Sitting of 23 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. Jim Murphy.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Good Friday Agreement
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What aspects of the Good Friday agreement remain to be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [73997]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): The Government are determined to press forward with all aspects of the agreement. The key priority now is to restore the devolved institutions. Essential to that is the restoration of trust that all parties remain committed to fulfilling their obligations and, crucially, the commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means.
    Mr. Chapman: While I appreciate that we face testing times in Northern Ireland with the suspension of power sharing, does my right hon. Friend concur with me that the Good Friday agreement is about much more than that? Does he agree that the suspension of the Assembly and the Executive, much as it is to be regretted, should not be allowed to stall progress in other areas of the agreement? Can he confirm that all possible steps are being taken to implement those other measures?
    Dr. Reid: Yes. As my hon. Friend points out, the Belfast agreement has brought considerable benefits to people in Northern Ireland. We have made considerable progress, which is reflected in the day-to-day life of people in Ulster in terms of their standards of living and
    256
    their security compared with a decade ago. It is the Government's intention to carry forward those items of the agreement that fall to our respective jurisdiction. It is important to remember that the agreement has not been suspended; it is the Assembly and the Executive that, regrettably, have had to be suspended. Having said that, we should not diminish the effect and success of devolved and inclusive government in Northern Ireland, which was greatly appreciated by people in Ulster.
    Mr. David Trimble: On the question of the agreement's implementation, will the Secretary of State look again at those matters which the Government have done and are proposing to do that are not part of the agreement? I refer, of course, to the special category that has been invented for certain Members and the proposed special measures for so-called on-the-runs. Those matters are not part of the agreement and the Government should look again at them.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to the suspension of the Assembly, which was not inevitable and is exercised at the Secretary of State's discretion. As that suspension arose from events in his own Department—the massive breach of security in his own Department—will he come to the House, when what has been called the root-and-branch examination of his Department by the Security Service has been completed, to explain precisely how that massive breach of security occurred and to outline arrangements for a proper inquiry into it?
    Dr. Reid: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, access to facilities in the House is, of course, a matter for the House, and any wider aspect of that is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms.
    On the breach of security to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I have already said that I have asked the Security Service to carry out an investigation and inquiry into it, not least to safeguard our position in the future. I think that he will understand that it is not always possible, in such circumstances, to put before the House as full details as I would wish because that, in itself, may compromise the future safeguarding of our position; but I will certainly consider how we can share what information can be shared with the right hon. Gentleman and the House.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: Given that the Governments are intent on the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement, does the Secretary of State agree that there can be no level of acceptable paramilitary activity—the so-called in-house or political violence, or indeed in the structures of paramilitarism—in either jurisdiction, the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom? Does he agree that further concessions to loyalist or republican paramilitaries would be entirely corrosive of the democratic process and destructive of the peace process in the long term? Will he reaffirm that the true way forward is by full, round-table negotiations with all the parties that are signatories to the Good Friday agreement, not by what can be destructive, unilateral meetings in secret?
    Dr. Reid: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. First, let us be clear that there is no acceptable level of violence. Violence is violence, and crime is crime, from

    257
    wherever it comes, From wherever it comes, whatever the consequences, on whatever side of the community, and whatever political discomfort it might throw up, crime will be pursued by the police, and the police will follow where the evidence leads. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that that will be applied in an even-handed fashion across the community.
    A great deal of publicity has been given recently to arrests and charges laid against republicans. We should also remember that, in recent weeks, a considerable number of loyalists have been arrested and charged by the police. Last night, there was another disgraceful attack causing injury to young men in the Short Strand area, and I want to congratulate the police on their hard work leading to the discovery and retention yesterday of a considerable arsenal of weapons, which, apparently, was connected with loyalists. There is no doubt in my mind that it was destined for murderous attempts at violence. We should all congratulate the police on the way in which they have been applying themselves, with some success, against crime wherever it arises.
    Mrs. Iris Robinson: Is the Secretary of State not yet ready to accept, as evidenced by the recent opinion poll on "Hearts and Minds", that two thirds of the unionist community do not support the agreement? Is it not time, therefore, to call early elections, followed by negotiations for a new agreement which would have the endorsement of unionists and nationalists?
    Dr. Reid: Like the hon. Lady, I follow opinion polls carefully, although, of course, they are not definitive. Some recent opinion polls, however, have given some interesting indications of the feelings of people in Northern Ireland. First, there is a loss of confidence in the way in which the agreement is proceeding among the unionist community. Secondly, for three quarters of those who have misgivings in the unionist community, the most important single issue is the continued activity in violence or the means of violence by the republican movement. That is why we have said that there is now a real crossroads, at which there is a decision to be taken. We await the response of the republican movement to what the Prime Minister has said in recent days, but I cannot see how we can restore sufficient trust to have inclusive government of a devolved nature in Northern Ireland without a definitive move in that direction.
    I also note other factors that are illustrated in the opinion polls: the continuing lead, in terms of support among the unionist community, for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, and 80 per cent. support for him inside his party.
    Mr. Peter Mandelson: May I commiserate with my right hon. Friend, but congratulate him on his handling of recent events in Northern Ireland, in which he has shown considerable skill and judgment? Does he agree that implementation of the Good Friday agreement has, for years, been dogged by the issue of arms decommissioning, but that that is a proxy gesture for what is really needed: a full-hearted commitment by the republican movement to ending the war completely and saying so in terms?
    258
    What is needed now is a genuinely substantial shift in the attitude of the rest of the republican movement to the future of the IRA. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a move will not be easy for republicans, and that demonising Sinn Fein will not in any sense help the republican movement in that direction? May I encourage him along the lines in which he has indicated that he is moving, and urge him to bring these matters to their logical conclusion—the end not only of the provisional IRA but of all paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Reid: First, I thank my right hon. Friend for his support and praise—coming from the quarter that it does, it means much more than it usually would in the House. Secondly, he has couched his question, and the implied recommendations, wisely. It is wise counsel. We must recognise that the republican movement has come a huge distance in recent years, and none of us should diminish that. We must also recognise that just as continuing activity by republican paramilitaries is the major factor, in my view, undermining the capacity to continue with power sharing in Northern Ireland, in turn loyalist paramilitary activity is not only murderous in its intent but becomes an excuse and a reason for the republicans not to reduce their level of activity, and an obstacle to their doing so.
    Finally, we should recognise that everyone should be seen to be committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means in deeds as well as in words and that, as I have said so often in the House, the question of activity goes well beyond a ceasefire. If people are suspected of preparing and maintaining a capability to break the ceasefire in future, that will, and has, undermined the trust of the other parties to power sharing. Unless those issues are addressed in a definitive fashion, all of us who are partners to the agreement and partners in shaping a new Northern Ireland will ultimately fail. I hope that all of us, including the leadership of republicanism, will reflect on that point.
    Lembit Öpik: Given that paragraph 8 of the validation, implementation and review section of the agreement says that
    "the two Governments and the parties in the Assembly will convene a conference four years after the agreement comes into effect, to review and report on its operation",
    do the Government intend to carry out such a review and, if so, when?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, we intend to carry out that particular review, but I am tempted to say it will be after we carry out all the other reviews that are now stacking up for us. I think that the time scale that the parties envisaged for that review—this is not definitive—was at the end of next year. However, we now have a legal duty upon us as a consequence of suspension to carry out a review under the Northern Ireland Act 2000. I have already talked to a number of the parties, in various capacities, about that. Yesterday, I talked to our colleagues in the Irish Government and, next week, I will have meetings with all the parties—and not just the pro—agreement

    259
    parties—represented in the Assembly to fulfil the beginnings of the obligations placed upon us to have such a review subsequent to suspension.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend has taken a difficult and, in many ways, a very courageous decision. Will he assure the House that, in his pursuit of following up the Good Friday agreement, there will be no let up on those matters concerning human rights, equality between the communities, and pushing forward those concepts and ideas? Will he also say when we will see legislation arising out of agreements that were made with some people at Weston Park?
    Dr. Reid: We intend to continue with all aspects of the agreement, including those aspects that we have put into the public domain over the past 18 months. On human rights and equality. there is no question of this Government or—as far as I am aware—any party in Northern Ireland wanting us to go back to a stage before equality or human rights were enshrined. I merely say to my hon. Friend that, although it is only one aspect of the agreement, devolved power sharing and the capacity of the people of Northern Ireland together to shape their future is, in my view, a vital part. Unless we can overcome the obstacles to achieving that—the real choice facing people is between democracy and violence—we will never fulfil the agreement in full. Much emphasis must be placed on that, and I and my colleagues on the Front Bench will certainly do that. I am sure that the other parties and the Irish Government will also do that over the coming weeks so that we can achieve our aim.
    Mr. Quentin DaviesMay I offer our warm congratulations to the Police Service of Northern Ireland on discovering the major loyalist arms cache?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from us that the Prime Minister's new tone on Northern Ireland in last week's speech in Belfast is very welcome'? The Prime Minister was right to state that there is a fork in the road and that there is a choice for the parties to the agreement between implementing its obligations and breaching it. Even if we had to wait four and a half years for those words from the Prime Minister, it is good to hear them so clearly now. Does the Secretary of State accept that if the Government sustain this new line not merely in rhetoric but in action, and if there is a definitive end to the disastrous policy of turning a blind eye and making unilateral concessions. the Government will henceforth enjoy our support?
    Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I am sure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister will be fortified by his support.
    Let me repeat what I have often said in the House. There has been no turning of a blind eye by either the politicians in Northern Ireland or the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They have conducted themselves in the most appropriate fashion in the most difficult circumstances. If the police are now having more success as a result of the application that they have applied to unearthing crime and violence and to arresting and
    260
    charging people, it is a result of their good and continuing work; it is not because they have changed their approach.
    Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to avoid his embarrassment and that of the Government by diverting attention from what I said. The police have done an excellent job. They uncovered some extraordinary things in Stormont and the Northern Ireland Office, and also with the break-in at Castlereagh. The Americans did some tremendous police work in Florida and we know about events in Columbia. It was those events to which the Government turned a blind eye.
    However, I want to look forward. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the only possible viable solution in Northern Ireland must be comprehensive and global? Does he further accept—if only in the light of events, not because we have been saying so for many months—that the principles that we have been urging on the Government, of linkage, multilaterality, sanctions for non-compliance, balance and, indeed, timetables for implementation, must be an essential part of a settlement and his negotiations from now on?
    Dr. Reid: I was discourteous in omitting a welcome to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) to the Front Bench. I also welcome what I take to be an obfuscated restoration of bipartisanship—if not hyper-multilateralism—to the problems that we face. I understood the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) to say that everything is linked to everything else. He is certainly accurate in that.

    Forensic Centre
    Rev Martin Smyth: What plans he has to build a new forensic centre. [73999]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): We are committed to providing alternative accommodation for the Forensic Science Agency and have accepted the recommendation in the criminal justice review that new dedicated accommodation would be desirable. The Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland. with the Department, is in the process of engaging consultancy advice to take forward a project to meet its long-term accommodation needs.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: May I welcome the Under-Secretary's two new colleagues to the Front Bench, although I am sure that we all wish them a short stay in the Province?
    I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking a positive step forward after the 10 years or so since the premises were demolished. Does he agree that the need for the Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland is as vital as ever? I pay tribute to its work and remind him that staff cuts have left the service short-handed in light of the new bombing campaigns.
    Mr. Browne: On behalf of my new colleagues, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. They share his hope that devolution is restored to Northern Ireland sooner rather than later.

    261
    The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the significant contribution that the Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland has made to the investigation of crime. In many respects, it is a world leader. The service has put up with unsuitable accommodation for too long. It is fair to point out that it provides services for both prosecution and defence. It is seen to be independent of both, and its standing nationally and internationally has never been higher.

    Peace Process
    Dr. Nick Palmer: If he will make a statement on progress with the peace process. [74000]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): There is at present in Northern Ireland a lack of confidence that all parties to the Belfast agreement will fulfil their obligations under it, especially the commitment to follow exclusively peaceful means. That has led to the suspension of devolved government, which I hope will be short lived. The peace process and the agreement remain, in my view, fundamentally sound, and the only way forward for Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Palmer: Following on from some of the Secretary of State's previous replies, does he agree that in view of the unfortunate events and the blizzard of hostile comments by motivated politicians, the surprising thing is that there is still solid support for the peace process, and that as long as the police continue to find illegal arms, as they so successfully did yesterday, people would be horrified if the interruption to the Assembly were to lead to an end to the peace process?
    Dr. Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend about the success of the police, not only yesterday but over the past few weeks. As I said, they are to be congratulated on that. On the devolved Assembly, it is my sincere wish that the suspension should be very short. I thank hon. Members for congratulating and welcoming my Ministers; I hope that theirs is a short term of office. I see that one of them has been moved already; his office was even more short lived than he anticipated—welcome to Northern Ireland.
    Lady Hermon: I understand that considerable progress has been made towards announcing the appointment of the ceasefire monitor, who will of course play a key role in the peace process. When does the Secretary of State intend to announce that appointment?
    Dr. Reid: Over the past couple of weeks we have been somewhat diverted from some of the issues on the agenda. If anything, on that matter, events have moved on even further, so I am sure that it will be considered, not least in our meetings with political parties next week and subsequently.
    Mr. John Taylor: Will the Secretary of State answer the question asked by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)? When will he finally get round to appointing the independent monitor of violence?
    Dr. Reid: I repeat my welcome to the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. I thought that I had answered the hon. Lady's question. There are many issues to be considered and that is one of them. Events have moved on, and we have been somewhat busy over the past week trying to consult Ministers from Northern Ireland, including not least the First and Deputy First Ministers, and our colleagues in the Irish Government, to try to find a way forward on the governance of Ireland, on the implementation of the agreement and on breaking the impasse.
    What is central to the question, and why I have no doubt that it will be raised again, is that we cannot sustain a level of trust sufficient to have a devolved power-sharing Government in Northern Ireland if some of the parties to it appear to be involved in criminal or violent activity. There is no question that this issue, the crossroads issue, will fall off the agenda.

    Fireworks
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: What restrictions the Government are placing on the purchase, possession, sale and use of fireworks in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [74001]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): Additional controls were, regrettably, required in Northern Ireland because of the widespread misuse of fireworks generally, throughout the community and particularly against the security forces in public order situations. The regulations, which came into effect on 6 May 2002, require a licence for the possession, sale, acquisition, handling or use of all fireworks except those suitable for indoor use.
    Mr. Gardiner: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Has there been a reduction in using fireworks for making pipe bombs, which were extensively used against the security forces in the past? Has the change in the regulations meant a decrease in youth violence involving fireworks and damage to property? Does she believe that the mainland could learn from her piloting work?
    Jane Kennedy: The misuse of fireworks to which my hon. Friend alludes is precisely why I introduced the regulations, albeit reluctantly. It is early days, but the signs are encouraging. Last week, the Derry Journal reported that local police said that, from their point of view, the new regulations have had a good effect. I intend to review and monitor the position in Northern Ireland, especially over halloween, and to learn from the experiences of both the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the ordinary folk in the community, who made such an issue of the matter last year.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 October.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings today.
    Dr. Naysmith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Fire Brigades Union and the firefighters have a good case for a substantial increase in remuneration, but that they are currently pursuing the wrong tactics? Does he further agree that the sooner the employers and the union get together in meaningful negotiations, the better it will be for everyone?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps I should say at the outset that no one wants the dispute, and that we shall do all we can to avoid a dispute that would be damaging for obvious reasons. However, there are two difficulties. The first is a pay demand of 40 per cent., to which no Government could yield. Secondly, inasmuch as the firefighters want a new formula, for which we understand the reasons, it would be best for them to co-operate with the independent review, which can provide such a formula. If they co-operate with the review, I am sure that we can resolve the matter satisfactorily. Those with the interests of the firefighting service at heart, the public and the Government want that.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I agree with the Prime Minister that there is no reason for strike action. Will he confirm that the safety of the general public is more important than the sanctity of a picket line? Will he give troops access to the most modern firefighting equipment if the strike goes ahead?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that public safety is the most important factor. There are practical issues such as training to consider, but we must also make a judgment. The dispute is not under way yet and we are doing what we can to resolve it. It is sensible to do what we can to try to calm matters and get the firefighters' union to understand that the way forward is to participate in the review, submit evidence to it and get the matter settled. We do not rule out anything to protect the public. However, at this juncture, we believe that allowing military personnel to operate the appliances that they have is the best way in which to proceed. We keep that judgment under constant review, but if we were to follow another path at this stage, we would probably exacerbate rather than resolve the dispute.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I hear what the Prime Minister says. I suspect that he would like to re-examine the comments that the Deputy Prime Minister made yesterday. Speaking about the practicalities, he said that it would take three months to train soldiers to use the equipment. That comment led me to ring the Retained Firefighters Union this morning. [Interruption.] Its members' sympathies may lie in the wrong place, but they told me that, in training to cope with emergencies, learning to drive a modern firefighting engine would take five days; learning the basics of specialist cutting equipment would take seven days; and learning to use breathing equipment would take 10 days. So, by the union's estimate, the Government would be able to put in place teams of troops trained to use this equipment not in 12 week—as the Deputy Prime Minister said—
    264
    but in two weeks. Perhaps I can ask the Prime Minister once again what his plan is. Has he made contingency plans to give the troops access to that equipment?
    The Prime Minister: On the training times, our best information is that the full range of training necessary would indeed take 12 weeks, as the Deputy Prime Minister said. There are, however, other things—to do with driving the appliances, for example—that would take a shorter time. The judgment that we have to make at the moment is whether it would be sensible for us to have troops going into the fire stations, taking out the fire appliances in circumstances in which the firefighters would not be co-operating, then returning them. That might simply inflame the dispute rather than cooling it down and ensuring that we are able to get it resolved satisfactorily. Having said all that, however, we are keeping the matter under review because the safety of the public must come first. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands that, in doing this, the best thing that we could possibly do is to try to avoid the dispute by ensuring that everyone comes behind the independent review. So we are keeping all those options under review, but I hope that he will agree that, at the present time, what we are doing is probably the best way of ensuring that we actually resolve this.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: It is absolutely right to let all those who are likely to be engaged in the dispute know exactly what the Government are prepared to do. That means that if the Deputy Prime Minister is using a set of training figures that is not correct, it will mislead all those who are wondering what might happen. It is worth remembering that, when the Green Goddesses were last used, they were only 20 years old, yet two soldiers died driving them and 325 service men were injured fighting fires with that equipment. Today, that equipment is 50 years out of date. The job of the Government is surely to take all necessary steps to safeguard the public, regardless of the sensibilities of a striking union. I ask the Prime Minister simply this: should not he now send the very clear signal to that union that, if its members go on strike, the Government are likely to want to use the equipment that is sitting idle in the fire stations? Will he now say that that is the case?
    The Prime Minister: First, the equipment is not sitting idle in the fire stations; it is being used by the firefighters. I would simply point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is important that we do everything that we possibly can to make the right preparations. This is not just a question of the Green Goddesses; it is also a question of breathing apparatus—there are about 300 teams trained to use that—and the use of cutting machinery, for which there is special training. We are doing every single thing that we can to make proper contingency plans, but we take the view that, at this stage, forcibly to go in, take the fire tenders out of the fire stations and do the work that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting would exacerbate and inflame the dispute, rather than get it resolved. I hope that that is not what he wishes.
    I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman thinks there could be any doubt about the signal that we are sending to the firefighters. We are sending a very clear signal. We understand the issues that they have around

    265
    the new pay formula, but there is a simple way of avoiding this dispute. There is an independent review into the pay formula: co-operate with the review; and realise that no Government could accede to a 40 per cent. wage claim—that simply is not on. If the firefighters do that and present their evidence, it can be looked at by the independent review and adjudicated on, and we can get on with running the fire service properly.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The issue is not whether the Government disagree with the pay dispute. We accept and agree with that. The issue is whether they are now engaged in a dispute about which they are not sending clear signals. The reality is that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister have both said that the problem about using modern fire appliances is to do with whether there are practicalities involved in training. The Retained Firefighters Union has said that that is not the case. So why cannot the Prime Minister be absolutely clear about this? If it comes to the question of whether he will order the troops to cross the picket line, the answer must surely be that he will, to safeguard the public.
    The Prime Minister: There must be no question of any doctrine or ideology preventing us from protecting the public. Of course that is right.
    Let me deal with the two issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman. There are real issues in respect of training—practical issues, which the Deputy Prime Minister rightly raised yesterday. As for whether we should send troops into the fire stations before the dispute has begun, at the very moment when we are trying to resolve it—
    Mr. Duncan Smith: No.
    The Prime Minister: That is, actually, precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to do—and it would end up simply exacerbating and inflaming the dispute at the very moment when we are trying to settle it. I hope very much that the Conservative party is not going to sit there trying opportunistically to exploit the situation, rather than ensuring that it is dealt with properly.
    I say that in particular because, while the right hon. Gentleman talks of our not sending a clear signal to the firefighters, I could not be clearer. We cannot support the 40 per cent. claim. We believe it is important that the firefighters get behind the pay formula that will be worked out in an independent review, but no Government could agree to a pay award that would effectively cause chaos right across the public sector. It would mean, simply, not just that we would not be able to put into public services the extra spending that we want to put in, but that people's mortgages and interest rates would go up.
    Ms Meg Munn: What impact are parenting orders having on the reoffending behaviour of young people? [Interruption.]
    Hon. Members: Read it again!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Lady read it again?
    Ms Munn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I ask my right hon. Friend what impact parenting orders are having on reducing the reoffending behaviour of young people?
    The Prime Minister: I thought for a moment that it was a question about antisocial behaviour orders. I was about to suggest that they might be applied to the Conservative party.
    Parenting orders are having an impact, but there is a problem: the court procedures required to obtain such orders are not as strong or as tight as we need them to he. That is one of the things we are looking at now in the context of the Queen's Speech and forthcoming legislation. It is important for us to ensure that parents accept their responsibilities, and in particular that they make sure that their children turn up at school on time.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that it is precisely because all people in this country recognise the vital role played by firefighters that all people, equally, find it unbelievable that the leadership of the Fire Brigades Union think a 40 per cent. wage increase could possibly be acceptable, and indeed that strike action could in any way be allowable at this stage? Given that the sensible way forward is the FBU leadership's contributing to the Bain review, does the Prime Minister agree that the Government must also show intent to bring forward the timetable for the review so that it can report sooner rather than later?
    The Prime Minister: The point about whether we can bring forward the review, which I think people made yesterday as well, is perfectly reasonable. Obviously in the end it is for Sir George Bain to decide how he conducts the review. The problem at the moment is that the firefighters will not co-operate with it in any shape or form. That means that they will not give evidence to it. They have instructed their members in the fire stations not to talk to Sir George Bain when he is conducting his review, and for that reason it is hard for him to complete it within the time scale that he would ideally want.
    Obviously this is something that we keep under discussion. If it were possible to secure a change of attitude on the part of the firefighters' leadership and they could co-operate with the review, I have no doubt that we could ask Sir George to bring it forward. However, another point needs to be made. Right from the beginning, the employers have also told the firefighters that any award under the review would be backdated. Because of that, they are fully protected in relation to pay.
    Mr. Kennedy: As a follow-on to the Prime Minister's latter remarks, does he agree that the pressure on the leadership of the Fire Brigades Union to allow its members to participate more fully—or indeed, participate at all—in the Bain independent inquiry would be increased constructively if he were able to discount some of yesterday's press reports that whatever

    267
    the outcome of the Bain findings, the Chancellor will not make any additional sums available for possible funding of implications that may follow?
    The Prime Minister: The Chancellor is not saying that. We have set up an independent review. It is important that everyone cooperate with it and we shall consider its outcome carefully and I have no doubt sympathetically, but of course it has to be done within the Government's overall spending limits. Another issue is the need to make sure that, if there is a new pay formula, it deals not only with pay, but with all the other issues. There are many issues involving the modernisation of the service, modernisation of the terms and conditions of employment, how we recruit and retain firefighters and how they cooperate with other agencies, particularly at the scene of an accident or fire. So there is a whole range of considerations. Of course we will consider carefully the outcome of the Bain review, but it has to be done, as one would expect the Chancellor to say, within the overall spending limit set by the Government.
    Mr. Roger Berry: Will my right hon. Friend join me, and I hope all hon. Members, in welcoming the lobby of Parliament today by the Mental Health Alliance, which represents 50 organisations of mental health service users, providers, carers and professional organisations? Will he undertake to give careful consideration to the serious concerns that they have expressed about certain parts of the draft Mental Health Bill?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely because we decided to introduce a draft Bill that we are able to consider the consultations. I think from memory that just under 2,000 different consultations have been received. I understand the concerns expressed by members of the Mental Health Alliance. It is important that they realise that there is public pressure in a different direction. The public worry that some people, who tragically have a severe mental disorder, can pose a danger and threat to the public, so we need to strike a balance. Precisely because we realise that some of these issues are difficult, we decided to produce a draft Bill and that allows us to take account of these consultations before we publish the actual Bill that we will legislate.
    Mr. Michael Jack: In May, the Pensions Minister said that policies which were having the effect of raising levels of private saving were having a positive effect. Can the Prime Minister therefore explain why on Monday this week the Office for National Statistics identified that the figure for pension savings was some £43 billion lower than the figure that Ministers were using? What does he intend to do about that? Will he please ask the Chancellor to stop frightening those who are saving for their pensions with threats of higher taxes?
    The Prime Minister: I do not believe that the Chancellor has done any such thing, but as the right hon. Gentleman will see from the ONS press release, the change was in the calculation of the amount of money
    268
    that is available for pensions, not in the amount that people are saving. Indeed, that amount is going up, not down.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the Prime Minister join me in recognising the potential contribution of Wales to the creative industries and welcoming the decision of the National Assembly of Wales to give the go-ahead for the largest film and stage studio in Europe, near Llanilud? To paraphrase "Under Milk Wood": Praise the Lord, we are a creative nation.
    The Prime Minister: All that and beating Italy too. Yes of course I pay tribute to the proposals. This particular project is immensely exciting, not just for Wales, but for the whole United Kingdom and I congratulate the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Executive on putting it together. I have no doubt that the spin-off in terms of jobs and industry will be enormous, so congratulations all round.
    Andrew George: If the Prime Minister agrees that, to combat international terrorism, the United Kingdom should support actions that make it less likely rather than more likely, will he tell the House which he thinks would command more support at home and at the UN; the unilateral option of President Bush or the multilateral approach of President Chirac?
    The Prime Minister: Since we are all trying to work on a UN resolution, it is important to recognise that, obviously, the best approach is to work through the UN and get multilateral action to make sure that Saddam knows very clearly that he must disarm his weapons of mass destruction and that if he does not, severe consequences—including, if necessary, military action—will follow. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts this fact also: that, in today's world—particularly in light of the news that has come out of North Korea in the past week—it is important that we work on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, that we are not complacent about it and that we recognise that we and the Americans are right to raise the issue. We need the broadest possible basis of action; let that happen through the UN but let the UN be the way of dealing with it.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: The Prime Minister and the Government are taking commendable initiatives to increase support to victims and witnesses of crime. However, is my right hon. Friend aware of the National Audit Office report, published today, that indicates that referral rates to Victim Support by police forces vary alarmingly in different parts of the country? I know from cases that I have taken up in Blackpool how vulnerable and isolated victims can feel. Will my right hon. Friend take action on the report to make sure that all police forces countrywide are equally aware of the benefits of Victim Support?
    The Prime Minister: We will certainly work with Victim Support to do that. As my hon. Friend may know, we have doubled the funding for Victim Support, which now helps about 1.5 million victims and witnesses

    269
    every year. Victim Support has recruited 2,500 new volunteers in the past 18 months, but we need to make sure that the system is used in the same way throughout the country. That is precisely the point that has been raised and that is what we are working on now.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Two years ago the Prime Minister said:
    "Clinical need is supposed to determine whether people are treated or not. If that is not happening, that is wrong."
    Yesterday, Mr. Bircher, a senior orthopaedic surgeon, said:
    "Orders are that we must get our waiting lists down, so we must stop treating badly injured patients."
    Is Mr. Bircher's experience an isolated case, or does the Prime Minister think that the problem is caused by his Government's targets?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly stand by what I said about the importance of clinical need. I gather that the allegations made by Mr. Bircher are being investigated by the local trust, as is entirely right. Once the trust has investigated, it will see whether the allegations are correct or not. Certainly it is the case that clinical need should come first.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: It is not an isolated case. The National Audit Office, in its recent report, said that over half of all consultants said that clinical priorities were taking second place to Government targets. The British Medical Association said yesterday that targets
    "threaten the survival of patients with complex, life threatening injuries."
    Is the Prime Minister now saying that this is just an isolated case, or is it that all those doctors, including the BMA, are completely wrong? Should not he take action to get the administrators and Government Ministers out of the process, stop setting those targets and let doctors take over again?
    The Prime Minister: I find that an absolutely extraordinary thing to say. Obviously, the allegations have to be investigated and, of course, it is right that clinical need comes first. But what the right hon. Gentleman said at the end is extraordinary: that we should scrap any of the waiting list and waiting time targets. He shakes his head, but that is what he just said. [Interruption.] I heard him say it. I know he is a quiet man, but I heard that. Let me make this point to him. Of course we must make sure that clinical need comes first, but I have no intention of getting rid of targets to reduce waiting times and waiting lists because they are important for patients. The vast majority of people, including many who are watching now, will have received excellent service from the NHS and, incidentally, they know perfectly well that the reason why the Tories run down the NHS is that they are against the NHS. [Interruption.] Absolutely. However the problem that many people face is one of access into the health service. They wait too long for their operation, they wait too long to see their GP, and they wait too long in accident and emergency. Setting targets—[Interruption.] Waiting lists and waiting times are down since we came into office. The reason for that is precisely that we are putting in money and changing
    270
    the system. If the right hon. Gentleman is now saying not merely that he is against the money going into the health service—that we knew—but against the reform of the national health service, I suggest that he gets quieter still. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Mark Todd.
    Mr. Mark Todd: If I may, I shall speak up first on behalf of my constituents. From my own experience, some of the worst examples of anti-social behaviour are found among tenants—[Interruption.] Indeed, such examples are perhaps found among Opposition Members, as well as among tenants of private landlords. Such behaviour is often tolerated, at the very least, by those landlords, in defiance of their own tenancy agreements. We have been encouraged by many of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend, and by the announcements on housing benefit reform and a possible change of tack that would strengthen the controls. Will he enlighten us further?
    The Prime Minister: What I can say is that, in terms of parenting orders, just over 2,000 have been made. It is fair to say that anti-social behaviour orders had a slow start, but about 700 of them have now been granted. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), the problem with both orders is that, often, the bureaucracy needed to achieve them is too cumbersome. We are looking at how to make sure that we tighten that up, and to ensure that they are easier to implement. For many people in this country, the problems of anti-social behaviour are right at the top of their agenda. They recognise that what we need are simple and flexible ways of making sure that, in a community, the vast majority of responsible, law-abiding people are the ones in control.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: Can the Prime Minister tell the House if he still believes that the national Fire Brigades Union is "Scargillite"? How exactly is he going to stamp on it?
    The Prime Minister: As I said a moment or two ago, I think that the strike—in the words used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) yesterday—is "simply indefensible" for the reasons that I have given. Frankly, I had very much hoped that the Conservatives would have the honesty and sense to stand up and say that they agree with the Government, because actually, they do.

    Coalfield Communities
    John Mann: What plans he has to raise aspirations in coalfield communities.
    The Prime Minister: We are firmly committed to regeneration in coalfield communities through education and job creation. We have already made substantial provision to support this commitment: £385 million for English Partnerships' national coalfield programme, more than £90 million in funding for the coalfields regeneration trust, and £10 million for

    271
    the coalfield enterprise fund. I hope that this is an indication of how we desire to make the investment necessary to raise aspirations in coalfield communities.
    John Mann: At the public inquiry into heroin that I conducted recently, former miners were in tears when they talked about the lives of their sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters being destroyed by heroin addiction. Will the Prime Minister reflect on the recommendations for action in the report that I have delivered to him? Will he note that, if drug courts are to be introduced, my community wants to be one of the first to have them?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for many hon. Members from up and down the country. I have received his report, and I will study it carefully and come back to him with some decisions and recommendations on it. The point that he makes is right. What we are trying to do—obviously, this involves the up-coming criminal justice legislation—is to make sure that we have proper drug treatment in local communities, and proper orders that the courts can give. An example is the drug treatment and testing orders, which are being very successfully implemented in many parts of the country. We must also make sure that we do not have a situation in which people who genuinely want help to get off their drug addiction do not have the chance to do so. We are increasing investment in drug abuse programmes, and in addition, we need to use the measures outlined in the proceeds of crime legislation to try to attack the assets of the drug dealers who have caused such misery in our local communities. However, I hear what my hon. Friend says about drug courts, and I shall certainly bear it in mind.

    Engagements
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Does the Prime Minister accept that Sinn Fein's recent actions, including referring to him as "the naïve idiot", have not only let him down and undermined his quest for peace, but betrayed all the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom? Will he therefore ensure that Sinn
    272
    Fein MPs cannot use offices in the House of Commons for their plotting, nor draw public money, through parliamentary allowances, that may later be used for terrorist activity?
    The Prime Minister: First, I understand that office facilities are a matter for the House, not me. [Interruption.] I can only imagine what Opposition Members would say if I said that they were a matter for me.
    I said what I had to say about Sinn Fein last week, but I have something to say to the Conservatives on the matter. When we were in opposition, we worked really hard with the then Conservative Government on a bipartisan approach. I think that it is a shame that we no longer have such an approach. If the Opposition are worried about the Government having dealings with so-called terrorists or with Sinn Fein, there is something of which I want to remind them. I remember this, but I do not know whether the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) was in the House at the time. The then Conservative Government were engaged in secret talks with the IRA when an IRA bombing campaign was going on. That Government told the House that they were not involved in those talks, but later had to admit that they were.
    The then Opposition took the view—and John Smith was the leader of the Labour party at the time—that, even though the Government had misled the House, such difficulties were likely to exist in those circumstances. We believed that it was worth trying to overcome the situation that prevailed and get to a more peaceful future.
    There are difficult matters in all such cases, but the hon. Member for Blaby should look at what has happened in most places in Northern Ireland over the past five years. There are no troop movements in two thirds of Northern Ireland, and in the summer people can sit out in the centre of the city of Belfast in a way that they never could before. The hon. Gentleman should consider the number of people who have been killed, the general standard of life and of jobs and investment in Northern Ireland. Even with all the difficulties, the peace process has been worth it. I shall continue with it if I can.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to register the intense frustration felt by my Northern Ireland colleagues at the perceived filibustering during Northern Ireland Question Time. The Secretary of State and some of the other Northern Ireland Office Ministers gave long-winded responses and answers to questions. I think that the House noted your own frustration today, Mr. Speaker. Discussion of Question 1 went on until after 2.50 pm, and we only got as far as Question 4. In Prime Minister's questions, we got to Question 8.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to register again your disapproval of long-winded answers, and to encourage those responding to questions to enable us to challenge the Northern Ireland team properly.
Mr. Speaker: I would not use the term "long-winded", but some of the questions were rather long, as were some of the answers. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that, at Northern Ireland Question Time, not only do I have to worry about the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, but I also have to accommodate two parties from Ulster on one side of the House and one party on the other. That requires me to give a longer run to some questions, which can have an impact on how far down the Order Paper we get.
However, the point of order gives me the opportunity to say that the shorter the questions are, the shorter the replies will be.
Mr. David Trimble: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Office have grown considerably, and the growth in the size of the ministerial teams shows that Ministers are responsible for a hugely increased range of matters. I appreciate the point that you made, Mr. Speaker, about the number of parties in Northern Ireland and about how some questions will run for a certain amount of time. However, given the necessity that we deal with as many questions as possible, is not there now an overwhelming case for a significant increase in the amount of time available for Northern Ireland questions? Would not it be desirable, as we move into a new Session, to make a very significant change in that respect?
Mr. Speaker: I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, but he will realise that these matters are not within my powers. I suggest that he approach the Leader of the House.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that we now have five Northern Ireland Ministers on the Treasury Bench, all of them doing important jobs and with important responsibilities? However, given that under present arrangements it is almost impractical to expect that they will get a chance to answer even one question on their various areas of responsibility, may I reinforce the point been made by the First Minister?
Mr. Speaker: I can only make the same suggestion. The hon. Gentleman may wish to take the matter up with the Leader of the House.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have said that I am more than happy that discussions on these matters take place through the usual channels. I would, however, like to make two points that were mistaken in the premise put forward by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). First, Northern Ireland Question Time was reduced to half an hour before devolution when there were the same number of Ministers on the Front Bench. Secondly, although of course I am open to discussion, as we always are, on bringing scrutiny to bear on these matters, we must get a balance between the need for scrutiny and the need not to create a backlog in the legislation that has previously been put through the Assembly. Much of it has already been discussed; it is very important for the good governance of Northern Ireland and the benefit of the people there.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is on a different matter. Tomorrow's Order Paper, as you are well aware, contains the continuation of the debate on local government finance formula grant. Bearing in mind that it is a continuation, Mr. Speaker, can you confirm that there will be no opening speeches from the Front Benches but that the maximum time will be given to the very large demand for Back-Bench speeches in that important debate, and that the Minister will only wind up the debate?
Mr. Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman has said, tomorrow's debate is billed as a continuation debate. Effectively, therefore, the opening speeches have been made. I intend to call the Minister to launch the debate, but I expect him to confine his remarks to no more than two sentences.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you clarify something? When the debate came to a premature end last week, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was speaking. Do you intend to call him to continue his speech?
Mr. Speaker: The Speaker decides these matters. The Minister will say a few words and then I will decide who will be called next.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had notification of a statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), on the proposals of the advisory committee to the European Commission for a complete closure next year of the White fishery in the North sea and off the west of Scotland? As you will understand, thousands of jobs in catching and processing are at stake, and it will affect the economic infrastructure of entire areas. At this time of crisis, it would be of some use to find out whether the Government have a policy on the matter or whether we

275
are merely drifting to disaster. There are plenty of Ministers on the Front Bench—perhaps one of them would at least tell us when we can expect a statement on this vital matter.
Mr. Speaker: So far I have had no approach from a Minister. However, the hon. Gentleman can pursue the matter and I am sure that the Ministers concerned will have heard his remarks or will be able to read them in Hansard.

Waste Management Licences
3.38 pm
Siobhain McDonagh: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision regarding waste management licences.
During the past few weeks I have been carrying out a detailed survey in St. Helier ward in Morden in my constituency. I undertake such surveys as one way, among others, of keeping in touch with my constituents' concerns, and I am pleased to say that I received an excellent response over the telephone, on the doorsteps and from the questionnaires posted back to me. The results show that the two main worries of people in Morden are crime, which was chosen by 31 per cent. of residents, closely followed by environmental and quality-of-life issues, such as graffiti, abandoned cars and fly tipping, which were chosen by 27 per cent. of residents. My constituents' worries are, therefore, crime and environmental crime, and I should be surprised if those worries were not mirrored in the constituency of every hon. Member.
We ignore environmental crime at the peril of our communities. Let us make no mistake: the community that falls into the hands of the graffiti vandal, the car dumper or the fly tipper soon becomes a magnet for antisocial behaviour, including arson and drug and solvent abuse, and the fear of crime is magnified. In short, a good neighbourhood is dragged down and a good community is threatened.
We in the House must take quality-of-life issues much more seriously and must take much more action to fight environmental crime. It is all very well to talk about such issues, but it is time that we actually took some action.
The main aim of my Bill is to secure effective powers for local authorities to do battle with a particular group of environmental criminals—the fly tippers: the cowboy builders who dump rubble in the rear alleys of elderly homeowners; the car wreckers who dump redundant tyres in parks and open spaces; and, worse, the unscrupulous businesses that dump hazardous waste chemicals.
It is bemusing—to say the least—that no council in the country has the power to go to any business or high street shop that is using the public pavement as a dumping ground, to ask to see its waste licence. We should not ignore the fact that those people, who unlawfully deposit waste without a management licence or registered exemption, leach tens of millions of pounds annually from legitimate, regulated businesses, denying people the safe and protected employment conditions offered by legitimate businesses and preventing the controlled and environmentally responsible management of waste. Not only do those cowboys ride roughshod over people such as my constituents in St. Helier, but they leave those people to pick up the massive cost of cleaning up after them—through the council tax.
To give the House some idea of the scale of the problem locally, during the quarter April to June 2001, 4,144 cases of fly tipping were reported in the borough of Merton, some of which took more than four days of council time to clear up, distracting the council's

277
environmental services teams from other activities. If we compare that with the same quarter this year, we see a 6 per cent. increase in fly tipping.
Let us consider the national cost. In December 2001, BBC News reported that, according to its calculations, fly tipping was costing local authorities £100 million per annum. I was shocked to discover that the Environment Agency estimates that the figure could be as high as £150 million a year.
Nor is the problem confined to urban areas—far from it. These days, it seems that where there is a field, there is a fly tip. An independent consultancy, Marcus Hodges Environment Ltd., reported that, in 2002, fly tipping on agricultural land was costing farmers approximately £57 million a year and that, in 2001, 10 National Trust properties in Surrey, not far from my constituency, incurred a cumulative cost of £10,000 to clear fly-tipped waste.
My Bill would amend section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which covers duty of care as respects waste, to allow local councils the authority to demand of right the inspection of trade waste agreements, carriers' disposal notices, receipts and related documents. Local authorities, in their guise as waste collection authorities or principal litter authorities need to be given that right, which Environment Agency officers already exercise, so that smaller businesses and waste carriers can be checked locally to see whether there is any evidence or suspicion of illegal practices.
The extension of that power to local authorities would encourage more productive co-operation between those authorities and the Environment Agency than I understand exists at present. That would provide for more efficient gathering of evidence locally, for the exchange of information and the avoidance of duplication of effort. Indeed, given that the Environment Agency is limited in its ability to be on the ground wherever and whenever fly tipping takes place and that local authorities can be much more responsive, the new arrangement would allow for stronger enforcement of the rules and would, I am sure, result in more successful prosecutions of fly tippers.
Another aspect of the Environmental Protection Act that needs clarification is local authorities' ability to make prosecutions under section 33 of the Act, which covers prohibitions on the unauthorised or harmful depositing, treatment or disposal of waste. I understand that many local authorities are not aware that, although they cannot ask to see licences, they have the power to
278
prosecute and fine for fly tipping. It would therefore be another aim of my Bill to require clear written guidance from the Government to clear up that anomaly and clarify section 33, and to require a clear education programme to ensure that all local authorities and their legal departments have a full understanding of their powers under the Act.
The Environmental Services Association, the trade body of the UK's waste management industry, has made a proposal which I support and which I put forward in this Bill: that the Govt should establish a central fund to help the victims of fly tipping and to improve the quality of data. Government officials would manage the fund and, to apply, each landowner would be required to complete a standard form describing the extent and type of materials fly-tipped. Officials would record each incident and aggregate the data to identify specific fly-tipping hotspots. Resources would then be made available to help compensate the landowner and to try to catch the perpetrators.
I very much welcome the intention of the Environmental Services Association, which wants to set up a fund of £1 billion per annum to provide new resource management facilities, such as composting and materials reclamation facilities. Those will be badly needed if we are to keep pace with the amount of waste that individuals and businesses are producing, and also if we are serious about stepping up our recycling efforts. Thus to keep that ESA investment flowing, one essential requirement is that waste goes where it should go—into the legitimate, regulated waste management facilities, with zero tolerance of fly tipping. In other words, dump the fly tippers. That is one strong reason for increasing the powers of local authorities to deal more efficiently and effectively with fly tippers.
There are many other strong reasons to support this Bill, and for me, the strongest are the concerns of my constituents in Mitcham and Morden.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Siobhain McDonagh, Mr. Tony Banks, Caroline Flint, Laura Moffatt, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Barbara Follett, Margaret Moran, Ms Oona King, Jeff Ennis, Mr. Graham Allen, Martin Linton and Linda Perham.

WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENCES
Siobhain McDonagh accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision regarding waste management licences: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 7 November, and to be printed [Bill 196].
Opposition Day
[19TH ALLOTTED DAY—1ST PART]
Opposition Day

  National Lottery
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.49 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that since its creation in 1994 by the last Conservative Government, the National Lottery has raised over £12 billion for good causes; believes that the principle that Lottery money should not be used to fund projects that are the responsibility of the Government has been undermined by the establishment of the New Opportunities Fund and that this has also significantly reduced the money available for original good causes; further notes that grants made to organisations like the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns and the Communities Empowerment Network have destroyed public trust in the Lottery, with the result that ticket sales are falling rapidly; and calls upon the Government to take urgent action to restore public confidence and to return the Lottery to its original purpose of raising money to support deserving causes that command widespread public support.
  It is a pleasure to find that my first outing in this Chamber in my new brief should be to debate with the Secretary of State an issue that I know both of us believe to be of great importance. In her recent consultation paper, the Secretary of State said that after eight years it was now the right time to review the operation of the national lottery. I agree, although recent events have made the need for that review even more urgent. I hope that this debate will help to inform the consultation on which the Govt are embarked.
  It is worth saying that the national lottery has been a fantastic success. It was created by the last Conservative Government to raise money for good causes, while at the same time providing the enjoyment of a modest flutter with the admittedly small chance of winning a life-changing amount of money.
  Bob Russell: It has been a major success.
  Mr. Whittingdale: It has indeed, despite the fact that the Liberal Democrats voted at every stage against the Bill that introduced it, I believe.
  Mr. George Osborne: On that point, is my hon. Friend aware of any Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament supporting lottery grants in their constituency, having voted against the lottery when it was introduced?
  Mr. Whittingdale: That is an interesting point. Indeed, I look forward to hearing the Liberal Democrat spokesman try to defend that very point later in the debate.
  To get back to its success, the national lottery has surpassed all expectations of how much money it might raise. It was originally suggested by the then Home Secretary, Ken Baker, when he proposed the idea that
  "once fully developed, it could raise up to £1 billion for good causes".
  280
  Less than eight years after its establishment, it has already raised over £12 billion.
  Grants awarded by the national lottery are transforming the landscape and have provided a boost to arts, sports and heritage that could never have been achieved from reliance on the taxpayer alone. Some. of the major projects that have been supported by the lottery have been an unqualified success: Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh, the Eden project in Cornwall and the Tate Modern. Others have not been so successful. The millennium dome, which used up £630 million of lottery money, is perhaps a case in point. However. in many ways, it is the thousands of smaller grants that have really made a difference.
  There have been many arguments in the Chamber about whether the distribution of grants has been fair. We may hear them again this afternoon, but every hon. Member will know of organisations and projects in his or her constituency that have benefited from lottery funds. Village halls, sports pitches, museums, galleries and community centres have all been transformed thanks to lottery money. Many will argue over the record of the Conservative Government, but few would deny that one of their lasting achievements was the establishment of a national lottery in the United Kingdom.
  One of the fundamental principles of the lottery from its beginning was that the money raised should be used to finance projects that were unlikely to be regarded as of sufficient priority to get financial support from the taxpayer. Both sides have always accepted the principle of additionality—that lottery money should not be used to fund core spending programmes that should be paid for by the taxpayer. Indeed, in the Government's own White Paper published five years ago, the Prime Minister himself wrote:
  "We don't believe it would be right to use Lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities",
  yet the creation in 1998 of a sixth good cause, the new opportunities fund, was in direct breach of the additionality principle. It was created specifically to fund health, environment and education projects, which traditionally have always been regarded as the responsibility of Government.
  Mr. Colin ChallenDoes not the hon. Gentleman accept that a manifesto commitment should be implemented, that Labour put it to the electorate in 1997 that health would be one of our lottery-funded targets, and that that has produced great improvements and been welcomed by the public?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I heartily disagree with a large part of the Labour party manifesto, including that particular provision. Just because it was in the manifesto does not necessarily make it the right thing to do.
  Claire Ward: The hon. Gentleman forgets a fundamental fact: in a democracy, the people decide. The people very clearly decided that they wanted our manifesto commitments, not the hon. Gentleman's.
  Mr. Whittingdale: In a democracy, it is the Opposition's job to oppose what they think is wrong, which is what we shall continue to do.
  Mr. Chris Bryant (Rhondda): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—we are having such a

  281
  reliable hat trick. Does he accept that, most importantly for constituencies such as mine, the new opportunities fund has been one of few ways to ensure that money is spread more equitably throughout the country?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I accept that a large part of what the new opportunities fund has done is extremely welcome. My point is not that the money should not have been spent, but that lottery money should not have been spent. I shall give one or two examples.
  The new opportunities fund has financed information technology training for teachers and the treatment and prevention of coronary heart disease and cancer. The Prime Minister got up at the Labour party conference to announce that £750 million would be spent on improving sports facilities in schools, but it was only afterwards that we discovered that that money would come from the national lottery via the new opportunities fund. None of those are bad things—they are extremely desirable—but they represent activities that most people would believe are core responsibilities of the Government.
  The new opportunities fund also explicitly breaks the arm's length principle. and I suspect that we may hear quite a lot about that this afternoon. Unlike the other distributing bodies, the new opportunities fund receives direct instructions from Ministers about the projects that it should finance.
  Claire Ward: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the Omnibus survey, which took place in July this year and which indicated that 59 per cent. of the public wanted the national lottery's proceeds to be spent on health and that 53 per cent. wanted the lottery to spend money on education? Does he not believe that that shows that the public want some national lottery funds to be spent on those two areas?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I have a great mistrust of opinion polls, but if people understood that the Government were using national lottery money to pay for projects that would otherwise rightly be paid for out of central Government funds, the hon. Lady might find that those figures would be rather different.
  Gregory Barker: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a scandalously long wait for radiotherapy treatment in my part of East Sussex and Kent? Some women in my constituency have had to wait up to 24 weeks for post-operative radiotherapy care. Much needed linear accelerators are now being bought, but the money is coming from lottery funds via the new opportunities fund, to which he refers. Many of my constituents find it absolutely obscene that such core health facilities are being funded from lottery money.
  Mr. Whittingdale: My hon. Friend cites a very good example, which demonstrates that the Government are completely failing to deliver in the health service-and lottery funds will not bail them out.
  I shall now return to the lottery's original purpose. Perhaps most damaging of all is the impact of the new opportunities fund on the other good causes. When the
  282
  lottery was first set up, each of the original good causes—sport, the arts, heritage, charities and the millennium celebration—took an equal share of the proceeds. However, since the new opportunities fund was created, it has taken a steadily bigger share of the cake. Instead of the 25 per cent. that sports, art, heritage and charity bodies expected to receive when the Millennium Commission was wound up, they now only get 16.7 per cent., but the new opportunities fund receives a third—twice as much as any other cause. That has significantly reduced the money available for the original good causes.
  The community fund's grant income has dropped from £366 million in 1997 to £296 million last year, and it predicts a further fall to £213 million over the next three years. The income of the Arts Council of England has dropped by the same amount, as has that of Sport England. Falling income has meant that many applications for deserving projects now have to be turned down. In the first round of the arts capital programme, £400 million worth of applications were received for just £88 million of available funds. According to Sport England:
  "annual Lottery income has been falling and one of the main reasons for this drop is the creation of the New Opportunities Fund."
  It continues:
  "Any further reduction in Sport England's annual Lottery income could have serious implications for English sport. At a time when many communities recreational deprivation is acute, falling Lottery revenue will mean that a growing number of much-needed projects will not go ahead".
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Would my hon. Friend accept that one way of solving this problem would be to introduce competition and choice into the process, denationalising the monopoly national lottery—as it is at the moment—and allowing rival lotteries to be set up, perhaps by sports organisations or health organisations? Is not that the way forward, rather than the dirigiste approach being adopted by the Government?
  Mr. Whittingdale: There are already possibilities for societies to have their own lotteries. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend's suggestion is a good one, and I hope that it will be considered. There is no doubt that we need to do something to restore public trust in the national lottery, which is the main point that I want to make.
  The good causes are suffering not just because the Government are now siphoning off lottery money to pay for programmes that are core responsibilities and that should be financed by the taxpayer: falling ticket sales mean that they are suffering from a double squeeze. There may be many reasons why ticket sales have declined. It is beyond doubt, however, that one factor is a growing concern that money raised by the lottery is going to support causes that are highly controversial and that do not command public support. Two causes in particular have received considerable publicity in recent weeks.
  The decision by the community fund to award £340,000 to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns should never have been made. Far from being an organisation concerned with the welfare of those seeking asylum, it is a political organisation that

  283
  has called for the overthrow of Britain's asylum laws. I do not usually come to the defence of the Home Secretary, but that organisation's claim that he is "colluding with fascism" is one that most people would find unacceptable, and even I would not go as far as the body's organiser, who has stated that new Labour is "the heart of evil". The organisation will have received £740,000 of public money raised by the lottery once its current grant goes ahead.
  It is hardly surprising that the Home Secretary was on the phone to the Secretary of State three times in one day to protest. We have been told that the subsequent talks between the Department and the community fund were "frosty". Even after the grant was confirmed yesterday, the Secretary of State issued a statement saying that she "still had doubts" about this particular organisation. I suspect that the Home Secretary might have put it a bit more robustly. We are now assured that the organisation will cease its political activities, but it is hard to imagine what else an organisation whose raison d'être is to oppose our asylum laws is likely to do.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that to qualify for community fund funding charities should not have political views? On that basis, organisations based in my constituency, such as Oxfam, would find it very difficult to access lottery funding. Surely recipients of such funding have a right to different views from those of the Government as long as the funding goes to core charitable causes that are separate from those political views.
  Mr. Whittingdale: Of course, many charities have political views, but the core purpose of this particular organisation is to oppose the legislation passed by the House. It is a political organisation, and it is waging a political campaign. Most people would regard such a body as not appropriate to receive funding from the national lottery.
  That is not an isolated example. A few weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills rightly expressed her anger that an appeals panel had overruled a head teacher's decision to exclude two pupils for threatening to kill their teacher. It was revealed shortly afterwards, however, that the Communities Empowerment Network, which had given legal support to the two pupils, had received £200,000 from the community fund. Once again, an organisation that actively campaigns against the actions and policies of Ministers is funded by national lottery grants.
  Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight): Did my hon. Friend hear the Secretary of State on "Newsnight" yesterday busily putting herself at arm's length from the community fund and these nonsensical grants, on the ground that she had to allow the fund to make its own decisions? Did not the Government back the community fund's priorities and appoint most of the people on it who hand the money out?
  Mr. Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—that point is at the core of my argument. Although we support the arm's length principle, he is right to point out that the community fund operates under guidelines set by the Government.
  Mr. Bryant: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that he has not once in his life been lobbied
  284
  by a charity? Is it not true that charities have, at some point, tried to put their arguments extremely forcefully to every one of us in the Chamber and that they are thoroughly involved in the political process? Many Labour Members regularly welcome that.
  Mr. Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman should put his argument to the Government. They have made it plain that they do not agree with the grants that have been made, especially the one to the organisation campaigning against our asylum laws. They have disowned it, so he should direct his comments first to the Secretary of State and to the Home Secretary, who are absolutely right to say that it is not an appropriate body to receive lottery funding.
  Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that the work of the community fund is not valuable; the vast majority of grants that it awards are to organisations that I thoroughly applaud. The community fund's work in supporting local causes, such as carers associations, village halls, community centres and citizens advice bureaux, has done enormous good. Only last month, I was informed that the community fund had awarded £258,000 to the Steeple village hall trust in my constituency. I do not believe that that happened just because I had been appointed to my present position six weeks earlier.
  The majority of the thoroughly deserving causes that have been supported have been eclipsed by a number of awards to politically correct organisations that command little public support. The community fund should, of course, support less popular charitable organisations that find it harder to raise voluntary contributions, but awards to help farmers in Peru to breed meatier guinea pigs for eating, that support the staging of a lesbian and gay pantomime in Manchester or that strengthen the contribution of women to the peace movement in the great lakes region of Africa simply undermine public confidence that the money raised from lottery tickets is used to help the causes that they wish to support.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is precisely because it has come to the public's attention that the lottery is giving money to such disreputable causes that there has been a decline in ticket sales. My newsagent in my constitutuency lost 10 per cent. of sales when the information was revealed. Do not such grants stand in sharp contrast to the lack of support that the lottery gives to many deserving veterans' and ex-service men's organisations that desperately try to help those who risked their lives or suffered for their country? St. Dunstan's is a case in point. It has been refused a £600,000 lottery grant, and the whole country knows what a fantastic job it does for those who were blinded in the service of their country.
  Mr. Whittingdale:My hon. Friend anticipates my remarks. I am not suggesting that the work of some of the organisations that have been offered support is not worthy. However, I think that most people would find it a fairly strange set of priorities to give them money when other organisations that command universal support and are regarded as thoroughly deserving are refused funding.
  Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that it is possible that no group that

  285
  works with refugees and asylum seekers supports Government policy. On that basis, does he argue that none of those organisations should receive lottery funding because of the worry that they might be forced to change their views and agree with the Government to qualify? I hope he agrees that that is not the civil society that we want.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I do not want to go into too much detail on individual applications, but there is a difference between organisations that work to improve people's welfare and those that run political campaigns. The latter group is inappropriate for lottery funding, but no one is saying that organisations dedicated to improving people's welfare do not deserve support.
  The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) goes to the core of the problem. The situation is made worse by the refusal of a large number of applications made by organisations that everyone would agree are deserving. The anger expressed by Simon Weston a few weeks ago about the refusal of applications from service charities, such as the Royal British Legion and St. Dunstan's, is widely shared. In the introduction to the Department's publication "Lottery Funding: The First Seven Years", the Secretary of State wrote:
  "Public confidence in the integrity of the Lottery is the key to its success. It is the knowledge that their money is put to good use which keeps people playing".
  Yet it is precisely that public confidence that has been so badly shaken by the revelations about some of the organisations that benefit from lottery grants.
  Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman says that he supports the arm's-length principle, but the Conservative motion calls for Government intervention. Does he agree that there is a contradiction in those two positions? If so, what would he do to resolve the problem?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no contradiction. I will explain what the Government are responsible for and what they should do. It is not fair to place the blame for the crisis in the lottery on Lady Brittan and the board of the community fund. Although it is correct that the Government do not decide individual applications, they do set the guidelines under which the fund operates. Ministers changed the guidelines in 1999 and the emphasis was shifted. The community fund recently published a new strategic plan, from which it becomes clear that the focus will be on causes that are more politically correct. Ministers have been involved in that decision. Lady Brittan and her colleagues are simply following orders.
  Matthew Green: Was the Daily Mail right to encourage its readers to "vent their justifiable anger" on Lady Brittan? Was it right to give the address of the community fund, to which people sent hate mail?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I have no hesitation in condemning without reservation the letters sent to Lady Brittan. The Daily Mail has made it clear that it, too, condemns the letters, and it has told its readers to write not to Lady Brittan, but to the newspaper. It has since received
  286
  about 40,000 letters. That is a serious indication of the level of public concern. No one would hesitate in condemning racists who send hate mail, but there is genuine public concern, which we need to address to return to the original principles of the lottery.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the changes to ministerial guidelines in 1999 involved the following: that the lottery distributors should take account of the needs of areas of particular social deprivation; that they should pay particular attention to the needs of children and young people; that they should pay attention to the needs of environmental sustainability; and that they should pay attention to the fairness of geographical spread of lottery grants? With which of those changes does he disagree?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I do not disagree with any of those objectives, but the right hon. Gentleman confirms that the community fund operates under ministerial guidance. If we have, as I believe, reached the point at which some of its grants are being given to causes a long way removed from the national lottery's original purpose, it is the responsibility of the Ministers who operate the guidelines to ensure that the community fund concentrates its attention on causes that command widespread public support.
  Mr. Smith: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman misses the point entirely. Ministers do not operate the guidelines but put them in place, and under the legislation they have of necessity to be broad. Our Conservative predecessors established most of the guidelines, and we made the changes that I have just described. It is up to the lottery distributors independently to operate the guidelines. What problem does the hon. Gentleman have with them?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I am saying that because Ministers set the guidelines they have a broad responsibility for the way in which the community fund operates. The degree of public concern is evidence of the widespread view that the community fund is not operating as it should, so Ministers should revisit the guidelines to ensure that the fund returns to supporting causes that command universal support. That is the way to restore public confidence in the national lottery, as hon. Members on both sides of the House wish.
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: I was interested by the contribution of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). Although we want a geographical spread to ensure that every community feels that it has gained something from the national lottery, it is not obvious to me why young people should be singled out for support when a great many deserving old people and military personnel may feel that they should benefit in accordance with the guidelines set by those distributing the funds, not by Ministers. Does my hon. Friend agree?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I do. The community fund might take account of the widespread public view that the lottery has not given sufficient priority to deserving

  287
  causes such as veterans and former military personnel, and Ministers might suggest, in their guidelines, that the fund should focus on those causes in future.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise the fact that he is filling with dismay people in my community who have benefited from the largesse of the community fund? He is right to say that the guidelines are broad and that the operational detail is down to the distributor.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I entirely agree. I have already made it clear that I welcome the vast majority of grants made by the community fund. However, it is necessary to deal with the problem of public perception, and, through issuing guidelines, Ministers have some control over that matter.
  Claire Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Whittingdale: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I should move on.
  The point at issue is what has happened to lottery sales. Having already been in decline, they are now plummeting. In July, it was reported that public disenchantment with the good causes has led to a slump in sales that could lead to proceeds being over £1 billion below forecasts. Sales have fallen by 12 per cent since the peak in 1997–98, just before the Government set up the new opportunities fund. Last weekend, takings hit a record low for a weekend rollover draw. Previously, rollovers could be expected to lead to ticket sales of more than £70 million. On Saturday, the figure was barely over £40 million.
  In July, the Secretary of State announced a review of lottery funding. I welcome her recognition of the fact that action needs to be taken. Some of the suggestions that she has made, such as establishing micro grants to be delivered at local level with the minimum of red tape, are sensible; others, such as the merger of the distributing bodies, are not. The suggestion that purchasers might tick a box to indicate the type of good cause that they want to support also raises serious difficulties. However, nothing in the Secretary of State's consultation paper addresses the real problem. Public confidence in the merits of the good causes has been undermined. People resent the fact that their money is being used to finance projects for which the Government should pay, and that it is being given to organisations that they do not support.
  The Secretary of State must act now to restore public trust. She should issue new guidelines.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: As my hon. Friend said, the Government have commented on micro-grants in local areas. Does he agree that it would be better if the money for the community fund and the new opportunities fund, which accounts for a substantial proportion of good cause funding, were genuinely delegated to local areas? Spending the moneys raised for good causes on local causes that attract local support might restore confidence in the distribution and encourage people to play the lottery.
  Mr. Whittingdale: That is an interesting suggestion. My hon. Friend is right that the priority is restoring
  288
  people's confidence that the money raised through purchasing tickets will go to worthy causes, especially those in local communities that they want to support. If there were a way in which to achieve that without the bureaucracy of ticking boxes, it would be worth examining.
  The priority is to restore public trust. The Secretary of State should issue new guidelines to the community fund to ensure that the charities to which it gives money command widespread public support. She should also stop raiding the till to pay for Government programmes that the Chancellor is unwilling to finance.
  The national lottery has been an enormous success but it is under threat. Unless action is taken quickly, the original good causes, which we all support, will be the losers.
  4.21 pm
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the fact that the Lottery has so far generated over £12 billion for investment in good causes and has brought much needed support for sport, the arts and heritage, charities, and organisations dealing with health, education and the environment; notes that the Lottery has created funds for projects to mark the new millennium; also notes that the typical constituency has received millions of pounds of Lottery funding, often transforming local communities and their economies; welcomes the contribution that Lottery funding has made throughout the United Kingdom; believes that Lottery players can have full confidence in the Lottery and in Lottery fund distribution; and welcomes the current review being undertaken by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that the Lottery continues to make the fullest possible contribution to the nation."
  I welcome the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) to his new position as Front-Bench spokesman. However, I am surprised that the Conservative party has chosen to ask for a debate on the national lottery today. Conservative Members did not ask for such a debate when the Baltic Mill in Gateshead opened to international acclaim, or when the lottery-funded Commonwealth games put Manchester and the United Kingdom on the world map for sporting excellence. They did not request it in March when I announced that £169 million of lottery money would be targeted at the deprived areas that fared least well from the lottery, or in July when I announced the most fundamental review since the lottery's inception.
  Conservative Members chose this week simply because they have read a lot in the papers about a specific grant by the community fund, which is funded by the lottery. That is not profound, but it is a good example of the bandwagon tendency in the Conservative party. It tends to hang around, wait for a passing issue of public anxiety and leap aboard. Conservative Members did not care about the national lottery previously, and they will not in future, once the bandwagon has moved on.
  Perhaps the Conservative party wants to be considered the nice party, but the timing of the debate shows that it is still the nasty party. Moreover, to connoisseurs and historians, it remains the stupid party. Although Conservative Members have called for the

  289
  debate for all the wrong reasons, I am glad that they did so. It gives Members of all parties a chance to condemn the vile campaign of racist hatred and abuse against the chair and staff of the community fund. Human excrement and needles sent through the post, threats of physical violence: all in all, that is the disgusting face of racial thuggery masquerading as concern for the lottery. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman eventually condemned those racist attacks in his opening remarks, and I hope that he and his colleagues will do so without reservation.
  Before moving on, I would like to dwell a little longer on the individual case of the community fund.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Tessa Jowell: No, I want to make a little more progress.
  As the House knows, the community fund yesterday confirmed a grant of £336,000 to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns. The grant will be paid subject to a number of conditions that will address directly the concerns that I and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had about the original grant. The funds will be issued to support individual case work, not doctrinaire campaigning, and they will not be used to fund support for people who are being deported because they have criminal convictions. The chief executive of the community fund made it clear in a television interview last night that the money will not be paid unless those conditions are met.
  Mr. Turner: The right hon. Lady is reading her speech very well, but she seems to have ignored the point made by the representative of that organisation—on the television programme on which she herself appeared last night—who said that the money was very welcome because it would pay salaries this month. What control is there over the payment of those salaries to those people this month?
  Tessa Jowell: Responsibility for ensuring the proper spending of this grant within the terms under which it has been awarded now rests with the community fund. That is one of the many illustrations of the arm's-length principle to which the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford referred, and which the House is united in believing to be the proper principle to govern lottery grants and their distribution. A consequence of the arm's-length principle is that I doubt that it would be possible to go through a list of the grants awarded by any of the 15 distributors and find unanimity, either in the House or in our constituencies. By definition, the arm's-length principle means that government and parliamentary lobbying is removed from having a direct influence on grants. This is a cross-party principle, and I believe that there is cross-party consensus that it is right.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Tessa Jowell: No, I want to make a little more progress.
  290
  The community fund has made its decision without interference from me or anyone else, and whatever my own views about this grant, I will defend utterly the fund's right to make its decision without any political interference. As I have already said, there is long-established cross-party support for the principle that lottery funding decisions are taken at arm's length from government, out of the reach of meddling by politicians. That means that lottery distributors will sometimes fund grants about which we are passionately supportive and, at other times, they will fund grants with which we violently disagree.
  Mr. Bellingham: In the light of the fact that there are about seven different funds—or more, if we take into account Scotland and Wales—does the Secretary of State feel that it might make sense to have one overall strategic body in charge of the different funds, the chief executive of which would report directly to her? Would that not make life a bit easier?
  Tessa Jowell: There might well be a case for looking at rationalising the number of lottery distributors, but not in such a way that would put politicians in control of making decisions about how lottery grants are made and what those grants were.
  Having said all that, I now consider this matter closed. We should learn the lessons of this saga, and we should move on. The community fund, too, is learning the lessons. It is producing guidance that was not available to the commissioners when they made that award. It will produce guidance on the nature of political activity engaged in by organisations applying for grants. Those that encourage the breaking of the law will not be eligible for funds. The community fund has also asked the National Audit Office to review its processes in the particular case of the grant to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns. I welcome that; but: there is one thing I do not intend to ask the fund to do.
  Mr. Mark Francois: If the matter is now closed, as the Secretary of State says, does she expect lottery ticket sales to go up again?
  Tessa Jowell: I certainly believe that if we—as a country, as a Government, as a Parliament and as constituency MPs—focus more on the way in which lottery investment has changed and improved people's lives, rather than identifying specific grants that are in themselves bad cases and generalising about the performance of the lottery, lottery sales will increase again and public trust in the lottery will begin to be restored.
  I want to make clear what I will not ask the fund to do. I will not ask it to end its support for the most marginalised groups and individuals in our society. I will not ask it to end the support—5 per cent. of its total allocation—that is given to drug addicts, homeless people, people with AIDS and, yes, asylum seekers and migrants. The lottery gives us a great and unique opportunity to help build a strong civil society—a society in which we can live and thrive; a society that is pluralistic and mostly tolerant. It is in all our interests for marginalised people to find a place in our society,

  291
  and there should be no bar in principle to their eligibility for funds to support and sustain services provided for them.
  Sandra Osborne: My right hon. Friend speaks of marginalised groups. Is she aware that 20 years ago groups such as Women's Aid, which supports abused women and their children, were marginalised? That was not a mainstream issue, as it is now. It was not generally accepted to be a worthwhile cause. Indeed, such groups were regarded by certain people—for instance, some Conservative Members—as nutters. They would certainly not have attracted the support of funding bodies. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important for vulnerable groups to have a voice through the lottery?
  Tessa Jowell: Yes. In their day, the suffragettes were probably regarded as politically correct. Certainly this party, when in opposition, was denigrated for making efforts to get more women into Parliament, in order to secure a Parliament that would be more representative of society as a whole. My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the way in which grants to progressive voluntary organisations can in turn improve the cohesion and solidarity of society more generally.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Secretary of State will have heard my earlier intervention on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). While I do not think anyone present would describe ex-service people as marginalised, will she give us some idea of the Government's view on the eligibility of the many wonderful ex-service organisations, which do such wonderful work? Do the Government really think it fair that they should receive so little of the cake?
  The right hon. Lady is at pains to say where she thinks the priorities should lie. Perhaps she will say something about where she thinks service charities come into the equation, because they do not receive Government money.
  Tessa Jowell: I will come on to that point. It is worth recording that some 200 veterans' organisations have already had £1 million in grant from the community fund. I welcome the fact that Simon Weston is to be invited to meet members of the community fund board in order to discuss with them lottery funding for veterans' groups. At its heart, lottery money exists to make a difference, to add value to other Government and voluntary sector activity and to be a form of venture capital for communities that cannot get funds through more orthodox routes. Sometimes it will take risks, therefore by definition some grants will be more successful and popular than others, but without that element of risk the lottery would simply become an agent of the status quo.
  The lottery must support and reflect society, so it must change as society changes. If we are to retain public confidence it must adapt or die a slow death. To take one example, Gateshead council and the Arts Council took a risk when they commissioned Anthony Gormley, one of our greatest sculptors, to build the Angel of the North. It was ridiculed in the media, but now we have one of the most stunning pieces of public
  292
  art in Europe and the north-east has an icon of its regeneration and its renewed regional pride. Who now would say that the Angel of the North was a mistake? It was a risk, but one that paid off handsomely.
  The previous Administration left us a legacy of a lottery that had the power to transform the country, and it has. It has provided £13 billion to good causes ranging from the Gateshead millennium bridge and the Manchester Commonwealth games to the Northumberland family camping group which gives holidays to low-income families. There are hundreds of other examples in each and every one of our constituencies.
  Ms Candy Atherton: My right hon. Friend has mentioned many examples of the national lottery making a difference to communities. Does she agree that in Cornwall the Eden project has been the very beacon, along with objective 1 status, which has made a tremendous difference to the whole economy of the county?
  Tessa Jowell: I certainly do. My hon. Friend has been an unstinting advocate and supporter of the Eden project which is one of the most popular tourist attractions in the country—another successful investment by the lottery. In addition the lottery has provided more than 320,000 child care places, 156 neighbourhood nurses, 300 healthy living centres, which serve more than 30 per cent. of the population in some of our most deprived communities and more than 570 pieces of cancer diagnostic equipment. Which of those do the Opposition regret the lottery paying for?
  All in all tens of thousands of grants have been made to improve the lives of millions of people.
  Matthew Green: We heard earlier from the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), that one of the Government's priorities for lottery distribution was young people, yet in the west midlands the regional board of the community fund has removed young people from its list of five priorities. Does the Secretary of State have something to say about that? Does she regard it as the correct decision? From what Conservative Members have been saying from a sedentary position about young people, they clearly do not consider them a deserving cause.
  Tessa Jowell: I am surprised that that regional board has taken that decision, because 26 per cent. of the community fund's income goes to children and young people; 12 per cent. goes to older people and their carers and 33 per cent. goes to disabled people.
  Mr. Challen: On Sunday lunchtime, I was at Morley rugby club to present a cheque for £60,000—£30,000 from the lottery and £30,000 from a local company under the Sportsmatch scheme—to help the club go to into schools over the next three years to encourage young people, both boys and girls, to take up rugby.The Opposition might argue that that should be done by schools—that it is a state function. Yet here we have an example of the lottery arrangements that they decry helping young people.
  Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend provides a good example from his constituency, and he has campaigned

  293
  tirelessly for fair shares of lottery allocation to constituencies across the country. His example shows clearly how the lottery can fund sport as a force for good and a force for community cohesion, in his constituency and beyond.
  Seven years ago, Britain was a different kind of country. The fact that we now have one of the most diverse and exciting cultural scenes in Europe is in no small part due to the success of the lottery. It is why the Sydney Olympics gave Britain the biggest medal tally since the 1920s and why every school in the country has books that it could not afford before. It is why—as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) said—the Eden project is revitalising the economy of Cornwall, giving us one of the greatest centres for environmental learning in the world. It is why Childline has a new home, where it can continue to help abused children. It is why Belfast has a new 10,000-seat arena and a science centre that is helping to regenerate the whole city. We are helping unite people through sport, education and having fun. The list is endless but I use it to illustrate a point.
  The Tories gave us a politician-proof lottery, for which they deserve credit. But there were flaws in the original design of the lottery because it was also people-proof. People had, and still have, too little say in the allocation of funds. Under the Tories, the lottery focused on big capital projects, with 97 per cent. of lottery money in 1995–96 spent on such projects. That was reduced to 35 per cent. by February this year. Lottery funds were not spent on the areas that needed them most; the most deprived and needy areas and the places with fewest facilities.
  In 1998, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), re-oriented the lottery towards people and communities.
  Mr. Andy Reed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many local organisations found the process difficult? In my area, the sports clubs that were successful were tennis clubs and others with professional support on their management committees. Those who were most deprived were the clubs that most needed the money. The biggest change that we made was to ensure that there were fair shares. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that that was the right move at the time.
  Tessa Jowell: It was the right move at the time. We have made more progress in getting a proper and equitable distribution of lottery funds, but there is still more to do.
  The lottery does not belong to the Government, to the lottery distributors or to Camelot. It belongs to the people who play the lottery, week in and week out, who play in the hope that their dreams will come true. When we spend lottery proceeds on good causes, we are giving back to the people what is already theirs: their inheritance.
  Miss Kirkbride: It would be a shame if the right hon. Lady finished her remarks without offering some
  294
  clarification. She denigrated the Conservative Government for not giving people enough choice, but surely she approves of the capital project spending for the millennium, to which she has just paid tribute in her speech. Can we make it clear that that was a considerable achievement on the part of the Conservative Government, and not to be denigrated?
  Tessa Jowell: I gave generous praise to the previous Government for their role in starting the lottery, but I also made it clear that the lottery had become too heavily focused on funding capital projects, to the exclusion of the range of community projects and support for voluntary organisations that we have now secured for the lottery.
  Because the lottery belongs to the people of this country we owe it to lottery players—many of whom pay to play it out of their most marginal income—to ensure that their money is used wisely for the benefit of the whole nation. Our 1998 reforms have opened the way to massive investment in communities: £300 million for healthy living centres to tackle the underlying causes of ill-health; £750 million to transform the quality of sports and PE facilities across the country for schools and their communities; £200 million for after-school learning and summer camps; and £160 million for those areas that have done least well from the lottery. I pay tribute to the Members of Parliament from those areas, who have pressed their case so effectively. They made their case well for the good causes in their constituencies, and we listened. Because the lottery is strong, because people can have confidence in it, and because it is flexible and responsive, many good causes in those constituencies will now benefit. All in all, that will give everyone the chance that the lucky take for granted. Such a grant does not replace Government spending—it complements it.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Tessa Jowell: No, I want to make some progress. I do accept that this distinction—the so-called principle of additionality—is a fine one to draw, but draw it we do. If we were not a Government who drew that distinction, people would not have seen, for instance, the investment in the sure start programme that we made in the past four years.
  The review that I established in July will take a long, hard look at the way in which the lottery operates. I expect it to be radical in scope and no-holds-barred in its analysis. It will plot a route map for the lottery in the future. It will look at how to award the lottery licence in the future, and consider whether there are too many distributors. Do they complement each other's work, or do they overlap? It will also consider how to strengthen public understanding of how the lottery works, and what is does with the public's money.
  Some problems we have identified already. We know that it can be too difficult for some groups to apply for grants. The process can be too long and too complex. We know that the poorest areas should receive a greater slice of the cake. The fair shares programme will distribute £169 million to areas of deprivation that have not fared well from the lottery. It is worth recording that coalfield communities, which fared very badly in terms of their share of lottery funding, have seen such income rise by 50 per cent. in the past four years.

  295
  We know that the lottery should be democratised, and that the people who play the lottery should have a greater say in how its proceeds are used. For politicians and bureaucrats, asking people what they want can be a painful business, but we must not be afraid and we must not shy away from asking searching questions.
  Caroline Flint: I intervene because my right hon. Friend mentioned coalmining communities, one of which I represent. Does she agree that delivering the substantial funds created by the lottery is a learning process? The Government have been prepared to listen to the problems faced by some communities, and to make changes when and where necessary. Is that not a strength, rather than a weakness?
  Tessa Jowell: I entirely agree. We must—and will— build on the success of the lottery in changing the landscape of arts and sports funding in Britain. It has put culture and communities back at the heart of our country, and in that way put right the contempt for both expressed over the previous 18 years.
  I am considering a number of ways to bring democracy to the lottery. There are many practical obstacles to overcome. but the principle is secure.
  Mr. Lansley: The Secretary of State has referred to many distinct communities and areas. She has not so far mentioned rural areas, even though such areas often have the fewest facilities. There has been valuable support under the community fund for village halls and clubs, for example, which give a sense of community focus, but that support has diminished. Does the right hon. Lady agree that further resources should be made available for village halls in rural areas from the new opportunities fund?
  Tessa Jowell: I have two points to make in response to that intervention. First, the difficulty of securing lottery funding for village halls is an example of why we must get lottery distributors to work together more closely and collaboratively. Secondly, the fair shares programme has sought to tackle the low level of lottery funding in deprived communities. There will soon be an announcement—if such an announcement has not been made already—that that programme will be extended to rural areas, as should be the case. Each lottery distributor has a responsibility to ensure that the interests of rural communities in pursuit of the equity to which I have referred are properly reflected in the way that lottery funds are distributed.
  I am considering a number of ways in which the practical obstacles to the greater involvement of players in the lottery can be overcome, but the principle is secure. In connection with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the review is important because the lottery must show that it has the capacity to adapt and change in accordance with the circumstances in which it operates.
  The lottery's future depends on public confidence in its operation. That is why it can never stand still. We must prove to people every day that their lottery pounds are well spent. Whether or not we play the national lottery, we all win in some way or other.
  We will maintain the lottery as a powerful force for good in this country. We take very seriously the bond of trust that exists between the lottery and the people of
  296
  this country. Despite the Opposition carping from the sidelines, we will give the lottery back to the people of this country.
  4.53 pm
  Bob Russell: First, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) for having the decency to praise the former right hon. Member for Huntingdon, Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party. It is a long time since a senior Conservative politician has uttered such praise.
  However, I felt that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford was very ill at ease when he made his contribution. He is a decent man, but I draw the House's attention to the 27 words in the Opposition's otherwise excellent motion which I suggest have been inserted to appeal to the racist tendencies of the Daily Mail. The motion, which otherwise would be likely to command respect around the Chamber, is thereby contaminated.
  There is no doubt that the national lottery has been of great benefit to the people of the United Kingdom since it was launched in November 1994, notwithstanding any objections and reservations that may have been expressed at the time by the Methodist tendency of the Liberal Democrat party. Since then, nearly £12 billion has been raised for good causes, and every one of the communities that we represent has been improved as a result. We have new community centres, sports facilities, cultural projects and heritage centres, all as a direct result of lottery funding. For that, we must thank the former right hon. Member for Huntingdon.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Is the Methodist tendency in the hon. Gentleman's party still prevalent, and is that why they are boycotting his speech?
  Bob Russell: I commend the hon. Gentleman for that wise observation. However, I am pleased to say that we command far more respect north of the border than does his party.
  We should be grateful for the support of the people who buy tickets—about 60 per cent. of the population—and to those who have spent lottery grants effectively to the benefit of all our communities. Of course, there have been times when some have said that lottery money has not been spent wisely. For the most part, however, the money raised and spent has been invested in improving the quality of life for just about everyone. This debate should be set against the background of that Major success.
  The thousands of charities and organisations that have applied for, received and spent lottery money since 1994 should be congratulated on what they have done. The volunteers and paid staff of various organisations should be applauded for helping our top athletes achieve the medals to which the Secretary of State has referred, which have made this country so proud. They should be applauded for running our local clubs and improving access and participation for people, whatever their race, age or ability. Let us make no mistake—many of these projects would never have seen the light of day or got off the ground without such funding. In the case of the

  297
  millennium dome, that would have been a blessing, but there are many other projects for which we have only the lottery to thank.
  A pat on the back should also go to Camelot for running one of the most successful lotteries in the world. It has helped fund 121,000 projects and supported countless small retailers across the country. It is vital to the financial viability of many of our small shops and sub-post offices that they do not have their terminals removed because sales figures are considered too low. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister who is to respond to the debate that the Government will use their best endeavours to persuade those who are responsible for issuing and maintaining terminals to ensure that very small shops are not penalised if they are in areas where sales do not reach a perceived target.
  Over the past seven years, Sport England has received £1.6 billion from the lottery, which has been distributed to sporting good causes. However, Sport England's lottery income has fallen from a peak of around £270 million in 1996–97 to just £200 million this year, and it is projected to fall even further to £185 million in the financial year ahead. That was before the recent drop in sales, so the figures are now even more dire for sport.
  Every constituency has benefited, as have 62 different sports. So far, 2,800 lottery-funded capital projects have been completed and opened. I am told that the majority, some 85 per cent., are local facilities specifically earmarked for community use.
  I congratulate the Government on their lottery funding aims, and Sport for All on developing sporting opportunities for all sections of our community—the active communities development fund, sport action zones and school sport co-ordinators. These are all good positive messages. However, Mr. Gordon Neale, the chief executive of Disability Sport England—which is nothing to do with Sport England—has contacted me because he wishes the House to be made aware that, when it comes to lottery funding, all is not well in the world of sport. Mr. Neale informed me that
  "it has become apparent that the distribution of Lottery funding does not support a number of genuine causes in this country. It is also the case that some applications are blocked by third parties used as distributors i.e. Sport England.
  Surely this is public money for good causes, and if the applicant can justify and meet the conditions laid down by the Lottery then they should be allowed to access the funds. I have spoken to a number of like minded organisations who feel that the Lottery should review their application and distribution criteria.
  Organisations who have given many years of beneficial programmes to the people of this country deserve support. I hope the House will agree that the National Lottery should be made more accountable to the public for the distribution of grants to worthy causes."
  Let us not forget the silent beneficiary of the lottery, however. It sits there, raking in millions of pounds each year. So far, it has enjoyed £4.6 billion of lottery money, about a third of the amount raised for good causes. It does not need to account for its spending of that money in particular—the money is merely added to the pot and divvied up later. I am talking, of course, of the Treasury. The lottery has added £4 billion to the pot for our public services. That is something else for which we can be grateful.
  298
  We know that not everything is rosy in the lottery garden, but we must bear in mind the fact that the lottery's contribution to the arts, sports, heritage and charities—causes that are traditionally low on the list of the Treasury's priorities—is invaluable. The same cannot be said of other recipients of lottery funds, however; for them, the amounts are more significant, the causes more important and the issue more fundamental. I am talking about the observance of the principle of additionality.
  The Secretary of State has pointed out that the principle that lottery money cannot replace Exchequer spending is clear. Indeed, her predecessor said:
  "The principle is clear. Lottery money must not replace Exchequer spending".—[Official Report, 7 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 166.]
  There is thus consistency between two Secretaries of State.
  However, the new opportunities fund lottery money is being used to implement Government objectives, as is clear from press releases and consultative documents. Health and education feature high on the Treasury's list of priorities—rightly so. They also top the list of voters' priorities; they are services that are legitimately and correctly funded from general taxation, and on which the Government have staked their reputation. Yet those services are being part-funded by lottery cash. Why should the Government be permitted to shirk their fiscal responsibilities by funding health and education programmes with lottery money?
  The lottery is funding the Government's commitments to cancer care via a £150 million living with cancer programme. It is also meeting part of the Government's commitment to education via the school sports facilities programme. In the words of the Government, lottery funding should
  "add to, and not substitute for, services already provided by government".
  That principle, enshrined in the legislation that created the lottery, is at best being ignored and at worse being abused by such funding. We have a Government who are siphoning off lottery money, which the players think is going to good causes, and using it to pay for their election pledges—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The legislation made it clear that lottery money should not be used for that. An election manifesto is one thing; legislation in this place is another.
  Mr. Challen: Is the hon. Gentleman yet another Opposition Member who does not believe that manifesto pledges should be kept?
  Bob Russell: The important thing is that election manifestos should not take the place of legislation. If the hon. Gentleman wants his party to change the legislation, that is for him and his party to do, but while it remains on the statute book the House should honour it. That is clear.
  Mr. Bryant: Is not the whole point of manifesto pledges to change or to retain legislation?
  Bob Russell: I am grateful for that intervention. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is unaware of the difference between a manifesto commitment and legislation.

