can make distributions to creditors, or, in those cases where there is nothing left to distribute, is to be dissolved.
The Bill as drafted allows for the move into liquidation or dissolution to take effect on, or at a point some time after, the filing of the appropriate document with the Registrar of Companies. However, for the reason that I have given regarding the registrars definition of "filing", the filing of an incorrectly filled-in form is not the "filing" that we would want to trigger the change in the company's circumstances. We want the change to be effected when the document is accepted and placed on the company's public file—that is, from the date that it is registered with the Registrar of Companies. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 240 to 250:
Page 282, line 42, at end insert—
"( ) On receipt of a notice under sub-paragraph (3) the registrar shall register it."
Page 282, line 43, leave out "files" and insert "sends"
Page 283, line 3, leave out "filing" and insert "registration"
Page 283, line 8, leave out "filed" and insert "registered"
Page 283, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) In the application of Part IV to a winding up by virtue of this paragraph—

(a) section 85 shall not apply,

(b) section 86 shall apply as if the reference to the time of the passing of the resolution for voluntary winding up were a reference to the beginning of the date of registration of the notice under sub-paragraph (3),

(c) section 89 does not apply,

(d) sections 98, 99 and 100 shall not apply,

(e) section 129 shall apply as if the reference to the time of the passing of the resolution for voluntary winding up were a reference to the beginning of the date of registration of the notice under sub-paragraph (3), and

(f) any creditors' committee which is in existence immediately before the company ceases to be in administration shall continue in existence after that time as if appointed as a liquidation committee under section 101."

Page 283, line 15, leave out "file" and insert "send"
Page 283, line 16, leave out "with" and insert "to"
Page 283, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) On receipt of a notice under sub-paragraph (1) the registrar shall register it."
Page 283, line 19, leave out "filing" and insert "registration"
Page 283, line 21, leave out "files" and insert "sends"
Page 283, line 26, leave out "filing" and insert "registration"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 251 to 253 not moved.]
Schedule 17 [Administration: minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 254:
Page 298, line 35, leave out "of the approval of the voluntary arrangement" and insert "on which the voluntary arrangement takes effect"
The noble Lord said: The amendment and those grouped with it—Amendments Nos. 255 to 259—are consequential and technical amendments necessary to align the Bill with the Insolvency Act 2000 and facilitate the drafting of the insolvency rules. Amendments Nos. 254 and 255 reflect the fact that Section 387 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has already been amended by the Insolvency Act 2000 and add further necessary consequential amendment to subsection (3). Amendments Nos. 256, 257 and 258 will ensure that we have sufficient vires to provide appropriate rules for the Bill's provisions. Amendment No. 259 corrects a cross-reference in Schedule 17(9). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 255 to 259:
Page 298, line 38, after "paragraphs" insert "(a),"
Page 300, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) At the end of paragraph 2 (which becomes sub-paragraph (1))add—
"(2) Rules made by virtue of this paragraph about the consequence of failure to comply with practice or procedure may, in particular, include provision about the termination of administration.""
Page 300, line 10, at end insert—
"(2A) After paragraph 14 insert—
"14A. Provision about the application of section 176A of this Act which may include, in particular—

(a) provision enabling a receiver to institute winding up proceedings;

(b) provision requiring a receiver to institute winding up proceedings.""

Page 300, line 10, at end insert—
"(2B) After paragraph 14A (inserted by sub-paragraph (2A) above) insert—
"Administration
14A. Provision which—

(a) applies in relation to administration, with or without modifications, a provision of Parts IV to VII of this Act, or

(b) serves a purpose in relation to administration similar to a purpose that may be served by the rules in relation to winding up by virtue of a provision of this Schedule.""

Page 300, line 23, leave out "28(4)" and insert "28(7)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 18 [Schedule 2A to Insolvency Act 1986]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 260:
Page 308, line 1, leave out from "involves" to end of line 3 and insert "the grant of a security interest by a party to the arrangement to—

(i) a person holding it as trustee for one or more persons who hold a capital market investment issued by a party to the arrangement;

(ii) a person party to such arrangements who issues a capital market investment;

(iii) a person holding it as trustee for a person party to such arrangement who issues a capital market investment; or

(iv) a person holding it as trustee for one or more persons who are party to the arrangement and who provide finance to a person party to such arrangement; or"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already debated the amendment in Committee. I am aware that the Government believe it to be unnecessary, but I have consulted widely outside the House, in particular, with those in the legal profession who specialise in the area and who are not as satisfied as the Government appear to be.
The purely technical nature of the amendment is evident; I ask the Government only to reconsider. Perhaps I may explain. The existing capital markets exemption provided for in Schedule 18 demonstrates that the Government have decided that such transactions should be exempt from the restriction on appointing an administrative receiver to support the structured finance market.
I am not aware of any policy issues connected with the exception as it applies to special purpose vehicles used in structured finance transactions. Several structures should fall within the exemption but, as drafted, the Bill covers only one of them. It would be unfortunate if the Bill provided for some types of finance techniques dealing with special purpose vehicles but not others for what appears to be no sound policy or political reason. I therefore make no apology for again moving this purely technical amendment designed to cover all the types of structure that the Government have agreed should be exempt.
Finally, I am happy to share with the Minister and his colleagues the legal advice that I have received, which makes it imperative that the amendment is accepted. Meanwhile, I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, let me immediately say in response to the noble Lord's final point that officials have already met the London Law Society. If, following today's consideration, the society wants a further meeting, I am sure that that may be arranged. If the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is referring to some other adviser, we would include him in that meeting or make separate arrangements.
First, let me say what is a capital market arrangement. It is defined in Clause 72B(1) and paragraph 1 of the schedule. It is an arrangement that involves the issue of a capital market investment; that
1128
involves, or is expected to involve, a debt by at least one party of at least £50 million; and that involves security being granted to a person holding it on trust for someone who holds a capital market investment issued by a party to the arrangement.
There seems to be a fear that the definition of a capital market arrangement contained within paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 2A will be insufficiently wide to encompass all potential capital market arrangements. That is true, but it has never been our intention that that subparagraph should cover all such arrangements; that is why we have subparagraphs (b), (c) and (d). The exception provisions provided by paragraph 1 of the Schedule are for all sorts of structures within the capital markets. It must be possible to ensure that an arrangement falls within those provisions.
Indeed, officials have spent much time considering and drafting the exceptions with various interested parties—including City lawyers—and are completely satisfied that, while the exceptions are not so broad so as to encourage avoidance, they will in practice prove to be flexible. The matter would also presumably impact on the eligibility criteria for the new company voluntary arrangement procedure introduced by the Insolvency Act 2000, which was amended specifically to deal with capital market arrangements by an instrument approved by this House on 24th July—without comment of which I am aware.
The proposals in the Bill and the eligibility criteria for the new company voluntary arrangement impact on similar capital market arrangements. It makes sense to have comparable definitions. Indeed, to adopt different definitions would create the potential for confusion and uncertainty and call into question the instrument accepted by Parliament only three months ago. I must resist the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, the Minister resists the amendment with such good grace and such a kind offer to allow those who advise to consult further with him and his colleagues that in the circumstances, I have no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 247 [Unsecured creditors]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 261:
Page 179, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) Subsection (2) shall also not apply to a company if—

(a) the liquidator, administrator or receiver applies to the court for an order under this subsection on the ground that the cost of making a distribution to unsecured creditors would be disproportionate to the benefits, and

(b) the court orders that subsection (2) shall not apply."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 262 to 263. In dealing with Amendment No. 261, I thank the Opposition for giving us the opportunity to reconsider since Committee whether an office-holder—a liquidator, administrator or receiver—should be free not to implement the ring fence where,

1129
although the net property is equal to or more than the prescribed minimum, he nevertheless thinks that the cost of distribution will outweigh the benefit. We are thinking of here a company that may have a large number of unsecured creditors. As someone who has an ITV Digital box, I probably fall into that category. Seriously, where the office-holder is of the view that—because of the sheer numbers of unsecured creditors, for example—the costs of distributing the prescribed part would really not justify that distribution, he should be able to act to disapply the new section.
On further consideration of the issue over the summer, we have reached the conclusion that new Section 176A would benefit from an express provision to allow the office-holder to apply to court to disapply the obligation to set aside the prescribed part where such a situation arises. The amendment will do this where the court is satisfied that the costs of distribution would outweigh the benefits.
We are grateful to the City of London Law Society for bringing the need for Amendments Nos. 262 and 263 to our attention. Our policy has always been that the calculation of the prescribed part is not to apply to charges created before the section's commencement—and that is consistent with the provision that the holder of an existing floating charge will continue to be able to appoint an administrative receiver—but that it is to apply to any floating charge created after the section's commencement.
The easiest way to explain that is to give an example. Where a company has granted both pre- and post-commencement floating charges, the liquidator, say, would pay out to fixed security holders; then pay the expenses of the winding-up; then pay any remaining preferential claims; then pay out to the pre-commencement floating charge holder, or holders; and then he would apply the prescribed part to the net property available to the post-commencement floating charge holders.
We do not anticipate a problem with pre-commencement charges that have subordinated their claim to a post-commencement charge. They will have done so in the knowledge that they will be waiving their right not to be subject to the new Section 176A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 262 and 263.
Page 179, line 44, after "creation" insert "and which is created after the first order under subsection (2)(a) comes into force"
Page 180, line 2, leave out subsections (9) and (10) and insert—
"(9) An order under this section may include transitional or incidental provision."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 248 [Liquidator's powers]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 264:
Page 180, leave out lines 10 to 14 and insert—
"The following shall be inserted in Part II of Schedule 4 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45) (liquidator's powers in winding up: powers exercisable without sanction in voluntary winding up, with sanction in winding up by the court) after paragraph 4—
"4A. Power to bring legal proceedings under section 213, 214, 238, 239 or 423.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a liquidation certain powers are only exercisable with the sanction of the court, the sanction of the liquidation committee or the company's creditors. For example, a liquidator can make a compromise with creditors only with sanction. In contrast, a liquidator can raise money on the security of assets of the company without sanction. Some powers are exercisable with sanction in a compulsory liquidation, but without sanction in a voluntary liquidation.
One such power is to bring or defend any action or other legal proceeding in the name, and on behalf of, the company. In a compulsory liquidation the liquidator must seek sanction for doing so. By contrast, in a voluntary liquidation there is no need for him to do so. He can take proceedings in the name and on behalf of the company, without seeking the sanction of the court or, indeed, anyone else.
Clause 249 provides that the legal proceedings under Sections 213, 214, 238, 239 and 423, which are proceedings in the name of the liquidator but for the benefit of the company in liquidation, can be exercisable only with sanction both in a compulsory and a voluntary liquidation, despite that in a voluntary liquidation the liquidator can bring proceedings in the name and on behalf of the company without sanction. We can see no reason why proceedings under Section 213, 214, 238, 239 or 423 should be treated differently from proceedings in the name and on behalf of the company.
If it is right that a liquidator can take legal proceedings in the name and on behalf of the company without sanction in a voluntary liquidation, we believe it must be right that he can take proceedings under the above-mentioned sections in his own name without sanction as well. All such proceedings should be treated in the same way. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has moved that amendment without one reference to the Lewis case, which I thought was going to be the central point. However, as currently drafted Clause 248 will mean that the liquidator of a company will need to seek the sanction of the court or the liquidation committee, or a meeting of creditors where there is no committee, before taking any civil recovery action. That will be the same whether the company is in compulsory or voluntary liquidation. The amendment seeks to remove the need for sanction if the company is in voluntary liquidation. We do not believe that is appropriate.
Perhaps I may remind the House of the reasons behind that provision. Until a recently decided case—the Lewis case, otherwise known as Floor Fourteen—

1131
the power in Paragraph 4 of Part 2 to Schedule 4—that is the power to bring or defend any action or other legal proceeding in the name and on behalf of the company—was thought to include the power to bring civil recovery actions. Therefore, it was presumed that the liquidator in a compulsory liquidation would require sanction to bring such actions, while a liquidator in a voluntary liquidation would not.
However, it was clear from the judgment in that case that civil recovery actions are not actions in the name of, or on behalf of, the company. Therefore, it became apparent that no liquidator would require the sanction of creditors to take such action. That has led us to review the whole process of making civil recoveries and the issue of whether a liquidator—whether in a compulsory or voluntary case—ought to require sanction from creditors in order to take such action.
Consideration of that matter led us to look at the impact of the removal of the Crown's preference, whose abolition is aimed at generating funds for unsecured creditors. We would not want any such sums to be used by the liquidator in pursuing legal action unless the creditors approve. After all, it is a commercial decision for the creditors to choose between, say, a five pence in the pound dividend payable now, or whether to allow the liquidator to pursue a claim which may result in a 50 pence in the pound dividend at a later stage.
That is why we have put in the new power for the liquidator in Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Act, which covers powers exercisable with sanction in both voluntary and compulsory liquidation.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can tell me whether he accepts my amendment or whether he rejects it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought I was making it clear that we need the change which is provided for in the Bill and that the amendment would damage that. We cannot accept it.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I shall not bring the amendment back at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 265:
Page 180, line 13, after "239" insert", 242, 243"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 265, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 344 and 345. Those amendments are consequential on previous amendments. They will ensure that appropriate insolvency provisions extend to Scotland in addition to England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 251 [Duration of bankruptcy]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 181, leave out lines 25 to 28.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the Minister is aware, I was concerned as we were debating the Bill in Committee about the effect of the automatic right to discharge and release on or within 12 months, as compared to the existing position where that occurs after three years. I therefore move Amendment No. 266 on page 181, which proposes a substitution for Section 279 of the Insolvency Act 1986. It would leave out subsection (2), which reads:
"If before the end of that period the official receiver files with the court a notice stating that investigation of the conduct and affairs of the bankrupt under section 289 is unnecessary or concluded, the bankrupt is discharged when the notice is filed".
In Amendments Nos. 267 and 269, I seek to insert the words on the Marshalled List.
I want to raise with the Minister the early automatic right to discharge and release. As I understand the position under the Bill, the period would be 12 months, unless a notice were filed by the official receiver under the clause to discharge the bankrupt at an earlier date. I also understand that during consultations it was stated by one of the Minister's officials that this could well result in someone filing for bankruptcy and eight weeks later being discharged.
Many people outside this House are most concerned about such a major change in the bankruptcy law. Under these proposals, I and my colleagues are seeking to allow for the bankruptcy discharge period being for a fixed period of 12 months without the possibility of reduction. I would argue that for the following reasons. Reducing the period to less than 12 months is likely to act as a significant incentive to debtors to enter bankruptcy, after which the debtor can acquire new assets free of any claim from his creditors.
Secondly, by definition, a bankrupt is unable to pay his liabilities and so his assets are likely to be minimal—or certainly exceeded—by the amount he owes to creditors. Being divested of existing assets is therefore not a significant disincentive to becoming bankrupt for the "culpable" bankrupt.
Thirdly, Clause 251 as drafted would substantially reduce the trustee's power to ensure co-operation from the debtor since once a notice under the clause has been issued it would remove the power to suspend discharge for failure to co-operate. That is a most important consideration.
Fourthly, under the clause as drafted, there is little time in practice to come to any conclusion about culpability, prior to filing a notice to discharge, as the official receiver is likely to make a decision quickly after a first interview with the bankrupt. A trustee in bankruptcy may subsequently discover matters relevant to the conduct of the bankrupt. In those circumstances, there is no opportunity to make an application for a bankruptcy restriction order because the bankrupt would have received his discharge.
As drafted, there is no provision for any co-operation between the official receiver and the trustee on the filing of a notice under this clause, even though the trustee is likely to hold information relevant to the decision-making process; for instance, inappropriate conduct and failure to co-operate. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the situation in the light of evidence which is slowly emerging.
I am not sure whether officials have fully briefed the Minister on the latest report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research. I am pleased to see that they have. The consultancy is warning that personal bankruptcies could rise by more than 50 per cent if the Government's proposals are not defeated in this House tonight. Measures in the Enterprise Bill which are designed to allow these so-called pain-free bankruptcies that do not punish individuals for taking risks with their credit could backfire.
The report sets out to say that instead of boosting the economy it is estimated that personal bankruptcies will increase by more than 13,000 a year, knocking £180 million off the gross domestic product. It claims that the resulting £76 million annual cost to unsecured lenders could lead to 170,000 people being excluded from the credit market. I have been made aware of the situation in the United States where there are what are called US-style serial bankrupts who exploit lenders. I am also aware that the report has caused Martin Hall, Director-General of the Finance and Leasing Association, to say that the Government were going too far in exposing the bankruptcy system to abuse.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I listened with great care to the forensic presentation of his case, which is devastating whatever the outcome. Will he agree that respect for law passed in this place and another place is paramount? Will he further agree that a law passed by this place and another place which allowed American serial bankrupts or people in this country to go through a revolving door of bankruptcy every eight weeks by setting up a business and moving on will rapidly be brought into disrepute? I am sure the Minister would not want that?
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Patten. I agree that disturbing statistics and conclusions are revealed by an independent research consultancy. We would do well to recall the experience in the United States. The concern from these Benches is that if one creates a US-style situation, in many circumstances those who find difficulty now in borrowing but succeed will find themselves excluded from such credit being made available.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharman, may make the point that, as was said by his noble friend Lord Razzall, it is important to get the balance right between allowing people to start again quickly and preventing the consumer credit industry from serious damage. My noble friend Lord Patten rightly drew attention to the importance of these provisions. My
1134
noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon has also expressed concern, as have many noble Lords from all sides of the House. It is therefore a matter of getting the balance right.
The most fundamental point I seek to make is the difficulty this House faces in getting the balance right because the Bill does not distinguish business bankrupts from consumer bankrupts. I have every sympathy with the Minister in wishing to make things possible for those who started up businesses through their own entrepreneurship but who through no fault of their own now face difficulties. Those business bankrupts, those business entrepreneurs, are in a completely different category. We should want to see measures introduced that would reduce the bankruptcy discharge period for entrepreneurs of that kind. However, it has been shown in other countries that, where the bankruptcy discharge period is reduced, the number of consumer bankrupts increases considerably.
The Minister looked quizzically at me when I sought to differentiate between consumer bankrupts and business bankrupts. That is exactly what the law does in the United States. For example, in America, over 97 per cent of the 1.5 million bankruptcies in 2001 were consumer bankruptcies. In Hong Kong, in 1997—the year before its insolvency law changed—there were 639 bankruptcy orders, 33 initiated by the debtor and 606 by creditors. By 2001, there were 9,151 orders, 7,389 of which were initiated by the debtor and 1,762 by creditors. There are equivalent examples in Scotland. That is because consumers, rather than entrepreneurs, take advantage of the reduction. I do not believe that the figures demonstrate that the number of entrepreneurs in these circumstances is falling. It is much more because the number of consumers taking advantage of the reduction is considerably increasing. A greater burden is placed on business as it is unlikely that unsecured creditors will agree an individual voluntary arrangement with the consumer bankrupt; there is no incentive if the discharge period is shorter.
There is no restriction, on how short the period should be. Earlier, I gave the example of eight weeks. It will be the time that it takes the official receiver to file a notice at court that no investigation is necessary.
I understand that the reaction of the Department of Trade and Industry to the survey by the Centre for Economics and Business Research has been that the modelling assumptions are flawed and do not take into account economic factors such as interest rates. As I understand the position—I have checked this with the consultancy—the modelling assumptions do take account of economic variables, including interest rate levels, income and debt levels, and the prevailing macro-economic conditions. I understand that this has now been explained to the department. The findings of 13,000 additional bankruptcies a year are in addition to any changes in bankruptcy levels caused by changes in these variables.
If the Minister intends in his response to repeat the DTI line, I point out to him that I should feel much more reassured if the department had carried out