  299
  Manifesto commitments lead to legislation, but as far as I know the House has not yet voted on the change to which I referred. In my opinion, this is the most regressive of the stealth taxes that the Government have so far utilised.
  Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that he opposes the new opportunities fund, but I am sure that schools in Colchester—like those in Leigh—will soon be receiving money for new sports facilities under the new opportunities for school sports initiative. Will he give the House an assurance that he will not attend the photo opportunity when those facilities are opened?
  Bob Russell: I am not going to give such a commitment, because I would not pass up a chance like that. [Laughter.] I would be much happier, though, if the funding had come from the proper source and if the Government's education policies did something to replace all the demountable classrooms in my constituency. That is not at present on the lottery shopping list, but watch this space.
  Lottery funding is not a long-term answer to the longstanding problems in our public services. If Ministers wish to pay for projects such as cancer care or teaching our librarians and teachers to use computers, they should not fund those projects at the expense of the good causes.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hospices providing terminal care for people with cancer rely on lottery funding? Many lottery decisions are predicated on geographical factors—which areas will receive funding and which will not—which means that hospices endure a lottery in lottery funding, as well as in NHS funding, even though they provide services that should be core NHS-fundable services.
  Bob Russell: I endorse what my hon. Friend says. Life is a lottery, and that is a classic example.
  Mr. Challen: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that we should not have charitable support for health services, but we have always had campaigns in local newspapers raising money for machinery for hospitals. Why should the lottery be treated any differently?
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: Because the law says so.
  Bob Russell: Exactly. If punters are allowed to choose the destination for the proceeds from their purchase, as suggested in the recent consultation documents on the lottery, that is exactly what could happen. Given the choice, most people would choose to fund cancer care over community centres, but when Parliament created the lottery the intention was to remove such choices. Those schemes should not be mutually exclusive. As the Secretary of State argued in the foreword to a departmental publication, the lottery should enable
  "much needed initiatives, which would not otherwise have been funded, to go ahead".
  Cancer care should be funded out of general taxation, because it is a priority and would go ahead anyway. Conservation areas can be financed from lottery grants because they are not a priority and may not otherwise go ahead.
  300
  The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has pointed out that lottery funding works best when it is free from direct Government control. The community fund has shown its independence from Government and has responded to genuine local needs. Picking out a few individual lottery grants for criticism should not deflect attention from the important work that the community fund has done over its eight years of operation as an independent body.
  The most valuable gift that politicians can give to lottery fund distributors is their independence. The ability to distance themselves from Ministers has enabled distributors to contribute to significant successes, from big schemes such as the Eden project to smaller programmes across the country, helping to regenerate communities, rescue buildings and increase skills. However, we need only recall the millennium dome for evidence of what happens when politicians seek to lead with such projects.
  The best projects are community led, respond to local needs and are driven by local people. Sometimes the aims of those people and the groups to which they belong are contrary to the Government's aims, but that makes them no less legitimate. Indeed, the chances are that it makes them more legitimate. Involving people in decisions in their communities is an invaluable exercise that can engage people in regeneration, community awareness and local politics. If the price of perpetuating that involvement is that the occasional grant is condemned by the Daily Mail, so be it.
  Where the Government need to involve themselves more closely is in ensuring that the poorest and most deprived areas receive their fair share of funding. In 2001, four of the 81 most deprived districts in the United Kingdom received no new opportunities fund money. Thirty-three of those 81 received less than the national average. Of the 80 districts that received more than £10 per head, not even half appeared on the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions list of the most deprived districts. The fair shares programme has gone some way to redressing that but distributors need to be extra vigilant in ensuring that they are not giving grants merely to those who have the means to apply for them.
  Mr. Bryant: There is an important point about different areas being described, or not described, as deprived. My constituency of Rhondda consists of seven or eight wards that would be listed among the poorest in Wales; indeed, they would be listed among the poorest in Europe. However, because Rhondda Cynon Taff, the local authority in which my constituency falls, also contains some of the wealthier wards in Wales, all of which are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), grants that go to my constituency might not be counted as going to the poorest in the country.
  Bob Russell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification but I think that he is in a way agreeing that we need to focus attention on the poorest areas to ensure that they get at least their fair share.
  Ministers also need to be vigilant about how quickly awards are paid. Millions of pounds are still held for national lottery distribution but are not yet committed,

  301
  despite the debate that we had on the subject some six months ago. On that occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) criticised the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for the fact that lottery funds were not being distributed on time. He said:
  "The reserve funds of the distributing bodies have continued to grow—by almost £150 million since December 2000—and now stand at almost £3.5 billion."
  Those funds had been allocated but not yet distributed to projects. My hon. Friend said that
  "more than a quarter of the £12 billion that the lottery has raised since its began … has not yet been distributed."—[Official Report, 1 March 2002; Vol. 380, c. 970.]
  That is the equivalent of almost two years' income. If it were easier for prospective applicants to apply for grants, that would not be the case. A one-stop shop for applicants would remove many of the hurdles for groups that would normally be put off applying for a grant, and enable money to be siphoned down to areas that need it most, which often happen to be those least likely to apply.
  Falling lottery sales are a continuing concern to the good causes. Bodies such as Sport England have little alternative to grant in aid and lottery funding. They would be hamstrung by significant falls in income. Projects such as those that Sport England has funded and that have more than doubled facility usage in many cases would surely have to come to an end without alternative revenue streams.
  Camelot's sales improvement programme is designed to arrest the fall in sales, but we need to explore other areas, too. I would like lottery-supported schemes to display the fact that they have been helped by lottery ticket sales in the hope that that will reconnect lottery ticket buyers with good causes. I have not met that many people who play the lottery whose prime concern is the good causes. I think that they have an ulterior objective. Nevertheless, they need to be told where the money is going—to the good causes—and to be reminded that when they purchase a ticket they are not only participating in a prize draw but helping to support good causes in and around their community.
  Whatever steps are taken, we need to ensure that they are taken quickly. Sustained falls in sales will see the lottery diminish, and with it many of the programmes that our communities hold most dear.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: There is common ground among hon. Members: we all recognise the enormous importance of what the lottery has achieved. I vividly recall attending the opening of the Olympic games in Sydney just over two years ago and meeting athletes from the British team. Time after time, they thanked me for the lottery funding that had enabled them to develop their potential to fulfil what they were capable of and to give them a real chance of doing credit not just to themselves, but to this country.
  I am also acutely conscious of the benefits of projects that have been able to go ahead in my constituency. Building work will be completed shortly on the London Symphony Orchestra's music education centre at
  302
  St. Luke's church, Old street, so transforming one of the greatest of London's old churches into a centre that will provide the opportunity for children and others from many parts of London to have the experience of working with one of the world's greatest orchestras. That project, which is jointly funded by arts lottery and heritage lottery money, is a splendid example of what can be achieved by lottery funding and would not otherwise be possible.
  Virtually all hon. Members agree absolutely that the lottery has a done a huge amount of good, but it is now under attack, so I want to say three things this afternoon. First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on standing up firmly for the robust independence of the lottery distributors, especially the community fund. That independence was, of course, put in place by the Tory Government. It was fought for fiercely by one Tory Front Bencher after another, and there have been rather a lot of them over the years.
  Of course, the community fund will occasionally do things that many people do not like. It will give money to organisations that look after the interests of minorities. I have to observe, in case the Conservative party has not yet tumbled to this, that democracy is surely every bit as much about looking after the interests of minorities as about representing the views of the majority.
  Caroline Flint: My right hon. Friend may recall the wide coverage given to the purchase of Winston Churchill's papers. I do not disagree with that, but one might say that a certain family benefited from it. However, is it not true that some things will please some people and not others and that you cannot please all the people all the time?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the community fund will occasionally pay money to organisations that may be critical of the Government—indeed, most charities in this country are from time to time—and it will certainly do things that the Daily Mail does not like, and rightly so. That is its job; it is what independence is all about. I have to say with some sadness that I am not surprised that the Tories are giving in to the braying bigotry of parts of our national media. That diminishes them, and it demeans some of our national newspapers. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to continue to resist following them down that road.
  Miss Kirkbride: The right hon. Gentleman seems to accuse Conservative Members of being bigoted because we do not approve of the grant given to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns. Does he therefore think that the Home Secretary is bigoted in also disapproving of that grant?
  Mr. Smith: I simply observe that every example quoted by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), first, came from the Daily Mail and, secondly, related to organisations responsible for supporting either asylum seekers or people who happen to be lesbian or gay. If that is not picking on minorities, I am not sure what is.
  The second thing that I would tell my right hon. Friend is that, as she considers the representations now arriving in relation to her consultation on the lottery's

  303
  future, she should resist any proposal that does away with the existing division of responsibilities for lottery distribution. I would remind her of the firm guarantee, which was put in place three or four years ago, that the existing percentages should be safeguarded for the arts, sport, heritage and charities for the entirety of the duration of the second franchise of the lottery. That commitment was given not just by me but by the Prime Minister and the whole Government.
  Mr. John Greenway: I am extremely grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said, because I totally agree with him. Does he think, however, that he would have had the opportunity to say that on the Floor of the House to the Secretary of State today had we not had a debate on the lottery?
  Mr. Smith: Having a debate on the lottery is a useful opportunity for me to do so. It obviates the necessity for me to sit down and write a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make precisely the same point. The point, however, must be made, because ensuring that one sixth each of the good causes money goes to the arts, sport, heritage and charities—and making sure that that lasts into the future—is an important objective to which I trust she will hold fast.
  My third point to my right hon. Friend and the House is that one issue remains that needs to be considered, on which the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) has touched—the extent of the balance of funds that are sitting in the national lottery distribution fund. A stubbornly constant figure of £3.5 billion sits in the fund. We have always said—and it is true—that it is all earmarked for approved projects, which have been applied for, considered and approved for grant by the various distributors. Those projects, however, by their very nature, take years to use up all the allocated money. Meanwhile, as those years progress, more funds flow in every week to the distribution fund. For the arts, sport and heritage in particular, that means that an outstanding amount of money is apparently sitting there waiting to be used.
  I know that the Secretary of State has urged the distributors to bring the balances down. That will not happen, however, without a fundamental change to the way in which approvals can be made by the distribution bodies. I urge her to put in place a system of forward allocations—especially for the arts, sport and heritage—enabling the distributors to approve applications in advance of the funds coming in, but in the safe knowledge that the money will, in due course, come in. That, of course, will need a change to the Treasury rules. She will need to persuade her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is worth doing, but it could provide a real solution to the distribution fund problem and could enable a real boost in immediate approvals in these important areas of activity.
  We must all welcome the overall success of the lottery. We should resist the minority-bashing instincts of the Tory party. We should reassert the independence of the lottery distributors. We should repeat the guarantee of funding for the arts, sport, heritage and charities into the future, which has previously been given. Finally, we should look at new ways of ensuring that the available funds can be put into use more effectively and immediately.
  5.24 pm
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate, not least to mark the significance of Members on both sides paying tribute to the previous Conservative Government. That is extremely rare.
  Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Kirkbride: The hon. Gentleman should at least give me a few minutes. Although he is my colleague on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I will not, on this occasion, allow him to disabuse me of my view that the previous Conservative Government should be accorded some merit. I, too, wish to place on record how pleased I am with the lottery and its funding of projects in my constituency.
  I am especially pleased that the Secretary of State drew attention to some of the great capital projects that were funded by the millennium fund that was created under the lottery by the Conservative Government. However, she then appeared to contradict herself in her subsequent remark that the way in which they set up the lottery was not sufficiently democratic. There was a clear need to celebrate the millennium with projects, such as the Eden project in the constituency of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), and we then had to move on to do other things with lottery funding.
  I also congratulate the Secretary of State on her desire to consider how the lottery may change in the future and to assess whether we should allow people to earmark the good causes that they wish to fund when they purchase a ticket. I have some doubts as to whether that would work, because it would entail a great bureaucracy, but the suggestion has some merit and should be considered. It may encourage people to believe that their money is being spent wisely.
  The lottery has been a fantastic success in my constituency. We have recently been given £250,000 to create a ward for the Primrose hospice at my local hospital. The money came out of the new opportunities fund and, in this context, I disagree with my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. So great is the public acclamation for such projects that the Government are right to consider the principle of additionality, which did not form part of the lottery when it was set up by the Conservative Government in the early 1990s.
  I wish to refer to another project on my patch. I recently visited the Charford resource centre, which is in one of the few deprived areas in my constituency. Its chairman, Kevin McNamara, a former Labour councillor, has done fantastic work for the centre, which is supported by volunteers but has received £400,000 from the community fund. It has done fantastic work in providing IT skills to young mothers and to young people who are unable to go to college.
  The community fund has done great work, and it is doing good work in my constituency, and that is why I am very cross with the award that it made recently to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), whose speech I have the honour of following, chose to say that, because

  305
  Conservative Members disagree with that award, we are bigoted. I draw his attention to the fact that the Secretary of State also appears to oppose the award. It is certainly true that the Home Secretary disapproves of it. The whole awards procedure is brought into disrepute if the public feel that significant sums of money—£363,000 is a huge amount—hat can do a tremendous amount of good work in all our constituencies go to such organisations. I know of other projects that I would like to receive funding, and I bet every Member can think of how to obtain good value from £363,000. Most of us do not believe it is good value to grant that sum to this organisation. British taxpayers already provide significant support to people coming to this country to claim asylum. We are a generous country, and it could be argued that our generosity to those who fear persecution is one reason why people come here.
  Bob Russell: Will the hon. Lady confirm that the grant was allocated by a quango system established by the Conservative party when it was in government, and according to the rules, regulations and criteria of the legislation introduced by the Conservative Government of the day?
  Miss Kirkbride: I have two responses to the hon. Gentleman. First, the guidelines were changed. Secondly, the community fund in general has a responsibility to pay due and strict attention to the organisations that it funds. We are democratically elected and are responsive to the electorate, who can sack us in a general election. We are obliged to answer our constituents' mail. Our remarks in the Chamber and the way in which we vote on legislation are recorded in Hansard. So we have a democratic responsibility on which we can be challenged.
  One weakness of the community fund and other grant-giving bodies is the lack of democratic responsiveness. They need to be much more attentive to public reaction when they decide to give awards to organisations that will engender a hostile response. It saddens me that they put themselves in that position because it harms the wider good works that they do.
  I engaged in a radio debate with one of the community fund distributors. It saddened me to hear the distributor say that such grants account for only a tiny proportion of the money distributed. That is not the point. Hundreds of thousands of pounds would do great good in all our constituencies, and that opportunity has been lost with the award of such a grant.
  Ms Atherton: I am listening to the hon. Lady's arguments. Does she agree with the campaign by the Daily Mail to target the chair of the community fund?
  Miss Kirkbride: No, certainly not. In fairness, the Daily Mail has condemned the opprobrium attached to Lady Brittan and does riot believe that it is right and proper. [Interruption.] I am not an apologist for the Daily Mail; I am here to express my views. I am happy to make it clear that I would not support such attacks in any shape or form.
  306
  Hon. Members have mentioned the Government's changes to the guidelines. Indeed, I referred to them when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). Apart from creating a more level playing field for the communities that benefit from a lottery grant, there is no need to issue guidelines on who should receive such funds. That decision should be for the discretion of the people who award them. We should not say that they are just for young people.
  Claire Ward: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Kirkbride: No. I am afraid that I do not have much time.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Kirkbride: Yes, as the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the guidelines.
  Mr. Smith: No one has said that lottery distributors should just look after the interests of children and young people. There is a spread of need in our society to which the lottery distributors need to pay attention.
  Miss Kirkbride: The right hon. Gentleman admitted in an intervention that his guidelines stated that priority should be given to young people.
  Mr. SmithThe hon. Lady was not listening. I said—the wording was precise—that attention should be paid to the needs of children and young people. That is very different from giving exclusive priority to them.
  Miss Kirkbride: We will have to agree to differ on the semantics. It seems to Conservative Members that the right hon. Gentleman created a priority for young people which is inappropriate, given the needs of the entire community.
  The creation of priorities in the new guidelines detracts from the fact that some organisations may have been refused a grant because of too much political correctness. For example, the British Legion was refused £500,000 for a residential home, an application for £400,000 for ex-servicemen suffering from psychiatric illnesses was refused, the British Vascular Foundation was refused £30,000 to help to promote knowledge about diseases and strokes and the British Liver Trust was refused £224,000 to help with screening for a dangerous genetic disorder that affects 200,000 people.
  These are all worthwhile causes, and it is disappointing to Conservative Members that such categories of organisations have been refused grants. I do not want to excite the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury by saying which categories of successful applicants I disapprove of, but they should not have been given money when the needy organisations that I have just mentioned were turned down.
  5.35 pm
  Claire Ward: Since the lottery was established in 1994, it has provided huge benefits to millions of people in every constituency. There is not a single Member who cannot point to a project in their constituency that has received a substantial benefit from the national lottery. Whether through support for the arts, heritage, sports. charities or other good causes, the £12 billion raised in that time has helped thousands of projects, large and small.
  We rightly took the opportunity to review the operation of the lottery, just as we reviewed every area of legislation, and in the National Lottery Act 1998 we made the changes necessary to ensure a broader distribution of funds. The creation of the new opportunities fund was a manifesto commitment. As I reminded the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) earlier, this party sticks to its manifesto commitments—something that the previous Government did not do. Since the fund has been in operation, it has funded out-of-school-hours clubs in more than 12,000 schools, provided local hospitals with more than 2,000 pieces of new equipment to treat cancer and coronary heart disease, and allocated £750 million to local PE and sports projects. Those are just some of the things that the fund has done to ensure that the national lottery benefits more and more people in the way the public wants. As I said earlier, when we talk to members of the public we find that many people do not want the national lottery proceeds to be invested only in sports, the arts, heritage, charities and voluntary organisations; they want to see the benefits in education and health.
  Caroline Flint: Does my hon. Friend agree that the lottery funding priorities of health, education and sport mirror the areas that have benefited from record public expenditure, and that lottery funding is therefore added value to those massive public spending increases?
  Claire Ward: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She reinforces the message that the national lottery provides additionality, just as the Government insisted it should.
  In this debate we have heard a lot from the Opposition about a particular organisation that has received funding. It has been made clear that although many of us have widely differing views about some of the organisations that receive funding from the distributing bodies, we accept that it is important to have an arm's-length principle and to allow those bodies to make the decisions. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport were right to question the decision to award a grant to the NCADC and to remind the community fund to look carefully at how it was made. We ought to be concerned that organisations that receive Lotter) funding do not act in a manner that is highly political or at odds with the guidelines set by the Government and by parliamentary decisions. I disagree, however, with the unacceptable attacks by newspapers, in particular the Daily Mail, and the excessive campaign that brought out the worst elements of racism. Of course there should be an opportunity to question the allocation of grants, but in this case the manner in which that was done was not appropriate.
  308
  People play the lottery because they want to win. If their primary purpose were to give money to a good cause or charity, they would do that without buying a lottery ticket. However. when they do not win, they feel better because a proportion of their £1 has gone to a good cause. When they read a negative story, some players decide not to continue to play the national lottery; so negative stories have an impact on funding.
  It will be no surprise to many hon. Members to learn that the headquarters of the national operator, Camelot, is in my constituency. It employs more than 400 people. In the past few weeks, it has noticed a direct correlation between the newspaper stories and funds. The damaging attack on the national lottery has resulted in a fall in the sum that will be made available to good causes. We should examine that in the review.
  I hope that the Government will consider how we can ensure a better connection between the organisations and good causes that are funded and what the public want. However, we must achieve a balance: we must ensure that the lottery exists not only for the big causes and great national charities about which we all know, or the popular arts, sports and heritage projects, but also for smaller groups of which many of us have never heard. It is also there for minority groups and interests.
  The Government's review of the national lottery presents an opportunity to try to achieve that balance. The beauty of the lottery is that thousands of small groups—voluntary organisations that carry out important work in communities throughout the country—have benefited from small and sometimes significant grants. I hope that they will continue to do that as the lottery goes from strength to strength.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I want to bring to hon. Members' attention some aspects of the lottery that have been well publicised, especially north of the border. and that form an important part of the debate.
  I am only too keen to advocate any Conservative policy that brings great benefit to Scotland. The lottery, a successful policy of John Major's Administration, resulted in 14,700 awards in Scotland and a total that now exceeds £1 billion for valued good causes north of the border. That is directly related to the £12 billion that has been raised throughout the United Kingdom. I received that information through a news release on one of my regular visits to the Scotland Office website, which apparently costs the taxpayer in Scotland a considerable amount. On the website, the Secretary of State for Scotland urges Scots to make a good response to the Government's consultation.
  One inequity that I wish to raise results from the fair share programme. It is a laudable programme that has highlighted some imbalances in Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom. It identifies Glasgow city, Dundee city, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, South Lanarkshire and South Ayrshire as places that have received less than their fair share of lottery distributions. I shall discuss some of the reasons for their under-representation later, but first, I want to consider a fair share matter that affects my constituency: rurality.
  There is an inherent bias in lottery funding away from rural areas. I was delighted to receive notification recently of a grant to refurbish Rhonehouse village hall

  309
  near Castle Douglas in my constituency. That valued project would not have been realised without the national lottery. However, projects are analysed by constituency and, as was said earlier, that can hide inequities in the constituencies that merit investigation.
  An anomaly to which I draw the House's attention involves an aspect of the new opportunities fund that has received considerable press coverage north of the border: the Scottish land fund. I am aware, as are many hon. Members, of a case that has been publicised in the papers, in which an award of more than £3 million was made to the residents of Gigha, to purchase their island. I have before me an advertisement dated 10 August 2001, which makes interesting reading. It advertises facilities on the island, including an airstrip and the "Award-winning Gigha Hotel" with
  "13 letting bedrooms, Bar, Restaurant and 6 holiday cottages".
  The matter drew considerable press comment at the time, and I thought it worthy of some investigation today.
  I looked at the Scottish land fund website—which is administered through Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise—which sets out the objectives of the fund as:
  "To improve opportunities and reduce disadvantage both for communities and individuals in rural areas;"—
  I wholeheartedly agree with that—
  "To encourage community involvement…
  To enhance…environmental diversity…
  To facilitate positive use of the land reform legislation…
  To diversify the pattern of land ownership".
  Nowhere in the objectives is the word "sustainable" to be found. It is causing concern in Scotland that such a substantial award was made to a small community of only 110 people. People are worried that the community may have got into an unsustainable situation, and we wonder whether it is part of the lottery's core objectives to create such situations.
  Following the creation of the new opportunities fund—the "sixth good cause"—in 1998, I found myself with a dilemma. I have a personal interest to declare, in that my wife is the fundraising manager for Macmillan Cancer Relief in Dumfries and Galloway, and she and I are delighted that a new oncology unit is being built at the Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary with the assistance of more than £1 million from the new opportunities fund. I am keen to make use of whatever guidance is in place relating to the new opportunities fund, and that project would not have happened at this point without NOF funding. Is it, however, the objective of the national lottery that key health projects should happen simply because people buy lottery tickets? Although people in Dumfries and Galloway have no access to chemotherapy, for example, and the unit will resolve the problem of people who are diagnosed with cancer having to undertake a two or three-hour drive to Edinburgh every day to undergo treatment, is it right that the Government should choose to solve that problem through the sale of lottery tickets?
  I have a particular problem with that, because many analyses show that tickets are generally purchased by those with less-than-average earnings. Indeed, the
  310
  Secretary of State pointed out earlier that it was often the most marginal income that was used for that purpose. Is it appropriate for marginal income from those who can least afford it to be the source of spending in key areas of health and education? I would advocate that it is not. It is the absolute opposite of the progressive taxation that would be seen as the most reasonable way to do this in a fair society.
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question about one of the most difficult areas involved in this issue. However, is he saying that he would rather that the £1 million NOF money be held back until such as the Scottish Executive decide that it is time to build a proper oncology unit in his area? The hon. Gentleman may be a new Member of the House, but he will know very well that politics is about choosing priorities. There is never an easy way of doing that, and never an easy moment at which to do it. I am sure that he would rather have the £1 million to build that oncology unit now than not have it.
  Mr. Duncan: Absolutely. As I have said, these are the present guidelines. I am only too well aware that the problems in my area relating to cancer treatment deserve attention, but they deserve attention from the Government and the taxpayer, not from people who—as the Secretary of State herself said—are on marginal incomes. They do not deserve attention from those who can least afford it. Having said that, I must say I am delighted that the oncology unit has been opened in Dumfries and Galloway, because it is greatly needed.
  Time rattles on, but I want to end by raising a couple of hot issues of my own. One is the need to make the process of applying for grants more straightforward. I recently addressed a conference organised by Stewartry Community Initiatives in Dalbeattie, in my constituency. Very small groups have told me time and again that applying for lottery funds was too complex and discriminated against voluntary organisations. The projects that are supported often involve existing full-time development workers. Such organisations do not need to engage in that complex process.
  Finally, let me encourage the Minister to be ever more adventurous in regard to the community outlets programme, which is an incredibly important part of the lottery's expansion into the most rural areas in the United Kingdom. Those communities have not the turnover to justify outlets of their own. I have tried to convey the message that the lottery succeeds because of public confidence. When people in rural areas know that they can buy tickets locally, they will see the benefits of the projects that can be supported.
  5.52 pm
  Andy Burnham: When the history books chronicling the events of the Major years are written—indeed, I believe that some have already been written—they will show that the first part of the Opposition motion is accurate. The national lottery was indeed a Conservative creation, and it has indeed raised welcome funds for communities throughout the country. There is no doubt that it provided temporary relief from VAT on fuel, negative equity, black Monday, record NHS waiting lists and the "back to basics" campaign. For that

  311
  reason, the lottery will go down in history as one of the two memorable achievements of the Major Administration: it will be right up there with the cones hotline.
  So much is beyond dispute. From that point onwards, however, the motion descends rapidly into confusion. The substance involves two charges. The first is that the establishment of the new good cause for health, education and the environment was wrong; the second is that recent awards made by the community fund have undermined public confidence in the lottery.
  In regard to the second charge, I remind Opposition Members that it was the Conservative Government who insisted on a strict arm's-length arrangement for lottery distributors. It was on precisely that basis that they defended grants for the Churchill papers—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)—and the Royal Opera House. The necessary consequence of an arm's-length arrangement is that sometimes funding decisions will be made with which the Government of the day do not agree.
  Opposition Members need to be clear about whether they are abandoning their previously steadfast commitment to the arm's-length principle. That is what they are saying today. The truth is that they have not thought it through. Their main reason for calling the debate was not genuine concern for the lottery or the projects that it funds; it had more to do with a cynical attempt to gain quick, cheap headlines on the back of an unpleasant press campaign.
  The motion talks of public trust being "destroyed". Is that not precisely what the motion and the debate seek to do? We have the party of the vulnerable undermining the lottery, reducing funds to good causes and thereby denying people who could otherwise benefit. That sounds more like the "nasty party" to me.
  The first charge betrays a far more serious misunderstanding of the lottery and of what the public think about it. Lottery players strongly support the principle of lottery funds being used to support health, education and environmental projects. The truth is that Labour's introduction of such action helped to revive confidence in lottery good causes at a time when they had received sustained negative publicity. I hope that in retrospect the Opposition will accept that giving a full fifth of lottery proceeds to the millennium celebrations was a mistake. That was too much, and from the outset—when the lottery was first launched—people called for funding for health and education.
  They were right to do so. In the next few weeks, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) knows, secondary schools in my constituency will receive funds via the new opportunities fund for brand-new sports facilities and floodlit Astroturf pitches that will be open to the whole community out of school hours. Such facilities are sorely lacking in the Leigh area. Surely giving young people the chance to engage in sport with decent facilities, and in the process helping to tackle crime and improve health, is one of the best uses for lottery money.
  Mr. Greenway: Those projects were funded previously by Sport England. Why did we need the NOF to fund them?
  Andy Burnham: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Those sports facilities in state secondary schools have never been funded by Sport England; they have been funded directly by central Government.
  Mr. Greenway: I invite the hon. Gentleman to visit my constituency, where he will see such a facility at Huntington comprehensive school.
  Andy Burnham: On the whole, Sport England does not fund state secondary school sports facilities. Lottery money is now funding them—and not just Leigh is benefiting: every constituency will receive some money.
  I would like to know how many Opposition Members, like the hon. Member for Colchester, will be writing to their local papers to say that they oppose that funding for secondary schools. They certainly would not have the nerve to attend photocalls. Millbank may have gone, but we will be watching.
  The motion suggests that the Opposition would scrap schemes such as this—and money for cancer equipment and treatment for coronary heart disease. That would be a sure-fire way of damaging public confidence in the lottery. It is not just the projects funded by the NOF that command support; the distribution mechanism has much to commend it. National programmes mean that no areas miss out on the free-for-all application process, and an impact is created that makes people link a national initiative to a local scheme. That too is likely to increase public confidence, and I would like more funds to be distributed in the same way.
  Bob Spink: The distribution formula is not working very well. People in Essex are receiving very little per head compared with those in other areas. Does the hon. Gentleman want the Minister to try to resolve the problem?
  Andy Burnham: That is a fair point. My constituency has not received enough from the lottery, and I think we should look at the reasons for that. Let me return the question to the hon. Gentleman, however. Does not the fact that areas such as mine and his—and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley—have not received their fair share of the lottery have something to do with the way in which his party set up the national lottery? An application-driven process and strict match-funding requirements were always bound to cause regional disparities in funding for good causes. That applies particularly to disadvantaged areas, where community groups do not have the resources possessed by those in more affluent parts.
  There should be no surprise about the regional disparities. Leigh has had £3 million from the lottery, which is not a good return from the £13 billion raised so far and much less than the price of the tickets bought in my area. For Leigh, I could substitute many other deprived former coalfield and other communities. I am not against the idea of affluent areas doing well out of the lottery, but areas such as mine have found it difficult to obtain any funds at all. It sometimes seems that the "good causes" grants are as random as the prizes given to players.
  One of the problems is that the lottery is intensely bureaucratic. "Awards for all" has been a good innovation, but it is not easy to obtain a significant

  313
  lottery grant—one of £50,000 or more. That, however, is what groups in my constituency need: they need bigger lottery grants that can make an impact on the ground.
  I have tried to encourage groups in my constituency to apply, but the reaction tends to be the same. People roll their eyes and talk of the work involved. It is not worth taking the risk, because they have a huge expectation of failure. Sadly. that is the case for many people living in former coalfield areas; they will not take the risk, as they know they will have to put in many hours of work.
  All that has distanced the lottery from some communities, as there is no ready connection between the work of the lottery and the projects that it funds. Part of the problem is that the public do not connect with the names of the lottery distributors. I know that distributors jealously guard their identities, but public awareness of them is very low indeed. The truth is that, apart from the in-crowd and the statutory sector, painfully few people are aware of the community fund, the heritage lottery fund and the new opportunities fund.
  We all complain from time to time that our areas do not get enough out of the lottery. In my case, that is absolutely true: my constituency does not get enough. Under the rules set for them by the previous Conservative Government and later by our Government, the distributors have done a good job, making difficult decisions and getting funding to all parts of the country, but the time has now come to put institutional interests aside and take hard decisions for the future good of the lottery. It should be a simple business. Playing the lottery is a simple business, but there has never been a simple way of getting funds to good causes. The lottery needs to achieve that if it is to survive in the long term.
  When I look around my constituency I see countless schemes that could benefit from funding, but I also feel frustrated when I think of the difficulty of cutting through the bureaucratic morass and getting to the point at which they would receive some funding. For too long there has been an assumption that people seeking lottery funding are trying to gain money for improper or unworthy schemes. They are treated as guilty until proved innocent. I would like the system to be turned around. Like the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). I have slowly reached the conclusion that it would be better to have a single good causes organisation to distribute funds and a single lottery gateway with regional offices. However, I believe that we should maintain the shares for each of the current good causes; they would simply be administered by one overarching organisation. In my experience, projects rarely fall neatly into one box and we need rapidly to move to a more integrated system.
  I would support the introduction of a two-page application form for all projects. It could be followed up by visits from development workers. That would be the best way of deciding whether a project should proceed. Finally, when projects are funded through one good causes organisation, we should always make sure that the lottery logo—the crossed fingers—is placed prominently on the project, as people recognise it as the sign of the lottery and it is owned by the public sector.
  314
  Of course the great risk in simplifying the system is that some projects may get through the net and some money may be spent unwisely, but that is the price for making it simpler and more accessible. I think that it is a price that the British public are now ready to pay.
  6.2 pm
  Andrew Selous: On 2 July, like many hon. Members, I received a briefing note from the Library that listed lottery grants by constituency. I found that my constituency came 625th out of 659. It has received only £2.4 million since the lottery started, while the constituency average is £15.7 million. The disparity between our constituencies is absolutely enormous. I quite understand, and would defend the fact, that constituencies with national facilities should expect a larger share of lottery funding. as they are providing facilities for the whole country, but the figures clearly show that constituencies in the greatest need have not been treated fairly. The top three constituencies are Greenwich and Woolwich, which received £670 million, Cities of London and Westminster, which received £484 million and Manchester, Central, which received £296 million. Around the country. Birmingham, Ladywood received £183 million, Bristol, West received £142 million, Brent. South received £128 million, Norwich, South received £85 million, Cambridge received £70 million, Truro and St. Austell received £62 million and Nottingham, South received £60 million.
  At the other end of the scale, Birmingham, Hall Green, which is clearly a constituency in great need, received only £912.000. Hayes and Harlington received only £671,000, Rayleigh in Essex received just over £1 million and Billericay received £863,000. Those variations in funding per constituency are simply not acceptable. People up and down the country play the lottery.
  Mr. Bryant: Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), who said earlier that there should be less insistence on the geographical element?
  Andrew Selous: I would advocate taking the average—£15 million per constituency, setting aside the national considerations, which we all understand—and introducing a 33 per cent. upper limit and a 33 per cent. lower limit around that average. There could always be exceptions. If one took the average as £15 million and allowed a variation of between £10 million and £20 million, distribution would be much fairer and we could justify it to our constituents.
  Kevin Brennan: Is not that a rather silly point, particularly when it is applied to large cities? For example, the Millennium stadium in Cardiff is not in my constituency, but it could not have been built half in my constituency and half in the one next door.
  Andrew Selous: Obviously there will be boundary differences and variations for national projects such as the Millennium stadium. I have already conceded that point and said that there should be exceptions for national facilities. However, I hope the Government

  315
  intend to address the existing variations in the review that they announced at the end of July and I would commend to them the sort of proposal that I have made.
  Dr. Howells: I shall be very brief, as I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to get on. I can inform all hon. Members that, so far, the consultation has generated just four responses from hon. Members. If it were such a vital and burning issue, surely we would have received a lot more representations.
  Andrew Selous: I hope that the Minister will take this speech as part of my own representation, but I will undertake to write to him specifically about this point so that he will have a fifth representation before long. I intend to contact the chief executive of South Bedfordshire district council and all the local voluntary groups and community organisations in my constituency that have made unsuccessful bids for lottery funding to see whether we can achieve more.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. Can he advise me about areas of my constituency that cannot. apply for lottery funding? The stuffing was knocked out of them by 20-odd years of Conservative government and they do not have community leadership or community groups.
  Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman makes a slightly cheap point. I drew attention to many constituencies in areas of great need that have been very poorly served. I have said that that is wrong and that I would like something to be done about it. I hope that he concedes that.
  I should like to move on to look at the way in which the new opportunities fund intends to fund different constituency projects. I corresponded with the new opportunities fund in the east of England. I understand that funding is allocated according to the index of multiple deprivation for 2000. That sounds fair enough, but it has a grave drawback that applies across a range of Government projects. Constituencies such as mine, which overall are reasonably well-to-do but have significant areas that are less well off, lose out substantially. I understand from the reply that I received from the new opportunities fund in the east of England that this is of great concern throughout the area. The letter informs me that an OSEP—a multi-agency observatories social exclusion project—in the east of England area will be trying to drill down below ward level to apply lottery money to specific projects in the greatest need. In his reply to the debate, will the Minister clarify whether every region in the UK will be replicating this work, and, if so, is it really necessary or the best use of public funds? That would seem to be a slight waste of funds.
  In my constituency, I have taken a great interest in homelessness and made my maiden speech in a debate on the subject. A local housing charity, First Place housing, was initially funded by the lottery for one or two years, after which the funding was stopped. That caused great difficulty; the centre it ran in Leighton Buzzard had to close and the centre that it still manages to run in Dunstable cannot do as much work as it would like. I feel extremely concerned about this matter.
  316
  We have heard about village, community and church halls, but this is not just a rural issue. There is a serious problem with regard to disability discrimination legislation. I will defend passionately the right of disabled people to have full access to all premises. My mother was in a wheelchair for much of her life and I have seen the difficulties that people with disabilities face when they want to be integrated fully.
  Village, community and church halls are worried about legislation that is to come into force next year requiring them to provide full accessibility to disabled people. I do not want those facilities to close because they cannot, with the best will in the world, raise the funds to make the vital improvements. This is an extremely serious issue, and we do not have long to deal with it.
  I understand that the charity, Action with Communities in Rural England, has said that a £50 million fund is urgently needed up and down the country to help halls to cope with the legislation. I commend that to the Minister so that progress can be made. I visited the Billington village hall committee in my constituency recently, so I know how desperately worried the local volunteers who run such centres are about this matter.
  I have mentioned homeless charities that have had their money stopped and the desperate need among village and community halls. It is galling for causes that command widespread support, whose funds have been stopped or who cannot obtain them, to see causes with less widespread support being given money. I urge the Minister to consider the guidelines. I take the point about the arm's-length principle and about politicians not interfering, but one of the criteria in the guidelines should be that causes should command widespread support, so that we can increase the amount of giving from the public and ensure that funding stays at a high level to benefit good causes.
  I urge those involved in the lottery to realise that they have a responsibility to help those who are addicted to the lottery and to scratch cards. There is a moral responsibility on the lottery in that regard. Projects funded by the lottery should be well advertised; the connection between funds going to the lottery and projects should be made clear. People will be encouraged to contribute to the lottery if they see the connection between the pound or two that they pay and the funding of a worthwhile project in their area.
  Finally, I echo the point about application forms that has been made by several Members. It is not fair that the smaller community organisations, such as those to which the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw IrrancaDavies) referred, cannot cope with the complexity of the very long forms. It is unfair that only charities with development officers are able to benefit.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Colin Challen: I rise to speak as a founding member of a rather unfortunate cross-party group of Members of Parliament who represent the constituencies that have not received a great deal of lottery money. One of the regular attenders is the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who has paid great attention to the subject. It is a group that we would all like to escape from.

  317
  Some twelve or so constituencies languish at the bottom of the league table, with less than 10 per cent. of the average given to constituencies nationally. These are sizeable communities, and we believe that more needs to be done to address the issues that are preventing local groups, charities, sports clubs and the like from applying for grants.
  Only this morning, the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) and myself—a cross-party delegation—went to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for talks with the heads of the various distributing bodies. It was a constructive and positive discussion, and we are trying to ensure that more effort is made to provide our voluntary organisations with the capacity to submit more applications. Our group has also had two positive and helpful meetings with the Secretary of State. There is some momentum behind those unfortunate Members who wish to get out of our group.
  The Opposition may want to consider why we have had to have those meetings. They talk about mismanagement, but it would be fair and objective to ask why some areas have done so much better than others. The explanation lies to a large extent in the fact that the early years of the lottery could be characterised as a free-for-all, when all-comers could bang in their applications and money flowed out of the distributors' hands without any clear strategy or sense as to how everybody, regardless of where they lived, could benefit.
  We now have a situation where it will be impossible for some geographical areas to catch up, but at least the Government have recognised this and introduced the fair shares scheme, which seeks to ensure that more lottery money goes to areas that have had a low share in the past and which are also deprived. I have some queries about exactly how the fair shares scheme is designed, and I have some ideas about how it ought to be improved. My thoughts will be submitted to the consultation on the distribution of lottery funds, and I hope that, apart from the unfortunate group of Members to which I have referred, others will append their names to my proposal. The deadline is 30 October, a week away, so there is time to do it.
  We cannot go on with a situation where some constituencies have received barely £1 million pounds for local good causes, when the average is nearly £16 million. I know that there are many complexities in how one might assess the true value of the lottery to the people who live in local areas; after all, many people will use facilities in city centres, such as football stadiums, which are paid for with lottery funds from the general public but are not based in their locality.
  In my view, there is a clear injustice where local people have bought a disproportionate number of lottery tickets but have not seen much happening locally as a result. I expect that, by now, my constituency has bought nearly £50 million worth of lottery tickets. The average return to constituencies is nearly £16 million; in my case, the figure is just £2 million. If there is a need for any soul-searching over the lottery, it is about whether some people are buying more than their fair share of lottery tickets and are subsidising the activities of those who could well afford not to be subsidised. I should like
  318
  to see research done on that. If people are to be encouraged to buy tickets, they should know that the money is fairly distributed.
  As I have said, these are very complex questions, and no one knows this better than those who organise the distribution of the funds. I invited Lady Brittan to my constituency to press the case in person. She came up without delay and spent a considerable amount of time talking about the issues with an excellent local organisation, Morley Elderly Action. She was courteous and knowledgeable, and I am sorry that the Opposition have chosen implicitly to ally themselves with a newspaper attack on her and her staff; an attack that, in their usual mealy-mouthed way, the Opposition dissociate themselves from but are secretly content to see take place.
  That sort of behaviour taints everything that the lottery does and it is not a rational way to analyse how the lottery is performing. It is not designed to bring about thought-through solutions. The net result of the Opposition's behaviour will be to harm the very thing that they say they want to defend. It is the politics of ethical delinquency. If the delinquents succeed, many organisations, particularly those in areas that have not, as yet, seen great benefits from the lottery, will never see any benefit.
  Andrew Selous: I feel compelled to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. The reason why some Conservative Members have raised this matter is because we do care about the lottery. We raised it for no reason other than that we want the lottery to prosper and levels of giving to increase. I alluded to the distribution of certain lottery money only briefly in my speech, so please do not demean our motives in raising the matter.
  Mr. Challen: I certainly do not want to demean the motives of the seven Opposition Members present; they are the ones who have not choked on their cornflakes, having read the Daily Mail, and at least they have attended today's debate.
  Mr. Francois: I want to take this opportunity to commend the hon. Gentleman for all the work that he has done on behalf of those of us who—at the moment,at least—are at the very bottom of the pile in terms of payouts to our constituencies. Does he agree that there is a real problem in those constituencies? Is there not a danger that, because so many bids have been refused, people will begin to give up if they do not see some genuine return for their efforts?
  Mr. Challen: That is exactly the point that I am making, and I am glad that there is cross-party consensus on it. For that reason, we should get down to the real issues, and avoid the headline-grabbing stuff and the kind of discussion that puts people off buying tickets. There may be many good reasons why they should not buy tickets, but the subject of this debate is not one of them.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) has shown precisely why it was so sensible of Her Majesty's loyal

  319
  Opposition to table a motion on the national lottery: so he could have his say, put his constituency interests before the House, and make a wider point on behalf of other constituencies that themselves have not done so well out of the lottery. I am therefore sorry that he has chosen to attack the Opposition, instead of thanking us for presenting him with the opportunity to make his case.
  I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) when he says that there is a lot of common ground between us on the subject of the national lottery. Tribute has been paid to John Major for his Government's initiative in setting up the national lottery. I think that it was a good idea, and I myself am an investor. Indeed, if my wife is watching now, could she please make sure that she has purchased our ticket for tonight? [Interruption.] I have a very loyal wife, and I am sure that she is watching now. A ticket costs no more than £2.
  As I said, there is a lot of common ground between us, and there is no doubt that the lottery has done great work, but the dome was an unmitigated disaster. The taking of £800 million of lottery players' money for that white elephant—now destroyed—was a tragedy. However, today is about having a perfectly legitimate debate on the priorities of the national lottery. Hon. Members have, in different ways, expressed their views about their sense of priorities. I remind the House that this issue came to light because Simon Weston, at the invitation of the Conservative party, came to our conference—not as a Conservative, but as a veteran—to explain how veterans feel about the way that they are dealt with not only by this Government, but by previous Governments. It was as a result of the impassioned plea of Simon Weston—formerly of the Welsh Guards, and one of the heroes of the Falklands campaign—that his comments came to public knowledge.
  I commend the Daily Mail for running a campaign that highlighted, in essence, what I want to talk about tonight: the allocation of funds for one sector of our community—our ex-service men and the organisations that sustain them—that the entire House surely feels deserves a higher priority than it is currently accorded. There could not be a more appropriate day to discuss this, for it is today that we have marked in Westminster Abbey the 60th anniversary of the battle of El Alamein. Those of us who saw Jon Snow's television programme—made with the help of his son, Peter—at the weekend, had brought home to us the enormity of the horrendous nature of that campaign.
  El Alamein was like many other campaigns of the second world war, but they are not the only ones. In the Falkland islands—part of the United Kingdom's territories—255 British service men lost their lives fighting for the freedom of the islanders. According to the Secretary of State, only £1 million out of £12 billion goes to service charities. That is unfortunate, but in fact she has slightly understated the situation. I can tell the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, for whom I have much time—not that I wish to harm his prospects within his own party—that, according to the Library, there are 163 projects that are associated with ex-service charities, and so on. Funding totals £1.6 million, which equals about £10,000 per project. These are great projects, and I am not denying that work has been done for service charities. Many hon. Members
  320
  will know from their constituency work that there is some activity in respect of the British Legion, the Normandy veterans and—as I discovered in my maternal home of the borders of Scotland—a number of pipe bands. Those are great causes, but there are very few large projects.
  For example, as I mentioned in an intervention, it is unfortunate that a few years ago St. Dunstan's was unsuccessful in applying for a grant of £600,000—not a huge sum, in lottery terms—for a rehabilitation centre. As hon. Members will know, a young cadet went to the Territorial Army centre in Hammersmith, west London, a couple of years ago and picked up what he thought was a torch on the ground. It was an IRA bomb, and as a result he lost his sight. It is St. Dunstan's that picked him up, and that is what our service charities are doing every day of the week. They do not make a big fuss about it; they do it quietly, and they are a huge rock for those who have served their country, witnessed horrendous scenes, and sacrificed sight, limb or hearing for their country. I do not believe that, as currently constituted, the national lottery is giving those men and women—who deserve our support on their behalf—the proper priority that they deserve. That is what this debate is about.
  The Royal Naval Benevolent Trust was told by a lottery official that it would not be worth its bothering to apply for a grant, since it has too much money in reserve already. The money that it has in reserve is used to generate income to pay current expenses. It was looking for some support for a capital project, but that was not forthcoming. The Government are not unwilling to give directions—or guidelines, as they are perhaps called—to those who distribute the funds. I want those guidelines firmly to encompass the service charities, which are not supported by the Ministry of Defence or by the Government. In fact, they are supported largely by the ex-service community itself and, of course, by the wider public at the time of the poppy appeal. I believe that some £19 million was given last year—a sum that reflects the priority that the public give to our ex-service men.
  I hope that the Government will think very carefully about this issue. I hope that they will recognise that there is something wrong here, that they have the opportunity to put it right, and that they will do so as soon as possible. Simon Weston said that 20 per cent. of London's rough sleepers are ex-service men. We owe it to them to do more than we are doing; £1.6 million out of £12 billion simply does not reflect the duty that we owe. We have a chance to do something for them, and I hope that the Government will take it today without compromising the independence of the awarding authorities, but by pointing out to them the role that these people play in our society.
  I am glad that the Government have agreed to ask Simon Weston to give evidence. He made an impassioned plea, which struck a chord. It was the Daily Mail that picked it up, and I hope that this House will listen to what has been said, and act on it.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Chris Bryant: I am especially pleased to follow the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who spoke with great sincerity on behalf of his constituents and of the many people in the country who would agree wholeheartedly with much of

  321
  what he said. However, I am being similarly sincere when I remind the hon. Gentleman of the motion under debate. Many of us would have preferred to debate a motion on the principles that he has elucidated, but they are not what is under discussion.
  It is not a question of the national lottery supporting only veterans, or only the organisations referred to this evening. It should support both. In my constituency, one is less likely to meet veterans at the various veterans' organisations than at the local community association or Labour club. Throughout the Rhondda, there are people in their 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s who fought for this country in the past.
  Also, the best way to help veterans sleeping rough in London is not by helping veterans' organisations specifically but by helping rough sleepers organisations. That is what many funding bodies are trying to do.
  My plea as MP for the Rhondda is similar to that made by the hon. Member for Aldershot on behalf of his own constituents. We also owe a duty to this country's miners, many of whom died trying to create and build this country's prosperity. Over the years, mining constituencies across the country have not received a fair share of the lottery allocations cake. That is a matter of regret. I am glad that, since 1997, the Government have sought to address that problem, but there is still a long way to go. The average mining constituency in Wales receives only 40 per cent. of the average UK lottery allocation. That problem affects many Labour Members and, despite the kind remarks made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, many of us still want to press the Government on it.
  I confess that some contributions from Conservative Members to the debate have been depressing. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) gave us the old, old story. I longed for the bright shoes of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), and for a debate that revealed some of the colour of the supposedly nice party that the Conservative party has become. Yet we got a list of organisations—representing women,gays—and foreigners—that should not receive money. That is the old Conservative party, just as nasty as ever.
  I have shared many a pleasant Select Committee day with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), but she seemed to argue that children and young people should no longer be a priority, and that we should not expressly consider their needs when it comes to lottery allocations. For her, it seemed to be a question of veterans in, children and young people out. I think that that is a false dichotomy.
  Miss Kirkbride: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bryant: No. The hon. Lady would not give way to me earlier. I told her she would regret it, and now she does.
  The debate has been depressing for yet another reason. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we have seen the bandwagon tendency in full and fine fettle. We thought that some of the wheels had fallen off the bandwagon, but it is clear that it is more of a fire brigade tender and that all its wheels are rolling.
  322
  There are important principles at stake. When we talk about lottery allocations and the performance of the lottery, we need to deal with three important matters.
  The first matter is the arm's length principle, which has been discussed in some detail. It was curious to hear demands that politicians should ensure that certain organisations should not get grants, and at the same time arguments that there should be an arm's length principle. I used to be a councillor in Hackney, and I have seen the terrible complications that can arise when councillors must decide which organisations should receive grants. My experience leads me to believe passionately that politicians should draw up the broad guidelines for applications, but that it is quintessentially fundamental that they should not be involved in doling out grants.
  The second matter that I want to raise has been skated over somewhat in the debate. It is the question whether charities should be able, or allowed, to engage in politics. I believe that charities play a vital role in bringing to the political world's attention many of the problems that affect the most marginalised groups in society. Taking away from Oxfam, Christian Aid, Help the Aged or any of the other charities that we know and love the ability to campaign would deprive the political world of an enormous resource.
  Of course, charities should not be involved in party-political engagements, and the Charity Commissioners should provide robust guidelines on the political engagements in which it is appropriate for charities to be involved, but there should not be the blanket ban on political campaigning implied by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford.
  Thirdly, several hon. Members have mentioned the matter of fair shares. Geographical parity might be desirable, but it is not the end of the story. The lottery should first try to address need. Almost inevitably, allocations to the arts and to sports will go to centres of excellence, giving rise to the sort of list referred to earlier by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). However, I still want much greater focus on the needs of communities, and especially of those communities that are most deprived. I think that the hon. Gentleman made a strong argument for the Government's decision to establish the new opportunities fund and for changing the priorities of the community fund. He made the argument for the Government.
  In my constituency, the new opportunities fund has meant that the Rhondda cardiac support group has received a grant, as have the Clydach vale community centre, which provides a breakfast club and a holiday club for children aged between three and 11, and the Pontygwaith community centre, which provides after-school places for three to 11-year-olds. The groups that I have mentioned are in three of the poorest wards in Europe. The new opportunities fund has therefore been invaluable in ensuring that more money goes to the most deprived communities in the country.
  Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my point that constituencies around the country that have significant pockets of disadvantage are currently not accessing money from the new opportunities fund?
  Mr. Bryant: There is a problem in that respect. I said earlier that if, as has been suggested, one uses local

  323
  authorities to decide which areas of the country are the most deprived, the result is that certain areas could be overlooked. Although I believe that drilling down into tiny communities in individual wards is trying too hard, and that, broadly speaking, we should deal with the matter at constituency level, I accept that it is a matter of legitimate dispute.
  I turn now to the community fund, and two grants just made from that source. One grant, of £199,000, has gone to the Cwmparc community welfare association in my constituency. The other grant relates to a debate that was held yesterday in Westminster Hall. The Parent Project UK has just received £45,000 to help it provide support and understanding for people suffering from Duchesne muscular dystrophy. In that connection, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), who has already made it known that he is in the Chamber. However, constituencies such as mine still only receive some 40 per cent. of the average allocation nationally.
  I welcome the changes introduced by the Government, and devolution has made possible greater accountability on the part of the funding organisations. I support the specific measures for former mining constituencies and this summer's announcements, bearing in mind the difficulties in trying to ensure that genuinely deprived areas receive the most support.
  Finally, there has been some talk from Conservative Members about political correctness. I am proud to be politically correct if that means treating everybody equally. Yes, I am politically correct if it means turning my back on the knee-jerk xenophobia and homophobia that we have seen this evening. Yes, I am politically correct if it means saying that charity does not begin and end at home and if it means supporting the most needy, even if they are not necessarily the most respectable. I am politically correct if that means thinking before believing everything that appears in the Daily Mail.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): It is entirely appropriate that the Conservative party, which created the national lottery, should use one of its supply days to debate one of the great successes of social policy of recent years and discuss what Parliament and the Government should do to ensure its continuing success. The Secretary of State described our debate as opportunistic, but without the debate we would not have had a statement on what many think is the worst crisis affecting the lottery during its eight years of existence, nor would we have been likely to have a debate on the Secretary of State's consultation papers.
  When the lottery was launched eight years ago, no one dared predict the scale of success that has in fact been achieved. However, the march of success has now faltered—badly so in recent weeks. If we are to have any hope of halting and reversing the decline, we need to understand why fewer people are buying lottery tickets. I was astonished that the Secretary of State had nothing to say about the fall in lottery ticket sales. It was always obvious that some players would lose interest, but the recent drop in sales is due to more than player fatigue. The hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) was right-the adverse publicity attached to criticism of just a handful of grants has deeply damaged the public's
  324
  trust in the lottery. However, it was the Home Secretary who first criticised the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns, not the Conservative party. The criticism from the Home Secretary and others has created a perception that more deserving causes are losing out to the benefit of organisations that do not command widespread public support or respect.
  In an effort to bring down the temperature a little, let me be the first to acknowledge that there have always been controversial grants, and probably always will be; when we were in government, I raised precisely that point with the then Prime Minister. That is part of the price of sticking to the arm's-length principle. Nevertheless, some of the beneficiaries of recent community fund grants should have come as no surprise to Ministers.
  In 1999, the community fund guidelines were amended. That has been acknowledged. Ministers both promoted to Parliament and approved the community fund strategic plan, which included specific reference to targeting organisations supporting asylum seekers and refugees. That in itself was not the problem. What appears to have been lacking was a sufficiently robust regime for grant approvals to prevent any organisations that benefited from the programme supporting, for example, moves to prevent the deportation of criminals—the Home Secretary's criticism—or engaging in doctrinaire political campaigns way beyond what should be acceptable from an organisation in receipt of public money. As the Secretary of State has said, the community fund appears to recognise that. However, the solution is not to abolish the community fund or the other distributors. I welcome the timely reminder given by the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), about the second licence promise to the distributor bodies. We need to improve internal procedures and reconsider the guidelines that the distributors are given by the Government.
  I profoundly disagree with the Secretary of State's comment that there were flaws in the lottery structure. There was nothing seriously wrong with the structure of distribution established for the lottery at the outset, although its priorities were always bound to develop. What has happened since, under this Government, has undermined public confidence in the lottery. In particular, the creation of the new opportunities fund has corrupted the crucial principle of additionality. One needs only to talk to the other funding bodies to know how deeply that is resented in the country and throughout the lottery scene. If we want the lottery to support health and education in the form of schools and hospitals, we should not do so through an organisation that has such close ties to Government Departments, mandated to fund initiatives that are central to the Government's policy strategy. Government policy initiatives relating to school sport, for example, should be funded out of taxation, not the lottery. That is not the same as saying that schools should not benefit. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), Sport England has funded school projects in my constituency, provided that they are for community use.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) was right—we are not against the projects. He rightly questioned the method of

  325
  funding. The Government seem to treat the new opportunities fund as an extension of the Exchequer. How often have we heard the Prime Minister announce public spending commitments, only to discover later that they will be largely funded by the lottery?
  The public recognise that the lottery is increasingly being used as a means of delivering the Government's agenda rather than what schools or voluntary organisations have determined they want to achieve for their community. The lottery was established to provide an independent stream of money to support local action and self-help. In our view, it needs to return to that first principle.
  Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: No, I will not, because I have only a few minutes left.
  The Secretary of State recognises that all is far from well. We agree that a review of lottery funding is appropriate, although we have different solutions to offer. We agree that we need at the very least to correct inequalities of funding between the funding bodies. The new opportunities fund receives one third, while the rest receives one sixth. That is perverse and unfair.
  We agree, too, that there is a need to make the application process easier and more user friendly. Increasingly, however, the disappointment of rejection is due to a lack of money, for sport and charities especially. That is why we have said for some time that a way should be found to enable at least a part of the significant sum of unspent money to be released to boost spending. Lottery money is often earmarked by the Government for other projects, which reduces the amount of money available for local good causes. It is as if the lottery candle is being burned at both ends, and it cannot stand the reduction in ticket purchases.
  Finally, we agree that local decision making should be enhanced. However, the consultation paper talks of establishing local awards committees, with more than a hint of local authority involvement.
  The Secretary of State has said that we should keep politicians out of the grant decision process, and we agree, but that should apply to local councillors, regional development agencies and regional assemblies as well as Ministers. The lottery should not be seen as a community resource or slush fund for local authorities or assemblies as a substitute for public funds.
  For the lottery to have a vibrant future, the twin core principles of arm's-length and additionality on which it was based but which have been corrupted under this Government must be reasserted. The Conservative party created the lottery, and we remain one of its staunchest champions. In a White Paper in 1997, new Labour promised a lottery for the people. With respect, it already was a lottery for the people, but it has increasingly become a lottery for the state. For us, any lottery worth having helps volunteers, charities and independent organisations, not public sector bodies, to improve the quality of life for our people and communities. It helps our athletes and our young musicians achieve their hopes and aspirations. It helps charities provide support for the weak and most
  326
  vulnerable in our society. That was, and remains, central to the Conservative vision for the national lottery. It is a vision that we commend to the Secretary of State.
  6.50 pm
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): We have held an excellent debate, which was refreshingly free from some of the things that could have infected it. I am glad about that.
  I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members will join me in commending the hard work done for the lottery by the Minister for Sport, who owing to family difficulties cannot be at the Dispatch Box this evening. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, too, has done an enormous amount to make the lottery relevant to contemporary society.
  We have heard many excellent contributions. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made an important point about ticket sales and income from the lottery. We expect lottery sales to be well over £4.5 billion this year and to contribute well over £1.2 billion to good causes. That is a large amount by any reckoning and it is hugely important for good causes of every sort throughout the country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will mark my words: it is extremely important that we help in every way we can to sustain that level of income. That point raises questions which have not been discussed today about the nature of the gains or how they should evolve. Those essential questions have been absent from the debate.
  I thank the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) for making an important point about ensuring that many small outlets do not lose their lottery franchise. I am sure that he and other Members will want to know that Camelot introduced sales incentive schemes earlier this year to ensure that the money for good causes is maximised. Obviously, Camelot wants the maximum number of outlets. I understand that the company is spending time with every retailer who is experiencing difficulties and is in danger of losing their terminal. Camelot field executives have instituted a training period of more than 26 weeks to help such retailers to reach their weekly sales targets.
  The hon. Gentleman's comments were important, because the last thing we need is for shops, often in vulnerable areas, to lose the attraction of the lottery. Ultimately, the decision for Camelot is commercial, as it should be. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested—I certainly was—to learn that more than 100,000 retail outlets are on a waiting list for a line terminal.
  The hon. Member for Colchester and other Members asked whether sport was suffering. School sport alone will receive £750 million. That is a great achievement that, hopefully, will produce the goods in terms of winning teams. Most important, however, is the fact that so many young children will be involved in activities that they would never otherwise have taken part in. That is a great step forward. We should celebrate it, not knock it.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) raised the issue of balances, which has been extremely important since the lottery began. I am sure that he knows that the Government are working with the distributing bodies to

  327
  ensure that lottery funds are not only committed to projects, but paid over to project operators as quickly as possible. We want lottery funds to give the greatest and fastest possible benefits on the ground.
  My right hon. Friend was right to highlight the fact that the balance is enormous: about £3.6 billion. The lottery distributing bodies forecast that it will more than halve, to £1.6 billion, by March 2004. I assure him that the Government attach high priority to ensuring that that reduction takes place so that good causes will benefit to the greatest extent from the money raised by the lottery.
  The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) reminded us of how the money can be used. She painted a vivid picture of the difference that it will make in her constituency, especially as regards health care. Quite properly, she referred to the accountability of quangos. I use the word "quango", as it would take too long to explain it. I feel strongly about quangos. Sometimes, they work extremely well; at other times, they do not work too well, but they should always be accountable. As I come from Wales—a country that seemed for a long time to be run by wholly unaccountable quangos, although we have changed that—I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Lady's comments.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward) described some of the splendid schemes in her constituency—for example, the out-of-school clubs that are such a boon. She asked the House to understand that we owe a duty to fund small but vital grants for organisations that will never receive publicity. Such organisations will certainly never be controversial like those that, through controversy, actually win funds. Lottery funds are the lifeblood of the organisations to which she referred and I support her observations.
  The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) urged us to consider carefully the simplification of the application process. That is an important point. He and other Members will be pleased to learn that, as part of the current review of lottery funding, we are examining the application process. The review has resulted in several proposals to improve the process, including a single application form, electronic applications and one-stop shops. Those innovations could bring real advantages.
  There were many contributions, and I cannot answer them all this evening. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) was right to refer to community halls—another important issue. He will be pleased to learn that we have been working with the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and taking a lead on a cross-cutting review of the funding for village halls, in liaison with all the stakeholders—if I may use that terrible word including the Department for Culture. Media and Sport, to demonstrate the amount of funding needed to develop village halls. The review will also examine the funding process and other issues such as access for disabled people—to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Such access can be expensive but it should form part of the civil rights of disabled people. We shall certainly not try to get around that problem.
  328
  There were many contributions—
  Bob Spink rose—
  Dr. Howells: I cannot give way now. Indeed, I may have been about to answer the question that the hon. Gentleman wanted to ask.
  Many Members referred to the need to ensure fair shares. My remarks may be a little controversial, but coming from a constituency that until recently was a coalmining constituency, I can say that the greatest poverty that we have suffered is a poverty of aspirations for ourselves—not necessarily for our children—and for our communities. We should start to forget the history involved; otherwise we could argue with each other from now until the end of time. If we do not raise that level of aspiration and start looking to the sky for the future of our communities, we will never achieve any of the improvement that is so important to us. That poverty of aspiration is at the heart of many of the problems that have been experienced with the lack of funding going to some constituencies. There could be many reasons for that, but we must tackle it quickly. I commend the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done in trying to draw together such constituencies to discover how we can improve matters.
  The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) made an impassioned plea, and properly so. We owe those people who defeated fascism, the Nazis and the rest of those scum a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid. We must take care of those people and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's words will be heard outside the House. They have certainly been heard inside the House—
  David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 391.

  Division No. 328]

  [7:00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cameron, David

  Amess, David

  Cash, William

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bacon, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Baldry, Tony

  Clappison, James

  Barker, Gregory

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Collins, Tim

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bercow, John

  Curry, rh David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Boswell, Tim

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Brazier, Julian

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Burns, Simon

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Burnside, David

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Burt, Alistair

  Evans, Nigel

  Butterfill, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  329

  Fallon, Michael

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Paice, James

  Flook, Adrian

  Paterson, Owen

  Forth, rh Eric

  Pickles, Eric

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Randall, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Redwood, rh John

  Goodman, Paul

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Grayling, Chris

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Ruffley, David

  Greenway, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Grieve, Dominic

  Selous, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Heald, Oliver

  Soames, Nicholas

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Spring, Richard

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Steen, Anthony

  Howard, rh Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hunter, Andrew

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Syms, Robert

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tredinnick, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Trend, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Viggers, Peter

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Watkinson, Angela

  Lidington, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Wiggin, Bill

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Maclean, rh David

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Maples, John

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Young, rh Sir George

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Norman, Archie

  Mr. David Wilshire and

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Mr. Mark Francois

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bell, Stuart

  Ainger, Nick

  Benn, Hilary

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Alexander, Douglas

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Allan, Richard

  Berry, Roger

  Allen, Graham

  Best, Harold

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Betts, Clive

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Blunkett, rh David

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Baird, Vera

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Baker, Norman

  Breed, Colin

  Banks, Tony

  Brennan, Kevin

  Barnes, Harry

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Barrett, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Battle, John

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Bayley, Hugh

  Bryant, Chris

  Beard, Nigel

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Burden, Richard

  330

  Burgon, Colin

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Burnett, John

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Burnham, Andy

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Burstow, Paul

  Flint, Caroline

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Follett, Barbara

  Cairns, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gardiner, Barry

  Carmichael, Alistair

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Caton, Martin

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Challen, Colin

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Chaytor, David

  Gilroy, Linda

  Chidgey, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Goggins, Paul

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Grogan, John

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hanson, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Colman, Tony

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Connarty, Michael

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Healey, John

  Corston, Jean

  Heath, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Hendrick, Mark

  Crausby, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cruddas, Jon

  Heppell, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hermon, Lady

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cummings, John

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Heyes, David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire;

  Hinchliffe, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hodge, Margaret

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Holmes, Paul

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  David, Wayne

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Davidson, Ian

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Dismore, Andrew

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Doran, Frank

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Doughty, Sue

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Hutton, rh John

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Illsley, Eric

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Edwards, Huw

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Efford, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Jamieson, David

  331

  Jenkins, Brian

  Martlew, Eric

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Merron, Gillian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Miliband, David

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Miller, Andrew

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Mitchell Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Mole, Chris

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Moonie Dr. Lewis

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Moore, Michael

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Moran, Margaret

  Keetch, Paul

  Morgan Julie

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Mountford, Kali

  Mudie, George

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Mullin, Chris

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Kidney, David

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Lamb, Norman

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Lammy, David

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Organ, Diana

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Osborne Sandra (Ayr)

  Lepper, David

  Owen, Albert

  Leslie, Christopher

  Pearson, Ian

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Perham, Linda

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Picking, Anne

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Pickthall, Colin

  Linton, Martin

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Plaskitt, James

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Pollard, Kerry

  Love, Andrew

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Pound, Stephen

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  MacDonald, Calum

  Prosser, Gwyn

  McDonnell, John

  Pugh, Dr. John

  MacDougall, John

  Purnell, James

  McFall, John

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Rammell, Bill

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  McKechin, Ann

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  McNulty, Tony

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

  MacShane, Denis

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Rendel, David

  McWalter, Tony

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  McWilliam, John

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Rooney, Terry

  Mallaber, Judy

  Ruane, Chris

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Russell Bob (Colchester)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Salmond, Alex

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Savidge, Malcolm

  332

  Sawford, Phil

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Trickett, Jon

  Sheerman, Barry

  Truswell, Paul

  Sheridan, Jim

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Ward, Claire

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Watts, David

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Weir, Michael

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

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Southworth, Helen

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Spellar, rh John

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Squire, Rachel

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wills, Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Wilson, Brian

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Winnick, David

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Straw, rh Jack

  Wishart, Pete

  Stringer, Graham

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Worthington, Tony

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Thurso, John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Mr. Phil Woolas and

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Mr. Fraser Kemp

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the fact that the Lottery has so far generated over £12 billion for investment in good causes and has brought much needed support for sport, the arts and heritage, charities, and organisations dealing with health, education and the environment; notes that the Lottery has created funds for projects to mark the new millennium; also notes that the typical constituency has received millions of pounds of Lottery funding, often transforming local communities and their economies; welcomes the contribution that Lottery funding has made throughout the United Kingdom; believes that Lottery players can have full confidence in the Lottery and in Lottery fund distribution; and welcomes the current review being undertaken by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that the Lottery continues to make the fullest possible contribution to the nation.

  Mersey Tunnels Bill
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question,
  That the promoters of the Mersey Tunnels Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
  That on the fifth sitting day in the next session the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office;
  That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the present session;
  That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
  That in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
  That no further fees shall be charged to such stages;
  That all petitions relating to the bill which stand referred to the committee on the bill, shall stand referred to the committee on the bill in the next session;
  That no petitioners shall be heard before the committee unless their petition has been presented within the time provided for petitioning or has been deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 126(b);
  That, in relation to the bill, Private Business Standing Order 127 shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Question again proposed.
  7.15 pm
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: As the sponsor of the Bill, I wish to speak in support of the motion, which is procedural and not about the Bill's merits.
  The Bill is promoted by the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority, which together with its passenger transport executive is known as Merseytravel. The PTA comprises councillors from the five local authorities on Merseyside: Knowsley, Liverpool city, Sefton—
  Mr. Peter Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The sound system does not seem to be working—none of us at this end can hear a word my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) is saying.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I will ask for that to be investigated. I could hear the hon. Lady perfectly well, but perhaps that could be examined. May I appeal to the hon. Lady to raise her voice in the meantime?
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a matter of clarification. If the motion were passed this evening, would there be no further Second Reading of the Bill in the next Session of Parliament?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: if the motion were passed, the Bill would resume in the next Session at the position that it has reached up to now. Second Reading has been obtained.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In your capacity
  334
  as Chairman of Ways and Means, you tabled this motion, which, as I understand it, has the carry-over effect. Is it right to presume that the promoters of the Bill made representations to you that there should be a carry-over, as distinct from a revival? I understand that that would have been an alternative possibility.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The motion would not have been on the Order Paper had I not received representations.
  Mr. Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are those representations in the public domain? I just ask as a matter of inquiry.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not clear that this is part of a perfectly proper procedure? There has been a very long debate about the Bill, which has implications for a lot of local authorities. We are not doing anything revolutionary. Is this not the same procedure as normally happens under carry-over procedure?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. We are operating perfectly in accordance with precedent. Nothing unusual has taken place.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: The passenger transport authority comprises councillors from the five local authorities on Merseyside: Knowsley, Liverpool city, Sefton, my own authority, St. Helens and Wirral. All those authorities support the Bill, as does Halton borough council, which is responsible for the Runcorn crossing of the Mersey.
  The promoters have placed a statement in support of the motion in the Vote Office. As we are debating a procedural motion, this is not the occasion on which to discuss the Bill in detail. However, it may be helpful to remind hon. Members about the purpose of the Bill and its progress through the House.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the hon. Lady look at paragraph 12 of the promoter's statement in support of the carry-over motion, which asserts,
  "The Bill has all party support within Merseytravel"?
  Is she aware that Councillor Jacquie McKelvie, the Conservative representative on Merseytravel, is against the Bill and voted against it on 25 July?
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observation. I am afraid that I was not aware of that fact, and I will seek further details after the conclusion of the debate.
  The Bill was introduced in January and received its Second Reading on 9 July, after which it was committed to an Opposed Bill Committee. That Committee was due to consider the Bill earlier this month, but it had to be cancelled because one of the petitioners could not attend, unfortunately.
  The Bill would amend the County of Merseyside Act 1980. First, it would replace the present tunnels' toll revision procedure, which is complex, lengthy, costly and always involves a public inquiry, with an index-linking mechanism, which would end the need for

  335
  Merseyside's council tax payers to fund the operating deficits that the current procedures almost invariably produce. Secondly, it would provide that any real-terms increase in tolls would need to be approved by the Secretary of State.
  Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend is doing her best to put her case before the House, but does she accept that, in fact, the current figures do not show a deficit? The toll produces a break-even state of affairs and has done so for some years.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: That inquiry would have been better made on Second Reading. I wish to speak to the motion, which is procedural.
  Stephen Hesford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I adhere to the ruling that the motion is narrow, but surely, if an hon. Member raises a matter—the hon. Lady raised the substantive issue of the toll deficit—other hon. Members can respond.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not wish to hear a detailed debate about the substance of the Bill. If the motion is carried and there are further debates on the Bill, there will be opportunities for the House to consider detail. I am allowing the hon. Lady, in support of the motion that she is moving, to make a summation of the general purport of the motion to advance the Bill, but I shall not expect her to dilate too much on that either.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Bill would allow any surplus income to be used for local public transport services on Merseyside. It would remove the requirement for tolls to be reduced when the tunnel debts have been repaid. Lastly, it would permit Merseytravel to carry out noise insulation work on the properties near the tunnel approach roads on the Wirral.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: It is important to make it clear that we are not debating the Bill's content, the charges, or the rights and wrongs of who does and does not support it; we are talking about whether it should be allowed to proceed, which would give hon. Members of all political persuasions the opportunity to comment on many of those matters later. Attempts to stop the right to discuss that procedure would be unhelpful.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that significant contribution. She is a distinguished hon. Member, and she has adequately and generously identified the reason why we are here this evening, which is to discuss not the Bill's merits, but a procedural motion.
  The House has already committed the Bill to an Opposed Bill Committee, and the motion will allow proper scrutiny of the Bill to take place in that Committee. As a precursor to that scrutiny, the Government have reported on the Bill and made it clear that they have no objection to its key provisions. Promoters and petitioners are entitled to expect Parliament to give careful and reasoned consideration to private Bills on their merits and, by convention, the
  336
  House allows such Bills to be carried over to enable that to happen. I therefore commend the motion to the House.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: Two almost unique circumstances come together in the Bill, which warrants more than a debate on a simple procedural motion. The Bill would delegate tax-making powers from the House to a transport authority, and linked with those powers is this procedural motion to carry over the Bill into the next Session. Over the years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, some hon. Members have tried to catch your eye to try to ensure the success of our own measures, which have fallen at the end of a parliamentary Session. Although such a motion is not unique, it would be wrong to suggest that it is a common occurrence.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) has rightly said in the past, many aspects of the measure have support throughout the House. It is wrong for a transport authority to have to return to the House every time that it wishes to make the smallest change to a toll. It is clearly important that the transport authority can raise funds to manage the tunnels safely in Merseyside. It is important that the toll helps to pay off debts that have accumulated in the past.
  It is also important that the measure gives the power to protect those tenants at the mouth of the Wallasey tunnel who do not gain financial support to install double glazing so that they are not disturbed by the noise emitted from the vehicles of those who use the tunnel. On all those fronts, there is general agreement in the House that this is a sensible measure. However, under the measure, the House would delegate tax-making powers to the authority, and I wish to speak about that briefly.
  Stephen Hesford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the problems involved in the cumbersome procedure under which we labour tonight have been dealt with in public Bills? In the past, original legislation was amended by public Bills, not necessarily by this type of legislation. The benefit of that is that the entire House takes part in debating the legislation in the normal way. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that would be a better procedure for dealing with the issues that he properly raises?
  Mr. Field: That intervention shows that my hon. Friend knows much more about the procedures of the House than I do. I am certainly persuaded by his argument, but I am not sure whether it helps me to make my substantive point.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; there is always a frightening element in any intervention by a Cheshire Member in a Liverpool fight. However, I should point out to him that the advice that he has been given is not totally accurate. Of course it is almost accurate, but not totally accurate. The motion is not unusual or unique, and it has implications for all local authorities on both sides of the Mersey. I hope that hon. Members will not confuse the content of the Bill with what is a procedural motion. I would be

  337
  very sorry if any Labour Member were to seek to stop debate or hinder the progress of a Bill not on what is actually happening, but on the content of the Bill.
  Mr. Field: That brings me to the substantive point: if the Bill were to proceed and be successful, it would give an authority in Merseyside tax-making powers. We all know that, if we do not want a measure to proceed, we use whatever means we can to prevent that from happening.
  I have lobbied the transport authority to say which aspects of the Bill I support and which I do not, and I have asked it whether it will accept the amendments that I have tabled. It has successfully drafted a letter back saying that it would say whether it supports those amendments after tonight's vote. In those circumstances, although I support much of the Bill and said in a brief intervention in the long speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South that I would vote for the Bill on Second Reading, I will vote against the carry-over motion tonight.
  7.29 pm
  Dr. John Pugh: I shall try to be brief and to stick to the procedure. I am conscious that the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) may wish to contribute in his usual laconic way, and I would hate him to have to hurry.
  Here we are again, debating a piece of legislation and trying to keep it alive. I would like to refresh hon. Members' memories of the reasons why we find ourselves in this position. Parliament has a procedure for private Bills, which we can all identify but which makes it virtually impossible for a private Bill of this nature to proceed. Such a Bill is in danger of being killed by circumstance rather than by a decision of Parliament. This is almost a textbook illustration.
  Stephen Hesford: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a Bill can be killed by incompetence? Is that not the case in relation to this Bill and its promoters?
  Dr. Pugh: That has yet to be demonstrated. What was demonstrated last July was how easy it was for a Bill to be killed simply by the contribution of one Member—one Member had the power and capacity to talk it out and decide its fate. It would not have mattered whether that Member were backed by millions, by himself or by the press; he had the capacity, the potential and the ability to do so alone. Some may be unhappy with a majority decision in this place, but many more are unhappy with what is effectively a minority decision. No one in the country, the media, the Chamber or anywhere else would be prepared to stand up, not for opposition to the tunnels Bill, but for the principle that a serious issue for the House might have been decided by the filibustering of one Member. That procedure is antique.
  Mr. Miller: If the hon. Gentleman is such a purist in terms of democratic procedure, does he agree that the Bill's promoters should find a mechanism to negotiate and to raise the issues with people in my constituency who suffer the tunnel tolls on a daily basis?
  Dr. Pugh: I was coming to that point. As a relative newcomer to the House, however, I must say that
  338
  deciding a matter of principal public importance in the way that we do is about as sensible as making public policy by examining chicken entrails. I daresay that if there were mention of chicken entrails in "Erskine May", there would still be some staunch opponents of that procedure, too.
  Mr. Field: I disagreed strongly with the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on Second Reading, as I thought that we should advance and see whether the transport authority would be reasonable in accepting amendments. In relation to the hon. Gentleman presenting such a line against my hon. Friend, however, most of the successes of Back Benchers in the House have resulted from employing the very technique that my hon. Friend employed—they denied time to the rest of the House to get a measure through.
  Dr. Pugh: The fact that Back Benchers have to employ that technique is a criticism of the procedures of the House. If the opponents of the Bill believed that something was amiss democratically, it would be possible and conceivable for them to recommend another procedure. They could, for example, suggest that the decision should not be made in the House but should be devolved to the local authorities of the area. They will not do that, and they will not urge the Government to do that, because they know what the result will be.
  Stephen Hesford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Pugh: If I may, I shall proceed with my point.
  If the majority of the councillors, elected by the majority of the people on Merseyside, were asked how they would vote on this recommendation, they would unquestionably say that the Bill should proceed and not that it should be blocked by the filibustering of one individual. I am amenable to all suggestions on procedure, and if there were a wish to do it another way, we could have a vote—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue to use the word "filibuster", as it is forbidden by the rules of the House. I also remind him that it can be difficult to know whether some of his colleagues in the Liberal party are making their normal speeches or filibustering.
  Dr. Pugh: With due respect, in this case, two wrongs do not make a right. I shall use whatever word the hon. Lady suggests is appropriate to describe such a performance, but it is not an elegant or attractive performance for the public at large. It does not indicate that this is proper democratic establishment. We need a procedure that allows us to make adequate progress with a private Bill, and we do not have such a procedure.
  Mr. Miller: I am attracted by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but he still has not answered the point. As he is a member of a minority party, surely he understands the need to protect the rights of minorities. My constituents have no say in this matter, yet they suffer

  339
  daily the penalties of tunnel tolls. Under his mechanism, how would my constituents get a say in the decision-making process?
  Dr. Pugh: May I suggest that there are individuals in the hon. Gentleman's constituency called councillors? Some of them will be called Labour councillors, and some of them will be asked questions about what they stand for—I presume that they could be asked about the Mersey Tunnels Bill and lobbied by their constituents. A set of arrangements exists. The hon. Gentleman would not, however, agree with the procedure that I recommended a moment ago—letting the councils decide.
  Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman must understand—perhaps it is a question of geography—that while Southport is in Merseyside, Ellesmere Port and Neston, although it is on the side of the Mersey, is not in Merseyside but in Cheshire. My constituents, therefore, are not covered by the promoters of the Bill. They are substantial users of the facility but have no say under the mechanisms that he suggests.
  Dr. Pugh: Clearly, the mechanism can be perfected. I have had no indication that the opponents of the Bill are interested in making the process more democratic. They are simply interested in getting their way, as they have supported a procedure that I regard as arcane and unworthy of the House.
  Stephen Hesford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I agree with the direction of his argument. Does he accept that there is a democratic deficit in using this procedure? Is it not therefore inherently likely that there will be a deficit in representation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) suggests, in the determination of what is, in effect, a tax-raising power?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me try to assist the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh). I remind him that this is not a debate about the generality of the procedure on private business before the House. It is about whether this particular Bill should be granted a carry-over.
  Dr. Pugh: The principal thrust of my argument is that we have had a debate before on the merits of the proposed legislation. The net effect was that a majority of Members attending at the time voted that it should be continued. Owing to circumstance—that is all—we have not advanced to the next stage. We must now repeat the performance, and the same pitfalls may arise with the Bill's promoters. A majority vote of the House should be decisive. If it is not decisive, and if, for some reason, not enough Members are present tonight and the Bill falls, that will prove—I am forbidden to use the word "filibuster" but I will use whatever appropriate word I am guided to use—that such a fundamentally undemocratic procedure will carry the day. Any Member with an interest in democracy and in carrying forward the views of the House and of the people of Merseyside—rather than allowing matters to be determined simply by the fact that a Member is capable of speaking at length—should vote for the continuation of the Bill.
  7.38 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: A load of rubbish is being talked tonight. I only want to make a small contribution to the debate, but it is important to make a few things clear.
  The House will decide whether the Bill is good on the basis of the debates that take place. Not only is it a fact that Members use procedural methods known to all of us to hold up or to progress legislation, but I regard it as one of the few minor rights left to Back-Bench Members, most of which are being rapidly taken away from them by a Government who ought to know better. Tonight's debate has been very narrowly based, and I have tried to keep out of it as I think that it is finely balanced. The various interests in the Bill must be considered, and I do not intend to cross the line by discussing that this evening. What is important, however, is that if there has been a long debate—it has continued over several months—the least that we can do is allow the Bill to proceed. It is not the end of the debate on the Bill, as there will be other points at which other aspects can be debated. Amendments can be tabled and the legislation can be altered. Therefore, the motion will not close off debate on issues that concern both sides of the House.
  It is clear that the Bill concerns Members with constituencies on both sides of the river. My involvement in the issue is simply the result of my interest in transport. I know the implications and difficulties that will arise if the Bill does not go forward, but I am prepared to accept that those with a constituency interest take a different view. However, my point is slightly different. I am not surprised when Members of Parliament use procedural methods to try to hold up private Bills or when people say, "If the Bill does not go forward, it will cost the ratepayers on Merseyside a great deal of money." I understand why they do that.
  Given the opportunity, I will cast a vote tonight and my decision will be determined by the fact that I believe that we should continue this debate. It would be an imposition on the ratepayers to return to square one and start again. That is my only concern, but it is important. The House of Commons has a responsibility to think in those terms before it commits local authorities to a great deal of extra expenditure.
  7.41 pm
  Bob Spink: I take issue with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who said that carry-over would not frustrate debate on the Bill. That is not my understanding, and I seek explanation from someone as to what the actual procedure would be. I want not to discuss the Bill's merits but simply to explore the procedure. If the Bill is carried over, the motion states:
  "That in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed through those stages."
  The Bill will then simply proceed to a Committee of four Members of Parliament and they will take evidence, discuss the Bill and think carefully whether to accept the Bill as it stands or to reject it as a whole. They will consider whether any amendments might make it

  341
  acceptable, and their decision will be reported back to the House. It would be very unusual for their decision to be varied by the House. The precedent is that their decision should simply be accepted.
  The Bill's promoter and the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) are nodding to suggest that my understanding is correct but, if I am wrong, the House will have the ability to debate and discuss the detail of the Bill again. However, I believe that my comments on the procedure to be adopted are accurate.
  7.43 pm
  Stephen Hesford: In an intervention on the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), I explained the reason for this debate. We are here to discuss the Bill because of the ineptitude of its promoters and the decrepitude of the system under which it has been proposed.
  Hon. Members may know that this is not the first Bill to have come from these promoters. They started the process in 2000. It is their fault that they withdrew the first Bill and then came up with a second one. Although I accept what you say about the procedure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why should the House be asked to agree to a procedure that is rarely used just to save the promoters time and effort, when it is their fault that they found themselves in this position? Why should the House assist them when their own goal caused us to be here?
  The promoters have been dilatory. When they first introduced the Bill, the office of Ways and Means offered the Bill a slot before the one that they eventually accepted. They declined that offer, thereby losing at least a month, if not two, of the legislative cycle. It is their fault that the Committee to which the Bill should have gone after Second Reading could not, for administrative reasons, be set up in September. Why should the House have any sympathy for the promoters, given that this problem is their fault? I shall discuss the decrepitude of our procedure more fully later.
  Mr. George Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), he would have discerned that the delay did not result from a request made by the Bill's promoters. The request came from elsewhere.
  Stephen Hesford: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I absolutely accept that he believes that. None the less, I take issue with him. The problem is entirely due to the promoters ducking out when they had the opportunity to take the Bill up in May or June instead of in July. That is my understanding.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I have to disagree with my hon. Friend. What evidence would he require, and be comfortable with, for us to prove our position?
  Stephen Hesford: This is not a court of law; it is the mother of Parliaments. I am afraid that I cannot take up that intervention.
  342
  Sadly, the two Bills have had a bad history. The first Bill contained a different formulation of schemes from the second one. The various schemes are misplaced and they are as misplaced as the position that their advocate in this place took on an earlier occasion. We are where we are because of thorough incompetence.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) for raising an interesting point in an intervention. This motion is not the only procedure available that would enable such a Bill to survive. I am not sure if this is the right term, but there can be a resurrection motion.
  Mr. Miller: A revival motion.
  Stephen Hesford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There can be a revival motion in the following Session, and that is better than the motion before us. No matter how many mistakes the Bill's promoters make or how many further opportunities to further the Bill they fluff, they carry on in what psychologists might describe as a dissociative state in their approach to legislation. They seem to be stuck in their own tunnel—one from which they cannot get out.
  The motion raises a constitutional issue for my constituents. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order if I rehashed the debate on Second Reading.
  Mr. Wareing: I know that my hon. Friend does not want to repeat what was said in the previous debate. However, has he read the edition of the Liverpool Echo that appeared on the Saturday after that debate? A huge article on the front of the newspaper and a column inside tore to shreds the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) that persuaded many Members. If people had been made aware of those views—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not returning to that debate, and I shall certainly rule it out of order if any further attempt is made to do so.
  Stephen Hesford: I understand my hon. Friend's point.
  It is clear to me, as I hope it is to other hon. Members, that despite badly losing the debate on Second Reading, when we heard an incomparable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), the House was deprived of an opportunity to tackle this serious issue in a comprehensive and useful manner. The arcane procedures under which we labour prevent us from doing that, which was the very point made by the hon. Member for Southport.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In giving advice to the hon. Member for Southport, I ruled that the debate is not about the procedures that affect private Bills. If the hon. Gentleman wants to debate the subject, I am sure he will find a means of doing so, but it will not be in the debate tonight.
  Stephen Hesford: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall pursue that for a moment. The procedure is unusual. Private Bills do not come before the House

  343
  every day. Some understanding of the stage that we have reached is vital for the House when it decides whether this is the—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The procedure might not come before the House frequently, but it is a normal and familiar procedure. The Bill has obtained a Second Reading. The only question tonight is whether we allow it to be carried over into the next Session.
  Stephen Hesford: Well—
  Mr. Frank Field: Although it is proper that we are guided towards the fact that the procedure is normal, does my hon. Friend agree that it is abnormal to have a Bill that gives tax-making powers to a transport authority? No one is against people paying to use the tunnel and for its upkeep. No one is against people who use it paying off the debt that has accumulated. No one who uses the tunnel and pays the toll is against repaying the local authorities that, out of the goodness of the taxpayers' heart, bailed out the project many years ago. No one who uses it is against those tenants and residents who live around the Wallasey tunnel being properly protected. What is at stake, however, is a Bill that allows a transport authority to raise money that can be spent on things that have nothing to do with the tunnel—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken once. He cannot speak a second time.
  Stephen Hesford: I agree with my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. George Howarth: I believe that my hon. Friend, who is an hon. Member of the House, inadvertently misled us. He said that delays in the procedure were brought about entirely as a consequence of the actions of the promoters. I have checked the facts. Second Reading could have taken place in May. As that would have been in the middle of local elections, it was decided that that was not an appropriate time to debate the Bill in the House. The Committee had the opportunity to meet in October. The request for that not to proceed came not from the promoter, but from one of the Bill's opponents, the north-west Trades Union Congress.
  Stephen Hesford: I am happy to go round in circles, if my hon. Friend so wishes.
  Mr. Howarth: I am not asking my hon. Friend to go round in circles. For the purposes of accuracy, I am merely asking him to amend the impression he wrongfully and, I am sure, inadvertently created.
  Stephen Hesford: We have to agree to differ. My hon. Friend is not right.
  Bob Spink: I did not intend to intervene, but I have a duty to inform the House, as an independent person, that the facts set out by the hon. Member for Knowsley,
  344
  North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) are absolutely accurate. I assure the hon. Gentleman of that and hope he accepts it.
  Stephen Hesford: The House must reach its own conclusion on who is right. I do not resile from my position. I genuinely believe that I am right; others may have a different view.
  Dr. Pugh: As the hon. Gentleman is in a position to review his errors, I remind him of what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said about the uniqueness of the Bill, which will enable funds to be used for purposes not directly related to the tunnel. I am sure that the Minister will tell him that in many transport schemes, including pay and display schemes, funds are used for a variety of transport purposes. So the use of such funds for those purposes is neither unique nor improper.
  Stephen Hesford: I am not sure where that takes us. The House heard my right hon. Friend make his point, which he made well.
  Mr. Frank Field: I claimed that the Bill was unique not on the grounds set out by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) but because we will never discuss the power again if we delegate it to the transport authority.
  Stephen Hesford: The House should grasp that point, if no other.
  The Bill was last debated on Second Reading, when only about 130 Members took part. It was 7 pm on a Wednesday evening and the decision was based on a free vote, so it was not unlike tonight. Three out of four right hon. and hon. Members do not participate in such procedures and we are deprived of their experience and wisdom simply because this is private business.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already told the hon. Gentleman not to talk about that in general. We are talking about a specific motion that relates to a specific Bill.
  Stephen Hesford: I apologise. I shall do my best to confine myself to the narrow motion before us.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. And I shall do my best to apply the Standing Orders of the House as fairly and objectively as possible. If the hon. Gentleman is not careful, they may be to his prejudice.
  Stephen Hesford: The serious issues raised by the Bill, especially whether there should be a carry-over, never get the discussion or scrutiny that they deserve. The procedure arises from an historical accident. The House has not prescribed the procedure in a modern sense—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman almost anticipates my ruling. He continues to talk about the procedures of the House on private business. That is not in order.
  Stephen Hesford: Once again, I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  345
  I want to put on the record what the motion says. [Interruption.] I hear an hon. Member say from a sedentary position that we have been there. Frankly, we have not. We heard some of the motion, but not all of it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the motion will be in the Official Report. I do not expect it to be repeated now.
  Stephen Hesford: Of course I will entirely abide by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I accept.
  I shall summarise the motion for the purposes of my argument, so that hon. Members have the benefit of understanding my remarks in the context of the words on the Order Paper: the promoters of the Mersey Tunnels Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings. As I understand it, that means that the Bill will be held in abeyance, and if the procedure is not followed, the Bill will fall on Prorogation. If the carry-over is allowed, the Bill will continue its life. I submit to the House that the motion has a serious constitutional consequence, and I question whether this procedure is the appropriate vehicle for this Bill, considering its substance. Although the private Bill system may be familiar to the House, it is not best suited to legislation such as this, which contains tax-raising powers. I understood that to be the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
  Mr. Field: My point, furthermore, was that unlike the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom we give tax-raising powers for a year, the authorities in question will he given tax-raising powers for ever, unless we later decide to withdraw those powers.
  Stephen Hesford: That is a point well made, and it returns me to my intervention during the speech of my right hon. Friend. I was slightly criticised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for being almost right when I said that if tax-raising powers are given and problems arise with certain undertakings, those problems can be cured by a public Bill. Problems arising from private Bills sponsored by railway companies, which regularly came before the House in the 19th century, and local authority undertakings, have been cured over time. The House found that the procedure was so unsatisfactory—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is ignoring the ruling that I have given, and I shall take an increasingly serious view of that. He must talk about the particular motion before the House and not the generality.
  Stephen Hesford: May I then turn to the issue of suspension, which is in order?
  Normally, if a motion such as this is not before the House, every Bill that does not complete its passage through the House is quashed as a direct result of Prorogation. [Interruption.] I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the hon. Members for Tatton
  346
  (Mr. Osborne) or for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) want to make a constructive contribution to the debate or whether they have just had a good dinner.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will leave it to me to maintain the order of the House. I suggest that he get on with his speech.
  Stephen Hesford: "Erskine May" observes:
  "Just as Parliament can commence its deliberations only at the time appointed by the Queen, so it cannot continue them any longer than she pleases."
  That means that the suspension seeks to nullify the effect of Prorogation. I submit that the Bill does not deserve the benefit of that procedure. The effect of Prorogation is to suspend all business at once. Every Bill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now repeating himself, and there are Standing Orders that cover that. I hope therefore that he will not go on committing that error.
  Stephen Hesford: Every Bill in the normal way must therefore be introduced afresh at the beginning of a new Session. That is, of course, other than private Bills or hybrid Bills.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has just come to my notice and, I dare say, that of a few colleagues that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), has resigned. Have you had any intimation that a Minister will be coming to the House forthwith to explain why that has taken place? As a former member of the then Education and Employment Committee, I think that the House and all those involved in education are owed an explanation, in the House, as soon as possible.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have had no such intimation. This is time-limited private business that cannot be interrupted by any extraneous matter of that kind.
  Stephen Hesford: I was making the point that all Bills, other than private Bills such as this, must fall on Prorogation. The inability to carry over Bills from one Session to another involves constitutional considerations and is not governed by Standing Orders. It is, in effect, a convention of the House that a Bill is not carried over from one Session to another. I know that the convention has recently been considered by the Modernisation Committee.
  Dr. Pugh: I am trying very hard to follow the hon. Gentleman's point. He is saying either that this motion is allowed by the procedures of the House, but it ought not to be, or that it is not allowed for some reason. If it were not allowed you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would have given us a ruling by now. Is the hon. Gentleman's argument therefore that this motion is allowed, but in his view it ought not to be? If that is the case, he is

  347
  making a substantial point about the procedures of the House which has already been ruled out of order by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Stephen Hesford: My point is that this is not simply a case of a Bill going through on the nod. The House is being asked to make a substantial derogation from the normal procedures for a Bill.
  Dr. Pugh: If that is the hon. Gentleman's point, we might as well concede it and say that he is stating the obvious. This procedure is within the legitimate remit of the House. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is arguing that it ought never to be used, so he does not seem to have an argument at all.
  Stephen Hesford: The argument is—
  Mr. Ben Chapman: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Bill has implications for an area far wider than Merseyside, including Cheshire, north Wales, east Lancashire and areas beyond and that its promoters can purport to represent only Merseyside? Is he suggesting that the precedents set by the Bill will have an impact on other ports, tunnels and crossings? Is he suggesting that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech on an intervention, and the content of his intervention has very little to do with the motion before us.
  Stephen Hesford: Being ever mindful of the narrow point that is under discussion, but trying to do justice to the constitutional position as I see it, I must say that some of what my hon. Friend was saying is relevant to the matter under consideration.
  Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that the procedure that we are using is perfectly proper and that the procedures undergone by the Bill so far, namely the fact that it has had a Second Reading, are all perfectly in order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can confirm that. We just have one matter to decide tonight: whether the Bill should be allowed to continue into another Session so that its merits can be further considered in that Session.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it true that the subsequent passage of the Bill would not preclude amendments and that it could be scrutinised at various stages if it progressed after tonight?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is right. She knows her procedure well and I am sure that the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) could benefit from that.
  Stephen Hesford: I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South was making the point that private Bills are designed to deal with narrow matters such as railway companies or a matter that affects a specific locality. My hon. Friend nods, and I believe that
  348
  the point is relevant. I am trying to distinguish between what could legitimately be passed by means of a public Bill and what should be tackled through private Bill procedure.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Our business tonight is not to decide the Bill's merits and implications; we are considering a procedure for carry-over. The Chair has accepted the motion for debate by the House, and it is therefore perfectly proper and in order. The hon. Member should direct his attention to it.
  Stephen Hesford: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want simply to present the case that because the Bill applies to the region of Merseyside and contiguous parts of Cheshire and other areas in the north-west, the locality that it covers is wider than normal.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is simply repeating himself. I remind him that I have Standing Orders at my disposal to control that. I advise him to move on.
  Stephen Hesford: I shall move on. Part of my prepared speech involved considering the way in which the private Bill procedure came about. However, I cannot do that and I shall therefore conclude.
  Hansard for the week of 15 to 23 December 1919 shows that the House debated a carry-over matter. I should like to read out some of the debate because it illustrates the reasoning behind the carry-over procedure.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is in serious danger of abusing the procedures of the House. We are considering a specific motion, which deals with whether the Mersey Tunnels Bill should be carried over. I have said more than once that our debate is not about the generality of private Bill procedure and whether it is appropriate. The hon. Member has only one question to tackle tonight. If he strays outside its limits again, I shall apply Standing Orders and cause him to desist.
  Stephen Hesford: The Leader of the House in December 1919 tried to bring before the House—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just ruled on that. I shall apply Standing Order No. 42, which will cause the hon. Member to resume his seat if he does not conclude his speech within the proper terms of the motion.
  Stephen Hesford: In conclusion, and bearing in mind your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask hon. Members to appreciate that the Bill is a bad measure, which is bad for the people of Merseyside. Its promoters have previously benefited to some extent from having a pause for thought. Hon. Members would assist the promoters if they allowed them a further pause.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend may consider the Bill a bad measure that is bad for Merseyside, but I thoroughly disagree. It is a good Bill, which is exceptionally good for most of the people of Merseyside who stand to gain considerably from it.
  Stephen Hesford: On a previous occasion, the Bill's promoters benefited from a pause for thought. They lost

  349
  the first version of the measure and, in the intervening period between the first and second Bills, they reconsidered. They subsequently presented another Bill that was substantially different from the first version. If hon. Members reject the suspension, it will give the promoters further time for consideration. It is therefore in the interests of the House and my constituents to give the promoters that time. We can do that only if the Bill is stopped in the current Session.
  I therefore ask hon. Members to reject the suspension, allow the Bill to fall in the normal way, and let the promoters present another Bill if they want to change the regime. If hon. Members agree to the motion to suspend without understanding the implications, the promoters will rush ahead. After acting in haste, they will repent at leisure.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I am a little disappointed that the Minister had to leave the Chamber, but in the light of recent events, he may have had to rush out to take a telephone call. We shall have to await the outcome. Perhaps he will not hold the same position when he returns.
  I apologise that I was unable to be present for the first few minutes of the debate; I was otherwise detained on parliamentary business. We are considering an important matter within the narrow limits of the motion. It pertains to my constituents, and I echo the wise counsel of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who said that those of us in Cheshire must tread carefully in dealing with an internecine dispute between those who represent Liverpool. However, as other Cheshire Members have said, we have a genuine constituency interest in so far as many of our constituents use the tunnels daily. They bring jobs and prosperity to Liverpool and therefore have a genuine connection with the city.
  I decided to make a short contribution to tonight's debate because I am the Conservative Member whose constituency is closest to the tunnels. The motion has given me the opportunity to reflect on the way in which the process is being handled.
  Stephen Hesford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: Yes. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had an adequate opportunity to develop his points, but I shall listen to him again.
  Stephen Hesford: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his constituency is not very close to the tunnels?
  Mr. O'Brien: I am sure that no hon. Member needs a geography lesson. The motor car is an amazing invention; perhaps the hon. Gentleman has come across it. It makes us very close to the tunnels.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many Cheshire people not only travel rapidly through the tunnels but frequently take the wrong one?
  Mr. O'Brien: Given the personal point that the hon. Lady raises, I shall declare an interest, having done just that myself.
  350
  There is a genuine reason to look carefully at whether the motion should be passed tonight. I listened carefully to my neighbouring MP from the constituency of Crewe and Nantwich. I was nearly persuaded by her approach, but not quite. I also have to say that the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) did not advance the cause of encouraging those who might vote against the continuation of the Bill into the next Session. He did his cause no favours, particularly as he based so much of his argument on the competence of the promoters of the Bill. I did not feel that competence was a highlight of his contribution this evening, when it came to the use of the procedures of the House, so there was a slight irony in that. Luckily, Hansard tends not to record irony, so there may be some mercy in the way in which his efforts are recorded for posterity.
  The most important point is that my constituents have a right to feel aggrieved by the promoters of the Bill, who have approached this matter in a very narrow, Liverpool way, rather than consulting widely among all the potential users of the tunnel. I do not just mean users from Cheshire. I mean users from Ireland and users of the great transport links that combine with our motorway network to facilitate trade. Such consultation seems neither to have been effective nor genuinely to have taken place.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but is he also arguing that his constituents might be prepared to fund the deficit that might arise unless the Bill is allowed to proceed this evening?
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. I want to be careful not to stray into the substance of the Bill—which is a matter for a future occasion, however it arises—but the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made it perfectly clear that at heart of the matter is the issue of local tax-raising powers. Without going into that, may I say that it has a genuine connection with the reason why my constituents feel aggrieved? In relation to that, is it better for the Bill to be allowed to continue into the next Session, with the possibility of amendments being tabled, to reflect the concerns that my constituents have increasingly been presenting to me and to other MPs from Cheshire and other counties, or to give the promoters—given the record to date—a chance to think again about the process and the way in which the Bill is constructed to take into account all the interested parties, including those who would not be caught in the net in terms of the tax being raised?
  Dr. Pugh: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point that consultation on the Bill has been somewhat imperfect. He mentioned Ireland, which is quite a way away from the tunnels. Eddisbury is possibly a little bit nearer. How far would he cast the net in this case? As I understand it, Members of Parliament in all parts of England have been informed about this. Will the hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of where exactly he would draw the line—how far south, how far east? Is he including Ireland?
  Mr. O'Brien: As my name has an "O'" at the beginning, I do have a certain partiality to the Irish.

  351
  That said, given that the Chairman of the Transport Committee is in her place, I must say that it is critical to the consideration of the Mersey Tunnels Bill to recognise that this matter is integral to our national transport network. It has not only a transport element but a national competitiveness element which must be considered. That involves all user groups, which could include those from this country engaged in trade to Ireland, and those coming from Ireland. My view is that we should not look at this geographically, but engage in consultation with user groups and those who will be affected by anything that takes place that pertains to the tunnels. I hope that that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh).
  Mr. Ben Chapman rose—
  Mr. O'Brien: I would like to present to the House the balance of judgment that I have had to make, but I shall do so after I have given way to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman).
  Mr. Chapman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a particular Irish dimension to this matter, in that we now have a new Irish ferry going from Birkenhead to various points in Ireland? It is a roll on/roll off service that has just commenced operations, and to reach it, vehicles will have to travel from various parts of the United Kingdom to Birkenhead through the tunnel. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that represents a very particular Irish dimension, and that the commercial dimension also has a national dimension?
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which illustrates the need to ensure that all the user groups affected by whatever may take place in the tunnels should be incorporated in the process of the Bill, which has hitherto been very narrowly focused by the promoters on the needs of the areas on the north side of the Mersey which they, quite rightly, seek to represent.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that if the Bill were carried forward, the points that he is making could easily be encompassed in amendments. There would be no difficulty at all in that, because what we are talking about is the finance to be made available for a major transport infrastructure that—like some of us—is not as young as it once was.
  Mr. O'Brien: I hope that I made it clear earlier that I was very persuaded by what the hon. Lady had to say in her speech, and I accept that the Bill would be amendable if it were carried over into the next Session. If that were allowed, it would, subject to the Orders of the House, appear in the next Session. I believe, however, that that would give insufficient time for the consultation of user groups and others with an interest in the matter that has so far failed to take place effectively. Otherwise, I might well be minded to agree with the hon. Lady. Although we have already had four years, they have been four missed years in terms of consultation at a level that I think is necessary to incorporate all those interests.
  Dr. Pugh: May I take the hon. Gentleman back for a moment to the Irish dimension? He is perhaps not a
  352
  veteran of these debates, as some of us have been, but after the last debate, a good number of Ulster Unionist MPs voted in favour of the Bill, and those who opposed the Bill actually complained that they had expressed an opinion. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of that?
  Mr. O'Brien: On the contrary, my view is that the House survives—just—by being the representative House of the United Kingdom, and I am delighted that any Member from any part of the United Kingdom has the opportunity to express their views, both on behalf of their constituents and in the national interest. I therefore make no complaint about that whatever.
  We need to consider the time needed to consult at a level necessary to encompass all those who have a genuine interest in this matter, including my constituents, and to adopt a more imaginative approach than the more narrowly based one taken by the promoters. Such consultation would need to incorporate many of those from whom the Chairman of the Transport Committee takes evidence in her Committee. It would need to include the various hauliers and associations. They have taken a view, but I would like to see something more overarching in terms of our national transport policy.
  I do not wish to stray beyond the indulgence of the Chair, but I think that, for instance, it would take longer than a carry-over would permit to negotiate a deal involving heavy goods vehicles that would enable the Bill to become law and enable the tax-raising powers to be established. An ever-increasing number of HGVs use the tunnel. They often travel down the Wirral and then do not leave the motorway network because of the difficulties in the Birmingham area. Instead, they go down the trunk roads, often using my constituency and my neighbour's to the great detriment of those constituencies, despite the fact that a motorway network is available.
  As I have said, a large overarching deal would be needed but would take longer than a carry-over would allow. I do not support the carry-over, because I think the promoter should have a chance to think again and start the consultation again.
  Mr. Chope: Surely this is an issue not just of consultation, but of whether the promoter responds to the consultation meaningfully. I understand that 67 per cent. of respondents to the earlier consultation did not agree to the cross-subsidy from the tolls being used in the way proposed.
  Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right.
  Mr. Miller: It is unusual for me to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he will note from the proceedings of the court of referees that the promoter sought to dismiss a petition from the Federation of Small Businesses on the grounds that its area of activity was too wide. That underlines what he has been saying.
  Mr. O'Brien: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important example. If small business men, of all people, do not see the benefit, I think they must be right—as are my constituents. Not only do they derive jobs from Liverpool, and need to travel there; many of them—

  353
  commuters who choose to live in my part of the world but to work in Liverpool—are bringing jobs and prosperity to the city. They should be taken fully into account. The narrow view of the promoter has done this whole process a disservice.
  Mr. Ben Chapman: As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is the second Mersey Tunnels Bill. Obviously, the legislation has already been through various stages. The hon. Gentleman may also know that, contrary to the assertion of the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), the vast majority of people on Merseyside—according to any measure I would use—do not support the Bill. The press do not support it, businesses do not support it, users do not support it and the unions do not support it. As far as I can detect, only Merseytravel supports it.
  Is the hon. Gentleman confident that, in the event of a carry-over, the Bill's opponents would rethink their position? They have had ample opportunity to do so, but have shown no sign of movement.
  Mr. O'Brien: That has been something of a problem. It is a matter of personal regret to me that I could not take part in earlier deliberations because I was dealing with other parliamentary business or, indeed, other matters generally. Nevertheless, I have followed developments carefully and—like the hon. Gentleman, no doubt—have received many representations. Indeed, my fax and e-mail machines seem to have been whirring overactively today, as, no doubt, have his. I have been unable to detect any support for the Bill other than that cited by him.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman may wish to make it clear whether, if the Bill falls and there is another period of some years before legislation is brought back to us, he would be prepared to suggest to the voters of Cheshire that they offer a transport subsidy to Merseytravel.
  Mr. O'Brien: It would be highly presumptuous of me even to contemplate such an offer without consultation. Especially given the hon. Lady's important and respected role as Chairman of the Transport Committee, I suggest that part of the consultation should involve viewing the tunnels, as a crucial element of the national network—which is why I think that the consultation will require a longer process than a carry-over would provide. I respect the hon. Lady, of course, but I do not think she would rapidly join me in urging Cheshire voters to put their hands in their pockets. In any case, I do not think they have had an opportunity to examine the issues.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I did not say that I would do it; I said that the hon. Gentleman would.
  Mr. O'Brien: I would be seeking as much consensus as possible, as I always do. That might include a discussion between the hon. Lady and me to establish whether we shared a view.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I do not want to prolong my speech. Others want to speak, including the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth).
  354
  I think that the proposal should go back to the drawing board. The consultation needs to be more widespread and more encompassing. The Bill should be looked at in a strategic way.
  I am glad that the Minister has resumed his seat. I hope he did not have to rush out to take a telephone call, but if he did I hope I am the first to congratulate him.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: Any impartial observer of today's proceedings may well have been entertained, but will not have been particularly well informed. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), entertaining though he was, added nothing whatever to the debate. His first suggestion was that the people of Ireland should be consulted about the Bill. I have been thinking about that and the only Irish connection that I can come up with is that the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) had something of the Parnellites about it, although it was far less successful.
  The second suggestion from the hon. Member for Eddisbury was that the employees of Merseytravel should be sent patrolling the highways and byways of the midlands trying to elicit the opinions of drivers of heavy goods vehicles who at some point in their perambulations around these islands may have found their way through the Mersey tunnel. Entertaining though that is, it hardly takes the debate any further.
  The substance of the debate is whether or not the Bill, which has received a Second Reading, should be allowed to progress. In effect, that means that it will go into Committee. Every time my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) tries to leave the Chamber, someone refers to her. As she put it in her first intervention in the debate, we are here to decide only whether or not the Bill, which has received a Second Reading, should go into Committee. I do not know why some of my hon. Friends, and seemingly the hon. Member for Eddisbury, have this appalling fear of the Bill being considered in Committee. It would be subject to a particular Committee procedure, not that which would apply to a public Bill. I fail to understand this great fear that something terrible will happen when the Bill goes into Committee. Although I understand that four hon. Members have been appointed to the Committee, I have not taken the trouble to find out who they are. I am sure that they will deal with it sensibly as hon. Members always do when dealing with these matters. It would then return to the House on Report, when there would be ample opportunity to amend it. What is so fearful about that procedure is a matter of mystification.
  Mr. Wareing: My hon. Friend mentioned an important point. If this were a public Bill, it would fall at prorogation. Many of us believe that enough time has been given to Mersey tunnel legislation since just after the general election. There is no justification for giving priority to this private Bill, as would be the case were it a public Bill, and I think that it should fall.
  Mr. Howarth: I hank my hon. Friend for giving us the benefit of his many years' experience in the House, but he knows as well as anyone else that there is a world

  355
  of difference between the private Bill procedure and the public Bill procedure. If the Government want to get a public Bill through the House, they can find the time to do so through the House authorities and the usual channels, so my hon. Friend is making a bogus point. He knows that I hold him in great affection and we agree about many issues, but on this occasion I do not think that he was making a serious point.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend also note that the Government are seeking to change the rules of the House so that public Bills can be carried over? Many of us think that that is also an interesting idea.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted too far down that road in reply.
  Mr. Howarth: As I hold my hon. Friend in such regard, I am always open to travel on any road down which she wants to tempt me. However, on this occasion I accept your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will not go in that direction.
  The House should allow the Bill to proceed, and we must ask what the consequences will be if we do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West adopted the novel concept that we should always reject Bills on the grounds that the next time they come back, they will always be better. If we adopted his approach, it would be rather like Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution: if we keep it going long enough, we will eventually reach some kind of perfect constitutional state. That is a fascinating concept. [Interruption.] At this point, my hon. Friend has walked out. I cannot think why. Perhaps he has gone to consult Lenin on what is to be done.
  Mr. Miller: John?
  Mr. Howarth: Lenin, not Lennon.
  While fascinating, the concept of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West is one that the House should consider with trepidation. If the principle is that the Bill should be constantly rejected because the next one will be better, it means that, round about the year 2050, it might be possible to get a Mersey Tunnels Bill through the House.
  Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend agrees with me.
  Mr. Howarth: Clearly my hon. Friend thinks that that is a good idea, which gives us a measure by which we can judge the length of his vision, but not necessarily the strength of his arguments.
  I wish to refer to the possible consequences if we do not allow the Bill to go forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that, at the moment, the tunnels are not in deficit. He is right, so to some extent, that blunts the argument that there is any urgency. But for argument's sake, if there were a huge safety issue and the tunnel authorities had to spend money in a hurry on improving the safety of the tunnel, or on some other aspect of the tunnel management, it is possible that the tunnels could go into deficit.
  356
  If that were to happen, the House—particularly Cheshire Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who understands the issue—should know that what will happen will be, as in 1992, that the council tax payers in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and for Bootle (Mr. Benton) and others will have to find the money.
  Mr. Ben Chapman: This is a nice hypothetical argument, but does my hon. Friend accept that the tunnels are making an operating surplus, that the forecast is that they will make an operating surplus for some time to come, and that the scenario that he describes is an unlikely one in the foreseeable future?
  Mr. Howarth: I have the highest regard for my hon. Friend, whose forecasting powers are legendary across the Wirral peninsula. On this occasion, he is making a prediction that may or may not be right. However, I hope that he will concede that we cannot see into the future; it is perfectly possible that something may go wrong that will acquire additional expenditure. If that took the tunnel authorities into deficit, there could be only one place they could go—the council tax payers. That may be a matter of some concern to my hon. Friend, just as it is to me. However, as I understand it, between 3 and 5 per cent. of my constituents—
  Mr. Wareing: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Howarth: I will, but I should tell my hon. Friend that I am trying to make a serious speech; I am not in any way trying to prolong the debate.
  Mr. Wareing: I thank my hon. Friend; this is a serious intervention. He claimed that the Mersey tunnels authority would have recourse to an increase in council tax only if a catastrophe or unforeseen circumstance occurred, but in such a situation it could apply to the Secretary of State for an increase in the tolls. There would be a public inquiry, and if the inquiry found in the authority's favour, it would be allowed to increase the tolls.
  Mr. Howarth: I did not bait a trap for my hon. Friend, but had I done so, it would have been a perfect one. The truth of the matter is that it would take at least 22 months between the authority's discovering that it was in deficit and going to the Secretary of State for approval, and having a public inquiry, the funding of which would probably involve shelling out some half a million pounds. In the meantime, who would pay for it? Not this House or the Secretary of State, but council tax payers in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend. All five Merseyside boroughs would have to pick up the tab. My hon. Friend's intervention was helpful, although not, I think, in the way that he intended.
  Dr. Pugh: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what is being suggested is that the principle that council tax payers throughout Merseyside should be liable is good and sound?
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but I do not intend to go down that road, as I

  357
  suspect that to do so would incur your censure, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, it is legitimate for me to ask whether, if we kill the Bill tonight, the House would feel comfortable with the tunnels going into deficit and my constituents having to pick up the bill in perhaps 12 or 18 months' time. The House has the constitutional right to take such a decision, but I do not think it proper for the House to say, "We're not worried about that. If it ever happens, the constituents concerned will have to bear the consequences."
  Such a situation is not entirely hypothetical; it happened exactly as I described in 1992, when the council tax payer had to pick up the tab.
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman's argument is very interesting, but in what way is it consistent with that deployed in the letter—copies of which were sent to all hon. Members—from the general secretary of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen? It states that, if implemented, Merseytravel's proposals would
  "generate an additional £2.5M in revenue for local public transport per year—and an additional borrowing source, for the Merseyrail network, local bus services and the Mersey Ferries."
  The general secretary's view of the Bill's effect seems rather different from that of the hon. Gentleman's.
  Mr. Howarth: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been listening carefully, so perhaps there has been some inadequacy in the way in which I have expressed myself. I am talking about what will happen if the Bill is not passed, but the hon. Gentleman is describing what might happen if it is. I do not blame him for misunderstanding me; it is clear that, on this occasion, my powers of expression were not up to it. There is a world of difference between what he and I are describing.
  I do not want to take up any more time. I am anxious that progress be made and that all hon. Members with something to say are able to say it. All we are asking is that decisions about the level of tolls should be made by the Merseyside PTA. Any change in the level would be index-linked to inflation. What is wrong with that? Why should the House prevent the PTA from having the power to make such decisions? Why is it so attached to the idea that the appropriate way to determine tolls involves the Secretary of State and a public inquiry?
  I do not think that the House should be attached to that idea. I hope that the Bill is allowed to go forward and that the motion will be agreed tonight.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I have decided to contribute to the debate for two reasons. The first is that the Bill is generally unpopular, as is borne out by correspondence that I have received from the trade unions, including Amicus, that represent workers in the Mersey tunnels. However, I shall not develop that theme, as that will require that I deal with the details of the Bill.
  My second reason for rising to speak is that I believe that the Bill's promoters have wasted enough of the House's time since the last general election. The House
  358
  will recall the earlier Bill on this subject, which contained an element of privatisation. The Chairman of Ways and Means kindly made available a slot for discussion of that Bill, but my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) was not in her place at the time, and the Bill fell. The result was that the House finished early that night. Many hon. Members rejoice at having an early night, but the three-hour period allotted for the debate could have been used for some of the other important matters that the House has to address.
  The earlier Bill on this subject was dropped because of its clear unpopularity. The element of privatisation was removed, and a new Bill—the subject of this motion was introduced. A slot for debate was allocated, but the Bill's promoters did not take it up, using local elections as an excuse. However, anyone with a knowledge of Merseyside district councils would have known that those elections would not lead to a tremendous transformation, as only a third of the total number of councillors were up for re-election. There was therefore not going to be an earthquake that would make a difference to the feelings of those district councils in favour of the Bill.
  A second slot for debate was allocated, and the promoters achieved a Second Reading for the Bill— narrowly, as they had only just enough supporters present to allow a vote to take place. Unfortunately, most hon. Members are unaware of the Bill's contents, as was the case with its predecessor. As a result, they have taken no part in the debate.
  Misleading remarks have been made, especially in the previous debate on this Bill. A misleading letter was sent to hon. Members before the Second Reading vote, with the result that many were incorrectly led to believe that the trade unions were in favour of the Bill.
  I have already mentioned the article in the Liverpool Echo on the Saturday following the debate, which analysed some of the claims that had influenced right hon. and hon. Members.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend made some observations about the Bill's promoters delaying its discussion in the House at or around the time of the local elections. In fact, as a consequence of those elections, the PTA changed from a hung authority to a Labour-controlled authority.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the unions' mass objection to the Bill. I remind him that the Bill is supported by all the district councils on Merseyside, ASLEF, Unison, Transport 2000, Friends of the Earth and the Liverpool chamber of commerce.
  Mr. Wareing: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, but I was referring to the Merseyside TUC and all the trade unions mentioned in the Liverpool Echo article, which showed that the information given to the House on the Bill's Second Reading was misleading.
  The promoters have asked us to consider the Bill during the next Session of Parliament without another Second Reading. If we oppose the motion this evening, they will still have the right to petition for a private Bill during the next Session of Parliament. So what are they afraid of? Many arguments have been put forward in the press and elsewhere since the last Second Reading.
  Dr. Pugh: The hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that the proponents of the Bill had delayed it and

  359
  wasted time. He now appears to be recommending that the people who support the Bill put up with another delay by going away today and coming back another time. What is he saying? Is he in favour of delaying the Bill or not?
  Mr. Wareing: I am in favour of delaying the Bill now for a very simple reason: I believe that enough time has been taken up in considering the matter since the election. The House will have important issues to deal with during the next Session of Parliament. Giving the Bill more time in the next Session will preclude debate on other important issues. That is bound to happen. There is no reason why this private Bill should be given a preference that is not given to a public Bill. It is not that important, simply because the Mersey tunnels are not in deficit. They are in profit at the moment, and are likely to be for some considerable time. I acknowledge the possibility that things might change by 2050, but I suggest that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) nor I will be in this House by then, although we might be in the other place—and I do not mean the other place in the Houses of Parliament.
  It is ludicrous that we are being asked to consider the Bill yet again on a preferential basis. Let the Bill's promoters consider what has been said over the past months and, if they want, they can come back with another private Bill. I believe that around 22 November, people will be allowed to petition for a private Bill. Let them do so. I do not think that the people of Merseyside will be put out by that because, frankly, all the correspondence that I have had suggests that I should oppose tonight's motion to allow the Bill to make further progress on a preferential basis.
  The current Session, which will finish on 6 November, began just after the general election in June 2001, so there has been adequate time for discussion of, and consultation about, the proposed legislation. After such a long Session, there is no reason why the Bill's promoters should have the privilege of taking the measure into Committee in the next Session without depositing another Bill. I urge them not to introduce another Bill, however, as the present Bill has already cost the taxpayers of Merseyside enough, and I do not believe that they think it is useful expenditure. Such expenditure is certainly not urgent; that is why the motion should be opposed.
  After all, under "Future Business" in the Order Paper, we can see streams of private Members' Bills, many of which deal with serious issues, but they fall at Prorogation. There is no reason whatever—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue down that route. He is straying rather wide of the motion under discussion.
  Mr. Wareing: I accept your Madam Deputy Speaker, but the House should consider what will be displaced if we allow the motion to proceed and the Bill is carried over to the next Session. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have little enough time to discuss many things, such as private Members' Bills or the
  360
  reports of Select Committees, so why on earth should this ludicrous Bill, which does not have support in Merseyside, let alone the rest of the country, go ahead of all those other matters?
  Early-day motions go undebated. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has tabled one on the parliamentary approval—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, may I bring the hon. Gentleman to order and remind him to confine his remarks to the motion before the House?
  Mr. Wareing: I take your guidance again, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, I was explaining what would be precluded by allowing this private Bill to be carried over into the next Session. It would displace much more serious measures, which may be of national relevance.
  Dr. Pugh: Earlier in the hon. Gentleman's speech, he recommended that if the proponents of the Bill are beaten today, they should return with another measure in the future. I am at a loss to understand how, if they followed his good advice, they would not displace even more measures than if they had carried on with the present Bill.
  Mr. Wareing: I have faith in the good sense of hon. Members. When the House has considered the arguments and realised that many misleading comments were made on Second Reading, I am confident that if another private Bill were introduced, we would have the sense to defeat it on Second Reading. We should not have to set up a Committee of four. We should not have to discuss the measure on Report. There would not be a Third Reading debate. If we accept the motion, however, the next stage of the Bill will take place in the next Session and it will be the Committee stage. The Committee will then report to the House. I assure hon. Members that the Report stage will not be made easy for the promoters of the Bill because a considerable number of amendments will be moved. The chances are that, on Third Reading, the Bill will be very different from what the promoters want.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. In other words, there is no reason why the Bill should not be allowed to continue, because it can be amended at any stage. On Third Reading, the Bill may be totally different, and agreeing to the motion tonight would not change that.
  Mr. Wareing: I am grateful for that comment from my hon. Friend, who is well respected in the House, but I am trying to save time. We shall have enough important work to do. We do not know what the Queen's Speech will contain, but we can guarantee that it will contain a considerable amount of legislation. That will be far more important for my constituents, and people generally, than this miserable Bill, which is so unpopular that the people of Merseyside expect their representatives to oppose it. Only a minority would concede the case for pursuing the Bill through the next Session. I hope that it will receive even greater opposition than on Second Reading, so that we may prevent this measure from wasting our time further in the next Session.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who told us on Second Reading that he was a pedestrian in 1934 when the Queensway tunnel was opened and he walked right through it. He has considerable knowledge of the issue.
  I am concerned that the statement by the promoters in support of the motion to carry over is inaccurate, as I pointed out in my intervention in the speech by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). Paragraph 12 states:
  "The Bill has all party support within Merseytravel."
  It does not. It does not have the support of the Conservatives on Merseytravel and, on 25 July at the Merseytravel PTA meeting, Jacquie McKelvie spoke and voted against the proposal. The promoters might think that that is an irrelevance, but I suggest that that is indicative of a somewhat casual approach to accuracy, which has been apparent from several of the speeches that we have heard tonight. The hon. Lady said that we could sort that problem out after tonight's debate, but that will be a bit late. The promoters have made that statement and expect us to vote tonight on the basis of its accuracy. It is certainly inaccurate in respect of paragraph 12.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby made the point that a carry-over is not routine, but a privilege. I submit that special circumstances are needed to justify a carry-over.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I understand that no vote was held at the meeting on 25 July, so while the hon Gentleman's colleague may have dissented, there was no formal procedure by which that dissent could have been recorded.
  Mr. Chope: Notwithstanding what the hon. Lady says, I am sure that if the councillor in question dissented, it is inaccurate to suggest that she supports the Bill. The fact that no formal vote was held does not mean that everyone supported it, especially as one councillor spoke against it. I am not sure that the hon. Lady's intervention alters the principle.
  Mr. Ben Chapman: Given the suggestion that the Bill passed its Second Reading because of misinformation about the support of the unions and the number of hon. Members who support it, it is especially important that we are provided with accurate information. Is the hon. Gentleman disturbed that a letter from the chairman states that it has all-party support when—however it is expressed—it patently has not?
  Mr. Chope: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that he is supporting the point that I have made, and I am grateful to him for that.
  In order to justify a carry-over, there must be a set of special circumstances. Obviously, we as hon. Members take into account a number of different circumstances: for example, how far a Bill has already progressed. If we were having a carry-over motion debate when the Bill had almost finished its Committee stage or was well into Report stage, the arguments in favour of carrying it over
  362
  would be much stronger. The Bill has merely had a Second Reading; the rest of the procedure has yet to be completed. That is the first relevant consideration.
  The second issue that is relevant is the extent to which the Bill is controversial. I do not think that anyone can dispute that it is an extremely controversial Bill. Labour and Conservative Members oppose it; I am not sure whether any Liberal Democrats do so. It is opposed by a number of trade unions and councillors. It is highly contentious in Merseyside.
  The third issue that is relevant to whether we support the carry-over motion was raised by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—the extent to which the promoters have taken on board the criticisms made on Second Reading. I was disturbed when he said that he had not been able to get any clear indication from the promoters of whether they were going to meet in whole or in part the concerns that were expressed by hon. Members on Second Reading.
  The hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who is not in his place at the moment, said that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead was arguing for Trotskyite permanent revolution. I do not think that he was asking for that. He was saying that, in the context of the pressure on parliamentary time, it is relevant for hon. Members to take into account the extent to which the promoters are prepared to compromise and to remove from the Bill those powers that are causing the most controversy.
  Dr. Pugh: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the appropriate time for further consultation and a response is in Committee?
  Mr. Chope: If we were not at the end of the Session, considering whether the Bill in its present form should be carried through to Committee, the hon. Gentleman's point would be valid, but if the carry-over motion is not passed this evening the promoters will have to go back to the drawing board, and I suspect that they will come back with a Bill that is much more in line with the consensus that can be achieved on it, particularly on the issue of whether surplus toll income should be used to cross-subsidise other activities.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for some considerable time and must have sat through many occasions rather similar to this, on which private Bills sought to have the right to carry on. Will not he bear it in mind that this is not a private company with a very large income? In effect, it is the taxpayers of Merseyside, who have been asked whether they wish to recommence or to continue with an existing Bill that has a direct effect both on ratepayers and those who are responsible for providing a proper transport system.
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Lady makes an important point. My experience goes back to a Bill that was promoted by Southampton city council, called the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill. She may remember it. I advised the council strongly that if it proceeded with a Bill that did not enjoy the support of local Members of Parliament, let alone the people of Southampton, it had a very poor prospect of success. An enormous sum was spent, but that Bill was lost.

  363
  I suggest that, if the carry-over motion is not passed, the promoters will introduce a much less controversial Bill and there will be much less scope for amendment on Report. As a result, that Bill could well cost the promoters much less money than the present Bill is likely to cost them. The prospect is that the Bill will go through an extremely prolonged process if it proceeds in the teeth of so much opposition. That will cost the people of Merseyside an enormous amount of money. I suspect that it might be better for the promoters to cut their losses now, return to the drawing board and introduce a simpler and shorter Bill.
  Dr. Pugh: Is the hon. Gentleman making the counter-intuitive proposal that two Bills are, in fact, cheaper than one?
  Mr. Chope: I am suggesting that a Bill that passes swiftly is much less expansive than one that takes an enormous amount of time. It must be obvious to the hon. Gentleman that, if the Bill proceeds, it will take an enormous amount of time and cost the promoter an enormous sum because it is so controversial. The most controversial parts of the Bill should be removed and the essential part of it should be allowed to proceed.
  In 1995, the then Government issued a consultation paper on estuarial crossings, which included quite strong criticism of the bureaucratic arrangements that relate to setting Mersey tunnel tolls. We have not yet had a Government response to that consultation. I do not know whether the Minister will respond to that paper, which was issued seven years ago, but I hope that the Government will declare their policy because, sadly, we were unable to gain the benefit of the Government's view of the Bill as a result of the way in which the Second Reading debate proceeded.
  Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The motion states that
  "in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session."
  Those of us who had legitimate interests were not even able to express them because of the procedure adopted on Second Reading.
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. My point is that a simpler Bill should concentrate on some of the key issues.
  One of the other relevant things that we should consider tonight is the extent to which what the promoters seek should be achieved through other means. Paragraph 11 of the promoter's original statement refers to the Transport Act 2000. Under that Act, it is perfectly within the powers of the Merseyside passenger transport authority to set up a charging regime to fund some of the public activities that it wants to fund under its transport plan, but if it did that, it would probably be obliged to charge more than 3 per cent. of Merseyside's population. I understand that that percentage of Merseyside's population uses the tunnels. The Bill proposes charging those travellers, whereas the
  364
  authority already the power, under the Act, to charge a wider range of car users, if it so wishes, to achieve the public transport benefits that it seeks.
  Mr. Ben Chapman: The hon. Gentleman mentions the fact that only 3 per cent. of the people of Merseyside use the tunnels. Irrespective of whether that figure is correct, does he accept that the proportion of people—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, hon. Members are going wide of the motion and are going more into the Bill's merits.
  Mr. Chope: There are strong views about the Bill's merits. All I seek to argue is that if the promoter could achieve part of what the Bill seeks to achieve by putting in hand local arrangements using the powers given to it under the Transport Act, the justification for that part of the Bill would be removed, as would the argument in favour of carrying it forward to the next Session.
  My final point relates to my previous exchange with the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East. I asked why Mick Rix, the General Secretary of ASLEF, had sent us a letter saying that, if implemented, the proposals would generate an additional £2.5 million in revenue for local public transport per year? Surely the argument that has been put forward is that the debt should be reduced first. The argument of the Bill's promoters and their supporters about the small proportion of people who use the tunnels being burdened with paying for the wider public transport agenda of the passenger transport authority is a relevant issue that we should consider this evening.
  I am disappointed that the Bill's promoters have not indicated any willingness to compromise or listen to reason. It is not too late for the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) to indicate that they will make amendments in the light of the concerns expressed, but, up to now, they have seemed keen to steamroller this highly controversial Bill through the House. Members have the opportunity tonight to pass judgment on that.
  9.22 pm
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): I want to take this opportunity to make clear the position of the Government.
  First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Claire Curtis-Thomas) on the able way in which she proposed the motion for the Bill to be carried over. I also commend all the other hon. Members who have taken part in this interesting debate. As hon. Members will know, it is traditional that the Government take a neutral stance on private Bills that do not contradict stated Government policy, and that is the approach that the Government intend to take with this Bill. That being said, the Government are not opposed to the Bill being carried over.
  The Bill includes a number of provisions. First, it would permit Merseytravel to increase tolls at the tunnels based on a retail prices index formula without having to seek permission from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and to use some of the proceeds from toll revenues for wider transport objectives in Merseyside. That latter point is, of course, broadly in line with the broader options currently

  365
  available to local authorities through congestion charging. The Government are not, therefore, opposed in principle to Merseytravel's proposals to use some of the additional toll revenue for local transport purposes.
  The Bill would permit increases to toll charges in line with the RPI. The Government are not opposed to this principle, especially as the tunnels are owned and operated by a local authority, and, as such, subject to democratic accountability. In addition, the Bill would give Merseytravel the ability to undertake and finance noise insulation work to properties on the Kingsway tunnel approach roads on the Wirral. The Government welcome the introduction of those new powers, as we understand that they respond to long-standing concerns voiced by local residents.
  However, the Government are also conscious of the strength of local feeling about allowing Merseytravel to increase tolls by the RPI without any check. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) has previously expressed concerns about levels of efficiency at the tunnel and about the pressures that higher tolls would place on his constituents. In addition, the Government are concerned that some of the Bill's proposals for using revenue derived from heavy goods vehicles for purposes not related to the costs of the tunnels' construction, maintenance and operation could be seen to be in breach of EU directive 99/62.
  The Government's views on this Bill have been brought to the attention of the Committee in a report, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. I am confident that the Committee will fully examine all the objections and concerns raised by the various petitioners.
  Mr. Miller: So that there is no ambiguity, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that this is not whipped business as far as the Government are concerned?
  Mr. Spellar: As I made clear earlier, the Government take a neutral stance. There will be a free vote on the Government side. I do not wish to take further time, as I understand that other Members wish to take part in this time-limited debate.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Ben Chapman: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister's statement in parts. I certainly welcome the point about the EU directive and the caution about retail prices index increases without check. However, I take slight exception to his point that the passenger transport authority is a local authority with democratic accountability. It is not a local authority and does not have direct democratic accountability. Its members are nominated by councils, but they are not elected and have no democratic accountability.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: My hon. Friend seems to be enunciating an interesting theory for passenger transport executives. The money involved is much more closely monitored—because they are run by local authorities and must produce accurate returns—than it could possibly be if they were private companies.
  366
  The fact that local authorities nominate to the bodies that control the money does not make the system anti-democratic. The executives make more disclosure of more information simply because they are local authorities. He is getting into a slight difficulty by suggesting that PTEs are not responsible for what they do with public money.
  Mr. Chapman: As my hon. Friend knows, no one could hold her in higher regard than I do, but I absolutely disagree with her on those points. If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were to permit me, I would elaborate why. However, I am not sure whether you would allow me to do that.
  I shall spend as little time as possible in considering the Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), I believe that we have spent enough time on it already. However, if you were to indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would consider the need for a carry-over motion, and my point applies irrespective of whether it is a private or public Bill. I also want to examine some of the paragraphs in the motion in detail.
  If I believe what I read in the Liverpool newspapers, we have been overtaken by events. The press tells me that, notwithstanding the provisions in the Bill for automatic annual increases, Merseytravel now intends to apply to raise tunnel tolls anyhow through the existing public inquiry mechanism. That suggests two things to me, and partly provides a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). First, notwithstanding the views of the vast majority of people on Merseyside, the body—which, in my view, has no direct accountability—intends to fly in the face of public opinion whether or not the Bill is carried over. Secondly, the Merseyside passenger transport authority recognises that it already has a mechanism for raising tunnel tolls provided that it can justify them. The Bill asks for something other than that.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that that mechanism exists at the expense of council tax payers on Merseyside. The tunnel tolls have to go into deficit to trigger a public inquiry and that inquiry takes a minimum of 22 months to report. In the interim, a deficit is built up and my hon. Friend's constituents and mine have to pay for it. The Bill seeks to remove that charge on our constituents.
  Mr. Chapman: My point is that Merseytravel should justify any need for increases and not rely merely on the fact that the cost of living has gone up.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to the motion rather than to the merits of the charges involved?
  Mr. Chapman: I was trying to do that. If the Mersey passenger transport authority has a mechanism that it accepts and can use, why do we need a carry-over motion? The House has better things to do than consider the Bill further. We have much legislation to discuss which covers many issues and places demands on our meagre time. The carry-over is not a high priority for my constituents, who do not want it. They would be

  367
  happier for the House to discuss a host of other issues— the ban on hunting with hounds, the control of leylandii hedges and military action against Iraq, for instance. They would prefer almost anything to be discussed other than the Bill's carry-over. We have limited time at our disposal and much to discuss. We should not be wasting our time on the motion. Sufficient time has been spent on the Bill already.
  The motion is simple and clear cut: to carry over or not to carry over. I do not want the Bill to be carried over into the next Session. Instead, I want it to be rejected and to fail because it is foolhardy. I have assiduously studied examples of other carry-over motions. I am not sure that I have the hang of it, but I shall try to stick within the limited scope of the debate. However, I hope you understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, that although we are considering the form of the carry-over, it is difficult not to stray into its substance.
  I do not understand why the Bill should be carried over. Although I think that it should not be a private Bill, I contend, as others have, that Merseytravel has not made good use of the time available to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby highlighted various ways in which time was misspent. No one has explained, however, that Merseytravel wasted time by trying to deny a voice to the unions representing tunnel workers and users of the tunnel, and to the employees and business people of Merseyside, all of whom are against the Bill. Rather than listening to their concerns, the passenger transport authority preferred to gag their representatives and continue on its chosen course by proceeding via the Court of Referees. It did not succeed because it had no case, but that did not stop it wasting time and a great deal of money. It is normal for a Bill's promoters to engage parliamentary agents. They are required to do so and there is no problem with that, but the Bill has had more agents employed in its promotion and passage than the people of Merseyside would expect.
  I want to examine the motion in detail. Paragraph 6 provides that no further fees will be charged. That must be wrong. The Private Bill Office is funded by the fees paid by the promoters of Bills. Assuming that the Bill passes all its stages, the cost will be £16,000. I do not think that the Private Bill Office can survive for long on that. It is a good deal by anyone's standards.
  Let us consider the real cost. How much does it cost for us to be here tonight? I am sure you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in 2000–01, the operating costs of the Office of the Speaker were£635,000. The department of the Clerk of the House and the Speaker's Counsel cost £20 million; the department of the Serjeant at Arms cost £21.5 million; and the Library cost £7 million.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that we should not have the right to debate private Bills?
  Mr. Chapman: No, I am just dealing with the idea that no extra fees should be charged, as contained in paragraph 6. Given the costs involved, it is unreasonable that no extra fees should be charged.
  If one broke down the costs that I have set out, one would find that the process is costing a great deal. It is unreasonable that no extra fees are to be charged.
  368
  It is not that Merseytravel does not have the money, and it is not that it shows an unwillingness to spend. Indeed, had Merseytravel been a model of financial rectitude, we might have had to be cautious in seeking more money. You are giving me a particular look, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is telling me not to proceed with that point. Merseytravel is, as it claims in defence of some of its expenditure, a £250 million organisation. It spends profligately and we need to consider the sixth paragraph of the motion.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Given that my hon. Friend's remarks are straying on to the merits of the Bill, will he identify which costs he would like to cut—perhaps those associated with health and safety or with the police who operate in the tunnel?
  Mr. Chapman: I was thinking more of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that have been spent on the Bill. I was thinking of the large sums spent on the politically correct but foolish measure of changing all the signs on the tollbooths from "manned" to "staffed". I was thinking of the fact that Merseytravel is reported to have sent 20 people to a Court of Referees process in which none of them could have taken any part. Merseytravel has an inbuilt propensity to spend because it has a lot of money and because of the structure of the passenger transport authority.
  Mr. George Howarth: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of what I am sure has been a fascinating odyssey through the whys and wherefores of the Bill. Now I, too, am getting a look from you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend said that he thought that the number of police officers in the tunnel could be cut. Does he still—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Clearly the look was not sufficient.
  Mr. Chapman: Merseytravel has a propensity to spend because it has money, and it is wholly unreasonable to charge no further fees.
  The seventh paragraph of the motion deals with petitions. Reference has been made to a letter from the chairman of Merseytravel which points out that the motion has all-party support. It also refers to the fact that petitions have been submitted by ASLEF, which to the best of my knowledge has no direct connection with the tunnel, and Transport 2000, whose submission was expressed in terms curiously similar to those used by Merseytravel. Those petitions were submitted after the due date, so I hope that they will not be substantially considered at any further stage of our deliberations.
  The third paragraph says:
  "A declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the present session".
  I have had a nagging doubt about that paragraph since the motion was first announced. In substance, the Bill will, on its reintroduction, remain the same as it has been throughout its parliamentary journey thus far. In its consequences however, it has changed.
  I draw attention to the provision that permits Merseytravel to use surplus tunnel tolls income to improve public transport services in Merseyside. I have

  369
  never liked that. I believe that surpluses should be reinvested to pay off outstanding debts on the tunnels. That relates to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) made.
  Merseytravel now claims that toll increases would fund safety improvements that relate to the European safety report of 2002. We are told that that will cost —14.2 million, to be financed through tunnel tolls. Safety is of paramount importance, and one would have believed that Merseytravel would take account of all safety considerations. However, although the text of the Bill remains the same, its intent appears to have altered. The report on which Merseytravel ultimately chose to act was by no means unanticipated.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In opening the debate, I said nothing about the merits of the Bill because I understood that the discussion covered only procedural matters. I therefore note with regret that my hon. Friend is considering the Bill's merits. I ask for your advice on that.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Throughout my time in the Chair, I have reminded hon. Members of the limited scope of the motion. I urge all hon. Members who have yet to contribute to be mindful of that.
  Mr. Chapman: I believed that I was dealing with the paragraphs of the motion; that was my intention. As I said earlier, there is a danger of straying into the substance of the Bill. That is almost inevitable.
  The fifth paragraph states:
  "That in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages".
  I shall not repeat the points that my colleagues have made. However, Second Reading was obtained on information that many would have perceived as misinformation. I shall not go into that.
  Madam Deputy Speaker, you would consider much of the remainder of my speech to be about the substance of the Bill. I therefore conclude by simply saying that it is my hope, and that of the trade unions, the users of the tunnel and the people of Merseyside that the Bill and the carry-over motion will be rejected. I believe that if the Bill is allowed to proceed, no matter how it is amended, it will be detrimental to the economy of Merseyside, which is already disadvantaged when compared with other regions. The tunnels are the main arteries and conduits of its business. They affect everybody, not only 3 per cent. of people. The carry-over motion should be rejected.
  9.43 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I want to concentrate on two principal points in making my case for opposing the motion. First, I want to consider the motion in the context of changing circumstances and, secondly, as a constituency Member of Parliament, I want to present my constituents' best interests.
  370
  Earlier, there was confusion in the exchange between the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and me. I want to reinforce my comments that my constituency falls immediately south of the boundaries of Merseyside. It is geographically in Cheshire but does not comprise any of the five authorities that make up the passenger transport authority. That is a function of history, and goes back to the days when the metropolitan county was created and subsequently abolished. It would be wrong to dwell on that.
  I simply stress that although my constituency is immediately south of the area covered by the passenger transport authority, many of my constituents use the tunnel. The Bill's sponsor acknowledged that. Bearing that in mind, I find it extraordinary that there is no mechanism in the motion to enable me to put my arguments in the context of the Second Reading debate that would normally have taken place. In fact, that possibility is precluded—
  Mr. Don Foster: In Committee?
  Mr. Miller: It cannot be done in Committee, as the hon. Gentleman knows, because the Committee would be a special Committee on which I could not sit. Perhaps he does not understand that about private Bills.
  The motion states that
  "in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session"
  which means that we shall bypass Second Reading. The substantive points that I have before me here—which I shall not stray into, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you would call me to order—cannot, therefore, be made. My constituents are, however, entitled to have their point of view aired on such a controversial matter.
  Dr. Pugh: There is one distinction between the constituencies of the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and me. They may all contain people who use the tunnel, but if the tunnel incurs any debts or deficits, your constituents will definitely not be liable, whereas mine will.
  Mr. Miller: I am sure that your constituents will be far enough removed not to have an interest in this, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about debts. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me down the road that he followed in his speech. My principal argument about the unfairness of the procedure in terms of my constituents' interests is that I cannot set out the case to answer the hon. Gentleman's valid point and stay in order. Of course he has a valid point. His constituents pay for the debts.
  Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, if the Bill goes through the special arrangements for a Committee for a private Bill and comes back on Report, amendments can

  371
  then be tabled? Could those amendments, which might encompass the principles that my hon. Friend is talking about, then be debated?
  Madam Deputy SpeakerThe answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes, provided that the amendments are within the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. Miller: That leads me neatly on to my second point, but I shall just complete the point I was making in response to the hon. Member for Southport, who is right to say that his constituents pay for the current deficits through their council tax. My constituents, who are omitted from consideration, pay the fees and are locked into a formula in relation to which they have no rights, despite—if I may remind the Government Front Bench of this—the duty set out in this Administration's best-value legislation. That is why I strongly oppose the central thrust of the motion, which proposes that we should jump over and skip the Second Reading debate.
  On that theme, the first sentence of the motion states that
  "the promoters of the Mersey Tunnels Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit".
  If they think fit? Again, there is no consideration for anyone else—certainly not for my constituents who pay the toll day in and day out. I do not underestimate the seriousness of the problem faced by the passenger transport authority, although I shall not develop that argument now. But the authority must also recognise that other people have rights in this matter. The wording here, though, is, "if they think fit." not "after consultation with relevant people who may also be affected by the Bill". The motion before us does not, therefore, appeal to me one jot.
  Of course there are difficult issues. I think many could have been dealt with through a more sophisticated form of negotiation between interested parties throughout the region. There is a sub-regional interest—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There may well be a sub-regional interest, but it is not appropriate for it to be debated tonight.
  Mr. Miller: I am arguing the case—if I may—that the word "they", in the phrase "they think fit", is too narrow. I merely suggest that the motion should have incorporated a phrase allowing for consultation with other relevant bodies within the sub-region.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: "They" are the members of the passenger transport authority, representing nearly half a million people on Merseyside. Does my hon. Friend not agree that that would constitute adequate consultation?
  Mr. Miller: It would put the minority at a great disadvantage. My 70,000 constituents also have rights, and I appeal to the House to protect those rights.
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: Does my hon. Friend accept that West Lancashire's citizens are in precisely the same position? Although I concede that not
  372
  quite so many people move through the tunnel from the north of Merseyside to the south, a substantial number do.
  Mr. Miller: But minorities are not considered in the context of the Bill. If we add all the minorities together, it surely becomes clear that the argument that the great Merseyside interests should take precedence over those of the rest of the people in the greater Merseyside area is grossly unfair.
  Mr. Don Foster: My local authority, Bath and North East Somerset council, recently introduced a highly controversial priority access point that has restricted the movement of vehicles through certain parts of the city. No doubt many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents visit Bath from time to time. Does he believe that they should have been consulted about that decision?
  Mr. Miller: I visited Bath the other day—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again we are in danger of wandering wide of the scope of the debate.
  Mr. Miller: I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I was going to confine myself to a quip about Bath. Your interventions, however, underline the concern felt by my constituents. We have no opportunity to set out, in a structured way, arguments relating to the Bill, as we would if the Bill were re-presented in the normal way. or—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) suggested—if a revival motion were introduced in the new session.
  Stephen Hesford: Or a resurrection motion.
  Mr. Miller: I think "revival motion" is the appropriate term. I understand that that would, by definition, incorporate stages that are missing as a result of the motion.
  I am open to suggestions about solutions to the problems of the passenger transport authority, but I cannot become involved in discussion of that tonight. I strongly urge the House to reconsider its position, and support those of us who oppose the motion.
  Mr. George Howarth: Between Second Reading and now, has my hon. Friend made any approach to the passenger transport authority to discuss the matters that he has raised?
  Mr. Miller: That is interesting because a letter was sent to hon. Members. I accept that my office occasionally makes an error, and so do I, but to the best of my knowledge the letter of 17 October that was sent to all hon. Members was not sent to my office. That letter sets out some important considerations in respect of tonight's proceedings.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but that was not the question that I asked him. Has he personally made any efforts to contact Merseytravel to raise these concerns?
  Mr. Miller: Not since the Bill received its Second Reading as I was unaware of tonight's motion,

  373
  not having received the letter of 17 October, which was kindly given to me by a colleague. The issue spins both ways. I accept my hon. Friend's point, but there must be negotiations to resolve the problem.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall put the same question to him as I put to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). Is he likely to suggest to his constituents that they fund some of the expense of running the Mersey tunnel?
  Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend, who is also a dear friend, knows full well that my constituents do fund it. They contribute huge sums of money. We heard from the passenger transport authority that non-Merseysiders put in 97 per cent. of the income. I suspect that a lot of that comes from my constituents who are locked into proceedings covered by the tonight's order in which the phrase "they think fit" refers entirely to one part of the equation. The other part refers to people who pay tolls on a regular basis and who must also be considered.
  Stephen Hesford: Can I run down a hare that has been constantly set running tonight? My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) repeatedly asks my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and others to put it to their constituents that they should pay the deficit. There is no deficit. Does my hon. Friend—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat that we are now getting into the detail of the Bill rather than the motion on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Miller: That is why I shall not answer my hon. Friend's question, which underlines my point about the unfairness of the procedure that we are considering whereby my constituents, among others, will not have the right to have their point of view aired in this House on such a controversial matter—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) says from a sedentary position that I am doing it, but that could not be the case as I would certainly be ruled out of order.
  My second principal reason for opposing the motion relates to changing circumstances. As has already been said, this is the second attempt at a Mersey Tunnels Bill. Changing circumstances were referred to in the Second Reading debate, but they have not been developed fully and the Bill does not cover their full financial implications. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich would no doubt jump up and say that that could be dealt with by amendment. The changing circumstances are referred to in the statement presented by the passenger transport authority. I believe that those changing circumstances, together with the interests of my constituents, cannot be met by amendments to the Bill. I suspect that that would be extremely difficult to achieve. Reference is made to the additional burden that will fall on the authority, stemming from changing fire safety regulations after some tragic tunnel incidents throughout Europe. These substantial changes have altered the way in which the House should view the matter and, on that basis, we need to find an alternate mechanism.
  374
  My constituents fully recognise that, one way or another, they will contribute to the costs of the tunnel, and that is right. But the mechanism in the Bill that we are being asked to carry over is wrong and excludes the rights of my constituents.
  I would quest ion some of the technical procedures set out in the motion—for example, that
  "on the fifth sitting day in the next session the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office."
  That may well be standard procedure, but given some of the issues about which there ought to be local negotiations, the motion does not give us the kind of time—
  Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you again confirm, first, that if the Bill proceeds tonight, it is amendable, and secondly, that the procedures for amending the Bill are those that have been used in the past and will be perfectly open to my hon. Friend and others to use?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am certainly prepared to confirm that that is absolutely right.
  Mr. Miller: I do not doubt that point.
  Mr. Howarth: Can I take it then that my hon. Friend feels so inadequate that he would not feel capable of using the procedures of the House to table suitable amendments?
  Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend's sarcasm does not do him any justice; he usually makes far more intelligent comments than that. I have said that the provision would preclude a contribution at Second Reading and because of the costs that—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating some of the arguments that he has already made. Is he able to move on with regard to the motion?
  Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) referred to the costs involved. Because of those costs, there is a need for sensible negotiations on whether a resolution can be found. That is not possible within the time available to us.
  My arguments in summary—[Interruption.] My arguments in summary are that my constituents' rights are being abused by the motion.
  John Robertson: Aww!
  Mr. Miller: I believe that we are here to represent our constituents and I hope that the House will give my constituents their rights when dealing with the matter. My second point concerns the changing circumstances and my third is that, as a result of the need for a sensible way forward, it would be inappropriate to squeeze the time for any potential negotiations on the content of the Bill into the tight time between now and the fifth sitting day.
  Question put;—
  The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 64

  Division No. 329]

  [10:05 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Hendrick, Mark

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Heppell, John

  Alexander, Douglas

  Hermon, Lady

  Allan, Richard

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Holmes, Paul

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Barrett, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Benn, Hilary

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Berry, Roger

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Brennan, Kevin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Burnett, John

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Burnham, Andy

  Kemp, Fraser

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Kidney, David

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Leslie, Christopher

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Chidgey, David

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  MacDougall, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  McFall, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Colman, Tony

  McIsaac, Shona

  Connarty, Michael

  MacShane, Denis

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Cooper, Yvette

  Mallaber, Judy

  Cotter, Brian

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Michael, rh Alun

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Miliband, David

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Moore, Michael

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Moran, Margaret

  Doughty, Sue

  Mountford, Kali

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Mudie, George

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Flint, Caroline

  O'Neill, Martin

  Follett, Barbara

  Picking, Anne

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Gardiner, Barry

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Prescott, rh John

  Gilroy, Linda

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Purnell, James

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Rammell, Bill

  Hain, rh Peter

  Reid, (Alan Argyll & Bute)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Rendel, David

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Rooney, Terry

  Healey, John

  Ruane, Chris

  Heath, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  376

  Sheerman, Barry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Ward, Claire

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

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

  White, Brian

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Woolas, Phil

  Stunell, Andrew

  Worthington, Tony

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Tipping, Paddy

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Mr. Joe Benton and

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Tony Cunningham

  NOES

  Amess, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  McDonnell, John

  Barnes, Harry

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Bercow, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Boswell, Tim

  McWilliam, John

  Burnside, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cash, William

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Chope, Christopher

  Moran, Margaret

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Picking, Anne

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Francois, Mark

  Selous, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Spring, Richard

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Hanson, David

  Syms, Robert

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Heald, Oliver

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Young, rh Sir George

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lidington, David

  Mr. Andrew Miller and

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Stephen Hesford

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the promoters of the Mersey Tunnels Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
  That on the fifth sitting day in the next session the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office;
  That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the present session;
  That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;

  377
  That in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
  That no further fees shall be charged to such stages;
  That all petitions relating to the bill which stand referred to the committee on the bill, shall stand referred to the committee on the bill in the next session;
  That no petitioners shall be heard before the committee unless their petition has been presented within the time provided for petitioning or has been deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 126(b);
  That, in relation to the bill, Private Business Standing Order 127 shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted.

PETITIONS

  Employment relations
  10.16 pm
  Hywel Williams: This petition relates to the "eight week rule" whereby workers taking part in a legal strike are no longer protected by the law from dismissal after eight weeks. It arises from the recent dispute between Friction Dynamics Ltd of Caernarfon and members of the Transport and General Workers Union who were sacked after being on a legal strike for eight weeks and who are still awaiting the result of an industrial tribunal 18 months later. The petition has been signed by some 3,081 people, mainly from Caernarfon but also from Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, who state:
  Workers have a right not to suffer detriment as a result of taking legal industrial action and that this is not a qualified right and the UK Government should not make it so.
  The petitioners request therefore that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to introduce legislative proposals to amend the Employment Relations Act 1999 and remove the eight-week limit on protection for striking workers.
  And the petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Michaela Scott
  10.18 pm
  Hugh Bayley: I rise to present a petition on behalf of Michaela Scott of York and 1,246 other people.
  The petition
  Declares that people have for many years maintained good health by taking vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies.
  Fears that the European food supplement directive and the proposed European directive on traditional herbal medicine products will restrict the range of such products on sale.
  Requests the House of Commons to require the Secretary of State for Health to protect consumers of these products by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Westminster Coroner
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
  10.19 pm
  Mr. Chris Pond: I am grateful for the opportunity to place before the House the concerns about the conduct of the Westminster coroner felt by people who have come into contact with him following the loss of loved ones.
  I thought carefully before seeking this debate. No Member should lightly raise in the House criticisms of an individual, especially when that individual is a judicial officer responsible for such high profile investigations as the Marchioness disaster and the Clapham and Paddington rail inquiries. However, I consider that the concerns about the conduct of the Westminster coroner, expressed over a long period, raise questions not only about his own record but about the trust that the public can place in the coroner system more generally.
  The Westminster coroner, Dr. Paul Knapman, is no stranger to criticism. I first came across him through my involvement with the families and friends of those who had lost their lives in the sinking of the Marchioness pleasure boat in 1989. I worked with those families to press for a full public inquiry into the tragedy, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, granted in 1999. I know those people as determined and courageous, struggling to come to terms with the tragic loss of their loved ones—a task made more difficult, I have to say, by the behaviour of the coroner, Dr. Knapman, at the first inquest. Yet in a letter of 22 May 1991, Dr. Knapman described the bereaved as
  "a number of mentally unwell relatives and survivors who mutually support each other".
  In 1994, the Court of Appeal found that his comment to the Daily Mail, when he described the mother of one of the Marchioness victims as "unhinged", was not merely injudicious and insensitive but bound to be interpreted as a gratuitous insult. Lord Justice Simon Brown said that the coroner's "apparent bias" towards the victims' families may have been a factor in his refusal to grant a second inquest.
  The Westminster coroner attracted further criticism when it became known that he had authorised the removal of the hands of 25 of the Marchioness victims for identification purposes. Lord Justice Clarke, in the public inquiry into the Marchioness disaster and river safety, was especially critical of the decision to mutilate the bodies of the victims when other means of identification were readily available. Lord Justice Clarke put the matter effectively in his report:
  "The important point is that hands were not being removed as a last resort, but were being removed in all cases. As a result, hands were removed notwithstanding that dental records were being obtained or had been obtained or possibly in one case just after a dental match had been made."
  In one case, a victim's hands were removed even though the belt he was wearing contained a photograph of him, a blood donor card and the keys to his flat. Inevitably, that caused distress to the relatives of the deceased— once they were informed. However, that was not until two years later. Information about the victims' hands having been withheld, it is perhaps not surprising that

  379
  relatives were refused the opportunity to see their loved ones to pay their last respects. Some never again saw the people they had lost.
  It was some years after that event, and following criticism from Lord Justice Clarke, that Dr. Knapman expressed his regret at that decision. He said:
  "I did not fully recognise the distress that further disfigurement of the bodies might cause."
  That reveals a remarkable lack of imagination in a man responsible over many years for dealing with bereaved relatives, and it underlines the importance of training for coroners and their staff in basic human skills.
  To add insult to injury, a pair of hands was found in the bottom of the coroner's freezer, not months but three years after they had been removed. It may be that they were never used for identification purposes. Without consulting the relatives, the hands were incinerated, without the option of being reunited with the body.
  All that is public knowledge. The public inquiry report was especially critical of the fact that human tissue had been treated so casually. At the very end of his inquiry, Lord Justice Clarke learned that tissue samples taken at the post-mortem examinations of four of the Marchioness victims had been overlooked until they were discovered at Westminster mortuary in December 2000. That was more than 11 years after the individuals concerned had died. Hearing that news, the families made arrangements for the interment of that human tissue, including the choice of a remembrance plaque. However, today, I was told that the items referred to could no longer be found.
  Mr. Michael Portillo: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me a moment of his time. He may recall that I was Minister of State for Transport at the time of the Marchioness disaster. The terrible morning when we learned that so many people had been lost in that tragic accident is one of the most abiding memories of my life, and I have tremendous sympathy for the relatives of those who died. However, Paul Knapman is my constituent and I know that the Lord Chancellor wrote to him to admonish him for some of the events connected with the Marchioness disaster. Paul Knapman wrote back to the Lord Chancellor to express his contrition. I believe that the Lord Chancellor is of the view that the matter should be allowed to rest there, and I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to accept that also.
  Mr. Pond: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that contribution and I know that he knows well the circumstances of the Marchioness tragedy. I have welcomed the admonishment by the Lord Chancellor, to which I shall refer later, and also the response from Dr. Knapman. However, as I hope to show, several other concerns need to be taken into consideration. It may be that the unfortunate circumstances of Dr. Knapman's conduct in the Marchioness tragedy and subsequent events have been reflected in other cases.
  One such was the case of Susan Annis, whose parents have contacted me and my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), who is unable to contribute to this debate because she has other duties this evening. Miss Annis was a 31-year-old nurse who was the first of
  380
  a series of victims of one of her colleagues, Kevin Cobb, who attacked women sexually, having administered midazolam, a sedative since dubbed a date-rape drug. Although Dr. Knapman detected midazolam in Susan's body, he attributed no significance to it, even though four deaths due to the drug had already been reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. A colleague of Susan Annis, Dr. John Parsley, wrote to Dr. Knapman to raise doubts about the open verdict, in view of the presence of the drug. In a letter dated 26 March 1997, Dr. Parsley warned:
  "I believe that drugs in the same class as midazolam have been used in assaults."
  Dr. Knapman wrote back saying:
  "It takes us no farther",
  and
  "I am taking matters no farther".
  He later dismissed Dr. Parsley's warning as a "red herring". He also did not report Dr. Parsley's concerns to the police.
  New information suggests that Dr. Knapman may well have known that midazolam was in the same class as a drug banned in America as a date-rape drug. At present, that evidence is confidential and I am passing it to the Minister after the debate for her to consider whether she or her ministerial colleagues wish to take the matter further.
  It was only when Dr. Parsley went to the police two years later, having heard that Kevin Cobb had been arrested for rape, that it became clear that Susan had died at the hands of a serial rapist, rather than from unexplained but unsuspicious causes. The tragic conclusion must be that if the coroner had taken more heed of the warnings raised by a medical colleague and had referred those to the police, Kevin Cobb might have been apprehended sooner and other women would not have been subjected to sexual assaults.
  Susan Annis's parents submitted a complaint to the Home Office about the way in which their daughter's death was treated by the coroner. The Home Office replied that the Home Secretary had no powers to investigate or comment on the conduct of individual inquests, because
  "coroners are independent judicial officers".
  However, the Home Office passed on Dr. Knapman's response to the complaint. It included a somewhat chilling statement that
  "in his district, several times a year relatively young people (under 30) die where there is no cause of death found".
  No cause of death was found by Dr. Knapman in the case of Susan Annis, but we know now that she was unlawfully killed. In how many of the several other unexplained deaths every year in the district covered by Dr. Knapman is the cause of death not found because the proper questions are not asked, or evidence is overlooked? I ask the Minister to consider whether her Department or the Home Office should look again at those cases in which the Westminster coroner has recorded an open verdict, to see whether the verdict is a secure conclusion in each case.
  The hurt and humiliation because of the treatment of their loved ones' remains were not confined to the Marchioness families. In August 2000, Dr. Knapman wrote to the parents of Susan Annis refusing their

  381
  request to see the file on their daughter's inquest and telling them that they would have to ask the police if they wanted to see post-mortem photographs. Astonishingly, in the same letter, written almost four years after Susan's death, the Westminster coroner added a paragraph that concluded:
  "the brain is still in storage at the Maudsley Hospital. I therefore have to ask you whether you would be content for it now to be incinerated in the usual way?"
  That was the first that the parents had heard that the brain of their daughter had been removed and that she had been laid to rest without it.
  I have referred to the concerns expressed to me about the conduct of Dr. Knapman in two particularly high-profile cases. Some of it will have been new but most of it will not. In answer to a parliamentary question tabled by me, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department reported that, following Lord Justice Clarke's inquiry, the Lord Chancellor concluded, as the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) has reminded us, that
  "the Westminster coroner's actions on this occasion fell below the standard to be expected of a judicial officer",
  and that
  "he issued a formal admonishment."—[Official Report, 6 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 200W.]
  The Westminster coroner has been shown the yellow card. I ask the Minister to review the conduct of Dr. Knapman over time, not only following the Marchioness tragedy but in other cases, to judge whether it might now be time to show the red card.
  There are wider lessons to be learned about the role of coroners. I welcome the current review of coroners and death certification, which was partly stimulated by the conduct of the coroner in the Marchioness inquiry. A basic requirement is for the careful recording of information, not— as in the case of the Marchioness post mortems—notes collected in an A5 notepad. Without that careful recording of information, it is very difficult for relatives or other concerned parties to know whether an inquiry has been properly carried out.
  I have already referred to the need for training of coroners and their staff to enhance the social skills needed to deal with the bereaved sensitively. In that context, I welcome the review's early identification of a defect in the system— failing to establish clear participation rights for bereaved people, including the provision of information. Most important, relatives must have a right to see the bodies of their loved ones. Whether they decide to exercise that right is up to them.
  No families should ever again be treated as the Marchioness bereaved clearly were: as a troublesome nuisance. The coroner's review gives us an opportunity to learn the lessons of the past. If it does, it will be a lasting tribute to the work of those bereaved families who have fought so hard to ensure that in future no families find that they have to cope with humiliation as well as grief.
  10.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) on
  382
  securing this debate. It is a matter on which he has campaigned for some years and I know how strongly he feels about it. He has made extremely important points. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) also contributed as the constituency Member of Parliament for the Westminster coroner.
  My hon. Friend spoke extremely movingly about the distress of the families and friends of those who died in the Marchioness disaster. I am sure that everyone in the House would join me in expressing our sympathy for the families of those who died. The passing of time can never erase their grief.
  My hon. Friend drew particular attention to the concerns expressed about the conduct of the Westminster coroner, Dr. Paul Knapman, in the exercise of his duties. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, Lord Justice Clarke's inquiry into the identification of victims was established and his report was published on 23 March 2001. As Lord Justice Clarke emphasised at the outset of his report, the most important aim of the inquiry was to ensure that all the necessary lessons were learned for the future. Nevertheless, that report contained criticisms of the Westminster coroner.
  It might assist right hon. and hon. Members if I explain the Lord Chancellor's powers in relation to coroners. Under section 3(4) of the Coroners Act 1988, the Lord Chancellor has the power to remove a coroner for misbehaviour or inability in the course of his duties. The Lord Chancellor can also take a lesser form of disciplinary action, such as suspension or admonishment. I should stress, however, that the Lord Chancellor cannot comment on, or intervene in, complaints received about judicial decisions, the process of reasoning underlying those decisions or any matter involving the exercise of judicial functions.
  To return to Lord Justice Clarke's report, although he accepted that Dr. Knapman acted with the best of intentions and at all times in good faith, he concluded that Dr. Knapman could, and should, have acted differently in a number of respects. Lord Justice Clarke did not find that Dr. Knapman had been reckless, as was suggested by some at the time of the inquiry, but he considered that Dr. Knapman failed to give sufficient consideration to the likely feelings of the families in what was a most distressing situation.
  Following Lord Justice Clarke's report, the Lord Chancellor gave careful consideration to the criticisms of Dr. Knapman to determine whether disciplinary action was appropriate. Taking particular account of Lord Justice Clarke's conclusion that Dr. Knapman acted at all times in good faith, the Lord Chancellor was not satisfied that there was evidence of misbehaviour or inability, which would warrant the exercise of his powers under the Coroners Act 1988.
  However, the Lord Chancellor concluded that Dr. Knapman's conduct on that occasion fell below the standard properly expected of a holder of judicial office. In consequence, he determined that disciplinary action was appropriate and issued Dr. Knapman with a formal admonishment, as the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea said. As my hon. Friend said, that was made known to Parliament in my written response of 6 November 2001 to the parliamentary question that the tabled.

  383
  The Lord Chancellor now considers that the case regarding Dr. Knapman's position as a result of actions taken in the aftermath of the Marchioness tragedy is closed. The Lord Chancellor deeply sympathises with the continuing distress of survivors and families of victims of the Marchioness disaster. None of us can imagine what it must be like to carry that burden of grief. However, it has to be said that Dr. Knapman's conduct has been examined in detail and at length by an independent inquiry. The criticisms made against him by that inquiry were considered most carefully by the Lord Chancellor, and appropriate disciplinary action was taken. The Lord Chancellor believes that we must now regard Dr. Knapman's conduct in respect of the Marchioness tragedy to be a closed issue.
  My hon. Friend referred to tissue samples, and some of his comments also apply to the later case to which he referred. Lord Justice Clarke referred to that issue in his report, but he decided not to delay concluding the report, as it was felt that that matter fitted more properly into considerations of recommendations following the Bristol and Alder Hey inquiries. The Department of Health and the Welsh Assembly are consulting on changes to the law in this area. As hon. Members may know, the issue is also raised in the recent consultation paper from Tom Luce as part of the coroners review. I understand that Tom Luce is keeping in touch with the retained organs commission with regard to the progress of, and thinking behind, the review.
  As I said, my hon. Friend has also spoken this evening about Dr. Knapman's handling of the inquest into the death of Susan Annis, which, as he mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) has also raised with me. The Lord Chancellor was advised last year of a complaint about Dr. Knapman's handling of the inquest into the death of Susan Annis. However, that complaint turned on the exercise, by Dr. Knapman of his judicial discretion. As I stated earlier, the Lord Chancellor has no power to intervene about decisions of this nature made by coroners in particular inquests. The appropriate remedy is an application for judicial review or an application under section 13 of the Coroners Act. Section 13 provides for an application to be made to the High Court for an order to hold another inquest when that is necessary or desirable, whether by reason of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, insufficiency of inquiry or discovery of new facts,
  384
  evidence or otherwise. I note that my hon. Friend referred to certain factors that he believes have come to light, which may fall into that category.
  I turn now to the review of the coroner system, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham referred. In summer 2001, the Government appointed Tom Luce to chair a review of the death certification processes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The review is sponsored by the Home Office and the Northern Ireland court service, but is independent of Government. Tom Luce and his team published a consultation document on 30 August this year, having spent time with all the key professional bodies whose members work within the death certification and coroner system, as well as with voluntary bodies, support groups and private individuals who have experience of the system. To assist with its work, the review team has set up a reference group; among its members are two representatives from the Marchioness contact group. I know that Tom Luce plans to keep in touch with the group until the review is complete, and it is expected that a final report will be published next spring.
  In view of the points made by my hon. Friend this evening, which are extremely important, I undertake to write personally to Tom Luce to draw his attention to those points and the comments that have been made about the coronial system. Therefore, before he begins the next stage of his work, he will be aware of my hon. Friend's concerns and the concerns of others that he has reflected.
  This debate has highlighted very important concerns expressed by families in these most tragic circumstances. I hope that I have been able not only to highlight the powers that the Lord Chancellor has in such circumstances and the action that he has previously taken, but to emphasise the fact that lessons can be learned. We must do that.
  I thank my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea for their contributions. My hon. Friend has clearly expressed the concerns of those involved in this tragic case. We all pay tribute to them for continuing to campaign for what they think is right and for changes to be made. We can learn many lessons and I trust that he will accept that my writing to the review will, I hope, enable us to take forward many of the ideas that have been expressed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

International Terrorism (Indonesia)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
9.30 am
Mr. Win Griffiths:I must say at the outset that I take no pleasure in being here this morning to talk about Indonesia and its role in combating international terrorism. The Bali bomb was a shock to the world. It was a barbaric, mindless, Godless and faithless atrocity. It displayed among the perpetrators no concern for humanity and the human condition. For any normal person, it is still difficult to come to terms with the fact that people can perpetrate such atrocities against their fellow human beings.
It was cathartic yesterday to be at the Indonesian embassy, which held an inter-faith memorial service. Leaders of the Anglican community, the Roman Catholic Church and the Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist faiths participated in a service of remembrance.
Rather like last year's September massacre in the United States, the Bali bomb took us totally by surprise. I say that as someone who only a month before—at the end of July and beginning of August—led an inter-faith delegation to Indonesia. We visited Jakarta and the island of Sulawesi, a part of which has experienced inter-faith violence between Muslim and Christian communities for about three years. Our delegation contained four each from the Muslim and Christian traditions. My hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Mr. Cummings), for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood), and for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar), and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) were there from the Commons, and Lord Bhatia, Baroness Cox, and Baroness Uddin came from the Lords for all or part of the visit.
Although the visit was partly to familiarise ourselves more with Indonesia, its Government and the general problems that it faces, we also specifically focused on the issue of inter-faith violence in central Sulawesi and Maluku, or the Moluccas as we have known them in the past. The Bali bombing put a totally new slant on our visit. It was undoubtedly perpetrated by Muslim extremists, and there have been a plethora of stories in the press about the information that allegedly was available to the security services. Stories in the press before then expressed concern about the possibility of Muslim extremists and al-Qaeda having connections in Indonesia and the potential to foment trouble there. That issue is relevant to the impression that members of the delegation formed on our visit.
Our visit was broadly based. We met a great variety of people, and I pay huge tribute to our staff at the embassy in Jakarta and the south-east Asia division in London for the superb programme that they put together for us. At our request, they even made changes at the eleventh hour and managed to slot them into the
74WH
programme. We had a meeting alone with President Megawati—she had no officials there to guide her—for approximately three quarters of an hour, which was very interesting. We met the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament and the two Ministers responsible for implementing the Malino I and II peace agreements that cover central Sulawesi and Maluku. We also met members of the committee for security and politics in the People's Legislative Assembly, which is the most prestigious committee in that House. In a joint meeting, we met the leaders of the two largest Muslim organisations in Indonesia—Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah. We also met the representative of the Catholic Church and the representative of the Protestant community in Indonesia.
That was at the top of the tree. We also had meetings with 20 Muslim and Christian rajas—village heads—from Maluku, and met representatives of local and international non-governmental organisations operating in Sulawesi and Maluku. In Jakarta, we met young people brought together by the British Council's connecting futures programme, people from the media who had been to Britain on a transition to democracy programme, and representatives of the British Chamber of Commerce. We then went to Sulawesi. We did not go to central Sulawesi, but to neighbouring south Sulawesi where we met the governor, the chief of police, members of the regional parliament, the signatories of the Malino I peace agreement covering central Sulawesi, members of an inter-faith communication forum in south Sulawesi, and staff and students from a Protestant theological college. We met all sorts of people, from the heights of the Government to the grass roots of local communities, who are directly involved in trying to resolve the problems of inter-faith violence between Christians and Muslims.
There have been three years of violence, during which we hesitate to guess how many people died. Although violence has been committed against Muslim communities, much more violence has been perpetrated against Christian communities in Maluku and central Sulawesi. At grass-roots level, local non-governmental organisations, signatories to the Malino agreements and the village heads in Maluku have made tremendous efforts to try to resolve problems and isolate extremists. They were most concerned about the lack of sufficient resources invested by the Indonesian Government in the peace process. Not enough troops were around to deal with incidents that broke out from time to time, which made it difficult to implement the agreement. While we were there, the Christian signatories of the Malino 1 agreement for central Sulawesi withdrew from the agreement committee until they were satisfied that the Government were responding more positively to the needs of the Christian community.
We gained the impression that the Indonesian Government were reluctant to talk in detail about Laskar Jihad, the main extremist militia on the Muslim side. In press reports about the Bali bombing, it is notable that Laskar Jihad barely gets a mention, perhaps because that organisation is principally concerned with an internal struggle through which it can impose its faith on the whole of Indonesia. Jemaah Islamiyah, which has had more publicity, has a wider aim in seeking with other groups to create a south-east Asian Muslim entity incorporating not only Indonesia,

75WH
but Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines. It carries out its work through terror and force. The Indonesian Government seemed reluctant to face up to that, but since we returned at the end of September they have created a new national security council. That shows that they are beginning to take these problems seriously.
The information on international terrorism provided to the Indonesian Government—the same point applies to the intelligence services of the British and American Governments—raised general concerns, but did not allow them to identify a specific incidence of violence. We could argue that the Indonesian Government should have responded to such generalised warnings, but that would have meant virtually shutting down the country, or at least the important parts of the country relating to the Indonesian economy and its citizens' way of life. When we look back at it, the surprise of this event stands out. Jemaah Islamiyah has been fingered as the most likely candidate for perpetrating the event, but it is not on the United Nations list of banned terrorist organisations. It is no wonder that the Indonesian Government were reluctant to act. They are in an incredibly difficult position.
I have read all the academic accounts saying how the Indonesian Government should have done A, B and C in moving against the extremists, but the warnings that they received were generalised rather than specific, so it was difficult for them. It may be salutary for us in the west to compare the position of the Indonesian Government with that of Russia or Yugoslavia.
We must remember that democracy in Indonesia is only three years old. It is struggling to maintain over 17,000 islands, half a dozen of which contain most of the Indonesian population. As they are islands, it is easy to talk about separation. Indonesia is struggling to keep the unity of a state, which, apart from its colonial experience, has not had any common statehood in the past. It is trying to keep the principle of a secular state where religious practice is protected and tolerated—"Unity in Diversity" is the Indonesian motto—while emerging from a barbaric dictatorship which kept order until its corruption and barbarities were such that the people eventually revolted.
That strong man Suharto, who had been in power for over 30 years, was removed and yet many of the heads of the army and the political establishment were part of that set-up. They had been involved in the corruption. The present Government is led by a woman in a Muslim state. The Vice-President, Hamzah Haz, at one time said that women should not be involved in politics, although he now happily serves under her. President Megawati does not have a majority for her party and is working in a coalition. There are separatist movements in north Sumatra, Kalimantan and to some extent in Papua. There was a separatist movement in Maluku, but most people on either side of the argument agree that that is totally insignificant now.
The Indonesian Government had an appalling human rights record under Suharto, but are now trying to keep the state together. They are trying to develop a democracy. They are trying to develop a state in which there is due process of law, yet they are told that, because of the potential danger from Muslim extremists, people should be rounded up. The two Ministers
76WH
responsible for the two areas where there had been violence have to take action while at the same time respecting human rights and the due process. That juggling act is extremely difficult, bearing in mind the fact that human rights organisations within Indonesia and outside have complained bitterly about the fact that human rights have not been respected in Aceh, for example.
Vice-President Hamzah Haz certainly did not want to recognise that there were terrorists in Indonesia. In May of this year he was quoted in The Jakarta Post as saying:
"There are no terrorists here. I guarantee that. If they exist, don't arrest any Muslim clerics, arrest me."
We know that Abu Bakar Bashir has been arrested. On 18 October, Hamzah Haz said:
"The alleged existence of an international terrorist network in Indonesia cannot be detected until legal process shows it … People should not think negatively about the move to summon Bashir."
So the Vice-President of Indonesia is still in denial about the possibility of there being international terrorists operating in the country. Is it any wonder that the Government of Indonesia have been grappling with more balls than a juggler would throw into the air in trying simultaneously to deal with extremism and to maintain the reform process and the efforts to create a democracy, justice and human rights, along the lines that we in the west would wish?
We might consider for a moment what happened in the old Russian empire and in Yugoslavia when the rule of dictators was removed and people were allowed to develop their own Governments. It was total chaos. In Yugoslavia, it was so bad that we and other states had to intervene to protect Muslims from genocide, and we need consider only briefly the current problems with regard to law and order and terrorism in some of the old satellite states of the Soviet Union.
In that context, we might think that the Indonesian Government are not doing so badly. Nevertheless, we should not just wipe the slate clean and tell them that. compared with Yugoslavia, they are not doing a bad job. That would not reflect what I have told the Indonesian Government over the past few years, by word of mouth and in letters, about their failure to deal sufficiently strongly with Muslim extremists.
We may regret the fact that the Indonesian Government did not take stronger action, but there are understandable reasons why they were not in a position to do so. Laskar Jihad is an example of that. Even before the disbandment of that group—on 15 October, fairly soon after the Bali bombing—there had been allegations about connections between the group and the military. The group officially disbanded in a very disciplined way. Without looking into the possible reasons for the disbandment, I can tell hon. Members that there seems to have been a strong element of military direction within it, or from those in the military who were involved with it, to ensure that it was disbanded, at least for the time being. Although I do not believe that Laskar Jihad were implicated in the Bali bombing, the investigation of Muslim extremists might well have drawn the investigators' attention to some elements in the army that were involved with Laskar Jihad. That illustrates the difficulties that the Indonesian Government face in trying to deal with those extremists.