1135
research. As I understand the position, it has not commissioned any research on this issue. I am, therefore, not sure on what basis the department's line that there will be no change is based.
An increase in bankruptcy will result in the official receiver not having the resources accurately to investigate. I understand that there is some thought that consumer bankruptcies will be subject to telephone surveys or standard questionnaires. I do not for one moment believe that those are sufficient. The official receiver will require appropriate training and competency levels to ensure that they have the ability, the resources and the inclination to ensure that the system does not become open to abuse.
In conclusion, I raise these points from a genuine belief that we must assist the entrepreneur and do our best to ensure that enterprise is not stifled. At the same time, we must take every possible step to ensure that in this Bill we do not create a rogue's charter. While we accept that all the restrictions and sanctions of bankruptcy will remain, the perception among many will be that if one can get out of bankruptcy within a few months or weeks, this becomes a more attractive option. That is why it is essential to have a fixed minimum term. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I do not wish to weary the House with a repetition of the excellent points made by my noble friend, but there are one or two additional points to be made. As my noble friend Lord Patten has said, there is an issue of public confidence. The Minister indicated in Committee (at col. 826 of Hansard) bankruptcy will not be pain free. But if there is to be no minimum period, that comes jolly close to it—and for the persuasive bankrupt, very close indeed.
The Minister indicated also—a point which I find extraordinary—that,
"There was wide support for the one-year discharge period in responses to the White Paper".—[Official Report, 30/7/02; col. 825.]
I understand that, and such a proposal has been put forward. However, the provision that the amendment seeks to delete offers the chance to drive a coach and horses through the idea of the one-year period by allowing no discharge period at all. The CBI has expressed strong concern, as have many credit organisations.
There is a second problem in having a provision for automatic discharge; namely, potential regional disparities. As my noble friend Lord Freeman pointed out in Committee, different levels of resources and different processes could lead to different results in terms of automatic discharge.
The Minister and his officials will no doubt have seen an interesting article in the Financial Times by David Storey, the director of the Centre for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises at Warwick Business School. He argues powerfully that there is a law of unintended consequences. Attempts to provide a way for people to get away from bankruptcy can lead to
1136
severe consequential costs as regards the availability of credit. He uses the US example of Texas and Connecticut. The procedure in Texas is very liberal: a bankrupt's home is exempt and up to 30,000 dollars. In Connecticut, all the debts have to be repaid in full. The result has been a drift of bankrupts to Texas to take advantage of the arrangements there; but business credit availability in Texas has consequently been reduced. The availability of business credit is better in Connecticut. If we liberalise the situation—I use the word "liberalise" advisedly—in the way proposed in the Bill as presently drafted, we must think about the consequences in terms of the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises and on credit availability.
I, along with many other noble Lords, have received letters from MBNA Europe Bank Limited pointing out the ratio for personal bankrupts; namely, that an average bankrupt costs 26 times the profit earned on the average customer. So the cost of personal bankruptcies will be severe to the full and proper payer.
I do not propose to quote again the Centre for Economics and Business Research. It seems to me that it has some powerful arguments, and they were powerfully made by my noble friend. My view is that there should be some irreducible minimum period which keeps faith with those who have lost in the bankruptcy, be it creditors, employees, taxpayers or others. While I appreciate and applaud the fact that the Bill may be about reducing the stigma of bankruptcy—and that is fair enough—we should not eliminate the stigma. There needs to remain a measure of deterrence. That is why I support the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I am very happy to follow my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who is absolutely right to say that there should be an "irreducible minimum period" before people could discharge their bankruptcy. I also agree with him on the other three important points that I believe he made.
My noble friend Lord Hunt, who is leading us in this debate this evening, is quite right to warn the House to be awfully chary of creating something that turns out to be a "rogues charter", which is a very telling phrase. I worry very much that we may, inadvertently, in this Bill—many parts of which I applaud—be creating an opportunity for a revolving door of a few hard cases going in and out of bankruptcy in order to manifest the worst extremes of pyramid selling, or of other corrupt practices, that we have seen in the past decades.
What worries me more—I look to the Minister in his normal cheery way to clear up this point—is the suggestion by my noble friend Lord Hunt that this excellent piece of research, which is fundamental, has effectively been rubbished by the spinners of the Department of Trade and Industry as being somehow unfounded—a department of trade and industry that has not itself carried out such research. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Hunt agrees with me, but I find that rather worrying. I am not normally one

1137
of your Lordships belligerent tendency, but if that turned out to be the case and it has just been dismissed out of hand by the spin doctors at the DTI, I believe that I would join the belligerent tendency.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know whether this could be thought to be belligerent, but, if I believed that there was any real substance in the research that noble Lords opposite have quoted with such approval, I would not be satisfied by tabling an amendment that said that there should not be any discharge from bankruptcy before the period of one year; indeed, I would be opposing the provisions in the Bill much more widely. I ask the House to consider why we find ourselves in this situation. If noble Lords seriously believe that there will be an increase of 50 per cent in the number of bankruptcies as a result of changes in legislation—in fact, the research points to 53.5 per cent—I wonder whether they should be satisfied with such modest amendments at this time.
I have to say that both the understanding—
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I feel that I should answer the question that the Minister just posed. I did not speak at great length to the proposals in Amendments Nos. 267, 268 and 269. The noble Lord must surely appreciate that I was seeking to accept at face value the assurances that he gave when we debated the matter in Committee. There needs to be some further consideration in the light of the findings of this report. That is provided for in the provisions set out in the subsequent amendments; and, indeed, answers the question that the Minister just raised.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is why, if the House will allow me, I propose to spend some time in dealing with our understanding, and my understanding, of the issues that have been raised both by the research and by the amendments.
Judging by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, there seems to have been a very considerable misunderstanding of the nature of the changes that are being made. If we look at the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, we can see the differences. The really important change being made in the Bill is not a general reduction in the period for discharge from bankruptcy, but a distinction that is being made between culpable bankrupts and those who are less culpable. Under the provisions of the Bill, culpable bankrupts are to be subjected to bankruptcy restriction orders—or, sometimes, agreements, if possible—which extend for a period of at least two years, and up to 15 years, following discharge.
The protection of the public, which is a very important concern in the way that we are considering bankruptcy here, is very much to be found in those restriction orders and their inherent seriousness. At present, the duration of the bankruptcy is the same generally for bankrupts, regardless of culpability or the level of their assets or liabilities. Therefore, we propose that there should be an automatic discharge one year after the bankruptcy is made. However, if the official receiver files a notice stating that further
1138
investigation into the bankrupt's conduct or affairs is unnecessary, the period may be reduced. That is the burden of Amendment No. 266.
We do not expect all bankrupts to be discharged before the automatic 12-month period has elapsed. That will happen only when any administrative work is complete, where the bankrupt has co-operated fully with the official receiver, and where any matters raised by creditors are investigated to the satisfaction of the Insolvency Service. I make the point that the creditors always have to be kept informed. If the grounds are not satisfied, the discharge period will stay at 12 months.
As I said, we are introducing a tougher regime of bankruptcy restriction orders for those bankrupts whose conduct has been irresponsible, reckless, or otherwise culpable. Those orders will place restrictions on bankrupts for between two and 15 years, and—in answer to the point made about serial bankruptcies—any previous bankruptcies will be taken into account by the courts when considering bankruptcy restriction order cases.
I turn to the issue of whether there is a distinction between consumers rather than business. Surely such a distinction is artificial. The Bill should be seen as a whole, and the general reduction of stigma on bankrupts is aimed at stimulating enterprise in broad terms, but that does not apply to those who are culpable. People who find themselves being made bankrupt through no fault of their own may be in business, or may be individuals, but it happens. The bankruptcy restriction orders regime will cover both consumers and traders, as well as acting as a deterrent for the irresponsible and reckless. It will, therefore, provide greater protection in future for the public and the business community. Therefore, consumer bankrupts who behave irresponsibly could find themselves subject to restrictions for between two and 15 years.
I do not know how much of this argument will be dependent on the research from the Centre for Economic and Business Research. I have great respect for its director, Doug McWilliams, who is a former director of research for the CBI. I am not sure how much your Lordships will wish me to say about the detail of the research. However, I have been provoked into speaking about it by the noble Lord, Lord Patten.
I am a researcher; I am not an econometrician. We are talking about a piece of econometric research, rather than economic research. Perhaps it ought to be economic rather than econometric research. However, having read the report and considered the issues raised in debate, I simply do not believe that the effect of any bankruptcy legislation, let alone the bankruptcy legislation introduced in this Bill—and still less the provisions for early release before the period of 12 months—could have the effect anticipated by the research. I say that both having looked at the research and having considered the evidence that is available from other pieces of research.
The starting point for the CEBR research is an assessment of the effects of the Insolvency Act 1986 on bankruptcy numbers. It rightly says that the 1986 Act

1139
made significant changes to bankruptcy law. However, the research then makes the assumption that the 1986 Act accounted for 68 per cent of the subsequent increases in bankruptcy. We have to consider the relative importance of macro-economic factors and the effect of legislation. Yes, the research took account of debt levels to income ratio, of interest payments to income ratio—both long-term and short-term—of unemployment, of GDP, of interest rates, and, curiously, of divorce decrees, although I do not quite understand the significance of the latter.
But research carried out by other distinguished researchers, including Professor Lawrence M Ausubel of the University of Maryland who reported to the Senate Committee on Bankruptcy in 1998, suggests that other significant factors should be taken into account, not least since the research was carried out on behalf of a credit card company and considering the number of credit cards issued.
Professor Ausubel said that 98 per cent of the variation in the personal insolvency rate during 1987 to 1996 can be explained by four factors: the increase in the number of credit card accounts; the household debt burden; unemployment; and interest rates. Another researcher, Stuart Feldstein, added to that list decreased savings levels, which sounds plausible.
Without entering a further debate on the quality of the research, which has been accepted uncritically by noble Lords opposite, surely it is implausible that changes in bankruptcy legislation could have such an important effect on the numbers of bankruptcies in comparison with macro-economic factors such as those mentioned above. It is totally implausible to me as someone who has spent his entire life in economic and survey research. If that were to be the basis of the argument then I would look to different conclusions from the amendments. Those we have here would make a substantive change; they would make it impossible for there to be any discharge from bankruptcy before the period of 12 months. That is a legitimate point of view that was properly argued.
What was not shown in any way was how that is likely to have an effect on the number of bankrupts as analysed by the Centre for Economic and Business Research. If it were true that as a result of the Bill there would be an increase of 50 per cent—13,000—in the number of bankrupts, noble Lords opposite would be honour-bound to propose far more radical changes to this part of the Bill. Indeed, if I were them I would be moving to take out the entire part of the Bill relating to individual bankruptcies. They are now calling into question what has not been called into question at any earlier stage.
We are now on the last day of Report stage in the second House. Noble Lords opposite are calling into question the basis on which we have consulted, drafted, revised, legislated and subjected ourselves to parliamentary scrutiny. It is not plausible or acceptable for these amendments to be put forward on the arguments that have been advanced. I ask the House to reject them.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I reiterate how strongly I and my colleagues support the Government in their objective of creating a more entrepreneurial culture in the United Kingdom, as well as their moves to provide more effective protection against reckless and culpable bankrupts.
Having said that, I hope that the Minister will accept that the independent economic analysis produced by the Centre for Economic and Business Research causes us to think carefully about the consequences of what he has proposed. If the Bill were to cause bankruptcies to double, even on the most cautious estimate, that would be an increase of over 13,000 per year, at a cost of £76 million per year to unsecured lenders. If lenders were to adjust their margins to take account of that, lending rates would have to increase for all.
Alternatively, lenders could seek to exclude more borrowers to minimise the increased risk of bankruptcy losses. That could exclude 170,000 people from the credit market. The individuals most likely to be affected are those already at the margins of the lenders' portfolio, at the lower end of the social spectrum.
On careful reflection, the Minister must surely accept that that would work against our efforts on all sides of the House to improve social and financial inclusion and the commitment to tackle loan sharks. I have not even mentioned the effect on the economy.
The Minister cast doubt on the situation in the United States. I shall reflect on what he said, but the analysis in the report is based firmly on UK figures. There is no doubt in my mind that if US data had been used, the estimates would have been higher still.
I turn to the Minister's challenge: if I believe the research, why have I come forward with such a limited amendment? There are other amendments on the Marshalled List. I and those to whom I have spoken about the provisions believe that there must be four amendments or groups of amendments to rectify the point raised by the Minister. This group deals with restricting the bankruptcy discharge period to a fixed period of 12 months. The Minister has analysed it and said that he is not willing to accept the amendments, but there are amendments tabled seeking that the official receiver's obligation to investigate the bankrupt's conduct should be mandatory in all cases.
At the moment there is a discretion as to whether to investigate. Without mandatory investigation it is impossible to see how the Minister can make a distinction between culpable and non-culpable bankrupts; the honest and the dishonest. How can a proper decision be made and how can creditors have any confidence that their interests are being protected if in a substantial number of cases the official receiver does not investigate at all?
I turn to income payments orders, which are intended to ensure that bankrupts make an affordable contribution towards their debt from their income for up to three years. The proposed legislation states that the income payments orders will last for up to three

1141
years irrespective of discharge, but will not last longer than three years. We believe that the length of the order should be left to the courts or to the trustee's discretion.
In seeking to defend the existing provisions, the Minister referred to the bankruptcy restriction order process to deal with culpable bankrupts. I welcome warmly the bankruptcy restriction orders, since they would provide a longer period of restriction than is currently proposed. However, the orders should not be overestimated as a deterrent in the context of such fundamental changes to the system. The primary effect of such an order is to restrict the bankrupt's ability to run a business.
Of course it will impact on business, but how will it impact on the majority of consumer bankrupts? These orders are likely to be limited in any event because of the cost of applying for an order and the difficulty in proving unacceptable conduct. Should not the court have power to impose financial penalties in appropriate cases as an additional disincentive against abusing the system?
I hope the Minister will see that I have not brought forward the amendments with only a minimal consideration of the latest statistical analysis. We are proceeding down a potentially very dangerous road. I have sought to warn the Minister about it. He has cast some doubt on the economic research. I shall go away and discuss his criticisms with those who have produced the research. If I find that there are fundamental flaws such as he has outlined, I shall want to reconsider the matter. Obviously, I need time now to take further evidence.
I would not dismiss the evidence from those who have experience of the United States, such as the Maryland Bank of North America, which has been referred to in previous debates and which has a genuine interest in seeking to ensure that the provisions do not have the impact on the number of bankruptcies that the research shows that they could have. We are all united in that respect and in wanting to create a more entrepreneurial culture in the UK. However, as the Finance and Leasing Association has pointed out, we have to tread very carefully when changing so fundamentally a structure that has worked so well to date.
I shall take time to reflect on the issue and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 267 to 269 not moved.]
Schedule 20 [Schedule 4A to Insolvency Act 1986]:
[Amendments Nos. 270 to 273 not moved.]
Clause 253 [Investigation by official receiver]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 274:
Page 182, leave out lines 28 and 29.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as with compulsory liquidation, the official receiver's obligation to investigate the conduct of the bankrupt should be mandatory in all cases. The clause leaves the decision on whether to investigate to the discretion of the official receiver.
We believe that an investigation should be conducted, in all cases, to justify a decision on whether it is appropriate to bring an application for a bankruptcy restrictions order. The report should be filed with the Secretary of State as well as the court, to enable a decision to be made on whether to bring such an application. Without that, it is impossible to see on what basis a proper decision can be made. Nor will creditors have any confidence that their interests are being protected.
If the number of bankruptcies increases significantly under the new system, as we anticipate, the importance of investigating each case will increase to prevent the abuse of the system. That should be addressed by the provision of appropriate levels of training and resources rather than by removing the obligation to investigate. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have seen this amendment before in this House and in another place. Its aim is to ensure that there is a mandatory duty on the official receiver to investigate all cases. The Insolvency Act 1986 introduced for the first time the concept that the official receiver did not have to investigate in small cases—that is, where the bankrupt had unsecured liabilities of less than £20,000. Such cases are termed "summary bankruptcies". The official receiver has used that discretion to investigate for 16 years.
Summary cases account for a large proportion of the annual total of bankruptcy cases. For the remainder of non-summary cases, there is a mandatory duty on the official receiver to investigate. The exercise of that discretion has been carried out responsibly and effectively by the official receiver and has not, as far as I am aware, led to any significant number of complaints from creditors or other interest groups in the past 16 years.
The Bill will remove the existing provisions relating to summary bankruptcy and introduce discretion to investigate in all bankruptcies, including the larger ones. That will ensure that resources are properly targeted and used effectively. Every case will be looked at on its merits, based on an assessment of the facts, rather than, as is currently the case, taking the level of unsecured debts as the deciding criterion.
Some cases with large unsecured debts do not merit investigation and some cases where the unsecured liabilities are less than £20,000 do require investigation. What is important is that all cases that warrant it are investigated.
The amendment would require the official receiver to conduct a full investigation into every case without regard to its individual facts and circumstances. That would go further than the current position and would be a wasteful use of investigative resource.
There may be concerns that if the duty to investigate is made discretionary, some who show misconduct or are potentially guilty of criminal offences might slip through the net, or that resource pressures on the official receiver will mean that cases that should be investigated are not fully investigated. Under the new