77WH
Are there any grounds for hope in fighting international terrorism? I believe that there are. Towards the end of September, the Indonesian Government began to take seriously the need to deal with international terrorism and Muslim extremists in the state by setting up a national security council. In addition, we should not forget that, in June, they handed over Omar al-Faruq—a Kuwaiti involved in international terrorism—to the Americans. He is still, I believe, in Guantanamo bay, and has been questioned. Some of the information received from him appears to have credence, but some does not seem to accord with what the intelligence services have. That, again, is one of the problems in dealing with the international terrorist threat. There are pages and pages of information, but they often contain contradictions. I shall not go into details, but I have seen the names of at least four or five Muslim extremists credited with responsibility for masterminding the Bali bombing. Who was it, or were they all involved? To what extent were Muslims in Indonesia involved? The impression is that the whole escapade was planned and developed by outside forces, although there could have been some help from local extremists in planning and preparing for the attack.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. He has intimated that until the very recent past the Indonesian Government, although perhaps not the present democracy, have been involved in internal terror and used terror against their own citizens. He also said that some of those individuals have carried on in the military and in the current Government. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied from his talks with the Indonesian Government and other parliamentarians that the present Government have woken up to the reality of that? Surely they need to rid themselves of those elements in their military and Government as well as tackle international terrorism. The two go together, as I think he is moving on to say.
Mr. Griffiths: The two do go together. We did not discuss in detail whether the military were implicated or whether senior people in the political establishment were involved in past wrongdoings. However, the Speaker of the People's Legislative Assembly has, I believe, been charged with and found guilty of corrupt practices. In the past week, President Megawati has asked the Attorney General to resign because of his failure to maintain high standards in political life, in that he has kept back information about the sources of his wealth.
The Government are, therefore, aware of these matters and are trying to sort them out, but there are tremendous difficulties because many people in leading positions in the military and the political establishment were enmeshed in what happened in the past.
Jeremy Corbyn: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. In his discussions, did he get a handle on any current relationship between the military and the militia, particularly in West Papua and Aceh? Appalling acts of violence are being perpetrated there by the militia, and it is said that many of those militia are close to the army.
Mr. Griffiths: I think we can be fairly certain of that in the case of Laskar Jihad, although that is speculative
78WH
because we do not have the evidence in chapter and verse. However, it is fair to assume that some of the military have connections with some of the extremist groups operating in various parts of the Indonesian state. That is one of the Government's great difficulties.
Nevertheless, the Indonesian Government are trying to tackle the problems, although not with the alacrity that we would like. They have set up the national security council and now recognise that there are problems with al-Qaeda and other international terrorists making links with local Muslim extremists. They dealt with Omar al-Faruq and have arrested a number of other people. Indeed, while we were there, the leader of Laskar Jihad, Jafar Umar Thalib, was on trial, although the trial was proceeding slowly. According to the latest information, there are recordings of him calling on Muslims to kill every Christian in Maluku. A local police commander attests that Thalib made that statement on the radio and that it is his voice on the tape recording, but Thalib denies that it is him speaking on the tape. The Government have rounded up several other groups involved in, for example, attacks on nightclubs. Some of the leaders of the Islamic Defenders Front have been arrested. Action is being undertaken.
The Malino I and II accords are meant to try to solve the problems of local inter-faith violence. The main grass-roots Muslim organisation, Nandlatul Ulama, has come out strongly against such violence. Its leader, Hasyim Muzadi, was in Britain under the auspices of the British Council only a week or two ago, and I and one or two other parliamentarians met him. He made it plain that moderate Muslims must stand up to Muslim extremists. He has created the national moral movement, which includes NU and Muhammadiyah, the other large Muslim organisation. Between the two, they have about 70 million members.
The head of the Catholic Church and representatives of Protestant Churches are included in the national moral movement, as are intellectuals, the non-religious political establishment, Hindus and Buddhists. All those elements have leadership roles in the movement, which is trying to ensure on a national level that clear guidance is given to Muslims in particular. It also deals with some extremists involved in unsavoury gangs in the name of Christianity. As with the IRA in Northern Ireland, perhaps there is a residual Catholic connection, although we know that there is really no connection with religion. However, I do not want to get into that issue.
The movement is trying to set a national example so that most ordinary people will be prepared to stand up against the extremists. We met 20 village heads, Christian and Muslim, who were clear that they had to stand up to Laskar Jihad and other extremists in their communities. Plenty of positive work is taking place, but undoubtedly the Indonesian Government need help and support.
The British Government have provided advice to the army and police in Indonesia on how to work in a publicly accountable way, which they have not had to do in the past. Our Government have also started aid programmes to deal with some longer-term problems of poverty and economic development. The non-governmental organisations there try to work positively. With the support that the Indonesian Government are receiving from outside, there is the prospect that

79WH
extremism can be dealt with in the incredibly difficult terrain of the Indonesian state. However, in a state of 17,000 islands, we should not underestimate the ability of Muslim extremists to set up camps and perhaps go undetected for a long time.
Mr. Khalid Mahmood: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should congratulate the ambassador to Indonesia, Richard Gozney, and his staff on their tremendous work? He has already mentioned it, but will he reiterate our congratulations? Does my hon. Friend agree that we should offer more support on the security and protection of small Christian and Muslim groups, to try to bring them back into the mainstream? The charities provide a lot of funding, but would the Minister not agree that the Government should provide funding for the existing security structures? It is a fledgling democracy, and we need to ensure that it has security support so that it can better establish itself.
Mr. Griffiths: I have no hesitation in approving what my hon. Friend says; he was with me on the delegation.
Uli Ubhar Abdullah, an NU leader and a great scholar, said:
"The government should use the Bali attacks as a momentum to show the world that it is serious in its acts against extremism".
That reflects what the leadership is saying. This tragedy gives the Indonesian Government the opportunity to re-establish harmonious inter-faith relationships and to tackle the problem of international terrorism in its own country.
One final thing came up in our talks that cannot be avoided, and it is doubtless being considered by our Government and by the United States. The Indonesian Government said that their efforts to tackle the problems of extremism would be made more difficult if Iraq were to be attacked without the support of the United Nations. That is something else that needs to be considered when trying to deal with international terrorism, and in particular with the situation that prevails in Indonesia.
10.6 am
Bob Spink: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) not only on initiating this important and tragically timely debate, but on his efforts to seek an end to sectarian violence and terrorism in Indonesia, particularly in the eastern part of the country. His efforts are often spoken of in the House, and are much appreciated by all Members.
I worked in Indonesia in the 1980s; I was funded as a consultant by the tripartite organisations—the International Labour Organisation, the World Bank and the United Nations—on technology transfer projects. I worked closely with Pertamina, the Indonesian national oil company, so I know that the Indonesian people can be wonderful and gentle, how beautiful the country is and how much potential it has. However, I also know also how many problems remain to be solved in that part of the world. Again, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing a debate on the subject.
80WH
In two previous debates, and with much help from the Jubilee 200 campaign for debt cancellation, I have raised concerns about continuing sectarian violence and terrorist activity in Indonesia, especially in the Moluccas and Sulawesi. The violence and sectarian terrorism has been fuelled and perpetuated by the extremist Islamic group, Laskar Jihad, aided and abetted by al-Qaeda. I told the House on 17 July that the al-Qaeda terrorist network was joining Laskar Jihad in fighting Christians in Indonesia. I continued:
"The British Government should pressure the Indonesian authorities to ensure that there are enough police and troops in the Moluccas and Sulawesi to enforce the peace"—[Official Report. Westminster Hall, 17 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 104WH.]
I also said that failure to do so would give succour to Islamic death squads. I take no pleasure in saying that I have been proved right.
When I made that statement, I thought that terrorism would be exported from Indonesia to other nations; I guess that the British Government and Governments throughout the world thought so too. Little did I think that terrorism would be used in Bali—a serene and beautiful haven of peace. While our hearts go out to the victims of that terrible atrocity and to their families, our thoughts must also be with the Indonesian people, who will suffer tremendous trauma and take a long time to recover from this tragedy. We have a duty to help them to recover from it in every way we can, and to rebuild Bali and Indonesia as a strong country in the international community.
Over the past two years, the Jubilee campaign, the British human rights group, has called for Laskar Jihad to be removed from the Moluccas and Sulawesi, and for Jafar Umar Thalib, the organisation's leader, to be brought to justice. I heartily support that call. Laskar Jihad is responsible for killing thousands of Christians in Indonesia during its jihad, or so-called holy war. Moderate Muslims who disagree with Laskar Jihad's harsh, intolerant and improper interpretation of Islam have also been victimised and have suffered terribly. We must fight to eradicate all sectarianism, religious intolerance and violence, whether from the Muslim or the Christian community, whatever its source. In that part of the world, however, the source is the harsh interpretation of Islam perpetrated by Laskar Jihad.
The low-end estimate is that about 5,000 or more Christians have been killed in the Moluccas alone in the sectarian conflict that has raged there. In early 2000, the situation was relatively calm, but the peace was violently broken in May by the arrival of Laskar Jihad, when about 7,000 fighters—or terrorists, as some would call them—invaded the Moluccas. That extremist group is composed of fighters from other provinces of Indonesia outside the Moluccas and of terrorists from other Islamic countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Laskar Jihad's invasion caused unprecedented violence in the Moluccas and resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, simply because they were Christian. Killing in such a way is evil, but killing in the name of God compounds that evil, as people were told by a rabbi from Israel at the national prayer breakfast in Westminster Hall this morning.
Despite widespread destruction and violence caused by Laskar Jihad, the Indonesian Government did nothing to have those people removed from the

81WH
Moluccas and Sulawesi. Indeed, elements of the Indonesian military supported Laskar Jihad with weapons and training. Throughout the Moluccas and Sulawesi conflicts, it has been commonplace for the Indonesian security forces to take the side of aggressive Islamic fighters against the defensive Christians. Despite the participation of Indonesian soldiers and police in numerous attacks on Christians, which have been well documented and witnessed, the Indonesian Government have not sought to punish such prejudiced members of their security forces.
As a result of the Indonesian Government's complacency, and their helpful attitude towards the violence of militant Islamic groups such as Laskar Jihad, the country has become a haven for Islamic terrorists. In December 2001, the head of Indonesia's national intelligence agency, Lieutenant-General Hendropriyono, publicly confirmed that members of the al-Qaeda terrorist network were joining Laskar Jihad in fighting Christians in Sulawesi. Due to pressure from fundamentalist Indonesian politicians, Lieutenant-General Hendropriyono later retracted that statement. However, as the Jubilee campaign and I have frequently pointed out, he did so only because of political pressure. The facts that he quoted about al-Qaeda were right, as we have now learned to our cost.
So far, the Indonesian Government have done little to crack down on militant Islamic extremists in Indonesia. Unlike neighbouring Governments such as those of Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines, who have tried to apprehend such extremists, the Indonesian Government have until now practised a policy of accommodation with respect to Muslim militants, even at the expense of the safety and lives of thousands of Christians and non-fundamentalist Muslims in the Moluccas and Sulawesi.
Indonesia's reluctance to rein in Islamic extremists and detain suspected terrorists prompted much concern in Washington and in neighbouring Asian capitals about whether the world's most populous Muslim country could become a base from which to plot new terrorist atrocities. That concern proved well placed.
Omar al-Faruq was arrested by Indonesian police in 2002 and handed over to the United States authorities. Al-Faruq is reported to have confessed to being a senior al-Qaeda operative with responsibility for planning and co-ordinating attacks against targets in south-east Asia. Al-Faruq has also spent time fighting Christians for the Muslims in Ambon in the Moluccas, and he stayed in a Laskar Jihad stronghold, with its support, while he was there. That is strong evidence, if we needed it, of a link between Laskar Jihad and al-Qaeda.
The Indonesian Government's short-sighted policy of accommodating Islamic militants such as Laskar Jihad led to the devastating result of the terrorist bombing in Bali on 12 October, which killed at least 180 people. Until then, the international response, including that of the British Government, to the deaths of thousands of Christians at the hands of Islamic extremists in the Moluccas and Sulawesi was relatively low key. I say that with deep regret.
Western Governments and the world media have been slow to recognise the active role played by Islamic terrorists in perpetuating the sectarian conflict in the Moluccas and Sulawesi. Now, however, the world has
82WH
finally begun to wake up to the dangers of Islamic terrorism in Indonesia, because, for the first time, Muslim militants have killed many westerners there.
Around the time of the terrorist attack in Bali, Laskar Jihad closed its head office in Yogyakarta and claimed that it was disbanding the organisation. Since Tuesday 15 October, Laskar Jihad fighters have been seen leaving Ambon in the Moluccas and Poso in central Sulawesi. There is widespread speculation that the timing of the closure of Laskar Jihad and its parent organisation, the Communication Forum for Ahlusunnah Waljamaah, is directly connected with the attack in Bali.
There is more than a possibility that the purported disbanding of Laskar Jihad is a strategic move, with a view to going underground to avoid attention in the event of a general crackdown on militant groups following the Bali bombing. It is also possible that Laskar Jihad fighters will simply re-emerge under a new name and carry on their violent activities in a different guise.
Close monitoring of Laskar Jihad and its former members is essential, and only time will tell whether its disbandment truly marks the end of the conflict in the Moluccas and central Sulawesi. That must form a main part of Indonesia's role in combating Islamic terrorism.
Some may question Laskar Jihad's capacity to carry out an attack as devastating as the Bali bombing and suspect that al-Qaeda played a key part in the atrocity, but we cannot claim to know the full capability of Laskar Jihad. Therefore, we cannot simply assume that the Bali attack was beyond its abilities. In any event, without Laskar Jihad, al-Qaeda would find it difficult to operate in Indonesia, so Indonesia must co-operate internationally to rid itself of such terrorists and their safe havens there. Others who have provided support to Laskar Jihad may have had prior knowledge of, or involvement in, the Sari club bombing, and thus planned in advance to dissolve Laskar Jihad in anticipation of a crackdown on Islamic militants following the bombing.
Furthermore, while the apparent withdrawal of Laskar Jihad fighters from the Moluccas and Sulawesi is to be welcomed, many remain in the northern Moluccas and in West Papua, where there are reportedly still more than 1,000 Laskar Jihad fighters. Since June 2001, Laskar Jihad in West Papua has been reported to be positioning itself for a Moluccas-style attack against the mainly Christian local population. I therefore again urge the Government to put strong pressure on the Indonesian Government to ensure that all Laskar Jihad fighters and other terrorists leave the Moluccas, Sulawesi, West Papua, and, indeed, Indonesia.
The Indonesian Government must ensure that the Laskar Jihad leader, Jafar Umar Thalib, who is on trial, is given a lengthy prison sentence if he is found guilty to prevent him from inciting violence, as he did before, or engaging in any further terrorist attacks. The Indonesian authorities should be encouraged to deal firmly with all violent Islamic groups in Indonesia. There also needs to be a tough, independent and transparent investigation of the links between Laskar Jihad and the Indonesian military. Only time will reveal whether Laskar Jihad has truly ended its war against

83WH
Christians, and whether the Indonesian Government will diligently pursue and punish terrorists in their country.
Much closer and more serious scrutiny by the international community of the militant Islamic groups in Indonesia, such as Laskar Jihad and Jemaah Islamiah, is urgently needed, and continuing pressure must be put on the Indonesian Government to crack down on Islamic extremists. If the Indonesian Government continue to be complacent in their handling of extremist groups, the British Government and their European Union partners—and, I suppose, America and other countries—should seriously consider imposing sanctions, including an arms embargo on Indonesia.
10.22 am
Rev. Martin Smyth: I agree with the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) that such groups may reorganise under another name. As we discovered in Northern Ireland, groups disband, or at least say that they are going down the road of peace, but then reorganise using names such as "continuity" or "real", and even continue as "provos".
However, it is important to bear in mind the fact that there are other issues as well. The hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of Laskar Jihad moving into Papua. It is equally possible that it is regrouping in Aceh, especially given that President Megawati made it abundantly plain while we were there that she would use the military to stem the separatist movement in Aceh, which is trying to separate from Indonesia and set up a sharia state. It is possible that people are moving into that situation to advance that separatist cause.
Some people have persistently argued that the separatist movement in the Moluccas has been the cause of the problems. That is a red herring. The separatist movement in the Moluccas is small and has been around for many years. Some of us remember the incidents in Holland in the early 1970s, when some of its extremists were brought to justice. That movement is not the problem. The problem in the Moluccas has been those elements, such as Laskar Jihad and others, who are seeking to eliminate the Christian witness.
Just two weeks ago, Professor James Haire, the president of the Uniting Church in Australia, spoke on the "Sunday Sequence" programme in Northern Ireland. He pleaded with western powers not to take extreme and harsh measures after Bali, saying that they could be counterproductive. We were colleagues in the Presbyterian ministry, and his family would have been constituents but he went to the Moluccas, Halmahera and Darwin, and he is now based in Brisbane, where he is a professor at Griffiths college.
I think that James Haire has something to say. He returned to the Moluccas after the massacre to see for himself what was happening. He was walking across the ground, when he suddenly realised that it was very brittle. To his horror, he discovered that he was walking on the bones of people he had baptised and of students he had lectured. Those people had been brutalised, and their bodies had been left there without being interred. When a man of James Haire's ilk calls on us to react carefully, we should at least listen.
84WH
I pay tribute to the leadership of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who took our delegation to Indonesia. We were unable to go to the Moluccas, because people were trying to get foreigners to leave and they did not want our visit to act as an excuse. Ifdeed, Laskar Jihad issued a very detrimental and negative press statement about our visit. In fairness to the Indonesian authorities, however, they did expel six or seven people from Saudi Arabia, who were working in the Moluccas at the time. It was apparent that the authorities were trying to do something to tackle the problem.
The situation in Sulawesi was interesting. We regularly discovered that people were not prepared to say too much publicly: whether Muslim or Christian, they were very careful in the expressions that they used. Before we left, some of us had a private conversation with one of the Reformed pastors. We asked whether it was true that more Muslims than Christians had been killed in Poso, and I can still visualise him hanging his head. Earlier, he had not been prepared to say who was responsible, and people obviously did not want to name Laskar Jihad. However, we already had information to the effect that things had been going on for some time before they erupted and that outside forces were responsible. When we pressed the pastor, he told us, with his head held down, that more Muslims than Christians had been killed. When the Christians who lived in the area were attacked, they took to the higher ground. The folk who had come to exterminate them did not know the country and they suffered most as a result. We must put the record straight. We must understand that a community that is attacked has a right to defend itself, which, tragically, is what happened on this occasion.
Since our return, we have discovered another problem, to which hon. Members have alluded—the collusion between the military, elements of the police and the Muslim extremists. A Reformed pastor, who was a leader of the Protestant side in the Malino agreement, has been arrested on a false charge. It has been claimed that he had weapons and that he was the leader of the insurrection, but all the evidence is clearly to the contrary.
In Sulawesi, we gained another insight. Some argue that the United Kingdom should be doing more to help the people by supplying them with the necessary equipment. However, the police officer with whom we spoke told us that he did not need more equipment; he needed more intelligence. In other words, they need help to lead their police service out of its corrupt state because they are unable to do their work properly. Some people do not realise that the police service in Indonesia is working on the old pattern—officers pay to get in, and get very little pay in return. It is a do-it-yourself business. A police officer sets up checkpoints where he can catch people and imposes on-the-spot fines to help him to eek out his wages. That is one of the problems.
I discovered that an English police officer, who was in Indonesia on secondment for at least a year, if not two years, stuck it for only six months. The event that finally sickened him was when a senior officer, with whom he was working trying to raise moral standards and end corrupt practices, knocked at his hotel door and presented him with a bevy of beauties for his entertainment. He left Indonesia and returned to the United Kingdom.

85WH
We pay tribute to those in the embassy who have done a great deal and are held in the highest respect. I say that specifically in the light of some criticism of one of the consuls in Bali. We formed an entirely different opinion, and observed the respect in which the ambassador is held because of his fluency in the language, among other things. It was fascinating. We had fine interpreters with us, but on about five occasions, when the ambassador realised that they had not understood the nuance of our questions, he politely interjected in Indonesian, and one could see immediately that the other authorities and interpreters understood what he was saying. I pay tribute to him and to those who have regularly gone out to Indonesia to try to help. However, until we marshal the moderate forces of Islam to work with the Government in Indonesia, there will be more difficulties.
The United Kingdom Parliament must raise these issues publicly and keep pressure on the Indonesian authorities, encouraging them when they are doing well. The hon. Member for Castle Point referred to the situation in the Moluccas. We recognise that the authorities tried to stop the Laskar Jihad. The naval forces stopped and searched the extremists, but as they found no weapons, they had no grounds for keeping them out, so the extremists landed. However, the military had already brought in the weapons, which were at the disposal of Laskar Jihad. Elements of the military co-operated with extreme Islamists in corrupt practices to try to exterminate not only the Christian population but moderate Muslims. The head man in the area around Poso, a Muslim who was involved in the Malino agreement, was himself a victim, so we must be careful not to see just one side of the argument but the deeper issue. There is an attempt to extend an extremist power block across south-east Asia, which has terrified even the Malaysian and Singaporean Governments.
10.34 am
Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief, as there is not much time and the Front-Bench spokesmen wish to reply. I apologise for missing most of the speech that was made by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), but I was attending the annual meeting of the all-party group on human rights.
I should like the Minister to reply to a few points. We are all appalled by the Bali bombing: the loss of life, the callous way in which the bomb was placed and the young people who were destroyed. I hope that the culprits are brought to justice.
Indonesia has serious problems of fundamental instability. Following decolonisation, disputes arose about Indonesia's territorial integrity. East Timor, where an international settlement was finally established, was the most obvious example of that. I was asked to visit as a United Nations observer during the referendum, and I thought that the situation was horrific. The UN did a good job in holding the referendum and the vote was fair, so far as I could tell. The problem was, however, that the Indonesian army and police did not provide adequate security for the UN staff who undertook the referendum. As soon as the result was known, the militia took over. I do not know the death toll for the period after the referendum, but it ran into thousands. That was in addition to the 200,000 people who died during the period of Indonesian terror in East Timor from 1974. One hopes that East Timor will have a peaceful and prosperous future.
86WH
East Timor is not the only place in Indonesia where there have been huge problems. I attended a conference in this country last week with West Papuan representatives, some of whom had travelled from West Papua and Indonesia. The level of violence, killing and the consistently high death rates in West Papua are appalling. There is a demand for independence in West Papua, and the people point to the colonial history, which shows that West Papua was not part of the Dutch-administered colony. It was only after the hotly disputed 1969 Act of Free Choice that West Papua was brought into Indonesia.
We would do well to try to understand a bit more about the desperate situation in West Papua. Huge outside interests are involved there. That applies to most conflicts around the world that involve arguments about self-determination. Outside interests include those of the Freeport mine, which is a powerful, prosperous and deeply polluting mine, and BP, which is keen to exploit oil reserves. Will the Minister tell me what contact his Department has with Freeport mine and BP and what representations those companies have made regarding the activities of the militia and the behaviour of the army in West Papua? Many serious allegations of brutality have been made about them.
I will put my last two points quickly to the Minister, because I know that he needs time in which to reply. I recognise that a small amount of training has been offered to the Indonesian military. Indeed, I have had a parliamentary written answer about that matter. The fundamental problem is that the Indonesian military operates virtually independently of the civilian Government. The civilian Government have to negotiate with the military about what they want done, and whether the military does it or not depends on its current interests and mood. The military has its own independent sources of funding.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) pointed out that that problem runs through the police and other services. Pay levels are very low, and that becomes a laissez-passer to make money out of criminal or semi-criminal activities. Until there is civilian political control of the police and the armed forces, I suspect that there will be serious, long-term problems. It is clear that the militia are close to the military: indeed, in some parts they are exactly the same organisation.
I am concerned that this country has traditionally sold large amounts of arms to Indonesia during the period of oppression in East Timor. I understand that we are considering further arms sales to Indonesia. We have to think very carefully about that. It is no good complaining about human rights abuses by military forces that are out of control around the world, if we have provided the equipment that enables them to behave in that manner in the first place. I hope that, if the Minister cannot give an answer today, there will be further correspondence on British arms sales to Indonesia and support for the military. We need to know how many of those arms end up with the militia.
10.40 am
Mr. Michael Moore: This has been a sombre and serious debate, in keeping with the serious issues that we are discussing.

87WH
I am conscious of the time and of the need for the Minister, in particular, to respond, so I shall keep my remarks brief.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and his colleagues who recently visited Indonesia on their contributions and on securing the debate. We cannot let the appalling events of 12 October recede from our minds. It is important that we record our sympathy for the enduring pain suffered by those who lost loved ones and those who were seriously injured, from whatever part of the globe they come. We also have anxieties about the recovery of those in Bali and the future of those for whom tourism is their livelihood and a key source of income. The international reaction has been one of horror, condemnation and anger. That is entirely appropriate. Just one short year after 11 September, we are right to be anxious about what the events in Bali may signify.
We have heard discussions on different aspects of the crisis in Indonesia and on the importance of Indonesia tackling its own problems. It is important that outside observers tread carefully and try to understand the situation in the country and the wider region. There has been a series of bombings in the past year. They were believed to be the work primarily of local Islamic militants. Other countries, such as the Philippines, have also endured attacks. Careful scrutiny of the possible links between the country-based or region-based groups and international terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda is under way. Clearly Indonesia and the international community must understand more about the possible links before jumping to conclusions. Any danger of complacency has been stripped away.
Many Members have remarked on the need to be sensitive to the religious and ethnic considerations within Indonesia. There has been heavy media emphasis on the militant Islamic groups, who are only a tiny minority in a large country. While being sensitive to the religious and ethnic composition of the country, we must also have an understanding of its recent history, including the fall of Suharto after 30 years of dictatorship, the south-east Asian economic collapse, and the endemic corruption. None of those things should be used as excuses, but they provide some insight into an element of the current difficulties.
Indonesia has, of course, taken action. Recently, decrees were issued to clamp down on terrorism. That followed a period in which anti-terror legislation had been gathering dust. We must understand that as a result of the Suharto regime there was strong political pressure to resist measures that could be interpreted as anti-Islamic. The country's human rights record, however, has not been good in the past and is now perhaps not as good as it should be.
The role of the military is critical. The military retains a strong position within the state. We need a better understanding of the links with terrorists, whether they are formed out of sympathy or with the aim of causing trouble, which can then be exploited. Tackling elements that want to undermine democracy must be a priority. I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), who talked about the need for the Government to reconsider their links with arms sales to Indonesia.
88WH
For those in Indonesia, denial of problems can no longer be an option. As the hon. Member for Bridgend commented, Vice-President Hamzah Haz has had to reconsider some of his recent positions. That is welcome, but needs to be more widely understood. There are obvious weaknesses in the country's infrastructure: a lack of a properly funded intelligence gathering force, poor quality policing and a lack of adequate resources for a country where vast geographical issues complicate the delicate ethnic and religious situation.
Clearly, Indonesia must tackle those problems, but the world must help. Fostering democracy, which is still so young and vulnerable in that country, is crucial. The technical assistance on offer from our Government is important, and I would particularly welcome the Government's support. Adequate development systems will also be fundamental. The weaknesses in Indonesia have exposed many problems. There is a duty on its leadership to tackle those issues, and there is a significant duty on us to support their efforts.
10.45 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on introducing the debate, which reflects his profound knowledge, understanding and sympathy for the situation in Indonesia. The contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) all showed a considerable knowledge and understanding of the situation in Indonesia.
I have been to Bali twice: I have been to Kuta beach and travelled around Java. It is worth remembering that if one goes back five years, Indonesia was regarded as one of the Asian tigers—an immense success story before its economic collapse. Huge investment went into the country. Since then, the meltdown in Asia has led to a very different economic situation from the potential that was there before. It has a huge level of unemployment, which stands at about 40 million out of 220 million people. Many experts acknowledge that the most important factor in the economic recovery that is crucial for Indonesia is for the country to put its own house in order on terrorism. Without that, vital external investors will stay away. It is becoming something of an unvirtuous circle.
Jusuf Wanandi of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies has said that the economy of Indonesia will "go down the drain" if President Megawati does not act against terrorism. The terrorist outrage in Bali is a dramatic example of how violence and human tragedy can lead to further economic disaster.
We have heard about the pattern of terrorist violence in Indonesia over many years. In the past few years, political and social instability has increased in Indonesia and old sores and divisions have opened up. However, one of the most prominent Islamic groups, Laskar Jihad, announced last week that it was disbanding. Hopefully, that is the case. It has particularly undesirable characteristics. On its website, it says that it will "deal" with Christian problems "by force". It is a most unattractive organisation. The United States

89WH
Government believe that the announcement by Laskar Jihad that it will disband needs more study. The group should be judged on its actions rather than its words. It is also said that al-Qaeda has been heavily implicated in he tragic and murderous attack on the innocent people of Bali, and I hope that the Minister will comment on whether some link has been established.
The important thing is that Indonesia needs our support in curbing extremism and attacking terrorism. It needs all our skills to help the country to come through this difficult stage. That is why it is important that the President has taken steps to increase her powers to tackle terrorism. The two presidential anti-terrorism decrees on 19 October, combined with increased powers of arrest, are to be welcomed. I look forward to the further package of anti-terrorist Bills that are in the pipeline.
With hindsight, it would have been beneficial for the international community to place more pressure on Indonesia to follow the lead of Singapore and Malaysia in taking a robust stance against organised terrorism in the months preceding 12 October. However, any debate on Indonesia must also acknowledge the precarious political situation faced by President Megawati. She is walking on a political tightrope. Fringe extremist elements in Indonesia have strong appeal, and much of it is anti-American. However, she must guard against any action that might restore the army and its paramilitary allies to power in Indonesia, which is such a new democracy.
If anything good has come out of the truly terrible bombing in Bali, it is that the recent steps taken by the Indonesian Government show a willingness to act against terrorism that did not exist previously. That means separating the violent Islamic tributaries from the more secular mainstream that accepts democratic rules, and using the full force of law against those tributaries. Alongside the tough action already taken by the authorities in Singapore and Malaysia and the international community's collective will to tackle terrorism, there is now hope for a more comprehensive, robust and considered approach. I hope that that will reduce the chance of organised terrorists claiming yet more innocent lives in south-east Asia.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): This has been a good debate, and I am especially grateful to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), for cutting his speech in order to allow me to reply to the points that hon. Members have made.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on securing the debate and on his work in leading the delegation to Indonesia, which is part of this year's wide-ranging engagement with that country by British parliamentarians and Ministers. I congratulate other hon. Members on their contributions. I hope that the debate will be studied and read, because unfortunately our media—especially our broadcast media—find immense space for the antics of Swedish weather forecasters, but little space for such grave international problems.
The atrocity in Bali shocked us all. I also know Kuta beach; I went there when I worked in the region during the 1980s, and I was often in the company of American
90WH
friends. I think of that haven of peace—the Hindu island of Bali, which is inhabited by the most welcoming people on earth—being scarred and destroyed, and I hope that the perpetrators of the atrocity are caught.
It is a little early to rush to judgment. The Indonesian and Australian authorities are working closely, and Britain has sent forensic experts. Although I do not doubt that a link with international terrorism will be established, let us not rush to too early a judgment today. The perpetrators of the atrocity should be brought to justice and Bali should be restored to its rightful role as one of the most wonderful places on the planet to visit. We mourn with Australia and we mourn the victims from many other countries, including the British people who were killed. One of my constituents from Rotherham was injured. We also mourn the workers in the club, the Indonesian citizens and the people of Bali who have suffered so horribly.
The debate is about international terrorism and Indonesia in general. Many points made by hon. Members do not need a reply because there is not much disagreement. We all acknowledge that Indonesia has found its way to democracy only during the past three or four years. Indonesia was ruled on an authoritarian basis from the time it left Dutch rule after the second world war until the first parliamentary elections several years ago. It has developed dramatically since the fall of Suharto less than five years ago. Indonesia is now a democracy. Its political prisoners have been released, its press is among the freest in the region and its Parliament has a strong voice. Surely it is our duty to try to strengthen the authority of the democratic state, not to weaken democracy by turning back the clock to an authoritarian state. If that means that loud, aggressive, sectarian and separatist voices make their views known, so be it, because the silence of an authoritarian state does not remove the causes of the anger of those voices.
Some of this debate—arguably a little too much of it—has focused on inter-religious strife. I do not seek to diminish the appalling religious and sectarian violence that has occurred in Indonesia. We have to face the fact that the notion of the secular state, and of secularism as the guiding force under which international relations are conducted and the rule of law is sustained within individual countries, is coming under challenge. Within the next 25 years, there will be 2.6 billion Christians and Christianity will be the largest religion on earth. More Catholics are being baptised in the Philippines than in all the traditional Catholic states of Europe. Alas, the rough edge that is created where one expanding faith meets up with another can give rise to considerable sectarian problems.
We must assert that Indonesia is essentially a secular state: its character has of course been influenced by Islam, but that has been one of many influences, and its history is marked by a moderate and inclusive form of Islam. The vast majority of Indonesians reject violence. The moderate Indonesian NGOs, Nandlatul Ulama or NU and Muhammadiyah—which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend—claim memberships of at least 30 million, so the two memberships together add up to 70 million. Those groups are central to the way of life in Indonesia; they are important, peaceful NGOs. This House must again affirm that Indonesia is not a radical Islamic state, and I believe that it will not become one so long as its people can choose their own leaders.

91WH
Millions of Indonesians were reduced to poverty by the economic collapse of the mid-1990s, and that has inevitably led to an increase in social tension. The economic recovery has been slow. The Indonesian Government face a host of complex challenges. They must tackle the culture of corruption of the old regime, which has been referred to by hon. Members. They must reform the military and install a framework of democratic accountability for it. They have to deal with inter-communal violence and separatist threats. They also need to rebuild an economy that has been ravaged by the east-Asian financial crisis, and to loosen the old forces of control while building new frameworks for political expression.
I am unsure whether I can completely go along with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), who asked about the role of BP. I would welcome more foreign investment in Indonesia. In answer to another point that he made, I stress that we support Indonesian territorial integrity. The UN and the international community never recognised East Timor as part of Indonesia: it had been a Portuguese colony, whereas Papua was part of the Dutch East Indies, almost all of which the Indonesian Government inherited when they took power shortly after the second world war.
In addition to condemning sectarianism, we must look carefully at those who raise separatist flags, regardless of whether they are Christian separatists in the Moluccas or Papuan separatists. They can create a response from a democratic Government that want to hold their state together. We will work with the Indonesian authorities: we will urge them to take the measures in the campaign against terrorism that many hon. Members have called for, but we welcome Indonesia's commitment to the democratic path. While our hearts go out to its victims, the Bali bombing is a call to reinforce our international campaign to tackle global terrorism. We must tackle its causes and deal with the perpetrators to bring to justice those responsible for the Bali atrocity.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): I invite those hon. Members not wishing to take part in the following debate to leave quickly and quietly.

West Coast Main Line
11 am
Mrs. Patsy Calton: I am pleased to bring to this debate the concerns of my constituents in Cheadle about travel on the west coast main line. I believe that those concerns are shared by the wider public, by business interests and by those involved in tourism, not only in the north-west but throughout a large part of the country.
The line is multi-purpose, carrying slower local trains, inter-city trains and freight. It should form part of the high-speed European network linking continental cities with major cities in Britain. Although I recognise that balancing the needs of each of those sectors is not easy, promises to upgrade the line have been made over the years—by this Government as much as any—and delivery is still not forthcoming.
I regularly use the line between London and Stockport, and my constituents have written to me with increasing distress in recent weeks. The trains—if they turn up at all—are so unreliable that travel in the Stockport area and from my village, Bramhall, to Stockport and Manchester has become a joke. There have been improvements to some stations in the Manchester area and work on the tracks has been going on in preparation for new signalling systems in the Cheadle Hulme area for some time. However, the news announced over the summer that work on the lines would continue for another four years has been greeted with dismay.
The west coast main line is a vital part of the rail infrastructure serving the midlands, the north-west and Scotland. including vital tourist areas such as the lake district, the Fylde coast and Scotland. It is the busiest line in the country, and, with the exception of the Heathrow Express, its fares are also the most expensive. Successive Governments have failed to invest in the line, and when they should have taken command of deteriorating situations, they failed to do so. Indeed, the escalating costs and bungled decision making associated with bringing the line up to the standard expected of a high-speed line is nothing short of a national scandal.
In 1998 Railtrack expected to cut journey times, double capacity and improve safety—all for £2.1 billion. By the summer of 2001, the cost had risen to £10 billion. When the Strategic Rail Authority consultation document was released this month, the estimate was £13 billion. Untried and untested technology, essential to the success of the project, was not delivered. When the Conservative Government broke up and sold off the rail system, the Liberal Democrats called the action "poll tax on wheels", so politically damaging did we expect it to be.
When Virgin won the contract, the negotiations to upgrade the line took place with all the hype associated with the Government when they need an exciting project to take people's minds off a situation. The Railtrack negotiating team was outclassed by the team from Virgin when it came to negotiating the upgrade. According to the Strategic Rail Authority consultation document, concern was expressed that Railtrack would have difficulty in delivering and Virgin ensured that it had built-in financial protection; nobody can blame Virgin for that.

93WH
From 1999, it was clear that commitments made by Railtrack under PUG 2—passenger upgrade 2—which followed the earlier, undelivered, PUG 1 contract of 1996, were not achievable, but no solution was identified. Amazingly, the plethora of watchdogs associated with the industry seemed to stand by and watch matters go from bad to worse. Where was the Deputy Prime Minister? Where was the Transport Minister?
I have read the Strategic Rail Authority strategy document, which was published on 10 October, it now looks as if someone is trying to get a grip at last. However, the Government have got a long way to go before the travelling public—or, for that matter, the rail or any other industry—are convinced. The travelling public have heard it all before, and all that they know is that they have been disappointed time after time.
Such is the uncertainty associated with setting out on a local or national journey from the Stockport area that people are being forced to choose unsustainable forms of transport—cars and planes—which no Government should seek to encourage in preference to trains. The bus service is usually not a viable alternative. If we add to that the often lower costs and fares of such unsustainable forms of transport, it is easy to see the vicious downward spiral that is being generated. Industrial disputes, as we shall see, make bad matters worse.
I have a letter from a constituent, who writes:
"I am writing to add my name to what I suspect is a growing list of frustrated rail commuters in your Constituency who have already contacted you. I am at screaming point with both North Western Trains and ASLEF. In eleven and a half years of commuting daily into Manchester from Bramhall, I have never until now been reduced to driving in by car on a daily basis to the City Centre but there is now realistically no other option. The ASLEF ban on rest day working has so badly affected the service from Bramhall that in the morning those who do attempt to travel by train are extremely lucky if as many as two of the five early morning trains turn up at all. They think they've died and gone to heaven if they turn up anywhere near the time they are supposed to! I cannot cope with this uncertainty about when or even if I am going to get to work. The bus is not a viable alternative as it takes nearly an hour and a half to travel from Bramhall to Manchester"—
a distance of less than eight miles—
"in the early morning peak period.
I have been reduced to the misery of getting up at the crack of dawn to get into the city whilst the roads are still passable and there is space in the cheaper all day car parks, and coming home later than I would normally in order to avoid the same jams coming home."
Another letter that I received says:
"This dispute seems to be attracting very little publicity, and very little seems to be happening to solve it. Meanwhile the rail passengers suffer, who will be our champion? Why is the government not bringing the two sides together to try to settle this dispute? I thought it was government policy to improve public transport, to make it more attractive, so that more people will want to use it, but this dispute will have the opposite effect."
A traveller to London writes:
"The cost of a standard class return ticket for a poor service, Stockport to London, is now £172.00. There are no cheaper tickets available to anyone who needs to arrive in London before 2.00pm or leave London before 6.30pm. Pre-Virgin there were less restrictions and loopholes that enabled frequent travellers to reduce the overall cost of travel—Virgin has systematically tightened restrictions resulting in fourfold fare increases for many journeys over the past few years.
94WH
For business travel and commuting these incredibly high fares are unjust, giving any North West based business an immediate disadvantage over companies that happen to have fairly priced trains. We also have an office in Warwick, approximately half way to London. The fare from Warwick is £50.00 (or £21.00 after 8am)—half the price per mile (or much less) for a more punctual, comfortable service.
It is now far cheaper to fly the 200 miles than use the train—I got a ticket for next week on BA for £58 including taxes arriving in London in time for a loam meeting. I know friends in the Bramhall area who are instructed by their company to travel to London either by plane or company car—environmentally, this is madness.
I have written to Virgin trains and John Prescott but received no satisfactory reply, only a suggestion that I travel off-peak—this is rather missing the point."
I also have a letter that was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), because my constituency covers part of Hazel Grove. The letter says:
"On the 16th September, I had booked a seat from Stockport to Paddock Wood in Kent on the 9.37 am. Arriving at Stockport in good time, luckily, it was announced the 9.37 train was cancelled and all passengers going to London would have to travel on the 9.31 via Stafford. So the booked seat was useless!
Getting on the 9.31 meant that we had to stand all the way to Macclesfield. This is fine if you are young, but being older and in a lot of pain with arthritis it was no fun. The reason for standing was that the first and last coaches were business class for each section of the train, so there was no through access. Even the trolley girls were annoyed as they had to take the drinks trolley off the train and then wheel it along the platform to gain access to the next coach!…My grandfather, Father and all my Uncles worked on the Railway all their working life, and from being a small child, I have always used the Railways. I do not like travelling by motor but the episode I have experienced has not given me any hope for the future of the Railways. I was looking forward to easy, fast, clean and efficient travel that is kept being promised to us. It does not seem as though it will be in my lifetime or anyone else's come to that …please do not give me glib answers like the Railway is under various managements. What about when it was under different regions you could still go from one Region to another without all this hassle and everyone took a pride in their Region."
As a frequent user of the line, I have my own stories to tell about doors and windows that are stuck open when it is cold so the carriage is freezing, and air conditioning that does not work in the summer so everyone cooks. I recently travelled on a fully booked but almost empty train; I do not understand how that happens. Virgin has obviously given its staff good training, as it is clear that they are very experienced in conflict management and their good humour is always a joy to see.
The warning that I want to give the Government is that the public in the north-west know that the rail system is in a mess. They are not stupid. Promise after promise has not been delivered. That is not all the Government's fault; they inherited a largely unworkable system in which Railtrack simply did not have the management structures in place to achieve the necessary changes. This is a question not only of money, but of receiving value for money and achieving the Government's economic and environmental objectives.
After five years of this Government, the Strategic Rail Authority's strategy must deliver or the Government will pay the price at the ballot box. The north-west depends on that vital rail link. So far, failure to deliver has cost the economy more than BSE and foot and mouth disease together. The project has overrun by more than the channel tunnel.

95WH
In many ways, the issue is a microcosm of the Government's major problem: they promise, spin, and minimise the difficulties, but it is the difficulties that people see. No one believes the Government any more. My advice to the Government, if I may offer some, is to come clean and tell the whole truth about the mess that we are in. When they have done that, they should tell us honestly what can and cannot be done, within proper timescales, and stop operators giving misleading information to the public.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Does the west coast strategy report not tell us what has gone wrong and how to put it right, so should the Government not be congratulated on commissioning it?
Mrs. Calton:That point is addressed in the rest of my speech.
As I said, the issue is a microcosm of the Government's major problem: they promise, spin, and minimise difficulties. They should prevent operators from giving misleading information to the public, and insist that Network Rail publish proper timely plans in advance so that the world of business, the rail operators and the travelling public can plan. What worries me is the mismatch between the impression that the Strategic Rail Authority and the Department are giving about what they intend to deliver and what the consultation document actually says.
In a letter to MPs on 10 October, the Secretary of State said:
"The SRA have this week published their strategy for delivering the West Coast Main Line … it sets out a clear and coherent package of renewals and enhancements, and a programme for delivering them, which will provide significant benefits to users from 2004 onwards."
I shall demonstrate, however, that things are not as clear as that. The Strategic Rail Authority chairman, Richard Bowker, acknowledges:
"The West Coast project is a mess, and it is time for bold action."
As he states in his foreword:
"This Strategy will bring large benefits to passengers and freight customers from 2004 onwards …What is clear is that the vast bulk of the expenditure required to return WCML to acceptable modern standards needs to be spent on renewals."
The document describes the strategy as "envisaging" something—an interesting word, suggesting a lack of commitment. How much more definite to start with something like, "The strategy will deliver". It is "envisaged" that the line will become a 125 mph tilt railway route with a London to Manchester journey time of two hours. I hear that the Labour party conference special managed the journey from Blackpool to London in three hours—without, I assume, putting anyone at risk. Why can Virgin do it for the Labour party, but not for the rest of us?
Alterations to existing freight services are mentioned, including capacity for two-thirds more freight volume. Does that mean more evening traffic up to 10 pm,
96WH
passing within a few feet of people's homes? The document also refers to key commuter services being provided with sufficient capacity,
"even though the service patterns in some cases will differ from those to which some stakeholders aspire."
Does that mean that there will be trains, but not necessarily when people want them?
In paragraph 3.27, the document states:
"The impact of the increased frequency of West Coast and Cross Country trains on the availability of capacity for regional, local and PTE services is being assessed in detail."
That sounds more than a little worrying and I hope that the Minister will not tell us that the price of a better service to London is the continuation of a diabolical service at local level.
Paragraph 5.5 states that the Strategic Rail Authority and the Office of the Rail Regulator will review whether the proposed renewal specification is the most efficient way of sustaining the network to deliver the outputs, and also the efficiency of the proposed method of delivery of the renewal specification. In other words, there will be a review. Will the Minister tell us whether the document is truly a "strategy document" or a staging post towards a strategy? Is the Minister simply buying time? I note that the final strategy will not be published until early 2003, so things could conceivably take six-months. What is the Minister's deadline for the publication of the final strategy?
In paragraph 5.10, we read that the busiest sections of the route
"may, depending on the maintenance regime, need renewal every six to ten years, simply because of the intensity of usage".
Will the Minister clarify what that means for the travelling public? Is it the equivalent of putting up a red flag to announce that passengers' misery over the past few years will go on and on?
It is sensible to implement longer possession periods. Weekend and night-time working have undoubtedly led to a loss of efficiency and difficulty in monitoring progress. It appears that monitoring has been a failure, so I hope that the Minister will ensure that sufficient resources are devoted to it—and, indeed, to a proper communications strategy—in future.
I note that paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5 acknowledge that prior knowledge of engineering works is helpful. Several local authorities offered help with publicity, but Network Rail had to be pressed hard to give advance notice of anything to Stockport council, which does not bode well for the future.
Appendix 4 states that freight and commuter services will have to have their power to weight ratio altered to deliver train service outputs, necessitating increased power supply requirements and new rolling stock. No doubt the service providers will have something to say about that.
Given the concerns about new technology and the wish not to test it on this line, can the Minister give an assurance about the reliability of the new GSM-R— Global System for Mobile Communications for Railway—train radio system that is to be used as an additional communication link to support axle counters, which determine whether a train is clear, before allowing another train to use a section of the track? How reliable are axle counters? Are there circumstances in which both systems could fail?

97WH
The irony of a Government who talk the environmental talk but fail to deliver the sustainable walk is not lost on the rail industry. It is in disarray, as my postbag shows, but the future prosperity of the north-west depends on a modern and reliable heavy rail system. Manchester airport, which is covered by the Secretary of State's consultation on the expansion of air travel, needs improved heavy rail east-west trans-Pennine links to reduce unsustainable car travel to the area of the airport. That is another matter that directly affects my constituents in Cheadle.
Where is the industry going? Where is the strategy to produce the railway industry that the north-west, the industry, the public and business want? Do the Government have a plan? Will they act to reduce the uncertainty crippling business? The north-west needs the upgrade, as do the midlands, Cumbria and Scotland, for local, national and, ultimately, international traffic. The country needs to hear from the Minister that the Government have at last got a grip on this out-of-control project.
11.21 am
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) on securing the debate, because the future of the west coast main line is extremely important, and it is abundantly clear that Railtrack failed that line and all the communities along it. There is now a new structure: Railtrack has gone and we have Network Rail, together with a strengthened and much more focused Strategic Rail Authority. Therefore we have important new opportunities, which must be grasped.
My comments this morning will centre on Liverpool. I make a plea that, as we consider the SRA's consultative document and those new opportunities, Liverpool not be left out in the cold. It is an extremely important city of the north-west, which is fast regenerating itself and increasingly successful. It is the north-west's candidate for European capital of culture in 2008. However, if Liverpool's regeneration is to continue effectively, it needs effective and reliable communications for passengers and freight. I have considered the consultative document submitted by the SRA and I have several observations about both the proposals in the document and those that are absent.
First, the document contains a number of statements about improving freight capacity, but I am increasingly concerned by the SRA's silence about the future of the central railway route proposal—the dedicated line for freight. I am concerned about the lack of reference to the importance of west-east communications—links from west to east through the Humber ports to Europe—to develop trade, which must work in collaboration with a west coast main line in which we have reinvested.
I shall concentrate on key issues directly relating to proposals for the west coast main line. I am sorry that it now appears that the promised 140 mph fast route on that line has been abandoned. I hope that it has not been abandoned for ever, because we must not abandon our position as an important part of Europe. According to the proposals in the document, the Manchester-London line is destined to reach 125 mph by 2004, and there is a promise of regular two-hourly trains between Manchester and London. I see with regret that there is
98WH
no such commitment for Liverpool; indeed, there is no commitment at all. Through further questioning I have ascertained that the line from Liverpool to London will not reach similar standards until at least 2006, because works north of Crewe and works that do not involve Manchester are to be put back until then.
It appears from the correspondence that I have received from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport that Liverpool will get some new trains and some tilting trains, but we are to have the tilt without the speed. That simply is not good enough. I also note with concern the proposals in the consultative document about dealing with the inevitable disruption that will take place when the essential upgrading and modernisation go ahead. The document says how important the upgrading and modernisation is. Indeed, it cannot come too soon. We must all accept that such major works will cause some disruption.
The document states:
"In summary, it must be stressed that with the exception of only a few short periods the WCML will remain for business"—
That is good. It continues:
"There will always be direct trains from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow."
What about Liverpool? What is good enough for Manchester is good enough for Liverpool. I call on the SRA to give Liverpool equal treatment and priority. If it is important that Manchester continue to have a fast direct line service to the capital while the works take place, then why not Liverpool? Are we not as important? It is important for the people of Liverpool and the whole of the north-west.
Then there are the stations. Lime Street station now has a good new roof, which is a considerable improvement. It no longer leaks, so we do not have to put up our umbrellas as we wait in the station. However, the improvements seem to have finished with that new roof. Lime Street, a major station in a major city, is a dismal station. Piccadilly station in Manchester is a fine example of what can be achieved. Why can we not have a station in Liverpool comparable with the best? Surely we deserve no less. If First Northwestern, the current owners cannot deliver, Network Rail should turn its attention to Lime Street station, as it is an important gateway to the major city of Liverpool.
In short, I welcome proposals to go ahead with modernisation of the west coast main line, which has been far too long delayed. It is essential that we move ahead. and that we do so quickly. Liverpool matters. It is not good enough to sideline Liverpool and give us a lower priority than our sister city, Manchester. We are a fast growing, increasingly successful city. We need a modern station and we require fast reliable trains. I call on my right hon. Friend the Minister to give his commitment to improvements in Liverpool, and his assurance that as part of the consultation, he will make representations to the SRA to give Liverpool, as part of the north-west, a fair deal.
11.29 am
Mr. George Osborne: I too congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), my constituency neighbour, on securing this important debate. The four hours that I spent stuck on the west coast main line on Monday gave me plenty of time to

99WH
reflect on the issues that I might raise in the debate. As I had my extremely vocal 16-month-old son with me, all the other passengers in the carriage had a lot of opportunity to reflect on the problems of that line. The west coast main line is a crucial link for my constituents, as it is for those of the hon. Member for Cheadle, and its Manchester branch runs through my constituency.
Looking around the Chamber today, it is interesting to observe the number of hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by that train line. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), who will speak for the Opposition, is directly affected, as are my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) and other Scottish Members, a Welsh Member who has left the Chamber, and the hon. Members for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). The line is a crucial link along the backbone of Britain.
In my own constituency, communities such as Wilmslow and Alderley Edge exist because of the train line. They are commuter towns that grew up in the nineteenth century. Every day since the lines were opened, people from those towns have been able to travel to work in Manchester. That is one of the reasons why people live in my constituency—it is in the Manchester commuter belt. Next year, however, all that will stop for four months. The train line through my constituency, used by thousands of people every day, will be closed for 17 weeks, because the line between Colwich in Staffordshire and central Manchester will be closed.
I take a reasonable view of that, because I can see that there is quite a strong argument, given the problems with the west coast main line, for closing the line rather than letting the delays increase. However, it is because of the soaring costs and delays that we are having to close the principal rail line in the United Kingdom. We might ask ourselves whether France, Japan or Germany would find themselves having to cut the main train line between their major cities.
As Richard Bowker. the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, who I believe is a good thing, and an improvement, said:
"The west coast upgrade was a project that was clearly drifting, without a real end point or a clear direction. It is time that the industry got to grips with challenges facing it."
I agree with that absolutely. The costs have rocketed, as the hon. Member for Cheadle pointed out, making it the most expensive construction project in the country, and perhaps in the whole of Europe.
I ask the Minister for specific assurances on behalf of my constituents. Will the closures next year, and the closures planned for the following year between Crewe and Cheadle, mean that the west coast main line will be delivered in accordance with the new timetable? I would like a guarantee from the Minister, so that we can hold him to account in a couple of years' time. I want it confirmed that, by September 2004—[Interruption.] Yes, I want a promise of resignation, such as the Home Secretary once made, if those targets are not met—not that that promise did any good. I would like
100WH
confirmation that, by September 2004, the London to Manchester journey time will be cut by 35 minutes, and the upgrade will be finished by May 2006.
The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): No chance.
Mr. Osborne: It would be good to hear the Minister repeat that in his speech. Will he also assure us that the provision of faster trains will not be at the expense of a worse service for my constituents? At present, all trains to Manchester stop at Macclesfield and Stockport, and I want an assurance that even if a direct non-stop London to Manchester service is introduced, faster trains will not mean a worse service for my constituents. Extra trains must be provided, and the number of trains that stop at Wilmslow, in my constituency, should remain the same. My constituents, who are currently bearing the brunt of the problems with the upgrade, should at least have the assurance that the resulting service will not be worse for them.
Will the Minister also assure us that everything will be done to help my constituents while the commuter towns in my constituency are cut off? The letter that I received from his colleague the Under-Secretary said:
"the aim is to minimise disruption".
He also referred to the high-quality, dedicated coach service that would be laid on. We will wait to see what those high-quality coaches are like. Coaches, however, will add to the travelling time for people in my constituency, and to the congestion on local roads.
I will therefore ask a specific question. I accept that the Minister may not have the answer today, but he could write to me. Would it be possible to open an old branch line—I think that it is in occasional use—that runs from Wilmslow in my constituency through Styal near Manchester airport and straight into the centre of Manchester? First North Western Trains has proposed the idea, and says that in principle it is prepared to run trains along it. That would hugely ease the problems for my constituents, as it would minimise the disruption. Frankly, the idea strikes me as common sense. It would remove the need for all the coaches on our local roads. If that is not possible, why not?
The Government's decision to close the west coast main line was taken without local consultation. We heard of it when the Secretary of State went on Radio 4 and started to tell us about it. There does not appear to have been any consideration of the effects on local people. The closure has been brought about by incompetence and delay for many years. The least the Government could do is make an effort to minimise disruption for the people whom I represent.
11.36 am
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I too congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton). Although she made a fairly partisan, party political speech, the issues will probably echo across all parties. I hope that the Opposition spokesman will profoundly apologise to the people along the west coast for the disaster that the Conservative Government—
Mr. Tim Collins: Very cross-party.
Mr. Lloyd: Yes, the issue is cross-party, and there would be enormous sympathy for the hon. Gentleman if

101WH
he were honest enough to mention that the problems that we now suffer are due to the massive under-investment under the Thatcher-Major Governments. Those who are fortunate enough to have access to the east coast main line, such as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not believe how bad the west coast main line is in comparison unless they had travelled on it in recent years—unlike unfortunates such as myself who live on that line of misery and incompetence.
I am talking not only about speed—although the speeds on the west coast main line are ridiculous, given what is now technologically achievable—but about the quality of service. Hon. Members have referred to delays. The rolling stock is massively outdated and not well maintained.
Tony Cunningham: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of it, but people drive from my constituency in west Cumbria to Penrith, and then to Scotch Corner, to go to Darlington so that they can travel on the east coast main line. They drive an additional 50 or 60 miles past the west coast main line railway station for a better service on the east coast.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which is true at various points of east-west convergence. I have often wondered whether it was worth driving from Manchester to Doncaster. Journey times are so much better from Doncaster to London that it would nearly justify the extra cost. Environmentally, it is plain stupidity to ask people to use cars on part of a journey that they ought to be able to travel comfortably by rail.
All the way from Scotland, down to those who access the west coast main line in the west of England, it is enormously irritating to people that the promises made in the past will not be kept. There is a question as to whether the Strategic Rail Authority thinks strategically. Given the estimates of the money needed to upgrade the west coast main line, I ask the Minister whether there are better ways to do it. We are now talking about at least £10 billion and possibly £13 billion.
The upgrade to trains that run at 125 mph is not good enough. Five years ago, we were promised that the 125 mph service would be in operation and that we would be looking forward to 140 mph trains. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) made the point that we still want those faster trains. That is not a mere aspiration; to treat that aim as achievable in a reasonable time should be part and parcel of the strategy that we are considering.
If we are to spend the amount of money in question, but to receive only a modest upgrade, the question arises whether elsewhere there are better forms of investment that might bring about an improved rail service. The planned journey times of two hours and 10 minutes, if the 125 mph service is brought in, will not be a massive improvement on what already exists for Manchester. Things improve a little further north, and I appreciate the relative value of those gains; they are proportionately more important. However, I wonder whether the total strategic package stands up.
Among the conesquences of the upgrade of the west coast main line will be a knock-on effect—and I say this as someone who of course wants the line to be improved,
102WH
because I, and many of my constituents, use it. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) referred to commuter services to Manchester. One of the capacity constraints is the route into Manchester. An improvement to and greater frequency of main line services from London to Manchester must be coupled with investment to deal with that capacity limitation in the run in to the city. Without that, there will be marginal improvement in the long distance service to London and a deterioration in the commuter services into the city and in cross-country services.
Cross-country services are important; my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside mentioned the need to upgrade the east-west route. That is important for the economic development of the whole of the north. What is now seen as the M62 corridor should be thought of as the Liverpool-Hull rail corridor, where freight on rail would be important. That will suffer from the same capacity constraints if piecemeal strategies are adopted instead of a strategy that deals with the overall issues.
I want to press my right hon. Friend the Minister on one issue: last week in the House, when I asked about through trains from cities such as Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow using the channel tunnel, he said that the priority was upgrading the west coast main line. I understand that priorities and spending constraints are necessary. However, unequivocal promises that we would all have access to the channel tunnel were given by the then Mrs. Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, and by her various Transport Secretaries. That was part of the bargain through which the Bill permitting the development of the channel tunnel passed through the House. We are still waiting, and I do not think it unreasonable to keep that demand on the table. The Government's official stance should be to agree that that is part of our ambition for our rail system.
Mr. Osborne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in continental Europe, destinations for channel tunnel trains are being expanded to include, for example, Amsterdam, while in Britain we still have only one destination—Waterloo?
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is great for those who can easily gain access to the channel tunnel from London, but not so great for the rest of us who have a different geographical perspective—and it is not acceptable. It is ironic that in the run in to Piccadilly station are sheds on which it says, "Ici habite le Eurostar". The Eurostar has never lived in them, so far as I am aware, and is not likely to for a long time—or if it did, it would have to travel a long way before it got to the channel tunnel.
I hope that the Minister can tell us that there will come a time, in the not too distant future, when the Eurostar will actually habite in the sheds outside Piccadilly station. I am not sure whether we are allowed to use such language, but I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it must be English, because it is written on a shed in Manchester—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. May I help the hon. Gentleman? The rule is that the occupant of the Chair must be able to understand what is said—and I speak pretty good French.
Mr. Lloyd: I have the utmost admiration for your ability to comprehend what is said by hon. Members in

103WH
many languages, often including that of your native Scotland, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are in that sense the best person to make the judgment.
Mrs. Ellman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole issue of a regional Eurostar is part of regional economic development? Should not the Strategic Rail Authority consult the regional development agencies and regional assemblies in drawing up proposals?
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. I was about to refer to that point. The Government have undoubtedly made enormous progress in getting rid of the totally discredited Railtrack and building a structure to tackle some of the system's long-standing problems. However, it is difficult to see in that an overall strategy that recognises the railway system as the lifeblood not only of passenger travel but of the link between regional economies, and with economies on the European land mass. The west coast main line should be upgraded along with other regional services, but extended access should also be given to European destinations as part of the overall strategy. I appeal to the Minister to give us some idea of the bigger picture for the future.
I want to raise one particular point, although it may not seem especially important in the grand scheme of things. I was surprised to learn that, in the agreement between Virgin and the new rail structure, Virgin has been offered compensation of more than £100 million. Virgin has delivered an extremely poor service to the people of the north-west since it took over, and the company should acknowledge to those people that it has ripped them off. For example, the company put fares up massively—the hon. Member for Cheadle referred to the very high fares. It is bizarre that Virgin is being compensated so handsomely, because it means that the taxpayer has agreed to underwrite the company's failure to run a business competently. We are underwriting the risk that the company, as the commercial operator, ought to have taken.
There should be an upgrade to the west coast main line because we want a high-quality service, especially to Manchester and Liverpool. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside that it is vital that the twin major city in the north-west should be provided with excellent rail links. However, it is also important that there should be a strategy that allows the people of the north-west, in the west of Scotland and further south to see that the rail system between our towns and cities is excellent. The service should not be devoted to getting us to London alone, but should link us into the wider rail pattern on the continent of Europe.
11.47 am
Pete Wishart: I too congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) on securing this timely debate.
It has to be said that the whole sorry saga of the west coast main line puts the saga of the millennium dome to shame. There have been costs spiralling beyond control, delays beyond belief, bad decisions and a revolving door management that would shame many Premiership football clubs. Under plans announced this month, we
104WH
find that there is to be a delay to the modernisation programme for the part of the west coast main line that lies within Scotland, which means that the purgatory and misery will go on for those poor souls in Scotland who continue to use that line in the next few years.
There is a north-south divide in railway policy in the United Kingdom, and Government policy clearly puts Scotland at the end of some branch route to absolutely nowhere. The delay in modernisation plans for the west coast main line is the latest and possibly the best example of this new transport divide. Many people in Scotland have long suspected that this Government have no interest in railways north of Preston, and the decision to single out for delay the modernisation programme for the line in Scotland will only confirm that view. England will benefit from the modernisation, and the new 125 mph pendolino trains will run from English stations within two years—from London to Birmingham, London to Manchester and London to Preston. They will not run from London to a station in Scotland until 2006.
Mr. Martlew: We in Carlisle have the same problem as people in Scotland, although we are south of the border. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that improvements on the southern part of the line will mean that trains get from London to Glasgow more quickly? If they get from London to Crewe more quickly, they will get to Glasgow sooner than they do at present.
Pete Wishart: I follow the hon. Gentleman's logic, and I understand his predicament—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For the benefit of Hansard, I ask the hon. Gentleman to speak up. His words are not being reported by the lady who is here in the Chamber, but by someone who will hear them through the microphone somewhere else.
Pete Wishart: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall attempt to speak up.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's predicament, and I mentioned that Preston was the stopping point for the Government's interest in the railways. I follow his logic, and it is true that the modernisation programme south of the border will benefit people in Scotland. However, I am trying to determine why there has been a delay in the modernisation programme for services north of Preston to Glasgow. Such problems will mean that people in the west of Scotland still have to endure delays.
The proposal in the modernisation programme is to link Glasgow to the west coast main line by 2006. In the meantime, Scots will be deprived of a modern service and they are likely to use their cars, or the low-cost airlines that now fly between Scottish airports and London, in preference to unreliable rail services. Imagine the outcry if it were decided to delay a much required national modernisation programme south of Birmingham, rather than the programme for the west coast main line in Scotland. The squeals would be heard all the way from Solihull to Streatham. The Government and the SRA are prepared to treat Scotland as a distant stop on their modernisation journey. I do not know why the SRA continues to believe that Scotland can be conveniently discarded. The rail-using public there are growing increasingly disillusioned with the Government's contempt for them.

105WH
I had the opportunity to travel on one of the new pendolino trains last week, although it was not in Scotland, because we do not have any. I was visiting my Plaid Cymru colleagues in Cardiff, and the journey was quite pleasant. The service was comfortable, if predictably delayed, and I enjoyed it. However, the earliest we will see a pendolino train in Scotland will be he middle of 2004.
Mr. Spellar: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that he was travelling on a pendolino, rather than a Virgin Crosscountry voyager, on the route that he described?
Pete Wishart: The train may have been a voyager, but I looked at it and at the map, and unless the trains are going in disguise—
Mr. Martlew: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the super voyager, because the pendolino does not run in Wales—or, indeed, anywhere else at present. The super voyager, however, passes my house on the way to Scotland.
Pete Wishart: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's correction. The train may indeed have been a super voyager, but it was very comfortable; it was certainly not like the decrepit rolling stock on the railways in Scotland at the beginning of the 21st century. Given the state of the rolling stock, it will take five hours and 20 minutes to travel from Glasgow to London, and that is a very optimistic estimate. That is how things will remain until the middle of next year, when much required modernisation work in northern England will mean that the journey will take an indeterminate time. Is it not ironic that we are having this debate at the end of 2002—almost 16 years to the month after the British Rail super service managed the journey in three hours and 52 minutes? That is still the record; it was set 16 years ago and it is likely to remain unbroken for the foreseeable future, given the chaos that we are about to experience on the west coast main line.
The new transport divide is developing not only on the west coast main line. The Strategic Rail Authority announced plans earlier this year, and of the 17 projects listed as geographically specific, 15 were south of the border, and 11 of those were for London and the south-east. There was no mention of priority projects for Scotland, such as the electrification of the east coast line north of Edinburgh. The last time I was in this Chamber with the Minister—for an Adjournment debate in the name of the hon Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke)—he gave a categorical no to the further electrification of the east coast line north of Edinburgh. The SRA plan also makes no mention of opening the Waverley loop, which would serve the region from the borders to Edinburgh. This week we have heard that Scotland is to get no TGVs, for the bizarre reason that we are too far away from central Europe and would not benefit from the service. That is the most ridiculous argument that I have heard.
There are still doubts about the development of the Waverley station in Edinburgh, which is absolutely necessary if we are to start to deal with congestion in Scotland. The SRA plan that we saw earlier this year was so obviously a plan to deal with issues south of the
106WH
border that even the chair of the forum for UK passengers was forced to concede that it was, indeed, a plan for London and the south-east.
What will be the economic impact of the delay on the west coast main line? According to Labour-controlled Glasgow city council it will be a disaster. The council went as far as submitting an emergency motion, stating that the delay in the improvements to the main line will be damaging to the economy of the west of Scotland. The motion called on the UK Transport Minister to ensure that Scotland would not be hit unfairly by those delays, and demanded an urgent meeting with the Scottish Minister with responsibility for transport, Lain Gray. The new Labour convener said:
"We should tell the Transport Secretary this is so important to the west of Scotland economy that it's a fight we are determined to win."
Good on him, and good luck to him. I hope that I can join him in that fight.
I have no doubt that the Government are trying to put things right after the disaster formerly known as Railtrack. After a disaster of such proportions, things could only get better, as they always like to tell us. With characteristic new Labour incompetence, however, they have conspired to make things worse. If I received a pound for every time a Labour Transport Minister said to us, "We're putting this right after decades of under-investment," I would be a rich man indeed.
Mrs. Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it took a Labour Government to see the demise of the failure that was Railtrack? The Opposition wished to keep it in being, and even minor opposition parties were reluctant to support the brave action of the then Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
Pete Wishart: I have no doubt that the major problem with the railways is historic under-investment and the disaster formerly known as Railtrack. After five years, however, there is still massive chaos on the railways. The Government have had five years to put that right, yet only now are they starting to get to grips with the problem. I am a long way from congratulating the Government on any success in putting the railways right.
I concede, though, that money is going into the railways—quite significant sums of money at that. I want to ensure equality of distribution of that extra investment across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. That is what today's debate is about for me. It simply is not good enough to leave Scotland with a second-class service. The Scottish National party is trying to be helpful to the Minister. We have a neat and convenient solution: give the powers of the railway transport system to the Scottish Parliament. Surely even Labour Scottish Executive Ministers would have been able to run the Scottish railways better than the body that previously had responsibility for it, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Even the fat controller in "Thomas the Tank Engine" could have run the Scottish railways better than the previous incumbent.
We need a distinct Scottish approach and a Scottish solution to the significant problems we have in the Scottish railways. Transport is already a devolved

107WH
matter. We run the roads in Scotland, but somehow we cannot be trusted to run the railways, even though 90 per cent. of all journeys that start in Scotland end in Scotland. Scotrail and Scottish Financial Enterprise now agree with that view. They see the compelling argument that Scotland is a small country with an uncomplicated rail system and few operators, and would dramatically benefit by being run from Holyrood.
Now, however, the responsibility for the main rail line out of Scotland rests in London. Scotland may be at the end of the line both geographically and in the Government's thinking when it comes to real investment—but passengers who pay high fares certainly do not deserve to be shunted aside as they have been in the past few years.
11.58 am
Tom Brake: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) on securing the debate and on highlighting the environmental consequences of the failure to invest in railways, a point that other Members made.
I wish the hon.Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) success in securing his guarantee from the Minister. I remind him of the Deputy Prime Minister's pledge, made five years ago, to be held to account if he did not reduce road traffic within the following five years. He did not reduce road traffic and we have held him to account, but that has not made the slightest difference, because he is still with us.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) castigated the previous Conservative Government for their failure to invest in the railways. That is a legitimate point, but it surely cannot have escaped his notice that a Labour Government have been in power for the past five years.
As hon. Members have said, the west coast main line is the busiest in the country and one of the busiest in Europe. The upgrade has been one of the most expensive and mismanaged projects in recent memory. We know that the line has not been properly modernised since the 1960s, but we must question, as the Financial Times did in a recent article, how the upgrade of 400 miles of railway can run up a bill greater than the income of some developing countries and how the French can build entire TGV lines from scratch for less.
It is worth remembering that, at the outset, Railtrack said that the upgrade would cost £2.1 billion. It promised to slash journey times, double capacity, increase passenger numbers and dramatically improve safety. Regrettably, it adopted untested technology, an unrealistic time scale and an onerous contract, which meant that the project was doomed from the start, at least while Railtrack was in charge.
What will UK plc and passengers get from the upgrade? We have heard that Virgin will run tilting trains at 125 mph rather than at 140 mph and that some of the works will be completed in two years. What of the cost of the project? The Strategic Rail Authority estimates that it will be £12 billion, and we know that a substantial proportion of that will be spent on a renewal
108WH
process rather than on enhancing the line, but it is highly questionable whether even the figure of £10 billion is correct, especially in the light of the European directives on fast-speed trains and the lack of an asset register.
I hope that the Minister says what he thinks the impact of the European directive will be. During a debate earlier this week, I asked him whether it will cover Eurostar trains. I now want to ask him whether it will apply to trains that travel at 125 mph, because I understand that the cut-off speed for it to apply is 200 kph.
We know that Richard Bowker, the SRA chairman, recently called for bonds to be considered as a means to raise private finance under the golden arrow project. A poisoned arrow from the Chancellor and his resounding "non"—I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker understands that French word—swiftly killed that idea. Will the Minister explain why the Chancellor has come down so hard against bonds, given that Richard Bowker, who presumably knows his stuff, proposed the idea? If bonds are not to be the means of raising private finance, what is? How much of the west coast main line's cost does the Minister expect to be covered by private finance, a point on which we still have not received clarification?
One of the key things that the project tells us is that the Government were right to put Railtrack into administration—a decision on which we supported them. The project has been appallingly mismanaged. Perhaps the costs were worked out by accountants, rather than by engineers, who did not really understand the full consequences of the works being planned. There is no full asset register that would have enabled them properly to calculate the costs, so can we be certain that the figure of £10 billion that is being quoted is correct? How do we know that the same mistakes will not be made in the new cost estimate and that the same contractor cost overruns will not be experienced again?
The Government must not use Railtrack's appalling mismanagement of the project as an excuse to scale down their plans for a railways renaissance. We need them to succeed, because the alternative is a Britain permanently gridlocked as a result of a modal switch in the wrong direction. As some hon. Members have noted, people are switching from trains to cars, because cars are a more reliable means of transport.
As well as questions of funding and finance, we need to consider the impact on freight, particularly north of Rugby. Under the original proposals, freight would have been pushed out in favour of passenger services, particularly Virgin's inter-city trains, which are familiar to Mr. Bowker, but there are still serious misgivings about the impact on freight. I hope that the Minister says whether guarantees can be given on freight access and whether the European directives will have an impact on freight on that line.
Mr. Spellar: Is the hon. Gentleman campaigning for an increase in freight on that line?
Tom Brake: The Liberal Democrats are certainly campaigning for an increase in freight on lines where it is appropriate.
Mr. Spellar: I think that means no.
Tom Brake: If a means can be found to run freight and passenger services together—I believe that there is a

109WH
question mark over that—it may be appropriate to increase the amount of freight. However, it is important that the Minister responds to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) about the impact on central railways, because trying to run freight and passenger services on the same lines can be a problem. As a result, we suffer significant costs that are not experienced in countries with segregated lines.
The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) highlighted the impact of delays in Scotland, which, equally, have an impact in Wales. Services there are being scaled back, so it is important that the Minister provides another guarantee—that speeds of 125 mph will be guaranteed on all parts of the west coast main line and that such speeds will be achieved everywhere on the line.
Mr. Martlew: On parts of the west coast main line, it is physically impossible for trains to achieve that speed, as the tunnels, which were built 150 years ago, prevent it. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should rebuild the tunnels so that trains can go at 125 mph everywhere?
Tom Brake: It is incumbent on the Minister to set out exactly where 125 mph is applicable. The achievements of the 125 mph trains should be trumpeted, but that speed can be reached only on limited stretches of track. The Government should set that out clearly, so that people understand what they are getting. The lesson to be learned is that Railtrack needed to be put out of its misery, and I am pleased that that was done. When it was in control, there was no single contractor to take charge of projects. Unfortunately, the Government kept pumping money into it, despite the huge losses caused by the fact that proper contracts were not in place, because costs were not controlled and because there were poorly specified outputs.
The emergence of the SRA as a specifier and a project sponsor, as well as that of Network Rail as the delivery agent, marks a vital shift. Railtrack was both client and deliverer, so that shift is important. I agree that the SRA and Network Rail should work in partnership with the rest of the rail industry, and with the co-operation of the passenger and freight operating companies. If so, things can only get better. I sincerely hope that that is true for the west coast main line—for the sake of passengers and of UK plc.
12.9 pm
Mr. Tim Collins: I, too, begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) on securing the debate and on how she introduced it. She knows that it is not a personal comment when I say that she follows in distinguished footsteps: her predecessor, Stephen Day, was a friend to Members on all sides of the House and a dedicated, effective and persuasive advocate for the west coast main line throughout his time here. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) recognises, as I know many others do, that Stephen played a big role in the all-party group that campaigned on the issue for many years.
I should also point out that, in common with many others here, my constituency is directly affected by the west coast main line, as it is home to Oxenholme, the Lake district station. Fortunately for me, it is less than
110WH
10 minutes from my home in Kendal. Therefore, in common with many other hon. Members, I have spent a lot of time on that line. I might exempt the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), given some of his comments, but generally speaking it is clear that in all political parties, throughout England and Scotland and for a range of business and employment reasons, the west coast main line has immense national strategic significance. It is enormously important to us all.
On that note, I take up the challenge issued by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who said that we should approach the matter in a nonpartisan way, but then slightly spoiled it by saying that all the fault lies with the Thatcher and Major Governments. He will forgive me if I prefer the slightly more gracious and accurate, but none the less telling, comments made by the Secretary of State earlier this month when he announced the change:
"This is a line that has needed investment for some 30 or 40 years now."
I accept that entirely. Indeed, he said on "Channel 4 News" on 9 October:
"I suspect blame attaches to just about every government since 1970."
I accept that entirely as well.
To pick up on a comment from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), who said that everything is Railtrack's fault, in that Channel 4 interview the Secretary of State said, and I agree, that it would be a mistake to blame
"the failure to grasp the true cost of doing up this line on the fact that there was the presence of a private sector company. I don't accept that. I think Railtrack itself was clearly culpable but before that I don't think British Rail ever had a clear grasp as to exactly how much money needed to be spent on the West Coast Mainline."
Once again, he put it extremely well.
It is worth observing that there have been a few comments suggesting that all we are talking about is upgrading the line and that it should not require a terribly complicated effort, querying why everything has not been done in five minutes flat. In September,The Guardian put it rather well:
"To call the project an 'upgrade' is something of a misnomer. It involves entirely replacing the vast bulk of the track, sleepers. signalling and power cables."
Much of the equipment
"is reaching the end of its life and needs replacing anyway, whether with ultra-modern high-speed gadgets or simply with fresh basic kit."
It is a huge project. Some 75 per cent. or more of the cost is estimated by the Strategic Rail Authority to cover simply the cost of upgrading the track. Only the remaining quarter of the money will make the difference between trains being able to run at current speeds or at 125 mph along much of the line's length.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) rightly addressed services being suspended next summer, and the summer beyond, to enable faster progress with the upgrade. I share his balanced assessment of that. We all recognise that we would not like to be at such a stage, but it is probably better, as the Rail Passengers Council has put it, to take the pain all at once in a relatively short and concentrated period, rather than endlessly stretching it out year after year.