1143
regime there will be little change to the way in which bankruptcies are currently handled. As is currently the case, the official receiver and his staff will continue to interview all bankrupts. Only then will the decision be made on whether further investigation is appropriate. Creditors will continue to receive a report on the case after a few months, when they will be asked to tell the official receiver about any matters that, in their view, warrant further investigation. The official receiver will then consider any matters brought forward by creditors and investigate those that warrant it.
It should be remembered that even after a case has been investigated under the current system, very little can be done to address misconduct, other than criminal sanctions in a very small number of cases. The bankruptcy restrictions order regime introduced under these proposals will provide an effective weapon at the official receiver's disposal and will significantly improve the level of public protection. That will allow a distinction to be made by all, including the credit industry, between those who show misconduct and those who do not.
As I have already said, the Bill allows for the proper and focussed targeting of investigative resources on those cases that merit it, and we see no reason to amend it. I hope that that shows that I do not support the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, this time the Minister has made that clear. He thinks that the safeguards in the Bill are sufficient to allay any fears that I might have about the operation of the system. In those circumstances, I shall not press the amendment again on Third Reading and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill [H.L.]
7.28 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I do so as the joint president of the Association of London Government, with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I am delighted to see him in his place and intending to speak.
The Bill has been promoted by one borough—Westminster City Council—on behalf of all the other London boroughs and Transport for London. London local authorities have a long tradition of using their powers to promote private legislation, often because of the limited time available for public Bills.
1144
This Bill follows squarely in that tradition. It seeks new powers to help London's local authorities respond to the challenges that they face. Specifically, the Bill seeks to improve the management of traffic, to free up police time to deal with more serious offences and to enhance the quality of life for Londoners.
The joint promotion between the London authorities and Transport for London is a clear sign of close working together between all the traffic and highway authorities in London. This is an excellent example of what can be done if political differences can be put aside for the good of all Londoners. I am glad to say that there is a strong political consensus among all the parties in support of this legislation.
I begin with Clauses 3 to 6, which seek to decriminalise some minor traffic offences to allow effective and efficient enforcement. London boroughs and Transport for London believe that by decriminalising some minor traffic offences, police time can be spent on more serious offences and alternative enforcement can be effectively conducted at no additional expense to the public purse. The Bill's promoters propose that offences such as the infringement of rules on box junctions, vehicles making right or left turns in prohibited locations, and vehicles entering pedestrian zones should be managed in a similar manner to the existing enforcement regime for bus lanes—by camera. In areas where cameras police bus lanes, there has been a major reduction in the number of bus lane contraventions. The use of camera technology has also proved successful in policing box junctions.
Local authorities and Transport for London police the majority of London's bus lanes using powers obtained under the London Local Authorities Act 1996. The process for the enforcement of bus lane use and the system proposed for other minor traffic offences is similar. In both cases, liability generally rests with the vehicle keeper. There are of course some exceptions, such as hire vehicles. Specific provision for hire vehicles is currently made in Clause 6, but amendments simplifying those provisions will be sought at the Committee stage.
Clause 4 makes provision for decriminalising the enforcement of the London night-time and weekend lorry ban. Local authority officers already enforce this scheme. The officers take prosecutions to the magistrates' courts. Magistrates can, and do, impose fines of up to £1,000 on operators guilty of breaching the ban. The London lorry ban minimises the environmental impact of heavy lorries in London. The scheme does not prevent essential night and weekend deliveries being made; it simply prevents excessive and unnecessary lorry traffic at these times. The Bill provides for no changes in either the scheme itself, the legislation which governs it, or the liability for penalties. It would also ease the pressure on magistrates' courts.
Clause 7 proposes that councils should be able to share information—such as car ownership—obtained through the Bill's powers with other borough councils and Transport for London. This will aid enforcement

1145
of a wide range of vehicle-related offences, including tracing the owners of abandoned vehicles and tracking those who would choose to collect unpaid parking tickets.
Noble Lords—especially those who frequently travel on the capital's roads—may be surprised to hear that surveys have shown that there is a £100-million road maintenance backlog in London. The Bill proposes in Clause 8 to allow surplus revenue from the highway authority's parking accounts to be used to reduce this backlog. These accounts receive all income from parking traffic enforcement and have statutory limits on the use of any surplus.
In some parts of London where the demand for residents' parking permits is particularly high, fraudulent applications are not uncommon. Such fraudulent applications are an offence. Currently, however, the time limit for bringing prosecutions is so strict that fraudulent application can escape prosecution because of the time taken to gather sufficient evidence. Clause 9 provides that prosecution can take place at any time within six months of suitable evidence coming to light and at any time within three years of the offence being committed.
The Bill seeks in Clause 10 to provide a London-wide decriminalised offence of parking alongside dropped pavements. Such parking can block entries to drives and garages and block crossing points for wheelchair users and those with pushchairs and prams. The clause will extend the powers that highway authorities already have to enforce this rule in controlled parking zones. The Association of London Government has agreed to draft and consult on a code of practice for the enforcement of this contravention.
After all the avenues for challenging the parking or traffic penalty have been exhausted, if the penalty remains unpaid, the authority will register it as a debt at the county court. At this point, the vehicle's keeper may make a statutory declaration if he did not receive the original parking notice or the council or adjudicator did not respond to his appeals. Clause 11 seeks to close some of the loopholes which have occasionally been used by vehicle owners making improper statutory declarations.
Clause 12 deals with cases in which a property owner drives his vehicle over the pavement into his property without an authorised footway crossover. It is preferable for a number of reasons for council-approved measures, including dropped curbs, to be constructed where people wish to drive over the pavement into their property. Such approval can be given under Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980. This is to avoid damage to the curb and to allow for the protection of any underground services such as water or gas mains under the footway. Under this clause, it would be an offence, if no approval for the crossing has been given, for the property owner to drive across the pavement to park on his property. If the council has served a notice requiring the property owner to desist, in extreme cases, the highway authority may erect bollards or similar devices to prevent vehicles from
1146
being driven over the highway. Clause 12 includes an appeal mechanism, in the county court, for aggrieved property owners.
Clauses 15 to 18 concern current offences that highway authorities may prosecute in the magistrates' courts. These offences include, for example, obstructing the highway or depositing material on the highway. These clauses will allow the authorities to issue fixed-penalty notices in these cases rather than prosecuting each case separately in the magistrates' courts.
Clauses 19 to 21 propose giving highway authorities enhanced powers to remove items unlawfully deposited on the highway. The powers are aimed particularly at persistent offenders, such as shop owners who litter the pavement with their goods, often causing an obstruction.
I should make the House aware that, of the 19 petitions originally submitted against the Bill, none are left. That is due mainly to the withdrawal by the promoters of Clauses 13 and 14, which concerned the reinstatement of street works and obligations, to statutory undertakers to place apparatus in the street so that subsequent works do not require the street to be broken up again. I am pleased to say that, as the Government themselves are considering such proposals, the promoters have been happy to drop those clauses.
There was one further petition against the Bill, from the London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies, on some technical matters. However, that petition has now been withdrawn as well.
I apologise to the House for having spoken at such length, but, given the nature of the Bill, I am afraid that that was unavoidable. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. I look forward to hearing the speeches of other noble Lords who have indicated that they wish to follow me. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Graham of Edmonton.)
7.38 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that I might be forgiven, and not misunderstood, if I start by saying that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—who is on the Front Bench to make observations on behalf of the Government in relation to this debate—has been on that Bench all afternoon dealing with the Enterprise Bill. Noble Lords who are now in the Chamber might already understand that. I hope that the Government—I say this without the slightest irony—realise how fortunate they are to have such a servant as the noble Lord.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wish that I could go on in that cordial note, but unhappily that is simply not possible. As I see it, this Bill is designed to make life easier and more comfortable for those who make a practice of doing exactly what they think in the way they think and who care not a rat what is said about

1147
them by ordinary members of the public or even in your Lordships' House. I have been speaking fairly regularly, and for quite some time, about the highway authorities' neglect in discharging their duty to keep the roads clear for movement. They have never shown the slightest sign of any interest in anything that has been said in your Lordships' House, for which I am slightly sorry.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, is an old friend of mine and I wish that I did not oppose a Bill which he is sponsoring. Nevertheless, I am sure he understands that I feel extremely strongly on this matter. I hope that he will convey to the sponsors of the Bill my strong disapproval of the way in which they normally conduct themselves. The noble Lord made the point that a number of activities will be decriminalised. Let no one misunderstand why that comforting thing is to happen. Certain practices will be decriminalised to enable the authorities to make free use of cameras in order to obtain money more easily, more readily and in larger quantities from the public without any possibility of protest.
I refer to the question of holes in the road. I may have a simple approach to these matters, but I have always been under the impression that it is the duty of the highway authorities to check carefully the duration of an operation on a road by a utility or anyone else to avoid repeated similar occurrences and also to ensure that subsequent repairs are carried out efficiently. As far as I am concerned, they have failed lamentably in that duty. I do not see any grounds why people who fail lamentably in their duty should have further powers conferred upon them by Parliament without even a please or a thank you, which is what we are being invited to do today.
Not only do they fail to control the activities of other people on the highways; they actually commit the same sins themselves. They are responsible for the same sort of things. They litter the roads with cones. They do not show any signs of haste. Often cones are spread out all over the highway and absolutely nothing is done. They seem to have favourite beats to which they return time and again while they perform their tasks without any very great energy and without always being there to perform them. Nevertheless, the cones are there as their representatives.
When I read the Bill for the first time I was disposed to say that, having looked at it, I did not feel very pleased with any of the clauses except Clauses 13 and 14. In my copy of the Bill I wrote down that they were splendid but that I had no confidence whatsoever in the highway authorities' readiness or inclination to use them. That is the proof of what I had rather suspected; namely, that local authorities have been very willing to abandon these matters which seem to me to have at least a grain of sense and merit as regards ordinary members of the public.
The Mayor of London is quite a joker in the pack. I give him credit for his sense of humour, but I very much wonder where the last laugh will be and what kind of chaos we shall be confronted with next year. One of the fancier schemes to which I particularly refer
1148
as an illustration of what I am getting at concerns Trafalgar Square. There was widespread consultation on Trafalgar Square. I spoke to someone who was among those consulted who said, "We were consulted. We were told what they were going to do". It was made clear at the end of the process which was blessed with the name "consultation" that people's views had been listened to but that they would not have the slightest effect as the relevant authorities would do what they had planned to do anyhow. There was no attempt to have a trial period. Cones could have been put down while an assessment was made of whether the scheme would work and what the consequences would be. But no, such people are always right and the rest of us are always wrong. So, on this occasion they did not bother to have a trial period and they went ahead.
As my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber said last week when I raised this matter, such a policy has had a disastrous effect as regards those companies that bring audiences to the London theatres by coach. One night last week—admittedly the rain co-operated in this result—a coalition of bad weather and the authorities resulted in an audience of two attending a good show at a popular London theatre—the Garrick Theatre. So far no tears have been shed on this matter. No one has said that second thoughts should be given to it. There are no expressions of regret. However, I believe that some of those responsible were surprised to learn of the disastrous effect upon London theatres that the Trafalgar Square scheme has had.
There is no need for me to prolong my remarks. However, in this day and age, instead of having public servants we have public managers who know better than we do and who never listen to what we say whether we are Members of Parliament or members of the ordinary public. We are growing accustomed to being ignored. I personally have had enough of that. I hope that at Third Reading some of your Lordships may at least consider, as I shall, what this Bill merits and what the people who are promoting it—I am not talking about the noble Lord—merit. I am glad to have the opportunity to express my distaste for the measure.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I, too, must declare an interest in that I share with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, the joint presidency of the Association of London Government, which is one of the groups behind the Bill. I thank the noble Lord for the effective way in which he described the provisions of the Bill.
In general I support the Bill because there is no use Parliament passing laws, whether they constitute primary legislation or regulations, if they cannot be enforced. The fact that large numbers of fines are not paid and large numbers of offences never achieve the retribution they should have done—all of which contributes to blocking traffic in London—does not seem very sensible. Therefore, I support measures which will make it easier to enforce the relevant laws. Having said that, I have the greatest sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who, if I may say so, is

1149
unlikely ever to be ignored when talking about this or most other matters. He has been almost a one man campaign with regard to holes in the roads and the dilatoriness of the relevant bodies in dealing with them. It is on that matter that I, too, should like to say a few words.
I wish to refer to two clauses that are in the Bill at present although they may be dropped at a later stage. I refer to Clauses 13 and 14 which deal with the reinstatement of surfaces that have been dug up by contractors or whoever and the question of placing certain apparatus in the street which may make it unnecessary to dig it up again. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said, the reason for the proposal to drop the clauses is that the Government are themselves considering such proposals. My observations, such as they are, are therefore addressed not to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, but—I have previously described him in this way—to that hard-working maid of all work on the Front Bench, the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh, who will respond on behalf of the Government.
It so happens that as chairman of the Foundation for Science and Technology I chaired a workshop earlier this month on London's subsurface infrastructure. In particular, we considered the question: what can science and technology do to help with the renovation and replacement of London's subsurface infrastructure? The main speakers at that seminar happened to come from Thames Water but much of what they said applies equally to the other undertakers; that is, gas, electricity and telecoms. The House will be relieved to hear that I do not regard this as an appropriate occasion on which to rehearse all of the rather exciting statements that were made and promises that were held out about what new technology can offer in this field. There are now new ways of locating pipes and cables without digging up the streets. In some cases, one can use GPS—geostationary positioning satellites. There is a technique known as "keyhole excavation", which does not require holes big enough for a man to go into; it can be carried out in a way that is similar to keyhole surgery. There is trenchless repair, on which I shall say more in a moment. Substantial technology is available to enable one to repair and replace underground pipes and cables without disturbing the surface at all. There is also the question of the remote internal repair of pipework. I could go on but this is not perhaps the moment.
My questions are for the Minister. As he will acknowledge, I gave some notice of them earlier today. What are the Government doing to further the use of technology in relation to reducing and perhaps avoiding the need for so many holes in the road? Is the Minister aware that there exist, in this country and internationally, societies for trenchless technology? Is he aware that only last week there was an exhibition at Stoneleigh Park in the Midlands, at which examples were given, at what is called a "no-dig live show", of what can be done using such technology?
1150
The society attempted to interest His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh in this technology. Representatives of the society showed him some pictures of proven trenchless techniques that are now in use worldwide. His Royal Highness kept saying, "I have never seen any of this!". Of course he has not; it is all underground. There is nothing visible on the surface and traffic is not held up. They took His Royal Highness to see two sites, both within a couple of miles of Buckingham Palace, and showed him successful trenchless work in progress.
My second point underlines what was said by my noble friend Lord Peyton. Under our system, no one has a statutory obligation to try to keep the traffic moving. That obligation does not exist in our law. My noble friend mentioned the highway authorities, but they do not have that responsibility. Yes, they build roads, repair roads, clear landslides and dig out snowdrifts but they are under no statutory obligation to keep the traffic moving. The undertakers—gas, water, electricity and sewerage—often get blamed, although it is often the highway authorities who are guilty of causing the obstruction. I was given some evidence from a gentleman who,
"kept counts of queuing traffic, and the number of men working, at many obstructions over the years…the most dramatic was one where a gang of three men were creating queues totalling over six hundred vehicles!".
If someone had taken 600 vehicles off the road for a day by impounding them, the effect on the national economy would have been exactly the same as that in this particular hole-in-the-road incident but the uproar would have been deafening. The fact is that those of us who get caught in these long traffic tailbacks from roadworks are there temporarily and we do not complain. On this occasion, however, both my noble friend and I are complaining. There must be someone who has a duty to keep the traffic moving. I ask the Minister, when they are considering the provisions that are equivalent to those that will be withdrawn when the Bill reaches Committee, is it the Government's intention to remedy what I see as an astonishing lacuna in our law?
7.56 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for introducing this Bill and for describing it with his usual skill; to the Minister, who appears to be a hero this evening; and to my noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Jenkin. I remind the House that I have an interest: I am president of the Heavy Transport Association.
It is my intention to remark on the activities of Transport for London, to query the London night-time lorry ban and to support Clause 13. I do not intend to oppose the Question whether the Bill be read a second time.
Many provisions in the Bill are sensible, such as Clause 9, which relates to fraud offence time limits. However, the Bill is entitled, "London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill". "Transport for London" is a bit of a contradiction in

1151
terms because the management of road traffic in London is a nightmare. My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil discussed that in detail in his excellent speech. Consider, for instance, traffic lights, which are controlled by TfL. We have been told that they have been re-phased, ostensibly to favour pedestrians. However, I have walked in London for many years and never experienced any problems with the phasing of traffic lights; I was not aware of a problem. Moreover, drivers thought that traffic lights were phased for the benefit of all. It now appears that that might be a softening up for congestion charging. However, congestion charging is not really relevant to the Bill. Its only effect will be to have more affluent drivers stuck in traffic jams.
TfL appears to have complete and possibly deliberate disregard for the needs of motorists. Typical examples are at Vauxhall Cross and the roadworks at Apex Corner on the A1/A41 junction in north London; my noble friend Lord Peyton also mentioned Trafalgar Square. I understand that average speeds in London have recently been severely reduced although traffic levels are also slightly down.
It is interesting to compare the ethos of officials from the Highways Agency with that among those working for local government. Highways Agency officials always seem to be seeking some new way of reducing congestion. I accept that there is an argument for reducing the use of private cars in London. However, the policies of TfL are drastically increasing the cost of taxicabs in London. That will tend to encourage private car usage for reasons of economy. Also, it will make London a more expensive city in which to operate. My noble friend Lord Jenkin put his finger on the cause of the problem; that is, no one appears to be responsible for keeping traffic moving.
However, my main concern tonight is the operation of the London night-time and weekend lorry ban. In referring to that, I must apologise to the Association of London Government, which invited me to see the enforcement of the ban in operation. But, because my noble friend Lord Cope suddenly increased my workload, I found that I was unable to carry out the visit.
Why do we have such a lorry ban in a 24/7 society? The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, touched on some of the reasons. But the history of it is that, on completion of the M25 motorway, HGV drivers found it hard to kick the habit of driving through central London. In addition, at that time, the trucks were very noisy and polluting. I well remember the crockery and glasses in my mother's house vibrating as the trucks pulled up the hill. They do not do that now.
The present situation is that no HGV driver goes through London if he can avoid doing so—it is simply too slow. For the operators, not only is it slow; it wastes time, is expensive in terms of wear and tear on the vehicle, and there is also a far higher risk of an accident occurring in London. It is far better and safer to use the motorway. Finally, it costs far more to employ a driver to work at night.
1152
Privately, some noble Lords have asked me, "Why are we discouraging night-time deliveries and collections?". I put that question to the officials of the Association of London Government, whose answer, more or less, was, "Oh, we don't want to stop trucks delivering during the day. If we did so, we would reduce congestion and that would suck in more traffic". The Minister is looking aghast at me, but that is what they said.
It is not only a question of the desirability of the lorry ban; I am not convinced that it is being implemented fairly and sensibly. One particular case came to my attention. I hasten to say that it is no longer sub judice as the case has been disposed of. It concerned an operator who had the necessary permit to operate in the banned area at night. But the difficulty was that his driver had failed to minimise the distance travelled off the exempted route, as per Condition 5 on his permit. He took a road which was wider and safer; there was less residential accommodation in the area; and it was quicker. I drove down that road. In other words, the driver used his common sense. The prosecution process took place but, when the official of the ALG discovered that he was to face an experienced transport lawyer, he suddenly found that he could not get to the court. Eventually, the case was dropped.
If we pass the Bill as drafted, it will be far easier to enforce the civil penalties. Of course, the Bill's objective is to make it easier to prosecute or deal with offenders. I accept that. However, my concern is that we are not implementing the lorry ban fairly and sensibly.
It is easy to persecute HGV drivers. Does it matter? Yes, it does. There is already a severe shortage of such drivers. Why should we make the job even less attractive? Is the Minister confident that we shall not encounter a logistical meltdown due to a lack of HGV drivers? And, on top of all the other difficulties of being an HGV driver, what will be the effect of the working time directive?
I strongly support Clause 13. I believe that Clause 14 proves a little more difficult. The drafting of Clause 13 may be a little woolly and perhaps could be more carefully worded. It seems to apply to all roads in all circumstances. But we in this House have had the builders in. They have been rearranging Old Palace Yard. How would we feel if a utility company came in and tore up Old Palace Yard? Structurally the reinstatement would be sound but the yard's appearance would be ruined. That is what Clause 13 seeks to remedy.
Is the Minister content with the principle of Clause 13? Does he agree that the drafting needs to be more precise? And, at some stage during the passage of the Bill, will he be in a position to suggest better drafting? That would be preferable to waiting for the next legislative opportunity, which invariably takes a very long time to occur.
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for introducing the Bill so comprehensively. I welcome the Bill in a number of respects. I welcome the relationship between the boroughs and Transport for London—a relationship which is not always easy but which is developing. I welcome the withdrawal of the petitions, which is enabling this legislation to go forward. And I very much welcome the decriminalisation which the Bill encompasses because I believe that the police have far more important things to do. Some tasks can be carried out by other authorities and other organisations. Keeping private traffic, freight and public transport flowing on our roads is to everyone's benefit. I put in parenthesis the thought that, if more is to be done by local authorities, I hope that the funding required to enable them to do it effectively will be available.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who always makes his points powerfully, what amounted to an attack on all 32 boroughs, the City of London and Transport for London. I believe that the attack is perhaps a little harsher than is needed to deal with what are undoubtedly major problems, such as holes in the road, the duration of such work and repetition—that is, the same roads being dug up again and again. I am fascinated at the prospect of keyhole surgery—a suggestion floated by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
Much of London's infrastructure under the roads is in a fragile state. One needs only to think of the sewerage and drainage systems. I suspect that we shall face major problems as that infrastructure collapses in different places. If it can be protected and repaired without the problems with which we are all familiar, that will be very good news.
I do not imagine that the Minister will have any further news tonight about the extension of the lane rental pilots in Camden and Middlesbrough. However, if he has, I shall welcome it. The local authorities are queuing up to use the same sort of powers.
I do not believe that the local authorities would have been hugely enthusiastic about abandoning Clauses 13 and 14; otherwise, the clauses would not have been included in the first place. I believe they have been withdrawn because of objections by the utilities. Certainly the relationship between local authorities, the highways authorities and the utilities is difficult. Many openings of the highways—I believe it is in the region of 80 per cent—are classed as emergencies by the utilities. Although they are required to give only two hours' notice, they often give more, but they do not have to do so if an emergency is involved. It is a very difficult situation.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the standard of reinstatement. I agree that that is a problem. So often one sees a repair which then quickly begins to sink.
1154
There has been much talk about current issues in London. I use the term "issues" rather than "problems" deliberately. I do not want to go too far down a road which, in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, the Minister described as turning this House into the urban district council of Westminster, or even a parish council. These are devolved matters.
I believe that the Trafalgar Square scheme is a great success and will be a great benefit to the centre of London. Parts of it have still to be completed, but it has had an encouraging start. I hope that that will enable all of us to be confident that other schemes, such as Vauxhall Cross, will be completed successfully and on schedule. It is at present on schedule. We are all suffering currently but there is much to be gained.
I doubt whether the Trafalgar Square scheme could have been a pilot scheme. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on the question of consultation by Transport for London. While I do not agree with every particular of his speech, I believe that Transport for London needs to understand that consultation is difficult and has to be detailed. It is not simply a question of agreeing with whoever makes the last point. It is a dialogue and involves feedback. We all have much to learn about good consultation. The Cabinet Office has much to say on the subject. Some of us have also said quite a lot about it to the mayor.
Some points raised may not relate to the Bill but I cannot resist responding to them. The noble Earl referred to the cost of cabs and to London becoming a most expensive city in which to operate. Because of the cost of congestion, London's business community supports congestion charging in order to make it less expensive. If congestion charging works successfully, the gains to the business community will be great.
I have supported the lorry ban since its inception. I am sad that the provision does not cover the whole of London. There are many residential roads outside the ban. When I was a borough councillor, the main road running like a spine through my ward was, and still is, the South Circular Road. That is a residential road, although it also carries much heavy traffic. The provision is a licensing scheme not a ban. It allows for deliveries and, where necessary, for traffic to pass. I am not aware of applicants for licences being turned down on the basis that their case is not deserving. I believe that the scheme should be supported.
The Bill provides for the sharing of information between different authorities. I understand the need, although I believe that the sharing of information should not be undertaken lightly. Civil liberty issues are involved which should not be ignored.
I am not wholly convinced by the provisions about parking alongside dropped footways, although I am well aware that I have not devoted anything like the attention to the matter that the promoters of the Bill have done. In many parts of London front gardens are being turned into parking areas because of the difficulty of parking on-street. As a result, the street area outside is not, and will not be, available for parking and one tends to lose more than one parking

1155
space. In addition—I leave aside the environmental aspects—it tends to consolidate the view that one owns the road outside one's own house. We are all aware that that is not the case. By protecting dropped footways—I do not refer to those which enable pedestrians, wheelchair users, those with buggies and so on to cross junctions—we consolidate the view of many that they have an entitlement to park directly outside their homes.
I welcome the provisions on removing items such as advertising boards deposited on the highway. They can be a danger to people who are not mobile or whose sight is not good. Noble Lords who have had experience at parochial level will know that these issues cause great concern. I wish the Bill a fair wind.
8.16 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for introducing the Bill and giving us a chance to debate it.
As the noble Baroness said, the Bill gives powers to 32 boroughs, the City of London and Transport for London. It is not surprising that noble Lords have concentrated somewhat on Transport for London and the mayor. His transport policy does not encourage the free flow of transport, unlike the policies of most of the boroughs. It has the opposite effect. The mayor has altered the timing of 370 traffic lights.
Like the noble Baroness, I remain convinced that the Trafalgar Square scheme will be an improvement. I am puzzled about what has occurred outside our own front door here. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peyton that consultation does not mean simply sending out documents: it also means taking note of and listening to the replies. However, in his usual charming way, I am sure the Minister will avoid either condoning or condemning the mayor and will say that it is a matter for him. I am never sure whether that is because the Government are afraid to condone or condemn him; perhaps it is both.
Decriminalising sounds a nice idea but it means that it will be easier to collect fines and it probably lessens the burden of proof on those accused. It is an incentive for local authorities and those involved: they will keep the money. If at present one writes to complain about receiving a parking ticket from a local authority one gets short shrift. One has to go to an independent adjudicator. The Bill makes such provision for those who are fined. However, I believe that the provision will lessen the burden of proof. It will make it easier for local authorities and Transport for London to collect more money more quickly. We must ensure that the public are protected.
Perhaps the Minister will clarify a point raised by my noble friends Lord Jenkin and Lord Peyton. Clauses 13 and 14 will be withdrawn because the Government intend to bring forward proposals. It would be helpful if the Minister can say what point the Government have reached in their considerations.
I notice that the Bill gives power for camera enforcement in box junctions. If one is unlucky enough to be caught in a box junction and receives a
1156
summons—one can be caught entirely by surprise—will it be possible to see photographic evidence before one enters a plea? If I were told that last week I was caught in a box junction, I would not have a clue whether that was so.
My noble friend Lord Attlee was concerned about night-time deliveries. I am involved in a business in the West End that has deliveries but I do not know whether they take place at night, but in case they do I declare that interest. Night-time deliveries in residential areas can cause difficulties, but in certain places they should be encouraged. Although the fines are changed by this Bill, is it right that there is no change to the system of permissions for night-time deliveries?
Clause 7 gives powers to ask bailiffs or the Motor Insurers' Bureau whether they have information on a keeper of a vehicle not held by the DVLA. Is that a new power or do the police currently have such a power? Have the Government estimated how much money local authorities may receive from such a power? I presume that estimates have been made. I notice that the local authorities and Transport for London will be able to spend most of the money, and they will be able to spend it on supporting public transport investment, services and facilities. I am nervous of money coming in and there being no clear guidelines inside or outside the Bill on how that money may be spent. If money is collected from those who infringe the road transport policy in London, it should be put back into that sector rather than be lost in a large budget.
Clause 10 extends the power for highway authorities to enforce the powers on all roads. I do not know what that means. Is that a radical change?
Will the Minister comment on the progress of the Bill? I understand that it will go to an unopposed Committee, but it will not be concluded before the end of this Session. I understand that the Chairman of Committees will recommend that it is rolled over so it will go to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in another place. How will that procedure work and what will be the timing?
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a substantial speech on the Bill and on various other issues. She said that congestion charges will be welcomed by business in London. I have seen no evidence of that. If there is evidence I would appreciate her sending it to me.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall happily send the noble Viscount the transcript of meetings with, among others, the CBI London region and the London chambers of commerce, on the subject.
8.24 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall confine my remarks to the Bill and to those matters that concern the Government rather than the promoters. It is incumbent on me to give the Government's view of the Bill.

1157
On a number of occasions officials have discussed the Bill's proposals with the promoters. Following the promoters' decision to withdraw Clauses 13 and 14 on street works, the Government have no objections in principle to the Bill, although we seek certain assurances about the way that the decriminalised enforcement powers will be used. We shall also want to raise some points of detail in Committee. I shall return to the issue of street works and Clauses 13 and 14 at the close of my remarks.
As my noble friend Lord Graham has explained, the main purpose of the Bill is to give the London borough councils and Transport for London powers to facilitate the smoother operation of their roads, in particular by giving the authorities powers to enforce various road traffic and highways law contraventions. The Government agree that it is not a good use of limited police resources to expect them to enforce offences that are not directly related to road safety; for example, speeding. The Bill builds on the well-established London system of civil enforcement by the traffic authority of parking controls and bus lanes.
It is right that road traffic and highway law contraventions should be properly enforced and that the enforcement system should be an effective deterrent to would-be offenders. It is also right that the relevant authorities should be discriminating in their use of enforcement powers and focus on the most serious problems. Over-zealous enforcement of minor infringements can easily bring the system into discredit and give credence to the idea that enforcement is being used as a means of raising revenue rather than dealing with serious problems.
The new powers should be piloted before they are used generally and there needs to be guidance to ensure that enforcement authorities adopt a focused and reasonable approach. I look to my noble friend Lord Graham to give us a clear undertaking on those matters when he responds to the debate.
In principle, the Government accept the decriminalisation proposal relating to the enforcement of the London lorry ban. By avoiding the need to pursue every offence through the courts, as at present, the proposal should significantly reduce the administrative burden on the courts, the enforcing authorities and defendants. In parallel with that proposal, work is in hand through the London sustainable distribution forum to review the current operation of the lorry ban in pursuit of the commitment to do so in the Mayor of London's transport strategy. The Government welcome the review. The lorry ban was introduced when, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, lorries were noisier than they are now and it is right to consider whether the present extent and operation of the ban strikes the right balance between protecting the environment and the need to reduce unnecessary burdens on commerce and industry. I would like the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on the lorry ban to be communicated to the London Sustainable Distribution Forum.
1158
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked whether there will be camera evidence of a box junction offence. The answer is yes, although for a box junction offence one would like to see a moving picture to see whether the car in front that you thought would move forward has moved. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, also asked about details of vehicle keepers in relation to Clause 7. The DVLA may release information on registered keepers and vehicles to those, such as the police, who have a reasonable need for such information.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, made a very interesting speech, of great concern to the promoters, about new developments in technology as they affect street works. He made a point about "trenchless" technology. We are aware of the developments that he described and we are enthusiastic about the possibilities of the techniques available to utility companies, especially for renewing water and gas pipes. They will require fewer openings—rather than no openings—of the highway and cause less destruction, but they will be difficult to use in central London where there is a concentration of what is technically called apparatus—what I would call pipes, ducts and cables. We take seriously what he says.
The Government did urge the promoters to withdraw Clauses 13 and 14, despite the fact that we are keen to reduce the disruption caused by street works—as evidenced by our support for the current lane rental pilots in Camden and Middlesbrough. We took lane rental powers in the Transport Act 2000—urged on by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who was a pioneer. The pilots started in March 2002 and, subject to their outcome, we would be prepared to roll out lane rental nationally. My answer to whether the pilots will be extended to other individual local authorities is that we are looking at going straight from Camden and Middlesbrough to national implementation.
On Clause 13, we told the promoters that we have been actively pursuing other ways of improving the operation of street works. Among them is a new specification for backfilling trenches and reinstatement that came into force in July and a stronger inspection regime, which was introduced this month. We are not idle. There is a long way to go and I hope that the lane rental pilots work and have an effect.
Clause 14 is about providing ducts. I am pleased that the department will be launching a study by the end of the year that will look not only at the idea represented by that clause but more widely. For example, it will examine how barriers to trench sharing can be reduced and its use encouraged. It will investigate ideas such as providing one large duct or tunnel that could carry all the services into a new development—so avoiding the need to dig up the road subsequently. It is better not to pursue Clause 14 but to deal with the matter at national level.

1159
Those remarks cover the principal matters raised in debate and to which it is appropriate for the Government to reply. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's response.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I asked whether there is a statutory duty on local authorities to keep traffic moving. I am told that there is not. Is the Minister able to help us with that point?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is referring to a national traffic authority. We believe that the present arrangements for keeping traffic moving provide the right balance between national and local interests. The Highways Agency is responsible for roads of strategic importance, which carry the bulk of goods vehicles, and it is right that they should be dealt with at national level. The roads in Greater London for which the Highways Agency is responsible are virtually confined to the stubs of the M1, M11, M4 and A3113 around Heathrow.
In the course of devolution to London, we gave responsibility for strategic transport planning and co-ordination to the mayor and Transport for London. That was the will of Parliament. Some 96 per cent of roads in the country, including in London, are the responsibility of local authorities—which can best represent the interests of homeowners, shops and businesses, as well of road transport. The balance between those interests is and ought to be the responsibility of local authorities.
8.34 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate—particularly my noble friend the Minister, who has relieved me of a great deal of responsibility for providing answers to questions that were legitimately raised. I repeat my gratitude to my noble friend for taking on that burden.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg my noble friend's pardon for interrupting, but there is one question to which he should not be expected to respond. I refer to the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, about what happens next. My understanding is that the procedure for private Bills normally includes carry-over into the next Session. That will clearly happen in this case.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: After that carry-over, my Lords, I will carry on.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, speaks with the voice of aggravation and experience and none of your Lordships would disagree with his comments about frustration. His great argument is that, it ain't what you do but the way that you do it. The way in which Transport for London consults with or takes note of the noble Lord and many others leaves something to
1160
be desired. I repeat the assurance that I gave the noble Lord before the debate. I will do everything possible to persuade the powers that be at Transport for London to take careful note and to consider how it can improve its procedures in such a way that the aggravation and frustration felt and voiced by the noble Lord are diminished.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, offered us the fascinating prospect of avoiding—albeit with difficulty and at a cost—some of the aggravations addressed by the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out the current delicate state of life under the highway. She forecast major surgery, not keyhole surgery, if that matter is not dealt with—and I entirely agree.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the lorry ban. When I sat in another place, I spoke on the environment. The lorry ban issue in the early 1980s was a child of the Greater London Council. Over the years, it has been under constant review. In general, people and businesses in London accept the environmental case for a lorry ban. However, nothing is perfect. I will try to ensure that the powers that be in another place and elsewhere are made aware of the need to take into account the noble Earl's points.
As to Clauses 13 and 14, and without any further promises, whatever form the consultations take they will be the subject of debate, argument and possibly amendment in this House and elsewhere.
As to evidence in relation to box junctions, I was once caught for speeding. The photograph that I obtained from the police was evidence that I was "bang to rights". The answer of course was in the negative—was that a pun?—and I could not dispute it. My noble friend's comments were certainly helpful.
My noble friend said that clear guidelines are needed for the future and that pilot schemes need to be undertaken with care and reason. One does not want to jump from one situation to another too hastily or too far.
I am grateful to the House for listening. If I have failed to answer any points, I say as Ministers sometimes do—I will ensure that an answer is sent.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Enterprise Bill
8.40 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 254 [Income payments order]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 275:
Page 183, line 12, leave out from "effect" to end of line 18 and insert "which period may end after the discharge of the bankrupt"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the advantage of the dinner break business, I chose to forgo the pleasures of dinner and retired to the Library to consider what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, had said about personal bankruptcies. In dealing with a previous amendment he said that one

1161
had to take into account not only employment and level of debt but also a range of other factors when considering the impact of this legislation.
I looked up what was referred to as "the level of debt". I find myself with some serious concerns about the way that debt is accumulating in the United Kingdom. I discovered that, thanks to the Bank of England, data have now been produced to show that British households are on course for record-breaking debts of £800 billion, making them the most indebted in Europe. It may well be that lower interest rates have caused an increase in borrowing and, on average, those with mortgages now have total loans of nearly £63,000 each. I am much more concerned that on average individuals have £1,500 outstanding on credit and store cards and £3,000 on other loans.
I found a quotation in the Daily Telegraph of 5th October by Cesar Molinas, an economist at Merrill Lynch. He said:
"This borrowing is a peculiar feature of the modern British economy and I suppose America too. British households are by far the most indebted in Euorope".
The Minister will recall when we debated these issues previously that I said that one concern is that millions of people are now running up unsustainable debts.
In the Telegraph there was also a quotation from Miranda Haines of the Citizens' Advice Bureau about debt. She stated:
"It is growing all the time. We have seen a million new cases of people with debt problems in the last year, and that is up by half on five years ago".
That is the background behind the concerns which have been expressed on all sides of the House about the bankruptcy provisions. Income payments orders are intended to ensure that bankrupts make an affordable contribution towards their debt from their income for up to three years. I believe—and many others share this belief—that there should be no limit on the length of time for which an income payments order or agreement may last. Surely, the court, or the trustee with the agreement of the bankrupt is best placed to consider, on a case-by-case basis, the appropriate period, whether lesser or greater than three years. I should have thought that that was particularly pertinent to cases in which a debtor is considered culpable for the bankruptcy and has sufficient ongoing income to make a more significant contribution to the bankruptcy fund.
Equally, the amendments provide that the courts should also be empowered to link income payments with culpability when considering an application for a bankruptcy restrictions order.
The Minister said that he would not accept the previous amendments that we tabled. I agreed to consider the position further in the light of the comments that he made. I hope that he might now accept these amendments which would go some way to ensuring that income payments orders are made more effective. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I intervene briefly in support of my noble friend. One must be very careful in seeking the balance. The Minister has referred to the balance. I accept the stricture that we must find the right balance. Bankrupts can recover, post-discharge, quite quickly. If they are able, post-discharge, to gain a great deal of assets—build up their assets—there is no reason why creditors should not obtain some redress from that. It is their misfortune that has provided the platform on which the bankrupt has started again.
Therefore, when my noble friend raises these points about income payment orders and the timescale, it is important that there should be, preferably, no limit, but certainly not a three-year limit. So that for those who are able, like a Phoenix out of the ashes, to rise and do well, there should be an opportunity for those disadvantaged creditors of the first bankruptcy to recover some of their losses. Therefore, I very much support the point that my noble friend has been making.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was very interested to learn of the dinner-time researches of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. While I was in the Chamber, he was clearly gainfully occupied. However, I have one or two figures to give to him on the subject. The figures come from the Centre for Economic and Business Research. Indeed, they are quoted in the research report which he cited in support of Amendment No. 266.
The research carried out by the Centre for Economic and Business Research highlights the large differential in levels of borrowing in the United States and the United Kingdom. There are a number of statistics that show that consumers are coping well with debt levels in the United Kingdom. Work carried out by the CEBR on behalf of the Internet bank Egg, which was referred to in their research, shows that the debt to wealth ratio of average households has decreased from 17.8 per cent in 1992 to 14.9 per cent now. Furthermore, interest payments as a share of income are now 6.8 per cent as opposed to 11.1 per cent at their peak, average household income has almost doubled since 1988 and now the average household assets total £220,000 compared to average debts of £32,000.
According to the Halifax, in March 1990, 41 per cent of a first time buyer's gross earnings went on mortgage payments. The figure is now 15 per cent.
The Credit Card Research Group, whose work we also looked at in preparing a response to the Centre for Economic and Business Research, in April 2002 said:
"Debt in the UK appears to be sustainable in the short term. Banks have been careful to avoid repeating the mistakes of the late 1980s and consumers are now much more savvy in seeking out the best deals. These factors have combined with a favourable economic climate to ensure that debt levels have, at the broadest level, remained manageable".
In September 2002 it said that,
"the growing dominance of debit cards suggests that cardholders are still, in the main, behaving sensibly and borrowing only what they can afford to repay".