111WH
However, my hon. Friend also rightly said that the SRA proposals are not a model of advance consultation. Concerns were expressed by a huge number of businesses, and he referred to commuters in his constituency. Many others commute along the line, between the midlands and London, and between the north-west, Scotland and London.
Of course, I have to be conscious, as the hon. Members for Carlisle and for Workington (Tony Cunningham) are, of the potential impact on tourism in Cumbria, which was hugely affected by foot and mouth and which relies on the ability to deliver fast, reliable and consistent transport facilities to the county. None the less, on balance, most of us would conclude that the SRA made an appropriate judgment. I have not sought to make political capital by attacking that decision, but there are important assurances to be given that the quality of the alternative service will be properly maintained.
I have a series of quick questions for the Minister. Will he address the question that has been raised by all parties on the quality of that alternative transport? Clearly there are issues relating to who will be responsible for providing it and what the standard will be.
The BBC website quotes a Railtrack spokesman—this was a few days before Network Rail took over, so I imagine that that person now works for the new company—who said that
"the difference in journey times for intercity commuters would be just two minutes and no Virgin passengers would have to use buses."
That is extremely reassuring, but it is also slightly implausible. It would be helpful to know whether the Government will take a role in achieving that.
Several Members have made the point that there is widespread disappointment that the 140 mph full speed of the pendolinos is unlikely to be achieved in the near future. Will the Minister comment on the remarks made by the SRA in its original announcement? Point one of the SRA note to editors, at the end of its press release, states:
"140-mile hour tilt running on WCML is the subject of further analysis and examination."
That is an interesting phrase, which may or may not mean something. The general expectation is that we will not have 140 mph capacity for at least a decade. Will the Minister comment on whether such capacity is a possibility, perhaps in the next decade, or should we accept that it will not exist for a very long time, if ever?
There are also financial implications. The Minister has had conversations with people in and around Network Rail and thus will be even more familiar than I am with some of the financial issues that are arising. I am told that Network Rail's expenditure on basic maintenance work across the whole national rail network runs about 37 per cent. ahead of budget and that its overall expenditure runs about 50 per cent. ahead. It will be interesting to hear whether he can confirm that.
112WH
I am also told that there are serious concerns in the company. Although Network Rail believes that is has improved the management compared with Railtrack, there is, none the less, concern that a large proportion of the funds allocated by the Government in the 10-year transport plan may end up being used on basic maintenance work, before upgrades are even considered. The SRA has predicted that, although the cost of the west coast main line upgrade will be less than the worst-case scenario of £13 billion, it will still be more than the Government originally budgeted for. Will the Minister clarify whether additional Government funding will be available if that proves to be the case?
On the website of the European Commission—bless it—the west coast main line is referred to as an "EU priority transport project". The website claims that that is
"being funded by loans from the European Investment Bank."
The Minister will be reassured to learn that there is no reference to anybody else putting in money, although I suspect that the Government are putting in rather more than the European investment bank. Does the Minister know whether the EU might be prepared to provide more funding?
I want to leave time for the Minister to reply, so I will keep my remaining points brief. Will he address the implications of the fire dispute for the west coast main line and the national rail network as a whole? Yesterday in the House, the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out, entirely appropriately, that safety considerations should be taken into account by the Health and Safety Executive and that the HSE is an independent body that will reach its own conclusions. He also said that if the HSE rules that a service is safe to be provided, that service should go ahead. The Minister knows that those involved in providing our rail service are anxious about the implications of the fire brigades strike.
The Minister also knows that train operators are concerned about legal liability. We live in a much more litigious society than we did 20 or 30 years ago. If the HSE, as an independent part, yet still a part, of the Government, rules that it is safe for train operating companies to provide a service on a day when the Fire Brigades Union is on strike, will the Government work with insurance companies and others to ensure that the HSE's determination provides, in effect, a legal indemnity for train operating companies, in the event of action being taken against them as the result of an accident? We all hope that there will not be accidents, but the train operating companies need to know that they are acting with proper legal and insurance cover if they are to provide a service that is close to normal, which I hope they do, even on days when the fire brigade is on strike.
The west coast main line is an asset of immense national importance, and I hope that all of us, on a cross-party basis, pay tribute to, and urge success for, those who are working extremely hard to deliver a much better service on it. If they were to achieve that, it would benefit the constituents of many hon. Members who are present, and the entire nation. I hope that the Minister takes this message from the debate: anything and everything that he can do to deliver an improved west coast main line will earn a hearty three cheers from many people throughout the country.
12.20 pm
The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) on securing the debate, although much of her contribution was like a "Focus" leaflet. She even referred to the Liberal Democrats being all in favour of freight, although concerned that freight trains might run at night—which is, of course, when freight normally runs on the rail network. She also raised questions about work on the line, many of which are addressed in the consultation document. At least that is now in the public domain. That is the opposite of the normal way of doing things, which is to find out when the pavements are going to be repaired and demand that it happens in the near future.
I also wish to stress that this is a consultation document. The Strategic Rail Authority is asking for early comments by November, if that is possible, and for final comments by 16 December. I urge those colleagues—and the local organisations on whose behalf they are speaking—who wish to make comments and suggestions to input them to the SRA. Indeed, some of them have already been taken on board. For example, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) made a point about the Wilmslow-Styal-Manchester line, and I understand that the local service can be confirmed. Since the publication of the draft strategy, Network Rail has confirmed that trains will still be able to get to Wilmslow. I will follow up that matter with a letter to the hon. Gentleman.
I now wish to rattle quickly through the overall picture with regard to the west coast main line. There are a lot of questions to deal with, and I hope to answer as many of them as possible during my contribution, and to write to several hon. Members on other matters.
The importance of the west coast main line has been clearly stated by hon. Members. It is the key artery from London to the midlands, and on to north-western Scotland, for both passengers and freight. There was substantial investment in the line when it was electrified in the 1960s and the early-1970s. Since then, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said—in an unusually consensual manner—Governments of both main parties have neglected their responsibilities on maintenance and renewal.
Mr. Martlew: I am optimistic that the upgrade of the west coast main line will be completed. Indeed, comments have been made today that the vast majority of it is renewable. However, I seek an assurance that once the upgrade is completed, sufficient money will be put into the line to keep it in a reasonable state, so that our successors will not have to debate this issue again in 20 or 30 years' time.
Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend is right. One of the lessons that has been painfully learned from the condition of the rail network is that maintaining the system is as important as, and frequently more important than, considering extensions, although several of those will be significant. However, we must not return to the position in which we are saving money in the short term, but that results in considerable costs to the service, including a financial cost.
There was growing demand, and major renewals were becoming increasingly urgent and necessary. Therefore, there was a need and an opportunity to upgrade the line
114WH
to increase capacity and improve performance. That was the logic behind the contract that Railtrack entered into in 1997–98. I am sure that I do not need to remind the House of the mess that Railtrack made of that crucial investment. "We will do it for £2.3 billion" it said, and it mentioned new signalling technology and speeds of 140 mph. However, it could not deliver those things, and it could not deliver them at that price. Costs spiralled, without any hint of their being controlled. It was not only that Railtrack could not control its costs; it did not understand them, either. There were indications that the estimated cost could have risen to some £13 billion. Certainly, with modernisation, the figure could have gone even beyond that amount.
Railtrack could not deliver the outputs. What worked on a blank piece of paper did not work in practice. There are some 16 train operators on the west coast main line running passenger and freight services, fast and slow services and transporting long-distance and local commuters. It eventually dawned on Railtrack that it would not be sensible to rely on signalling systems that were yet to be developed in order to cope with that complex mix of traffic. That led to more redesigning and cost increases. Even then, Railtrack did not know what assets needed to be renewed on the line, and it still had not begun to attempt to produce a workable timetable that would provide slots to allow the different services to operate.
It became clear, particularly last year after the company had gone into administration, that Railtrack had made commitments without knowing the extent of the necessary works and how it could deliver the ambitious outputs that were promised. With the necessary signalling technology still years away, there was no way of providing a 140 mph operation without eating massively into the capacity for other services. The resulting problems led to the severe cost overruns and slippage that I mentioned.
We all know that Railtrack struggled, and failed, to find a workable and affordable solution. Under its management the project was undeliverable. Thankfully, Railtrack is history. Network Rail has taken over. That is a significant advance. Prior to that, however, the new Railtrack management under John Armitt—a much more engineering-orientated organisation—was already making a difference.
Faced with the mess that was left by Railtrack, we acted decisively with the SRA. On 9 October, the SRA published a consultation document on the strategy for the west coast main line route modernisation project, which has already been mentioned. The SRA has worked with Network Rail and in partnership with the rest of the railway industry and thoroughly reviewed the upgrade project. It has worked up coherent measures that, for the first time, have been matched against a clear and deliverable set of outputs. That massive undertaking will deliver more than 780 miles of upgraded railway, the renewal of 585 miles of overhead wires and equipment and more than 1,000 switches and crossings.
Tony Cunningham: I will make a quick point on the replacement of track. I have always been concerned about the security of supply. My constituency contains

115WH
the only plant in the entire United Kingdom that makes railway lines, and it has been under threat. Will the Minister continue to support that plant?
Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend is aware that I am concerned about the viability of the manufacturing and supply side of the railway industry. That is precisely to ensure that the rail system in this country continues to receive the appropriate service in manufacturing and replacement. As he knows, we have had regular discussions with him, the trade union that represents the work force, the rail companies and the company that he mentioned.
The new strategy will include a provision for tilting trains operating at 125 mph along the full route. That will result in significant improvements to journey times. For example, the journey time from London to Manchester will be cut by half an hour. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) that Liverpool will benefit substantially. The 125 mph service will run most of the way to Liverpool in 2004. That will be some 34 minutes quicker than the present service and will be of considerable advantage. As I understand it, Liverpool will face only a short period of closure.
I can also tell Manchester Members that we are considering, in individual cases, whether to divert trains along one or another arm towards Manchester. That also applies to the Scottish route. The idea that the route to Scotland is cut off is incorrect. I put it to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) that if the trains go faster between London and the north-west, they will get to Glasgow earlier. I think that they are already getting to Glasgow about half an hour earlier, which is of considerable advantage.
There will be more frequent inter-city trains—an increase of 80 per cent. in the number of services—and four trains an hour from London to Birmingham. Hon. Members who were perhaps understandably critical of Virgin should consider the Virgin voyager system that was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Tayside. That is significantly enhancing this country's cross-country services.
We are looking for better performance and increased reliability. The SRA's target is for 90 per cent. of trains to arrive within 10 minutes by 2008 and an increase of freight capacity by 60 to 70 per cent., which is obviously significant—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. It is time for us to move on to our next topic for consideration, which is about the protection of the green belt in Morley and Rothwell.

Green Belt (Morley and Rothwell)
12.30 pm
Mr. Colin Challen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I thank Mr. Speaker for allowing me the opportunity to raise this important local subject? The debate comes at a timely moment.
According to the latest issue of the House of Commons research paper "Social Indicators", there are now about 120,000 homeless people in England, despite the fact that there are 750,000 empty dwellings. That telling comparison confirms the old estate agents' adage, "It's all about location, location, location." That is because many such empty dwellings are in places in which people do not want to live.
I am sure that a similar pattern exists in the district covered by Leeds city council. There are many people who want to move elsewhere and there are unpopular estates. Such a shift of population, together with different lifestyles and, most importantly, the economic success of Leeds, has placed almost intolerable burdens on the green belt. That has led to parts of my constituency becoming overburdened with new housing.
I have been given figures that suggest that over one quarter of the population growth in the Leeds district over the next five years will occur in Morley and Rothwell. I suggest that much of that population will be accommodated on greenfield sites. Indeed, my rough estimate is that, because half the projected population growth in Leeds is destined for the Leeds, Central constituency and my constituency, and because Leeds, Central contains little, if any, green belt, my area seems destined to take a disproportionate hit on the green belt.
Such growth is unsustainable. The problem is not only that large, new housing estates are being built without extra infrastructure, which forces more people to drive to shops or to make other small journeys by car, but that several communities face the prospect of being joined up. I fear that, if we are not careful, small communities on the edge of the city will lose their identity entirely. There are several examples of that happening in my constituency, and further erosion of green belt must be resisted. One only needs to look at a map of Leeds to see the danger to the south of the city.
People often mix up green belt with greenfield, which is understandable. I draw the Minister's attention to a case about which we have corresponded: a planning application to build on greenfield on Haigh Moor road, West Ardsley. Plans were submitted to build houses on a field that had never been developed. However, it was adjacent to a former slaughterhouse and, decades ago, livestock were kept in the field prior to slaughter. After a few misfires, the council eventually approved a planning application for housing on that site on the ground that the land was brownfield because it had been associated with the slaughterhouse and there was a consequent, but highly unlikely, possibility that it could be used for that purpose again.
Local people have been left scratching their heads about how a green field, which had always been a green field, could be described as brownfield. It seemed to

117WH
them—it certainly seemed to me—that the definition of brownfield had been stretched beyond reason. What if a farmer had a vegetable freezing plant of some description next to a field in which he grew peas? We all know how we like our fresh, frozen produce. Would that make such a field brownfield?
A further 30-odd houses are to spring up. I wrote to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about the decision, which had been upheld on appeal. I asked whether the decision could be called in, in the light of decisions taken elsewhere throughout the country. I was told that the regional government office had considered the matter carefully. In what context, I wonder? Perhaps by meeting the recommendations of the regional policy guidance on housing under which Leeds city council has agreed to take a large share. I am not happy that we have a system that can produce glaring inconsistencies, and I could quote other examples from my constituency.
When inconsistency arises, it is clear that local people cannot see the transparency in planning decisions and they are the ones that must live with the consequences. It is possible that, in the wake of PPG 3, every council will want windfall sites to fall into their laps to relieve the pressures arising from brownfield capacity reviews.
Leeds city council has done an excellent job in encouraging a housing renaissance in the centre of Leeds—the population in the constituency of Leeds, Central is growing again. That is healthy and should be encouraged. It relieves pressure on the green belt, puts a brake on traffic congestion and has the potential to protect inner-city schools, for example.
The urban renaissance would be even more vibrant, however, if the Government ended the incentive of charging value added tax on brownfield but not on greenfield developments. Surely, PPG 3 demands the reversal of such a perverse incentive, but, in Treasury-speak, the matter remains "under review". The Treasury does have some useful measures, such as targeted tax credits for cleaning up contaminated land and enhanced capital allowances for the creation of flats over shops. Indeed, there are reduced VAT rates for renovating old buildings. However, somebody wanting to build new houses on sites that do not qualify is at a great disadvantage compared with somebody building on virgin land. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees with my assessment and will press the Chancellor to change the VAT rate. That would do much to assist the successful impact of PPG 3.
The Leeds unitary development plan, which was confirmed only last August after 10 years in the making, is up for review. Because of the impact of PPG 3, we will hopefully see a lot of former greenbelt land returned to that status. That is land currently classified as PAS—protected area of search. Those are often sites to which I have already alluded, which lie between villages or provide essential green lungs in developed areas. After PPG 3 and its brownfield capacity study, the council accepts that PAS sites should be returned to greenbelt status.
Local people should be able to air their views about such matters and see change happen as a result, but there has been such a top-down approach to planning in the past that we will have to wait and see. I have a high regard for the professional expertise of planners, but I sometimes wonder whether they genuinely want to open
118WH
up their decision making to the non-qualified general public. For example, I have a paper that outlines the planner's approach in Leeds. With regard to the unitary development plan it states:
"It is important that there is widespread awareness of the review and its purpose. The limited scope of the exercise needs to be understood. It would be the council that sets the agenda, but it can be anticipated that others will wish to re-open the debate on other issues. Maintaining tight control of the agenda will be important to ensure that: the plan is made more relevant to today's agenda as soon as possible, the scope for debate at and hence the timetable for the public inquiry is limited, and the impact of the proposed changes in the development plan system is anticipated and minimized."
To help to limit the period for consultation, it will start just six shopping days before Christmas and is due to end on some unstated day in February. The period allowed for public engagement, excluding holidays, could last barely more than one month, in a process that goes on for 18 months. That is not good enough. Nobody wants to tear down the carefully crafted edifice of the urban development programme, but the strength of feeling about the seemingly unchecked growth of new housing developments must be addressed or the impact of PPG 3 will be blunted and Government guidance will be seen as toothless and meaningless.
I want new housing, but it must be sensitive to the needs of the people who live in and around it. I want the old buildings in my constituency to be brought back into use, and estates to be refurbished and brought back to life. On that last point, council tenants were consulted at length about the creation of ALMOs—arm's length management organisations—and whether they should have more democratic control over their areas. I urged council tenants to agree to that new approach, as I believe in local democracy. I now want there to be a similar approach to planning. We no longer live in the discredited era of predict and provide, but we must make better use of what we have. The Government's approach is right, and I expect PPG 3 to bring tangible benefits to my constituents by being fully incorporated into the UDP after proper local consultation.
12.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I very much welcome the opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) on this important matter, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. I share his view that, in the main, Leeds city council is at the forefront of urban renaissance, and much of what it has done to secure the future and sustainability of Leeds city centre is to be praised.
Leeds, Central will, I am sure, be considerably different and better off in the future. I spent a rainy weekend there just before a particular by-election that was responsible for the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), taking his place in the House.
I shall first set out the planning framework for the protection of the green belt. The framework is well established and it applies as much to the green belt in Morley and Rothwell as it does to the rest of the country. National policy and guidance on the green belt

119WH
is set out in planning policy guidance note 2, which was published in January 1995. Its fundamental aim, which underpins much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell said, is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The green belt's most important attribute is its openness, but it can also assist in moving towards more sustainable patterns of development.
There are five key reasons for including land in the green belt: to stop the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging with one another, which my hon. Friend mentioned; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
Those aims are paramount and they take precedence over the six key objectives of the green belt, which are: to provide the urban population with opportunities for access to the open countryside; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas; to retain attractive landscapes and to enhance landscapes near to where people live; to improve damaged and derelict land in and around towns; to secure nature conservation interests; and to retain land for agriculture, forestry and related uses. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is not much of that in Leeds, Central.
The green belt is designated in development plans in accordance with PPG 2 and regional planning guidance. The detailed boundary should be altered exceptionally only once it has been defined in an adopted local plan or UDP. To help to achieve that, local authorities must consider the need to safeguard land between the urban area and the green belt that may be required to meet longer-term development needs.
Mr. Challen: Does my hon. Friend agree that windfall sites could become significant after the introduction of PPG 3, if it puts pressure on councils actively to encourage them? Has he had many representations on that?
Mr. McNulty: To be perfectly honest, I have not, although I take the point. That is part of what we seek to address with the reform of the planning system, which also aims to tackle the time it takes some authorities to develop, deposit and get approval for their plan. If that process has taken a decade or more, as in the case of Leeds, any windfall is very sudden once the plan is adopted in the context of PPG. There will be a much sharper focus on rapidity and flexibility in developing plans and continually updating them more responsively.
I stress the importance that the Government attach to green belt policy. There are no plans to change it, and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, since 1997, the green belt in England has increased by some 30,000 hectares. Guidance on control of development in the green belt is clearly set out in PPG 2. The presumption is against inappropriate development—inappropriate is defined as outside the curtilage of the criteria and objectives that I have already mentioned. Most
120WH
development in the green belt is inappropriate and should not be approved except in special circumstances Those circumstances are not defined in PPG 2, but are up to the applicant to prove. They vary from case to case.
Mr. Challen: The Council for the Protection of Rural England sent me a paper before today's debate to say that those exceptional circumstances are becoming more like the norm. Is there any way to monitor whether that is true?
Mr. McNulty: As far as I know, we monitor exceptional circumstances. I happily undertake to inform my hon. Friend of whether we do and, if so, of some exceptional circumstances from particular cases. I disagree with the CPRE view and say that, in quantity if not quality, no more exceptional circumstances are granted now than at any other stage. I shall happily write to my hon. Friend on that.
My hon. Friend will also appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details of current cases. We have exchanged correspondence on Haigh Moor road in West Ardsley. That issue is back with the authority, if not determined, and it would be inappropriate for me to refer to that or any of the numerous other sites in the Morley and Rothwell area about which my hon. Friend is concerned.
As my hon. Friend said, not all greenfield land is green belt. The protection of greenfield sites is provided for in several Government policies, in particular those relating to new housing development and PPG 3, which was published in March 2000. The Government's commitment to promoting more sustainable patterns of development will be achieved by concentrating most new housing developments in urban areas, making more efficient use of land by maximising the re-use of previously developed land, assessing the capacity of urban areas to accommodate more housing, adopting a sequential approach to the allocation of land for housing development, managing the release of housing land and reviewing existing allocations of housing land in plans and planning permissions when they come up for renewal.
The key is that the words "brownfield" and "greenfield" are essentially shorthand. Brownfield sites are previously developed land. The history of uses of a site, rather than whether it is brown and mucky, determines whether it is previously developed and therefore brownfield. That might explain the position to which my hon. Friend alluded.
The Government's national target for the additional housing to be provided by re-use of previously developed land is 60 per cent. by 2008. Success in attaining that will clearly vary from region to region. In Greater London, that figure is already some 91 per cent, and I am sure that it will be significantly over the 60 per cent. mark in parts of the urban core of Leeds. Regional planning guidance for Yorkshire and the Humber— RPG 12—sets the same target for the region for 1998–2016, and the target for Leeds at the slightly higher figure of 66 per cent., considering the preponderance of urban areas.
PPG 3 defines the previously developed land and, with associated better practice guidance, sets out how urban capacity can be assessed and how land release

121WH
should be managed. PPG 3 and RPG provide guidance on the location of new housing developments. The search sequence should start with the re-use of previously developed land and buildings in urban areas. The presumption will be that previously developed sites should be developed before greenfield, except where previously developed sites performed so poorly in relation to the criteria in paragraph 31 of PPG 3 as to preclude their use for housing.
Of course, many plans that are not up to date are likely to include greenfield allocations. To ensure that PPG 3 policies were put into practice, we introduced a direction in October 2000, which required referral of large housing proposals on greenfield allocations to the Secretary of State if the local planning authority were minded to grant planning permission. That is a halfway house or a transition between a fully developed and deposited plan and the notion of windfall to which my hon. Friend referred. The Government are keen to ensure that where, as in Leeds, development plans do not fully accord with PPG 3, they are reviewed as quickly as possible.
I shall now consider the local planning policy for the protection of green belt and greenfield sites as set out in the Leeds UDP. After a lengthy preparation of more than 10 years. to which my hon. Friend alluded, it was adopted on 1 August 2001. The plan designates extensive areas of green belt around the built up area of the city and sets up policies for the protection of this land, including Morley and Rothwell. It also designates land as
"protected areas of search for long-term development",
some of which is former green belt. Those protected areas of search form a buffer between the urban area and the green belt. As my hon. Friend said, such sites exist in the Morley and Rothwell area.
Preparation of the current UDP and the public inquiry into objections pre-dated PPG 3 and, before its adoption, the Secretary of State made representations that the housing policies did not reflect PPG 3. In particular, the Secretary of State was concerned that insufficient priority had been given to re-using previously developed land in urban areas, which is my hon. Friend's anxiety, and that the plan would not provide a policy framework to bring forward the development of previously developed sites before that of greenfield sites—the sequential test in PPG 3.
In response to the Secretary of State's representations, the council modified the plan to reflect a broader commitment to follow PPG 3 principles. It was also committed to the plan's early review. It is also worth noting that if the council wanted to approve a large housing development on a greenfield allocation, the application would have to be referred to the Secretary of State under the greenfield housing direction while the UDP is being reviewed. On that basis, and in view of how long it took to prepare the plan, the Secretary of State did not intervene further in the plan's adoption.
Mr. Challen: I am not sure exactly what counts as a large-scale development—perhaps 100 or 150 houses—but large developments can occur sequentially. Another 30 houses will encroach on previously green land and, a few years later, another 30 are built. Eventually, perhaps
122WH
over a decade, the developer's objective is met when 100 houses are in place on a site, but, because it has developed sequentially, nobody can refer to a particular right.
Mr. McNulty: I take my hon. Friend's point and I shall write to him about the number of houses that count as a large development. After 11 years on a planning committee, all this is not exactly new to me. I know that, under the current framework and policy, councils can view the piecemeal development of a larger site as a material planning consideration in any determination of whether to develop that site further.
That may not apply in every instance, or in a silly and ridiculous way, but if 30 houses on part of a site are clearly a bridgehead for subsequent development, provision is made in the framework to deal with it. When I was on the other side of the table—I am not sure whether I was or am now the poacher or the gamekeeper—we could use available policies in the context of an urban fringe such as that described by my hon. Friend.
I am pleased to hear about the speedy review of the Leeds UDP—that is good news. I am also aware that work on an urban capacity study has started, which must also be welcomed. I hope that the results of that inform the review and perhaps overcome the non-PPG 3-specific aspects of the current UDP.
I am mindful of what my hon. Friend said about the review process, and I certainly exhort Leeds, within the framework that it needs to work in, to suggest a process that engages local communities as much as possible and that works for all of Leeds. I am aware of the strength of feeling that he suggests is abundant in the city. That needs to be addressed, however narrow and limited the planning process, not only by the people of Leeds but, crucially, by their public representatives—MPs and councilors—to ensure that the review process is exploited as fully as possible, given that it has taken so long for the review to come.
I understand that it is proposed that the review will be selective and focus on issues where change is necessary—exactly those that my hon. Friend mentioned. One is housing strategy. Guidance in PPG 3, including the sequential approach to site selection, should be taken into account. The council proposes that the review will also consider the role of land designated as protected areas of search, to which I have referred. There is a possibility of returning some of that land to the green belt, but it is not for me to pre-empt the review.
I understand that, as part of the review, the council proposes to undertake an extensive, far-reaching and inclusive pre-deposit consultation programme. It says that that is planned to start this winter; it does not say that it is to start six shopping days before Christmas, but I take the point. I welcome what has been said, so long as the pre-deposit phase is followed by a wider deposit phase, and the early phase is merely the start of proper consultation and engagement. I take on board my hon. Friend's point that it is no longer sufficient for planning as a wider process and the development plan specifically to be all top-down and imposed on communities that have to live with the consequences.
Concerns were raised about VAT. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that taxation decisions are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the

123WH
Exchequer, although the Government have reduced VAT to encourage conversions of existing property to residential dwellings and the re-use of long-term empty homes. That is part of a package that will help to make better use of existing housing stock and encourage reuse of previously developed land, but, as my hon. Friend said, the Treasury has other fiscal instruments under review. He might like to consult this month's Inside Housing for a wider view from me.
Mr. Challen: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he has been generous with his time. I read today that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is considering a range of green taxes—not least, perhaps, on landfill—before the pre-Budget statement. Will the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister make representations on VAT?
Mr. McNulty: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been in extensive discussions with the Chancellor on a range of fiscal instruments that impact on it and its responsibilities.
In December 2001, we issued a Green Paper, "Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change". We seek the earliest possible opportunity to legislate where needed. The paper recognises the need to enable local communities to be involved much more positively, including in the development plan process.
We look forward to the review of the Leeds UDP with great interest, not least in the context of how it will fully take on board all that is in PPG 3 and the sequential release and use of land, which is the crux of everything my hon. Friend said. The sequence involving brownfield and greenfield land and the green belt is crucial to the long-term future and sustainability of urban centres such as Leeds, and central to all that we are doing on future urban renaissance and the advance of such areas.
I again congratulate my hon. Friend on raising these important issues. I am mindful that I have said on at least two or three occasions that I shall write to him about particular matters, and I shall ensure that I do so in the coming weeks. I exhort him to stay in touch with me about the pre-deposit consultation and the consultation on the review, so that, in the end, the people of Leeds get the UDP that they deserve to move forward.

Horticulture Research International, East Mailing
1 pm
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): In the years that I have been privileged to be a Member of Parliament, I have travelled to agricultural, rural and fruit-producing areas in many parts of the world, including Africa, Asia, the Indian sub-continent and Latin America. I am invariably asked what constituency I represent. Hon. Members would be forgiven for thinking that "Tonbridge" and "Mailing" are not words that command instantaneous international recognition, but they would be wrong. When I say that I represent Tonbridge and Malling, the response all over the world is, "Oh yes, that is where the fruit research is carried out."
HRI East Malling, formerly the East Malling research station, is a research establishment of genuinely worldwide renown. Against that background, it has come as a source of acute dismay, even disbelief, that the Government could be contemplating the closure of that remarkable research establishment, which is of proven international capacity. Indeed, the announcement has been greeted with shock not only in East Malling, but in the British horticultural industry as a whole. I am deeply concerned about and, I believe, justifiably critical of, the content of the announcement and its handling.
Most regrettably, the Department's press release did not even accurately reflect the key recommendation in relation to East Mailing contained in the "Quinquennial Review of Horticulture Research International". Paragraph 1.6.3 of that review states:
"we recommend that East Mailing is either closed or, preferably, transferred with some of the existing staff to the East Mailing Trust for Horticultural Research."
Most regrettably, the key word—"preferably"—was omitted from the Department's press release, implying that the Government are entirely neutral as between the options of closure or transfer to the East Mailing trust.
Inescapably, in those circumstances, closure blight now threatens HRI East Mailing. The key elements in any research establishment are, of course, the people. If there is closure blight people contemplate leaving and might actually do so. Research contracts that are coming to an end might not be renewed, and new contracts will not be entered into. I must tell the Minister candidly, that the suspicion—wholly unfounded, I hope—is that the Government want to close HRI East Mailing in all circumstances. I earnestly hope that he can give me a categorical assurance that that is not the case.
I am also very critical of the timetable for consultation, particularly in the context of HRI East Mailing, which is potentially far and away the research establishment most seriously affected by the announcement. The announcement of possible closure was given in the press release of 23 September. The consultation closing date was announced as 18 November, which is barely eight weeks flat. That is a totally unrealistic timetable in which to put together the non-closure option—in other words, the transfer option to the East Mailing trust.
That transfer will involve the creation of a completely separate charity, or company limited by guarantee, to contain the assets and the business of what is now HRI

125WH
East Mailing; the production of a detailed business plan and the negotiation and working out of contractual arrangements between the new independent HRI East Mailing and the existing East Mailing trust; and the establishment of the continuing terms, conditions and pension rights of existing HRI staff who are transferred to the new independent East Mailing. It will involve getting clear commitments from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as to its future financial policy and placing of research contracts with the new organisation. Those commitments must be sufficient to enable the trust's trustees to take decisions. A substantial amount of work will need to be done by lawyers, consultants and others. It is ludicrous to suggest that all that can be done in eight weeks. I urge the Minister to tell us that the Government will show a sensible degree of flexibility about the timetable for consultation.
To assist the Minister in giving detailed replies, I gave him in advance my eight specific questions, which are as follows. First, DEFRA has stated that, as an alternative to closure, HRI East Mailing should become an independent research station under the auspices of the East Mailing Trust for Horticultural Research. Will DEFRA fund the legal and consultancy fees necessary to bring that structure into being? Unless DEFRA is willing to fund those inescapable fees, a merger or transfer to the trust will not be able to take place, as it would be impossible for the trust, which is a charitable organisation, to engage in large expenditure on professional fees that might conceivably bring no results.
My second question relates to paragraph 1.6.3 of the quinquennial review, which states that
"interim financial arrangements may be needed"
to create an independent East Mailing under the auspices of the East Mailing Trust for Horticultural Research. Does the Minister accept that interim financial arrangements will be needed, and are the Government, through DEFRA, prepared to provide the necessary interim finance to enable HRI East Mailing to make the transition to independent status under the auspices of the trust?
Thirdly, well over half of HRI East Mailing's income comes from DEFRA contracts obtained competitively. Will the Minister give a clear assurance that DEFRA will continue to place contracts, when competitive, with the new independent East Mailing, which has to exist outside HRI? Without such an assurance, the consultation on a transfer or merger with a trust is a charade, given the extreme dependence of the research establishment on DEFRA contracts—again, I stress the fact that those contracts have been won competitively by East Mailing.
Fourthly, the review rightly says that research institutions need at least 40 per cent. of their budget to be secured over a four to five-year period, and that they cannot survive efficiently with too much of their budget dependent on competitive funding. What assurance will the Minister give that DEFRA will place with East Mailing contracts of sufficient length to make an independent East Mailing viable?
As a Minister, I was involved in the research establishment business in that I had responsibility for the Building Research Establishment. Anyone with that
126WH
type of experience knows that one cannot run a research establishment in the public sector on a hand-to-mouth basis, with only short-term contracts lasting a year or so. Such establishments need the security of having a significant proportion of their income underpinned by longer contracts, running for four or five years.
Fifthly, the review makes it clear that almost all the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council's funds are spent at Wellesbourne. Will the Minister give an assurance that an independent East Mailing will have access to BBSRC funding on the same basis as Wellesbourne currently enjoys? That key area of ministerial policy is judged to be very important to East Mailing's ability to make its way independently under the auspices of the trust.
Sixthly, will the Minister explain how it happened that his Department made the welcome decision to finance the new £2.8 million conference centre at East Mailing, which was officially opened on 20 September, only for his Department to announce the possible closure of East Mailing three days later, on 23 September?
Seventhly, will the Minister clarify whether the staff of HRI East Mailing who move to an independent East Mailing will have their present terms and conditions of service protected, together with their pension rights? Will the Department meet the costs of any redundancies?
My eighth and final question is, will the Minister acknowledge that, contrary to the impression given in the review, East Mailing's research focus is not on soft and top fruit alone but extends to ornamental shrubs, woodlands, hops, amenity horticulture and tropical forestry, all of which have considerable commercial potential? It would give some reassurance to those who work at East Mailing to know that the Minister and his Department acknowledge that East Mailing has a much wider operational base than is suggested in the report.
I come finally to the grounds on which the review body based their regrettable decision that East Mailing may be closed. The basis for the review body's conclusion in the report is far from clear, and one suspects that it is financially oriented. If that is the case, I should give the Minister some key facts. The British horticultural industry has a turnover of £3 billion, one third of which links into research carried out at East Mailing. It is clear from the accounts of HRI East Mailing that, given a reasonable level of DEFRA contract placing on a competitive basis, East Mailing can wash its face financially. Surely it cannot make financial sense to contemplate the closure of a nationally valuable research establishment, which is financially viable and which supports a huge industry that is, by definition, import-saving and that has good export prospects and actual exports.
I trust that the Minister will give me a clear assurance that the Government accept that not closure but merger with the trust is the preferred option. In my view, it should be the only option now on the table. He and his Department should make every effort to bring that merger with the trust to a successful conclusion—it is in the national interest that that should be the outcome.
1.14 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) on instigating the debate and finding international status for his constituency.

127WH
The Government provide substantial funding for horticultural research and development, and we spent more than £18 million on it in Great Britain in 2001–02. At nearly £10 million, DEFRA's horticultural budget accounts for 7 per cent. of our total research and development budget this year. In cash terms, the horticultural programme is the third-largest after environmental protection and BSE.
I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman did his constituents any favours by being so critical of DEFRA, which is grasping a nettle that has needed to be grasped for some time. Speedy decisions are needed to ensure a secure future for HRI, and he rather contradicted himself by suggesting that further delay would be good for the establishment's future. He is wrong to cast doubt on DEFRA's commitment to finding a sustainable future. HRI is our country's leading provider of horticultural research and development services. It is rightly regarded as a centre of excellence, and DEFRA continues to be its principal customer, providing almost 50 per cent. of its income.
The report of the review contains challenging findings. Paragraph 5 of the executive summary states:
"HRI has been over-dependent upon DEFRA and should cease to be classified as a Non-Departmental Public Body sponsored by DEFRA. It should continue to operate in the public sector, as a company limited by guarantee with charitable status. As such, HRI should take full responsibility for its financial well being."
That is a challenging but positive conclusion. The review team members also stated in their findings:
"Above all, we urge Ministers to take decisive, active and positive decisions about the future of HRI. Furthermore, we recommend that Ministers engage in a constructive consultation programme on this report."
They recommended
"that East Mailing is either closed or, preferably, transferred with some of the existing staff to the East Mailing Trust for Horticultural Research."
That is a clear set of proposals.
The three-month consultation on the quinquennial review team's report runs to 18 November. HRI will continue until Ministers have considered the options and decided the way forward. When that has been done, we will proceed by discussion with all stakeholders, including the East Mailing trustees. There is no question of having to solve the issues of staff and pensions by 18 November, but we are happy to talk to the trust about those important issues.
HRI is at an important stage of its history following the publication of the quinquennial review report. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands that we are not in a position to respond to either all the detail of the review today, or to all his questions. The report was prepared by a distinguished and independent team of experts. It makes a thorough and challenging assessment of the institution's circumstances, as well as some radical and 'well argued recommendations about the future direction of HRI.
It is important to get this right, so the Department has invited stakeholders to comment on the report before Ministers take decisions. We have also commissioned consultants to provide further financial analysis of the
128WH
review team's main recommendations. We need to ensure that the proposals are robust and tested and that they will stand the test of time.
Staff and other HRI stakeholders are anxious to know their future and that of the institution. I completely understand that desire—having lived through a period of reorganisation in my own professional career, I know how unsettling it is, not only for the individuals involved, but for their families and the wider community. I know understand how it can disrupt normal working and the effectiveness of professional activity, but that is one reason why we need to proceed quickly to conclusions. We shall try to reach and implement decisions expeditiously, but that must not be at the expense of proper analysis of the issues.
We must make sure that our decisions are based on a sound assessment of the various options, and that they create robust and durable solutions. A key consideration in reaching decisions will be ensuring that HRI has a stable platform from which to develop its future business, taking account of actual and potential funding possibilities and business opportunities available to it.
However, it is not for the Government alone to provide for the future of Horticulture Research International. The horticulture industry is a key partner. The Government's primary consideration when they first set up the institution was the industry's wish for an institution that would provide a critical mass of horticultural research capacity. Those involved in HRI's management must ensure that it operates in the most cost effective and efficient manner.
The operation at East Malling is the oldest of the organisations that were merged in 1990 to create Horticulture Research International. It was originally set up in 1913 at the initiative of the local horticulture businesses, supported by grants from the then Board of Agriculture and Kent county council. Like the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food before it, DEFRA continues to be a major customer of HRI. This year, we have commissioned research projects worth nearly £3 million. DEFRA has a number of research programmes at East Mailing, including breeding work on top, stone and soft fruit; improving propagation rates; the genetics of hardy nursery stock and fruit quality; pest and disease control in fruit crops; organic apple production; biodiversity of ground flora and tree improvement in farm woodlands. I recognise the scope of the activities that are undertaken at East Malling.
Some of the work is due to end in March 2003, but we hope to commission new projects on apple, pear, cherry, plum and raspberry breeding, subject to the receipt of satisfactory research proposals and the securing of the necessary funding. New projects on tree improvement in farm woodlands and local provenance of trees and shrubs are intended for next year, in partnership with the Forestry Commission. Projects on propagation and the improvement of hardy nursery stock are also planned, with some work in that area being put to open competition or to the joint Government-industry LINK programme.
We are also strong supporters of the new organic research and conference centre that was opened at East Malling in September. That was made possible by a grant of more than £2 million won competitively from

129WH
the Treasury's capital modernisation fund, with financial support provided by the East Mailing Trust for Horticultural Research. HRI also deserves credit for attracting the enterprise hub with the support of the South East England Development Agency.
I recognise that the review team's recommendations about the future of the site—including its view that it might have to be closed—cannot make comfortable reading for HRI's staff and customers. However, I note that the review team considered that the site has the potential for a successful future as a regional centre for applied research and knowledge transfer, provided that it receives the necessary support from DEFRA and the horticulture industry. With that in mind, the Department's officials have been in contact with the East Mailing trust to discuss what role it might play in the site's future. That dialogue will continue. I do not think that it would be right, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, to put all our eggs in one basket, but the time being spent in discussion with the trust shows that we have responded positively to the report in that respect.
The right hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions, and he might be reassured to know that I think that they are the right questions. However, we need to reflect on stakeholders' responses to the current consultations, and we have not yet reached the end of that process. There is also a need for discussion with the board and management of Horticulture Research International and with the East Mailing trust, before all the questions can be answered.
The right hon. Gentleman will understand what I mean when I say that he has both asked for immediate answers to certain questions, and suggested the need for time to work through some of the issues. We need to move quickly if we are to achieve a secure future for the organisation, but it would be inappropriate to answer some of the questions in advance of the discussions, or to rush to judgment.
Paragraph 1.6.3 of the quinquennial review, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, suggests that
"interim financial arrangements may be needed."
That was the finding of an independent team of experts, whose recommendations will be considered in the light of responses to the public consultation exercise and the results of further financial analysis. It would be inappropriate to give a yes or no answer until that has been done. I am not answering no to the question today, and I understand that it is important to the right hon. Gentleman and to people in East Malling that those questions should be considered and fully answered.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance about the placing of contracts. As I have already said, there is no reason why East Malling should not continue to receive research income from DEFRA, provided its work continues to meet our objectives and satisfies the
130WH
criteria for selecting proposals. He also sought assurances in relation to the statement in the review that research institutions need to have at least 40 per cent. of their budget secure over a four to five-year period. We need to discuss that detailed matter with the East Malling trust—assuming that, as a result of the discussions that are taking place, it wishes to take over the site. We are sympathetic to the argument that DEFRA work placed at the site should have an element of stability, but the future of East Malling will depend largely on the site's ability to attract a range of work from customers in the public and private sectors, not only from DEFRA. It is important to achieve the right mix so that the new organisation is competitive. That is the secret of its secure future.
Sir John Stanley: Will the Minister answer a key question and tell us whether DEFRA is willing, at least in principle, to pay the cost of the considerable professional fees that will be incurred, without which it will not be possible to begin the work of creating a separate entity for HRI East Mailing, of negotiating a memorandum of understanding between East Malling and the trust, and of developing a business plan?
Alun Michael: I am not ruling that in or out, but as I have said, it is one of the issues that we will consider, not least in discussion with HR I's management and the East Malling trust.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the opening of the conference centre on 20 September 2002, three days before the review's findings were announced. There is no link between the two events. With the Department's support, in 2000 the Treasury awarded a grant of £2.2 million from its capital modernisation fund to enable HRI to build its new organic centre; the East Mailing trust subsequently provided additional investment of £500,000. As I have explained, the quinquennial review report was prepared by an independent team of experts, which started work in December 2001.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about employment arrangements. We cannot deal with that matter in advance of decisions about the future shape of the organisation. We shall certainly try to reach early decisions so as to minimise uncertainty for staff, whose representatives will be consulted in the normal way. I understand the difficulty presented by uncertainty, but the best way to achieve long-term certainty for staff is to ensure that the outcome of the discussions provides a robust platform for the long-term security and future success of the organisation, which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, has an international reputation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We must now turn our attention to the final topic for debate today.

Care Homes (Braintree)
1.29 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise an important issue that is affecting people in my locality, although its ramifications extend well beyond Braintree and its sister town of Bocking.
The issue has been highlighted by the imminent closure of St. Francis's nursing home in Bocking. appreciate that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), and his Department are not responsible for the closure. The home is a charitable institution run by the Missionary Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate Conception. Although its closure is entirely a matter for them, the same is not true of its effect on the patients, their relatives and friends, and others who live in Braintree and Bocking.
As I said, the home is run by the Franciscan order. It is adjacent to St. Francis's convent, which was founded towards the end of the 19th century. The property was, in part, acquired from the Courtauld family, who played a large part in the development of Braintree. The home does not adjoin the convent, but is on the other side of the appropriately named Convent lane. It has had a number of uses over the years—as an orphanage and then a school—before becoming a nursing home. It currently has permission to provide 40 residential nursing places.
It is not only the Franciscan order that has contributed to running the home; a substantial and successful appeals committee has operated for many years. Only last week, I spoke to Susan Harper, a former Braintree councillor who has served on the committee for many years. She told me that it had raised about £1 million, predominantly from the small communities of Braintree and Bocking. That substantial sum has not been spent on matters ancillary to nursing care; it has been expended in large part on the building's fabric and on providing the material wherewithal to run the home. The effects of that spending will disappear if the home is closed.
For several weeks in the summer, there was rumoured to be a notice of closure. Closure was announced in mid-summer and it is now scheduled for 10 January 2003. Like the local people, I understand that there may be reasons why the Franciscan sisters do not want or cannot continue to run the nursing home. They might be unable to find a sufficient number of sisters who are young enough or able enough to carry out that function. I make no criticism whatever of the local Franciscan sisters, who are held in high regard in Braintree and who for many years have done a wonderful job for those in their care. I am fairly certainly, however, that the decision was not taken in Braintree. I suspect that it was taken on the advice of the accountants, solicitors and land valuers who advise the head of the order, who is, I believe, in Rome.
The purpose of the local campaign is to secure the future of St. Francis' as a nursing home, and there is a great desire to find another proprietor. Although the names of potential buyers have been put forward, people remain concerned. I have no connection with BUPA, but I made a cold call to ask whether it would be interested in running the home. It expressed an interest,
132WH
and, quite naturally, I passed the information on to the Franciscan order. The local care trust, which was set up only last month—I cut the welcome cake at its inauguration—has also expressed great interest in being involved in the operation of the nursing home, and I understand that other prospective purchasers have shown an interest
I have spoken to Dr. Paul Zollinger-Reid, the new chief executive of the care trust, who is most anxious to ensure that the facility is maintained and extended in the Braintree district. I have written to the Bishop of Brentwood, as have others, and only yesterday we attended upon the office of the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, to present a petition of more than 2,000 names urging him to use his good offices to seek to persuade those who take such decisions to keep the home open, albeit with another proprietor. So far, unfortunately, there is no news. In many spheres of life, it is said that no news is good news, but as the days slip by I fear that, in case of St. Francis', no news is bad news.
I do not know whether it was the delivery of the petition or the imminence of this debate, but I am told that yesterday, several months after the first approach was made, a representative from BUPA was being shown around the home. It is often said that one swallow does not make a summer, and there is no more than one swallow, but it is certainly the first spark of hope.
One of the banes of nursing home provision and many other types of social provision is the high price of land. Braintree is a housing boom town. Houses are going up in every vacant space, both in the town and in the surrounding areas. That impedes progress, because the higher the price of land, the more difficult it is to use it for anything other than the building of houses. In the past, when land was cheap, mid and north Essex had the advantage of public institutions with large gardens and surrounding green areas. Those green areas remain, but they provide a terrible temptation for housebuilders and developers to acquire public or charitable institutions and develop them for other purposes than were originally intended St Francis's home is no exception. We need to consider the importance of the value of land in our social policies. I wonder whether it is time to reread Henry George's "Poverty and Progress" in order to realise the link between the price of land and the speed with which we can make progress.
If St. Francis's nursing home closes, 40 places will be lost. I accept that it currently has only 16 residents, but that is because the order has decided to reduce the number of places to none by January—which is understandable if the home is to close. The constituency of Braintree has a total of 89 places for more than 100,000 people—not a good ratio, which will worsen if the closure of St. Francis's goes through—and not all those places are available to the public: more than half are available only to private patients. The reason for that is probably divinable: the prices paid by private patients can be higher than those paid for by state organisations.
Essex county council, which is currently controlled by our political opponents, is conducting a review of care home facilities in the county, but I do not hold out much

133WH
hope, as it has proceeded with due diligence to close one home after another. It will not be long, therefore, before we have to rely entirely on private provision.
The difficulty lies in striking a balance between public and private provision. I fully accept that not all nursing or care homes can be run by public authorities. Many will be well run by private operators, and many others will be well run by charitable trusts. It is a question of balance. I give due credit to my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for the additional moneys that have come to the county. I think that £7.4 million has been directed towards nursing home care. That money alone has allowed the health trusts to offer higher fees to nursing homes, and therefore a greater proportion of the nursing home places in the county can be secured.
Nevertheless, there is still a difference in fees between nursing care and residential care. Assessments of all residents are now taking place to ascertain what categories they should properly be put into. Unseemly disputes have arisen in the past about such questions as whether Mrs. Jones should go into the home as a nursing patient; a squabble might then ensue about how quickly to take her out of that category, because then the fees would fall and the payer of the fees would change from the health trust to the local authority. We need to avoid such unseemly conduct, and I believe that progress is being made. The extra financial provision for fees is welcome and will assist.
The effect of home closures is severe on patients and their relatives and friends. Every one of us is attached to the place in which we live. It is said that moving house is near the top of the list of traumatic events in life—even for people who are hale, hearty and in good fettle. What must it be like for a frail, infirm person, who has had to become acclimatised after leaving their own home for a nursing home, to find that they must leave that nursing home and all the bonds that they have formed with staff and other people, and go to a strange situation? I do not want to speculate on the possible consequences, but I am sure that hon. Members have all seen examples in their constituencies.
Another problem is the location of nursing and care homes. Essex, people are surprised to learn, has the longest seaboard in England. That is because it has so many creeks and inlets around its coast. A large proportion of the care homes in the county are situated along the sea coast, even though much of the population does not live along the coast, that is because it is relatively easy to take over hotels and convert them. The result is that there is an imbalance of provision in relation to need, and inland areas of the large county of Essex are disadvantaged.
Many of the relatives of elderly patients are bound to be elderly too. It is terrible when a man's wife goes into a nursing home at the other end of the county. How is he to get to see her as often as he would like if she is not within easy travelling distance? Halsted is only 10 miles from the man to whom I was speaking about that issue, and that is a long way for him, so to have to travel 30 or 40 miles must seem like the end of the world.
My general point is that we can go too far in deciding that private providers can provide everything. Many years ago I served in opposition on a borough council in Essex. The then leader of the county council, Norman
134WH
Clarke, was a Conservative. As always in the 1980s there was a big debate going on about privatisation of council services, including privatisation of the direct labour force. In the end, he said to me that he had decided against privatisation that if he could avoid it, because he would then have no control over council operations if the private provider failed.
If we have no fallback position, we need to be careful that our private providers do not fail us. I can go further than Councillor Norman Clarke by recalling the words of Frederick the Great, King of Prussia, who once said:
"Allies are fine, but one's own troops are better."
It sounds like an argument for the mixed economy and it can be taken that way. We need a balance between our allies in the private and charitable sectors and our own troops in public provision.
The relatives, friends and people of Braintree and Bocking are literally praying that St. Francis' can be saved. They are looking for help and support from whatever quarter aid might come.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on securing the debate, making a powerful case for the care home sector in his area, and—as usual—illustrating his argument with a literary allusion. His constituency is at the forefront of establishment social care thinking. It established this country's first care trust to specialise in caring for older people, which was launched by my hon. Friend very recently.
I appreciate that there is local concern that St. Francis's nursing home has been forced to announce its closure. I put on record my deep respect for the work that the sisters have carried out there over the years. I understand that the sisters are now ageing, with many of them reaching their 70s, and that there have been no new recruits to the order in the past 15 years. Those factors, coupled with a facility that is currently not financially viable and is unlikely to meet the national care standards that we have set, mean that, sadly, the order has to close the home. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that there has been no enforcement activity by the National Care Standards Commission that has precipitated the closure; none the less, the closure has come as no surprise.
We must never forget the human face of such issues, and it is right that my hon. Friend brings the matter to the House today. Such closures mean the moving of individuals from places that they consider to be their homes and probably thought would be their last homes. However, the decision has been taken outside the control of central Government and for what seem to be understandable reasons. It is important that we ensure that the best is done for those residents.
Good notice has been given of the closure, and there has been time to prepare properly and to consult and involve the individual residents. I understand that every effort is being made to encourage the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate Conception to sell the home as a going concern. I hope that those efforts are fruitful. I am assured that the care trust will continue to offer support and look for any possible solution that will maintain the facility. However, if the home closes, it is important that the trust identifies alternative arrangements.

135WH
I shall outline briefly some of the steps that have been taken to manage any closure. In July, social services and the primary care group met with two trustees and their financial adviser to offer support to explore the options for keeping the nursing home operational. Benefits checks were run on identified residents to ensure that they were in receipt of their maximum allowances. Essex county council and the care trust offered to act as a broker between the order and any parties interested in purchasing St. Francis's as a going concern. There has been ongoing support and discussions with the manager to find employment elsewhere in the sector for the experienced staff who would be displaced in the event of closure.
A closure date of 10 January next year has been formally given to Essex county council, so it has a duty to ensure that a process is in place for funding new placements for the remaining 16 residents. All residents and relatives were invited to a meeting in September, and two social workers have been allocated to work closely with each resident to secure an alternative placement. In short, there is a lot of work going on to help the 16 residents who will be left to find suitable alternative accommodation should the home close.
My hon. Friend is understandably concerned about capacity in the area. We are all encouraged that he has taken such an active part in trying to keep the home open as a going concern. I hope that the flame that he talks about will be a bright one in the future.
As my hon. Friend will know, there is more to the care of older people than simply care home provision. The Government's objectives, as set out in the national service framework for older people, are to provide the right care in the right setting and to promote the social inclusion of older people. Much is said in the House about social exclusion. We should never forget that the elderly are the most vulnerable and often the most socially excluded people of all. It is right that we enhance their independence. That means allowing people with care needs to remain in their own homes as long as possible, which is what older people and their families tell the Government they want, and the figures suggest that we are helping more and more people to achieve that. In September 1998, 60,700 households were receiving intensive home care packages; by the end of 2001 that number had risen to 76,400 households. That is quite an achievement for the Government.
On 23 July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an important announcement in which he said that there would be an overall £1 billion package of investment for social care services for older people by 2006. The purpose of the new investment is to improve access to social care services and expand their capacity, increase the choice of services available to older people, stabilise the care home market, and ensure that delayed discharge is reduced to a minimum. I hope that my hon. Friend is encouraged by our right hon. Friend's announcement. The investment will help to alleviate the difficulties and increase care home capacity in his area. Within the overall £1 billion package, resources have been allocated to allow councils to pay higher fees if that is what is needed to stabilise the local care home market. I hope that my hon. Friend will be encouraged by that and that providers in his area benefit.
136WH
There will, of course, be a need for care home provision for the foreseeable future. I accept that there has been a reduction in the number of care homes in recent years, but there is spare capacity within the sector nationally. That spare capacity varies from region to region, which is why we are providing further resources to councils to assist them to further stabilise care home provision in their areas. There will be demographic changes and features particular to a certain area, for example, some parts of the country have larger elderly populations than others.
The allocation of the building capacity grant for Essex in 2002–03 is £5.5 million. That grant has been used to fund increases in assessment capacity, additional community equipment, a 24-hour care scheme attached to an accident and emergency service, increased payment rates for residential, nursing and domiciliary care, and incentive schemes in the most difficult of localities to increase that capacity.
Thanks to the additional resources that Essex social services department received from central Government, it has been able to increase the fees it pays to nursing homes from £386 a week to £453 a week, and to increase the fees it pays to residential homes from £310 to £364. Of course, there is more to improving services than providing resources: relations between councils in their role as commissioners and independent sector providers have often been fraught—indeed, adversarial in several cases—which has damaged both the prospects of good strategic planning that would add stability to the care system, and the interests of service users and their carers, leaving them anxious about the future.
By establishing the strategic commissioning group—chaired by my colleague, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith)—we have established a new, more positive partnership between the statutory and independent social, health care, and housing sectors at national level. That must be replicated at local level—for example, by setting up care trusts, such as the one in Braintree.
The "Building Capacity and Partnership in Care" agreement was published last October. It sets out clear good practice guidelines about the nature of the relationships that need to be developed to secure stability in the system and to deliver benefits to the people using services and their carers. The document encourages a whole-system approach: we cannot view the care home sector in isolation from the entire health, housing and care economy or from the reforms that are happening elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree drew careful attention to the context in which his local care homes operate and the relationship between the private and the public; that was very instructive. We should never forget how we got into this position: throughout the 1980s, there was a huge expansion in the number of care homes, when uncapped Department of Health and Social Security budgets were available for publicly-funded people entering residential care, and money flowed from the public purse into the private purse. Profits were high, but I think that all of us accept that standards were far too low—the result of many of the policies of the 1980s. We have tried to control that and to bring provision closer to what older people say they would prefer.

137WH
Essex council is taking steps to try to keep the home open. However, if it is unsuccessful, it must ensure that any displaced residents are placed in suitable alternative accommodation, and that should, of course, be done in discussion with residents and their relatives.
Witham, Braintree and Halstead care trust was the fifth in the country to be set up and the first to specialise in older people. It will enable health and social care
138WH
partners to integrate their services in a single organisation and I wait with interest to see how the trust will be able to improve local services for older people and, in particular, to show how these arrangements can help to deliver the type of services that older people and their carers want now and in future.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Freight
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the Government's target for growth in rail freight is over the next 10 years; [75012]

  (2) what steps are being taken by the Strategic Rail Authority to increase rail freight. [75013]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has published both a Freight Strategy and a Strategic Plan (copies are in the House Libraries), which detail its plans for achieving the rail freight growth envisaged by the Government's 10 Year Plan for Transport. A revised Strategic Plan is due to be published in January 2003.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made by or for his Department on changes in the accident rate on roads with speed cameras; and if he will place copies in the Library. [75603]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Speed enforcement cameras have proved to be highly effective at reducing speeding and, when sited at dangerous sites or along problem routes, have in the first year of the pilot scheme on average reduced the number of those killed and seriously injured by 47 per cent. In some areas the reduction has been even greater. A report of the cost recovery system for the eight pilot areas in the traffic safety camera scheme will be published shortly and will be made available in the Libraries of the House.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment is made by or for his Department of the performance of(a) the Northern Lighthouse Board and (b) the Health and Safety Commission including performance targets; what reports have been published on its performance; and if he will place in the Library copies of such reports that are not readily available. [75600]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB) measures the availability of the aids to navigation against the service standards set by the International Association of Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA). These performance indicators are set out in the Report and Accounts of the General Lighthouse Fund 2000–2001, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. They indicate that most aids to navigation provided by the Board exceed the IALA standards for availability for use.
  302W
  The Health and Safety Commission is no longer the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Rail Franchises
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of franchise negotiations between London and South East commuter operators and the Strategic Rail Authority. [75171]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to the hon. Member for Stroud (David Drew) on Tuesday 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 158. My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make an announcement on franchising in the next few weeks.

  Road Congestion
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress made since 1 January 1998 on the reduction of road congestion. [75468]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The 10 Year Plan for transport includes a target to reduce congestion on the inter-urban trunk network and in large urban areas to 2000 levels by 2010. We hope to publish baseline figures for this target shortly. The Department have not previously calculated congestion levels.

  Transport Area Network
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money was(a) spent and (b) budgeted for the Transport Area Network in each financial year in which it has been allocated. [76399]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 22 October 2002 [76201]

  Spend for the Traffic Area network was:

  (000)

  1997/98

  £9451

  1998/99

  £9758

  1999/00

  £10166

  2000/01

  £11033

  2001/02

  £12401

  Transport Direct
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the work conducted on Transport Direct by Journey Solutions; and what steps his Department is taking to act upon this work. [76486]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Journey Solutions has not conducted any direct work on Transport Direct. However we welcome their efforts on integrating different modes of transport and anticipate their work on bus-rail tickets being of direct relevance to Transport Direct, since this contributes to the provision of multi-modal ticketing —a target for Transport Direct.

  Third Railway Package
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what submissions have been made by his
  303W
  Department to the European Commission on the forthcoming Third Railway Package; and if he will place copies in the Library. [76202]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The European Commission has not yet published any specific proposals for further legislation in the railways sector and no written submissions have been made. My Department and the Commission are in regular contact on railway policy development; and my Department would expect to respond to any formal consultation exercise initiated by the Commission.

  Community Railways
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations have been received from, and discussions have taken place with, the railway industry on the Directive on Safety, Licensing and Levying of Charges Certification of Community Railways being discussed within the European Parliament; and if he will place copies of all related correspondence in the Library; [76472]

  (2) what representations have been received, and what discussions have taken place, with the railway industry on the Directive on the Interoperability of trans-European rail transport. [76501]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A number of industry parties commented on these elements of the European Commission's proposed 2 railway package in response to the Government's consultation exercise on that package, which ran from May to 23 August 2002. Copies of the replies (excluding those from respondents who have requested confidentiality) have been placed in the Libraries of the House. My Department holds regular discussions with the rail industry parties on the Commission's current and future proposals for the rail sector.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the performance of the Traffic Commissioners with specific reference to performance targets; and if he will publish a report on its performance. [76483]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Traffic Commissioners are statutorily independent office holders, appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport and are not subject to performance targets. They are required to report to the Secretary of State each year. Copies of these reports are in the Libraries of the House.

  Trunk Road Assessment
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on(a) how many people are employed, (b) the role and terms of reference and (c) the annual budget for each year since 1997–98 of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment Sustainable Development Education Panel. [76482]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment has not been given any terms of reference since completing its report on Transport and the Economy in 1999 and is at present in abeyance.304W
  No people are employed by the Committee. Its budgets for 1997–98 and 1998–99 were £40k and –62k respectively.

  The Department for Education and Skills are responsible for information about the Sustainable Development Education Panel.

  Freight Line
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether the Strategic Rail Authority has provided advice to him on Central Railway's proposed freight line; [75905]

  (2) when he will introduce a bill to support Central Railway's proposed freight line. [75906]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA has now delivered to the Government its advice on Central Railway's proposals. We will consider its conclusions carefully and respond to Central Railway in due course.

  Malpensa Airport
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funds Malpensa Airport received under the EU Trans-European Network programme; and what discussions he has had with the EU Commission to open up Malpensa Airport to(a) British and (b) other EU carriers. [76147]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Funding for the Malpensa Airport project from the trans-European Network programme was awarded under five Commission Decisions from 1995 to 1999 inclusive for a total amount of €26.8 million in the form of interest rate subsidies.

  The Italian rules for the distribution of traffic within the Milan airport system were discussed by Ministers at Transport Council in October 1998. UK officials also attended two meetings of the EC Market Access Advisory Committee, established under the provisions of Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) 2408/92, which were called to discuss the matter. These culminated in the Commission's decision of 21 December 2000 (2001/163/EC).

  Cliffe Airport
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of take-offs under the Cliffe Airport option proposed by the Government would head east and then turn north over Essex; and over which Essex communities these would fly and at what height. [74930]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]The South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS) analysis has not attempted to identify the distribution of aircraft to this level of detail.

  Anti-speed Campaigns
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of(a) UK-wide anti-speed campaigns and (b) Arrive Alive in North Wales; and if he will make a statement. [75878]
  305W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Warning of the dangers of speeding is an integral part of the Department's publicity strategy. An integrated communications campaign incorporating TV, radio, press and poster advertising has run since 1991 supported by local road safety officers. An ongoing monthly tracking study has shown that this publicity has helped create and sustain a high level support for road safety measures which encourage people to slow down. In this time the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads has reduced significantly.

  All netting off partnerships, of which North Wales is one, must ensure information on safety camera deployment is properly explained and accurate. Partnerships are formally monitored to assess their effectiveness and local communications forms a part of this monitoring.

  Local activity undertaken by the Safety Camera Partnerships, such as Arrive Alive in North Wales and other local policy initiatives, contribute to a concerted and comprehensive approach to tackling speed.

  A21 (Accidents)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents occurred between January and June on the A21(a) Lamberhurst to Flimwell and (b) Tonbridge to Pembury. [76665]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The data requested for 2002 are not yet available.

  For the number of accidents in 2001, I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 15 October 2002 Official Report, column 715W.

  Traveline
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been conducted into the effectiveness of(a) the Traveline phone service and (b) the traveline.org.uk website; and if he will places copies of related correspondence in the Library. [76475]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport has funded on behalf of traveline three waves of Mystery Shopping. The report from the third wave of Mystery Shopping indicated that the traveline service has significantly improved in all regions since the first wave of mystery shopping was carried out 12 months ago. The time taken to answer calls and the customer service elements of the calls were generally satisfactory or good. Overall 95 per cent. (Wave 2 result 93 per cent., Wave 1 result 88 per cent.) of the answers given were completely accurate and reflects an improvement across the regions but particularly for some of the long distance call types. Twelve call centres in wave 3 scored 100 per cent. on accuracy (5 in wave 2).

  There will be no current assessment on the effectiveness of the traveline website, as not all regions have been added. The traveline site at present is based around best principles as established through other transport planning web services.

  Copies of the final reports from the three waves of Mystery Shopping will be placed in the Libraries of the House.
  306W

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Start Ups
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects the estimates for 2001 (final) and 2002 (provisional) figures from the Office for National Statistics for the number of high growth business start-ups to be available; and if she will make a statement. [75120]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Office for National Statistics have agreed to provide estimates of the number of high growth business start ups for 2001 (final 1997 start ups) and 2002 (provisional 1998 start ups) by the end of November 2002.

  The Small Business Service will conduct data quality checks in December 2002, with a view to providing the estimates by the end of the year.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many homes have been compulsorily purchased by regional development agencies since 1999. [75968]

  Alan Johnson
  Seven residential properties have been compulsorily purchased by regional development agencies since 1999.

  Smart South West
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the contract between the South West Regional Development Agency and Smart South West. [74938]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]The South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) has two contracts with Smart South West.

  £60k from SWRDA to fund for a year the IT Sector Advisor within Smart South West, which finished this summer but is currently continuing on a 3 monthly basis until the post holder leaves.

  £56k from the DTI to manage the SWRDA led "Outreach" project under the Broadband Fund.

  Defence Exports
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the approved defence exports to(a) India and (b) Pakistan in each of the last three years. [76335]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Details of all relevant export licences that have been approved to end users in India and Pakistan, in each of the last three years, are published by destination in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1999, 2000 and 2001 Annual Reports are available from the Libraries of the House.

  Development Fund for Rural Renewal
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many small businesses applied for
  307W
  assistance through the Development Fund for Rural Renewal in November 2001; and what the total value is of funds that have been allocated. [76836]

  Nigel Griffiths
  A total of 67 applications to the Development Fund for Rural Renewal were received from a variety of organisations throughout England. The total value of funds allocated is £3,017,197.

  Food Supplement Directives
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will assess the impact on research and development of the European Food Supplement Directive and the proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products; and if she will make a statement. [75814]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply

  The EU Food Supplements Directive requires that the safety of concentrated sources of vitamins and minerals used as ingredients in food supplements be approved by the European Union scientific committee on food before use. Consequently, the Directive is likely to have the effect of encouraging research into the safety of these ingredients.

  The possible impact of the proposed Directive on traditional herbal medicinal products on research and development is difficult to predict. Under the current regime in the United Kingdom for unlicensed herbal remedies it will not normally be clear to the purchaser of a remedy whether that remedy is brought to the market on the basis of evidence of efficacy of the product, of traditional usage, or some other factor. The proposed Directive should, over time, bring greater clarity to the market on this issue, which may be beneficial to the prospects for research and development.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will assess the impact on the retail sector of the European Food Supplement Directive and the proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products; and if she will make a statement. [75813]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply

  In the short-term the EU Food Supplements Directive is unlikely to have any effect upon the retail sector. In the longer-term, the impact of the Directive will depend upon progress in adding vitamin and minerals and their sources to the lists of permitted nutrients in the Directive and upon developments in the setting of maximum limits for vitamins and minerals in food supplements. The Food Standards Agency is arguing the case for these maximum limits to be based on thorough scientific risk assessments so that there is no unnecessary restriction on the range of products that can be marketed.

  The proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products could have positive consequences for employment in the retail sector. The proposals would require traditional herbal remedies to meet standards as to quality, safety and product information,
  308W
  areas in which the current regime for unlicensed herbal remedies has significant weaknesses. More effective regulation, which would follow if there is a successful outcome to the negotiations, potentially could enhance the status and recognition of traditional herbal remedies. This in turn could help to maintain and increase public confidence and ultimately lead to an expansion in the sector. Our aim in the continuing negotiations, and in the implementation of the Directive if it is agreed, will be to ensure that the regulation is proportionate.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Iraq
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make it her policy to publish her advice to HMG on the legality of action against Iraq; and if she will make a statement. [75817]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: There is a longstanding convention, followed by successive Governments, that neither the substance of the Law Officers' advice, nor the fact that they have been consulted, is normally disclosed outside Government. The Law Officers' advice is given in confidence to the Government.

  Serious Fraud Office
  John Barrett
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans she has for the expansion of the role of the Serious Fraud Office to cover corruption and money laundering. [75072]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: The Director of the SFO is already entitled, under Section 1 (3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987, to investigate any offence that appears to her on reasonable grounds to involve serious or complex fraud. Offences of corruption and money laundering are therefore already included in the range of offences open to the SFO to investigate provided they meet key criteria. Amongst others, these include where the sum at risk is estimated to be at least £1 million or the case is likely to give rise to national publicity and widespread public concern or the case has a significant international dimension. All or some of these factors can be present in an allegation of corruption or money laundering and if so then the SFO may investigate.

  The SFO has, in fact, successfully investigated and prosecuted 10 cases involving offences of corruption and/or money laundering since its inception in 1988. These cases have led to prison sentences or suspended sentences for the defendants, often coupled with disqualification from acting as a company director. The SFO is also currently investigating several similar allegations.

  Fraud
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the level of successful prosecutions for fraud in(a) 1993, (b) 1997 and (c) 2002. [75894]
  309W
  The Solicitor-General
  The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) collects data each year as follows:

  Year (5 April-4 April)

  Number of Defendants

  Number of Convicted

  Conviction rate

  1993–94

  55

  35

  64%

  1997–98

  39

  37

  95%

  5.4.02–up to21.10.02

  12

  10

  83%

  These figures are impressive and consistently high. The SFO also judges its own performance by looking at accumulated figures since its inception in 1988. Here the conviction rate has steadily increased, particularly over the last five years. By 1993 the accumulated conviction rate by defendant was 63 per cent., in 1997 it was 66 per cent. and so far this year it has risen to 71 per cent.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals were made by farming industry representatives regarding the softening of the economic impact on the herd movement restrictions as a result of bovine TB during the meeting with them on 27 June. [73741]

  Mr. Morley
  Farming industry representatives made a number of proposals regarding the softening of the economic impact on herd movement restrictions as a result of bovine TB. Over the summer officials have considered the potential policy options and veterinary risk assessments have been carried out. After further meetings with stakeholders a package of measures was announced on 9 October. One element of the package focuses on the licensed movement off-farm of non-reactor cattle in the following circumstances:Movement direct to slaughter through a dedicated slaughter market;
  Movement to a finishing unit also under TB restrictions where the finished cattle will be sent direct to slaughter;
  Movement to slaughter via a collection centre.

  Defra is considering how to manage the risk from movement of animals onto herds affected by TB from farm to farm under a strict protocol. The policy for this is still being developed and it is hoped that an announcement can be made in November.

  Warm Front Grant
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the conversion rate for energy from people applying for a warm front grant has been in each of the last five years for which figures are available in(a) the Blackpool South constituency, (b) the Blackpool Unitary Authority area, (c) in each Government office region and (d) England; [73829]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the feasibility of separating promotion of and assessment for warm front grant from sales activity on behalf of energy companies; [73827]
  310W
  (3) how many complaints about attempts to sell energy contracts in association with warm front grants have been received by (a) her Department, (b) Ofgen and (c) warm front contractors and subcontractors in each of the last five years for which figures are available; [73828]

  (4) what discussions she has had with (a) Ofgem, (b) Energywatch and (c) other consumer and regulation agencies, about potential conflicts of interest when subcontractors promoting warm front grants (i) advertise for alternative energy suppliers on warm front promotional literature and (ii) set aside time to promote energy suppliers within warm front assessment interviews. [73879]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]Warm Front was launched in June 2000 and provides assistance to certain groups in receipt of a qualifying income or disability benefit by installing packages of insulation and heating measures.

  Warm Front does not promote products or sell energy from individual energy companies. Households are free to choose their own supplier and may, like any consumer, opt to change after 28 days. Two Scheme Managers, Eaga Partnership and TXU Warm Front administer Warm Front. Some of the heating measures offered under Warm Front may require the household to be connected up to an additional electrical supply for night storage heaters or mains gas for the first time.

  Following a tender exercise an agreement was entered into between Defra and two companies: Scottish Power and TXU Energi. For those requiring a gas central heating the preferred supplier was Scottish Power and for a combined electric and gas fuel supply from the Stay Warm tariff provided by TXU Energi. By August 2002 almost 4,000 homes had received a new gas supply. The majority of these households have not used the preferred suppliers.

  Neither Scheme Managers have received complaints about mis-selling of energy contracts. I cannot comment on behalf of OFGEM. The Department has received one specific complaint relating to Nestmakers, an independent organisation jointly and equally owned by Scottish Power and Eaga Partnership Ltd. The allegation was investigated and found to be unproven.

  Nestmakers also undertake home surveys for Warm Front in Eaga Partnership's catchment area. Nestmaker surveyors are aware that Warm Front is mutually exclusive to any energy supply contract. Nestmakers will take disciplinary action against any surveyor who is proved to have sold an energy supply contract on the conditional understanding that it was needed to access Warm Front.

  Live Animals (Exports)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to discourage and prevent the export of live animals for slaughter abroad. [75473]

  Mr. Morley
  We prefer a trade in meat to the export of live animals. However we also accept that European law requires the free movement of goods between EU member states and this includes live animals.
  311W
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase restrictions on the journey times for live animals for slaughter. [75479]

  Mr. Morley
  At the September Agriculture Council my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State urged discussion on a generally eight hour maximum for journeys within Europe.

  Livestock Movement Regulations
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with National Assembly for Wales Ministers regarding the 20–day livestock movement regulations. [75165]

  Mr. Morley
  Ministers have regular discussions with their devolved counterparts regarding animal movement regulations, including the 20 day standstill.

  Over-Thirty Months Scheme
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of applications for the over-thirty month early casualty scheme(a) were able to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the Intervention Board that they should receive the set rate of 85.6p.p.kg, (b) were paid the flat rate of £230 for their casualty animals and (c) are waiting to be paid. [75141]

  Mr. Morley
  (a) No animals presented into the Early Casualty Scheme were paid 85.6p/kg. Only animals successfully presented onto the main Over Thirty Month Scheme received the full OTMS payment. All successful claims under the Early Casualty provisions, for animals put down between 3 and 24 May 1996 but not presented onto the OTMS, were paid at the flat rate of £230.

  (b)

  (c)No claims are waiting to be paid. For 60 claims the claimant was unable to produce the required supporting documentation and no payment was made.

  Feta Cheeses
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received concerning the redesignation of feta cheeses in the draft directive proposed by the European Commission designating feta as a protected food name; and if she will intervene to prevent the Commission unilaterally adopting such a directive in the event of no qualified majority being achieved. [75647]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has received a number of representations concerning the application by Greece to register "feta" as a protected food name. Throughout all the discussions on this issue (at official and Ministerial level), the UK has opposed the Greek application on the grounds that we believed that the name "feta" had become a generic and so not eligible for protection. The majority of Member States were in favour of registration but the required qualified majority was not reached either in the Regulatory 312W
  Committee or subsequently in the Agriculture Council. However, because the Council was unable to act by qualified majority the Commission was able (under the terms of the original Regulation) to adopt the proposal. Feta was registered as a protected food name on 15 October.

  I am conscious of the effect that feta's registration as a protected food name will have on UK producers. Officials have therefore written to these producers to see whether they might be eligible to benefit from a transition period within which the name "feta" could continue to be used.

  Hedgehogs
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had about TB in hedgehogs. [75082]

  Mr. Morley
  There have been no recent discussions specifically on this issue. However, Defra is currently funding two research projects which are looking into the risk of TB to cattle from wildlife species other than badgers. Both projects include the examination of hedgehogs for TB.

  Badgers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the badger population is growing faster in certain regions of the UK. [75080]

  Mr. Morley
  There are likely to be in the region of 300,000 to 400,000 badgers in Great Britain. This figure is derived from the National Badger Survey which took place in the mid-1990's.

  The Department has let a research contract to design and pilot a multi-species terrestrial mammal monitoring project. This is due to conclude in November 2003, and should assist in improving the data available.

  Water Pressure
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will revise the reference level of water flow that is used by water supply companies to ensure that water pressure is sufficient to reach the top floor of domestic properties. [76158]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no plans to amend the provisions in Section 65 of the Water Industry Act 1991 which relate to the constancy of water pressure. Current legislation already provides for the water in water pipes and other pipes to be laid on constantly and at a pressure that will allow the water to reach the top most storey of every building within a water undertaker's area, subject to certain specific exceptions

  Where a householder considers the pressure of the water serving their property is insufficient they should contact their water company in the first instance. If they remain dissatisfied with the level of service, they can approach the Office of Water Services or the WaterVoice Committee for their area.
  313W

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 17 July 2002,Official Report, column 313W, on sheep dips, whether the report has been received on the research study by CBD Porton Down into the dose effect profiles for OP sheep dips on brain electrical activity and sensitive behaviour indices in non-human primates. [75839]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]The results from this study are now expected during November. This is due to unforeseen delays in the independent validation of the statistical analyses, and in completing the final phase of the histopathological evaluation.

  Horticulture
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what corrective action is being taken by her Department following the criticisms made in the Quinquennial Review of Horticulture Research International. [75913]

  Mr. Morley
  We welcome the report of the Quinquennial Review of Horticulture Research International and have invited stakeholders to comment on the recommendations by 18 November. We consider that the report contains lessons for Defra, HRI and the horticulture industry. We shall respond in detail when we have considered stakeholders' views and have the results of further financial analysis of the recommendations.

  Apples
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress is being made with negotiations for a marketing standard for apples. [75914]

  Mr. Morley
  There have been no developments on the EU marketing standard for apples since my written reply of 5 March 2002,Official >Report, column 229W.

  National Orchard
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what gains and losses in(a) actual and (b) percentage terms there have been in the size of the National Orchard in the last five years. [75917]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]The table shows the results of the Orchard Fruit Surveys 1997–2001. The results for 2002 are not yet available.

  Orchard Fruit Survey England and Wales
  (Excluding Minor Holdings)

  Year

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Tree area (hectares)

  23253

  22727

  21483

  20823

  21212

  %Change

  -2.26

  -5.47

  -3.07

  -1.87

  314W

  Drainage Boards
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to reduce the powers and role of drainage boards. [76279]

  Mr. Morley
  We are currently reviewing the institutional and funding arrangements for flood and coastal defence, including the role of internal drainage boards. Along with Ministerial colleagues I expect to begin to consider the outcome of this review shortly, taking account of the responses to consultation held earlier this year. Conclusions will be announced in due course.

  CAP
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many CAP payments made were about 300,000 euros in the last year for which information is available; and what percentage this represents of the total payments made. [75041]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]During the 2000 EU budget year, individual payments of CAP direct aid above €300,000 were made to around 400 recipients. These payments represented approximately 5 per cent. of the value of total direct aid payments in the UK. Some recipients may have received more than one payment if they made a claim under more than one scheme. This data includes CAP direct aid only (e.g. arable area payments or livestock premia) and excludes CAP market support payments.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many CAP payments made were below 5,000 euros in the last year for which information is available; and what percentage this represents of the total payments made. [75040]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]During the 2000 EU budget year, individual payments of CAP direct aid below €5,000 were made to around 78,500 recipients. These payments represented approximately 4 per cent. of the value of total direct aid payments in the UK. Some recipients will have received more than one payment if they made a claim under more than one scheme. This data includes CAP direct aid only (e.g. arable area payments or livestock premia) and excludes CAP market support payments.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what would be the cost of increasing the basic state pension by £14 per week for single pensioners with full contribution records and £22 per week for pensioner couples with full contribution records, detailing separately the resulting increased taxation revenues and savings on means tested benefits expenditure. [75475]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, such information that is available is as follows:
  315W
  If the maximum rate payable of the Basic State Pension was increased by £14 to £89.50, the overall extra cost to the NI Fund in 2002–03 is estimated at around £5.6bn. This increase in the Basic State Pension would generate an estimated £650m in extra tax revenue and an estimated saving of around £1.3bn in income related benefits.
  Notes:
  1. The estimated extra cost to the NI Fund is based on March 2002 RP admin data and is for Great Britain only, rounded to the nearest £100m
  2. The estimate of the extra tax revenue has been provided by the Inland Revenue

  Income related benefit savings have been estimated using the DWP 2002–03 Policy Simulation Model and have been rounded to the nearest £100m

  Housing Allowance
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which local authorities he has invited to be pathfinders for the standard local housing allowance; and what factors he took into account in making the selection. [77201]

  Andrew Smith
  In order to ensure a robust evaluation of the standard local housing allowance scheme, we have drawn up a list of key factors against which pathfinders should be chosen. This includes a broad range of housing and labour market conditions in England, Wales and Scotland.

  The pathfinder areas will represent variety in market and economic activity and will represent a range of high, medium and low house prices and rental values. They include a mixture of rural, urban, suburban and city areas. They will also provide a sufficient sample size, as those taking part must have a caseload of at least 2,500 claimants in the de-regulated Private Rented Sector, of whom at least 1,600 must have claimed under the rent rules introduced in 1996 and 1997.

  Further conditions affecting the choice of pathfinder areas include the current state of Housing Benefit administration, the capacity of IT systems, and the need to avoid those local authorities already piloting other Government initiatives.

  Based on these criteria, we have invited the following local authorities to take part: Brighton and Hove, Conwy, Coventry, Edinburgh, Leeds, London Borough of Lewisham, Middlesborough, North East Lincolnshire, Teignbridge and Tendring.

  Unemployment (Young People)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on progress made to date on the target to halve unemployment among 18 to 24–year-olds by 2010 throughout the European Union set at the European Council's meeting at Lisbon. [75249]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Lisbon European Council in 2000 set targets to increase employment rates rather than reduce youth unemployment rates. It agreed that, by 2010, the EU should aim to increase its total employment rate to 70 per cent. and to increase the employment rate for women to 60 per cent. The Commission and the Council will issue a Joint Employment Report in November 2002, which will 316W
  provide the latest available data against these and other targets set at Lisbon, as well as summarise action being taken by Member States to achieve them.

  Current Eurostat figures show that between August 2000 and August 2001, EU youth unemployment (15–24) fell from 15.3 per cent. to a low of 14.6 per cent., before rising again to 15.3 per cent. in June 2002. Latest figures for each Member State are given below. The European Employment Strategy, the main instrument for action to increase employment, will operate in a revised form from next year, and will focus more clearly on reaching the employment rate goals agreed at Lisbon.

  Male and Female Unemployment: Under 25 years (Eurostat August 2002)

  2000/August

  2002/June

  EU 15

  15.3

  15.3

  B

  16.5

  18.4

  DK

  6.9

  8.5

  D

  8.5

  9.9

  EL

  29.7

  26.1

  E

  22.0

  22.2

  F

  19.4

  20.9

  IRL

  6.4

  8.2

  I

  30.6

  27.3

  L

  7.2

  9.6

  NL

  6.2

  5.7

  A

  5.3

  6.9

  P

  8.9

  10.7

  FIN

  21.2

  21.0

  S

  10.8

  11.0

  UK

  12.1

  12.1

  Unemployment Portsmouth, South
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were estimated to be(a) employed and (b) unemployed in (i) Portsmouth, South and (ii) Hampshire in each of the last two years; and if he will make a statement. [73874]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Hancock, dated 23 October 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about employment and unemployment in Portsmouth South and Hampshire.
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) gives estimates of employment and unemployment levels and rates for counties. The latest available estimates are for the three month period ending August 2002. ONS publishes employment and unemployment rates, but not levels, for parliamentary constituencies. The latest available estimates are for the twelve month period ending February 2001.
  The tables overleaf give estimates of (a) employment and unemployment rates for Portsmouth South constituency for the twelve month periods ending February 2000 and February 2001; and (b) employment and unemployment levels and rates for Hampshire for the three month periods ending August 2001 and August 2002. These estimates are from the LFS and are not seasonally adjusted. They are published on the Nomis®database, which is available in the House of Commons Library.
  317W

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will assess the impact on employment in the(a) research and development, (b) manufacturing, (c) wholesale and (d) retail sectors of the European Food Supplement Directive and the proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products; and if he will make a statement. [75812]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Food Supplements Directive is likely to have a positive impact upon employment in the research and development sector. The Directive demands that the safety of concentrated sources of vitamins and minerals used as ingredients in food supplements be approved by the European Union Scientific Committee on Food before use, and is therefore likely to encourage related research.

  In the short-term the EU Food Supplements Directive is unlikely to have any effect upon employment in the manufacturing, wholesale or retail sectors. In the longer-term, the impact of the Directive will largely depend upon progress in adding vitamin and minerals and their sources to the lists of permitted nutrients in the Directive and upon developments in the setting of maximum limits for vitamins and minerals in food supplements. The Food Standards Agency is arguing the case for these maximum limits to be based on thorough scientific risk assessments so that there is no unnecessary restriction on the range of products that can be marketed.

  The possible impact of the proposed Directive on traditional herbal medicinal products on employment in the research and development sector is difficult to predict. Under the current regime in the United Kingdom for unlicensed herbal remedies it will not normally be clear to the purchaser of a remedy whether that remedy is brought to the market on the basis of evidence of efficacy of the product, of traditional usage, or some other factor. The proposed Directive should, over time, bring greater clarity to the market on this issue, which may be beneficial to the prospects for research and development.

  The proposed Directive potentially could have positive consequences for employment in the manufacturing, wholesale and retail sectors. The proposals would require traditional herbal remedies to meet standards as to quality, safety and product information, areas in which the current regime for unlicensed herbal remedies has significant weaknesses. More effective regulation, which would follow if there is a successful outcome to the negotiations, potentially could enhance the status and recognition of traditional herbal remedies. This in turn could help to maintain and increase public confidence and ultimately lead to an expansion in the sector. The Medicines Control Agency's aim in the continuing negotiations, and in the implementation of the Directive if it is agreed, will be to ensure that the regulation is proportionate.
  318W

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Parliamentary Questions
  James Purnell
  To ask the President of the Council when he plans to publish the Government's response to the Procedure Committee report on Parliamentary Questions HC622. [76748]

  Robin Cook
  I have today laid before the House a copy of the Government's response to the Procedure Committee Report on Parliamentary Questions (Cm 5628). Copies of the response are available in the Vote Office, Libraries of the House and on my department's website www.privycouncil. gov.uk

  The House will debate the report of the Committee and the Government's response on Tuesday 29 October.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Developing Countries
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what advice she will give to developing country Governments on how they can(a) promote sustainable development and (b) reduce poverty whilst managing the (i) quality, (ii) timing, (iii) sequencing and (iv) scope of import liberalisation. [76266]

  Clare Short
  Import liberalisation, properly managed, can contribute to sustainable and poverty-reducing economic growth. Cross-country evidence shows that trade liberalisation increases economic growth and that economic growth, in turn, tends to reduce poverty on average. Trade openness contributes to poverty reduction by stimulating productivity and reducing domestic consumer prices. However, the relationship differs substantially from country to country. Complementarity and sequencing of supporting policies within an overall long-term development strategy are essential to the success of trade liberalisation. A country will typically have to implement some or all of the following complementary policies:trade-related capacity building, to formulate a sound trade strategy, participate successfully in international trade negotiations and implement WTO requirements;
  private sector development, to improve the private sectors' productive capacity to respond to new markets abroad and to compete with imports;
  macroeconomic stabilisation, to obtain a business-friendly environment, in particular low inflation and interest rates and a stable exchange rate that is not overvalued;
  tax reform, to offset revenue losses from tariff reductions by increasing tax revenues;
  labor market reform, to ensure that workers can move between sectors to respond to trade-induced opportunities;
  and social safety nets, to support groups adversely affected by trade liberalisation.

  Domestic reform, however, will often not be sufficient. Developing countries face high tariff and non-tariff barriers in sectors of importance, notably agriculture and textiles and clothing. As tariffs are lowered, new forms of protection become more prominent, such as anti-dumping and excessive product

  319W
  standards and technical regulations. Such issues need to be addressed in future trade negotiations to ensure that international trade rules are more developmental.

  The Integrated Framework (IF) is a policy initiative by six international agencies, with participation by donors and developing countries. DFID is playing a prominent role in its implementation. It represents an attempt to respond to the need for trade reforms to be implemented carefully and with the appropriate mix of complementary policies. Under the Integrated Framework, existing trade-related policies in a country are assessed and further needs identified. The Integrated Framework tries to facilitate the formulation of a coherent trade policy that fosters sustainable and poverty-reducing economic growth.

  DFID has been at the forefront of developing and promoting trade policies that address the risks associated with import liberalisation. All our trade-related work is geared towards making trade work for the poorest. DFID is trying to raise awareness of the need for sound trade policies at all levels: within DFID itself, in our country offices, within Whitehall and at the WTO.

  DFID believes that the trade policy it has developed to address the challenges of trade liberalisation contains the kind of advice and experience that contribute to sustainable and poverty-reducing development ant that it can usefully recommend such policies to policy makers in developing countries. In general, developing countries have responded positively to DFID's trade policy, as is clear for example from the recent review of the Ghana Trade Policy Project.

  Poppy Cultivation (Afghanistan)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's assessment is of the change in opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan in the last 12 months; and what steps her Department is taking to reduce this cultivation. [74887]

  Clare Short
  2001 was an atypical year for poppy cultivation because of a ban imposed by the Taliban regime. After the fall of the Taliban there was a resurgence in poppy planting, and estimates of area cultivated are only slightly less than that in 2000. This is in spite of a Decree by the Afghan Interim Administration in January 2002 banning the production and processing of opium, and an eradication and compensation scheme which destroyed an estimated 25–30 per cent. of the crop. We are hopeful that poppy cultivation will decline as the international community promotes efforts to create alternative livelihood opportunities for farmers, and to improve the interdiction capacity by the Afghan authorities charged with enforcing the ban. This is only likely to come about as security is maintained and the reconstruction process gathers momentum.

  My Department is committed to supporting measures that will help to develop alternative livelihood opportunities for poor people, including in poppy growing areas, in order that there is a consistent shift away from both poverty and poppy cultivation. I have already approved a £1m contribution to the UNDP National Area Development Programme and a £1m
  320W
  contribution towards the work of the Aga Khan Foundation in Badakshan. This is on top of a contribution of £2.8m to quick impact reconstruction projects, some of which are in drug producing areas. The World Bank funded National Solidarity Programme will also be a further significant contribution to community based development. My Department is also planning to provide assistance to the Ministry of Rural Reconstruction and Development within Afghanistan to develop a sustainable approach towards generating alternative livelihoods, including in poppy growing areas. The UK is further committed to helping wider Afghan led security sector reform and reconstruction efforts.

  Departmental Websites
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the website links associated with her Department, including sites now dormant or closed, and indicating whether they are live, dormant or closed; what the start up costs were for each site listed; what the operating costs were in each year since start up for each site; which company hosted each site; what assessment takes place for each site; which company does the assessment; if she will place the assessment reports in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [75581]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development currently supports three principal websites: the departmental site (www.dfid.gov.uk), a site providing access to development education resources (www.globaldimension.org.uk) and a site relating to DFID's quarterly magazine, "Developments" (www.developments.org.uk). For the launch of the 2000 White Paper on International Development, DFID supported the creation of an additional site (www.globalisation.gov.uk). All sites are active, although the 2000 White Paper site is treated as dormant for the purposes of uploading new information.

  The main DFID website and the 2000 White Paper are hosted by U-UNET; hosting of the Global Dimension website is contracted to a commercial company, Planet 56; the "Developments" website is hosted by Synergy, under a design contract encompassing both the design of the magazine and its associated website, and its costs are embedded in the budget for that magazine. The department is currently investigating a time-scale for bringing the hosting of directly-supported websites in-house.

  It would not be possible to list all start-up and annual running costs since inception without disproportionate effort. However, approximate budgets for each of the websites for the last three financial years are as follows:

  FY 2000–01

  FY 2001–02

  FY 2002–03

  DFID website

  £20,000

  £75,000

  £100,000

  Global Dimension website

  N/A

  £35,000

  £40,000

  2000 White Paper website

  £60,000

  £15,000

  £15,000

  The main DFID website was overhauled in November 2001: terms of reference for a post-implementation review, including the instigation of a formal user-evaluation process are currently being

  321W
  drawn up, with a view to completing a review of the website by early 2003. User-evaluation for "Developments" is undertaken in the form of an annual reader survey via the magazine, reinforced through a web-based survey. User-evaluation for the Global Developments website is planned as part of a mid-term review during 2003.

  Statistical information in relation to website users for all DFID-supported websites is supplied on a monthly basis to the Office of the e-Envoy, and published by them.

  Nepal
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what programmes the UK is supporting in Nepal for enhancing water supply and sanitation; and if she will make a statement. [75112]

  Clare Short
  DFID will contribute approximately £l2million over the period 1999 to 2004 to the rural water sector in Nepal through 3 NGOs—Nepal Water for Health (NEWAH), Gurkha Welfare Scheme (GWS) and Helvetas.

  The GWS Rural Water and Sanitation Programme receives £7.9 million from DFID to help selected hill village communities access safe water and sanitation, manage their water systems efficiently and, through hygiene education, use water effectively. NEWAH receives £2.7 million from DFID to implement a similar approach in the Mid and Far West for communities that would not be reached by GWS. Since January 2001, DFID has also provided approximately £1.5 million in short and medium term support to water related programmes of Helvetas that are designed to improve living conditions of socially and economically disadvantaged communities in Nepal. The location of physical investments through these programmes has been affected by the conflict, and there has been some movement, by NEWAH in particular, to safer districts. However expenditures overall are on target.

  DFID is also considering providing £1 million for short term support to the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Fund Development Board (RWSSFDP) to help the Board increase services to communities affected by conflict, adopt a more conflict-sensitive approach in the delivery of water and sanitation services and infrastructure, and to help shift the RWSSFDB programme to the Mid and Far West Regions of Nepal.

  Finally, DFID is also working with the Asian Development Bank on the design of their new Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project.

  Southern Africa
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of the United Nations Consolidated Appeal for the Southern African Famine has been funded. [75053]

  Clare Short
  32.7 per cent. However, substantial contributions to the World Food Programme element of the appeal are under negotiation.
  322W

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the UNHCR regarding the repatriation of refugees to Afghanistan; and if she will make a statement. [74886]

  Clare Short
  I met with the High Commissioner for Refugees on 4 July when we discussed UK support to Afghanistan and other issues. Our officials remain in close contact.

  My department has provided significant support to UNHCR to assist with the repatriation of refugees to Afghanistan. Since September 2001, the UK has contributed over £5 million to UNHCR for their programmes of assistance to Afghan refugees. In addition we have provided over £3.5 million to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) for assistance to internally displaced persons (IDPs) and returnees to Afghanistan. We are also supporting a number of other humanitarian programmes which will help to create an environment for the sustainable return of both refugees and IDPs.

  In addition, earlier this month the governments of Afghanistan and the United Kingdom and UNHCR signed a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) setting out a detailed framework for the voluntary repatriation of Afghans residing in the UK and their reintegration back in Afghanistan. Under the agreement, UNHCR will provide information and counselling to Afghans in the UK—to ensure that any decision to repatriate is taken in the "full knowledge of the facts". UNHCR will also monitor the voluntariness of the returns prior to departure, as well as other aspects of the agreement—a role that both states have pledged to respect. Similarly, once returnees are back in Afghanistan, the agency has guaranteed access to them from the moment they land at the airport. UNHCR believes that the MoU contains all the necessary safeguards to ensure that Afghans who still need international refugee protection continue to receive it and that returns under the agreement would be sustainable. A similar tripartite agreement had earlier been signed with the French government. It is hoped that the MoU will become a model for other countries who are interested in offering assisted voluntary repatriation for Afghans.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the financial assistance committed by donor countries for the first year of the reconstruction of Afghanistan has been disbursed since January 2002, broken down by donor country. [74885]

  Clare Short
  I attach a table of estimated disbursals produced by the Afghan Assistance Coordination Authority (AACA). This was produced for the recent Implementation Group meeting in Afghanistan and outlines donor's pledges, commitments and disbursals for 2002, as known to the AACA. It is currently estimated that overall 67 per cent. of 2002's pledge has been disbursed.
  323W

  Table 1: Transitional Government Data on Donor Pledges, and 2002 Commitments and Disbursements

  V = 11 October 2002

  Donor

  Amount pledged at Tokyo (Grant + Loan) (donor currency)

  Amount pledged at Tokyo (Grant + Loan) (US$m)

  Amount pledged at Tokyo as Grants (US$m)

  Over how many years?

  Amount of any Additional Pledge (US$m)

  Over how many years?

  Total Overall Pledge (Tokyo + Additional)

  Rough annual Pledge for 2002

  Commitment against Tokyo + Additional Pledges

  Disbursement against Tokyo/Additional Pledges

  Disbursements as % of 2002 Pledge

  Comment

  ADB

  —

  500

  85

  2.5

  …

  …

  500

  50

  50.0

  0.7

  1.4

  Aga Khan

  —

  75

  75

  …

  …

  …

  75

  …

  16.2

  8.2

  …

  Pledge 2002 not avail

  Austria

  —

  10

  10

  2.5

  …

  …

  10

  4

  …

  …

  …

  Unknown

  Australia

  A$17m.

  9

  9

  1

  2

  1

  11

  11

  7.7

  7.7

  72.2

  Estimate

  Belgium

  Euro 33 m.

  28

  28

  5

  …

  …

  28

  9

  8.1

  7.2

  80.0

  Estimate

  Canada

  CDN․100m.

  63

  63

  1.25

  …

  …

  63

  63

  31.3

  31.3

  49.9

  China

  —

  1

  1

  1

  150

  5

  151

  31

  31.0

  30.0

  96.8

  Denmark

  DKK500m.

  60

  60

  5

  46

  2

  106

  28

  28.0

  16.5

  58.9

  EC (Recon supp)

  Euro 1000 m.

  864

  864

  5

  …

  …

  864

  173

  182.5

  78.4

  45.4

  EC (Hum.—ECHO)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  1

  65

  65

  58.0

  45.0

  69.5

  Finland

  Euro 30 m.

  26

  26

  3

  …

  …

  26

  10

  10.0

  7.9

  79.0

  Estimate

  France

  Euro 26 m.

  22

  22

  1

  10

  1

  32

  32

  34.2

  27.8

  86.9

  Estimate

  Germany

  Euro 320m.

  276

  276

  4

  43

  1

  320

  113

  112.6

  120.6

  107.1

  India

  —

  100

  100

  1

  …

  …

  100

  100

  31.7

  31.7

  31.7

  Iran (Islamic Rep)

  —

  560

  560

  6

  …

  …

  560

  50

  40.0

  32.7

  65.4

  Ireland

  Euro 12m

  10

  10

  3

  2

  1

  12

  5

  6.8

  6.8

  123.6

  Islamic Dev Bank

  —

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Unknown

  Italy

  —

  43

  43

  1

  10

  1

  53

  53

  39.7

  24.1

  45.5

  Japan

  —

  500

  500

  2.5

  92

  2

  592

  250

  259.0

  209.0

  83.6

  Korea (Rep. of)

  —

  45

  45

  2.5

  …

  …

  45

  10

  10.0

  2.2

  22.0

  Pledge duration

  Kuwait

  —

  30

  30

  n.a.

  …

  …

  30

  30

  1.6

  2.1

  7.0

  unconfirm

  Luxembourg

  Euro 5 m.

  4

  4

  1

  …

  …

  4

  4

  4.9

  0.1

  2.3

  Estimate

  Netherlands

  Euro 70 m.

  60

  60

  1

  5

  1

  65

  65

  68.7

  68.7

  105.0

  Norway

  NOK 350m.

  40

  40

  1

  …

  …

  40

  40

  40.0

  32.0

  80.0

  Pakistan

  —

  100

  50

  5

  …

  …

  100

  50

  50.0

  17.7

  35.4

  See Note 6

  Russian Fed.

  —

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Unknown

  Saudi Arabia

  —

  220

  220

  4

  …

  …

  220

  55

  27.1

  27.1

  49.3

  Spain

  Euro 120 m.

  104

  104

  5

  …

  …

  104

  21

  6.4

  6.4

  30.7

  Estimate

  Sweden

  SEK 750–1000 m.

  90

  90

  3

  …

  …

  90

  30

  18.5

  18.5

  61.7

  Switzerland

  —

  20

  20

  2

  …

  …

  20

  12

  11.0

  9.0

  75.0

  Taiwan

  —

  29

  29

  3

  …

  …

  29

  10

  …

  …

  …

  Unknown

  Turkey

  —

  5

  5

  5

  …

  …

  5

  2

  2.2

  2.2

  100.0

  UAE

  —

  36

  36

  n.a.

  …

  …

  36

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Unknown

  United Kingdom

  £200 m.

  288

  288

  5

  55

  1

  343

  130

  91.6

  77.5

  59.6

  USA

  —

  297

  297

  1

  143

  2

  440

  297

  360.0

  360.0

  121.2

  World Bank

  —

  570

  100

  3

  …

  …

  570

  150

  100.0

  9.6

  6.4

  See Note 7

  Total:

  —

  5,087

  4,151

  —

  623

  —

  5,710

  1,952

  1,738.7

  1,318.5

  67.5

  Notes:

  1 These are indicative estimates based on information provided to the Transitional Government to date; AACA is moving to project based aggregations based on entries in AACA's Donor Assistance Database (http://aacadad.undp.org)

  2 The figures in Table 1 represent the commitments and disbursements made since the Tokyo Pledging on 22 January 2002;

  3 Table 2 reflects the substantial support also provided to Afghanistan in 2001 by many donors.

  4 Exchange rates: Pledges made in currencies other than the US Dollar have been converted at the exchange rate prevailing in January.

  5 Exchange rates: Commitments and Disbursements have been converted at the average rate effective January and 4 October 2002.

  6 Grant over one year;

  7 US$470m incl some grants (up to approx $110m)

  Source:

  Transitional Government of Afghanistan, AACA Aid Coordination Unit

  Please email any comments or corrections to aidan.cox@undp.org and najeeb.azizi@afganistangov.org

  HIPC Initiative
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much debt has been repaid by(a) Malawi, (b) Mozambique and (c) Zambia under the HIPC initiative so far this year. [75055]

  Clare Short
  Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia have all qualified for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. Both Malawi and Zambia have reached their Decision Point and are already receiving interim debt relief. Malawi's estimated debt service payments for the first six months of 2002 is US$35.5 million, and Zambia's foreign debt service was US$24 million in the first four months of 2002. Mozambique has completed the HIPC process and is receiving full debt relief. In 2002, Mozambique is scheduled to pay US$56 million in debt service. Following debt relief, resources are being freed up for social expenditure to reduce poverty in these countries.

  Rwanda
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's estimate is of the percentage of UK aid spent on HIV/AIDS programmes in Rwanda. [74891]
  324W
  Clare Short
  The UK Government have committed $200 million to The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis (TB) and Malaria. Rwanda is to receive $14.6 million from this fund to tackle HIV/AIDS and TB.

  This financial year we aim to deliver £19 million from our total bilateral assistance of £33.2 million through budgetary support, which will be paid directly into the Government of Rwanda's central budget to reduce poverty. Within this budget HIV/AIDS is recognised as a high priority.

  We have also committed £3.2 million to Rwanda through a regional HIV/AIDS project and £600,000 in HIV/AIDS education as part of our sector support to education in Rwanda over the next three years.

  Famine (Africa)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people she estimates are suffering from malnutrition as a result of famine in(a) Mauritania, (b) Mali, (c) Senegal, (d) Eritrea, (e) Ethiopia, (f) Zambia, (g) Angola, (h) Zimbabwe, (i) Mozambique, (j) Lesotho and(k) Malawi. [76223]
  325W
  Clare Short
  Figures for malnutrition are not comprehensively available, but recent assessments of vulnerable populations unable to buy or grow enough of their own food are:

  Mauritania

  0.75 m

  Mali

  No humanitarian crisis currently reported

  Senegal

  No humanitarian crisis currently reported

  Eritrea

  1.04 m

  Ethiopia

  6.3 m

  Zambia

  2.9 m

  Angola

  1.8 m (increasing to 1.9 m by end of 2002)

  Zimbabwe

  6.7 m

  Mozambique

  0.59 m

  Lesotho

  0.65 m

  Malawi

  3.3 m

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what impact she estimates the dispute over non-acceptance by African Governments of genetically-modified grain supplied by the World Food Programme will have on famine relief efforts in the region. [76100]

  Clare Short
  Zambia is the only country which has refused so far to accept grain containing genetically modified material. The effect is to make it more difficult for the World Food Programme to meet emergency needs in the country. Over the months of October and November around 27,000 tonnes which are in the pipeline (about 40 per cent. of the food aid requirements for the two months) will not be distributed in Zambia if the current ban is maintained. In that case, it seems likely that the Government of Zambia would have to resort to more expensive and slower options in order to meet the needs.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her assessment is of the threat to human life being caused by the famine in Africa; and if she will make a statement. [76221]

  Clare Short
  Some 14 million people in southern Africa are at risk and face severe food shortages. Within this number vulnerability varies. Many people are exceptionally vulnerable because they have HIV or AIDS. The international community is working to try to ensure that the shortages do not become a catastrophe.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the extent to which commitments made by the UK and other countries with regard to responding to the famine in Africa have been met. [76220]

  Clare Short
  All of the £44.75 million I committed in June 2002 has been allocated to programmes which are now under way. Further allocations were made before that and since bringing total UK support to £72.08 million. Figures for expenditure against commitments are not available for other donors: but the US is well on its way to delivering its commitment of 500,000 tonnes of grain for calendar 2002, and the European Commission has met its commitment to provide $ 60 million to the World Food programme (bringing its total commitments to the six affected countries this year to 148.5 million euros).
  326W
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions the Government, in conjunction with the World Food Programme, has had with those African countries affected by famine regarding the supply of genetically-modified grain as part of relief efforts. [76101]

  Clare Short
  Staff from our offices in Malawi and Zambia have been involved in discussions with the World Food Programme and Governments on the acceptance of grain containing genetically modified material as food aid. In Malawi the Government has proposed that GM maize is milled before distribution. We and other donors are discussing how to do this with minimum delay in distribution to beneficiaries. In Zimbabwe DFID officials have supported the World Food Programme in negotiations with the Government over the acceptance of such grain, but have had no direct contact with the Government. I have spoken and written to President Mwanawasa of Zambia on this issue, and my Department hosted a fact finding visit by Zambian scientist to London on 23 and 24 September.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to support those African countries affected by famine. [76222]

  Clare Short
  We have spent £72.08 million on humanitarian assistance in Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Lesotho and Swaziland since September 2001. This is going towards feeding programmes, other essential supplies, agricultural inputs for the next season, logistics and personal support for the World Food Programme. Through our Southern Africa Humanitarian Crisis Unit in Johannesburg we are helping to strengthen and co-ordinate the international response.

  Developing Countries
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what she is doing to help developing countries protect their infant industries until they are strong enough to compete in world markets and to increase the efficiency and competitiveness of these industries. [76272]

  Clare Short
  There is mixed evidence on the effectiveness of infant industry protection. We believe that a multilateral trade system built on the principles of non-discrimination and market opening, combined with providing assistance to enterprise development across the board, is the best way of increasing the efficiency and competitiveness in developing countries.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drug Offences
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug offences were(a) recorded, (b) prosecuted and (c) the subject of convictions in each month since June 2000 in the Lambeth division of the Metropolis; on how many occasions in each month (i) formal and (ii) informal warnings were given to illegal users; and on how many occasions supplies of drugs were confiscated. [67192]
  327W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]Information relating to possession and trafficking (including unlawful supply, possession with intent to supply unlawfully, etc) of all classes of drugs for each month from June 2000 to June 2002 in the London Borough of Lambeth is given in Table 1. Drugs were found and confiscated in all these incidents. The table presents information on the number of offences recorded and "clear-ups" involving charges or summonses. The Metropolitan Police do not record details of convictions; and information from the Home Office Court Proceedings database is not yet available for 2001 and 2002.

  Table 1 Drug Offences1 within Lambeth Borough, by Month, June 2000—June 2002

  2000

  (a) Recorded

  (b) Clear-ups involving charges/summonses

  June

  156

  71

  July

  111

  63

  August

  103

  55

  September

  88

  43

  October

  116

  45

  November

  121

  62

  December

  89

  40

  2001

  January

  94

  64

  February

  112

  58

  March

  95

  41

  April

  96

  42

  May

  134

  67

  June

  164

  46

  July

  148

  64

  August

  112

  42

  September

  133

  27

  October

  132

  30

  November

  128

  32

  December

  102

  23

  2002

  January

  121

  31

  February

  181

  33

  March

  282

  39

  (a) Unlawful Import

  (b) Possession with intent to supply unlawfully

  (c) Unlawful supply

  (d) Permitting premises to be used unlawfully

  (e) Unlawful possession

  (f) Total

  2000

  July

  0

  9

  1

  0

  29

  39

  August

  0

  5

  6

  0

  18

  29

  September

  0

  11

  3

  0

  l7

  31

  October

  0

  6

  5

  0

  12

  23

  November

  0

  8

  8

  0

  14

  30

  December

  0

  3

  4

  0

  10

  17

  2001

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  (f)

  January

  0

  13

  4

  0

  26

  43

  February

  0

  12

  7

  0

  18

  37

  March

  0

  8

  7

  0

  8

  23

  April

  0

  16

  2

  0

  14

  32

  May

  0

  10

  4

  1

  17

  32

  June

  0

  15

  3

  0

  11

  29

  July

  0

  4

  41

  0

  9

  54

  August

  0

  3

  6

  0

  18

  27

  September

  0

  3

  4

  0

  11

  18

  October

  0

  4

  3

  0

  15

  22

  328W

  Table 1 Drug Offences1 within Lambeth Borough, by Month, June 2002—June 2002

  2000

  (a) Recorded

  (b) Clear-ups involving charges/summonses

  April

  179

  32

  May

  274

  85

  June

  320

  32

  Note:

  1 Offences detected and police action initiated.

  Source:

  Metropolitan Police Service

  Data on the number of defendants proceeded against and found guilty of drug offences in the borough of Lambeth are not available.

  Details of informal warnings for the period July 2001—June 2002 are given in Table 2.

  Table 2 Number of Persons Accused of Being in Possession of Cannabis in Lambeth and Who Received an Informal Warning, by Month, July 2001—June 2002

  2001

  Informal warnings given

  July

  19

  August

  23

  September

  39

  October

  35

  November

  44

  December

  51

  2002

  Informal warnings given

  January

  67

  February

  50

  March

  115

  April

  95

  May

  100

  June

  241

  Source:

  Metropolitan Police Service

  Details of the number of arrests for Class A drugs offences in Lambeth during the period July 2000—June 2002 are given in Table 3.
  329W

  Table 3 Totals of Arrests Made in Lambeth for Class a Drug Offences, by Month, July 2000—June 2002

  (a) Unlawful Import

  (b) Possession with intent to supply unlawfully

  (c) Unlawful supply

  (d) Permitting premises to be used unlawfully

  (e) Unlawful possession

  (f) Total

  November

  0

  7

  1

  0

  18

  26

  December

  0

  7

  2

  0

  10

  19

  2002

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  (f)

  January

  0

  7

  1

  0

  17

  25

  February

  0

  9

  2

  0

  9

  20

  March

  0

  12

  8

  0

  12

  32

  April

  0

  5

  2

  0

  12

  19

  May

  2

  5

  34

  0

  26

  67

  June

  0

  10

  7

  0

  11

  28

  Source:

  Metropolitan Police Service

  Asylum Seekers
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional resources are(a) available and (b) planned for local authorities with the duty to provide integration strategies for asylum seekers granted exceptional leave to remain. [73690]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Secretary of State is empowered under Section 110 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to pay grants to organisations in respect of expenditure incurred in connection with persons who are or have been asylum seekers and their dependants. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) may grant fund Regional Consortia for their enabling role in providing services and support for asylum seekers dispersed to their region. A grant agreement exists between NASS and the Regional Consortia to facilitate payment, a key element of which is to develop, implement and deliver a strategy for resettlement and integration for those who are granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

  The enabling grant is payable for each financial year and is increased proportionately to cover the costs of the enabling authority.

  Additionally, the Home Office has distributed £1.5 million through the Refugee Integration Challenge Fund of which around £340,000 has been given to local authorities in order that they may implement pilot projects in the field of refugee integration. Around £1.7 million of the European Refugee Fund 2002, provided by the European Commission, has also been awarded to local authorities for similar projects. It is the intention that these projects will be robustly evaluated in order to identify good practice and so inform future policy making.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to start his support package to help asylum seekers to return voluntarily to Afghanistan; what he anticipates will be the cost in the first six months of its operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Beverley Hughes
  The support package announced on 20 August 2002 is fully operational. The costs of the programme include the resettlement grant payment, flight costs and funding for implementing agencies who will counsel returnees and arrange their return. The cost 330W
  of this programme depends on the number of participants, and sufficient funds are available for up to 1000 returns.

  The Government are fully committed to assisting in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and packages such as this will be an important element in fulfilling that commitment, enabling the return of Afghans to their country and their subsequent re-integration to be managed in an orderly and beneficial way.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the French Government about identifying in France those asylum seekers who might have a valid claim in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [75427]

  Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has had wide-ranging discussions with his French counterpart on the problem of illegal immigration, including the practicalities of implementing their welcome commitment to closing the Sangatte centre. But the general principle is that asylum claims made in France are dealt with by the French authorities.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions with the UNHCR and others concerning the new gateway for those seeking to settle in Britain. [75428]

  Beverley Hughes
  As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 7 October, we are working to develop our resettlement gateway, which will start in April 2003. The United Kingdom is a regular attendee at the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) resettlement working group, and we continue to discuss positively with UNHCR the establishment of our programme.

  Official level discussions have taken place with other Government departments in order that the impact of the scheme on them is fully taken into account during its development and implementation. These will continue, as will our contact with the Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) sector.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many items have been lost once
  331W
  deposited at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [75114]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested by the hon. Member is not held centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost; however the Immigration and Nationality Directorate issue letters to members of the public where the document cannot be immediately traced. In the year 2000, 97 such letters were issued; and 103 letters in 2001. As at 11 October 2002 a total of 265 letters have been issued in the year to date. Action is being taken to address this issue.

  Clandestine Immigrants
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many apprehended clandestine immigrants have claimed to have entered the UK via Portsmouth ferry port but have been apprehended elsewhere in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [75449]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office does not collate statistics in relation to where illegal immigrants claimed to have clandestinely entered the United Kingdom. Although attempts are made to capture this data the responses given are unreliable. Most claim not to know where they specifically entered the United Kingdom or where they embarked from in Europe, or are unwilling to divulge this information.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with cross-channel ferry companies concerning the improved detection of clandestine immigrants entering the UK; and if he will make a statement. [75451]

  Beverley Hughes
  The UK Immigration Service (UKIS) has close working relationships with cross channel ferry companies and has regular contact with the management and staff of P&O Ferries, SeaFrance, Norfolk Line, Hoverspeed, TransEuropa and Brittany Ferries. UKIS officers offer support and advice in respect of inadmissible passengers and clandestine entry.

  The government is taking forward a project to procure new detection technology equipment for deployment at Continental Channel ports serving the United Kingdom. It is proposed that this be made available on a loan basis to port and/or ferry operators to supplement the search regimes that they already conduct by visual checks and using CO2 detectors.

  In taking this project forward, UK Immigration Service officials propose to visit all ports which pose an actual or potential risk of clandestine traffic to the UK and have already visited Calais, Dunkirk, Ostend, Zeebrugge and Cherbourg. In each case there has been dialogue with port and ferry operators to determine their equipment needs, how it will be operated and by whom.

  Good progress has been made at those ports visited and both port and ferry operators have shown enthusiasm for the initiative, which will provide both a deterrent to clandestine entry and a considerable service to the road haulage industry. Remaining ports will be visited in the near future.
  332W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many apprehended clandestine immigrants who have claimed to have entered the UK via Portsmouth have sought asylum in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [75448]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office does not collate statistics in relation to where asylum seekers claimed to have entered the United Kingdom clandestinely. Attempts are made to capture this data through initial screening and interviews for asylum. However, the information provided by those seeking asylum is often unreliable as most claim not to know where they entered the United Kingdom or unwilling to divulge this.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to improve the detection of clandestine immigrants coming to the UK via(a) St. Malo, (b) Caen, (c) Le Havre and (d) Cherbourg; and if he will make a statement. [75443]

  Beverley Hughes
  The government are determined to reduce the flow of clandestine entry to the United Kingdom from Continental Channel ports in freight vehicles and, as a first step in a project, are procuring new detection technology equipment for the use of port/ferry operators in Calais to supplement the vehicle checks already conducted there. This is the first of a number of initiatives, which will provide a significant deterrent to clandestine entry to the United Kingdom and to strengthen our controls at the Channel ports.

  It is recognised, however, that these positive measures in Calais may initially result in displacement of clandestine traffic to other Continental ports. As a precaution extra freight searching operations have been conducted in Poole and Portsmouth by UK Immigration Service (UKIS) in respect of vessels arriving from France. Results of these extra searches revealed no indication of significant displacement of clandestine traffic into these ports. Consideration is also being given to the deployment of mobile detection units in order to respond more quickly to changing threats in respect of cross-channel illegal migration.

  Funding has also been made available for the procurement of additional equipment for deployment in those ports and considerable progress has already been made.

  In taking the project forward, Immigration Service officials have visited a number of ports to assess the risk of displacement, current security measures and the extent of their equipment needs. In all cases, port and other officials have welcomed the initiative and have voiced their willingness to participate. Cherbourg is amongst those ports already visited and further visits are planned to others, including St. Malo, Caen and Le Havre.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many clandestine immigrants have entered the UK via Portsmouth ferry port in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [75450]

  Beverley Hughes
  The nature of clandestine entry is such that it is not possible to state how many people have entered the UK clandestinely via Portsmouth in the last five years. However, the department is able to
  333W
  state how many clandestines have actually been detected by UKIS at the port of Portsmouth. There has been a decreasing number of clandestines detected over a five year period:

  1998–239 detected

  1999–181

  2000–102

  2001–91

  2002–28 (in the first six months of the year)

  The decrease is attributed to current initiatives, which include close working relationships with carriers which has resulted in an increased detection of clandestines in the French ports prior to travel.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detention places for illegal immigrants, and failed asylum seekers exist and what plans he has to increase these over the next 12 months. [75426]

  Beverley Hughes
  At present, there are 1,609 detention places in removal centres. This excludes the 900 places at Yarl's Wood removal centre, the operation of which has been suspended since March this year. In addition, there are 400 detention places at Oakington Reception Centre which are used to support the fast-track asylum process.

  We remain committed to reaching the target of 4,000 detention places announced in the White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven". The serious events at Yarl's Wood removal centre in February, and the subsequent need to suspend operations at the centre, were a severe blow to our programme to reach the target of 4,000 places. Plans to build a new removal centre (Logford) adjacent to the existing Harmondsworth Removal Centre, are in place and this will provide a further 300 detention places. We anticipate that the new centre will become operational in April 2004.

  Asylum Support
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of asylum support is, including unaccompanied minors(a) in the last 12 months for which figures are available, (b) estimated for the current financial year and (c) estimated for the period 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [75433]

  Beverley Hughes
  The expenditure on asylum support, including unaccompanied minors for 2000–01 was £751 million.

  The figures for the financial year, 2001–02 are not yet finalised. These will be published in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) Annual Report in the near future.

  It is not yet possible to provide the estimated allocations for 2003–04. This will depend on a range of factors and will be finalised much closer to the time.

  Racist Football Fans
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action will be taken to stop racist football fans from Slovakia travelling to England for the European Championship qualifier. [75206]
  334W
  Mr. John Denham
  Preparations for the England v. Slovakia football match next June will be thorough and include close inter-governmental and police co-operation. Slovakian fans will be forewarned that racist chanting is illegal and will not be tolerated.

  Domestic Violence
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what progress has been made in investigations by his Department into what evidence other than conviction, injunction or police caution could be taken into account to allow women who are not British citizens facing domestic violence to remain in the UK if their marriage breaks down within the two-year probationary period; [75821]

  (2) what the outcome of investigations by his Department is into possible changes in immigration rules affecting women fleeing a violent relationship to ensure foreign spouses fleeing domestic violence are not excluded from crisis accommodation and have access to all support services; [75822]

  (3) what the outcome of discussions between his Department and the Department for Work and Pensions is as to whether DWP regulations regarding access to public funds might be relaxed in order that foreign spouses fleeing domestic violence may benefit. [75823]

  Beverley Hughes
  We have recently undertaken a review of the operation of the domestic violence concession. Consideration is being given to whether the terms of the concession should be extended to include the acceptance of other forms of evidence that domestic violence took place. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  The Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Cabinet Office are currently exploring possible options to address the issue of support for victims of domestic violence who are subject to immigration control.

  Illegal Entrants
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made towards placing at French ports(a) British Immigration officials and (b) machinery capable of detecting illegal entrants in vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [75436]

  Beverley Hughes
  The establishment of juxtaposed immigration controls, whereby French and UK immigration officers will carry out entry controls on behalf of their respective countries in the UK and France prior to the commencement of inward journeys was agreed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, when they met on 12 July 2002.

  UK Immigration Service/Police aux Frontiers Joint Operations in Calais were implemented on 20 August following the signing of an Anglo-French Protocol on 7 August. This is a first phase which will eventually lead to full juxtaposed controls and involves UKIS officers working alongside officers of the Police aux Frontiers (PAF) conducting checks for forged and counterfeit documents.
  335W
  The government are also determined to reduce the flow of clandestine entry to the United Kingdom from Continental Channel ports in freight vehicles and, as a first step in a project, are procuring new detection technology equipment for the use of port/ferry operators in Calais to supplement the vehicle checks already conducted there. This is the first of a number of initiatives, which will provide a significant deterrent to clandestine entry to the UK and to strengthen our controls at the Channel ports. A Heartbeat Detector has been operational in Calais since 26 September this year and will be supplemented by up to two further units. Two Passive Millimetric Wave Imagers are currently deployed in the port on a trial basis and will be replaced by permanent units in due course.

  It is recognised, however, that these positive measures in Calais may result in some displacement of clandestine traffic to other Continental ports. Funding has therefore been made available for the procurement of additional equipment for deployment in those ports and considerable progress has already been made.

  In taking the project forward, Immigration Service officials have visited a number of ports to assess the risk of displacement, current security measures and the extent of their equipment needs. In all cases, port and other officials have welcomed the initiative and have voiced their willingness to participate. Dunkirk and Cherbourg are amongst those ports already visited and further visits are planned to St. Malo, Caen, Dieppe, Le Havre and Roscoff.

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve(a) the quality and (b) the speed of initial decisions in asylum applications. [75418]

  Beverley Hughes
  Action to maintain and improve the quality of initial decisions on asylum applications is a continuous process. Recent initiatives include extra training on human rights and seminars by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture to better equip caseworkers to interview asylum applicants. Guidance to caseworkers and training needs are informed by, and updated in the light of, random sampling of initial decisions, emerging case law, policy changes, and feedback from internal and external stakeholders.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) achieved the 2001–02 target of deciding 60 per cent. of new substantive asylum applications within two months. Provisional, internal data indicate that IND is on track to meet this year's target of 65 per cent. and well placed to achieve next year's target of 75 per cent. within two months. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill contains a number of provisions to support faster asylum processes, particularly for clearly unfounded claims.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much it cost to run the National Asylum Support Service in the last 12 months. [75434]
  336W
  Beverley Hughes
  This information is not currently available. Information on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) expenditure can be found in the IND Annual report.

  The latest figures, for 2001–02, will be published in the near future.

  Asylum and Immigration Policies
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his part in progress on common asylum and immigration policies in the EU. [75408]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government, working with successive Presidencies and the Commission, has been instrumental in driving forward the European Union (EU) agenda on Immigration and Asylum. We have taken a key role in speeding agreement to a common package jointly to handle Asylum issues. We have taken action, with our partners, to enhance border protection and tackle transit routes. We have drawn attention to the scope for enhanced co-operation on returns and readmissions. We have been instrumental in focussing on the need for enhanced co-operation with source and transit countries. Effective, targetted and intelligence-led joint operations to tackle the traffickers is also a keynote of the Government's approach that has been taken up across the EU.

  The joint Anglo-Spanish initiative at Seville resulted in a substantial impetus being given to the progress on migration and asylum at EU level, including action to strengthen the EU borders, tackle illegal immigration and target dates for reaching agreement on the remaining elements of the asylum package.

  Crime (Hertfordshire)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a breakdown of the statistics for recorded crime in Hertfordshire by type of offence(a) on 1 May 1997, (b) on 1 June 2001 and (c) according to the most recent statistics which are available [75398]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office does not collect recorded crime figures on a daily basis.

  It should be noted that there was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, and a change in Hertfordshire Constabulary's boundary on 1 April 2000, both of which will have increased the number of offences recorded by the force. Recorded crime figures for the force from before and after these dates will therefore not be directly comparable. The figures for the financial year ending March 1998, and the year ending March 2002, which is the latest available, are given in the table.
  337W

  Recorded Crime: Number of Offences Recorded for Hertfordshire

  Offence Group

  12 months to March 19981

  12 months to March 20022

  Violence against the person

  2,406

  4,713

  Sexual offences

  307

  381

  Robbery

  282

  683

  Total violent crime

  2,995

  5,777

  Burglary

  9,313

  10,682

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  25,456

  30,213

  Theft of and from a vehicle3

  15,188

  14,367

  Fraud and Forgery

  1,418

  3,475

  Criminal damage

  9,811

  15,323

  Drug and other offences4

  433

  1,967

  Total

  49,426

  67,437

  Notes:

  1 The number of crimes recorded in the old police force area in that financial year using the counting rules in use until 31 March 199

  2 The number of crimes recorded in the new police force area in that financial year using the revised counting rules which came into effect on 1 April 1998.

  3 Theft of and from vehicles are included in the Theft and Handling stolen goods offence group.

  4 Prior to April 1998, Trafficking in controlled drugs were the only recorded drug offence. As from April 1998, both Possesion of controlled drugs and Other drug offences became notifiable.

  Eurostar
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the practice of his officials to search the luggage of all passengers boarding Eurostar at Waterloo Station; and if he will make a statement. [75404]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is not the practise of Immigration officials at Waterloo International station to search the luggage of passengers boarding the Eurostar services to France and Belgium. Examination of baggage of departing passengers is a matter for the managers of port security.

  As a matter of routine officials do not operate outward immigration controls at Waterloo International.

  Baggage is screened at Waterloo International by security staff employed by Eurostar for this purpose. The levels of screening are set by the Department of Environment, Transport and Local Regions. These levels are renewed regularly. It is the responsibility of Eurostar UK Ltd to comply with security regulations.

  Community Groups
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding is being made available to community groups in order to encourage young people to steer clear of crime in north-east London. [75100]

  Mr. John Denham
  The Government's programme to tackle youth offending includes a number of initiatives to prevent young people being drawn into crime, including by targeting those most at risk.

  Key Home Office programmes in North East London that may involve funding for community groups includes Youth Inclusion Programme and Splash, which are running in Haringey, Islington, Hackney and Camden, and the Safer Communities Initiative and Communities Against Drugs programmes, which
  338W
  include youth work, youth diversionary schemes and work with families, in Havering, Barking, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Redbridge, Waltham Forest, Haringey and Enfield.

  The Children's Fund will, by 2004, be providing funding in all London boroughs to address the gap in preventative services for children and young people, aged between five and 13, at risk of social exclusion. And the Children and Young People's Unit Local Network Fund is providing funding for community groups in Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Redbridge to help tackle poverty and disadvantage amongst children and young people up to 19 years.

  Chinese Embassy
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the cost is to public funds of the 24–hour police guard outside the Chinese Embassy in London; [75095]

  (2) if he will list the reasons for providing a 24–hour police guard outside the Chinese Embassy, in London; and what the costs to public funds are estimated to be. [75096]

  Mr. John Denham
  It is not our policy to comment on the reason for. nor the extent of, protection arrangements. It is standard practice not to disclose the costs of such protection, in order to avoid the risk that the scale of that protection could be deduced by those who might seek to use such information for unlawful purposes.

  Prison Staff
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the ratio of staff to prisoners was in each English prison on 1 January(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [74924]

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  The ratio of operational staff to prisoners in each Prison Service establishment in England on 1 January 2000, 2001 and 2002 is given in the table. Staffing levels do vary between different types of establishment. Private prisons are not required to submit staffing data and are excluded from this table.

  Prison name

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Acklington

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Albany

  0.4

  0.4

  0.3

  Ashwell

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  Askham Grange

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Aylesbury

  0.6

  0.5

  0.5

  Bedford

  0.4

  0.4

  0.3

  Belmarsh

  0.8

  0.7

  0.6

  Birmingham

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  Blakenhurst*

  0.2

  Blantyre House

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Blundeston

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Brinsford

  0.4

  0.5

  0.5

  Bristol

  0.6

  0.6

  0.5

  Brixton

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Brockhill

  0.6

  0.6

  0.6

  Buckley Hall*

  0.3

  0.8

  Bullingdon

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Bullwood Hall

  0.7

  0.5

  0.5

  Camp Hill

  0.4

  0.3

  0.3

  Canterbury

  0.5

  0.5

  0.4

  Castington

  0.7

  1.0

  0.9

  339W

  Prison name

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Channings Wood

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Chelmsford

  0.6

  0.5

  0.4

  Coldingley

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Cookham Wood

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Dartmoor

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Deerbolt

  0.4

  0.4

  0.3

  Dorchester

  0.4

  0.5

  0.4

  Dover

  0.4

  0.4

  0.6

  Downview

  0.4

  0.4

  0.6

  Drake Hall

  0.5

  0.6

  0.3

  Durham

  0.5

  0.6

  0.6

  East Sutton Park

  0.4

  0.3

  0.3

  Eastwood Park

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Elmley

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Erlestoke

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Everthorpe

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Exeter

  0.5

  0.5

  0.4

  Featherstone

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  Feltham

  0.5

  0.6

  0.6

  Ford

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Foston Hall

  0.4

  0.6

  0.4

  Frankland

  1.0

  0.9

  0.8

  Full Sutton

  0.9

  0.9

  0.8

  Garth

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Gartree

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  Glen Parva

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  Gloucester

  0.5

  0.5

  0.4

  Grendon

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Guys Marsh

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Haslar

  0.3

  0.4

  0.3

  Hatfield

  0.5

  0.3

  0.2

  Haverigg

  0.4

  0.3

  0.3

  Hewell Grange

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  High Down

  0.5

  0.4

  0.4

  Highpoint

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Hindley

  0.5

  0.5

  0.6

  Hollesley Bay

  0.5

  0.6

  0.5

  Holloway

  0.7

  0.6

  0.5

  Holme House

  0.4

  0.4

  0.3

  Hull

  0.5

  0.5

  0.4

  Huntercombe

  0.8

  0.5

  0.5

  Kingston

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Kirkham

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Kirklevington

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  Lancaster

  0.6

  0.6

  0.4

  Lancaster Farms

  0.5

  0.4

  0.4

  Latchmere House

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Leeds

  0.4

  0.4

  0.3

  Leicester

  0.5

  0.5

  0.4

  Lewes

  0.5

  0.5

  0.4

  Leyhill

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Lincoln

  0.5

  0.6

  0.4

  Lindholme

  0.4

  0.3

  0.3

  Littlehey

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Liverpool

  0.4

  0.5

  0.4

  Long Lartin

  0.9

  0.9

  1.0

  Low Newton

  0.7

  0.6

  0.4

  Maidstone

  0.3

  0.4

  0.5

  Manchester

  0.5

  0.5

  0.4

  Moorland

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Morton Hall**

  0.2

  5.5

  0.4

  Mount

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  New Hall

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  North Sea Camp

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Northallerton

  0.4

  0.5

  0.4

  Norwich

  0.4

  0.4

  0.3

  Nottingham

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Onley

  0.4

  0.4

  0.5

  Parkhurst

  0.5

  0.5

  0.4

  Pentonville

  0.4

  0.4

  0.3

  Portland

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  Preston

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  Ranby

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Reading

  0.6

  0.7

  0.5

  340W

  Prison name

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Risley

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Rochester

  0.5

  0.6

  2.5

  Send

  0.4

  0.3

  0.3

  Shepton Mallet

  0.4

  0.6

  0.4

  Shrewsbury

  0.4

  0.4

  0.3

  Stafford

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Standford Hill

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  Stocken

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Stoke Heath

  0.4

  0.5

  0.5

  Styal

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Sudbury

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Swaleside

  0.4

  0.3

  0.3

  Swinfen Hall

  0.4

  0.5

  0.4

  Thorn Cross

  0.7

  0.6

  0.6

  Verne

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  Wakefield

  0.7

  0.7

  0.7

  Wandsworth

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Wayland

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  Wealstun

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  Weare

  0.3

  0.4

  0.3

  Wellingborough

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Werrington

  0.9

  0.8

  0.7

  Wetherby

  0.6

  0.5

  0.5

  Whatton

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Whitemoor

  1.2

  1.1

  1.2

  Winchester

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Woodhill

  0.6

  0.7

  0.6

  Wormwood Scrubs

  0.6

  0.4

  0.3

  Wymott

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  * Buckley Hall and Blakenhurst returned to the public sector in 2000 and 2001 respectively.

  ** Morton Hall re-roled to hold female prisoners in January 2001. This reduced the population and generated a short term rise in the operational staff to prisoner ratio.

  Prisons (Violence)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce violence by prisoners against prisoners. [74928]

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service is committed to reducing all forms of violence in prison whether affecting prisoners or staff.

  Existing steps include; a policy for addressing bullying with anti-bullying co-ordinator roles in establishments; an offender assessment system developed jointly by the National Probation and Prison Services; the recently introduced cell sharing risk assessment tool which we hope will minimise the risk of violence when allocating prisoners to cell accommodation; and a number of accredited offending behaviour programmes, including cognitive skills programmes, which have been shown to affect institutional behaviour.

  Future steps will include a violence reduction policy in the very early stages of development, which will bring together existing approaches and seek to develop a safer environment for prisoners and staff.

  CIO
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times in 2002 he has overturned the decision of a CIO to remove a person from the UK. [75648]
  341W
  Beverley Hughes
  Statistics on the number of cases where the Home Secretary has overturned the decision of a chief immigration officer are not collated.

  IND
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to whom hon. Members should write in IND on immigration matters. [75659]

  Beverley Hughes
  hon. Members should write to the following addresses:

  Entry Clearance Cases (Refusal of visa of entry clearance overseas)

  UK Visas

  Visa Correspondence Unit

  London

  SWIA 2AH

  Work Permit Cases

  Customer Relations

  WP (UK)

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate

  Home Office

  Level 5, Moorfoot

  Sheffield

  S1 4PQ

  Nationality Cases

  The Junior Nominated Officer

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate

  INPD

  Room 311

  India Building

  Water Street

  Liverpool

  L2 0QN

  National Asylum Support Service

  MP's Correspondence Section

  National Asylum Support Service

  3rd Floor, Voyager House

  30 Wellesley Road

  Croydon

  CR0 2AD

  Timing of Appeals

  The Clerk to the Adjudicator

  Immigration Appellate Authority

  Taylor House

  88 Rosebery Avenue

  London

  ECIR 4QU

  Refusal of entry at UK Port
  The Chief Immigration Officer at the relevant Port should be the first point of contact. Ministers will only become involved if the Member has new and compelling information such as the death or illness of a close friend or family member.

  General casework, asylum and cases pending appeal

  Member of Parliament Correspondence Section (MPCS)

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate

  Head of MPCS

  Lunar House

  40 Wellesley Road

  Croydon

  CR9 2BY

  342W

  Appeal rights exhausted and subject to removal or a deportation order

  Asylum Removal Delivery Group Secretariat

  2nd Floor, Green Park House

  29 Wellesley Road

  Croydon

  CRO 2AJ

  If Removal Directions are already in place or removal imminent
  Members who think they have new and compelling information that would affect imminent removal should contact either the Chief Immigration Officer at the Enforcement Unit or Port, (A list is contained in the booklet).

  Further details, including Enforcement office contact details, are contained in the IND booklet "Information for Members of Parliament about immigration and nationality enquiries", a copy of which was sent to all hon. Members on 18 July 2002. Further copies are available on request from either the Minister's Private Office or:

  IND Secretariat

  12th floor

  Apollo House

  Croydon.

  Racial Equality Services
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the use of funding allocated to racial equality services by the Commission for Racial Equality in Scotland is monitored for effectiveness. [74977]

  Beverley Hughes
  The production of work programmes, work programme reviews and Core Standards assessments is the key tool in determining the effectiveness of the service being delivered by the Scottish Racial Equality Services (RECs).

  During the course of the year the Scottish RECs submit reviews on a six monthly basis to the Scotland Committee of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) to identify progress against their work plans and end of year targets.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of how the money allocated to racial equality services by the Commission for Racial Equality in Scotland has been spent in each of the last five years. [74976]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Work Programmes submitted by Racial Equality Councils (RECs) focus on four programme areas—race specific casework, policy development, public education and awareness, and community development—and the activity within each area is tailored to local circumstances as determined by the RECs and their management boards.

  A breakdown of expenditure by programme area is not available.

  The Commission for Racial Equality's funding for RECs is currently in the form of grant aid to meet the salary costs of Race Equality Officers and/or Directors of RECs and is not programme specific.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms have been put in place by the Commission for Racial Equality in Scotland to
  343W
  ensure that all CRE funded providers of racial equality services have achieved the quality standards that are required of local racial equality councils. [74975]

  Beverley Hughes
  In 1999, The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) introduced Core Standards, a quality assurance framework for all funded Racial Equality Councils (RECs). To help RECs achieve the quality standard, extensive guidance and self-assessment policies were produced, and a corporate training programme developed for the RECs.

  A CRE/REC Joint Consultative Forum was established to provide a mechanism for CRE officers and representatives of RECs from across Britain to meet regularly and share ideas and views on the development and implementation of the Core Standards programme.

  In addition, seminars are held to enable RECs to review progress, focus on the implementation of the standards and explore ways to meet their organisational development needs.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were received in each month since January for clearance by the Criminal Records Bureau in respect of(a) nursery and school staff (employed), (b) nursery and school staff (voluntary), (c) youth service staff, (d) social services staff, (e) other voluntary workers and (f) other employed staff. [76185]

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The information sought by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight is not available in the format requested. There are no Information Technology Procedures at present to extract this data from the Customer Relationship Management database. It is expected that this functionality will become available in subsequent system releases.

  The attached table shows monthly details of the total number of Disclosure applications received since the Criminal Records Bureau launched its disclosure service on 11 March 2002.

  Disclosures Applications Received

  March

  2,765

  April

  39,713

  May

  87,865

  June

  90,204

  July

  159,393

  August

  144,030

  September

  204,868

  October

  130,773

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for clearance by the Criminal Records Bureau were received in each month since January; and in which month they were provided. [76184]

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) launched its Disclosure service on 11 March 2002. Applicants obtain Disclosure information from the CRB by completing a blank application form or making an application by telephone. Figures representing the total number of
  344W
  Disclosures received and issued per month are provided below. There are no Information Technology Procedures at present to break down this data further to show in which month the Disclosures were provided to applicants. It is expected that this functionality will become available in subsequent system releases.

  Disclosure Issued

  Disclosure Applications Receives

  Disclosure Applications Returned to Applicant or Registered Body Applications because of errors

  Mar

  21

  2,765

  Apr

  2,798

  39,713

  May

  19,446

  87,865

  6,980

  Jun

  34,900

  90,204

  1,921

  Jul

  89,086

  159,393

  23,047

  Aug

  110,411

  144,030

  19,034

  Sep

  132,735

  204,868

  19,601

  Oct

  92,974

  130,773

  5,571

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 29 July regarding a constituent, reference 15775/2; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in replying. [74914]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: I apologise for the delay in responding to my hon. Friend's letter of 29 July about Mr. Singh. I wrote on 23 October 2002.

  Police Numbers (Somerset)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there are in(a) West Somerset and (b) South Somerset (i) in absolute terms, (ii) per head of population and (iii) per notifiable offence; and if he will make a statement. [75842]

  Mr. John Denharn
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: Police strength information at force level is collected twice a year in March and September. Information for individual divisions/basic command units is not collected centrally.

  As at 31 March 2002 Avon and Somerset Constabulary employed 3,096 police officers (full time equivalents). This is a record level. The force had 204.8 officers per 100,000 population. There were 178,991 recorded crimes in Avon and Somerset in 2001–2002, 57.8 crimes per officer.

DEFENCE

  PFI
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what project and equipment procurement are being considered for a private finance initiative scheme; if he will list the projected(a) start date, (b) value and (c) life of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [76495]
  345W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has a forward programme of more than 40 PFI projects. Of these some 19 have progressed to various stages in the procurement process as shown below. Further information on the status of individual projects is available on the Ministry of Defence's PFI Website at http://www.mod.uk/business/pfi/index.htm. The start date, value and length of some projects has not yet been determined or is commercially sensitive and is not therefore on the website at present. Further information will be added as decisions are taken.

  Projects Advertised:

  Inner London Barracks Rationalisation

  Interim Storage of Laid Up Submarines (ISOLUS)

  Pan Defence HF Communications

  Invitation to Submit Outline Proposals:

  Accommodation Services on Cyprus

  Invitation to Negotiate Issued:

  "C" Vehicles (Earthmoving and Specialist Plant, Engineer Construction Plant and Materials Handling Equipment)

  Armoured Vehicle Training Service (AVTS)

  Combined Aerial Target Services (CATS)

  Defence Sixth Form College

  Devonport Support Services (project ARMADA)

  Flight Simulation and Synthetic Trainers (FIASTS)

  Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA)

  MOD-Wide Water and Wastewater (Project Aquatrine) (Packages A, B and C)

  Northwood Headquarters

  Refurbishment of Salisbury Plain and Aldershot Garrisons

  (Project Allenby/Connaught)

  Records Storage and Management—Hayes

  Royal School of Military Engineers (RSME)

  Tri-Service Airfield Support Services (ASSP)

  Preferred Bidder:

  Colchester Garrison

  Skynet 5

  HMS Sheffield
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what changes will have been made to the balance sheet value of HMS Sheffield in respect of(a) depreciation and (b) carrying costs between 1 April and the date on which she is withdrawn from service; [76516]

  (2) how the withdrawal from service of HMS Sheffield will be treated for accounting purposes in his Department's Consolidated Resource Accounts for 2002ߝ03; [76515]

  (3) what the balance sheet value attributed to HMS Sheffield was in his Department's Consolidated Resource Accounts as at (a) 31 March 2001 and (b) 31 March 2002; [76517]

  (4) if he will quantify the financial savings arising from the withdrawal of HMS Sheffield from service six years earlier than previously anticipated, broken down by category; [76519]

  (5)what proceeds of sale of HMS Sheffield will be retained within the defence budget as an appropriation in aid; [76518]
  346W
  (6) what alternative arrangements are being made for the performance of those duties which HMS Sheffield would have performed during the next six years if she had remained in service; and what is the forecast cost of these alternative arrangements. [76520]

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

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what impact the withdrawal from service of HMS Sheffield will have upon the variety of spare and replacement parts carried by the Defence Logistics Organisation. [76521]

  Mr. Ingram
  The withdrawal of HMS SHEFFIELD will have minimal short-term impact on the variety of spare and replacement parts carried by the Defence Logistics Organisation. However spares provisioning in the longer term will reflect the reduced demand in moving from five to four Type 22s.

  Scorpion
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Scorpion family of armoured vehicles will be retired from service. [76366]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Scorpion vehicle, which was a member of the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) (CVR(T)) family of vehicles, is no longer in service with the United Kingdom Armed Forces. On current plans, the remainder of the CVR(T) fleet, which comprises a number of variants, will be withdrawn from service over the period 2005 to 2015.

  Atlantic Patrol Ship (South)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions in the past two years the Atlantic Patrol Ship (South) has been on station in the Caribbean. [76354]

  Mr. Ingram
  The APT(South) ship operates primarily in the South Atlantic region whilst also retaining a commitment, together with APT(N), to provide a presence off the West African littoral.

  During her deployment between 15 March 2002ߝ23 August 2002, HMS NEWCASTLE undertook a period as APT(S) duty ship before assuming duty as APT(N) although these were two separate and distinct aspects of her deployment under different Operational Control arrangements.

  Atlantic Patrol Task (North)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy warships have been on station in the Caribbean region as part of the Atlantic Patrol Task (North) in each of the past two years; and for how long each vessel was in the area. [76342]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy warships that have been on station in the Caribbean region as part of the Atlantic Patrol Task (North) in each of the past two years, and how long each vessel was in the Caribbean Area of Responsibility (AOR) is as follows:
  347W

  Ship

  Inside Caribbean AOR

  HMS Cardiff

  21 June 2000–20 November 2000

  HMS Sheffield

  18 February 2001–25 July 2001

  HMS Coventry

  23 July 2001–16 November 2001

  HMS Sutherland

  22 February 2002–02 April 2002

  HMS Newcastle

  13 July 2002–11 August 2002

  HMS Grafton

  08 August 2002–03 December 2002

  When not on station, the ship allocated to APT(N) was held at a maximum 14 days notice. Throughout the period in question, the duty RFA APT(N) tanker has remained on station providing a permanent presence in the Caribbean Area of Responsibility. Whilst not APT(N), HMS RICHMOND was deployed to the United States Eastern Seaboard between 09 April 2002ߝ01 July 2002 and was available throughout this period for contingency tasking in the Caribbean AOR had the need arisen.

  NATO Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the planned NATO rapid reaction force; what missions it is envisaged this force will undertake; and whether any of its missions are the same as those to be undertaken by EU military forces deployed under the auspices of the European Security and Defence Policy. [76370]

  Geoffrey Hoon
  At the NATO Informal Ministerial Meeting in Warsaw in September 2002, the United States Defense Secretary proposed a NATO Response Force (NRF) to provide a rapidly deployable capability within the existing developments in the NATO Command and Force Structures. The United Kingdom strongly supports the NRF concept as a means of optimising the utility of the NATO Force Structure across the range of missions. It will also help to focus efforts to improve capabilities, and will therefore be coherent with and complementary to the European Security and Defence Policy. The NRF concept is currently being discussed within the Alliance, with the guiding principles expected to be put before Heads of State and Government at the November 2002 NATO Summit in Prague for their agreement.

  Troops from Neutral Nations
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the development of troops from neutral nations under the European Security and Defence Policy; and what restrictions govern the deployment of these troops. [76372]

  Geoffrey Hoon
  Any decision to contribute forces to an EU-led operation is a matter for individual member states. At the time of a decision to launch an operation, it will be for the neutral nations, as for others, to consider what forces they can make available and for what purpose.

  Clansman Radio Systems
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Clansman radio systems have been in operational service in each of the past five years. [76350]
  348W
  Mr. Ingram
  Clansman is a single system of seven radio variants. In total the system comprises almost 50,000 radios. Clansman user availability has, over the past five years, remained within agreed operational availability parameters.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if spare parts are being manufactured for Clansman radios; and if Clansman radio systems are cannibalised for spare parts. [76349]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are support contracts in place to provide the required range of spares, to ensure continued support to Clansman equipment. Where appropriate, Clansman equipment is cannibalised for spare parts.

  ESDP
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he anticipates that the ESDP will be fully operational by 2003; and when he expects European Union military forces will be able to deploy under its auspices. [76371]

  Geoffrey Hoon
  The European Council has agreed that the EU is capable of undertaking some crisis management operations, and that it will be in a position to take on progressively more demanding operations, as the assets and capabilities at its disposal continue to develop. Further offers of capability from nations will be necessary during 2003 if we are to meet the Headline Goal agreed at Helsinki in 1999. Any decision to undertake and contribute to an operation will be made by national governments and will depend on the circumstances at the time.

  Phoenix Systems
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Phoenix systems are operational. [76362]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 21 October 2002, of the six Phoenix systems (each of which comprises nine air vehicles) two are available for operational deployment at high readiness (five days notice to move) and the other four at a lower readiness (of between 30 and 60 days notice to move).

  Challenger II
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many REME personnel have been qualified to work on Challenger II in each year since the tank has been in service. [76351]

  Mr. Ingram
  Challenger 2 is a very complex vehicle with many different component parts ranging from the engine to the electronic gunnery systems, necessitating a wide range of personnel from different trades and specialisations to work on them.

  Depending on the type of repair required, the damaged part can be fixed in the field, in a workshop or returned to the manufacturer. In many cases the part is replaced and the damaged part returned for repair. All Challenger 2 crewmen are able to replace parts as necessary provided the part is carried on board. Crewmen are not REME personnel.
  349W
  Vehicle Mechanics are those REME personnel trained to work on many of the Army's vehicles, including Challenger 2, both in the field and in

  1997–1998

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  2002–2003*

  Total

  24

  43

  122

  153

  177

  126

  645

  Note:

  * to end September 2002

  ⋆ to end September 2002.

  Defence Intelligence Staff
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the service breakdown of the Defence Intelligence Staff is; and from which service the Chief of Defence Intelligence is drawn. [76348]

  Mr. Ingram
  There were 3,933 permanent staff employed by the Defence Intelligence Staff on 30 September 2002. This figure excludes contractors and reservists.

  This is broken down as follows:

  Royal Navy

  354

  Army

  1,043

  RAF

  980

  Civilian

  1,556

  The Chief of Defence Intelligence (CDI) can be drawn from any of the Services; the current CDI is an Air Marshal of the Royal Air Force.

  Apache Helicopters
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when 16 Air Assault Brigade will become operational with its Apache helicopters. [76361]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 25 October 2002 (Official Report, column 322W) to the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. Swayne).

  SSBNs
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many SSBNs are operational; and what refit, maintenance and lay up periods he expects each vessel to have in the next two years. [76358]

  Mr. Ingram
  Three SSBNs are currently operational. On current plans, no SSBNs will be laid up over the next two years. The refit and maintenance planned to be undertaken at varying times during the next two years is as follows:

  October 2002 to October 2004

  Vigilant

  Vanguard

  Vengence

  Victorious

  Victorious

  Ammunition and Explosives
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much ammunition and explosives was reconditioned in the UK in the last two years. [76136]
  350W
  workshops. The following table gives the numbers of Vehicle Mechanics who became qualified to work on Challenger 2 in each year since 1997ߝ1998.

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence does not normally recondition ammunition and explosives. Defence Munitions depots have undertaken routine maintenance on 14700 gross tonnes of conventional munitions in the United Kingdom during the last two years, this is part of normal stockpile management.

  Running Risks
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what form of risk assessment is required before taking a squad of soldiers for a run. [76324]

  Mr. Ingram
  For all military training a formal risk assessment is required to be carried out in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Ministry of Defence Health and Safety Handbook, and appropriate single Service guidance.

  Chemical Warfare
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inoculations against biological weapons and prophylactic measures against exposure to chemical weapon agents have been implemented in respect of United Kingdom armed forces and military auxilaries this year. [75873]

  Dr. Moonie
  Medical countermeasures form one part of the package of capabilities which protects our troops and enables them to respond effectively to biological threats. This package includes warning systems, detection capabilities, protective clothing and equipment, decontamination procedures and training.

  The immunisation currently available to protect United Kingdom Service personnel against exposure to biological warfare agents is a routine programme of voluntary immunisation against anthrax. We have expanded this programme within the last year; I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave on 13 June 2002 (Official Report, columns 1344ߝ1345W) to the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt).

  Medical countermeasures against chemical warfare agents (such as Nerve Agent Pre-treatment Sets (NAPS) tablets) are issued only when the threat from chemical agents is assessed to be immediate. This has not proven necessary within the last year and so no such measures have been implemented by UK Armed Forces or reserves.

  Iraq
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he takes to ensure that the Iraqi
  351W
  regime is not able to purchase indirectly British arms from the arms fair in Oman; and if he will make a statement. [76327]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the recent Special Operations Forces Exhibition in Amman, Jordan.

  There is a UN embargo on arms exports to Iraq. The Government takes all appropriate measures to ensure that United Kingdom exporters do not breach the terms of the embargo.

  Defence exports from the UK, including goods that are displayed by industry at overseas defence exhibitions, require appropriate export licences. The Government considers applications on a case by case basis and against our Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. In doing so, we take into account the risk that exported goods might be diverted to an undesirable end-user.

  Baton Rounds (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the guidelines of the use of baton rounds by the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland. [76921]

  Mr. Ingram
  Rules of Engagement are classified and are not therefore usually published for reasons of operational security. However, I have decided in this case, as an exceptional measure aimed at building confidence in Northern Ireland, that an extract from the relevant document should be published in the Library of the House. The extract is drawn from a more general guidance card and includes all the relevant guidance on the Rules of Engagement for the use of Baton Rounds by the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland.

  Animal Research
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of animals in defence research. [76922]

  Dr. Moonie
  The independent Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC), chaired by Dr. Robert C Hubrecht, has recently published its sixth Report. The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee was set up in 1996 in response to parliamentary and public concern about the use of animals in defence research. Its purpose is to consult, inspect and make all necessary enquiries into all aspects of animal care and their use in establishments of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl). It has also been agreed between the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and QinetiQ that the work at Alverstoke should remain within the Committee's remit.

  All work with animals undergoes an ethical review process and has to demonstrate that as much as possible has been done to replace the procedures with alternatives not using live animals; to reduce the numbers of animals used in particular studies; and to refine the procedures to minimise pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm prior to the issues of licences to undertake work.
  352W
  Formal licensing arrangements, with the Home Office (in strict accordance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures Act 1986) seek to ensure that any experiments are fully justified and as humane as possible.

  The Committee's report gives assurances that animals used in defence research programmes in the United Kingdom are regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and that no special exemptions apply to MOD. The Committee's findings, acting as the eyes and ears of the public on matters relating to animal experimentation carried out by the MOD, are published in order to inform Parliament and the public of MOD practices.

  The research programme involving animals is concerned wholly with providing the United Kingdom's Armed Forces with safe and effective protection against hazards they may encounter while carrying out their duties. However, the MOD continues to place emphasis on seeking alternatives to animal use. The MOD welcomes the scrutiny by AWAC in this area and will continue to support AWAC's review into the care and welfare arrangements for animals used in defence research.

TREASURY

  VAT
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the Customs and Excise survey of compliance cost for VAT registered businesses; and if he will make a statement. [74776]

  John Healey
  The Government are committed to reducing compliance costs for business. Ministers are considering the results of the research in this context.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made by his Department of the number of people in the UK covered by(a) company medical insurance schemes and (b) personal medical insurance cover. [75694]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: As part of his Review of the long-term trends affecting the health service, Derek Warless commissioned the European Observatory of Health Care Systems to produce a report Health Care Systems in Eight Countries: Trends and Challenges, which can be found on the Treasury website at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/mediastore/otherfiles/observatory—report.pdf

  The UK chapter contains information on the level of take up of private medical insurance purchased by employers and by individuals.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the contribution of an
  353W
  average UK family to the EU budget in (a) 2001 and (b) 2002; and what estimate he has made of the contribution of an average UK family to the EU budget in (i) 2003 and (ii) 2004. [75730]

  Ruth Kelly
  No such estimates have been made. The Government's latest estimate of the UK net contribution in 2001ߝ02 is £1,488 million. The Government's latest forecast of the trended UK net contribution to the EC Budget for the financial years 2002ߝ03 to 2004ߝ05 are £3 billion, £3.2 billion, and £3.6 billion respectively.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) contributions and (b) receipts between each European Union member state and the European Community for (i) 2001 and (ii) 2002; and if

  Gross Contributions by Member State 2001 (€million)

  Belgium

  Denmark

  Germany

  Greece

  Spain

  France

  Ireland

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  Austria

  Portugal

  Finland

  Sweden

  UK

  3,531.6

  1,777.7

  19,727.2

  1,350.1

  6,591.5

  14,471.3

  1,211.3

  11,612.5

  256.5

  5,517.0

  2,091.0

  1,266.0

  1,233.2

  2,337.7

  7,743.4

  Receipts Paid to Member States 2001 (€million)

  Belgium

  Denmark

  Germany

  Greece

  Spain

  France

  Ireland

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  Austria

  Portugal

  Finland

  Sweden

  UK

  4,049.2

  1,348.3

  10,346.8

  5,741.0

  13,648.2

  11,751.6

  2,319.1

  8,693.0

  900.1

  1,687.5

  1,403.3

  2,947.2

  1,020.1

  1,092.9

  5,938.0

  Source

  European Commission: Allocation of EU Operating Expenditure.

  Estimated Gross Contributions by Member State 2002 (€ million)

  Belgium

  Denmark

  Germany

  Greece

  Spain

  France

  Ireland

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  Austria

  Portugal

  Finland

  Sweden

  UK

  3,227.7

  1.735.0

  18,860.1

  1,371.5

  6,649.8

  14,228.0

  1,049.0

  11,653.5

  193.3

  4,914.0

  1,852.7

  1,227.2

  1,230.9

  2325.8

  10,606.9

  Notes:

  After account is taken of the UK abatement and the bringing to account of surpluses and deficits in respect of Member States contributions in earlier years.

  Difference in the UK's gross contribution between 2001 and 2002 is primarily the result of the very large abatement (€7,342.5 million) received in 2001 compared with the estimate for 2002 (€5,092.2 million). This reflects a large core abatement for 2001 and also signficant adjustments, in the UK's favour. to the abatement in respect of earlier years.

  Source:

  Supplementary & Amending Budget 3/2002

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the proportion and the sums of this year's EU budget that will be spent on(a) the CAP, (b) the CFP and (c) structural operations; and if he will provide an estimate of these for the next two years. [75731]

  Ruth Kelly
  The 2002 EC budget includes:

  —€44,255 million, or 45% of the total budget, for CAP expenditure;

  —€1,093 million, or 1.1%, for fisheries; and

  —€33,838 million, or 34%, for structural operations.

  The 2003 Preliminary Draft Budget, established by the Commission, includes:

  —€45,118 million for CAP, 1.9% more than in the 2002 adopted budget and €2,260 million below the Financial Perspective ceiling for Agriculture;

  —€942 million for fisheries, 14% less than in the 2002 adopted budget;

  —€33,995 million for Structural operations, 0.5% more than in the 2002 adopted budget.

  The Commission will present its Preliminary Draft Budget for 2004 in early 2003. We expect structural operations to be budgeted at the level of the Financial Perspective ceiling of €33,652m. Both the Common
  354W
  he will give his estimates for the figures for the contributions and receipts for (A) 2003 and (B) 2004. [75845]

  Ruth Kelly
  Details of Member States' gross contributions to, after taking account of the UK abatement, and receipts from, the EC Budget in 2001, recently published in the European Commission's report on the allocation of 2001 operating expenditure, are set out in the following table. Estimates of Member States' gross contributions, after taking account of the UK abatement, to the 2002 EC Budget, detailed in Table 7 of Supplementary and Amending Budget 3/2002, are also included in the table. Details of Member States' receipts in 2002 are not available. The Government does not forecast the contributions and receipts of other Member States. The Government's latest forecasts of the trended UK net contribution to the EC Budget for the financial years 2002ߝ03 to 2004ߝ05 are £3 billion, £3.2 billion, and £3.6 billion respectively.

  Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy are currently under review, and future spending levels depend on the results of the review.

  Monetary Union
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department has completed the study of the experience of the United States as a monetary union, which was referred to in the HM Treasury Paper issued on 6 September, entitled, "The Treasury's Approach to the Preliminary and Technical Work"; and if he will make a statement. [75733]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 22 October [75841]

  Royal Mint
  Mr.Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into the Royal Mint. [75252]

  Ruth Kelly
  The SFO announced on 26 September 2002 that it is now carrying out an investigation into the Royal Mint in respect of alleged improper payments made between 1996 and 1999.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to privatise the Royal Mint. [75253]
  355W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Government must conduct a "Prior Options Review" of the Royal Mint every five years, due to its Executive Agency status. The next review is due in 2003ߝ4.

  Coinage
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to put out to tender the Treasury contract for United Kingdom coinage; and if he will make a statement. [75987]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury keeps the arrangements for the supply of circulation coins under review. The current arrangements with the Royal Mint have several years to run. They are designed to enable both the Treasury and the Mint to plan for the medium term on a commercial basis, and to ensure a cost-effective supply of coins to meet demand.

  UK Economy
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards improving the productivity performance of the UK economy; and if he will make a statement. [75732]

  John Healey
  Productivity has grown since 1997, even with rapidly falling unemployment. Productivity growth between 1997Q2 and 2002Q1 has averaged 1.3 per cent. p.a. (comparing each quarter with a year earlier). This is in the context of rising employment (increased employment of over 1½ million since Spring 1997), while unemployment as measured either using the International Labour Organisation methodology or via the "claimant count" has been at its lowest since the 1970s over the past year.

  The Government's long-term ambition is that Britain will achieve a faster rate of productivity growth than its main competitors, closing the productivity gap. The creation of a sustainable, stable macroeconomic framework since 1997 has provided the foundation for productivity growth in UK firms, and microeconomic reforms are supporting and encouraging further growth. These reforms include:
  the Competition Act 1998, which prohibits anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant market position;
  the Enterprise Bill (introduced to Parliament in March 2002), which will build on the achievements of Competition Act by further strengthening our competition authorities;
  Research & Development tax credits—together the small and large company credits provide £500 million new support for business R&D;
  the largest sustained growth in spending on science for a decade, with the 2002 Spending Review committing some £1.25 billion additional spending by 2005ߝ06 compared to 2002ߝ03;
  a Green Paper setting out a fundamental reform of the land-use planning system to ensure that it does not provide a barrier to economic growth and productivity—the 2002 Spending Review allocated the ODPM substantial additional resources to drive forward the reforms set out in the Green Paper;
  a 10 year plan for transport, which sets out plans for public and private investment of more than £180 billion up to 2010, creating a modern transport network across the UK—the 2002 Spending Review continued the investment necessary to deliver the Ten-Year Plan, increasing public expenditure on transport from £7.6 billion in 2002ߝ03 to £11.6 billion in 2005ߝ06;
  356W
  reduced corporation tax rates—the main rate has been reduced from 33 per cent. to 30 per cent., the lowest ever UK rate; the small company rate has been reduced from 23 per cent. to 19 per cent., and a new starting rate has been introduced, reduced in 2002 to 0 per cent. for profits under £10,000; average corporation tax bills for small companies have been cut by 30 per cent. since 1997;
  increased investment to raise standards in education-spending per pupil was £2,700 in 1997, but rose to £3,500 last year; this could rise to £4,900 per pupil by 2005–06. which after inflation, is 50 per cent. more per pupil than in 1997;
  ambitious new policies and targets to improve adult literacy and numeracy, and increase lifelong learning; and
  reforms to the work permit and immigration systems to ensure that UK employers can recruit staff with the skills they need.

  Substantial productivity gaps with our major competitors remain. Nevertheless, recent encouraging evidence includes:
  the rating of the UK by the OECD as having the lowest barriers to entrepreneurship of any major economy;
  Global Competition Review awarding the UK competition regime four and a half stars this year (compared with three and a half last year); this rating was bettered only by the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission (5 stars);
  increased gross expenditure on R&D in the UK of 11.6 per cent. in real terms between 1997 and 2000;
  improved educational achievement of young people—the proportion of 16 year olds achieving 5 or more GCSEs at grades A⋆-C increased by 8 per cent. between 1997ߝ8 and 2001ߝ2 to over 50 per cent.; and
  an increase of 61,000 in the number of businesses registered for VAT between 1997 and 2000.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Gibraltar's special tax status is held to be a barrier to integration. [75103]

  Peter Hain
  It has been the policy of successive British Governments not to integrate Overseas Territories into the United Kingdom. This Government's policy, as set out in its 1999 White Paper, is to promote a modern and effective partnership with them.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his proposals for shared sovereignty with Spain over Gibraltar. [76260]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made to the house on 12 July,Official Report, columns 1165 to 1167.

  Chemical Weapons
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what attempts have been made by the United Kingdom to encourage the United States administration to agree to intrusive inspections of chemical sites in the US with regard to the International Chemical Weapons Convention. [75826]

  Mr. Macshane
  The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) entered into force in 1997. Industrial inspections did not begin in the United States until 2000, because the necessary national implementing legislation had not
  357W
  been put in place. The United Kingdom had consistently pressed the United States to put this legislation in place at the earliest opportunity. Since the implementing legislation has been in place, the United States has accepted all inspections of its chemical sites required by the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is responsible for ensuring the implementation of the Convention.

  From entry into force of the CWC and 31 December 2001, the OPCW conducted 1117 inspections. Of these 374 (33 per cent.) were in the United States. In addition, OPCW inspectors are at each of the United States' chemical weapons destruction facilities at all times, conducting round-the-clock monitoring.

  Weapons
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information was produced by UNSCOM to December 1998 that identified United Kingdom origin technology and material discoveries in production plants used for the manufacture of(a) chemical weapons or their pre-cursor agents, (b) biological weapons and (c) nuclear weapons or fissile material manufacture or processing. [75824]

  Mr. MacShane
  Reports of all of UNSCOM's findings are published on the UNSCOM website (www.un.org/unscom).

  During their inspections, UNSCOM and the IAEA Action Team identified items imported directly or via middle-men from a variety of countries, including some of UK origin at sites that they visited.

  Ambassadors
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the ambassadors he has appointed since June 2001. [75657]

  Mike O'Brien
  The following have taken up their positions as Ambassadors or High Commissioners since June 2001:

  Graham Hand, Algeria

  Christopher Prentice, Jordan

  Peter Westmacott, Turkey

  Paul Brummell, Turkmenistan

  Mike Murray, Eritrea

  Tony Cantor, Paraguay

  Graeme Loten, Mali

  Andrew Caie, Brunei

  Christopher Hum, China

  Philip Priestley, Belize

  Basil Eastwood, Switzerland

  Tom Duggin, Colombia

  Ric Todd, Slovakia

  John White, Barbados

  Sir Emyr Jones Parry, Permanent Representative, UKDel

  NATO, Brussels

  John Sawers, Egypt

  Bernard Whiteside, Moldova

  Stephan Evans, Sri Lanka

  Richard Clarke, Tanzania

  Hamish Daniel, East Timor

  David Maclennan, Qatar

  358W

  Michael Smith, Tajikistan

  David Merry, Botswana

  Steve Hiscock, Guyana

  Richard Lavers, Guatemala

  Brian Donnelly, Zimbabwe

  Paul Hare, Cuba

  Matthew Kirk, Finland

  Kathryn Colvin, The Holy See

  Ron Nash, Afghanistan

  Adam Wood, Uganda

  Keith Bloomfield, Nepal

  William Patey, Sudan

  Robert Brinkley, Ukraine

  Sue Hogwood, Rwanda

  Peter Mathers, Jamaica

  Bruce Cleghorn, Malaysia

  Chris Wilton, Kuwait

  Bill Sinton, Bolivia

  Norman Ling, Malawi

  Dame Glynne Evans, Portugal

  John Thompson, Angola

  Tim David, Zambia

  Paul Dimond, Philippines

  Frank Martin, Lesotho

  David Reader, Swaziland

  Denise Holt, Mexico

  John Everard, Uruguay

  Stuart Laing, Oman

  Edward Clay, Kenya

  Lyn Parker, Cyprus

  Paul Nessling, Tonga

  Mariot Leslie, Norway

  Jim Malcolm, Panama

  Sir John Holmes, France

  Anne Pringle, Czech Republic

  Jim Hoare, North Korea

  Haydon Warren-Gash, Morocco

  Andrew Tesoriere, Latvia

  Georgina Butler, Costa Rica

  Andy Ashcroft, Dominican Republic

  Ian Cliff, Bosnia & Herzegovina

  George Edgar, Macedonia

  Ian Soutar, Bulgaria

  Craig Murray, Uzbekistan

  Kay Coombs, Honduras

  Sherard Cowper-Coles, Israel

  David Landsman, Albania

  Robin Kealy, Tunisia

  Philip Rouse. Mongolia

  Vincent Fean, Malta

  Fraser Wilson, Seychelles

  Peter Jenkins, Permanent Representative, UK Mission to UN, Vienna

  Jeremy Hill. Lithuania

  Richard Fell, New Zealand

  Alasdair MacDermott, Namibia

  Richard Wildash, Cameroon

  Military Equipment
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms exist to monitor whether end-use commitments entered into by countries importing military equipment and material
  359W
  from the United Kingdom are kept; and how many instances have come to his attention since May 1997 of military equipment sold to one country that has subsequently been sold on to a third country. [75690]

  Mr. Macshane
  Our Overseas Posts have standing instructions to report on allegations of misuse of any UK-origin defence equipment to take into account in the licensing process. Detailed guidance is provided to Posts and FCO officials involved in licensing in London to help decide when to carry out end-use checks, and to outline the kinds of questions that these checks should address.

  We focus our efforts on assessment of potential end-use at the export licensing stage. Carrying out effective risk assessment on end-users before making the export licensing decision is the surest way to prevent UK arms falling into the wrong hands. We assess all export licence applications on a case by case basis against the Consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria in accordance with Criterion 7. In accordance with that criterion we will not issue an export licence where there is an unacceptable risk of diversion to an undesirable end-user.

  Proactive monitoring of defence exports is only carried out in those cases of greatest concern. The Government has introduced a number of safeguards in order to minimise the risk of diversion; and those measures are under constant review.

  We can not disclose details of possible diversion to undesirable end users, as much of the information is obtained from sensitive sources.

  International Terrorism
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has collated concerning links between Saddam Hussein's regime and Mansour Thaer; and if he will make a statement. [76021]

  Mr. Straw
  We have no information linking Mansour Thaer to the Iraqi regime.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other departments following the attempted attack on the British High Commission in Jakarta in December 2001 concerning placing Jamaah Islamiyah on the UK list of proscribed terrorist organisations. [76025]

  Mr. Straw
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 15 October(Official Report column 177ߝ9), we are urgently considering the proscription of Jemaah Islamiya. Decisions to proscribe are taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary after consideration of all relevant aspects.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department made of the threat posed by Jamaah Islamiyah(a) following the Singapore authorities naming it as responsible for the attempted attack on the British High Commission in Jakarta in December 2001 and (b) following the terrorist attack on Bali on 12 October. [76023]
  360W
  Mr. Straw
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 15 October (Official Report, column 177–9), we identified the South East Asian region as an area with a real threat from groups linked to Al Qaida even before 11 September 2001. One of the most prominent of these is Jemaah Islamiyah, which has a network stretching across a number of countries in the region.

  The discovery of the plot to attack targets in Singapore last December confirmed the seriousness of the threat from this group. It is too early to know whom was responsible for the Bali atrocity, but Jemaah Islamiyah must be one of the groups under most suspicion. We are therefore urgently considering proscribing them under the Terrorism Act 2000.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has collated concerning the court procedures against Mansour Thaer in Germany and Italy; what evidence he has collated concerning links between Thaer and terrorist organisations; and if he will make a statement. [76020]

  Mr. Straw
  Mansour Thaer was arrested on 23 April 2002 in Germany and held on suspicion of being a member of a terrorist group. He was being investigated on suspicion of connections to the Abu-Ali group (linked to 11.9.) and the Meliani Case (the Frankfurt cell linked to the Strasbourg bomb plot). He was released on 6 August. Thaer has also been investigated in Italy for his links with a terrorist cell and for participation in a criminal conspiracy to traffic in arms, explosives, chemical weapons, identity papers, receiving stolen goods and aiding illegal immigration. According to the Italian authorities he is a member of the Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC), an Algerian-based group operating in North Africa and Italy. The UN added GSPC to the list of terrorist groups linked to al Qaeda on 8 October.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the statement by the Australian Prime Minister on 16 October that Australia's Foreign Affairs Department received United States intelligence reports in September 2002 which mentioned Bali as a place at risk from a terrorist attack; when his Department received these reports; what that information consisted of; what action his Department took in response to this information; and if he will make a statement. [76024]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to my statement to the House on 21 October,Official Report, columns 26ߝ27.

  Nigeria (Amina Lawal)
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Nigerian Government on the matter of the sentence of death by stoning passed on Ms Amina Lawal in Nigeria this year; and if he will make a statement. [76528]

  Mr. Straw
  We remain extremely concerned about this sentence.
  361W
  During her recent visit to Nigeria my noble Friend the Minister for Africa, the Baroness Amos, raised with President Obasanjo HMG's concerns about the harsh sentences imposed under the Sharia penal codes. She emphasised the strength of feeling against them in the UK and reiterated HMG's opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances.

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

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

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has collated concerning links between Al-Qaeda and Mansour Thaer; and if he will make a statement[76022]

  Mr. Straw
  In September the US and Italy proposed adding Mansour Thaer to the UN Consolidated List of persons to which UN sanctions apply. According to the Italians he is a member of the Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC), an Algerian-based group operating in North Africa and Italy. The UN added GSPC to the list of terrorist groups linked to al Qaeda on 8 October.

  EC Bird Directive
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the adoption of the EC Bird Directive by countries joining the European Union [75963]

  Peter Hain
  Enlargement of the European Union means that the Bird Directive's reach will be pushed wider, helping to safeguard biodiversity throughout Europe.

  The European Union has provisionally agreed only one transition period after accession, which requires Malta to phase out the trapping of seven types of finch before the end of 2008.

  UK officials are working hard with the Commission to ensure that all candidates will be in full compliance with EC law as soon as possible.

  Ukraine and Moldova
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the UK and(a) Ukraine and (b) Moldova. [75957]

  Mr. Macshane
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the statement my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Mike O'Brien) gave on 23 July,362W
  Official Report, columns 836–837. It has since been reliably reported that President Kuchma authorised the transfer of radar equipment to Iraq. This could have consequences for Ukraine's international relationships, including with the UK. The UK's relations with Moldova are developing. Our first resident Ambassador arrived in Chisnau on 8 July.

  European Union
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Irish Foreign Minister concerning the referendum in Ireland on 20 October. [76095]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary meets his Irish counterpart regularly in the margins of the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC). Discussions have covered the range of EU topics, including the Irish Referendum on the Treaty of Nice on 19 October. The GAERC on 21 October discussed briefly the "Yes" result, which is a positive step towards enlargement of the European Union. I attending the GAERC in place of the Foreign Secretary and also met the Irish Foreign Minister.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the reform agenda in the EU. [76096]

  Peter Hain
  Following the Council reforms agreed at the Seville European Council in June, the Danish Presidency has been taking forward further discussions on this issue. They will be submitting an initial report to the Copenhagen European Council in December.

  There has also been progress on internal Commission reform. A new financial regulation has now been agreed. Comprehensive improvements to the Institutions' human resources policies are currently being negotiated.

  The Convention on the Future of Europe is, of course, discussing reform of the EU across a wide range of issues. This work is due to conclude in time for the June 2003 European Council.

  Indonesia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what visits have been made to West Papua and Aceh by representatives of the UK Embassy in Indonesia: what groups they met; and what contact they had with the Indonesian military; [76333]

  (2) what recent meetings have taken place with representatives of (a) Freeport Mine and (b) BP and UK diplomatic representatives in Indonesia; and what the nature of the discussions was. [76332]

  Mr. Macshane
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]: The information requested is held by the British Embassy in Jakarta. I will write to my hon. Friend when the Embassy staff have addressed this issue.

  Diplomatic Service
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by
  363W
  Career grade (a) the total number and (b) the percentage of women employed in the diplomatic service in each last five years for which figures are available. [76536]

  Grade

  1997

  %

  1998

  %

  1999

  %

  2000

  %

  2001

  %

  A1

  100

  43

  98

  40

  116

  44.1

  155

  47.3

  178

  47.1

  A2

  827

  63

  770

  60

  750

  60.7

  655

  62.9

  660

  62.4

  B3

  616

  42

  622

  45

  628

  44.3

  608

  48.3

  618

  49.2

  C4

  234

  9.7

  264

  24

  313

  27.4

  350

  30.4

  369

  31.3

  C5

  51

  15

  55

  15

  45

  13

  77

  16

  83

  16.9

  D6

  114

  20

  118

  21

  123

  21.3

  127

  21.1

  144

  22.9

  D7

  18

  22

  22

  23

  27

  28.4

  39

  31

  42

  27.3

  SMS

  26

  6

  30

  7

  28

  6.2

  38

  8.5

  44

  9.8

  Total

  1986

  36

  1979

  36

  2030

  36.7

  2049

  37.7

  2138

  38.2

  Note:

  The 2002 figures are not yet available.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many women have been recruited into the diplomatic service in each of the last five years for which figures are available, broken down by grade. [76535]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]:The number of women recruited into the Diplomatic Service in each of the last five years, broken down by grade, is provided below.

  Year

  No. of Woman Grade

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Grand Total

  A2

  32

  19

  25

  42

  54

  172

  B3

  15

  13

  15

  22

  25

  90

  C4

  11

  16

  14

  16

  19

  76

  C5

  2

  1

  1

  2

  3

  9

  D6

  2

  4

  2

  7

  1

  16

  D7

  1

  3

  4

  Grand Total

  62

  54

  57

  89

  105

  367

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Decommissioning
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what recent progress has been made towards decommissioning. [74002]

  Jane Kennedy
  The IRA has engaged in two acts of decommissioning. It is imperative that all paramilitary organisations now, as the Prime Minister said, move to acts of completion of the transition to exclusively peaceful means, real, total and permanent.

  Terrorist Activity
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will make a statement about the level of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland. [74003]

  Jane Kennedy
  In recent weeks loyalist groups have continued their feuding, resulting in three murders and six attempted murders. Dissident republicans are believed to have been responsible for 12 attacks this year including the murder of David Caldwell in Londonderry.
  364W
  Mr MacShane
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: Listed by career grade the total and the percentage of women employed I the Foreign and Commonwealth office including FCO Services at Hanslope park for each of the last five years is:

  There is widespread public concern over the extent of continuing PIRA involvement in targeting and intelligence gathering activity.

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what aspects of the Good Friday Agreement remain to be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [74004]

  Dr. John Reid
  The Government are determined to press forward with all aspects of the Agreement. The key priority now is to restore the devolved institutions. Essential to that is the restoration of trust that all parties remain committed to fulfilling their obligations, and crucially the commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means

  Performance Improvement
  Andrew Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about peer review as applied to improving performance in the Northern Ireland Office and its funded bodies. [74005]

  John Reid
  A Peer Review of the Northern Ireland Office, headed by Sir Stephen Lander, took place in October 2001. The team made helpful recommendations on a range of management, personnel and other issues, and the Department launched a major change planning exercise to take these forward.

  Patsy Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what performance incentives are in place at the Northern Ireland Office. [74010]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Office's pay system offers the incentive of increases in salary each year depending on performance—the higher the level of performance the higher the reward. The Department also has a recognition scheme for incentivising and rewarding staff with a modest bonus payment for special performance or contribution.