1163
Nothing is permanent and all kinds of things can happen to the economy. But the conclusion I draw from the research on which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, places such reliance is the opposite to that which he has drawn.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his response. My intention was not to demonstrate that the situation was worse than the research to which he referred states, but to state that the level of debt must cause us concern when we are undergoing such fundamental changes in the law of bankruptcy. I repeat again what citizens advice bureaux state, which I have not heard him challenge:
"We have seen a million new cases of people with debt problems in the last year, and that is up by half on five years ago".
Citizens advice bureaux are a reliable source. I simply attempt to highlight problems that may well arise in future if we proceed down the route advocated by the Minister.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have huge respect for citizens advice bureaux, but they do not undertake research, they analyse the problems of those who come to them—it is good that they do.
Amendments Nos. 275 to 277 are similar to amendments tabled by the Opposition both in Committee here and in the other place. They would provide that an income payments order or agreement were subject to no maximum time limit. It is right that those bankrupts who are able to make contributions from their income towards their debts should be required to do so under the new proposals—as they are under the existing regime. We all agree on that.
Indeed, the introduction of the out-of-court route—that is, income payments agreements—will make that easier to achieve and will lead to increased returns to creditors. However, the three-year maximum recognises that there is a balance to be struck—I can always be teased on that, but it is still true—between the benefits that that will bring to the bankrupt's creditors and the rehabilitation of the individual concerned. To remove the maximum period for income payments orders and agreements would impose a much more stringent regime than is now the case. That would be both unfair and inconsistent with the aim of the proposals.
The proposals in Clauses 254 and 255 provide further comfort to creditors by allowing for the variation of the income payments order or agreement, whether before or after discharge. That will enable any increase in the bankrupt's surplus income, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, referred, after the income payments order or agreement has been entered into to be taken into account.
Amendment No. 278, however, stands in the name of both the Opposition and the Government. It is always a pleasure to see that. It is identical to an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—for which I pay tribute to him. It ensures that any agreement for variation of an income
1164
payments agreement will be in writing. It has considerable merit because, if such a variation were agreed verbally, it might be open to later dispute. So the amendment appears before us standing in all our names and I thank the noble Lord for highlighting the matter. However, I must oppose Amendments Nos. 275 to 277.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I thank the Minister for accepting Amendment No. 278, which was tabled in an attempt to avoid future problems.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, perhaps I may join my noble friend in thanking the Minister and say that the Government's habit of adding their name to our amendments is one that we seek to encourage. Indeed, much of today's debate could have been avoided if they had only adopted that practice more widely. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 276 and 277 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, we come to Amendment No. 278, which is certainly a duet, possibly a trio and may even be a quartet. Who cares to move it?
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 184, line 8, after "by" insert "written"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, let us all move it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 279 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 280:
Page 184, line 24, leave out "bankrupt's sole or principal residence" and insert "sole or principal residence of—

(a) the bankrupt,

(b) the bankrupt's spouse, or

(c) a former spouse of the bankrupt."

The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 281 to 285. We are close to adding our name to opposition amendments, because our amendments are similar to amendments proposed in Committee—Amendments Nos. 373 to 378. The noble Lords, Lord Freeman and Lord Kingsland, spoke about what the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, called the "deserted wife's charter". My noble friend Lord Sainsbury undertook further to consider the matter, has done so and has tabled Amendments Nos. 280, 283 and 284.
Amendment No. 280 extends the provisions of new Section 283A to ensure that any interest that the bankrupt has in the dwelling house of the spouse or former spouse must be dealt with within three years, otherwise the interest re-vests in the bankrupt. Without the amendment, the position would remain as it is, allowing the trustee to realise the bankrupt's

1165
interest in a dwelling house occupied by his spouse or former spouse at any time—possibly many years after the date of the bankruptcy.
Amendment No. 284 extends the transitional provision in Clause 256(8) to the bankrupt's interest in the dwelling house of a spouse or former spouse that is their sole or principal residence, so that at the end of three years from the date on which new Section 283A comes into force, if such an interest has not been dealt with by the trustee or otherwise within that three years, such an interest re-vests in the bankrupt.
Amendment No. 283 extends the provisions of new Section 313A, so that the bankrupt's interest in such a dwelling house is re-vested if the trustee applies for an order for sale or possession or a charging order, where the value of the interest is below the prescribed amount.
Government Amendment No. 285 is similar to a previous amendment, Amendment No. 286—it gets confusing when amendment numbers, clause numbers and previous amendment numbers overlap; with the exception of the noble Lord, the Deputy Speaker, we will all get into terrible trouble—tabled in Committee. In Committee, that amendment was withdrawn because we wanted to consider the matter further and table our amendment, which we have done. Amendment No. 285 replaces the Bill's current provision for new Section 283A(10) and instead provides that subsections (4) to (9) of Section 283A apply to bankruptcy cases in existence prior to the coming into force of that section where the bankrupt has an interest in a dwelling house that is the sole or principal residence of himself, his spouse or former spouse.
Therefore, where an application by the trustee to deal with such an interest in one such case is dismissed, the interest will re-vest in the bankrupt. If the bankrupt does not reveal an interest in one case, the three-year time limit will not commence until he does so. The provisions relating to the rules also apply.
Government Amendments Nos. 281 and 282 reflect the policy intention behind the family home provisions in the Bill to ensure that the bankrupt's interest in the family home is dealt with within three years of the bankruptcy and in an equitable way. One way in which that interest can be dealt with is through Section 313 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which allows the trustee to create a charge against the bankrupt's home. The intention behind the amendments to Section 313 is to freeze the value of the bankrupt's interest—except for interest—so that the trustee is not tempted automatically to use a charging order to avoid having to deal with any property and to give the bankrupt some recognition if he has paid his mortgage and sells his home in future.
Section 313 interacts with Section 3(5) of the Charging Orders Act 1979, which allows for the charging order to be varied. That provision might be used to vary the value of the interest specified in the charging order, which would defeat the policy intention of freezing the value of the bankrupt's interest in the family home. To ensure that that policy
1166
intention is fulfilled, the amendments make it clear that Section 3(5) of the Charging Orders Act 1979 may not be used to vary a charge against a bankrupt's home. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as the evening wears on, a harmonious relationship is beginning to emerge between the Government and the Opposition—which I applaud. I think that I am right in saying that all of the amendments that the Government have adopted, to a greater or lesser extent, reflect amendments that we tabled in Committee.
The Minister is correct to say, in relation to Amendment No. 286, that in Committee I raised the point about the bankrupt's failure to inform the trustee or official receiver of his interest in a property. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said that the amendment clearly had some merit, that he was pleased that it had been tabled and that he would go away to think about it. Encouraged by that, I tabled an improved version but, if I understand the Minister's interpretation of his amendment correctly, mine is now surplus to requirements.
In those circumstances, I repeat my thanks and shall sit down.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 281 to 285:
Page 185, line 39, leave out "and"
Page 186, line 3, at end insert ", and
(c) at the end insert—
"(5) But an order under section 3(5) of that Act may not vary a charged value.""
Page 186, line 9, leave out "bankrupt's sole or principal residence," and insert "sole or principal residence of—

(i) the bankrupt,

(ii) the bankrupt's spouse, or

(iii) a former spouse of the bankrupt,"

Page 186, line 36, leave out "his sole or principal residence," and insert "the sole or principal residence of him, his spouse or a former spouse of his,"
Page 187, line 1, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
"(10) Subsections 283A(4) to (9) of that Act shall have effect, with any necessary modifications, in relation to the provision made by subsections (7) to (9) above; in particular—

(a) a reference to the period mentioned in section 283A(2) shall be construed as a reference to the transitional period,

(b) in the application of section 283A(5) a reference to the date of the bankruptcy shall be construed as a reference to the date on which subsection (1) above comes into force, and

(c) a reference to the rules is a reference to rules made under section 412 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45) (for which purpose this section shall be treated as forming part of Parts VIII to XI of that Act)."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 286 not moved.]
Clause 263 [Disqualification from office: general]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 287:
Page 189, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) In subsection (2) the reference to a provision which disqualifies a person conditionally includes a reference to a provision which enables him to be dismissed."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 287 is a clarifying amendment and sets out that a "disqualification provision" provided for in Clause 263(2) includes a reference to a provision which enables a person to be dismissed from office on being made bankrupt. It was thought that it was not sufficiently clear that dismissal currently falls within subsection (2) as drafted.
It gives the power to amend any legislation which provides for dismissal on a person becoming bankrupt. For example, it would enable such a provision to be amended so that dismissal could result from the making of a bankruptcy restrictions order rather than simply the making of a bankruptcy order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 288:
After Clause 267, insert the following new clause—
"Subordinate Legislation (Part XV, Insolvency Act 1986)

(1) In section 412(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986, leave out "subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either" and insert "a draft of which must have been laid before and approved by resolution of each".

(2) In section 418(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986, leave out "subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either" and insert "a draft of which must have been laid before and approved by resolution of each"."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as many noble Lords have remarked as the Bill has passed through the House, this is a monster bill. Equally, it is only a skeleton so far—there is much flesh to be put on the bones by means of statutory instruments. Details of those will be critical to the working of the Bill, or the Act, because conflicting claims and interests have to be balanced. We have seen that earlier today and on previous occasions.
As I understand it, Clauses 251 to 256 and Schedules 19, 20 and 21 of the Enterprise Bill amend Part IX of the Insolvency Act 1986. Delegated legislation under Part IX of that Act is subject to the negative resolution procedure according to Part XV of the 1986 Act. Given that maintenance of proper standards of personal and corporate financial behaviour is an essential part of maintaining confidence in the free market economy, the rules must be given the maximum possible ventilation so that they are discussed and dealt with as appropriate.
Therefore, I do not believe that it is right they should be subject only to the negative procedure. Given the importance of the rules, that is not appropriate, as evidenced by a number of our debates today. The amendment seeks to insert a clause to reverse that and requires the rules to be dealt with by the affirmative procedure. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree that it is of great importance that we should maintain
1168
proper standards. If that were the subject matter of this part of the Bill, I would strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I am afraid that I have to tell him it is not.
The first power in Section 412 of the Insolvency Act 1986 allows the Lord Chancellor, in agreement with the Secretary of State, to make rules giving effect to the bankruptcy provisions contained in that Act. Those words, "giving effect to" are important in terms of restricting how the power can be used. They mean that the power can be used only to put flesh on the bones of the primary legislation, not to alter it.
For instance, the Act may say that a meeting of creditors should be called and what its purpose is. The power then allows rules to be made setting out where it should be held, who should be the chairman, who could come and vote, and so on. That is what a negative resolution procedure is about.
That does not mean that the Government can bring forward rules without giving careful thought to their content. Under Section 413 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the Lord Chancellor must consult the Insolvency Rules Committee before making any rules. That is a knowledgeable committee, chaired by a High Court judge—Mr Justice Evans-Lombe—and made up of individuals with a considerable understanding of insolvency law and practice. One of the committee's key functions is to ensure that rules work properly in practice. It has been in place since 1976 and has the confidence of all parties involved in insolvency. In light of the scrutiny of the rules by the Select Committee, it is the Government's view that it is not necessary to change the current arrangements for parliamentary consideration of the rules.
Section 418 allows the Secretary of State to set certain monetary values in the Act. For example, the financial parameters for deciding what is a small bankruptcy for the purpose of Section 273. That power provides an important flexibility allowing for the increase or decrease of monetary sums in the Act to take account of changing factors in future years, which indicate that the existing financial limits are no longer set at the appropriate level. Those are matters that require debate only if there are concerns that the Secretary of State has got it wrong. Section 418 provides for such circumstances because any order setting monetary limits under the section is subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Neither of the powers referred to in the amendment allow the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State to replace, add to, or detract from the primary legislative provisions of that Act. Both are entirely normal procedures—not what is often called a Henry VIII power. If matters such as this had to come before Parliament on a regular basis, it would severely affect our ability to get things done. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, not to press this amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am getting into deep legal water. I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances of the importance of preserving the appropriate fabric and that those

1169
powers cannot be unduly altered. Following his assurances concerning the consultation that has taken place and the assurances that the Government have been given, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 24 [Transitional and transitory provisions and savings]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 289:
Page 326, line 23, at end insert—
"(2) The Secretary of State may treat any consultation carried out with the President of the Competition Commission Appeal Tribunals (before the appointment of the President of the Competition Appeal Tribunal) as being as effective for the purposes of section 15(1) as if it had been carried out with the President of the Competition Appeal Tribunal."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a large set of government amendments to the transitional, consequential and repeal schedules. Perhaps I may deal first with sectoral enactment. The vast majority are consequential amendments to various sectoral enactments—the electricity Acts, the gas Acts, the airports Acts and so on. These enactments incorporate a mechanism whereby licence modifications proposed by the relevant regulator, but disputed by the licensee, can be referred to the Competition Commission. References currently rely on procedural provisions in the Fair Trading Act and the Competition Act 1998 which are being modified by the Enterprise Bill. The relevant provisions include time limits for reference inquiries, the voting rules for reporting panels, and the information-gathering powers available to the commission. A consequence of the Enterprise Bill is that these procedures have to be inserted into the various sectoral enactments as stand-alone provisions.
The necessary amendments to the Telecommunications and Broadcasting Acts were made at an earlier stage in the passage of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury said in Committee that they provided a template for consequential amendments that will be required to the other utilities Acts that are similarly affected. They have been well flagged and they should not cause the House any difficulty.
There are a handful of other amendments in the group. Amendments Nos. 303 and 304 will have the effect of including a reference to the Office of Fair Trading as one of the bodies which has power to take remedial action under one or more of the sections of the Enterprise Act which are to be specified in Section 144 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 by virtue of paragraph 18 of Schedule 25. This corrects a technical omission.
Amendment No. 305 will amend Section 238 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It will make identical provision to that made by paragraph 18 of Schedule 25 with regard to copyright, but with regard to design rights.
Amendments Nos. 295 and 297 repeal provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Estate Agents Act 1979 which require local weights and measures
1170
authorities in England and Wales to give the Director-General of Fair Trading notice of their intention to start proceedings for an offence under those Acts and not to institute proceedings for 28 days or until the director has notified them of receipt of the notice. These provisions will be reinstated with modifications by including both Acts in the legislation to be listed in the order to be made under Clause 225.
Amendments Nos. 326 and 327 add the repeals referred to in Amendments Nos. 295 and 297 to Schedule 26. Amendment No. 289 is required to allow the Secretary of State to fulfil the consultation requirements imposed by Clause 15 prior to making the rules of the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
Amendments Nos. 292 and 293 are required to ensure that the records of the new competition service are treated as public records under the Public Records Act 1958. This brings the service into line with other competition authorities. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 272 [Power to make consequential amendments etc.]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 289A:
Page 193, line 26, at end insert—
"excepting that no order made under this section may amend or alter or in any way affect Part 6"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, telegraphically, the amendment refers to the,
"Power to make consequential amendments etc.",
under the Bill. The power is granted under Clause 272. We seek to exclude Part 6 of the Bill from the scope of the clause. Part 6 deals with the cartel offence; that is the offence which has criminal consequences. We believe it inappropriate for a power such as that contained in Clause 272 to affect criminal provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I have an amendment in this group. It is another crack at the point I made previously, but from a slightly different angle. As my noble friend said, Clause 272 deals with power to make consequential amendments. Subsection (2)(b) provides that an order under the clause may,
"make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision",
as the Secretary of State may think appropriate under subsection (2)(1). I believe that they should therefore be subject to the affirmative procedure and the arguments I advanced in relation to Amendment No. 288 I advance again. However, I shall not weary the Minister by repeating them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the telegraphic reply would be that both provisions have been approved by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We rely on that, as the Commons say, with regard to an amendment coming from this House which affects privilege. However, I shall argue the case.

1171
The effect of Amendment No. 289 would make it impossible to use the consequential amendments power in Clause 272 to amend the cartel offences. If it were true that the power could be used to make substantive changes to Part 6, then I agree that there would be cause for concern. The power can be used only to supplement or make incidental or consequential provision and for the limited purposes given in subsection (1); namely, for the purposes of the Bill and in consequence of, or to give effect to its terms. The power would absolutely not permit the wholesale re-writing of substantive parts of the Bill.
Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has said, it would not be possible to make substantive changes to Part 6. It would not, for example, be possible to use the power to change the definition of the cartels offence; nor would it be possible to increase the penalties for the offence or to introduce any new investigative powers.
Amendment No. 290 would introduce an unnecessary degree of parliamentary oversight over the use of a power which is a standard feature of all pieces of legislation where, as here, there are close and complex interactions with other statutes. Clause 272 simply provides the flexiblity to make, by delegated legislation, any minor revisions to legislation that are required to ensure that the provisions of the Bill fit well with the provisions of other legislation. Examples of the type of amendments that may be made can be found in Schedule 25. In a Bill of this complexity, covering a number of policy areas, it is an entirely sensible provision.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, will the Minister give way? The Bill does not use the word "minor"; it says that,
"The Secretary of State may…make such…provisions…as he considers appropriate".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, but it is all constrained by the very severe limitations that exist in Clause 272. Of course, the Secretary of State has to think it appropriate or he would not be putting it forward, however minor it is.
The fundamental point is that this has been examined by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the committee considers the powers in the Bill to be appropriate. I oppose these amendments.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, which I find at least partially reassuring. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 290 not moved.]
Schedule 25 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 291 to 325:
Page 332, line 31, at end insert—
"(5A) References in this section to the Competition Commission shall, in cases where section 72(2) of the Enterprise Act 2002 applies, be read as references to the Office of Fair Trading.".
Page 334, line 12, after first "of insert "the Table at the end of paragraph 3 of"
Page 334, leave out line 15 and insert—
"(b) the following entries are inserted at the appropriate places—
"Competition Service""
Page 334, line 42, after "1984" insert "or section 44B of the Airports Act 1986"
Page 337, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) subsection (2) (requirement to notify Director of intended prosecution) is omitted"
Page 339, line 19, at end insert—
"(4A) References in this section to the Competition Commission shall, in cases where section 72(2) of the Enterprise Act 2002 applies, be read as references to the Office of Fair Trading.".
Page 341, line 4, at end insert—
"( ) subsection (2) (requirement to notify Director of intended prosecution) is omitted"
Page 342, line 43, leave out from "if to end of line 2 on page 343 and insert "—

(a) for the words "published (or, in the case of a report under section 49 or 64, given)" there were substituted "made";

(b) for the words "published (or given)", in both places where they appear, there were substituted "made"; and

(c) the words "by this Part" were omitted."

Page 349, line 15, leave out from "if to end of line 17 and insert"—

(a) for the words "published (or, in the case of a report under section 49 or 64, given)" there were substituted "made";

(b) for the words "published (or given)", in both places where they appear, there were substituted "made"; and

(c) the words "by this Part" were omitted."

Page 351, line 7, at end insert—
"(1A) In section 44 (supplementary provisions relating to references to Commission), subsections (3) and (3A) shall cease to have effect.
(1B) After section 44 there is inserted—
"44A REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 43: TIME LIMITS

(1) Every reference under section 43 shall specify a period (not longer than six months beginning with the date of the reference) within which a report on the reference is to be made.

(2) A report of the Commission on a reference under section 43 shall not have effect (and no action shall be taken in relation to it under section 46) unless the report is made before the end of the period specified in the reference or such further period (if any) as may be allowed by the CAA under subsection (3).

(3) The CAA may, if it has received representations on the subject from the Commission and is satisfied that there are special reasons why the report cannot be made within the period specified in the reference, extend that period by no more than six months.

(4) No more than one extension is possible under subsection (3) in relation to the same reference.

(5) The CAA shall, in the case of an extension made by it under subsection (3)—

(a) publish that extension in such manner as it considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it; and

1173

(b) send a copy of what has been published by it under paragraph (a) to the airport operator concerned and the Secretary of State.

44B REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 43: POWERS OF INVESTIGATION

(1) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in subsections (2) and (3), for the purposes of references under section 43 as they apply for the purposes of references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(2) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1), have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted; and

(b) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(3) Section 108(5)(b)(ii) shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1), have effect as if—

(a) for the words "published (or, in the case of a report under section 49 or 64, given)" there were substituted "made";

(b) for the words "published (or given)", in both places where they appear, there were substituted "made"; and

(c) the words "by this Part" were omitted.

(4) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 113 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of subsection (1), have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that subsection.

(5) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that subsection."

(1C) In section 45 (reports on references)—
(a) after subsection (2) there is inserted—
"(2A) For the purposes of section 46(2), a conclusion contained in a report of the Commission is to be disregarded if the conclusion is not that of at least two-thirds of the members of the group constituted in
1174
connection with the reference concerned in pursuance of paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.
(2B) If a member of a group so constituted disagrees with any conclusions contained in a report made on a reference under section 43 as the conclusions of the Commission, the report shall, if the member so wishes, include a statement of his disagreement and of his reasons for disagreeing.";
(b) for subsection (4) there is substituted—
"(4) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any report made by the Commission on a reference under section 43.
(4A) In making any report on a reference under section 43 the Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
(4B) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.
(4C) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs, of an individual whose disclosure the Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(4D) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in subsection (4C)(a) or (b) is necessary for the purposes of the report."
Page 351, line 27, at end insert—
"(2A) In section 24 (licence modification references to Commission)—

(a) subsections (7) and (7A) shall cease to have effect;

(b) in subsection (8), after "sections" there is inserted "24A,".

(2B) After section 24 there is inserted—
"24A REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 24: TIME LIMITS

(1) Every reference under section 24 above shall specify a period (not longer than six months beginning with the date of the reference) within which a report on the reference is to be made.

(2) A report of the Competition Commission on a reference under section 24 above shall not have effect (and no action shall be taken in relation to it under section 26 below) unless the report is made before the end of the period specified in the reference or such further period (if any) as may be allowed by the Authority under subsection (3) below.

(3) The Authority may, if it has received representations on the subject from the Competition Commission and is satisfied that there are special reasons why the report cannot be made within the period specified in the reference, extend that period by no more than six months.

(4) No more than one extension is possible under subsection (3) above in relation to the same reference.

1175

(5) The Authority shall, in the case of an extension made by it under subsection (3) above—

(a) publish that extension in such manner as it considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it; and

(b) send a copy of what has been published by it under paragraph (a) above to the holder of the licence or, as the case may be, the relevant licence holders.

24B REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 24: POWERS OF INVESTIGATION

(1) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) below, for the purposes of references under section 24 above as they apply for the purposes of references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106:
general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(2) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted; and

(b) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(3) Section 108(5)(b)(ii) shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect as if—

(a) for the words "published (or, in the case of a report under section 49 or 64, given)" there were substituted "made";

(b) for the words "published (or given)", in both places where they appear, there were substituted "made"; and

(c) the words "by this Part" were omitted.

(4) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 113 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that subsection.

(5) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that subsection."

(2C) In section 25 (reports on licence modification references)—
(a) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) For the purposes of sections 26 and 26A below, a conclusion contained in a report of the Competition Commission is to be disregarded if the conclusion is not that of at least two-thirds of the members of the group constituted in connection with the reference concerned in pursuance of paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.
(1B) If a member of a group so constituted disagrees with any conclusions contained in a report made on a reference under section 24 above as the conclusions of the Competition Commission, the report shall, if the member so wishes, include a statement of his disagreement and of his reasons for disagreeing.";
1176
(b) for subsection (3) there is substituted—
"(3) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any report made by the Competition Commission on a reference under section 24 above.
(3A) In making any report on a reference under section 24 above the Competition Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
(3B) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.
(3C) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(3D) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in subsection (3C)(a) or (b) above is necessary for the purposes of the report."
(2D) In section 26A (Commission's power to veto modifications following report)—
(a) after subsection (11) there is inserted—
"(11A) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any notice under subsection (4)(a), (6) or (8).
(11B) In giving any notice under subsection (4)(a) or (6), or publishing any notice under subsection (8), the Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
(11C) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.
(11D) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(11E) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information

1177
mentioned in subsection (11D)(a) or (b) is necessary for the purposes of the notice.
(11F) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in subsections (11G) and (11H), for the purposes of any investigation by the Commission for the purposes of the exercise of its functions under this section, as they apply for the purposes of any investigation on references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(11G) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (11F), have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted;

(b) in subsection (4), for the words "the publication of the report of the Commission on the reference concerned" there were substituted "the publication by the Commission of a notice under section 26A(8) of the Gas Act 1986 in connection with the reference concerned or, if no direction has been given by the Commission under section 26A(1) of that Act in connection with the reference concerned and within the period permitted for that purpose, the latest day on which it was possible to give such a direction within the permitted period"; and

(c) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(11H) Section 108(5)(b) shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (11F), have effect as if for sub-paragraph (ii) there were substituted—
"(ii) if earlier, the day on which a notice is published by the Commission under section 26A(8) of the Gas Act 1986 in connection with the reference concerned or, if no direction is given by the Commission under section 26A(1) of that Act in connection with the reference concerned and within the period permitted for that purpose, the latest day on which such a direction may be given within the permitted period.".
(11I) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 113 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of subsection (11F) above, have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that subsection.
(11J) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that subsection.";
1178
(b) subsections (12) and (13) shall cease to have effect."
Page 352, line 7, at end insert—
"(6A) In section 41E (references to Commission about activities which are not licensable), subsections (7) and (8) shall cease to have effect.
(6B) After section 41E there is inserted—
"41EA REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 41E: TIME LIMITS

(1) Every reference under section 41E above shall specify a period (not longer than six months beginning with the date of the reference) within which a report on the reference is to be made.

(2) A report of the Competition Commission on a reference under section 41E above shall not have effect (in particular for the purposes of section 41 D(5) above) unless the report is made before the end of the period specified in the reference or such further period (if any) as may be allowed by the Authority under subsection (3) below.

(3) The Authority may, if it has received representations on the subject from the Competition Commission and is satisfied that there are special reasons why the report cannot be made within the period specified in the reference, extend that period by no more than six months.

(4) No more than one extension is possible under subsection (3) above in relation to the same reference.

(5) The Authority shall publish an extension under subsection (3) above in such manner as it considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it.

41EB References under section 41E: application of Enterprise Act 2002
(1) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) below, for the purposes of references under section 41E above as they apply for the purposes of references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(2) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted; and

(b) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(3) Section 108(5)(b)(ii) shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect as if—

(a) for the words "published (or, in the case of a report under section 49 or 64, given)" there were substituted "made";

(b) for the words "published (or given)", in both places where they appear, there were substituted "made"; and

(c) the words "by this Part" were omitted.

(4) Section 114 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (false or misleading information) shall apply in relation to functions of the Competition Commission in connection with references under section 41E above as it applies in relation to its functions under Part 3 of that Act but as if, in subsections (1)(a) and (2), the words "the OFT," and "or the Secretary of State" were omitted.
(5) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 114 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of

1179
orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of subsection (1) or (4) above, have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those subsections.
(6) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those subsections."
(6C) In section 41F (reports on references under section 41E)—
(a) after subsection (3) there is inserted—
"(3A) For the purposes of section 41D(5), a conclusion contained in a report of the Competition Commission is to be disregarded if the conclusion is not that of at least two-thirds of the members of the group constituted in connection with the reference concerned in pursuance of paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.
(3B) If a member of a group so constituted disagrees with any conclusions contained in a report made on a reference under section 41E as the conclusions of the Competition Commission, the report shall, if the member so wishes, include a statement of his disagreement and of his reasons for disagreeing.";
(b) for subsection (4) there is substituted—
"(4) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any report made by the Competition Commission on a reference under section 41E.
(4A) In making any report on a reference under section 41E the Competition Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
(4B) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.
(4C) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(4D) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in subsection (4C)(a) or (b) is necessary for the purposes of the report."
Page 352, line 29, after "State" insert ", the Office of Fair Trading"
Page 353, line 9, after "State" insert ", the Office of Fair Trading"
Page 353, line 11, at end insert—
"(4) In section 238 (powers exercisable for protection of the public interest), for subsections (1) and (2) there is substituted—
"(1) Subsection (1A) applies where whatever needs to be remedied, mitigated or prevented by the Secretary of State, the Competition Commission or (as the case may be) the Office of Fair Trading under section 12(5) of the Competition Act 1980 or section 40(2), 54(2), 65(6), 72(2), 80(2), 133(2), 142(2) or 155(2) of, or paragraph 5(2) or 10(2) of Schedule 7 to, the Enterprise Act 2002 (powers to take remedial action following references to the Commission in connection with public bodies and certain other persons, mergers or market investigations etc.) consists of or includes—
1180

(a) conditions in licences granted by a design right owner restricting the use of the design by the licensee or the right of the design right owner to grant other licences, or

(b) a refusal of a design right owner to grant licences on reasonable terms.

(1A) The powers conferred by Schedule 8 to the Enterprise Act 2002 include power to cancel or modify those conditions and, instead or in addition, to provide that licences in respect of the design right shall be available as of right.
(2) The references to anything permitted by Schedule 8 to the Enterprise Act 2002 in section 12(5A) of the Competition Act 1980 and in sections 72(4)(a), 80(4)(a), 81(2)(a), 86(1), 155(4)(a), 156(3)(a) and 159(1) of, and paragraphs 5, 10 and 11 of Schedule 7 to, the Act of 2002 shall be construed accordingly.".
(5) In Schedule 2A, in paragraph 17 (powers exercisable in consequence of competition report)—
(a) for sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) there is substituted—
"(1) Sub-paragraph (1A) applies where whatever needs to be remedied, mitigated or prevented by the Secretary of State, the Competition Commission or (as the case may be) the Office of Fair Trading under section 12(5) of the Competition Act 1980 or section 40(2), 54(2), 65(6), 72(2), 80(2), 133(2), 142(2) or 155(2) of, or paragraph 5(2) or 10(2) of Schedule 7 to, the Enterprise Act 2002 (powers to take remedial action following references to the Commission in connection with public bodies and certain other persons, mergers or market investigations etc.) consists of or includes—

(a) conditions in licences granted by the owner of a performer's property rights restricting the use to which a recording may be put by the licensee or the right of the owner to grant other licenses, or

(b) a refusal of an owner of a performer's property rights to grant licences on reasonable terms.

(1A) The powers conferred by Schedule 8 to the Enterprise Act 2002 include power to cancel or modify those conditions and, instead or in addition, to provide that licences in respect of the performer's property rights shall be available as of right.
(2) The references to anything permitted by Schedule 8 to the Enterprise Act 2002 in section 12(5A) of the Competition Act 1980 and in sections 72(4)(a), 80(4)(a), 81(2)(a), 86(1), 155(4)(a), 156(3)(a)and 159(1) of, and paragraphs 5,10 and 11 of Schedule 7 to, the Act of 2002 shall be construed accordingly.";
(b) in sub-paragraph (3)—

(i) for "A Minister" there is substituted "The Secretary of State, the Competition Commission or (as the case may be) the Office of Fair Trading";

(ii) after "he" there is inserted "or it"."

Page 353, line 23, at end insert—
"(2A) In section 12 (licence modification references to Commission)—

(a) in subsection (6A), after "sections" there is inserted "12A,";

(b) subsections (8) and (8A) shall cease to have effect.

1181
(2B) After section 12 there is inserted—
"12A REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 12: TIME LIMITS

(1) Every reference under section 12 above shall specify a period (not longer than six months beginning with the date of the reference) within which a report on the reference is to be made.

(2) A report of the Competition Commission on a reference under section 12 above shall not have effect (and no action shall be taken in relation to it under section 14 below) unless the report is made before the end of the period specified in the reference or such further period (if any) as may be allowed by the Authority under subsection (3) below.

(3) The Authority may, if it has received representations on the subject from the Competition Commission and is satisfied that there are special reasons why the report cannot be made within the period specified in the reference, extend that period by no more than six months.

(4) No more than one extension is possible under subsection (3) above in relation to the same reference.

(5) The Authority shall, in the case of an extension made by it under subsection (3) above—

(a) publish that extension in such manner as it considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it; and

(b) send a copy of what has been published by it under paragraph (a) above to the holder of the licence or, as the case may be, the relevant licence holders.

12B REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 12: POWERS OF INVESTIGATION

(1) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) below, for the purposes of references under section 12 above as they apply for the purposes of references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106; general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(2) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted; and

(b) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(3) Section 108(5)(b)(ii) shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect as if—

(a) for the words "published (or, in the case of a report under section 49 or 64, given)" there were substituted "made";

(b) for the words "published (or given)", in both places where they appear, there were substituted "made"; and

(c) the words "by this Part" were omitted.

(4) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 113 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that subsection.

1182

(5) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that subsection."

(2C) In section 13 (reports on licence modification references)—
(a) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) For the purposes of sections 14 and 14A below, a conclusion contained in a report of the Competition Commission is to be disregarded if the conclusion is not that of at least two-thirds of the members of the group constituted in connection with the reference concerned in pursuance of paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.
(1B) If a member of a group so constituted disagrees with any conclusions contained in a report made on a reference under section 12 above as the conclusions of the Competition Commission, the report shall, if the member so wishes, include a statement of his disagreement and of his reasons for disagreeing.";
(b) for subsection (3) there is substituted—
"(3) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any report made by the Competition Commission on a reference under section 12 above.
(3A) In making any report on a reference under section 12 above the Competition Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
(3B) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.
(3C) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(3D) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in subsection (3C)(a) or (b) above is necessary for the purposes of the report."
(2D) In section 14A (Commission's power to veto modifications following report)—
(a) after subsection (11) there is inserted—
"(11A) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any notice under subsection (4)(a), (6) or (8).
(11B) In giving any notice; under subsection (4)(a) or (6), or publishing any notice under subsection (8), the Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
(11C) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.

1183
(11D) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(11E) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in subsection (11D)(a) or (b) is necessary for the purposes of the notice.
(11F) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in subsections (11G) and (11H), for the purposes of any investigation by the Commission for the purposes of the exercise of its functions under this section, as they apply for the purposes of any investigation on references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy)

(11G) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (11F), have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted;

(b) in subsection (4), for the words "the publication of the report of the Commission on the reference concerned" there were substituted "the publication by the Commission of a notice under section 14A(8) of the Electricity Act 1989 in connection with the reference concerned or, if no direction has been given by the Commission under section 14A(1) of that Act in connection with the reference concerned and within the period permitted for that purpose, the
1184
latest day on which it was possible to give such a direction within the permitted period;" and

(c) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(11H) Section 108(5)(b) shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (11F), have effect as if for sub-paragraph (ii) there were substituted—
"(ii) if earlier, the day on which a notice is published by the Commission under section 14A(8) of the Electricity Act 1989 in connection with the reference concerned or, if no direction is given by the Commission under section 14A(1) of that Act in connection with the reference concerned and within the period permitted for that purpose, the latest day on which such a direction may be given within the permitted period.".
(11I) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 113 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of subsection (11F) above, have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that subsection.
(11J) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that subsection.";
(b) subsections (12) and (13) shall cease to have effect."
Page 353, line 44, at end insert—
"(7) In section 56C (references to Commission about activities which are not licensable), subsections (7) and (8) shall cease to have effect.
(8) After section 56C there is inserted—
"56CA REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 56C: TIME LIMITS

(1) Every reference under section 56C above shall specify a period (not longer than six months beginning with the date of the reference) within which a report on the reference is to be made.

(2) A report of the Competition Commission on a reference under section 56C above shall not have effect (in particular for the purposes of section 56B(5) above) unless the report is made before the end of the period specified in the reference or such further period (if any) as may be allowed by the Authority under subsection (3) below.

(3) The Authority may, if it has received representations on the subject from the Competition Commission and is satisfied that there are special reasons why the report cannot be made within the period specified in the reference, extend that period by no more than six months.

(4) No more than one extension is possible under subsection (3) above in relation to the same reference.

(5) The Authority shall publish an extension under subsection (3) above in such manner as it considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it.

56CB References under section 56C: application of Enterprise Act 2002
(1) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) below, for the purposes of references under section 56C above as they apply for the purposes of references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

1185

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(2) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted; and

(b) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(3) Section 108(5)(b)(ii) shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect as if—

(a) for the words "published (or, in the case of a report under section 49 or 64, given)" there were substituted "made";

(b) for the words "published (or given)", in both places where they appear, there were substituted "made"; and

(c) the words "by this Part" were omitted.