  Provisional IRA Army Council
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will make a statement on the membership of the provisional IRA Army Council. [74006]
  365W
  Jane Kennedy
  In accordance with part 2 of the Code of Practice of access to Government information, it is not government policy to comment on intelligence matters.

  Peace Process
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what plans he has to set deadlines for measuring further progress by parties to the peace process. [74008]

  Dr. John Reid
  The progress that matters now is to re-establish confidence in the commitment of all parties to the obligations of the Agreement, and crucially the commitment to exclusively peaceful means. I do not believe that deadlines are necessarily helpful in securing this, but the time for decision has come.

  Devolved Institutions
  Fiona McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will make a statement on the prospects for the devolved institutions over the next 12 months [74009]

  Dr. John Reid
  We will be applying every effort to the restoration of the devolved institutions, and to moving beyond the recent impasse. The people of Northern Ireland support devolved government, and want to see local Ministers making local decisions.

  Criminal Justice Review
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Criminal Justice Review. [74011]

  Desmond Browne
  The Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, carrying the legislative provisions required to give effect to the recommendations of the Review, passed through the House of Commons and the House of Lords with few amendments and widespread support. It received Royal Assent on 24 July and is now the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002

  We consulted widely during the passage of the Bill with most of the political parties in Northern Ireland, a wide range of statutory, voluntary and community sector organisations, and human rights lobby groups. The responses received were extremely useful in shaping the plans for implementing the Review's recommendations, and we are very grateful to all the individuals and organisations who contributed.

  Fostering public trust in the criminal justice system is one of the core aims of the Review and it is with this aim in mind that we intend to publish a revised Implementation Plan by early 2003. This plan will update the original Implementation Plan published in November 2001 and set out in greater detail again how the Review recommendations are being taken forward.

  Belfast Agreement
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, What recent estimate he has made of the economic impact of the Belfast Agreement [74012]
  366W
  Dr. John Reid
  Northern Ireland has among the fastest economic growth rates in the United Kingdom. Visitors to Belfast are struck by the amount of building activity all around the city, as construction companies try to keep apace with the demand for office and retail space. Since the Belfast Agreement there has been high inward investment, particularly in the IT and hospitality industries.

  I believe that economic development is closely related to the overall success of the police process.

  Mr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will make a statement on progress on the implementation of the Belfast Agreement. [74018]

  Dr. John Reid
  The Government are determined to press forward with all aspects of the Agreement. The key priority now is to restore the devolved institutions. Essential to that is the restoration of trust that all parties remain committed to fulfilling their obligations, and crucially the commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means.

  Castlereagh Police Station
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will make a statement on the investigation into the break-in at Castlereagh Police Station on 17 March and the interim report from Sir John Chilcot. [74013]

  Jane Kennedy
  I can confirm that the Secretary of State has received a progress report from Sir John. The nature of the material it contained means it is not appropriate to be published.

  Human Rights
  Linda Gilroy
  What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that Human Rights are respected in Northern Ireland. [74014]

  Desmond Browne
  The introduction of the Human Rights Act plays a major role in safeguarding human rights throughout the UK as a whole, including Northern Ireland. The Human Rights Act puts human rights at the heart of policy making and operations for all public authorities and means that all public authorities, including courts and the police, must act compatibly with the Convention rights. It gives further effect throughout the UK to the rights and freedoms set out in the ECHR and provides the basis for a new culture of rights and responsibilities.

  The Northern Ireland Act 1998 restricts the Northern Ireland Assembly's powers to ensure it can only pass legislation that is compatible with Convention Rights and requires all NI Ministers and Departments to act compatibly. The Act also created the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission whose remit includes making sure laws and practices conform to the European Convention, promoting awareness of human rights and offering advice and guidance to individuals. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is currently considering the scope for a Bill of Rights to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland.
  367W
  As part of the Patten Report there has been a comprehensive programme of action to focus policing in Northern Ireland on a human rights-based approach.

  The Criminal Justice Review Group recommended that human rights be made central to the justice system. In formulating their recommendations, the Review Group looked not only at the European Convention on Human Rights, but also at fifteen other international human rights standards and instruments. The entire Review was drafted with these principles in mind.

  Tony Cunningham
  What steps is the Secretary of State taking to promote Human Rights in all communities in Northern Ireland. [74015]

  Desmond Browne
  The introduction of the Human Rights Act plays a major role in safeguarding human rights throughout the UK as a whole, including all parts of the community in Northern Ireland. The Human Rights Act puts human rights at the heart of policy making and operations for all public authorities and means that all public authorities, including courts and the police, must act compatibly with the Convention rights. It gives further effect throughout the UK to the rights and freedoms set out in the ECHR and provides the basis for a new culture of rights and responsibilities.

  The Northern Ireland Act 1998 created the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission whose remit includes making sure laws and practices conform to the European Convention, promoting awareness of human rights and offering advice and guidance to individuals. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is currently considering the scope for a Bill of Rights to reflect the particular circumstances of all parts of the community in Northern Ireland. All sides are being encouraged to take part in the consultation process.

  Ceasefire
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what his assessment is of compliance with the ceasefire by paramilitaries since his statement of 24 July. [74016]

  Jane Kennedy
  Ceasefires, however defined, are not by themselves enough to sustain confidence in the process. The transition from violence to democracy must be completed. There is no authority, legitimacy or political basis for anyone to have recourse to violence or paramilitary activity. All paramilitary groups must now decide whether they are committed to exclusively democratic and non-violent means.

  Recruitment
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recruitment procedure for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [74017]

  Jane Kennedy
  The new recruitment arrangements have now been operating successfully for almost a year and to date almost 500 police trainees have been appointed on a 50 per cent. Catholic, 50 per cent. non-Catholic basis. Whilst firm figures are not yet available, it is understood that the response to the fourth competition, which has recently closed, has again been encouraging.
  368W

  Civil Disorder
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what steps he is taking to reduce civil disorder arising from religious intolerance in Northern Ireland. [74019]

  Jane Kennedy
  We have all been appalled and shocked at the nightly scenes of violence we have witnessed during the summer at interface areas in North and East Belfast. The Government has been proactive in attempting to bring calm and restore order to these areas. During September, my colleague the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State held a series of meetings with elected and community representatives.

  A number of security fences have been heightened and the police have introduced a matrix of CCTV cameras in North Belfast which has resulted in a number of arrests. A similar project is underway for the Cluan Place/Clandeboye interface in the east of the city. Recently the police and army established a high profile presence on both sides of the community in East Belfast. All of these measures have contributed to a degree of peace that now exists at these interfaces.

  Police Ombudsman
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will make a statement on the first annual report of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. [74020]

  Jane Kennedy
  Copies of the first annual report of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, which covers the discharge of the functions of the Police Ombudsman's office during the first 17 months since its establishment in November 2000, were laid in the Libraries of the House on 23 July.

  The Government's support for this new and completely independent police complaints investigation system reflects our commitment to ensuring the highest standards of policing for Northern Ireland.

  Counterfeit Goods
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what measures are in place to raise public awareness concerning the dangers of counterfeit goods. [74021]

  Jane Kennedy
  In Northern Ireland we are trying to tackle and confront the trade of counterfeit goods through the co-ordinated efforts of the Organised Task Force which I chair.

  One of the main objectives of the Task Force is to raise public awareness concerning the dangers of counterfeit goods. I am keen to highlight the menace of organised crime to the public, which is why I am undertaking to host regional awareness evenings, on the threat from organised crime and the dangers from counterfeit goods. The next awareness evening will take place on the 28 of October.

  On 23 September the OCTF launched its web-site, which provides a further two way communication between it and the public. This is an important development, which will open a "shop window- for the task force. In addition it is a dynamic medium that will

  369W
  permit the Task Force to communicate its message and should both educate people and enhance information gathering.

  The Publicity Sub-Group which forms an integral part of the OCTF looks for every opportunity to highlight to the public the Task Force's three key messages:
  Organised crime is dangerous; never victimless; and we need everyone's support to tackle organised crime.

  PSNI and Customs & Excise are doing excellent work, every week to tackle the trade in counterfeit goods. There have been some tremendous operational successes this year. On 28 June police found counterfeit clothing worth hundreds of thousands of pounds in Belfast. This is reported to be the biggest seizure ever found in Northern Ireland. Also at the Aul Lammas Fair in August 300k of counterfeit goods were confiscated following a request from the public to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for action.

  Fuel Oils
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will make a statement on progress made with combating the illegal trade in fuel oils in Northern Ireland. [74022]

  Jane Kennedy
  On 23 May, the Secretary of State launched the second annual Organised Crime Task Force threat assessment and strategy. The OCTF threat assessment provided an overview of the scale and scope of organised crime in Northern Ireland and highlighted trends and developments in the preceding year.

  The threat assessment tells us that oils fraud continues to be a problem although there is evidence that the position has stabilised and slightly improved. The latest figures show that deliveries of legal product to Northern Ireland have risen for the first time in five years.

  The Government believe however that oils related fraud remains unacceptably high. On 4 July as chair of the OCTF, and on behalf of the Financial Secretary to the treasury too, I opened an Oils Fraud Expert Group Seminar. This drew together a wide range of agencies with an aim to develop a multi-agency strategy for tackling oil frauds in Northern Ireland. This group will meet again on 30 October.

  There have been some tremendous operations this year in this field. In June Customs & Excise detected a fuel laundering plant, seized 137 vehicles, including taxis, commercial and private vehicles and three filling stations all using illegal fuel.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Bellingham
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when he next expects to meet representatives of the security forces to discuss measures to combat the illegal drugs trade. [74023]

  Jane Kennedy
  I can confirm that the Organised Crime Task Force, which I chair, next meets on 29 October. Representatives of the security forces will be in attendance and I can inform you that in the second 370W
  annual threat assessment and strategy of the OCTF, which was launched on 23 May one of the areas for action is the illegal drugs trade.

  Northern Ireland is not threatened by the illegal drug trade to the same degree as other parts of the UK or the Western world and it is the aim of the Government to keep it that way.

  Electoral Fraud and Voter Intimidation
  Mike Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what measures he is taking to combat electoral fraud and voter intimidation. [74024]

  Desmond Browne
  It is the Government's intention that all the provisions of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 will be in place in time for the scheduled Northern Ireland Assembly election on 1 May 2003.

  The Act requires a canvass form and an application for voter registration to be signed by, and to include the date of birth and national insurance number (or a statement that he/she does not have a national insurance number) of, each of the persons to whom the form or application relates. The annual canvass, currently underway, is being conducted on the basis of these requirements.

  In addition, by the time of the next scheduled Assembly election it remains the Government's target that all voters will have to produce a form of photographic ID from the list of specified documents acceptable as proof of identity at the polling station. The photographic electoral identity card provided for by the Act will be required for by those voters who do not have a passport, photo driving licence or a Senior SmartPass (issued under the Northern Ireland Concessionary fares scheme for use from 1 May 2002). The electoral identity card will be issued to all those electors who require one following the publication of the electoral register on 1 December.

  Electoral Fraud
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures to combat electoral fraud will be in place in time for the scheduled Northern Ireland Assembly election on 1 May 2003. [74273]

  Desmond Browne
  It is the Government's intention that all the provisions of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 will be in place in time for the scheduled Northern Ireland Assembly election on I May 2003. The annual canvass, currently under way, is being conducted on the basis of the requirements laid down by the Act. The next scheduled Assembly election will also remain our target for the removal of all forms of non-photographic ID from the list of specified documents acceptable as proof of identity at the polling station.

  Security
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, If he will make a statement on the security situation since 24 July. [74025]
  371W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Government abhor the hate-inspired violence which predominated in the interface areas of North and East Belfast during the summer months. Police were repeatedly attacked with blast bombs, petrol bombs, acid bombs, bricks and other missiles. They also came under live gunfire from both communities. However, the security forces established a high profile on both sides of the community and the adoption of a number of physical security measures and the introduction of CCTV have brought a measure of calm to these troubled areas.

  Budget
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how much of the 2002–03 budget for the Northern Ireland Office is earmarked for policing. [74026]

  Jane Kennedy
  The DEL (Departmental Expenditure Limit) for the NIO for 2002–03 is as follows:

  Resource DEL

  £1,068,689,000

  Capital DEL

  £55,494,000

  £1,124,183,000

  The following is earmarked for policing*:

  Resource

  £592,159,000

  Capital

  £19,907,000

  £612,066,000

  Note

  (*This is for direct policing only—these figures do not include Patten redundancy and non-redundancy money)

  Human Rights Commission
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will submits its third annual report as required by paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 7 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. [77014]

  Desmond Browne
  I have today laid before Parliament the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's third Annual Report.

PRIME MINISTER

  Palestine
  David Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will state Her Majesty's Government's policy towards a viable and sovereign Palestinian state in the occupied territories; and what recent discussion he has had with President Bush on this issue. [76307]

  The Prime Minister
  By this year's end, we must have revived final status negotiations and they must have explicitly as their aims: an Israeli state free from terror, recognised by the Arab world, and a viable Palestinian state based on the boundaries of 1967. I have had several recent, conversations with President Bush on this issue. We share the aim, set out in his statement on 24 June, of 372W
  a final status agreement within three years. We will continue to work closely and urgently with the US, EU, UN, Russia and regional States to realise this goal.

  Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes there are in the composition of the United Kingdom Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe. [77264]

  The Prime Minister
  The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) replaces the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mr. Soames) as a full member of the Delegation.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the circumstances in which asylum applicants from abroad will be entitled to advice from lawyers who would be publicly funded to travel abroad to take instructions and give advice. [75417]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Lawyers in England and Wales wanting to travel abroad to see the client in person need the prior authority of the Legal Services Commission (LSC) if they wish to claim the expense from public funds.

  The LSC would only authorise expenditure in exceptional circumstances—if an interview was absolutely necessary, and there was no reasonable alternative such as communication by telephone, post, fax or video link. Sponsors, relatives or friends of a client based in the UK could also be used as a channel for instructions. Lawyers abroad could also be used as agents and paid out of public funds. In most cases where asylum applicants have been removed, the client would have been able to discuss his or her case in detail with a legal adviser before removal.

  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will publish the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service's annual report and accounts 2001–02. [77265]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) has published its Annual Report and Accounts 2001–02 today. Copies of the Annual Report and Accounts 2001–02 have been placed in the libraries of both Houses. Further copies may be obtained from the Stationery Office.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  School Census
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if(a) pupils and (b) the parents of pupils can access information gathered by the Pupil Level Annual School Census. [73755]
  373W
  Mr. Miliband
  Pupils, or in certain circumstances their parents, can obtain a copy of their record in the National Pupil Database which combines information from the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census with details of their Key Stage results and, in future, examination results. Some aspects of the arrangements, including how the role of the parents as opposed to the pupil may vary for pupils of different ages, are still being considered.

  Advertising
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money her Department has spent on advertising in the Guardian in (a) the current and (b) the past financial year. [75629]

  Stephen Twigg
  Departmental spend on advertising in the Guardian for the periods specified are as follows:2001–2002 = £334,062.93
  2002–2003 (to end Sept) =£79,429.

  The Department uses national press advertising, including the Guardian, for a variety of reasons, including informational or publicity purposes and for internal and external recruitment exercises.

  School Transport
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what are the(a) current and (b) potential future funding opportunities for local authorities to offer home to school transport for those currently not entitled to free transport under the Education Act 1996. [75599]

  Stephen Twigg
  Compulsory school age pupils are entitled to free transport if their nearest suitable school is beyond statutory walking distance from their home. In other circumstances, LEAs have the discretion to provide help with travel in accordance with their own locally determined policies and priorities. Although we keep the arrangements under regular review we will not consider changing the current system for compulsory school age children unless we have clear evidence that an alternative system is fairer.

  For post-16 students, there is a duty on LEAs to determine what is necessary to meet their particular local circumstances. In addition, as a result of a recommendation from the study commissioned by DfES into transport support and services for post 16 students in further education, £9 million has been made available in 2002–03 to 60 LEAs under the Transport Pathfinder Initiative. The initiative will run from April 2002 to July 2003. Their purpose is to test and develop different approaches to transport support and services and will be evaluated in order to inform future transport policy.

  Worship (Schools)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her policy is on collective acts of worship in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools; and if she will make a statement. [75477]

  Mr. Miliband
  The current policy regarding collective worship is set out in the Department for Education and Skills circular 1/94. All registered pupils attending a374W
  maintained school, primary or secondary, should take part in a daily act of collective worship. This act of collective worship should be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character.

  Exam Marks
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action is being taken to improve the efficiency of the way exam marks are related to pupils. [75097]

  Stephen Twigg
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is responsible for ensuring the efficient delivery of exam results in England. We have recently strengthened their powers in the Education Act 2002. An Examinations Taskforce, which will include the awarding bodies, QCA and representatives of teachers, schools and colleges, is being established to oversee the delivery of examinations in 2003.

  Teaching Vacancies (Essex)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will give special assistance to schools in Essex which are encountering difficulty in filling teaching staff vacancies. [75471]

  Mr. Miliband
  Essex has benefited from the full range of Government measures introduced since 1997 to improve teacher recruitment—Training Salaries, Golden Hellos, extra pay flexibilities, an enhanced Graduate Teacher Programme, and funding for Recruitment Strategy Managers within local education authorities. In 2001–02 Essex schools received £1,867,000 from the Recruitment and Retention Fund, and in 2002–03 this was increased to £2,120,000. Essex schools will also benefit, from April 2003, from the increased spending on education announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  New School Building, Milton Keynes
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when funds will be made available for new school building in Milton Keynes. [75909]

  Mr. Miliband
  Applications from all Local Education Authorities (LEAs) for three-year funding commencing in 2003–04 for New Pupil Places (Basic Need) were invited in September. These applications are currently being assessed. This support is for additional school places in areas of population growth where there is no more capacity in all schools in the surrounding area. The funding is not necessarily for new schools, and can be used to increase the number of places at existing schools. We will be announcing Basic Need allocations for 2003–04 in December.

  The building of new schools and additional accommodation at existing schools can also be funded from other capital programmes provided by the Department, including the Private Finance Initiative and Targeted Capital Fund (for which applications should be received by 3 January 2003), and from formulaic funding allocated to all LEAs and schools.
  375W

  Foreign Teachers
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many foreign teachers in full-time education in the state sector are from(a) European Union countries and (b)non-European Union countries; [75934]

  (2) how many teachers from abroad are employed in the full-time teaching of non-linguistic subjects within the state sector. [75935]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Teacher Qualifications
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) with which countries the UK shares reciprocity in the field of teacher qualifications; [75936]

  (2) which countries' teacher qualifications are recognised and accepted in the United Kingdom. [75937]

  Mr. Miliband
  European Community law provides for the mutual recognition of school teaching qualifications gained within the territory of the European Economic Area. Under the Education (Teachers' Qualifications and Health Standards) (England) Regulations 1999, as amended, teachers with qualifications from other countries may work as instructors in maintained schools in England for up to four years without gaining Qualified Teacher Status.

  Additional Educational Needs
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what links her Department has identified between additional educational needs and social and economic factors and indicators, other than parental take-up of income support and working families tax credit. [75978]

  Mr. Miliband
  To investigate the links between additional educational needs (AEN) and deprivation indicators, the department commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers to research the incidence of pupils with AEN and the costs of meeting their needs. They found that the number of pupils eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) was the strongest factor explaining variation in reported social need. They also found that the number of pupils with English as an additional language was strongly linked to non-social measures of AEN. They also looked at several ward based measures such as Long term unemployment, the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and the Access domain from the IMD, but found that these indicators were not as good at explaining variations in reported need as the standard FSM data.

  The department also considered a number of other measures of deprivation: from the 1991 census, such as rented accommodation or low social class; and from the Labour Force Survey, such as the proportion of working age adults with no qualifications. Many of these measures showed some statistical relationship with low attainment suggesting they could be used as a proxy for AEN. However, they are also all highly related to parental take up of income support, which is
  376W
  the most consistently strong factor explaining variation in low attainment between different authorities, schools and pupils.

  Teachers' Pension Fund
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions she has had with the Treasury on the future of the Teachers' Pension Fund. [75980]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The Teachers' Pension Scheme (TPS) is an unfunded scheme. Periodic valuations of the scheme are carried out by the Government Actuary to establish the liabilities and notional assets of the scheme. The valuation determines the contribution rate paid by the employers of TPS members.

  With the agreement of Treasury, I am currently consulting teacher and employer representatives and other interested parties on changes to the valuation methodology. Under the existing provisions of the Teachers' Pensions Regulations, the notional fund is deemed to have delivered the average rate of return achieved by the largest invested pension funds. However, likely interest returns to the stock market performance of notional assets is unlikely to produce a stable assessment of the cost of providing public service pensions, particularly over the short to medium term, or to reflect the risks and costs to government of financing the pensions in payment. The Government wishes to reflect these costs more appropriately, remove the financial uncertainty about the performance of notional assets, and provide greater stability in employer contribution rates. I am, therefore, consulting on the proposal that, instead of tracking the returns of invested pension funds, the method of crediting investing returns to the notional fund should be based on a rate of returns which the Government Actuary advises as being appropriate for the valuation of a public service pension scheme. The consultation period ends on 8 November.

  Dyslexic Teachers
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many dyslexic teachers there are in English schools; and how many there are in each county; [76134]

  (2) who is responsible for recruiting dyslexic teachers in English schools, broken down by type of school. [76135]

  Mr. Miliband
  Responsibility for the employment of teachers in maintained schools in England rests with Local Education Authorities and school governing bodies. It is for employers to determine whether a prospective teacher is medically fit to carry out their duties in accordance with the Education (Teachers' Qualifications and Health Standards) (England) Regulations 1999, as amended. Information on the number of dyslexic teachers employed at schools in England is not collected centrally.
  377W

  ASACs
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills under what circumstances a school will have a duty to admit a child living in an asylum seekers' accommodation centre. [76143]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The Department intends to ensure that the education of children in the accommodation centres will be provided, wherever possible, in-house. However, there may be some circumstances, for example, if a child has severe or complex Special Educational Needs that would be met more appropriately through provision available in a special school; or a child fluent in English who could benefit from the education available in a mainstream school; when the learning needs of a child requires provision to be made available outside the centre.

  Computers
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the written answer of 24 July 2002,Official Report, column 1369W, on computers, what evaluation has been made of the success of the Computers Within Reach scheme; and how this will inform future policy on the Computers Within Reach concept. [76026]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Computers Within Reach Scheme closed on 31 October 2001 having delivered over 24,000 recycled computers to people in 22 pilot areas, at a cost of £7.1 million over two years. Those eligible were in receipt of certain working age benefits or a State Pension with minimum income guarantee.

  An evaluation was conducted, and a copy has been placed in the Libraries. Positive findings included:
  83 per cent. of recipients surveyed were satisfied with their computer;
  the average weekly usage of the computer by recipients stood at just over 8 hours per week; and
  on average 3 other individuals, besides the recipient, were making use of the computer in each household.

  However, the report also highlighted difficulties with the scheme, which included:
  there being no cost-effective solution for delivery of units to individuals;
  even though 83 per cent. of recipients surveyed were satisfied with their computer. just under half had experienced problems with it and nearly 75 per cent. of those people said they were not supported to overcome the difficulties; and
  only 51 per cent. were satisfied with the level of service provided.

  In view of these difficulties, we considered carefully whether to repeat the scheme against alternatives that might provide more effective access to ICT and learning opportunities for those currently without access.

  We concluded that we should not run another phase of the Computers Within Reach Scheme but channel the remaining £7.9 million into purchasing wireless technology equipment and laptops for Adult and Community Learning Centres serving deprived wards around the country. This will open up access to equipment and training for an estimated 335,000 learners over a three year period—far more than the number who would have benefited from an extension of the Computers Within Reach Scheme. These learners will be offered regular, supported access to the learning
  378W
  potential of the Internet and the communication potential of e-mail. Access to the Internet will mean that, for the first time for many, access to e-Government and e-Democracy can be a reality.

  School Funding
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how she will change the education funding formula to provide a more even funding system for pupils in rural and inner city schools; [75886]

  (2) what steps she will take to ensure that current proposals for funding in schools will not accelerate increased spending for inner city pupils over those students in rural areas; [75887]

  (3) what steps she is taking to secure more even distribution of funding for pupils and schools in rural and inner city areas; [75888]

  (4) if she will consider Option 5, put forward by the F40 Group, to secure a more even distribution of funding for pupils between rural and inner city schools; [75889]

  (5) what plans she has to improve the basic allowance per pupil in the worst-funded education authorities, with specific reference to Shropshire; [75890]

  (6) what steps she is taking to reduce the funding gap between education authorities in urban and rural areas. [75891]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government will consider carefully all responses to the consultation on Local Government Finance, and all suggested further options before taking decisions on the new Local Government funding system, to be introduced for 2003–04. Decisions on the balance between the basic entitlement and extra funding for additional educational needs will be decided on the basis of evidence about pupil characteristics and cost of provision: this will determine the distribution of funding between urban and rural authorities and will be announced by early December with the local authority finance settlement.

  Promotions in Schools
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the amount of commercial activity and sponsorship targeted at children through their schools in each of the last five years and the amount of money such promotional activity has raised. [76388]

  Mr. Miliband
  We do not collect data centrally on the amount of commercial activity and sponsorship, or funds raised, locally in schools. Well thought-out commercial support can add value to school life and provide welcome additional resources. Last Autumn, we issued guidelines—"Commercial activities in schools: Best practice principles"—so that schools can make informed and sensible decisions about the nature of business involvement. The guidelines make clear that schools should satisfy themselves that the educational benefits of the commercial activity outweigh the potential disbenefits; that it is free of incentives to children to engage in unhealthy, unsafe or unlawful

  379W
  activities; that explicit sales messages are avoided wherever possible; and that the level of any branding is appropriate to the activity.

  Pupil Funding
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the total grant per pupil allocated to each local education authority. [76275]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table below shows the Department's total recurrent grant per pupil allocated to each local education authority for the current financial year, 2002–03. This does not include funding through SSAs and Revenue Support Grant.

  2002–03

  Per Pupil

  201 City of London

  1,300

  202 Camden

  660

  203 Greenwich

  640

  204 Hackney

  740

  205 Hammersmith and Fulham

  660

  206 Islington

  730

  207 Kensington and Chelsea

  730

  208 Lambeth

  680

  209 Lewisham

  630

  210 Southwark

  650

  211 Tower Hamlets

  810

  212 Wandsworth

  590

  213 Westminster

  640

  301 Barking and Dagenham

  450

  302 Barnet

  380

  303 Bexley

  310

  304 Brent

  480

  305 Bromley

  330

  306 Croydon

  400

  307 Ealing

  460

  308 Enfield

  440

  309 Haringey

  640

  310 Harrow

  360

  311 Havering

  330

  312 Hillingdon

  350

  313 Hounslow

  470

  314 Kingston upon Thames

  380

  315 Merton

  390

  316 Newham

  600

  317 Redbridge

  340

  318 Richmond upon Thames

  330

  319 Sutton

  310

  320 Waltham Forest

  570

  330 Birmingham

  560

  331 Coventry

  440

  332 Dudley

  350

  333 Sandwell

  460

  334 Solihull

  360

  335 Walsall

  390

  336 Wolverhampton

  540

  340 Knowsley

  620

  341 Liverpool

  600

  342 St. Helens

  450

  343 Sefton

  460

  344 Wirral

  450

  350 Bolton

  420

  351 Bury

  370

  352 Manchester

  670

  353 Oldham

  500

  354 Rochdale

  520

  355 Salford

  600

  356 Stockport

  360

  357 Tameside

  400

  358 Trafford

  350

  359 Wigan

  390

  380W

  2002–03

  Per Pupil

  370 Barnsley

  440

  371 Doncaster

  400

  372 Rotherham

  510

  373 Sheffield

  560

  380 Bradford

  580

  381 Calderdale

  410

  382 Kirklees

  450

  383 Leeds

  520

  384 Wakefield

  400

  390 Gateshead

  490

  391 Newcastle upon Tyne

  530

  392 North Tyneside

  470

  393 South Tyneside

  500

  394 Sunderland

  460

  420 Isles of Scilly

  2,370

  800 Bath and North East Somerset

  350

  801 Bristol, City of

  480

  802 North Somerset

  360

  803 South Gloucestershire

  350

  805 Hartlepool

  440

  806 Middlesbrough

  540

  807 Redcar and Cleveland

  480

  808 Stockton-on-Tees

  540

  810 Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  470

  811 East Riding of Yorkshire

  360

  812 North East Lincolnshire

  400

  813 North Lincolnshire

  390

  815 North Yorkshire

  370

  816 York

  380

  820 Bedfordshire

  390

  821 Luton

  460

  825 Buckinghamshire

  370

  826 Milton Keynes

  370

  830 Derbyshire

  360

  831 Derby

  440

  835 Dorset

  370

  836 Poole

  320

  837 Bournemouth

  320

  840 Durham

  430

  841 Darlington

  390

  845 East Sussex

  370

  846 Brighton and Hove

  410

  850 Hampshire

  320

  851 Portsmouth

  390

  852 Southampton

  340

  855 Leicestershire

  330

  856 Leicester

  490

  857 Rutland

  440

  860 Staffordshire

  320

  861 Stoke-on-Trent

  520

  865 Wiltshire

  340

  866 Swindon

  330

  867 Bracknell Forest

  330

  868 Windsor and Maidenhead

  360

  869 West Berkshire

  360

  870 Reading

  450

  871 Slough

  480

  872 Wokingham

  320

  873 Cambridgeshire

  330

  874 Peterborough

  390

  875 Cheshire

  340

  876 Halton

  480

  877 Warrington

  330

  878 Devon

  350

  879 Plymouth

  340

  880 Torbay

  340

  881 Essex

  330

  882 Southend-on-Sea

  360

  883 Thurrock

  390

  884 Herefordshire

  410

  885 Worcestershire

  350

  886 Kent

  330

  887 Medway

  340

  888 Lancashire

  380

  381W

  2002–03

  Per Pupil

  889 Blackburn with Darwen

  560

  890 Blackpool

  390

  891 Nottinghamshire

  340

  892 Nottingham

  630

  893 Shropshire

  370

  894 Telford & Wrekin

  400

  908 Cornwall

  370

  909 Cumbria

  400

  916 Gloucestershire

  360

  919 Hertfordshire

  320

  921 Isle of Wight

  390

  925 Lincolnshire

  360

  926 Norfolk

  400

  928 Northamptonshire

  340

  929 Northumberland

  420

  931 Oxfordshire

  350

  933 Somerset

  360

  935 Suffolk

  340

  936 Surrey

  300

  937 Warwickshire

  360

  938 West Sussex

  310

  Notes:

  1 Figures reflect all revenue grants in DfES's DEL relevant to pupils aged 4–19.

  2 Grant figures exclude funds that include ages below 4 year olds EMA and LSC.

  3 Pupil numbers underlying the £s per pupil are those underlying the SSA settlement calculations (all sub-blocks).

  4 Figures rounded to nearest £10. Difference figures may not sum due to rounding

  5 2002–03 figures are provisonal estimates as decisions on some funding allocations have yet to be finalized.

  The figures are thus liable to be revised later on in the year.

  LEA Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will estimate for the latest year for which information is available the total amount not devolved by each local education authority to its schools; and if she will estimate in each case the amount of money spent by the LEA on its staff and other overheads and administration costs. [76160]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Beacon School
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Trafford which have been awarded Beacon status. [76403]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: There are 5 Beacon schools in Trafford:

  Primary

  King's Road Primary School

  St Mary's Church of England Primary School

  Wellfield Infant and Nursery School

  Woodhouse Primary School

  Secondary

  Ashton on Mersey School

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the grammar schools which have been awarded Beacon status, giving the local authority area in each case. [76404]
  382W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: 30 grammar schools have been awarded Beacon status. They are:

  Aylesbury High School

  Buckinghamshire

  Caistor Grammar School

  Lincolnshire

  Chelmsford County High School for Girls Essex

  Colyton Grammar School

  Devon

  Dartford Grammar School

  Kent

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls

  Kent

  Devonport High School for Girls

  Plymouth

  Kendrick Girls' Grammar School

  Reading

  King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Girls

  Birmingham

  Maidstone Grammar School for Girls

  Kent

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  Sutton

  Parkstone Grammar School

  Poole

  Pate's Grammar School

  Gloucestershire

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar School

  Cumbria

  Queen Elizabeth's School, Barnet

  Barnet

  Queen Mary's High School

  Walsall

  South Wilts Grammar School for Girls

  Wiltshire

  St Bernard's Convent School

  Slough

  Sutton Coldfield Grammar School for Girls

  Birmingham

  The Crossley Heath School

  Calderdale

  The Folkestone School for Girls

  Kent

  The King's School, Grantham

  Lincolnshire

  The Rochester Grammar School for Girls

  Medway

  The Tiffin Girls' School

  Kingston upon Thames

  Tonbridge Grammar School for Girls

  Kent

  Torquay Boys' Grammar School

  Torbay

  Wellington High School for Girls

  Sutton

  Westcliff High School for Boys

  Southend-on-Sea

  Westcliff High School for Girls

  Southend-on-Sea

  Wolverhampton Girls' High School

  Wolverhampton

  Child Mental Health
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 19 September,Official Report, column 121W, on mental health, if schools (a) are obliged to promote the mental health of their pupils, (b) have a mechanism for detecting mental health problems and (c) have regular contact with the local Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. [76579]

  Stephen Twigg
  My hon. Friend David Miliband, in his written answer of 19 September, outlined the ways the Secretary of State aims to ensure that children's mental health needs are being met. In June 2001 the Department issued guidance, Promoting Children'sMental Health within Early Years and School Settings. This is strongly recommended and we would expect schools to have regard to it.

  The guidance is designed to help teachers and others working alongside mental health professionals to identify children and young people's mental health needs, and sets out useful approaches for how these needs might be met. The advice in the guidance is backed up by illustrative case studies.

  The guidance also includes a section on the work of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). The Department commissioned a research project into effective collaboration between schools and CAMHS which will be available later this year.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 19 September,Official Report, column 121W, on mental health if (a) BEST teams members will receive training in children's mental health and (b) BEST teams will contain mental health specialists. [76580]
  383W
  Stephen Twigg
  The aims of Behaviour and Educational Support Teams (BESTs) are to promote emotional well-being, positive behaviour and school attendance among children and young people. They help in the identification and support of those with, or at risk of developing, emotional and behavioural problems, through the provision of multi-agency support in schools and to individual families.

  BESTs will take part in training which covers many areas of multi-agency working and related subject areas. This will include children's mental health issues.

  There are a number of professional disciplines which may be appropriately represented within the BEST. The precise skills balance will be decided locally, in line with the priorities agreed for the BEST, provision already available in schools and the resource available across the LEA and partner agencies. DfES guidelines suggest teams should contain a complementary mix of education, social work and health skills in order to meet the multi-faceted needs of children, young people and their parents.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 19 September,Official Report, column 121W, on mental health, if Ofsted's draft framework for inspection requires an inspection of schools' ability to promote pupils' mental health and detect and handle pupils' mental health problems. [76581]

  Stephen Twigg
  This is a matter for the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted). HM Chief Inspector for Schools, David Bell will write to the hon. Gentleman and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Returning Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers returning to teaching this academic year have claimed the returner bonus. [76587]

  Mr. Miliband
  Approximately one thousand claims for reimbursement of Welcome Back Bonus payments made by Local Education Authorities have so far been processed by my Department.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recommendations of the Pay Review report of January 2002 her Department adopted in calculating teacher pay scales. [76588]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend accepted all recommendations made by the School Teachers' Review Body in January 2002 that fell within their statutory remit.

  Mathematics
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to commission a mathematics working group to look at the problem of recruitment of mathematics teachers. [76590]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to set up any further working groups to look at the recruitment of maths teachers.
  384W

  Home Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to allow parents who opt to educate their children at home to access Government-sponsored National Curriculum Materials. [76591]

  Stephen Twigg
  Home educating parents are not required to teach the National Curriculum but the Government recognises their right and supports them in this matter.

  The recent developments of the Department's website allow all children, those attending schools as well as those educated at home, to access:
  The National Curriculum, which sets out the knowledge, skills, understanding and breadth of study for each subject, at each key stage;
  The Schemes of Work and programmes of study, which are designed to help teachers plan lessons and are published by the QCA;
  A series of Parent Topic guides which link to aspects of the National Curriculum.

  The Department has compiled a fact sheet regarding home education which is available to parents and local education authorities on request and can be downloaded from the Department's web site at: www.dfes.gov.uk/parents/learning/home Documents are also available by telephoning our Department stationery office at Prolog on 0845 602 2260.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of the total education budget in 2001–02 was taken up by(a) assessment of students, (b) assessment of teachers and schools through inspection and (c) assessment of teacher training through inspection. [76597]

  Mr. Miliband
  The cost of overseeing the assessment of students through the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority represented 0.2 per cent. of the total education budget of almost £40 billion for England in 2001–02. No data is held centrally on the overall costs of exam fees and associated assessment costs payable by schools. OfSTED, working with the Adult Learning Inspectorate in some circumstances, is responsible for(b) and (c). The sum of the Inspectorates' budgets was £183 million in 2001–02 or 0.5 per cent. of the total education budget, although some of this was spent on inspecting pre-school and non-schools post-16 providers as well as schools and teachers.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of lone parents exclusively(a) use registered childcare services and (b) rely on informal childcare in (i) Jarrow constituency, (ii) the North East and (iii) the UK. [76623]

  Mr. Miliband
  This data is unavailable at constituency or regional level. The latest national survey carried out by the National Centre for Social Research on behalf of DfES shows that in England, 29 per cent. of all lone parents had used formal childcare in the past
  385W
  year and 73 per cent. of all lone parents had used informal childcare in the past year. There is no information on exclusive usage. The study "Repeat Study of Parents Demand for Childcare" was published by the DfES in May 2002.

  Teacher Assaults
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers have been the subject of(a) physical assaults, (b) verbal assaults and (c) other threatening behaviour from (i) children and (ii) parents in each year since 1988. [76776]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department has not collected this information. However, 135 serious injuries to teachers in Great Britain caused by physical violence were reported to the Health and Safety Executive in both 1999–2000 and 2000–01; data for 2001–02 are not yet available. This figure includes major injuries, and also injuries which resulted in more than three days' absence from work, as a result of assault reported to the HSE under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. Information is not available on whether the assaults were carried out by children, parents or others.

  Teachers (Criminal Checks)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost of the delay to the completion of the checks on newly qualified teachers by the Criminal Records Bureau has been; and if she will make a statement. [76804]

  Mr. Miliband
  We have asked a number of Local Education Authorities to provide estimates of the costs incurred by schools as a result of delays by the Criminal Records Bureau in the completion of checks, but it will not be possible to identify separately the cost incurred as a result of delays in completing checks on newly qualified teachers only.

CABINET OFFICE

  Public Services (Electronic Access)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the level of electronic access to the main public services. [75727]

  Mr. Douglas Alexander
  The latest survey of departments shows that 52 per cent. of government services are available online. The full results of the survey are available on the website of the Office of the e-Envoy at http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/oee/oee.nsf/sections/reports-esd-spring-2002/$file/esdrep-spring-2002.htm.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Web Sites
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the web site links associated with his Department, including sites now dormant or closed, and indicating whether they are live, dormant or closed; what the start up costs were for each site listed; what the operating 386W
  costs were in each year since start up for each site; which company hosted each site; that assessment takes place for each site; which company does the assessment; if he will place the assessment reports in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [75586]

  Mr. Christopher Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has responsibility for a number of primary web sites in addition to the main Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's web site (www.odpm.gov.uk). It is not possible to state the start up costs as the site has been created out of the former DTLR (and before that, DETR) web site. The annual cost of running the web site is currently £85,000 (excluding staff costs). The web hosting company is EduServ, who are based in Bath. There has been no assessment of the ODPM web site, as it has only existed since the creation of the Office earlier this year. Because not all sites are managed centrally, information about every web site could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, the following are primary sites listed on our main web site and are live unless specified:

  Fire safety Campaign web sites

  www.firekills.gov.uk

  www.community-fire-safety.org.uk

  www.community-fire-safety.co.uk

  www.arsoncontrolforum.gov.uk

  www.firesafetytoolbox.org.uk

  Department for Transport, Local

  www.dtlr.gov.uk

  Government and the Regions (dormant)

  Urban Summit event web site

  www.urbansummit.gov.uk

  Independent review of the Fire Service

  www.irfs.org.uk

  Government Office regional

  www.rcu.gov.uk

  Co-ordination Unit and Government Offices

  www.go-east.gov.uk

  www.goyh.gov uk

  www.go-em.gov.uk

  www.go-london.gov.uk

  www.go-nw.gov.uk

  www.go-ne.gov.uk

  www.gosw.gov.uk

  www.go-wm.gov.uk

  www.go-se.gov.uk

  Neighbourhood Renewal web sites

  www.neighbourhoodrenewal.gov.uk

  www.neighbourhood.gov.uk

  Best Value Performance

  www.bvpi.gov.uk

  Indicators (BVPI) interactive web site

  Central government

  www.info4local.gov.uk

  information for local government

  Supporting People web sites

  www.spkweb.org.uk

  www.bmespark.org.uk (live from 1 November 2002)

  Fire Service College

  www.fireservicecollege.ac.uk

  Planning Inspectorate

  www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

  Queen Elizabeth II Centre

  www.qeiicc.co.uk

  The Rent Service

  www.therentservice.gov.uk

  Local Government
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many English local authorities who were debt-free were(a) Conservative, (b) Liberal, (c) Labour and (d) under no overall control in the latest year for which figures are available. [76381]

  Mr. Raynsford
  104 directly elected English local authorities have reported that they had debt-free status as at 1 April 2002. On 10 May 2002, 49 were
  387W
  Conservative. 10 were Liberal Democrat, six were Labour, seven were Independent and 32 were under no overall control.

  Source: Capital Estimates Return 2002–03.

  For the purposes of this return, an authority is "debt-free" only if:

  (a) at 31 March 2002, the authority's credit ceiling was nil or a negative amount and

  (b) at 1 April 2002, the authority had no money outstanding by way of external borrowing other than short-term borrowing or hard to redeem debt, as defined in Regulation 154 of the Local Authorities (Capital Finance) Regulations 1997.

  Regional Assemblies
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many responses to the Government's regional Government White Paper(a) favoured, (b) opposed and (c) suggested alternatives to devolved regional assemblies based on the Government's favoured boundaries, broken down by the region of the address of each response. [76088]

  (2) how many responses to the White Paper, Your Region: Your Choice, as a proportion of the total (a) were from Cornwall and (i) favoured the concept of setting up an elected Cornish Assembly and (ii) favoured regional Government based on the Government's favoured boundaries, (b) were from addresses outside Cornwall and favoured an elected Cornish Assembly,(c)were from the Government's South West zone and favoured a regional assembly based on the Government's favoured boundaries, (d) were from Cornwall and opposed any form of regional assembly and (e) were from addresses outside Cornwall but within the Government's South West zone and opposed any form of regional assembly. [76091]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government did not formally consult on any specific aspects of the White Paper other than on involvement of stakeholders in the work of elected regional assemblies. Nevertheless, we are currently undertaking an analysis of all of the 1,100 formal responses received on the White Paper—I will write to the hon. Member once this has been completed and will place a copy of the letter in the library of the House.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what role he envisages for English regional assemblies in the governance of(a) trading standards and (b) the meat inspection service. [75931]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Meat Hygiene Service is an executive agency of the Food Standards Agency and provides consistent standards of inspection and enforcement services across England, Scotland and Wales. Enforcement of trading standards is the responsibility of local authorities. The Government has no plans to transfer these functions to elected regional assemblies in England. Our current proposals for the powers and responsibilities of elected regional assemblies are set out in chapter 4 of the White Paper Your Region, Your Choice (Cm 5511), which was published on 9 May.
  388W
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has for regional assemblies in England to administer the inspection of non-animal foodstuffs upon arrival at a dock or airport within their region. [75918]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The enforcement and inspection of non-animal foodstuffs from third countries is the responsibility of local authorities at their point of import. The Government has no plans to transfer this function to elected regional assemblies.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has for the financial responsibility of the inspection of non-animal feedstuffs to be placed in the hands of regional assemblies in England. [75938]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This function is primarily the responsibility of the local authority trading standards services. The Government has no plans to transfer it to elected regional assemblies.

  Homeless Families
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many families, not including couples and single persons without children, were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [76481]

  Ms Barbara Roche
  Information distinguishing the number of households with dependent children being accommodated in bed and breakfast has been collected this year for the first time. Based on responses from local authorities it is estimated that some 6,700 families were in such accommodation at the end of June 2002, unchanged from the corresponding March estimate. This was reported in the most recent quarterly Statistical Release on statutory homelessness, issued on 11 September.

  Mixed Communities
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the use of(a) vacant land and (b) unused buildings within council house estates in (i) Wandsworth and (ii) London by local planning authorities; and what further action he plans to encourage local authorities in London to develop a strategy for creating mixed communities using their planning powers. [76231]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister has made no specific assessment of the use of vacant land and unused buildings by local planning authorities within council house estates in Wandsworth or London. However, a national survey of brownfield land published in September 2002 showed that in 2001 some 4590 hectares of brownfield land were available for development in London. Planning Policy Guidance note 3 (Housing) states that all Local Planning Authorities should undertake urban housing capacity studies, coordinated by the Regional Planning Body. The studies should provide information about vacant land and properties in each authority's area. Detailed good practice guidance on capacity studies is provided in the PPG3 companion guide "Tapping the Potential". The last capacity assessment for all the
  389W
  Boroughs in London was supervised by the London Planning Advisory Committee and published by the GLA in September 2000.

  PPG3 also requires authorities to promote mixed and balanced communities both through their plans and in deciding individual planning applications. This includes securing an appropriate mix of dwelling size, type, and affordability.

  Starter Homes
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many key workers have received financial support through the Starter Homes Initiative in rural settlements; and how much has been spent by region in(a)2001–02 and (b) 2002–03 to date. [76251]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However information can be provided on Starter Home Initiative purchases in local authority areas containing rural settlements. I will write to the hon. Member when the information has been collated.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average Band D council tax was in(a) Suffolk,(b)Newcastle and (c) England for (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99, (iv) 1999–00, (v) 2000–01, (vi) 2001–02 and (vii) 2002–03. [75038]

  Mr. Leslie
  The average Band D area council tax for(a) Suffolk, (b) Newcastle upon Tyne and (c) England for 1996–97 to 2002–03 is as follows:

  All Figures are Rounded to the Nearest £

  Suffolk

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  England

  (i)

  1996–1997

  610

  771

  646

  (ii)

  1997–1998

  651

  831

  688

  (iii)

  1998–1999

  706

  906

  748

  (iv)

  1999–2000

  761

  978

  798

  (v)

  2000–2001

  816

  1,006

  847

  (vi)

  2001–2002

  873

  1,050

  901

  (vii)

  2002–2003

  982

  1,129

  976

  Source:

  Budget Requirement returns provided by local authorities

HEALTH

  Radiotherapy
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which health authorities have patients waiting for over 20 weeks from the time of referral following surgery to the time that radiotherapy treatment begins; [75761]

  (2) If he will list the NHS health authorities that measure waiting time (a) from the day radiotherapy treatment is prescribed and (b) from the time that planning and simulation is complete. [75750]

  Ms Blears
  Waiting times for radiotherapy treatment are not collected centrally. In order to tackle radiotherapy waiting times, we are making 390W
  unprecedented investment in new radiotherapy facilities, streamlining care processes through the cancer services collaborative and working to best utilise the current workforce and to increase the number of staff in post and in training.

  Cancer Research
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Government make choices in prioritising the allocation of its cancer research funding to tumour specific areas; and how needs-based access to these funds is ensured. [75746]

  Ms Blears
  The total Government expenditure on research into individual diseases, including cancer and different types of cancer, is not normally specifically allocated in advance. Expenditure is related to many variables, such as the quality of research proposals received and the relevance to National Health Service priorities.

  The Government supports health related research through three routes. The Medical Research Council (MRC), which is funded by the Department of Trade and Industry, is the main agency through which the Government supports research into the causes and treatment of disease including cancer. Some of the other research councils, especially the biotechnology and biological sciences research council, also fund relevant research.

  The Department and its equivalents in the devolved administrations meet the NHS support costs of the research councils' and charities' projects. The Department also funds research into policy development and the delivery of effective practice in health and social care. The higher education funding council for England and its equivalents in the devolved administrations fund the university academic base.

  Access to all these different forms of funding is by various means, with the mechanism depending on the nature and purpose of the research funding stream involved. The Government set up the national cancer research institute (NCRI) in April 2001, in partnership with the charities and the pharmaceutical industry. The NCRI is providing strategic oversight of cancer research across the United Kingdom. This will help to ensure that the nation's total investment in cancer research is directed to best effect.

  Children's Hospices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the children's hospices broken down by region; and if he will make a statement. [75117]

  Ms Blears
  The association of children's hospices currently lists twenty eight children's hospices in England providing either hospice or hospice at home services. These are listed below by directorates of health and social care. [77048]

  North

  Brian House, Blackpool, Lancs

  The Butterwick Children's Hospice, Stockton on Tees

  Claire House Children's Hospice, Wirral

  Derian House Children's Hospice, Chorley, Lancs

  Eden Valley Children's Hospice, Carlisle

  391W

  Francis House Children's Hospice, Stockport

  Martin House, Wetherby

  Midlands and Eastern

  Acorns Children's Hospice (Selly Oak)

  Acorns Children's Hospice (Walsall)

  The Donna Louise Trust, Stoke-on-Trent*

  East Anglia Children's Hospices, Norwich

  East Anglia Children's Hospices, Cambridge

  East Anglia Children's Hospices, Ipswich

  Hope House, Nr Oswestry

  Iain Rennie Hospice at Home, Tring, Hefts*

  Keech Cottage Children's Hospice, Nr Luton

  Little Haven Children's Hospice, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex

  Rainbows Children's Hospice, Leicester

  South

  CHASE Children's Hospice (Christopher's), Guildford

  Chestnut Tree House, Worthing, West Sussex*

  Children's Hospice South West, Fremington, North Devon

  Demelza House Children's Hospice, Sittingbourne, Kent

  The Ellenor Foundation, Dartford, Kent*

  Helen House, Oxford

  James House Children's Hospice in the Home, Etchingham,

  East Sussex*

  Naomi House, Winchester

  St Andrew's Children's Hospice, Grimsby, North East

  Lincolnshire

  London

  Richard House, London

  Note:
  * Currently offering a hospice at home service.

  There are in addition a number of children's hospice projects at various stages of development, and organisations, which while not providing hospice services as such, contribute to the invaluable work of supporting children with serious and life threatening illnesses.

  NHS Ambulances
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS ambulances have been(a) de-commissioned, (b) sold, (c) lost, (d) vandalised and (e) stolen in each year for the last six years in (i) England and (ii) each NHS region. [75646]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  District Nurses
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the whole-time equivalent number of qualified district nurses in(a) England, (b) each NHS region and (c) each health authority in each of the last six years; [75644]

  (2) how many district nurses retired in (a) England, (b) each NHS region and (c) each health authority in each of the last six years. [75642]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about the number of district nurses working in the National Health Service has been placed in the Library.

  Information about the number of district nurses retiring from the NHS is not collected centrally.
  392W
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many entered training to be a district nurse in England in each of the last six years. [75643]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of nurses starting district nurse training in each of the last six years is shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of nurses starting practice nurse training

  1997–1998

  574

  1998–1999

  529

  1999–2000

  524

  2000–2001

  535

  2001–2002*

  570

  2002–2003**

  597

  Notes:

  * Figures for 2001–02 have not yet been validated

  ** Figures for 2002–03 are forecast and subject to change

  Source:

  Financial and Workforce Information Return

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to change the law governing the labelling of(a) lemon curd and (b) mincemeat; [74863]

  (2) what his policy is on the labelling of (a) lemon curd and (b) mincemeat. [74864]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency has recently sought views on whether or not to retain regulations, which define the minimum content of key ingredients, such as lemon or dried fruit respectively, in lemon curd and mincemeat. When the responses to the consultation have been analysed the Agency will decide whether to propose changes to the rules.

  Hospices
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the money allocated to the NHS Cancer Plan for Specialist Palliative Care has gone to hospices. [76171]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The NHS Cancer Plan, published in September 2000, pledged that the National Health Service contribution to the costs of specialist palliative care, including hospices, would increase by £50 million by 2004.

  Progress to date has been slow. We have therefore asked Professor Mike Richards, the National Cancer Director, to work with the NHS and the voluntary sector to develop proposals for a new approach to specialist palliative care funding that will ensure delivery of the £50 million increase and develop a mechanism to secure long term investment. Professor Richards has been asked to report to Ministers later this autumn.

  To support this initiative, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health announced on 2 October that we are making available an extra £10 million for specialist palliative care services in 2002–03. It will be for local health communities, with their voluntary sector partners, to decide how this funding should be deployed in support of the Cancer Plan objectives.
  393W
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been received by the Exeter Hospice from the NHS Cancer Plan for Specialist Palliative Care. [76170]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: I am advised by the South West Peninsular Strategic Health Authority that Exeter Hospiscare received £579,000 from the National Health Service this year. This is an increase of 3.6 per cent. and is in line with the current NHS funded inflation rate.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to respond to the letters of 7 May, 26 June and 2 September concerning hospice funding from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton. [76172]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 17 October.

  Heart Patients
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many heart patients waiting for more than six months have subsequently opted to be treated in private hospitals in the last five years. [75529]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Kidney Transplants
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many kidney transplants were carried out in each of the last five years; and at what average cost. [75540]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: Information on the number of kidney transplants in the United Kingdom over the last five years is shown in the table.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Cadaveric kidney only

  1487

  1330

  1311

  1323

  1333

  Living donor kidney

  179

  252

  270

  348

  358

  Total Kidney only

  1666

  1582

  1581

  1671

  1691

  Kidney/pancreas

  21

  22

  31

  32

  41

  Kidney/heart

  2

  3

  2

  —

  4

  Kidney/pancreas/liver

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total Kidney

  1689

  1608

  1614

  1703

  1736

  Data from the Reference Costs 2001 publication shows that average cost of an elective kidney transplant is £12,260. The annual cost of follow-up including the costs of anti-rejection therapy is £3,000 to £5,000 per patient.

  Electronic Patient Records
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training is available to medical students to enable them to write electronic patient records. [75509]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: Individual university medical schools determine their own undergraduate medical curriculum in the light of recommendations from the General Medical Council's
  394W
  (GMC's) education committee, which has the statutory responsibility to determine the extent and knowledge and skill required for the granting of primary medical qualifications in the United Kingdom.

  The education committee's most recent recommendations on undergraduate medical education are contained in Tomorrow's Doctors which was published in July 2002. It requires all graduates to be able to take and record a patient's history safely and effectively.

  The GMC's recommendations on general clinical training in the pre-registration house officer (PRHO) year cover medical informatics including how to use information storage and retrieval systems effectively. As part of their in-service training PRHOs are expected to become familiar with the information technology facilities of the hospital or health centre in which they are training.

  Eye Tests
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people qualified for free NHS eye tests in the last year(a) as a percentage of the population and (b) broken down by patient type; [75544]

  (2) how many people had free NHS eye tests in each of the last five years. [75545]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answers 21 October 2002]: Information on the number of people having a National Health Service sight test is not available. Figures in the table relate numbers of NHS sight tests paid for by health authorities contracted under general ophthalmic services. Sight tests can not be equated to the numbers of patients. Although most people do not come back for a sight test within the year, some patients suffering from medical conditions are advised to have re-examinations sooner.

  Table 1: Number of GOS Sight Tests Paid for by Health Authorities from 1997–98 to 2001–02.

  England Year

  millions Number of sight test

  1997–98

  6.99

  1998–99

  6.99

  1999–2000

  9.40

  2000–01

  9.57

  2001–02

  9.81

  Note:

  Eligibility for NHS sight tests was extended to patients aged 60 and over from 1 April 1999.

  Table 2: Number of GOS Sight Tests Paid for by Health Authorities, by Patient Eligibility for the Year Ending 31 March 2002.

  England Eligibility group

  thousands Number of sight test

  Persons aged 60 and over

  4,013

  Children 0–15

  2,375

  Students 16–18

  488

  Adults receiving IS1

  1,082

  Adults receiving WFTC1

  413

  Adults receiving DPTC1

  37

  Adults receiving JSA1

  230

  Low income certificate holders (HC2)

  164

  395W

  Table 2: Number of GOS Sight Tests Paid for by Health Authorities, by Patient Eligibility for the Year Ending 31 March 2002.

  England Eligibility group

  thousands Number of sight test

  Registered blind/partially sighted

  19

  Diabetics/Glaucoma sufferers

  433

  Needs complex lenses

  61

  Relatives 40 & over2

  492

  Total NHS sight test

  9,807

  Notes:

  1 Income Support, Working Families Tax Credit, Disabled Persons Tax Credit and Job Seekers allowance.

  2 Close relatives of glaucoma sufferers aged 40 and over.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by his Department of the cost to optometrists of operating each free NHS eye test. [75546]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The Department has not commissioned any recent surveys to identify and itemise the costs of these independent contractors, which will vary from practice to practice. In negotiating the National Health Service sight test fee, the Department and the representative bodies for optometrists and ophthalmic medical practitioners put forward the factors they consider should be weighed in determining an appropriate fee level. For the Department, these are the state of recruitment, retention and motivation within the general ophthalmic service, together with affordability.

  GP Tsar
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many visits the GP tsar has made to Worthing in that capacity since his appointment. [75512]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: Professor David Colin-Thome, the National Clinical Director for Primary Care, has made two visits to Worthing since coming into office on the 1 May 2001.

  Health Protection Agency
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made with the transfer of the Public Health Authority to form the proposed new Health Protection Agency. [75507]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: Following plans in "Getting Ahead of the Curve" to transfer functions of the public health laboratory service (PHLS) and a number of other bodies to the proposed Health Protection Agency, we issued a consultation document on the necessary legislation in June 2002. We are now considering the replies and will announce our final decisions as soon as possible. Decisions about the transfer of the majority of the PH LS laboratories to the National Health Service were announced in September.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the headquarters of the new Health Protection Agency will be located. [74811]

  Ms Blears
  This would be for decision by the proposed Agency.
  396W

  NHS Property Sales
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS properties sold in each of the last five years, with the proceeds raised; and what further sites have been identified for future disposal. [75526]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: Details of individual National Health Service properties sold and the proceeds raised in each of the last five years are not collected centrally. The table shows the total proceeds raised from the sale of NHS properties in each of the last five years.

  Year

  Total Proceeds £million

  1997–1998

  471

  1998–1999

  500

  1999–2000

  593

  2000–2001

  676

  2001–2002

  511

  The total proceeds include transfers to and between trusts.

  Attached is a list of major NHS properties that have either been identified as surplus to requirements or may become surplus has been placed in the Library. In some instances no formal decision to sell has been made. In some cases only part of a site will or is likely to be sold.

  MRSA
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of MRSA have been reported in the last(a) six months and (b) year; and what new plans he has to combat this disease. [75567]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The most recent data available from the mandatory surveillance system are up to June 2002. The total number of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia reports in England received during from January to June 2002 and July 2001 to June 2002 are shown in the table.

  No of MRSA bacteraemia reports

  (a) Jan 2002–June 2002

  3525

  (b)July 2001–June 2002

  7203

  Source:

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 15 Apr 2002, Official Report, column 790W, which set out the main policy initiatives. The Chief Medical Officer's infectious disease strategy, Getting Ahead of the Curve, identified healthcare associated infection and antimicrobial resistance as priority areas and new targeted action plans to address both areas are currently being developed.

  Extending Patient Choice
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what hospitals were shortlisted by his Department to undertake heart operations under the Extending Patient Choice initiative. [75505]
  397W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002] Following a tender exercise to identify non-National Health Service hospitals for the treatment of patients under the coronary heart disease patient choice initiative, the following hospitals were shortlisted:

  United Kingdom

  BMI Park, Nottingham

  BMI Priory, Birmingham

  BMI, London Independent

  BMI Thornbury, Sheffield

  BUPA Bristol

  BUPA Cambridge

  BUPA Chalybeate, Southampton

  BUPA Leeds

  BUPA Leicester

  BUPA Washington

  HCA (Harley St Clinic, London Bridge Hospital, Wellington Hospital)

  HCI, Glasgow

  King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst, Sussex

  Nuffield Leicester

  Yorkshire Clinic

  This shortlist does not preclude local commissioners from contracting with other hospitals, provided they have satisfied themselves that the relevant units satisfy value for money, quality of care and patient convenience criteria.

  European

  Azienda Ospedaliera Niguarda, Milan, Italy

  Clinique University UCL de Mont Godinne, Yvoir, Belgium

  Hopital Foch, Paris, France

  Imelda Hospital, Bonheiden, Belgium

  St Jan, Brugge, Belgium

  St Jean Hospital, Brussels, Belgium

  UZ University Hospital Gent, Belgium

  The shortlisted European hospitals are not guaranteed a contract and a team led by an NHS overseas treatment lead commissioner is taking forward discussions with these hospitals.

  Renal Services
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what paediatric (renal services are available in(a) East Anglia and (b) Wales. [75541]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: Paediatric renal services are highly specialised. Children in the East Anglia area requiring treatment in a paediatric renal unit are referred to one of the national centres.

  The provision of health services in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  Upper Age Bars
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason there is an explicit upper age bar to(a) coronary care units and (b) cardiac rehabilitation units. [76131]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: It is an underlying principle of National Health Service care that access to services is based on clinical need alone. We are not aware of any NHS coronary care unit or rehabilitation service in England that restricts access to its services on the basis of age.
  398W
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason there is an explicit upper age limit for routine breast screening. [76130]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The Forrest report, on which the National Health Service breast screening programme was based when it began in 1988, recommend that women aged 50 to 64 should be invited for breast screening. The Forrest report found that, in view of poor response rates, there was insufficient benefit to be gained by actively offering screening to women aged 65 or over. Women aged 65 and over are able to self-refer for breast screening every three years. Women who have participated in the programme are informed of this right at the age of 64.

  Government funded pilot studies have now shown that extending routine invitations for breast screening to women aged 65 to 70 is both feasible and cost-effective. The NHS Cancer Plan gave the commitment that the programme will be extended to women aged 70 by 2004.

  There is little research evidence to show whether population screening in the over 70s is effective in reducing mortality. What little evidence there is suggests that screening in this way may not be effective and could even do more harm than good to some women. However, for some individual women there will always be a clear benefit in screening. Women aged over 70 will be offered free three yearly screening on request, as are women aged 65 and over now.

  Hospital Trusts (West Surrey)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what basis the £16.9 million cut in the income for 2002–03 was apportioned between the three acute hospital trusts in West Surrey; [75491]

  (2) for what reason an extra £16.9 million has been added to the 2002–03 income of the primary care trusts in West Surrey; [75492]

  (3) for what reason £7.9 million was cut from the 2002–03 income of the Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust in August; [75490]

  (4) for what reason £16.9 million was cut from the 2002–03 income of the three acute hospital trusts in West Surrey in August. [75494]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answers 21 October 2002]: The allocation to the local health community has, in real terms, increased by 6.89 per cent. over the previous year. The apportionment to the trusts of this increased income has been set on the basis of service level agreements and the additional investment will help deliver the NHS Plan targets locally.

  However, these agreements and the related trust budgets have had to be set on the basis of managing a long standing underlying financial deficit for the West Surrey health service community. The financial position last year was only achieved through the use of non-recurrent support of £15.6 million.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional financial and staff resources are being made available to the Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust to enable the implementation of its franchise plan. [75489]
  399W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: Additional growth, modernisation and specific financial assistance is being made available to the local health community representing a real uplift in allocation of 6.89 per cent. over the last year. Special assistance is being made available to the trust for reforming emergency care from the modernisation agency and additional resource of £8.4 million is being made available.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to bring to an end the Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust running a deficit budget. [75493]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The management of the trust is a matter for the local health community managing within the context of Shifting the Balance of Power, local partnership and agreement. The underlying deficit will be resolved by the primary care trusts and National Health Service trusts within their three year plans. This will be performance managed through the local development plan which is currently being formulated by the Surrey and Sussex Strategic Health Authority.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why the Franchise Plan for the Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust presented to the Government were not published until 10 October 2002. [75488]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: I am advised by Surrey & Sussex Strategic Health Authority that this was the planned date for publication.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates the 2002–03 budget was(a) formally finalised and (b) published for (i) the Ashford and St Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust and (ii) North Surrey Primary Care Trust. [75487]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The financial framework was first received by the Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals National Health Service Trust board in June 2002.

  The allocation for the North Surrey Primary Care Trust, established in April 2002, was set in December 2001 and the primary care trust agreed the financial framework in September 2002.

  Food Testing
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions have been given to the Food Standards Agency in relation to its support of local councils responsible for the testing of imported food of non-animal origin. [75920]

  Ms Blears
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency, which is responsible for issues of food safety, that the Agency's Board has directed the Agency to take forward a ten point plan aimed at improving the co-ordination of enforcement actions and the effectiveness of inspection of imports. The aims of the measures being taken forward include assisting the work of the local food authorities responsible for inspecting imports of products of non-animal origin in the enforcement of such controls.
  400W
  The Agency will be working closely with the local food authorities to ensure that their views are taken into account in developing the United Kingdom's position for imminent European Union negotiations on a proposed regulation for feed and food controls which will include rules on import controls for products of non-animal origin

  Simian Diseases.
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which simian diseases are transmissible to man. [75932]

  Ms Blears
  There are a number of zoonotic diseases, which can be transmitted from simians to man. These are Simian Herpes B Virus (Herpesvirus simiae), Simian Immunodeficiency Virus(SIV),Tuberculosis, Salmonellosis, Campylobacteriosis, Monkeypox, Rabies, Ebola and Marburg viruses, parvoviruses, and helminthic and protozoal infections.

  Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment his Department has made of the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine; and if he will make a statement; [75999]

  (2) what plans he has for pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine to be assessed by NICE; and if he will make a statement. [76006]

  Ms Blears
  The Department asked the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) an independent expert advisory group, to review all available data on the use of this vaccine and report back. This work has now been carried out and the Department are considering their advice.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been prescribed the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in the last three years, broken down by NHS Trust; and if he will make a statement. [76007]

  Ms Blears
  The number of people who have received pneumococcal vaccine can be estimated by the number of prescription items dispensed in the community for pneumococcal vaccine. The amount of pneumococcal vaccine dispensed in England for the last three years is given below.

  Number of Prescription Items Dispensed in the Community for Pneumococcal Vaccine, 1997 to 2001

  England

  Year

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Prescription items (thousands)

  550.5

  539.1

  468.1

  Net ingredient cost (£ thousands)

  5,415.0

  5,244.3

  4,682.9

  Number of vaccines (thousands)

  551.8

  540.3

  468.4

  Attention Disorders
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out what measures his Department have taken to(a) inform and (b) train (i) GPs, (ii) nurses, (iii) social workers, (iv) teachers, (v) parents and (vi) children on the symptoms of ADD and A DHD. [75740]
  401W
  Jacqui Smith
  In recent years the Department has supported a number of initiatives taken by professional bodies and other agencies to raise awareness of attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and to facilitate accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment. These include an evidence-base briefing for clinicians on the use of stimulant medication (1999) and factsheets for parents, teachers and young people on attention deficit problems and hyperactivity, both produced by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We have also collaborated with the Department for Education and Skills in issuing guidance for teachers on promoting children's mental health, including attention deficit/hyperactivity, within early years and school settings; in 2001. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), at the suggestion of the Department, undertook an appraisal of the use of the drug methylphenidate for ADHD in children and issued clinical guidelines for its use, including information for patients, in 2000. This guidance was circulated widely among professional groups involved with attention deficit disorders. The Department has also grant-aided the ADHD national alliance, an organisation which helps to co-ordinate voluntary sector activity and development work in this field.

  In general the content of professional training is a matter for the relevant professional bodies. However the Department's requirements for social work training from September 2003 will include elements covering child development and mental health and communication skills with children.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the number of children suffering from(a) ADD and (b); ADHD; and if he will make a statement. [75735]

  Jacqui Smith
  No estimates of prevalence that differentiate between attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have been commissioned centrally. The prevalence of ADHD of all types is estimated at around five per cent. of school-aged children, approximately 345,000 six to 16 year olds in England. A survey by the Office for National Statistics of the mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain, published in 2000, found the prevalence of hyperkinetic disorders, including the severer forms of ADHD, to be 1.4 per cent. of five to 15 year olds.

  Tinnitus
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide Government support for tinnitus research. [74785]

  Mr. Lammy
  The main Government agency for research into the causes and treatments of disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its funding from the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC spent about £5 million in 2000–01 on hearing research generally, much of which is basic in nature but some of which may well have a bearing on the causes and treatment of tinnitus. Included in this figure is a major investment in the MRC Institute of Hearing Research.
  402W
  The MRC is independent in its day-to-day research funding decisions, which take account of both health needs and scientific vision and opportunity. The MRC always welcomes high quality applications for financial support into any aspect of biomedical research and these are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. The MRC does not, as a rule, earmark funds for particular topics; research proposals in all areas will compete for the funding available.

  The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in health and social care. The Department's research programmes are not funding any projects related to tinnitus, and there are no current plans to commission such work. The Department does, however, provide National Health Service support funding for research commissioned by he research councils and charities that takes place in the NHS.

  Consultancies
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [74680]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information is not held centrally in the form requested and could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to reply to Mr. J. A. Gibson's letter of Chiltern Drive, Barton on Sea, of 27 July, regarding the Access to Health Records Act 1990. [74659]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has no record of receiving this correspondence. The Department's Ministerial correspondence unit has requested a duplicate.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what performance targets have been set for answering correspondence; and to what extent these targets are being met. [74272]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: The Department's target for answering correspondence is 20 days, set by the Cabinet Office and known as the Service First Targets. The Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report on the performance of each Department. The Report for 2001 was published on Friday, 24 May 2002. Copies of previous reports are available in the Library.

  Drug-resistant Bacterium
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what organisations the Government fund that conduct research into drug resistant bacterium; and if he will list the annual amounts. [73841]
  403W
  Mr. Lammy
  Information on research into antimicrobial resistance is not collated centrally. The table below shows the estimated spend on drug resistant bacteria for the main Government funding organisations for 2002–03. This research will be carried out by a variety of organisations including university departments, the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Royal Veterinary College. The research councils also support basic research, which underpins work on drug resistance.

  Estimated Spend for the Financial Year 2002–03

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  £998,000

  Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

  £1,630,000

  Department of Health

  £408,000

  Food Standards Agency

  £305,000

  Medical Research Council

  £1,200,000

  Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department

  £233,404

  Scottish Executive Health Department

  £106,000

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of his Department's ability to counter the risks and effects of bioterrorism(a); with the existing Public Health Laboratory Service arrangements, (b); after completion of the reorganisation of the Public Health Laboratory Service and (c) during the transitional period whilst new arrangements settle down; and if he will make a statement. [74815]

  Ms Blears
  The Department works closely with the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) and with the National Health Service to ensure that biological threats are rapidly identified and dealt with. We are confident that the United Kingdom is as well prepared as any country could be to protect the health of its citizens in the event of bioterrorism.

  The transfer of most PHLS general microbiology services to the NHS will strengthen the public health outputs of the NHS. It will also improve surveillance and linkages between human, veterinary, food, water, and environmental surveillance systems, which are essential to identify new events and monitor the effectiveness of interventions.

  In considering the transfer of the PHLS laboratories to the NHS, the Department is ensuring that there will be dedicated public health microbiology support at local and regional levels to make sure that incident response and public health surveillance continues.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements will be put in place to require local public health laboratories to respond to requests for information and samples from the central Public Health Laboratory Service after reorganisation; and if he will make a statement. [74810]

  Ms Blears
  All National Health Service laboratories as well as laboratories in the proposed Health Protection Agency will be able to respond to requests for 404W
  information and samples from one central public health laboratory. These arrangements will be a continuation of the current system.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to visit Public Health Laboratory Service, Colindale. [74808]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no current plans to visit the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS). The then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health (Yvette Cooper) visited the PHLS on 6 November 2000 and I plan to visit on 28 October 2002.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on the National Vaccination Campaign of the proposals to reorganize the Public Health Laboratory Service; and if he will make a statement. [74812]

  Ms Blears
  We do not anticipate any negative impact and hopefully there will be positive impact from the incorporation of Public Health Laboratory Service into the proposed new Health Protection Agency. It is clear that the immunisation priorities will remain priorities of the Agency.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he has made to consult trade unions and professional bodies over the reorganisation of Public Health Laboratory Service. [74816]

  Ms Blears
  A consultation document on the proposed establishment of the Health Protection Agency (HPA), which would assume many of the functions of the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) and a discussion document about proposals to transfer a number of PHLS laboratories to the National Health Service was issued in June 2002. Both were sent to relevant trades unions and professional bodies.

  A trades union liaison group has been established between the relevant trades unions, officials and the current employing organisations to co-ordinate consultation and discussion about the proposed HPA. There are regular meetings with trades unions or professional bodies on a range of relevant issues.

  Cancer
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations his Department has received concerning the efficiency of systems in place to report results from radiotherapy and X-rays; [75765]

  (2) what representations his Department has received concerning the failure of radiology departments to record all results of diagnostic tests leading to investigations being unnecessarily repeated; and what representations his Department has received concerning the risks associated with increasing the radiation exposure of the patient due to repetition of diagnostic tests; [75751]
  405W
  (3) what representations his Department has received concerning (a) the failure of radiology departments to record all results of diagnostic tests leading to investigations being unnecessarily repeated and (b) the risks associated with increasing the radiation exposure of the patient due to the unneccessary repetition of diagnostic tests. [75755]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has received no representations concerning the efficiency of systems to report results from radiotherapy, X-rays and other diagnostic tests using ionising radiation. The use of ionising radiation in healthcare is governed by legislation.

  The Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000, which came into force on 1 January 2001, require that all exposures to ionising radiation are justified and that a clinical evaluation of each exposure is recorded. A major intention of the legislation is to minimise the inappropriate use of ionising radiation in patients' exposures.

  The regulations also require that where an employer, such as a trust, believes that a person may have been exposed to a dose of radiation greater than intended, from a repeat diagnostic test or other error, it must report such an incident to the appropriate authority. In England this authority is the Secretary of State's Inspectorate for the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of child patients receive treatment for(a) testicular cancer and (b) acute leukaemia within one month of initial GP referral. [75777]

  Ms Blears
  The targets of a maximum one month wait from urgent general practitioner referral to first treatment for children's cancers, testicular cancer and acute leukaemia were introduced in December 2001. Central monitoring of the targets began in January 2002 and the table below shows performance for the three cancer sites in the last two quarters for which data are available. The table shows the proportion of patients treated within the target time.

  One Month from Urgent Referral to First Treatment

  Quarter 4 2001–02

  Quarter 1 2002–03

  Children's cancers

  100%

  100%

  Testicular cancer

  92%

  93.5%

  Acute Leukaemia

  100%

  99%

  Linear Accelerators
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations his Department has received concerning the replacement linear accelerators that have been in service for 11 years or more; [75756]

  (2) what representations his Department has received concerning the cost of replacing sub-standard radiotherapy equipment in use within the NHS; and what the cost is for each NHS health authority; [75764]
  406W
  (3) what linear accelerators are due for replacement within the next 12 months, broken down by health authority; and how many years they will have been in service when replaced; [75758]

  (4) what representations his Department has received concerning sub-standard radiotherapy equipment in the NHS; and what steps are being taken to ensure that radiotherapy equipment is (a) monitored and (b) maintained, and that machines identified for replacement are decommissioned and replaced when necessary; [75762]

  (5) what linear accelerators have been replaced since the introduction of the NHS Cancer Plan broken down by health authority; and how many years they had been in service when replaced; [75757]

  (6) if he will state, by health authority, the linear accelerators that (a) have been in service for more than 11 years, (b) the total number of years that they have been in service, and (c) the date that they are due for replacement; [75759]

  (7) what representations his Department has received concerning the state of radiotherapy equipment within the NHS; [75767]

  (8) what representations his Department has received concerning the number of linear accelerators in need of renewal within the NHS; and if he will list the NHS health authorities they belong to. [75763]

  Ms Blears
  The age of each linear accelerator in service in the National Health Service in January 2001 was published at www.canceruk.net. This lists each linear accelerator installed in the NHS along with the dates when each machine was commissioned. This database is expected to be updated in the next few months and will provide comprehensive details of equipment installed since the introduction of the NHS Cancer Plan, including those provided under the new opportunities fund cancer initiative.

  The criteria for replacement of radiotherapy equipment will take into account age and whether spare parts can still be supplied by the original equipment manufacturer. There is no formal recommended replacement age for linear accelerators within the NHS in England. Older equipment is capable of delivering safe and appropriate treatment to many cancer patients. Careful maintenance can ensure that radiotherapy equipment can remain in service for periods in excess of 11 years and this is reflected in the age of some machines identified in the survey. It is recognised however that equipment older than 11 years may not be capable of providing the latest treatment techniques.

  Standards regarding maintenance and safety of equipment are high in the United Kingdom and these are met by a combination of local scientific and technical staff and manufacturers providing servicing and quality assurance systems.

  The Department is aware of the high cost of radiotherapy equipment and has initiated a number of central purchasing initiatives designed to exploit economies of scale. The new opportunities fund,

  407W
  announced in September 1999, funded 42 replacement and 15 additional linear accelerators. The NHS Cancer Plan, published in September 2000, made a commitment for a further 20 replacement and 25 additional linear accelerators to be installed in the NHS by 2004. My

  Strategic Health Authority

  Trust

  Installation date

  Avon, Gloucestershire & Wiltshire

  Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust

  1993

  Avon, Gloucestershire & Wiltshire

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  1998

  Bedfordshire & Hertfordshire

  West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  1991

  Birmingham & the Black Country

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  1991

  Greater Manchester

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  1987

  Hampshire & Isle of Wight

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  1990

  Kent & Medway

  Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

  1994

  Norfolk, Suffolk & Cambridgeshire

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  1994

  North Central London

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  1990

  North Central London

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  1983

  Northumberland, Tyne & Wear

  The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

  1991

  Northumberland, Tyne & Wear

  The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

  1992

  Northumberland, Tyne & Wear

  The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

  1993

  Shropshire & Staffordshire

  North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust

  1992

  South East London

  Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Trust

  1990

  South East London

  Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Trust

  1993

  South Yorkshire

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  1990

  Southern West Midlands South

  University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust

  1993

  Thames Valley

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust

  1991

  Trent

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  1993

  Final equipment costs are dependent on local circumstances such as equipment specification and are subject to commercial confidentiality. It is therefore not possible to provide accurate costs by individual strategic health authority.

  Radiographers
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many radiographer vacancies there are for each NHS health authority; and what the figures were for each year since 1997. [75790]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Between September 1997 and September 2001, the number of diagnostic radiographers has increased by 800 from 10,360 to 11,160 and the number of therapeutic radiographers has increased by 130 from 1,410 to 1,540.

  Cancer Care
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) total number and (b) proportion of suspected cancer patients being seen by a cancer surgeon within two weeks of referral by their GP, for each health authority; and what the figures were for each months since July 1997. [75782]

  Ms Blears
  The information collected centrally on urgent cancer referrals seen by a specialist within two weeks does not distinguish between surgeons and other specialists. The two week outpatient waiting time standard was introduced for urgent cases of suspected breast cancer from April 1999 and was extended to all urgent cases of suspected cancer from December 2000. Performance data is published quarterly. Information on the total number and percentage achievement of the 408W
  right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the location of these machines in July 2002. Others will be replaced through local means. The 20 replacement machines under the Cancer Plan have been allocated to the 17 trusts identified in the table.

  two week standard for breast cancer since April 1999 and for all suspected cancer referrals since January 2001 has been placed in the Library.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many and what proportion of the public service agreements of his Department set out in the document Public Services for the Future 1998 have been met; and if he will make a statement. [68714]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 15 October 2002]: Information relating to the Department's public service agreement targets can be found in the Department's departmental report 2002.

  Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many gastrointestinal cancer patients are awaiting gastrointestinal endoscopy; and what the comparative figures were for each month since July 1997; [75776]

  (2) what the average waiting time is for patients awaiting gastrointestinal endoscopy; and what the figures were for each month since July 1997. [75768]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not collected centrally on patient waiting times for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

  Dermatologists
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he is taking to fill vacant dermatology positions in the NHS; and what plans he has to increase the trainee posts in dermatology. [69517]

  Mr. Hutton
  Pursuant to my answer 15 July 2002, Column 122W: I regret that my previous reply was incorrect.
  409W
  The last paragraph should read, "As at 30 September 2001 there were 133 specialist registrars in dermatology in the National Health Service in England. The output from these existing specialist training places, when combined with other increases through increased
  410W
  recruitment and retention, international recruitment, and promotion of flexible retirement, are expected to result in a 27 per cent. increase in the number of trained specialists in dermatology by 2010."

  Source: Department of Health Medical and Dental census September 2001

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.

Flood Risk and Insurance
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that, when householders whose accommodation has been flooded sell their properties, basic household insurance is available on reasonable terms to the new owner.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, following much discussion with government, the insurance industry recently announced that for high risk properties where defences are in place or planned by 2007 up to a minimum standard of one flood in 75 years, it would maintain current flood insurance for domestic policies and that, were those properties to be sold, it would continue cover, provided other information about the new owners, especially their previous claims record, is satisfactory.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I have the press release put out by the Association of British Insurers. I point out to the Minister the key words in the press release—which he did not mention—which concern the ABI's new Statement of Principles:
"It will ensure that there is a competitive market for insurance based on the actual risks of flooding".
In my part of Sussex, Lewes—I do not have to declare an interest as my property was not flooded—because of the amount of money that it is intended to spend on flood prevention, the risk of flooding will diminish to one in 75 years or one in 100 years, and household insurance will be available. But in neighbouring Uckfield—a mere seven miles away—the amount of money that it is intended to spend on flood prevention at the moment is much less, despite the flooding of two years ago and, in consequence, the risk of flooding will be one in 30 years—that is, a three per cent risk every year—and on that basis household insurance will not be available. Without household insurance no one can sell their properties as new purchasers cannot obtain mortgages without household insurance. Does the Minister consider that that is unjustifiably unfair?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware of the particular problems of Lewes and Uckfield. I believe that the noble Lord is aware that the Environment Agency has recently submitted a strategy dealing with the whole Ouse basin. My interpretation of the ABI position is
1324
that those premises which have a better risk than the once in 75 years flooding incidence will continue to be insured in the normal way. Properties with a worse risk factor would be judged on a one-by-one basis. It is not that insurance would not be available, but, clearly, it would be more expensive and there would be a premium attached to it. Therefore, there would be some disadvantage for those who are more vulnerable to floods. However, that is the nature of insurance. Neither the insurance industry nor the Government can devise a system where there is no risk. If there is a risk, the insurance industry must judge what premium it charges for that risk.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in some areas such as Northamptonshire the Government have not provided proper flood defences? In those circumstances will the Government not take on some responsibility as regards the poor people whose properties are flooded because of the lack of defences?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have a major responsibility in relation to flood defences and dealing with floods. It is not, however, the Government's job to be the insurer of last resort in those or any other circumstances. In the recent spending review the Government committed to flood defences the sum of money which the ABI, on behalf of the insurers, indicated was the amount that was needed for them to be able to make the kind of statement to which I referred which covers the vast majority of properties in the flood plain.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Environment Agency's maps could be misleading? The maps detailing areas at risk from flooding rely only on topographical data. Because they take no account of precedent and the way in which flood plains work, they have included many houses which are now on the at-risk list that have not been flooded for hundreds of years.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the maps are misleading only if they are taken to mean something that they were not intended to mean. As the noble Lord says, they take account of topography and, to a limited extent, flow, but not flood defences or history. The Environment Agency is working on establishing more detailed maps but that will take some time to complete. The number of properties which are vulnerable, and on which the insurers are basing their calculations, include some which have not been flooded—and are unlikely to be flooded—for a number of years. The figures are a little flexible. Nevertheless, they give an indication of the totality of an area where flooding might be a problem.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the Minister has brought good news in relation to the availability of insurance for properties in areas at high risk of flooding. Can he tell us what proportion of the approximately 2 million

1325
properties in this country which are thought to be at risk of flooding will still not be able to get insurance either as regards existing occupiers or new occupiers?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I indicated earlier, it is not necessarily a question of not being able to get insurance but it would not be on the same basis on which the ABI is effectively making a commitment. About 180,000 premises of the 1.8 to 2 million to which the noble Lord referred seem to fall in a worse category that that of one flood every 75 years.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether he regards flooding as an act of God or an act of man?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is probably a question for the Bishops' Bench rather than the Government.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, it is a question for the Minister—he is god, not me!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, what is the responsibility of man is the responsibility of the Government in this regard. We have signalled our responsibility by providing in the previous spending review that very significant additional resource for capital development on flood defences.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the present system for deciding on flood control measures is archaic? There are too many people involved: the Countryside Agency, the Environment Agency, district councils, county councils, DEFRA and local flood committees. Can the system be simplified as soon as possible so that decisions—they must be the right decisions—can be arrived at much more quickly?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is an issue in relation to the structure of responsibility for flooding. The Environment Agency effectively takes on the strategic role, but a number of different bodies are involved. As the noble Lord will be aware, there is a review of the institutional and funding side of flood defences. We have had the response to the consultation exercise, which we are now assessing. We will be able to give further details on any changes in that regard within a few months. We are aware that there is a problem.
On a question relating to an area that was previously the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, it would probably be remiss of me to sit down without mentioning to the House that today is the 80th birthday of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is very nice to be remembered for floods!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, are the Government considering any process that seeks to inhibit the granting of planning applications on flood plains and areas liable to flooding?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, planning authorities are well aware of the problem in relation to new
1326
developments. There have undoubtedly been some perverse planning decisions in the past. The Government and my colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have made sure that planning authorities take that issue seriously.