(4) Section 114 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (false or misleading information) shall apply in relation to functions of the Competition Commission in connection with references under section 56C above as it applies in relation to its functions under Part 3 of that Act but as if, in subsections (1)(a) and (2), the words "the OFT." and "or the Secretary of State" were omitted.
(5) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 114 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of subsection (1) or (4) above, have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those subsections.
(6) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those subsections."
(9) In section 56D (reports on references under section 56C)—
(a) after subsection (3) there is inserted—
"(3A) For the purposes of section 56B(5), a conclusion contained in a report of the Competition Commission is to be disregarded if the conclusion is not that of at least two-thirds of the members of the group constituted in connection with the reference concerned in pursuance of paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.
(3B) If a member of a group so constituted disagrees with any conclusions contained in a report made on a reference under section 56C as the conclusions of the Competition Commission, the report shall, if the member so wishes, include a statement of his disagreement and of his reasons for disagreeing.";
(b) for subsection (4) there is substituted—
"(4) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any report made by the Competition Commission on a reference under section 56C.
(4A) In making any report on a reference under section 56C the Competition Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
(4B) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.
1186
(4C) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks, might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(4D) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in subsection (4C)(a) or (b) is necessary for the purposes of the report.""
Page 354, line 30, at end insert ";
(iv) sub-paragraph (5) shall cease to have effect;"
Page 354, line 32, at end insert ";
(ca) after paragraph 4 there is inserted—
"Enforcement
4A (1) The court may, on an application by the OFT, enquire into whether any person ("the defaulter") has refused or otherwise failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a notice under paragraph 4.
(2) An application under sub-paragraph (1) shall include details of the possible failure which the OFT considers has occurred.
(3) In enquiring into a case under sub-paragraph (1), the court shall hear any witness who may be produced against or on behalf of the defaulter and any statement which may be offered in defence.
(4) Sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) apply where the court is satisfied, after hearing any witnesses and statements as mentioned in sub-paragraph (3), that the defaulter has refused or otherwise failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the notice under paragraph 4.
(5) The court may punish the defaulter as it would have been able to punish him had he been guilty of contempt of court.
(6) Where the defaulter is a body corporate, the court may punish any director or officer of the defaulter as it would have been able to punish that director or officer had the director or officer been guilty of contempt of court.
(7) In this section "the court"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means the High Court, and

(b) in relation to Scotland, means the Court of Session.

4B (1) A person commits an offence if he intentionally alters, suppresses or destroys a document which he has been required to produce by a notice under paragraph 4.
(2) A person who commits an offence under sub-paragraph (1) shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.";"

Page 355, line 47, at end insert ";
(c) subsection (3) shall cease to have effect.
(4) After section 46 there is inserted—
"46A ENFORCEMENT OF NOTICES UNDER SECTION 46

(1) The High Court may, on an application by the OFT, enquire into whether any person ("the defaulter") has refused or otherwise failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a notice under section 46(1).

1187

(2) An application under subsection (1) shall include details of the possible failure which the OFT considers has occurred

(3) In enquiring into a case under subsection (1), the High Court shall hear any witness who may be produced against or on behalf of the defaulter and any statement which may be offered in defence.

(4) Subsections (5) and (6) apply where the High Court is satisfied, after hearing any witnesses and statements as mentioned in subsection (3), that the defaulter has refused or otherwise failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the notice under section 46(1).

(5) The High Court may punish the defaulter as it would have been able to punish him had he been guilty of contempt of court.

(6) Where the defaulter is a body corporate, the High Court may punish any director or officer of the defaulter as it would have been able to punish that director or officer had the director or officer been guilty of contempt of court.

46B ALTERING, ETC. DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED UNDER SECTION 46

(1) A person commits an offence if he intentionally alters, suppresses or destroys a document which he has been required to produce by a notice under section 46(1).

(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.""

Page 360, line 18, leave out from "if" to end of line 21 and insert"—

(a) for the words "published (or, in the case of a report under section 49 or 64, given)" there were substituted "made";

(b) for the words "published (or given)", in both places where they appear, there were substituted "made"; and

(c) the words "by this Part" were omitted."

Page 362, line 29, at end insert—
"(2A) In section 12(5) (determinations under conditions of appointment) for "the 1973 Act" there is substituted "the Enterprise Act 2002".
(2B) In section 14 (conditions of appointment: modification references to Commission), subsections (7) and (7A) shall cease to have effect.
(2C) After section 14 there is inserted—
"14A REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 14: TIME LIMITS

(1) Every reference under section 14 above shall specify a period (not longer than six months beginning with the date of the reference) within which a report on the reference is to be made.

(2) A report of the Competition Commission on a reference under section 14 above shall not have effect (and no action shall be taken in relation to it under section 16 below) unless the report is made before the end of the period specified in the reference or such further period (if any) as may be allowed by the Director under subsection (3) below.

(3) The Director may, if he has received representations on the subject from the Competition Commission and is satisfied that there are special reasons why the report cannot be made within the period specified in the reference, extend that period by no more than six months.

(4) No more than one extension is possible under subsection (3) above in relation to the same reference.

(5) The Director shall, in the case of an extension made by him under subsection (3) above—

(a) publish that extension in such manner as he considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it; and

1188

(b) send a copy of what has been published by him under paragraph (a) above to the company whose appointment is mentioned in the reference.

14B REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 14: POWERS OF INVESTIGATION

(1) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) below, for the purposes of references under section 14 above as they apply for the purposes of references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(2) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted; and

(b) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(3) Section 108(5)(b)(ii) shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect as if—

(a) for the words "published (or, in the case of a report under section 49 or 64, given)" there were substituted "made";

(b) for the words "published (or given)", in both places where they appear, there were substituted "made"; and

(c) the words "by this Part" were omitted.

(4) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 113 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that subsection.

(5) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that subsection."

(2D) In section 15 (reports on modification references)—
(a) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) For the purposes of section 16 below, a conclusion contained in a report of the Competition Commission is to be disregarded if the conclusion is not that of at least two-thirds of the members of the group constituted in connection with the reference concerned in pursuance of paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.
(1B) If a member of a group so constituted disagrees with any conclusions contained in a report made on a reference under section 14 above as the conclusions of the Competition Commission, the report shall, if the member so wishes, include a statement of his disagreement and of his reasons for disagreeing.";
(b) for subsection (3) there is substituted—
"(3) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any report made by the Competition Commission on a reference under section 14 above.
(3A) In making any report on a reference under section 14 above the Competition Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
(3B) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.

1189
(3C) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(3D) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in subsection (3C)(a) or (b) above is necessary for the purposes of the report.""
Page 364, line 9, at end insert—
"(1A) In Article 15 (licence modification references to Commission) paragraphs (8) and (8A) shall cease to have effect.
(1B) After Article 15 there is inserted—
"15A REFERENCES UNDER ARTICLE 15: TIME LIMITS

(1) Every reference under Article 15 shall specify a period (not longer than six months beginning with the date of the reference) within which a report on the reference is to be made.

(2) A report of the Competition Commission on a reference under Article 15 shall not have effect (and no action shall be taken in relation to it under Article 17) unless the report is made before the end of the period specified in the reference or such further period (if any) as may be allowed by the Director under paragraph (3).

(3) The Director may, if he has received representations on the subject from the Competition Commission and is satisfied that there are special reasons why the report cannot be made within the period specified in the reference, extend that period by no more than six months.

(4) No more than one extension is possible under paragraph (3) in relation to the same reference.

(5) The Director shall, in the case of an extension made by him under paragraph (3)—

(a) publish that extension in such manner as he considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it; and

(b) send a copy of what has been published by him under sub-paragraph (a) to the licence holder.

15B REFERENCES UNDER ARTICLE 15: POWERS OF INVESTIGATION

(1) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in paragraphs (2) and (3), for the purposes of references under Article 15 as they apply for the purposes of references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(2) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of paragraph (1), have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted; and

1190

(b) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(3) Section 108(5)(b)(ii) shall, in its application by virtue of paragraph (1), have effect as if—

(a) for the words "published (or, in the case of a report under section 49 or 64, given)" there were substituted "made";

(b) for the words "published (or given)", in both places where they appear, there were substituted "made"; and

(c) the words "by this Part" were omitted.

(4) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 113 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of paragraph (1), have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that paragraph.

(5) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Order shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that paragraph."

(1C) In Article 16 (reports on licence modification references)—
(a) after paragraph (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) For the purposes of Article 17, a conclusion contained in a report of the Competition Commission is to be disregarded if the conclusion is not that of at least two-thirds of the members of the group constituted in connection with the reference concerned in pursuance of paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.
(1B) If a member of a group so constituted disagrees with any conclusions contained in a report made on a reference under Article 15 as the conclusions of the Competition Commission, the report shall, if the member so wishes, include a statement of his disagreement and of his reasons for disagreeing.";
(b) for paragraph (3) there is substituted—
"(3) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any report made by the Competition Commission on a reference under Article 15.
(3A) In making any report on a reference under Article 15 the Competition Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
(3B) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.
(3C) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(3D) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in paragraph (3C)(a) or (b) is necessary for the purposes of the report.""
Page 365, line 15, at end insert—
"(2A) In section 13 (licence modification references to Commission)—

(a) in subsection (1A), after "section" in the first place where it appears there is inserted ", section 13A below";

1191

(b) subsections (8) and (8A) shall cease to have effect.

(2B) After section 13 there is inserted—
"13A References under section 13: time limits

(1) Every reference under section 13 above shall specify a period (not longer than six months beginning with the date of the reference) within which a report on the reference is to be made.

(2) A report of the Competition Commission on a reference under section 13 above shall not have effect (and no action shall be taken in relation to it under section 15 below) unless the report is made before the end of the period specified in the reference or such further period (if any) as may be allowed by the appropriate authority under subsection (3) below.

(3) The appropriate authority may, if it has received representations on the subject from the Competition Commission and is satisfied that there are special reasons why the report cannot be made within the period specified in the reference, extend that period by no more than six months.

(4) No more than one extension is possible under subsection (3) above in relation to the same reference.

(5) The appropriate authority shall, in the case of an extension made by it under subsection (3) above—

(a) publish that extension in such manner as it considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it; and

(b) send a copy of what has been published by it under paragraph (a) above to the holder of the licence.

13B References under section 13: application of Enterprise Act 2002

(1) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) below, for the purposes of references under section 13 above as they apply for the purposes of references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(2) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted; and

(b) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(3) Section 108(5)(b)(ii) shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect as if—

(a) for the words "published (or, in the case of a report under section 49 or 64, given)" there were substituted "made";

(b) for the words "published (or given)", in both places where they appear, there were substituted "made"; and

(c) the words "by this Part" were omitted.

(4) Section 114 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (false or misleading information) shall apply in relation to functions of the Competition Commission in connection with references under section 13 as it applies in relation to its functions under Part 3 of that Act but as if, in subsections (1)(a) and (2), the words "the OFT," and "or the Secretary of State" were omitted.

1192

(5) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 114 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders), shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of subsection (1) or (4) above, have effect in relation to those sections as applied by those subsections.

(6) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those subsections."

(2C) In section 14 (reports on licence modification references)—
(a) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) For the purposes of sections 15 to 15B below, a conclusion contained in a report of the Competition Commission is to be disregarded if the conclusion is not that of at least two-thirds of the members of the group constituted in connection with the reference concerned in pursuance of paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.
(1B) If a member of a group so constituted disagrees with any conclusions contained in a report made on a reference under section 13 above as the conclusions of the Competition Commission, the report shall, if the member so wishes, include a statement of his disagreement and of his reasons for disagreeing.";
(b) for subsection (3) there is substituted—
"(3) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any report made by the Competition Commission on a reference under section 13 above.
(3A) In making any report on a reference under section 13 above the Competition Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
(3B) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.
(3C) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(3D) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in subsection (3C)(a) or (b) above is necessary for the purposes of the report."
(2D) In section 15C (provisions supplementary to Commission's power to veto modifications following report), for subsections (1) and (2) there is substituted—
"(1) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any notice under section 15A(4) or 15B(3) above.
(2) In giving any notice under section 15A(4) or 15B(3) above, the Competition Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.

1193
(2A) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.
(2B) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(2C) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in subsection (2B)(a) or (b) above is necessary for the purposes of the notice.
(2D) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in subsections (2E) and (2F) below, for the purposes of any investigation by the Competition Commission for the purposes of the exercise of its functions under section 15A or 15B above, as they apply for the purposes of any investigation on references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(2E) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (2D) above, have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted;

(b) in subsection (4), for the words "the publication of the report of the Commission on the reference concerned" there were substituted "the sending of a copy to the Regulator under section 15B(5) of the Railways Act 1993 of the modifications made by the Commission in connection with the reference concerned or, if no direction has been given by the Commission under section 15A(1) of that Act in connection with the reference concerned and within the period permitted for that purpose, the latest
1194
day on which it was possible to give such a direction within the permitted period"; and

(c) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(2F) Section 108(5)(b) shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (2D) above, have effect as if for sub-paragraph (ii) there were substituted—
"(ii) if earlier, the day on which a copy of the modifications made by the Commission in connection with the reference concerned is sent to the Regulator under section 15B(5) of the Railways Act 1993 or, if no direction is given by the Commission under section 15A(1) of that Act in connection with the reference concerned and within the period permitted for that purpose, the latest day on which such a direction may be given within the permitted period.".
(2G) Section 114 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (false or misleading information) shall apply in relation to functions of the Competition Commission in connection with the exercise of its functions under section 15A and 15B above as it applies in relation to its functions under Part 3 of that Act but as if, in subsections (1)(a) and (2), the words "the OFT," and "or the Secretary of State" were omitted.
(2H) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 114 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of subsection (2D) or (2G) above, have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those subsections.
(2I) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those subsections.""
Page 365, line 42, at end insert—
"(7A) In section 74(7) (annual and other reports of the Regulator), for "Section 125(1) of the 1973 Act (annual and other reports)" there is substituted "Paragraph 12A(1) of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998 (annual reports of the Competition Commission)"."
Page 366, line 11, at end insert—
"(10) In Schedule 4A (review of access charges by Regulator)—
(a) for paragraph 10 there is substituted—
"References under paragraph 9: time limits
10(1) Every reference under paragraph 9 above shall specify a period (not longer than six months beginning with the date of the reference) within which a report on the reference is to be made.
(2) A report of the Competition Commission on a reference under paragraph 9 above shall not have effect (and no action shall be taken in relation to it under paragraph 12 below) unless the report is made before the end of the period specified in the reference or such further period (if any) as may be allowed by the Regulator under sub-paragraph (3) below.
(3) The Regulator may, if he has received representations on the subject from the Competition Commission and is satisfied that there are special reasons why the report cannot be made within the period specified in the reference, extend that period by no more than six months.
(4) No more than one extension is possible under sub-paragraph (3) above in relation to the same reference.
(5) The Regulator shall, in the case of an extension made by him under sub-paragraph (3) above—

(a) publish that extension in such manner as he considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it; and

1195

(b) send a copy of what has been published by him under paragraph (a) above to the persons on whom a copy of the review notice was served.

References under paragraph 9: application of Enterprise Act 2002
10A (1) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below, for the purposes of references under paragraph 9 above as they apply for the purposes of references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(2) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted; and

(b) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(3) Section 108(5)(b)(ii) shall, in its application by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, have effect as if—

(a) for the words "published (or, in the case of a report under section 49 or 64, given)" there were substituted "made";

(b) for the words "published (or given)", in both places where they appear, there were substituted "made"; and

(c) the words "by this Part" were omitted.

(4) Section 114 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (false or misleading information) shall apply in relation to functions of the Competition Commission in connection with references under paragraph 9 above as it applies in relation to its functions under Part 3 of that Act but as if, in subsections (1)(a) and (2), the words "the OFT," and "or the Secretary of State" were omitted.
(5) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 114 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (4) above, have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those sub-paragraphs.
(6) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those sub-paragraphs.";
(b) in paragraph 11—
(i) after sub-paragraph (4) there is inserted—
"(4A) For the purposes of paragraphs 12 to 14 below, a conclusion contained in a report of the Competition Commission is to be disregarded if the conclusion is not that of at least two-thirds of the members of the group constituted in connection with the reference concerned in pursuance of paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.
(4B) If a member of a group so constituted disagrees with any conclusions contained in a report made on a reference under paragraph 9 above as the
1196
conclusions of the Competition Commission, the report shall, if the member so wishes, include a statement of his disagreement and of his reasons for disagreeing.";
(ii) for sub-paragraph (5) there is substituted—
"(5) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any report made by the Competition Commission on a reference under paragraph 9 above.
(5A) In making any report on a reference under paragraph 9 above the Competition Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
(5B) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.
(5C) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(5D) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in sub-paragraph (5C)(a) or (b) above is necessary for the purposes of the report.";
(c) in paragraph 15, for sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) there is substituted—
"(1) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any notice under paragraph 13(4) or 14(3) above.
(2) In giving any notice under paragraph 13(4) or 14(3) above, the Competition Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information
(2A) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.
(2B) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(2C) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in sub-paragraph (2B)(a) or (b) above is necessary for the purposes of the notice.
(2D) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in sub-paragraphs (2E) and (2F) below, in relation to any

1197
investigation by the Competition Commission for the purposes of the exercise of its functions under paragraph 13 or 14 above, as they apply for the purposes of any investigation on references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents, etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111; (appeals in relation to penalties)

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(2E) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of sub-paragraph (2D) above, have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted;

(b) in subsection (4), for the words "the publication of the report of the Commission on the reference concerned" there were substituted "the sending of a copy to the Regulator under paragraph 14 of Schedule 4A to the Railways Act 1993 of the relevant changes made by the Commission in connection with the reference concerned or, if no direction has been given by the Commission under paragraph 13(1) of that Schedule to that Act in connection with the reference concerned and within the period permitted for that purpose, the latest day on which it was possible to give such a direction within the permitted period"; and

(c) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(2F) Section 108(5)(b) shall, in its application by virtue of sub-paragraph (2D) above, have effect as if for sub-paragraph (ii) there were substituted—
"(ii) if earlier, the day on which a copy of the relevant changes made by the Commission in connection with the reference concerned is sent to the Regulator under paragraph 14 of Schedule 4A to the Railways Act 1993 or, if no direction is given by the Commission under paragraph 13(1) of that Schedule to that Act in connection with the reference concerned and within the period permitted for that purpose, the latest day on which such a direction may be given within the permitted period.".
(2G) Section 114 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (false or misleading information) shall apply in relation to functions of the Competition Commission in connection with the exercise of its functions under paragraph 13 or 14 above as it applies in relation to its functions under
1198
Part 3 of that Act but as if, in subsections (1)(a) and (2), the words "the OFT," and "or the Secretary of State" were omitted.
(2H) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 114 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of sub-paragraph (2D) or (2G) above, have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those sub-paragraphs.
(2I) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those sub-paragraphs.""'
Page 367, line 2, at end insert—
"(1A) In Article 35 (supplementary provisions relating to references to the Commission), paragraphs (3) and (3A) shall cease to have effect.
(1B) After Article 35 there is inserted—
"35A REFERENCES UNDER ARTICLE 34: TIME LIMITS

(1) Every reference under Article 34 shall specify a period (not longer than six months beginning with the date of the reference) within which a report on the reference is to be made.

(2) A report of the Commission on a reference under Article 34 shall not have effect (and no action shall be taken in relation to it under Article 37) unless the report is made before the end of the period specified in the reference or such further period (if any) as may be allowed by the CAA under paragraph (3).

(3) The CAA may, if it has received representations on the subject from the Commission and is satisfied that there are special reasons why the report cannot be made within the period specified in the reference, extend that period by no more than six months.

(4) No more than one extension is possible under paragraph (3) in relation to the same reference.

(5) The CAA shall, in the case of an extension made by it under paragraph (3)—

(a) publish that extension in such manner as it considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it; and

(b) send a copy of what has been published by it under sub-paragraph (a) to the airport operator concerned and the Department.

35B REFERENCES UNDER ARTICLE 34: POWERS OF INVESTIGATION

(1) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in paragraphs (2) and (3), for the purposes of references under Article 34 as they apply for the purposes of references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(2) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of paragraph (1), have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted; and

(b) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

1199

(3) Section 108(5)(b)(ii) shall, in its application by virtue of paragraph (1), have effect as if—

(a) for the words "published (or, in the case of a report under section 49 or 64, given)" there were substituted "made";

(b) for the words "published (or given)", in both places where they appear, there were substituted "made"; and

(c) the words "by this Part" were omitted.

(4) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 113 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of paragraph (1), have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that paragraph.

(5) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Order shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that paragraph."

(1C) In Article 36 (reports on references)—
(a) after paragraph (2) there is inserted—
"(2A) For the purposes of Article 37(2), a conclusion contained in a report of the Commission is to be disregarded if the conclusion is not that of at least two-thirds of the members of the group constituted in connection with the reference concerned in pursuance of paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.
(2B) If a member of a group so constituted disagrees with any conclusions contained in a report made on a reference under Article 34 as the conclusions of the Commission, the report shall, if the member so wishes, include a statement of his disagreement and of his reasons for disagreeing.";
(b) for paragraph (4) there is substituted—
"(4) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any report made by the Commission on a reference under Article 34.
(4A) In making any report on a reference under Article 34 the Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
(4B) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.
(4C) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(4D) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in paragraph (4C)(a) or (b) is necessary for the purposes of the report.""
Page 367, line 40, at end insert—
"(1A) In Article 15 (licence modification references to Commission)—

(a) paragraphs (9) and (9A) shall cease to have effect;

(b) in paragraph (10), after "Articles" there is inserted"15A,".

1200
(1B) After Article 15 there is inserted—
"15A REFERENCES UNDER ARTICLE 15: TIME LIMITS

(1) Every reference under Article 15 shall specify a period (not longer than six months beginning with the date of the reference) within which a report on the reference is to be made.

(2) A report of the Competition Commission on a reference under Article 15 shall not have effect (and no action shall be taken in relation to it under Article 17) unless the report is made before the end of the period specified in the reference or such further period (if any) as may be allowed by the Director under paragraph (3).

(3) The Director may, if he has received representations on the subject from the Competition Commission and is satisfied that there are special reasons why the report cannot be made within the period specified in the reference, extend that period by no more than six months.

(4) No more than one extension is possible under paragraph (3) in relation to the same reference.

(5) The Director shall, in the case of an extension made by him under paragraph (3)—

(a) publish that extension in such manner as he considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it; and

(b) send a copy of what has been published by him under sub-paragraph (a) to the holder of the licence or, as the case may be, the relevant licence holders.

15B REFERENCES UNDER ARTICLE 15: POWERS OF INVESTIGATION

(1) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in paragraphs (2) and (3), for the purposes of references under Article 15 as they apply for the purposes of references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(2) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of paragraph (1), have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted; and

(b) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(3) Section 108(5)(b)(ii) shall, in its application by virtue of paragraph (1), have effect as if—

(a) for the words "published (or, in the case of a report under section 49 or 64, given)" there were substituted "made";

(b) for the words "published (or given)", in both places where they appear, there were substituted "made"; and

(c) the words "by this Part" were omitted.

(4) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 113 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of paragraph (1), have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that paragraph.

(5) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Order shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of that paragraph."

1201
(1C) In Article 16 (reports on licence modification references)—
(a) after paragraph (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) For the purposes of Article 17, a conclusion contained in a report of the Competition Commission is to be disregarded if the conclusion is not that of at least two-thirds of the members of the group constituted in connection with the reference concerned in pursuance of paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.
(1B) If a member of a group so constituted disagrees with any conclusions contained in a report made on a reference under Article 15 as the conclusions of the Competition Commission, the report shall, if the member so wishes, include a statement of his disagreement and of his reasons for disagreeing.";
(b) for paragraph (3) there is substituted—
"(3) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any report made by the Competition Commission on a reference under Article 15.
(3A) In making any report on a reference under Article 15 the Competition Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
(3B) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.
(3C) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(3D) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in paragraph (3C)(a) or (b) is necessary for the purposes of the report.""
Page 368, line 26, at end insert—
"(1A) In section 3(4)(b) (excluded agreements), for "the Fair Trading Act 1973" there is substituted "the Enterprise Act 2002"."
Page 371, line 24, after "(regulators)" insert "—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words from "any person" to the end of the subsection there is substituted "—

(a) the Director General of Telecommunications;

(b) the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority;

(c) the Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland;

(d) the Director General of Water Services;

(e) the Rail Regulator;

(f) the Director General of Gas for Northern Ireland; and

(g) the Civil Aviation Authority.";

(b)"

Page 373, line 27, leave out from "enterprises" to end of line 35 and insert "of the kind to which that section applies"
Page 376, line 29, at end insert ";
(b) after paragraph 2 there is inserted—
"Investigations under section 162: application of Enterprise Act 2002
2A (1) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), for the purposes of any investigation by the Commission under section 162 of this Act as they apply for the purposes of references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(2) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of sub-
paragraph (1), have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted; and

(b) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(3) Section 108(5)(b) shall, in its application by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), have effect as if for sub-paragraph (ii) there were substituted—
"(ii) if earlier, the day on which the report of the Commission on the investigation concerned is made or, if the Commission decides not to make a report, the day on which the Commission makes the statement required by section 162(3) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000."
(4) Section 114 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (false or misleading information) shall apply in relation to functions; of the Commission in connection with an investigation under section 162 of this Act as it applies in relation to its functions under Part 3 of that Act but as if, in subsections (1)(a) and (2), the words "the OFT," and "or the Secretary of State" were omitted.
(5) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 114 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (4) above, have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those sub-paragraphs.
(6) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those sub-paragraphs.
Section 162: modification of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998
2B For the purposes of its application in relation to the function of the Commission of deciding in accordance with section 162(2) of this Act not to make a report, paragraph 15(7) of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998 (power of the Chairman to act on his own while a group is being constituted) has effect as if, after paragraph (a), there were inserted "; or
(aa) in the case of an investigation under section 162 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, decide not to make a report in accordance with subsection (2) of that section (decision not to make a report where no useful purpose would be served)."
Reports under section 162: further provision
2C (1) For the purposes of section 163 of this Act, a conclusion contained in a report of the Commission is to be disregarded if the conclusion is not that of at least two-thirds of the members of the group constituted in connection with the investigation concerned in pursuance of paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.
(2) If a member of a group so constituted disagrees with any conclusions contained in a report made under section 162 of this Act as the conclusions of the Commission, the report shall, if the member so wishes, include a statement of his disagreement and of his reasons for disagreeing.
(3) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any report made by the Commission under section 162.";
(c) paragraph 3 (applied provisions) shall cease to have effect."
Page 376, line 43, at end insert—
"(1A) After section 15 (licence modification references to Commission) there is inserted—
"15A REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 15: TIME LIMITS

(1) Every reference under section 15 shall specify a period (not longer than six months beginning with the date of the reference) within which a report on the reference is to be made.

(2) A report of the Competition Commission on a reference under section 15 shall not have effect (and no action shall be taken in relation to it under section 17) unless the report is made before the end of the period specified in the reference or such further period (if any) as may be allowed by the Commission under subsection (3).

(3) The Commission may, if it has received representations on the subject from the Competition Commission and is satisfied that there are special reasons why the report cannot be made within the period specified in the reference, extend that period by no more than six months.

(4) No more than one extension is possible under subsection (3) in relation to the same reference.

(5) The Commission shall, in the case of an extension made by it under subsection (3)—

(a) publish that extension in such manner as it considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it; and

(b) send a copy of what has been published by it under paragraph (a) to the licence holder and the Secretary of State.

15B REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 15: APPLICATION OF ENTERPRISE ACT 2002

(1) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in subsections (2) and (3), for the purposes of references under section 15 as they apply for the purposes of references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(2) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1), have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted; and

(b) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(3) Section 108(5)(b)(ii) shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1), have effect as if—

(a) for the words "published (or, in the case of a report under section 49 or 64, given)" there were substituted "made";

(b) for the words "published (or given)", in both places where they appear, there were substituted "made"; and

1204

(c) the words "by this Part" were omitted.

(4) Section 114 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (false or misleading information) shall apply in relation to functions of the Competition Commission in connection with references under section 15 as it applies in relation to its functions under Part 3 of that Act but as if, in subsections (1)(a) and (2), the words "the OFT," and "or the Secretary of State" were omitted.

(5) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 114 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of subsection (1) or (4), have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those subsections.

(6) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those subsections."

(1B) After section 16 (reports on licence modification references), there is inserted—
"16A REPORTS ON REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 15: FURTHER PROVISION

(1) For the purposes of sections 17 and 18, a conclusion contained in a report of the Competition Commission is to be disregarded if the conclusion is not that of at least two-thirds of the members of the group constituted in connection with the reference concerned in pursuance of paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.

(2) If a member of a group so constituted disagrees with any conclusions contained in a report made on a reference under section 15 as the conclusions of the Competition Commission, the report shall, if the member so wishes, include a statement of his disagreement and of his reasons for disagreeing.

(3) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any report made by the Competition Commission on a reference under section 15.

(4) In making any report on a reference under section 15 the Competition Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.

(5) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest

(6) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(7) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in subsection (6)(a) or (b) is necessary for the purposes of the report."

(1C) After section 19 (procedural requirements in relation to modification) there is inserted—
"19A SECTIONS 18 AND 19: FURTHER PROVISION
(1) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any notice under section 19(6) or (8).
(2) In giving any notice under section 19(6) or (8), the Competition Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
(3) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.

1205
(4) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(5) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (b) is necessary for the purposes of the notice.
(6) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in subsections (7) and (8), in relation to any investigation by the Competition Commission for the purposes of the exercise of its functions under section 18 as they apply for the purposes of any investigation on references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(7) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (6), have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted;

(b) in subsection (4), for the words from "the publication" to "reference concerned" there were substituted "the sending of a copy to the Secretary of State under section 19(11) of the Postal Services Act 2000 of the modifications made by the Competition Commission in connection with the reference concerned or, if no direction has been given by the Competition Commission under section 18(2) of that Act in connection with the reference concerned and within the period permitted for that purpose, the latest day on which it was possible to give such a direction within the permitted period"; and

(c) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(8) Section 108(5)(b) shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (6), have effect as if for sub-paragraph (ii) there were substituted—
"(ii) if earlier, the day on which a copy of the modifications made by the Competition Commission in connection with the reference concerned is sent to the Secretary of State under section 19(11) of the Postal Services Act 2000 or, if no direction is given by the Competition Commission under section 18(2) of that Act in connection with the reference concerned and within the period permitted for that purpose, the latest day on which such a direction may be given within the permitted period.".
(9) Section 114 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (false or misleading information) shall apply in relation to functions of the Competition Commission in connection with the exercise of its functions under section 18 as it applies in relation to its functions under Part 3 of that Act but as if, in subsections (1)(a) and (2), the words "the OFT," and "or the Secretary of State" were omitted.
(10) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 114 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of
1206
orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of subsection (6) or (9), have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those subsections.
(11) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those subsections."
(1D) Section 20 (application of competition legislation to references, etc.) shall cease to have effect."
Page 377, line 10, at end insert—
"(1A) In section 5(9) (annual and other reports of the Authority), for "Section 125(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 (annual and other reports)" there is substituted "Paragraph 12A(1) of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998 (annual reports of the Competition Commission)"."
Page 377, line 22, at end insert—
"(1A) In section 12 (licence modification references to Commission), subsections (9), (10) and (11) shall cease to have effect.
(1B) After section 12 there is inserted—
"12A REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 12: TIME LIMITS

(1) Every reference under section 12 shall specify a period (not longer than six months beginning with the date of the reference) within which a report on the reference is to be made.

(2) A report of the Competition Commission on a reference under section 12 shall not have effect (and no action shall be taken in relation to it under section 14) unless the report is made before the end of the period specified in the reference or such further period (if any) as may be allowed by the CAA under subsection (3).

(3) The CAA may, if it has received representations on the subject from the Competition Commission and is satisfied that there are special reasons why the report cannot be made within the period specified in the reference, extend that period by no more than six months.

(4) No more than one extension is possible under subsection (3) in relation to the same reference.

(5) The CAA shall, in the case of an extension made by it under subsection (3)—

(a) publish that extension in such manner as it considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it; and

(b) send a copy of what has been published by it under paragraph (a) to the licence holder and the Secretary of State.

12B References under section 12: application of Enterprise Act 2002

(1) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in subsections (2) and (3), for the purposes of references under section 12 as they apply for the purposes of references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(2) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1), have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted; and

(b) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

1207

(3) Section 108(5)(b)(ii) shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1), have effect as if—

(a) for the words "published (or, in the case of a report under section 49 or 64, given)" there were substituted "made";

(b) for the words "published (or given)", in both places where they appear, there were substituted "made"; and

(c) the words "by this Part" were omitted.

(4) Section 114 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (false or misleading information) shall apply in relation to functions of the Competition Commission in connection with references under section 12 as it applies in relation to its functions under Part 3 of that Act but as if, in subsections (1)(a) and (2), the words "the OFT," and "or the Secretary of State" were omitted.

(5) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 114 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of subsection (1) or (4), have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those subsections.

(6) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those subsections."

(1C) In section 13 (reports on licence modification references)—
(a) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) For the purposes of sections 14 to 17, a conclusion contained in a report of the Competition Commission is to be disregarded if the conclusion is not that of at least two-thirds of the members of the group constituted in connection with the reference concerned in pursuance of paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.
(1B) If a member of a group so constituted disagrees with any conclusions contained in a report made on a reference under section 12 as the conclusions of the Competition Commission, the report shall, if the member so wishes, include a statement of his disagreement and of his reasons for disagreeing.";
(b) for subsection (2) there is substituted—
"(2) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any report made by the Competition Commission on a reference under section 12.
(2A) In making any report on a reference under section 12 the Competition Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
(2B) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.
(2C) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(2D) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in subsection (2C)(a) or (b) is necessary for the purposes of the report."
1208
(1D) For section 18 (provisions supplementary to exercise by Commission of functions under sections 15 and 16) there is substituted—
"18 SECTIONS 15 AND 16: GENERAL
(1) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any notice under section 15(4) or 16(4) or (6).
(2) In publishing or serving any notice under section 15(4) or 16(4) or (6), the Competition Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
(3) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.
(4) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

(a) commercial information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

(b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

(5) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (b) is necessary for the purposes of the notice.
(6) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in subsections (7) and (8), for the purposes of any investigation by the Competition Commission for the purposes of the exercise of its functions under section 15 or 16, as they apply for the purposes of any investigation on references under that Part—

(a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

(b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

(c) section 108 (penalties);

(d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

(e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

(f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

(g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

(h) section 113 (statement of policy).

(7) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (6), have effect as if—

(a) subsection (2) were omitted;

(b) in subsection (4), for the words "the publication of the report of the Commission on the reference concerned" there were substituted "the publication by the Commission of a notice under section 16(6) of the Transport Act 2000 in connection with the reference concerned or, if no direction has been given by the Commission under section 15(2) of that Act in connection with the reference concerned and within the period permitted for that purpose, the latest day on which it was possible to give such a direction within the permitted period"; and

(c) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

(8) Section 108(5)(b) shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (6), have effect as if for sub-paragraph (ii) there were substituted—
"(ii) if earlier, the day on which a notice is published by the Commission under section 16(6) of the Transport Act 2000 in connection with the

1209
reference concerned or, if no direction is given by the Commission under section 15(2) of that Act in connection with the reference concerned and within the period permitted for that purpose, the latest day on which such a direction may be given within the permitted period.".
(9) Section 114 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (false or misleading information) shall apply in relation to functions of the Competition Commission in connection with the exercise of its functions under section 15 or 16 as it applies in relation to its functions under Part 3 of that Act but as if, in subsections (1)(a) and (2), the words "the OFT," and "or the Secretary of State" were omitted.
(10) Provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which have effect for the purposes of sections 106 to 114 of that Act (including, in particular, provisions relating to offences and the making of orders.) shall, for the purposes of the application of those sections by virtue of subsection (6) or (9), have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those subsections.
(11) Accordingly, corresponding provisions of this Act shall not have effect in relation to those sections as applied by virtue of those subsections.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken at various times, which I could list, to Amendments Nos. 291 to 345. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 291 to 325 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 26 [Repeals and revocations]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 326 to 343:
Page 380, line 9, at end insert—

"Section 161(2)."

Page 380, line 22, at end insert—

"Section 26(2)."

Page 381, line 9, in column 2 at beginning insert—

"In section 44, subsections (3) and (3A)."

Page 381, line 11, in column 2 at beginning insert—

"In section 24, subsections (7) and (7A).

In section 26A, subsections (12) and (13)."

Page 381, line 12, at end insert—
1210

"In section 41E, subsections (7) and (8)."

Page 382, line 33, in column 2 at beginning insert—

"In section 12, subsections; (8) and (8A).

In section 14A, subsections (12) and (13)."

Page 382, line 37, at end insert—

"In section 56C, subsections (7) and (8)."

Page 382, line 42, leave out "paragraph" and insert "paragraphs 4(5) and"
Page 382, line 45, in column 2 at beginning insert—

"Section 46(3)."

Page 382, line 47, at end insert—

"Section 192."

Page 383, line 15, in column 2 at beginning insert—

"In section 14, subsections (7) and (7A)."

Page 383, line 28, in column 2 at beginning insert—

"Article 15(8) and (8A)."

Page 383, line 36, at end insert—

"Section 13(8) and (8A)."

Page 384, line 10, in column 2 at beginning insert—

"Article 35(3) and (3A)."

Page 384, line 22, in column 2 at beginning insert—

"Article 15(9) and (9A)."

Page 385, line 50, at end insert—

"In Schedule 14, paragraph 3."

Page 386, line 11, leave out column 2 and insert—

"Section 20."

Page 386, line 14, in column 2 at beginning insert—

"Section 12(9), (10) and (11)."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 275 [Extent]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 344 and 345:
Page 194, line 6, leave out "248" and insert "251"
Page 194, line 7, leave out "247" and insert "250"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  International Human Rights Instruments
  International Human Rights Instruments
  Immigration Appellate Authority Hearing Centres
  Immigration Appellate Authority Hearing Centres
  Non-fossil Fuels: Excise Duty
  Non-fossil Fuels: Excise Duty
  Insurance Mediation Directive
  Insurance Mediation Directive
  Gulf Veterans
  Gulf Veterans
  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Matthews v Ministry of Defence
  Matthews v Ministry of Defence
  W-CDMA
  W-CDMA
  Dennis Hill Unit
  Dennis Hill Unit
  NHS Bodies: Performance
  NHS Bodies: Performance
  Hospital Bed Occupancy
  Hospital Bed Occupancy
  Ageing
  Ageing
  Communications Bill: Religious Broadcasting
  Communications Bill: Religious Broadcasting
  CCTV Cameras, East Belfast Interface Areas
  CCTV Cameras, East Belfast Interface Areas
  William Mackessy
  William Mackessy
  British-Irish Inter-Governmental Secretariat
  British-Irish Inter-Governmental Secretariat