Transport Plan
2.45 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the progress of the 10-year transport plan is satisfactory.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are making steady progress towards implementing the investment plans set out in the 10-year plan. A report on the plan, which will set out progress to date, will be published in due course.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Bearing in mind that outside London the numbers of people travelling on the railway are falling, that the bus industry is facing a crisis of reinvestment because profits in the industry are falling so dramatically, that the road safety targets are moving the wrong way rather than the right way and that congestion is a problem that affects everybody throughout the country, will the Minister please point to some areas of success to which the Government adhere?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge the truth of the first few words of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Yes, it is certainly true—partly because of the effects of the Hatfield disaster and partly because of the known shortcomings of Railtrack—that there are grave difficulties in the rail area. However, contrary to what the noble Lord said, bus ridership is up and London Underground is carrying more passengers than ever before. As for road safety, the numbers of people who died or were seriously injured have declined by 15 per cent since the average for 1994–98 and the numbers of children who died or were seriously injured have declined by 27 per cent, which is well on the way to meeting our targets.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, what are the Government doing to reduce traffic levels? In the 10-year plan, they said that they wanted to reduce traffic levels by 5 per cent by 2010. In the first two years of the plan, traffic levels have probably gone up by more than 1 per cent a year. Can the Minister tell us of a single government project or initiative to cut traffic levels?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is always a conflict in this regard because successful economic policies, for which the Government are very distinguished, have the unfortunate tendency of increasing traffic levels. The programme to reduce traffic levels, which was rightly identified by the noble

1327
Viscount, Lord Astor, is a long-term programme and we shall report on it in our next review of the 10-year plan.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is not the problem with long-term planning in the public sector the simple fact that no government can bind their successor and that no attempt ever seems to be made to get parties to underwrite a policy outlining the way forward? They are just meaningless.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government intend to stay in office for at least the next 10 years. It is true that we do not commit ourselves to financial expenditure over the full 10-year period but the introduction of the three-year spending reviews, with updates every two years, means that there are expenditure commitments ahead for at least two years. So far as the transport plan is concerned, we have a clear commitment over the next three years to increase spending on transport by 12 per cent a year in real terms. I call that a very significant improvement on previous governments' achievements.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, while I congratulate the Government on meeting the target for rail freight—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—does the Minister agree that leadership from the Strategic Rail Authority is possibly concentrating too much on inter-city rail services, particularly those painted red, to the detriment of some of the regional services, such as First North Western and Arriva? They have suffered serious industrial relations problems for several months, probably causing severe loss of traffic and consumer lack of confidence. Given that all of those services are now virtually funded by the Government—they are certainly directed by the Government—should not the Government be seeking to resolve that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that one keeps a dog and barks oneself. The Strategic Rail Authority is responsible for relations with the train operating companies. If there had been the kind of systematic distortion which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, described, I am sure that we would have heard more about it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can the Minister be more precise? What stage has the 10-year plan now reached and does it cover coastal and canal traffic?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the 10-year plan covers the period from 2001 to 2011. Therefore, there is only one complete year of the plan on which to make a progress report. My understanding—I may be wrong—is that it covers coastal and canal traffic.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that, contrary to what was implied, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, when the 10-year plan was introduced following primary legislation more than two years ago, there was all-party support for it? All sides of the House welcomed
1328
the fact that we were trying to look ahead over 10 years. Whether or not a change of government would take place during those 10 years was another question. But, for the first time, an attempt was being made to examine the investment figure of £180 billion over the 10 years. Is it not the case that, even now, despite all the setbacks and difficulties—events, dear boy, events; there have been events!—it is nevertheless important to attempt to sustain credibility and all-party support for the concept of the 10-year plan?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lea. He is right. We have not resiled in any way from the £180 billion commitment which we made at the time of the 10-year plan. I remind the House that that represents a 42 per cent real-terms increase in transport expenditure compared with that of the previous 10 years.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is not simply expenditure of money that is needed but a little common sense? Many of the problems that exist today, and which have reached crisis point in London and other parts of the country, could be solved without great expenditure, without penalising drivers and without penalising people on public transport. Will the Government please get rid of the traffic consultants, who cost a fortune and exacerbate every problem?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hate to say this, but at the time that the railways were privatised, some of us in the Labour Party thought that there was a certain lack of common sense in the then government's proposals. Have we not been proved right? Traffic consultants are in the private sector, and their employment is a matter for the individuals who hire them and not for the Government.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, is the Minister mindful that the railway network in England is Scotland's access to Europe and to the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he ensure that Scotland's strategic rail links, by which I mean the East Coast and West Coast Main Lines, are redeveloped more speedily so as to prevent over-reliance on airlines and the air pollution which they cause?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, on the way that he framed his question so that it did not fall foul of the devolution prohibition. What he says is extremely important, and the upgrading of the West Coast Main Line to a speed far greater than has been achieved in the past is a significant contribution to that. But I am sure that there is far more to be done.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that at certain points on the motorways traffic congestion has more than doubled over the past five years? Can he confirm, or otherwise, the announcement in the Sunday Times of 13th October

1329
that the Department for Transport has a programme to tackle what are known as "pinch points" in the motorway network?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, within the past two weeks the Secretary of State has announced a programme of 92 projects which are designed to tackle pinch points. A number of those are on motorways.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the original Question, which the noble Lord did not answer, was whether the progress of the 10-year transport plan was, in the Government's view, satisfactory. Do I take it from the extent of his defensive remarks that the answer is: not entirely?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. That does not follow at all. I said that the progress is steady. But, in answer to another question, I said that, as only one year of the 10-year plan has been completed, clearly it would be premature to pass judgment on it as a whole.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, perhaps I may assure the Minister that, in asking the Question, I was in no way departing from my general support for the principles of the 10-year plan. I was expressing disappointment with what has been achieved so far. I hope that he will concur that a great deal of work remains to be done.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, to integrated transport and his distinguished service on the Commission for Integrated Transport are well known. I am grateful for his support and, of course, I agree that there is a great deal more to be done. There is bound to be in eight-and-a-half years.

Central Government: Financial Reporting Standards
2.56 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards off-balance sheet government liabilities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government's policy on accounting for all liabilities is, in accordance with the Government Resource and Accounts Act 2000, to follow generally accepted accounting practice in the United Kingdom, in particular, financial reporting standards issued by the Accounting Standards Board, adapted as necessary for the central government context. With regard to accounting for liabilities, two financial reporting standards are particularly relevant: FRS 12, Provisions, contingent liabilities and contingent assets; and FRS 5, Reporting the Substance of Transactions, which is particularly relevant for private finance initiative and other complex transactions.
1330
The detailed requirements are set out in the Resource Accounting Manual, which is the authoritative statement of how departments should account for transactions in their resource accounts.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. In case some people outside do not have the intellectual capacity of your Lordships, perhaps I may ask him whether it would be better to express it more simply and to concede, honestly, that borrowing off-balance sheet is likely to be more expensive than borrowing on-balance sheet? Does he agree that, equally, it would be perfectly honourable for the Government to say conclusively that the reason they are borrowing in this way is that the Treasury understandably wants to take the percentage of borrowing as a percentage of GDP to a lower level than the Chancellor would otherwise like to do? Is that not the case and does my noble friend agree with that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that the House would thank me for giving simplistic rather than accurate and detailed Answers. As to the question of the difference in private sector interest rates and their increased cost, our calculation is that the additional interest cost involved in going to the private sector is approximately 0.25 per cent of the total cost of construction and maintenance in PFI projects. I entirely resist the notion that the Government have any incentive to take liabilities off-balance sheet. We have no need to do so. Our only criterion in these matters is value for money.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, does the Minister's acceptance of generally accepted accounting principles for liabilities also apply to FRS 17, which applies to pension liabilities? Does he accept that last year the Government Actuary estimated the liability for future payment of the standard pension to be more than £1,000 billion? In accordance with accepted accounting principles, will the Minister be willing to include that in the Government's financial report and, indeed, to update the nation every year on how much it has increased?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, behind the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, is a good but rather shocking revelation that the amount being put into private pension funds is not as great as we had believed. We thought that the figure was higher than it actually is and we are grateful to Mr David Willetts for pointing that out. As for FRS 17, I do not believe that we have a formal view on it, but my personal view is that it would be a great mistake for companies to make a precipitate judgment on the change in their balance sheet in any year when they have no urgent need to realise the assets concerned.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, the Minister speaks of minuscule extra costs, but have the Government made any calculation of what the costs would be if one of the PFI contractors went bust? Is he aware of the widely reported concern about the

1331
financial standing of Amey plc; which is one of the largest off-balance-sheet contractors for the Government in health, education, defence and transport? On the London Underground PPP, is it now prudent to sign a 30-year contract with the tube lines consortium, in which Amey has a one-third share, to modernise and to upgrade the Piccadilly, Jubilee and Northern lines?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on the finances of an individual contractor.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, is the Captain of the Queen's Body Guard aware that people of limited intellectual capacity are not confined to those outside the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, but can also refer to some inside it? When the Minister is kind enough to provide answers it would be helpful, while not compromising accuracy, if they were phrased so that some of us could understand them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was asked a precise and serious Question by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, which I do the House credit by taking seriously. I answered with facts, not with speculation and I answered with detail, not with generalisation. I hope that that is what the House wants.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate the extreme sensitivity of the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett? Is it not the case that in a few weeks' time the Minister will come before your Lordships' House to explain that the Government's figures for the public finances are wrong? He will go on to say that the Government will borrow more and add that as they are well within their borrowing limits they can afford to do so. If the line of questioning of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is correct—it usually is—he is driving at the fact that the level of borrowing stated in the public accounts is inaccurate because it is understated. The Minister will be well aware that there are many critics, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who take that view.
To settle the matter between the critics and the Government, ahead of probably the most sensitive economic announcement for years, will the Minister undertake to publish on that day, or before it, a full analysis of the Government's liabilities in relation to PFIs, PPPs or other allegedly understated liabilities in the public accounts, so that when the Chancellor describes the Government's debt situation people will know that the figures at which they are looking are correct?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, would hardly expect me to anticipate the Pre-Budget Report. In regard to what we publish, perhaps I may take the example of the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), which is one of the most controversial. The credit facilities given to the SRA are reported to Parliament as contingent liabilities and they are listed in statements of the
1332
Consolidated Fund and the National Loans Fund accounts. Those matters are reported fully. There is no concealment.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, while helping the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, with his intellectual capacity in these matters, perhaps my noble friend can tell the House how much of the off-balance-sheet borrowings are fully guaranteed rather than effectively guaranteed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I may be able to give a precise answer, but not within the time-scale available for Starred Questions. The figures are certainly available. Taking the example of London Underground, the guarantees given for that public/private partnership are the guarantees of third-party debt rather than of shareholders' funds. That is a characteristic of the private finance initiative and reflects the proper transfer of risk that is an essential feature of such initiatives.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can help those in this House who cannot believe that it is cheaper to give a company profit rather than to borrow on bonds at 6 or 7 per cent. Can he place in the Library a detailed analysis of one of those schemes, say, a hospital?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall see whether that can be done. There are very detailed reports of PFIs. The PFI accounts are analysed by the National Audit Office. All those matters are in the public domain. There has been no concealment of them at all.

Adoption and Children Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now further considered on Report.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Disclosure of Birth Records by Registrar General]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 91, line 42, leave out paragraph 4.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 89 is a modest amendment designed to bring one small part of the adoption law up to date. It removes paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 and thereby removes a requirement for compulsory counselling of an adopted person before receiving details of his or her birth records. We debated a slightly different amendment in Grand Committee and I would like to return to the issue today.
In the bad old days, before 1975, adopted people had no right to their birth records. That was put right in the 1976 Adoption Act but Parliament decided then that applicants adopted before the Act should undergo compulsory counselling before receiving the information. That contrasts with people adopted after 1975 who have merely been informed of counselling services and have not been required to use them.
I want to be clear about one thing: counselling for adopted people when they search for their birth relatives is undeniably a good thing. It should be strongly recommended to anyone embarking on a search. During the summer I read a book, Adoption, Search and Reunion, published by the Children's Society. That outlined the very different motivations of searchers and the many potential outcomes from search and reunion underline how difficult the territory is. For most it is a positive experience, although not necessarily, or even often, in terms of achieving a close family relationship in the end. The road is certainly rocky and it is important that searchers are aware of the possible problems that can arise.
Having said all of that, I might be expected to support compulsory counselling, but I cannot. It is a remnant of the nanny state. Compulsion is an intrusion into private life. What might have seemed right and cautious in 1975 now simply looks outdated.
By taking this opportunity to update the law we would reflect that the world has moved on. The people affected by the compulsion rule must by definition be at least 27 years old and are very likely to be much older. The stigma of illegitimacy may still have hung over our legislators in 1975 but no one can claim that it does now. If the law does not insist on intruding into the lives of today's adoptees, why should it continue to do so for yesterday's adoptees?
There is a good framework for counselling information being made available. The adoption agencies have a wealth of experience in counselling. Let us not continue to treat those adopted adults as though they are children, incapable of responding to good advice. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. There is a hint of retrospection in paragraph 4 and it has a restrictive element. What is the purpose of that paragraph as it stands? I shall of course listen to everything that is said by the Minister. At the moment, it seems to me that the amendment should be supported.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her support of counselling. I am sure she is right that it is widely welcomed. My understanding is that where counselling is voluntary, two out of three who are offered it take up the offer, which confirms the view that she has taken.
The noble Baroness describes this as a modest amendment. I suppose it is. But it is not quite as modest as the amendment she moved in Grand
1334
Committee. That amendment—Amendment No. 86—would have replaced the current mandatory requirement for an adopted person to undergo counselling. It would have put persons adopted before 12th November 1975 on a similar footing to those adopted after that date. The amendment then would have required the registrar-general to inform the applicant that counselling services are available and to recommend strongly that the applicant use them. That is in line with her speech today.
The amendment before us today completely removes the requirement for an applicant adopted before 12th November 1975 to receive counselling before the registrar-general provides the information—primarily his birth name, but it is necessary for the applicant to obtain a certified copy of the record of his birth. My problem is that the amendment would overturn a scheme that is based on a clear commitment made by Parliament in 1997, not to legislators, but to adopted persons and to their relatives.
The requirement for compulsory counselling was introduced by Section 26 of the Children Act 1975 that was enacted in the Adoption Act 1976. Section 51 of the 1976 Act gave adult adopted persons a right to obtain the information necessary to access their birth records. For adopted persons living outside the United Kingdom, the Children Act 1989 amended the 1976 Act to allow the registrar-general to approve counselling services overseas. That was enacted in 1991.
Individuals who do not know their birth details and were adopted before 12th November 1975 are required to see a counsellor before they are given access to their birth records. Individuals adopted on or after 12th November 1975 are informed of the counselling services that are available to them, but counselling is not a pre-condition to disclosure of the birth record information.
The reason for the distinction is that until 12th November 1975 adopted people did not have a right to access their birth records. When Parliament provided the new right, it gave it to individuals prior to 12th November 1975. That was the time of the retrospection. There is no retrospection now. It was to balance the concerns of birth parents who had previously had anonymity. The concern we must have is that it was the birth parents who had had anonymity before who had to be protected. Parliament decided that counselling would be compulsory for those given the retrospective rights. An adoption that took place before 1975 could have done so in the expectation that there would be little prospect of the birth parents' identity being revealed to the adopted person.
Many adoptions before that time happened in an atmosphere of secrecy. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is quite right about that. Parliament considered this issue carefully before deciding to allow the adopted adult access to his birth record. In recognition of the fact that it would be changing the position of adoptions after the event, Parliament decided that because of the potentially sensitive

1335
situations that might arise the adopted adult should have counselling before being able to have access to the sensitive information about his birth parents.
As I have said today and in Grand Committee, Parliament made this clear commitment in 1975. It was that persons adopted before 12th November 1975 would be required to discuss the circumstances of their birth, their adoption and their intentions with a trained counsellor before they could receive their birth record information.
I hope that noble Lords will see from that explanation that this is a long-standing obligation which we have to people who had expectations of anonymity in the past. We are maintaining these conditions. This amendment would do serious damage to that.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am of course aware that the amendment I have tabled for Report stage is different from the one I tabled in Grand Committee. That is because on reflection I could see no reason why the intermediate stage of giving a strong recommendation as to counselling should be preferred to the position that obtains for all those adopted adults after the 1976 Act.
It is somewhat illogical that in order to protect the birth parents the adopted person has to go through counselling. There is no logical connection between the two.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is because the information that is being given, which is the birth record, gives information about the birth parents. That is why.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, yes. But the purpose of counselling is to prepare the adopted person for the difficulties that may flow from attempting to seek a reunion with the birth parent. I am disappointed in the Minister's reply. Those adopted adults, as I said earlier, must be over 27 years of age and many considerably older—their parents even older still. I had hoped that after this period of 27 years and in a completely different social environment we could have updated the law and not fallen back on the social position of 1975. However, I shall consider carefully what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 [Adoption Contact Register]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 45, leave out lines 37 and 38.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 90, and in doing so return us to another issue that we debated in Grand Committee relating to inter-country adoptions.
It is almost self-evident that people who seek contact with family members lost through inter-country adoption face infinitely more difficult searches than do
1336
those who make the same sort of search in a domestic context. Currently, use of the adoption contact register does not extend to adopted people abandoned as babies in the UK, nor does it extend to overseas adoptees.
The Minister confirmed in Grand Committee that the registrar-general had an intention to provide this service for future inter-country adoptions if sufficient information is made available to him by those who apply for registration on the register. That is of course extremely welcome; but I should like to urge the Minister to go a little further. The contact register is to be available for "future inter-country adoptions" but not apparently in respect of those people adopted overseas prior to the implementation date of the 1999 Act or this Bill. That is most disappointing, and I hope that the Minister will feel able to reconsider.
Of course birth relatives living on limited incomes in developing countries are likely to find the current fees to use the register prohibitive. If there is not to be a separate contact register for inter-country adoption, there will need to be a much more modest fee to facilitate its use by inter-country adoption birth relatives. Indeed, without that it is hard to see how the register will in practice be effective. Can the Minister say anything on that issue?
My other concern relates to the information that has to be provided in order to access the register. We still do not know what will constitute "sufficient information" in this context. That is a critical piece of the jigsaw, because without an understanding of that we do not know how many people will be denied access to the contact register. Once again, I hope that the Minister can enlighten us.
My amendment addresses the main issue here, which is to ensure that the current contact register will be accessible to inter-country adopted people in the UK and their birth relatives overseas. I regard this as extremely important.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment. Again, it is restrictive. It relates to a concept of such information which is totally at large. That is an unsatisfactory manner in which to legislate. I hope that it will not be said, as was said about the previous amendment, that because way back in the past a retrospective measure was adopted by Parliament, it must be perpetuated in an amending Bill such as this.
Baroness Thomas of walliswood: My Lords, we have tabled an amendment in this group: Amendment No. 91. Its effect is broadly the same as that of the amendment moved by the noble Earl, so I shall not prolong the discussion further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Clauses 80 and 81 are concerned with supplementary provision for the adoption contact register. I was a little puzzled by the noble Earl's reference to overseas adoptions because, strictly speaking, the part of the Bill concerned with adoptions with a foreign element commences with Clause 83 and Chapter 6. But of

1337
course he is right in that the contact register is available to any person who can satisfy the conditions in Clause 80. That means that a birth relative of a person subject to intercountry adoption could apply to go on the register. If that is what the noble Earl meant, I understand his point more clearly.
Clause 80(5) sets out the conditions under which the registrar-general may make an entry for a birth relative in part 2 of the adoption contact register. The register provides a framework designed to facilitate contact between adopted persons and their relatives where that is what they both want. There are two parts of the register. Part 1 contains the names of adopted persons who have given notification that they want—or do not want—to contact all or some of their relatives. Part 2 contains the names and addresses of persons related to an adopted person who have given notification that they want—or do not want—to make contact with a specified adopted person.
Amendment No. 90 omits part of Clause 80(5)(b), which provides that the registrar-general can make an entry in part 2 of the register only where the applicant has such information as could enable him—that is, the registrar-general—to obtain a certified copy of the record of the adopted person's birth. The amendment would remove the means by which the registrar-general is satisfied that the person who claims to be the relative of an adopted person is in fact related to him and would be able to obtain a certified copy of the record of his birth.
Amendment No. 91 amends Clause 81, which sets out supplementary provisions for the adoption contact register. If it were correctly placed in Clause 80, rather than in Clause 81, it would merely repeat the existing provision in the Bill.
Without the essential details needed to establish a relationship between the adopted adult and the applicant, the registrar-general cannot be satisfied that a birth relationship exists, because there will be no evidence. Without that safeguard, a person claiming to be a relative could expect to be registered on part 2 of the contact register regardless of whether or not they were genuinely related to the adopted person.
The amendment would weaken the safeguards of a facility intended by Parliament to assist genuine contact between members of the same birth family—when, as I said, they both wish to make such contact. It could allow the register to be misused. For example, if an adopted person were led to believe that the other person was a relative with whom he wished to have contact, that could lead to emotional entrapment of the adopted person.
Where applicants are unable to satisfy the statutory requirements for entry to be made on the contact register, the registrar-general has referred individuals to the National Organisation for the Counselling of Adoptees and Parents, which operates its own contact register. Such applicants are advised that the threshold for proof of a relationship between the two parties is lower on NORCAP's register.
1338
In the light of my explanation that the amendment could cause serious difficulties with the proper operation of the adoption contact register, I hope that it will not be pressed. Before I sit down, perhaps I may correct something that I said a minute ago. When I said that the applicant can make an entry in part 2 of the register where the applicant has such information as could enable the registrar-general to obtain a certified copy, I should of course have said "enable the relative to obtain a certified copy of the adopted person's birth".
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and take on board his points about the effect of my amendment if accepted. As I am sure that he appreciates from my earlier remarks, the amendment was designed as a device to tease out a little more information about the Government's thinking on how the system will work in practice—in particular, on the major question, which I know puzzles and worries many people at present: what will constitute sufficient information in that context? We may each have our own ideas about what may constitute sufficient information, but it would be useful to have at least a broad idea about that placed on the record. However, I realise that that request may not be reasonable at this stage.
I had also hoped that the Minister would say something about fees, which are another worry to those who specialise in adoption. As I said, they will impact especially on those from overseas who come to the United Kingdom and are confronted with an expensive system.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl for not referring to fees, which he indeed raised in his opening speech. I can either give him an answer now or write to him and other noble Lords.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should be most grateful if the Minister would write to me in due course on the matter. I am grateful for that offer. Nevertheless, this has been a useful exchange. Once again, I thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 81 [Adoption Contact Register: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Clause 83 [Restriction on bringing children in]:
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Clause 84 [Giving parental responsibility prior to adoption abroad]:
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Clause 85 [Restriction on taking children out]:
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Clause 89 [Section 88: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Clause 91 [Restriction on arranging adoptions, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
Clause 96 [Sections 91 to 95: interpretation]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 96A:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause—
"PRE-COMMENCEMENT ADOPTIONS: INFORMATION
(1) Regulations under section 9 may make provision for the purpose of—

(a) assisting persons adopted before the appointed day who have attained the age of 18 to obtain information in relation to their adoption, and

(b) facilitating contact between such persons and their relatives.

(2) For that purpose the regulations may confer functions on—

(a) registered adoption support agencies,

(b) the Registrar General,

(c) adoption agencies.

(3) For that purpose the regulations may—

(a) authorise or require any person mentioned in subsection (2) to disclose information,

(b) authorise or require the disclosure of information contained in records kept under section 8 of the Public Records Act 1958 (c. 51) (court records),

and may impose conditions on the disclosure of information, including conditions restricting its further disclosure.
(4) The regulations may authorise the charging of prescribed fees by any person mentioned in subsection (2) or in respect of the disclosure of information under subsection (3)(b).
(5) An authorisation or requirement to disclose information by virtue of subsection (3)(a) has effect in spite of any restriction on the disclosure of information in Chapter 5.
(6) The making of regulations by virtue of subsections (2) to (4) which relate to the Registrar General requires the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
(7) In this section—
"appointed day" means the day appointed for the commencement of sections 56 to 65,
"registered adoption support agency" means an adoption support agency in respect of which a person is registered under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000,
"relative", in relation to an adopted person, means any person who (but for his adoption) would be related to him by blood (including half-blood) or marriage."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 not moved.]
Clause 110 [Acquisition of parental responsibility by step-parent]:
[Amendments Nos. 99 to 101 not moved.]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 102:
Before Clause 111, insert the following new clause—
"ORDERS WITH RESPECT TO CHILDREN
In section 8 of the 1989 Act (residence, contact and other orders with respect to children) there is inserted—
"(5) The Lord Chancellor may make regulations providing for the separate representation of children in specified circumstances relating to any matter arising from proceedings under this section.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I was under the impression that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was to lead on this amendment, but perhaps he has been foxed by the speed with which your Lordships have got
1340
through business. That puts me in a slightly difficult position, but I shall try at least to begin the argument, so that the amendment is not lost by default.
Noble Lords will know that there has been a great deal of concern about the availability of independent support and advocacy on behalf of children during the adoption process. The amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 117 and 118, relate to that subject.
There have been many arguments on the matter since the beginning of the Bill's passage. On these Benches, we have taken the line that children who are too young to be able to make legal representations on their own behalf should be able to get independent legal advice or advocacy—whatever word we want to use—whenever they are subject to or a party to a case relating to adoption or any other children's case.
Another aspect of the matter is that the right of a child to be represented by an advocate is already part of the general public law. We would prefer it to become part of this Bill so that, in any relevant case, the child would have the ability to be represented. Others who have spoken to us about the matter also feel that it is important to get rid of the difference between public and private law in this respect. Members on the Government Benches will be aware of that; they will have received the same briefings.
A third argument has to do with whether this country is compliant with international legislation on the rights of the child. The relevant legislation says that a child shall be represented in legal cases according to the protocols or something like that—I quote from memory—of the country involved. Our interpretation of that is that the child shall have that representation not in every case but in cases in which it is clear that the child needs that representation and that in no case involving a child should the child be unable to get such representation. The law, as it stands, puts children in the United Kingdom in that position, which is why I have constantly queried our consonance with the two major pieces of European and United Nations legislation on the rights of the child.
The Government have made their own proposals about advocacy, but we must know that the child is secure. If a judge decides, on the basis of any part of the Bill, that a child requires to be represented, the child must be independently represented. We also want to know that our compliance with international human rights law is complete. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, on a bravura performance, even though she had no prior notice that she was about to move the amendment.
I know that the Minister will give a detailed résumé of the legal position on the representation of children and will say that what is sought in the amendments is already covered by existing rule-making powers and/or the practice of the courts. I, for one, would not dream of challenging the Minister whose expertise in that area of the law is widely famed. But—it is a big "but"—the fact remains that the Government have

1341
not implemented Section 64 of the Family Law Act 1996 and have no intention of so doing. Concerns remain about the effectiveness of measures to allow the child's voice to be heard, particularly in private law cases.
I thank the Minister for the useful briefing note that was circulated on 4th October. It referred to messages from a scoping study and possible areas for further consultation. However, the note gave no timescales and did not identify any particular areas that the Government were committed to pursuing. I hope that, if the legal framework is to be accepted as perfect, the Minister will accept that something must be done about implementation in practice. It should be clear that the need for the representation of children's views about their future is beyond question. If further consultation is required, it must be timetabled.
I hope that the Minister will be positive about the matter. If she is not, the case for the amendments will become compelling.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 102 and 117, which stand in my name. Before doing so, I sincerely thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for stepping into the breach. I apologise to the House for being detained. I was trying to perfect what I was going to say, so I hope that I can do it justice now.
The Minister has been a well respected practitioner in this area, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said. The Minister has said that there should be a change in the culture of private law proceedings involving children, and she has helpfully provided briefings on the many steps she is taking to bring about that change. She has argued that it is practice that must be addressed and that that would be best done through training. She has argued that there is already an adequate framework in private law to protect children.
I have weighed carefully what the Minister said. I have paid close attention to what she said about the problems that could arise in providing equality of arms for children in private law cases. The Minister said that that could lead to the prolongation of cases and could mean that the child would have to take the side of one parent or the other. The indiscriminate use of separate representation for children in private law cases is not desirable.
I took a pause for thought and consulted children and family court reporting officers and children's lawyers working in this area. The consensus was that the framework is not as it should be. There is a lack of means for courts to appoint separate representation if it is felt that that is necessary for the child. The courts would appreciate more guidance on when to consider the introduction of separate representation for children.
There are two main pathways into separate representation for a child. There is Section 9(5), which provides for the assistance of a Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service officer. The officer is empowered to appoint separate
1342
representation for the child. However, it can be a long-drawn-out and, possibly, fruitless process. Such provision depends on the discretion of CAFCASS. As that organisation is in disarray, there is a consensus that it may not achieve what the court wishes for the child. The second main approach is to use Section 37 of the Children Act 1989. However, it can be used only in extremis when the child is suffering abuse.
Amendment No. 102 seeks to allow the Lord Chancellor to establish rules that will enable the courts to give particular regard to whether a child should have a guardian appointed and should be empowered to have separate representation. For instance, if the parents are in court for the 24th time litigating against one another, the courts in the new circumstances will be empowered to appoint a guardian for the child. The court may be the only means, through considering the needs and wishes of the child, to end such prolonged and protracted litigation.
Where there is disputed contact, the courts can more easily obtain a thorough investigation of the children's circumstances and ensure that the voice of the child is heard by appointing separate representation.
A model already exists in statute; Amendment No. 102 is modelled closely on Section 64 of the Family Law Act 1996. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale spoke eloquently at the time of passing that law for the need of such provision.
I should be grateful if the Minister could say why the Government are choosing not to reinstate a provision already accepted under the Family Law Act 1996. This is an important new means to support and protect children in private law proceedings.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support all the amendments in the group for reasons that I have given at some length previously, both in Grand Committee and on Report. I support both their spirit and substance. The problem is, what is to be done? The Lord Chancellor is concerned that adequate regulations should be made. I am not certain he is totally satisfied that on an objective review they could not be improved.
Few regimes cannot be improved if one takes another look at them in the light of these amendments. Without being at all critical, I would not say that the present structure of the regulations is perfect or that it ever could be, but it could perhaps be improved.
Once it has been improved, there is still the question of whether the regulations are being applied. That is a problem under the existing structure. It is possible that the Lord Chancellor could take steps to seek to ensure, when he has revised the regulations, that they are more regularly applied in the courts. I look for a sympathetic response from the Minister.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I have listened with care to the arguments put by the Minister, whom I respect greatly. I understand her wish to change cultures, to

1343
increase training and to use other methods to achieve those ends. Despite that, I am still convinced that it is important that the amendment is accepted.
I have a list of legal precedents in relation to the position in Europe and how we stand in relation to the various conventions. They have been outlined and I do not intend to go through them again. The other legal arguments have been made clearly. I speak on behalf of children to whom I have listened in their dozens over the lines at Childline; families I have met; and CAFCASS officers and others to whom I have spoken in recent years.
Many children feel that whatever is happening to them in court, they are simply not being heard. They often feel that they do not want to choose between parents; the Minister has made that point on a number of occasions. But if one talks to them on the telephone about that choice, it is clear that whatever help they are receiving in thinking through it, they need legal advice to sort out the issues and the pros and cons of how they take forward the issues through the courts.
They know emotionally how they feel, but they do not necessarily know how to interpret that emotion in relation to the arguments that will be put in an adult forum. I was involved in the discussions about Section 64 of the Family Law Act 1996. During the passage of that Act through the House of Commons, great emphasis was placed by the government—then in opposition—on the need for separate representation of children involved in private law proceedings. They were listening carefully to what various organisations were telling them about children's voices.
At that time, there was consensus. I am interested to know why that consensus is no longer accepted. If the debate at that time was supported by those involved in the debate now, why is it now not possible to accept the amendment? The non-implementation of the Family Law Act has effectively halted development in this area. The Bill provides an opportunity to implement those long overdue changes and to make sure that we hear children. Many of them feel that their voices have not been heard, and indeed, in difficult cases, that they have not been protected.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate; they feel like old friends. I compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, on her sterling heroic effort. The whole House was urging her on.
I greatly sympathise with the spirit of the amendments and agree that the wishes and feelings of children must be heard when important decisions are being made about their future. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, spoke about the need to listen with acuity to what children have to say; that is very important. The question of how we carry out that listening is of equal importance.
The amendments seek to provide the power to extend the definition of specified proceedings so that children can automatically be separately represented by children's guardians and solicitors either in cases
1344
identified by the courts as requiring such a level of representation or in classes of proceedings to be defined by rules of court.
I hope that I can reassure noble Lords by saying as clearly as I can that these amendments are unnecessary. I am grateful for the compliments that have been showered upon me about my erstwhile participation in these cases on the ground. Having looked at the legislation, I was most careful to assure myself that that which needed to be on the statute was in fact there. I can assure the House that if it were not, I would have been as discontent as others who have spoken.
Section 41(6) of the Children Act 1989 already provides the definition of "specified proceedings" to be extended by rules of court, and the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 provide that any child in any family proceedings can be made a party to proceedings and be separately represented. The welfare check list in Section 1(3) of the Children Act requires the court to have regard to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned considered in the light of his age and understanding. That is not an optional consideration; it is mandatory. Therefore, the issue for the court is how best to meet that obligation in the best interests of the child.
The court has a number of options. It can make the child a party to proceedings. As I have said, it can already do that in any family proceedings It can appoint a guardian, who will now be a CAFCASS officer, for any child in any family proceedings. The court can ask a CAFCASS officer to report to the court on the welfare and best interests of the child. The Family Proceedings Rules specifically provide that the report must cover the matters in the welfare check list, which includes the child's wishes and feelings.
Only last year, we amended the rules to place an additional duty on any children and family reporter; namely, to notify the child about the contents of the report, including any reference to the child's own views and the recommendations. It is right that we would anticipate that CAFCASS officers would take that responsibility very seriously and would do exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, outlined in helping the children to understand the proceedings and ensure that they know their views have been listened to and will be properly represented and reflected.
When decisions are being made about the state intervening in a family life, such as in a case with care proceedings or in placement proceedings under the Bill, it must be right that children are separately represented. However, it is less clear that a formulaic approach works in private law family matters. As I said earlier, and as others foreshadowed, not every child will want to be a party to proceedings. Some children may specifically not want to be drawn into a dispute between their parents. For some children, this could feel like being asked to choose between two parents both of whom they may love very deeply.
In other cases, the child may actively want to participate and have a view that either of the parents may be incapable of putting dispassionately on his

1345
behalf. We need a flexible child-centred approach that meets each child uniquely and the court must be allowed to consider what is right for each individual child. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, inquired about making placements in adoption cases and asked whether that would be a specified proceeding. Subject to further consultation, we do not intend to make adoption proceedings specified proceedings because under the Bill the majority of issues will be resolved before the adoption hearing.
While the amendments add nothing to existing legislation, I agree that we must consider whether the existing arrangements are operating consistently and effectively in practice. Noble Lords who highlighted that point are right and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was right in saying that it is an issue. That is the essence of the debate.
That point was also made in this year's concluding observations of the Committee on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child about the representation of children in family proceedings. The committee expressed disappointment about the extent to which the provisions already contained in the Children Act were being consistently used, but were not disputing the merits of the legislation. That is precisely the point that we intend to address in consultation. We want to ensure that the full range of ways in which children can have a voice in decision-making regarding their future is considered and used consistently. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked when that will take place. We are already working on a consultation paper and we hope to begin consulting around the end of this year. Therefore, creative work is being done on that.
During Grand Committee, my noble friend Lady Thornton was concerned whether we were needlessly consulting. I want to make two points about that. First, we shall not consult on whether children are able to be separately represented. As I hope I have made clear, that is already provided for in the current system. We want to address the concerns raised in the debate and in a scoping study that we have already undertaken with organisations representing children to inform the scope of full consultation.
In summary, it seems to us that those concerns fall into two broad categories. First, that the existing arrangements are not used consistently. It may be that we need more specifically to define the types of case in which a child should be separately represented, or a CAFCASS officer appointed. If so, we already have the necessary powers to do that. Secondly, we have focused too narrowly on legal representation and have not taken account of the fact that children experiencing family breakdowns may have very different needs. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth.
A child may need information or advice about how to raise concerns with his parents, for example, or about the legal process and what it means. He may simply want a friendly face to talk to and to support him through the process. We must consider whether we need a greater variety of tools to ensure a flexible system in which children of all ages and levels of
1346
maturity have the opportunity to express their views and to be heard in a manner in which they feel comfortable. That is what we want to consult upon.
Existing legislation already provides for children to be separately represented in any family proceedings and for the definition of "specified proceedings" to be extended by rules of court. Therefore, we have what provision we need in that area. But we want to ensure that we make the best use of those wide powers so that the system works as effectively and as efficiently as it can. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, when he says that we can always make good better.
I believe that we will be able to achieve the best outcome only if we consult fully especially with children and their families. I do not believe that we have moved away from the consensus we have in relation to children; we are working creatively and constructively with all those who seek better to manage disruption in children's lives so that there is a better outcome. And we thank all those organisations because without them, our policy would not be as robust as it currently is.
I assure noble Lords that these areas are covered and that the consultation will be productive. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that we are compliant with international conditions. I will explore them now if she wishes, or I can write to her.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, is it true that while courts can apply to CAFCASS under Section 9(5) for the help of a children's guardian, it is at the discretion of CAFCASS whether or not it provides a guardian? Perhaps the Minister could write to me. It would be helpful.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall certainly write to your Lordships on any specific provisions, but certainly I have never known a situation where a court has ordered that there be a report and a report has not, in due course, been provided. Of course it sometimes happens that there are delays in relation to allocation, but I have never known a report to be refused. The court has to come to an informed judgment as to what is in the best interests of the child, and if it needs a report to do so, one is usually forthcoming. In my experience, most people find it difficult to say no to judges when so ordered.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Minister has given a full response but, in many respects, it was very similar to much of the briefing she has already supplied to us. I read the briefing with care but I did not always find it entirely satisfactory. We believe that this is a very important matter. We wish to register its importance to us and to the children who will be the subject of this Bill—not the subject of disputes between parents—and who will be conveyed, in effect, from one family to another. This is a very special case. For those reasons, despite the generous

1347
allocation of time we have been given and the great expertise of the Minister, I wish to test the opinion of
the House.
4.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 102) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 136; Not-Contents, 129.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jopling, L.

Alderdice, L.

Kimball, L.

Ampthill, L.

Laird, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Arran, E.

Lindsay, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Bagri, L.

Luke, L.

Barker, B. [Teller]

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Biffen, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blaker, L.

McNally, L.

Blatch, B.

Maddock, B.

Boardman, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bowness, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Methuen, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Burnham, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Byford, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Newby, L.

Chan, L.

Noakes, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Parkinson, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denham, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Dholakia, L.

Plumb, L.

Dundee, E.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Elles, B.

Prior, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elton, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L.

Fearn, L.

Rees, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rennard, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Goodhart, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Greaves, L.

Rogan, L.

Hanham, B.

Roper, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Russell, E.

Henley, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Higgins, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hooper, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hooson, L.

Seccombe, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Howe, E.

Selsdon, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Sharples, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hylton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

1348

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Stewartby, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Trumpington, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Waddington, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wakeham, L.

Swinfen, L.

Walmsley, B.

Taverne, L.

Walpole, L.

Tenby, V.

Warnock, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Weatherill, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B. [Teller]

Wigoder, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ahmed, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Alli, L.

Hoyle, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Andrews, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Bach, L.

Islwyn, L.

Barnett, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jordan, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Borrie, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brightman, L.

Layard, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brookman, L.

Levy, L.

Burlison, L.

Lipsey, L.

Carter, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Christopher, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Marsh, L.

Crawley, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

David, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mitchell, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Dixon, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Donoughue, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Northbourne, L.

Elder, L.

Orme, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Parekh, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Pendry, L.

Falkender, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Filkin, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Fitt, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gale, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rea, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Golding, B.

Richard, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rooker, L.

Goudie, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sheldon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon, V.

Greengross, B.

Slim, V.

Gregson, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Grenfell, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Strange, B.

Harrison, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Haskins, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hayman, B.

Uddin, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Varley, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

1349

Whitaker, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Whitty, L.

Wilkins, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.13 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton Baroness Gould of Potternewton moved Amendment No. 102A:
After Clause 111, insert the following new clause—
"CASES INVOLVING ILL-TREATMENT OF CHILDREN
After section 8 of the 1989 Act there is inserted—
"8A CASES INVOLVING ILL-TREATMENT OF CHILDREN
When determining whether the child will be safe if contact or residence is granted to the abusive party, the court shall, so far as is practicable, have regard to the following matters—

(a) the nature and severity of the ill-treatment;

(b) how recently the ill-treatment occurred;

(c) the frequency of the ill-treatment;

(d) the risk of further ill-treatment occurring;

(e) the physical, sexual or emotional harm inflicted on the child or harm suffered by the child as a result of seeing or hearing ill-treatment of another person;

(f) whether the other party to the proceedings—

(i) considers that the child will be safe while the abusive party has residence of, or contact with, the child; and

(ii) consents to the abusive party having residence of, or contact with, the child;

(g) the wishes of the child, if the child is able to express them, and having regard to the age and maturity of the child;

(h) any steps taken by the abusive party to prevent further ill-treatment from occurring; and

(k) any other matters as the court considers relevant.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I thank my noble friend the Minister for many helpful meetings and for setting out so clearly the current legislative framework. I should perhaps begin by apologising to the House: I cannot be brief in my remarks, and some points may overlap with the previous debate.
It is important to stress that this debate is not about the principle of children maintaining contact with both parents following separation, which is, of course, desirable in the right circumstances. It is about ensuring that that contact is in the best interests of the child, with every possible measure being taken by the courts to guarantee the safety of the child when the courts are considering the granting of residence and contact orders in private proceedings.
I appreciate that, as in the previous debate, my noble friend is of the view that these amendments would not add to the duties already imposed by the courts according to the welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989, and that the duties are already enshrined in legislation. But, in reality, those duties are not being
1350
fulfilled and children are still at risk from decisions taken by courts. The effectiveness of the guidelines has to be questioned.
It is not the Children Act itself that is at fault but the case law determined by the courts since the introduction of the Act. The consequence has been that the intention of the Children Act has been substantially altered. It is for that reason that we propose urgent action as the only way of protecting children in cases of domestic violence and child abuse.
Specifically, Amendment No. 102A, standing in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, identifies a checklist which would require court professionals to take an objective approach to risk assessment and which would provide a clear framework for court welfare reports in cases involving allegations of violence.
The checklist is based on Section 16B(5) of the New Zealand Guardianship Act 1968, which contains such a mandatory risk checklist. The courts in New Zealand are required to consider: the nature and seriousness of the violence; how recently and how frequently it occurred; whether further violence is likely to occur; any physical or emotional harm suffered by the child as a result of violence; and whether the other parent considers that the child will be safe if contact or residence is granted to the violent parent. The point about the other parent is extremely important. This mandatory checklist therefore requires court professionals to take an objective approach to risk assessment. It also provides a clear framework for court welfare reports involving allegations of violence.
As I understand it, the objection to this proposal is that the New Zealand legislation has a general presumption in favour of contact while our legislation does not. That may well have been true. The Children Act 1989 does not contain a presumption of contact with regard to private legal proceedings; but that environment has been changed, as I said, by case law. Perhaps I may quote a couple of examples.
In the case, Re: O (Contact: Imposition of Conditions) 1995—a case involving domestic violence—the Court of Appeal ruled that contact is "almost always" in the interests of the child. This ruling established a strong presumption of contact—to such a degree that there is considerable evidence of solicitors and children and family reporters advising abused partners that there is no point in contesting contact because, in the words of the Court of Appeal, contact will almost always be granted.
In the case, Re: A v N (Committal: refusal of contact) 1996, the Court of Appeal ruled that the welfare of the child is not the paramount consideration when a parent is being sentenced for failure to comply with a contact order.
My noble friend the Minister may argue that the rulings in Re: O and in Re: A v N have been superseded by the Court of Appeal judgment in Re: L, V, M & H (Contact: Domestic Violence). However, that judgment specifically states that it is not in any way

1351
inconsistent with earlier decisions on contact. Does not that mean that the earlier judgments and the subsequent case law they establish continue to apply?
The final paragraph of the proposed new clause allows the court to take into account any other matters it considers relevant. One area that should be included in that category is the availability of contact centres, and the availability of trained supervisors.
There are 18 major cities in England and Wales which have no contact centres offering supervised contact and, overall, only 12 per cent of contact centres are able to provide supervised contact for cases of abuse and violence. Because of this shortage, contact visits with a violent parent can far too quickly become unsupervised, and high-risk cases can be referred to contact centres which cannot provide high vigilance contact.
Trained professionals seem to be available only when the absent parent is seen as extremely dangerous to the child. Disturbingly, from my own investigations there appears to be little reporting to courts or to social workers on contact visits. The untrained volunteers appear not to be making statements to the police even when abuse has been witnessed.
I appreciate that the Government are aware of the paucity of provision and have recognised the level of risk that this can cause, that they are in the process of establishing a strategy for a national network of child contact centres and an improved referral system, and that a small amount of increased resource has been made available. Clearly, that amount is not sufficient. I hope, therefore, that the necessary resources will be available to find and equip the right premises, to train supervisors, and to provide centres which are safe for the children to meet their absent parent. A network of such centres would do much to alleviate the anxiety felt by so many children and their parents. The Lord Chancellor's Department has indicated that consultation will have to take place before a mandatory risk assessment check-list can be introduced here. I do not therefore intend to press this amendment to a vote, but I would feel more justified in not doing so if the Minister could give an assurance that there will be such consultation and that a mandatory risk assessment check-list will be included in regulations.
The redefinition of "harm" and the tightening of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 to facilitate the reporting of violence and abuse and to provide a consistent approach are welcome initiatives. Also welcome is the work of the safety stakeholder group, which is due to report at the end of the year, in strengthening the regulations and ensuring further training for judges and magistrates. But, in spite of that, the system still fails to adequately protect children from abusers known to them. We must identify that risk at the earliest possible stage in proceedings. That is the view of the coalition of children's charities and Women's Aid, which deal with such cases daily.
I have met parents who believe that the decision to grant contact, in many cases unsupervised, sometimes puts their children at risk. Often that happens because
1352
the courts receive limited information that is not sufficiently relevant to prevent harm, be it details about neglect, emotional abuse or physical violence. I shall illustrate several cases that have been put to me. The first involves a child whose absent parent has regular unsupervised contact, even though there have been signs of abuse. Another case is that of Sonia, whose abusive alcoholic parent abducted her during supervised contact clearly against her wishes. No action was taken by the untrained supervisor to prevent this distressed child from being dragged away and abducted, nor did the police take any subsequent action, even though the court order in respect of contact had been severely breached. That child is now extremely frightened and worried that she might have to see the parent again.
In a further case, a child was taken abroad, against a court decision, and returned eight days later. The child's special diet had been ignored. She had slept in a car and returned home in a distressed state.
There is also the case of the parent who was so severely abused that the abuser was given a jail sentence. The abused parent was moved to a safe address with panic links throughout the house. The abuser applied for contact on release from jail, which resulted in consultation about whether there should be supervised contact and a mediation process. It was only because the abuser failed to appear in court that the proposal was dropped. I could continue to give examples of the evidence given by other parents that I have met of the ineffectiveness of the process. One parent said:
"I feel not only that I have been a victim of domestic violence but that my punishment is continuing through the contact".
Another parent asked:
"Why does the case have to be so extreme before one, and one's child, is protected by the law?"
The majority of respondents to an investigation by Northbrook College of Further and Higher Education believed that their children had suffered abuse during contact, varying in severity from emotional and physical abuse to sexual abuse, with 72 per cent identifying resultant behavioural problems in their children. That is the picture given by other refuges throughout the country. Such cases are much too frequent. In one case in which contact was granted, the only reason that visits stopped was that the parent is now on remand, charged with committing 32 offences against children. Something is clearly wrong. The psychological damage to children and their resident parents cannot be overstressed. These children are pawns in an emotionally abusive game and need every protection we can give them.
During the progress of the Bill, we discussed the psychological damage that too many children suffer. There can be nothing more damaging to children than having to be in contact with a known abuser against their wishes. Surely nobody can deny, given the evidence before us, that the Children Act 1999 is not sufficiently effective in ensuring child protection when courts are granting contact orders. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that there is a serious problem to be resolved. My plea to the Minister is to ensure

1353
that after the completion of all the reviews and consultations, which are very necessary and will be helpful, urgent action will be taken, by legislation if necessary, to further protect children from harm. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, for many years I have looked forward to having the chance to speak to an amendment roughly like this one, in circumstances roughly as promising as these.
The problem is an old one, going back for many centuries. People have always liked to turn a blind eye to it; on occasion, it is slightly harder to turn a deaf ear to it. That is illustrated by a London 17th-century by-law, discovered by C.V. Wedgwood, which stated that domestic violence was to be forbidden after 9 p.m. because of the noise that it created. I regret that that attitude is not altogether dead. People do not like to think about domestic violence, and if we do not like to think about something, we like to think that it does not exist. For example, in the 1996 case of A v N, the Court of Appeal criticised a mother for making "flimsy objections" to a father's contact with the child. The flimsy objections were that the father had committed a very serious assault on the mother, for which he had served a prison sentence. There is nothing particularly flimsy about the walls of most of our prisons.
It is such readiness to sweep such violence under the carpet and to take no notice of it that makes this amendment necessary. I know that the Government are tabling their own amendment, which I welcome warmly so far as it goes. It makes clear that it may harm children if they witness harm to their mother. However, that does not meet the principal problem that the amendments are supposed to address; that is to say, not all courts are taking sufficient trouble to assess whether there is a serious risk of harm. There have even been cases in which contact, sometimes even unsupervised, has been granted to people who are on the sex offenders register. Such contact should not happen.
The underlying indifference to the interests of the child was shown in the case of In Re H and R, in which it was ruled that the required standard of proof to show that contact would pose a risk was higher than the ordinary balance of probabilities. For centuries we have had a male-based law, and I do not refer solely to the composition of the judiciary, because I have great admiration for the higher judiciary, although I look forward in due course to its having a better gender balance. Much more serious is that the law has been made by men for men since the beginning of legal memory in 1189, and, I imagine, for much longer. There is a whole male-based culture here. One can understand, if one thinks only of the man's interest, the reasoning of the decision in In Re. H and R. Although the case did not involve a criminal charge, there was an accusation that the person had done something criminal.
However, that case did not go like the case that I remember reading about in the Evening Standard when I was a boy. A man was tried for murder and acquitted.
1354
The Daily Express then said that he had done it. He sued the Daily Express for libel, but, because of the reverse burden of proof, he lost that case. That taught me a great deal about the law.
In a case such as this, one would have expected the same sort of effect of reverse balance of proof. If the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Barker, which the House has just carried, had been law then, and if the child had been represented in that case, the judgment might not have happened.
As it is, the man's interest, which is a perfectly legitimate interest, is given a primacy over the interests of the child. That is risky and inherently improper. It does not meet the equality of arms principle of Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I have some figures about how freely contact is granted. In 2001, the courts granted 55,030 contact orders and refused 713, even though, according to the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, 16,000 of those cases involved domestic violence. I am not for a moment arguing that every case that involves domestic violence should lead to a refusal of contact. That would be a mercilessly rigid approach. However, I propose that in every case in which there is domestic violence, the extent of risk must be considered before a contact order is made and before it is decided whether that contact order should be supervised or unsupervised.
Because that does not appear to be happening at the moment, we believe that further action is needed. That action must be taken through the statute book in a form that ensures that actual consideration is given to actual risk. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, said, there must be a checklist. It cannot be exhaustive, because some of the forms of domestic violence that have been heard of beggar the imagination. I recall one case from the local women's refuge almost next door to me of a child who had been regularly buggered by his grandfather with a knitting needle. Who would have thought of specifying that in a checklist? There must be flexibility. However, we do not need just flexibility, because you cannot have flexibility until you have something to flex. There has to be something on the statute book that directs Her Majesty's judges that, although in all normal circumstances contact is likely to be good for the child, the child's safety must be paramount. It is not good for a child to be put at gross physical risk or to be put in a situation in which he or she can be used as a decoy to lead a man to somebody who may want to murder the child's mother.
I understand that there were 30,000 cases under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in London last year. I had a small walk-on part in helping to get that Act on the statute book. I am glad that I did so, because it seems to be used regularly in defence against a violent ex-partner. The moment when the man is most at risk of committing violence is usually the moment when the woman says that she has had enough. That is also the moment at which the man wants to apply for an order for contact.

1355
On one occasion, a man making the application was violent in court to the extent that the judge had to adjourn the court. He still got his contact order. If nothing else proves that not enough care is being taken in this area, that case alone does so. I am proud to support the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 102B in my name.
"This is a poem for you to see
About this man trying to get Cicely
I want you all to read this loud and clear
Then you'll know why he is my biggest fear
He touched me where I knew he shouldn't
I wanted to run away but I just couldn't
Then when I said 'Let me go'
He blocked the door and said "No'
He said 'If you tell mother what I have done
I'll shoot her with this gun'
I love Cicely with all my heart
Please don't let this man tear us apart".
Those are extracts from a poem written by a 13 year-old girl who is terrified that the man who touched her and brutalised her mother may go on to do God knows what to her four year-old sister. The poem talks about how they escaped. I have changed the names in the case, although there has been some media coverage of it. Now, because the mother refused to let her abusive ex-partner have unsupervised access to the younger sister and went into hiding to protect the child, she may be about to have four year-old Cecily granted residence with this man. If it comes, the judgment cannot be challenged. There is no redress if this small child is abused and her life is wrecked. In that case, the system will have failed her in the most appalling way. The older child's views have not been taken into account in this case. Can we be content with a system that produces that outcome?
That is one of many cases that demonstrate the damaging effects of the 1995 ruling in In Re H and R on child sex abuse. That case, along with others, has diluted the effect of the Children Act 1989, which no longer works to protect children as originally intended. As recently as last week, I met a woman who told me a horrifying story. She separated from her violent partner three years ago, but the father obtained an order for supervised contact with her child, despite the child having witnessed the violence and, it is suspected, having also been mistreated. The mother had resisted and opposed contact because the child was so terrified and traumatised.
In the end, supervised contact was granted. At this point, the mother decided to try to make the best of the situation and to normalise the contact as far as possible. As a result, contact was extended and eventually became unsupervised and for longer periods.
Then, over a period of months, the child became withdrawn and troubled and started to behave in an inappropriate sexual manner. It emerged that the child had been sexually abused by the father as soon as unsupervised contact was granted. Social services and
1356
the police were involved. Charges were brought against the father, but they were dropped because of the age of the child, although there is no doubt that the child has been abused. The mother and the family are now involved in rebuilding that child's life.
That case raises some serious questions. The father can return to court at any time to apply for renewed contact with the child. He has not been placed on the child abuse register. The family have the issue hanging over them for as long as it takes. There is nothing they can do about that. There is no redress to the courts about what has happened to that child. Nothing can be done about the decision that was taken. The supervised contact that took place was woefully inadequate. I cannot believe that the Government can be content that that could happen to a child. How can these things happen in this rich and civilised country, with its sophisticated legal system and legal rights guaranteed? There is a growing anxiety, even desperation, that despite all the safeguards that are supposed to be there, children are being exposed to abusive parents by courts granting residence and unsupervised contact without taking proper account of the dangers to which they are exposing them.
In Grand Committee, my noble friend the Minister pointed out that these matters are already covered in the Children Act 1989 and said that our amendments would gloss or interfere with the fundamental principle that the welfare of the child is paramount. To my simple mind, that fundamental principle has already been undermined by case law. We are seeking to remedy that situation.
The case of In Re O, on the imposition of conditions for contact, states that contact is almost always in the interests of the child. To my knowledge there has been no research that suggests that contact with a violent parent is beneficial to a child. In fact, authoritative statements were made on the issue by Dr Sturge and Dr Glaser, who were commissioned to write a report about contact and domestic violence for use in the appeal courts. They described domestic violence as a,
"very serious and significant failure in parenting".
They stated that,
"the research is entirely consistent in showing the deleterious effects on children of exposure to domestic violence",
and that,
"children are affected as much by exposure to violence as by being involved in it".
They said that, in other words,
"there should be no automatic assumption that contact to a previously or currently violent parent was in the child's interests; if anything, the assumption should be in the opposite direction".
There is no question but that my noble friend the Minister and her colleagues are hard at work on trying to remedy this situation. There have been attempts to improve legal protection for children in contact arrangements, and good practice guidelines have been issued to judges. However, figures from the Judicial Statistics for England and Wales suggest that those actions have had little effect. If the courts were placing greater emphasis on child protection as a result of the guidelines, one would expect an increase in the number

1357
of cases in which the courts refused contact. To date, however, there has been a decrease in the number of cases in which contact has been refused. The Minister did not accept that point as evidence when I made it in an earlier debate. I still believe, however, that the violence involved in so many marital breakdowns demonstrates the need for greater care when making contact arrangements. If the Minister believes that the rebuttable principle outlined in this amendment is not the right route, will she give us some indication of what the Government believe is the right one?
The law and the system are not working for some children. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, some judges are making contact orders even after a parent has been violent in court. Women's Aid has told me of two cases in the past month in which contact was granted although the fathers had been violent in court. It is breathtaking to think that a judge could decide to allow a young child to be alone with a man who displays such lack of control even in court. It is no wonder that many parents—most of whom are women—and their children feel that the law protects judges rather than children. These vulnerable parents, and even more vulnerable children, feel that the current situation is both unfair and unbalanced.
I am grateful to the NSPCC, Women's Aid and NCH Action for Children for the material they have supplied and for their campaigning work on this issue. I am also grateful for the letters and information on the issue provided by the Lord Chancellor's Department.
I have heard my noble friend the Minister say on several occasions that the strength of our system is that each case is considered on a case-by-case basis and that all contact arrangements are considered on a child-by-child basis, which is as it should be. However, why do we keep hearing of things going so terribly wrong for some children? How can the arrangements be working on a child-by-child basis when we continually hear about cases in which things have gone so wrong? I should therefore like to ask a few more questions. When will we see the results of the reviews? Will the Government legislate on the issue if the results of the reviews warrant it? When will the Government take action to strengthen supervised contact arrangements?
There is support across the House for Amendment No. 102B. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and other noble Lords for their support on this issue. I am looking for movement by the Government on strengthening protection for these children.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise to the House—I did not realise that these two amendments were grouped. I wish to support Amendment No. 102B, but not Amendment No. 102A, for a reason that I shall give in a moment.
I do not know whether your Lordships have seen the report in The Times today about the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. The point was taken that our domestic law concerning the protection of children from abuse was defective, but that the local
1358
authority—and we are concerned here with local authority treatment under Section 8—did not know and was therefore, under certain articles, not liable. However, it was liable because it did not have in place a proper system of administration. The only reason that I refer to the case is that the domestic law was defective. One has only to read The Times report to see that that is so.
I do not want to take a long time arguing law. However, the point of this amendment is that it does plug a gap in our domestic law. It does so—I say this with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, if I could claim her attention for half a second—without in any way conflicting with the principle established in In Re W that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. It does not conflict in any way whatever; it is a totally different matter. The amendment is establishing in domestic law a remedy for the abuse of a child. It is not connected directly or exclusively with adoption. I do not have much more to say to Amendment No. 102B. However, if it were put to a Division, I would certainly be compelled to support it.
The reason why—with respect to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others—I cannot support proposed new Section 8A is that it proposes—I do not wish to be offensive—nannying the court. The amendment is telling the court to do the sort of thing that it would do in any event. I am rather against that. I am rather in favour of leaving it to the court to have regard to these types of principles—which are all totally right, totally justified, very well drafted and extremely well expressed.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in general, I have the deepest sympathy with the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, about nannying the courts. However, we have between us quoted a number of cases in which the court was behaving as if it were in need of a nanny.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do not want to indulge in a philosophical argument, because I would be bound to lose it, but it seems to me that there is no reason for having an overriding nannying provision because the court makes a mistake here and there. Courts, even with an overriding nannying provision, are known to make perverse judgments, but that is why we have an appellate system.
I am sorry—it is perhaps a defect of my life and upbringing—but I really cannot take Amendment No. 102A. However, if Amendment No. 102B were put to a Division, I would be bound to support it.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, noble Lords have made a powerful case for changing the statute law to improve protection for children where contact is considered. We certainly support the thrust of these amendments. Children must be protected from risky contact arrangements. I do not believe that there is any disagreement about the welfare of the child being paramount in contact cases, but there is profound disagreement about whether the law as currently

1359
practised achieves that standard. I say to my noble friend Lord Campbell that if the courts need nannying to avoid making errors, I for one would support nannying the courts.
I have no first, second or even third-hand experience of the impact of domestic violence on contact cases to share with noble Lords. However, I have been impressed by the strength of feeling expressed by many working at the sharp end with abused families, in particular the NSPCC and the Women's Aid Federation. Those organisations strongly believe that the current position is unsatisfactory.
I appreciated the briefing meeting organised by the Minister a few weeks ago, when she expressed the view that the legal framework was—I believe I quote her correctly—"as good as it gets". The noble Baroness outlined the many practical steps that have been taken to improve current procedure. However, many of the initiatives that she explained to us have been in train for some considerable period of time; indeed, for more than 10 years. In Grand Committee, I recall that the Minister said that the guidelines,
"seem to be seeping their way through the system".—[Official Report, 15/7/02; col. CWH 340.]
It is perhaps this lack of urgency that is most worrying.
I have just a few questions for the Minister. First, will the noble Baroness say whether the Lord Chancellor's Department is currently satisfied with the way that the guidelines are operating, or whether there are any concerns in that respect? If there are concerns, will she say what the Government intend to do about them, and when? Secondly, will the noble Baroness say what information the Lord Chancellor's Department collects about contact cases? For example, do these show whether initial contact decisions have, in practice, caused problems involving child safety? If such data are not collected, will the noble Baroness say why not and how she can be sure that the system is operating as desired? Thirdly, can the Minister point to any specific improvements that will be made within a relatively short time-scale—say, by 2004? Can she say what practical changes we will be able to identify?
I know that the Minister will make the case powerfully that the existing legal framework is fine, and that many actions are underway. However, if she does not come forward with some positive, tangible, and timetabled actions to allay the concerns of those at the coalface, it will be difficult to resist the conclusion that changes in the law, such as those proposed by these amendments, will indeed be required.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may clear the hurdle of nannying for a moment. If my noble friend will be good enough to look at Amendment No. 102B, she will see that it provides a totally new, much needed, and highly satisfactory procedure. There is no question of
1360
nannying: it provides something that is missing. However, Amendment No. 102A is just pure nannying.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I do not wish to become too caught up in this battle about nannying. However, given the ambiguity of some of the recent court cases, which have led to quite considerable problems—and speaking with many years' experience as a juvenile court chairman—I believe that there might well be some advantages in having, as it were, a checklist upon which to concentrates one's mind.
I support both amendments, though I suspect that they will be amalgamated in some way in the long term. We have heard some horrendous stories. It is quite clear from the briefings that we have all attended that there is considerable unease and concern among practitioners about the continuing harm that is being caused to children as a result of these access or residential visits that have been authorised by the court.
It is only fair to mention the really worrying anecdotal evidence of a number of children's violent deaths, which have recently occurred during such visits. It is rumoured that the number is around 15. One of the other concerns is that it is almost impossible to obtain figures in this respect from the relevant authorities. In answer to the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I hope that we may begin to receive some answers from the Minister. One survey carried out in 1999 of 130 parents showed that 76 per cent of children were abused during contact visits; that is, 10 per cent sexually, 15 per cent physically, and 62 per cent emotionally.
Clearly, the Government's decision to define the concept of "harm" to include witnessing violence to others—a child being subjected to emotional as well as physical and sexual harm—will help. But, frankly, I doubt whether it will settle the vital question of whose best interests are paramount: the child's or the parent's. It is the very strength in this Bill's premise, which states that the child's best interests have to be paramount in all these matters, that seems to me to indicate that it is vital to include the amendments being discussed on the face of the Bill. Of course, one understands the Government's reluctance to act before the consultation process is complete, but, apparently, it has already taken a long time. Surely one child harmed while this ambiguity is allowed to continue is one too many.
I have one final point to make. As I understand it, the Bill provides for the wishes of the child or children involved to be conveyed to the court, by, one hopes—in view of previous discussions—an advocate, who, where necessary, is independent of all parties. But, again, surely there should be a specific right on the face of the Bill for young people of an appropriate age to express their wishes directly to the court concerned, if they so wish. As I see it, that would be provided by way

1361
of new Section 8A(g) in Amendment No. 102A. I hope that the Minister will give us some satisfactory pointers to something more urgent being done.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I most strongly support the thrust of these two amendments. Noble Lords have given some horrendous examples of such cases; and, indeed, I could give some further examples. Far too many children are being sent back to parents, who are causing them profound damage. However, I cannot support the amendments. It seems to me that they are not closely worded, and that they do not create the right framework within which to address these problems.
I have a particular objection to the use of the word "abuse", which is not defined in the Bill. I do not know whether it is properly defined elsewhere. It is an emotive word. Any discussion on this subject should include a much more precise definition of what we are talking about. Some noble Lords may respond by saying that we all know what we mean by the word "abuse"; but, no, we do not. There is a great range of opinion as to what abuse is—everything from slapping a child right through to the most terrible sexual and physical abuse. I support the noble Baronesses, Lady Gould and Lady Noakes, in their argument that something must urgently be done, but I do not believe that these amendments are the right vehicle to achieve that aim.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall start by thanking all noble Lords who have made quite passionate contributions to this debate. I should especially like to commend the efforts made by two of my noble friends; namely, my noble friend Lady Gould, who moved the first amendment in this group, and my noble friend Lady Thornton.
The most impressive part of the debates in relation to this Bill is the level of commitment and the unanimity of view as to the nature of the problems. The only disagreement is perhaps the way in which we should seek to address them. Here, again, I entirely understand the spirit behind these two amendments. We all want to see a situation in which children are safe, both in their homes and in the relationship that they have with their parents if the latter separate. I am not able to accept these amendments, but that does not mean that I do not believe that things need to change. A number of noble Lords have given quite graphic examples of cases where such relationships have clearly gone wrong.
The Women's Aid Federation (England) (WAFE), the NSPCC and others are right to ask that we learn from the tragedies of the past, that we question inconsistencies of practice and that we take all possible practical steps to protect children from harm. I have no disagreement whatever on this point with either of my noble friends or, indeed, with anyone who has spoken. We are at one on this issue.
The Children Act 1989 makes the welfare of the child the court's paramount consideration. I hear everything that has been said about how case law may
1362
have adversely affected that or, by interpretation, undermined it. However, it is our belief that the import of the Act has not been undermined and that the paramountcy of the welfare principle remains untarnished. In Re H and R, which I believe the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, reiterated what the position has always been in relation to the balance of probability; namely, the more serious the allegation, the greater the weight, on the balance of probability, that the court can be satisfied that something is proven. Obviously, it is important that if an allegation of some severity is made, there must be some evidence to substantiate the fact that it has actually occurred.
5 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the trouble with saying that the principle of the welfare of the child remains paramount is that this principle does not bite on those people who do not like to think that such things happen and who are, and always have been, extremely numerous?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I think that it does bite; the question is whether it bites hard enough. It is incredibly important that we make sure that the principle bites hard enough. The noble Earl referred to past incidents. A number of noble Lords may have fought the culture which has failed to recognise that child abuse occurs, has failed to recognise that domestic violence is a scourge which needs to be removed, and has failed to give mainly women, but also children, the protection they need. I agree with the noble Earl that that blindness has to be eradicated. Those who refuse to see must be made to see. There is no disagreement between us on that matter.
The Children Act obliges the court to consider all harm that a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering. That includes physical abuse, sexual abuse and the impairment of health or development. The government amendment to that definition of harm, tabled in the other place, makes clear that that includes harm caused to a child by witnessing the ill-treatment of others. We know that children can be harmed by witnessing violence. The Court of Appeal stressed that in the case of In Re L and others in June 2000.
The court can already attach conditions to orders it thinks necessary to ensure that the child is not at risk, for example, by deciding that the contact be indirect, restricted to letters and cards, or that it be supervised. The court can order a local authority to investigate the child's circumstances if it thinks that the child may be at risk of significant harm such that a care order might be required. It can also make orders for the protection not only of the child but also of a party to the case in any family proceedings regardless of whether an application for such an order has been made. For example, the court can make a prohibited steps order under the Children Act preventing a person taking a

1363
step in relation to a child, including contacting him or her. It can also make a non-molestation order under the Family Law Act 1996. If a court—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness is saying that the proposed new subsection (3) in Amendment No. 102B is totally unnecessary because of what she has just said. The noble Baroness nods her head. I am grateful for that clarification.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is not just the courts that need to be involved. A number of other agencies, not least those who practise the law and give advice, need to be robust and to understand what the provisions actually stand for. The help and assistance of many agencies is needed—I refer to the police, social services and others—to create the safety net. Some of the examples that my noble friends gave made me wonder what the lawyers were doing. It also made me wonder whether my work would not be better placed not at this Dispatch Box but back at the Bar. The tools are there but they need to be used by people who know how to wield them.
The court is already obliged to consider the risk posed to a child if an order is made. Indeed, it can make an order only if it is satisfied that that is better than making no order at all. It also has the powers to make orders to protect those it believes to be at risk, even if no application for such protection has been made. The anxieties expressed today concern the extent to which the provisions we are discussing are being exercised consistently in practice. Many of us would wish that by a stroke of a pen or by adding a provision to a Bill we could make things better and that that would be the end of the process. However, we all know that it is not the end; in fact, it is the beginning. Unless all of those who operate in the system understand and take advantage of the provisions, we work in vain. We must improve the practice.
The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Thornton and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would introduce a presumption into the Children Act that where a person has ill treated a child or another person, that person should not have residence or contact with the child unless the child consents and the court is satisfied that the child will be safe. I wish to deal first with the matter of the child's consent. One of the most tragic and poignant aspects of children who are abused by a parent is that often they love that parent. If the child is asked whether he or she wishes to see the parent and to live with him or her, the tragedy is that they will often say yes. Why do they say that? It is because they love the parent but hate the abuse. Often the child will say—
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I find it difficult to remain seated. I acknowledge that the point the noble Baroness has just made is often the case. I did not make a speech as I felt that many noble Lords had made the points that I wished to make. I am concerned about those children who say very definitely that they
1364
do not wish to return to the abusing parent. Just before I came into the House I received a telephone call about a child who has been placed back with his abusing father following a complex case. The child ran away to his mum. His mum rang social services as she realised that an order existed but she wanted the child. As a social worker I sympathise with the noble Baroness's comments as regards being here rather than out in the field. Social services said that as there was an order they would not make an assessment and that the child should be sent home. We are keen to address situations where the child says that he or she does not want to go back to a particular parent.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely understand that. However, the noble Baroness will be aware that in framing legislation we seek to catch both those situations. We catch those who do not want to go back and who say clearly and powerfully, "I do not want to go" and we catch those cases where the child says, "Please let me go back because it is the only thing that I know". Those two cases are conjoined in the child's wishes.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for intervening again. I am responsible for persuading my colleagues to put these words into the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, read my mind exactly. This was meant to be a necessary but not a sufficient condition.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely understand that. The proposal is qualified by the provision that,
"the court is satisfied that the child will be safe".
If the court disagreed with the child, it would exercise its discretion to so order. One would then return to the question raised by my noble friends Lady Thornton and Lady Gould and reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth: is one giving proper voice to the child's wishes? Is one dealing with that properly? This is not perhaps the most felicitous way in which to deal with the issue.
The equivalent presumption of contact is not proposed when there are no allegations. My noble friend Lady Gould touched on that point. I shall be frank with the House: I am not in favour of presumptions. The one thing that I learnt from my practice in family law is that no two cases are alike. I shall give two examples. A father may have injured a child in a road traffic accident, and he therefore becomes a Schedule 1 offender. He is caring and loving and has a supportive relationship with his children. The question is: why should there be a presumption in such a case that there should be no contact with him? The other example is that of a father who loves his children and who has never been violent to them but who opposes the children living with their mother because he is angry about the breakdown of their relationship and, as a result, actively seeks to turn the children against her. Those examples are the two ends

1365
of the scale. Why should one have a presumption of no contact in his favour and the other have a presumption that there should be contact?
Those are difficult issues. I entirely appreciate that the amendments respond to much more serious cases than I have just described, including neglect; they do not respond to the matters at the small end. However, a provision would catch both. The court would have to say, in relation to both, "No presumption" and it would have real difficulty separating the two if it wanted to. Inconsistencies would be created. There are likely to be legal arguments about the cases in which the presumption applies. A contested two-tier system could be created when dealing with child contact applications, which may add to delay and conflict, neither of which is in the interests of children. The only criterion that should apply is: what is in the child's paramount best interest?
The Children Act 1989 makes the welfare of the child the court's paramount consideration. I cannot think of a better criterion. The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Gould proposes a check-list for the court that will apply when it considers whether a child will be safe. We are going to consider all of those matters in the consultation process. They will be at the root of what we will examine. I hope that she is reassured on that count. These issues exercise the minds of all those who participate in this field. The group that has undertaken much of the consultation has representatives on it from a broad spectrum, including judges, lawyers, non-governmental organisations and charities working with children. Those who have been intimately involved are participating and helping us to craft something that is, we hope, of worth and importance.
Not everyone who would meet the definition of "abusive party" in Amendment No. 102B would be violent or pose any risk to their children. I entirely understand that the amendments were intended to help to better protect children. One poor outcome for children of separating parents is conflict. The more conflict that there is in families—physical or otherwise—the worse the outcome for children. We want to minimise that.
Having a check-list for Section 8 orders could also lead to some confusion, as I have outlined. It is not the test imposed by Section 1(3) of the Act. That requires the court to consider how capable each party is of meeting the child's needs. It is the child who comes first. The requirement of the child to consent in Amendment No. 102B cuts across the welfare principle itself. The law rightly requires the court to come to an objective determination—assisted by child-welfare experts, where appropriate—about what is in the child's best interests. Consent requirements are not consistent with that.
The Government are focusing on four key areas. First, we are focusing on tightening court rules and importing some of the key messages from surveys of the best practice guidelines produced by the Children Act sub-committee of the Lord Chancellor's advisory board on family law. We are working closely with
1366
members of the judiciary, the magistracy and the legal profession and with child care professionals, the police and organisations representing the interests of children, families and the victims of violence. It is fair to say that our stakeholder group achieved a good degree of consensus at its last meeting on 9th October about what needs to change. There is a sense of urgency about this work. To ensure that we can make rapid progress, it divided into smaller teams, each of which will develop proposals for change in areas such as improving information for the court and making findings of fact. We hope to consider a package of reforms by the end of the year, although the group made it clear to us that it must have the time that it needs to get this right.
The second area is specialisation. The president of the Family Division has recently taken on responsibility for the ticketing or authorising of most family judges in the county court. At district judge level, a new ticket has now been introduced for those dealing with disputed private family law including contact applications. We take very seriously the comments made by my noble friend and other noble Lords about consistency. It is not enough to have superb delivery and performance in relation to the higher courts if that is not uniformly adopted in all courts. As a noble Lord said earlier, if one child is abused, that is one child too many. There will always be a risk but we are doing everything that we can to limit the nature of that risk. The president is currently reviewing all those judges who are—or perhaps should be—sitting in family work to ensure that they have the appropriate experience and training to deal effectively with family cases. The president recommends minimum sitting levels to ensure that judges maintain their expertise. Once they get their ticket, that is not the end of the matter; they will have a proper opportunity to keep that experience fresh.
We have a precedent in this regard. The president has already completed the review with regard to judges dealing with adoption. New arrangements for specialist adoption centres and specialist judges at county court level were launched in October and November last year. We have consulted those who have gone through the adoption process at specialist centres to find out whether the system is working. We have been delighted by the positive response. We want to learn from the specialist adoption centres about improving the way in which we handle other family business, including child contacts and domestic violence.
That specialisation is being followed through in other areas. Those who provide publicly-funded legal services in family cases must meet minimum standards if their contracts are to be renewed. The Law Society in partnership with the Solicitors' Family Law Association and the Family Law Bar Association have produced a best-practice protocol for family work. It includes best practice for screening and taking forward cases involving domestic violence. Again, that is linked to the training of family solicitors and to standard-setting for family work. Therefore, no longer in the

1367
publicly funded sector will there be a generic practitioner who is unable to carry out the work properly in specialised areas such as family work.
Thirdly, I turn to training. Effective training of all those in the family justice system is key if we are to achieve the type of culture change that we should all like to see. For example, the president is working closely with the Judicial Studies Board on judicial training. Domestic violence is now included in all family seminars, conferences and training for the judiciary. The Judicial Studies Board is also working closely with the Magistrates' Courts Committees to support the development of training in the subject of domestic violence. I hope that, if the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, is still sitting, she will receive the benefit of that.
I turn to the subject of support services for families. In partnership with child contact centre services and funders, we are mapping the demand for, and provision of, child contact centres as part of the development of a national strategy. We are also facilitating child contact centres which seek to develop standard definitions of services and a standard referral process in order to ensure that families are referred only to services which meet their needs, especially in terms of levels of supervision.
However, we recognise that the issue also involves a change of culture—it is a matter of changing hearts and minds. It is not easy to change culture, but we recognise that we need to see changes in this area as part of a wider policy on child protection and on tackling domestic violence. The vast majority of families resolve disputes concerning contact and residence without resort to the courts. Therefore, we need to ensure that advice and support services work, too. The changes are of critical importance, but they are changes to practice and performance. I hope that I have said enough to persuade your Lordships that we are doing all that is feasible as quickly and as speedily as we can.
I shall now answer specifically some of the pointed questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. We are currently surveying contact orders in 12 courts in order to consider issues such as the rates of enforcement, whether the courts are using options such as supervised, indirect contact, the rates of domestic violence, and findings of fact. We hope that the results will be available in January.
The definition and referral of contact centres should be completed by the end of the year. The safety stakeholder group's work on changes to secondary legislation—that is, the information available to the court, the automatic triggers, and a further investigation and check—should also be available by the end of the year. The development models of supervised contact should be available at about that time, too. The second survey of guidelines on domestic violence and contact analysis should be available shortly, and that will be fed into the safety group. We are working as fast as we can. As I said earlier, the stakeholders have said that they must have, time to
1368
make a considered and informed judgment before they make recommendations. We agree with them because we want to get the matter right.
I say to both my noble friends Lady Gould and Lady Thornton that, if we need primary legislation, we shall reconsider the matter. But we believe that this measure should cover the situation. If it does not, then of course we shall have to look again.
We have tried to take on board everything that noble Lords have said in relation to this issue. It is amazingly important. We are determined that the protection given to the children of this country is as robust and as sound as possible. We rely on all those who participate in the field to help us to craft a system which will achieve that. However, it will be delivered not only by the courts and by legislation; it will be delivered by practice on the ground with all participants playing their part—that is, the police, social services, lawyers, social workers, courts and health workers, who see the aberrant effects of some of the dysfunction caused by breakdown. We all need to participate in the process to ensure that the practice on the ground is as we should like it to be and so that we no longer need to feel shamed by some of the examples referred to today.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed and thoughtful reply to the debate. It has been an extremely serious and important debate, and I thank everyone who participated in it. I am sure that my noble friend was aware of the strength of feeling around the House in relation to this issue and the fact that it was felt that something needed to be done to redress the problems of so many children.
I want to pick up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I do not particularly want to return to the subject of nannying. I simply want to say to him that in 1968 the New Zealand courts decided that a checklist would be helpful to them. It was not a question of nannying; the courts believed that a checklist would be right in helping to protect children. The fact that they produced one so many years ago is a great credit to them. Perhaps it is a pity that we are only now reaching this position.
The Minister said that the only disagreement lay in the way that we seek redress to an unsatisfactory situation. I am sure that that is right. She outlined many of the ways in which she is seeking to redress the situation. She said that the tools are there to be used but that perhaps they are not being used correctly. I appreciate all the work that is being done by the Lord Chancellor's safety stakeholder group in order to redress some of these very serious problems.
I was particularly taken by the Minister's words which referred to the fact that case law may have undermined the Children Act. I believe that indicates that there is now some recognition that the Children Act has been undermined by subsequent case law.

1369
I was particularly pleased to hear my noble friend say that, if primary legislation is required, then action will be taken. Many of us believed that that would not happen and that the possible need for primary legislation would not be recognised.
As the debate has proved, this is a complex and serious issue. I shall study my noble friend's reply, for which, again, I thank her. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 102B not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 102C:
After Clause 111, insert the following new clause—
"POWER OF COURT AND PARENTAL CONTACT

"(1) In section 10(4)(a) of the 1989 Act (Power of court to make section 8 orders), after "parent," leave out "or guardian"

(2) In section 34(3) of the 1989 Act (parental contact etc. with children in care), after paragraph (a) insert "(aa) a relative"."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I apologise to the House and, in particular, to the Minister and her team. The gremlins got at half of Amendment No. 102C, and your Lordships may wish to look at subsection (1). The words,
"and insert 'guardian or relative'",
should be placed at the end of that subsection. For some unaccountable reason, they do not appear on the Marshalled List.
Earlier during Report stage in this House, the Government introduced Amendment No. 27 to the Bill to the effect that relatives may apply for contact with a child whom the agency is authorised to place for adoption under Clause 26. I refer noble Lords to col. 669 of the Official Report of 14th October. The effect of that amendment was to remove the earlier requirement that relatives needed to apply for leave before making an application. The Government explained that they had been swayed by the arguments in Committee that siblings should be able to apply without leave, but, in fact, they went a stage further to extend the provision to wider family members. At the time, the amendment was warmly received by the House and, in particular, by the noble Lord, Lord Astor.
This amendment seeks to address what has now become a rather anomalous situation. Relatives seeking contact with a child placed for adoption do not need to apply for leave to apply for contact, but the same people seeking contact with a child in accommodation or care do need to do so. There is no obvious rationale for retaining that differentiation. Relatives are generally successful when they apply for leave, arguably making the leave stage an unnecessary use of the court's time. If their application is, in those rare cases, inappropriate, there is already a mechanism in Section 91(14) of the Children Act to restrict future applications. It is surely time to raise the presumption—I know what the noble Baroness said about presumptions—that they may apply for contact unless they need to be restricted from doing so, rather than vice versa. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I confess that I was puzzled by an amendment that sought to remove guardians who are generally believed to be rather a good thing. I am glad to hear that that was not the intention of the noble Lord. As I now understand with a greater degree of clarity the purpose of the amendment, I ask the noble Lord whether I can take this issue away and return to the matter later. I hope that I shall be able to give the noble Lord a more comprehensive response in the interim.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I could not have had a better response from the Minister. At least she has not turned me down flat. I am pleased with that response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 113 [Special guardianship]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 62, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) Where the court is considering whether to make a special guardianship order and no children's guardian is already appointed by the court for the child who is the subject of the application, the court shall appoint a children's guardian for the child concerned unless it is satisfied that it is not necessary to do so in order to safeguard the child's interests."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are linked but they cover different topics. Therefore, I apologise to the House as my introduction to Amendments Nos. 103, 105, 106, 107 and 108 will be slightly lengthy. I ask for the indulgence of the House.
I turn first to Amendment No. 103. Under the Bill the court will have the power to make a special guardianship order in both public and private law cases. That order will significantly interfere with a parent's exercise of his or her parental responsibility as it allows the special guardian to exercise parental responsibility in relation to the child to the exclusion of any parent with parental responsibility.
The current provisions in the Bill require the local authority to submit a report to the court. However, that may not, in the view of these Benches, provide adequate independent information to assist the court to decide on the suitability of the order and the level and kind of services that the child and carer will need. First, the local authority may already have formed a fixed view about the family's plan for the child, particularly when the family has a history of involvement with social services. Secondly, its view about the need for support services may be at least partially determined by its own budgetary considerations within the local authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, confirmed in Committee, at col. 348, that a CAFCASS officer will be appointed in most cases where the court is considering making a special guardianship order. If that is correct, we suggest that a presumption of appointment, unless circumstances exist to justify not appointing, would be more appropriate rather than the other way round, particularly in view of the current workload pressure on the CAFCASS service. Otherwise, the court may not have the benefit of

1371
independent advice and information about how best to meet the child's needs, which may seriously disadvantage the child, particularly in cases where there is disagreement between the parent and potential special guardian.
On Amendment No. 105, the importance of support services for children and special guardians is rightly recognised, as it has been throughout the Bill. However, birth parents are not specifically included in the list of people who may request support services. As the effect of a special guardianship order is to exclude the parent from decision making about the child, although it is also anticipated that some form of contact is likely in most cases, we believe that it is essential that the parent has the right to an assessment of their need for support services. Otherwise the provision of support may be lopsided and therefore largely ineffective because the parent will not have received any help to adjust to the new arrangements.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, confirmed in Committee, at col. 356, that birth parents may well be included in the list of those within the prescribed description who may ask for support, we suggest that that right to request support should be contained in the primary legislation; otherwise it is likely to be given low priority by local authorities.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 106 and 107. Special guardianship orders are likely to be made in respect of three categories of children who are living with relatives, friends and/or carers including foster carers. The first category is where there are private arrangements between the parents and carer that may often be as a result of child protection concerns being identified but the family is able to take steps to protect the child without the involvement of social services.
The second category is where the carer takes the child into his or her family at the request of the social worker or other child care professional involved with the family, usually to avoid the child having to be taken into care under a compulsory order. That often occurs in response to an emergency situation when, but for the offer of care from the potential special guardian, the local authority would otherwise apply for an emergency protection order.
The third category is where the child is looked after by the local authority, is placed with a carer on a fostering basis and that carer subsequently applies for a special guardianship order.
Clause 113 includes a provision that the local authority may carry out an assessment of the need for special guardianship support services at the request of a child who is subject to a special guardianship order, a special guardian and any other person who falls within a prescribed description. But there is no obligation on the local authority to do so unless the person falls within a prescribed description as specified in the regulations. Whom that will include is, as yet, unknown.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, clarified in Committee, at col. 355, the Government's intention to target support to the third category of children I have described who are still looked after at the time the
1372
special guardianship order is made. While that commitment for support is welcome, there is widespread concern that the first two groups of children may not receive support. Indeed, their special guardians may not even be assessed for support. Should that arise, the effect will be that a relative who responds promptly to provide protection for a child who is suffering, or who is likely to suffer, harm will in effect be penalised for preventing the child having to be taken into care. If the welfare of children is paramount, that cannot be right.
Indeed, research evidence in Second Time Around, a survey of grandparents raising their grandchildren, published by the Family Rights Group in 2001, which was referred to in Committee, showed that many grandparents caring for children who had not yet been looked after faced great difficulties but struggled to gain the support services they needed.
The amendments provide that the right to an assessment should apply to all special guardians, children subject to special guardianship orders and their parents, because of their special situation. In our view there is no category of special guardian who will never need support. Hence none should be excluded from the right to assessment. Whether they go on to receive support will depend upon the needs identified in the assessment.
The Minister's arguments in Committee rested on a number of different propositions. He said that special guardianship does not have the same long-term consequences as other provisions; that we do not have experience of it; and that it required a great deal more flexibility than may be appropriate for adoption support services.
In the course of that debate we did not assure any birth parents that they can ask for special guardianship services and we did not assure grandparents that they will be included. The Minister simply said that in a consultation process he was open to discussion on those issues and that he was open to developing the list of people who would be eligible. He would consult on the regulations to be laid in relation to special guardianship orders.
We could revisit many of those issues. No doubt government minds will remain open in the light of experience. But the issue of birth parents and grandparents should be considered now, not simply in the light of experience. The Minister also said that if we were to make it a statutory duty to provide support services after an assessment we would be placing it in a higher order—giving it a higher level of priority. The Minister is nodding, so he clearly remembers his arguments only too well. Of course, there will continue to be duties under other sections of the Children Act. What we are arguing for in these amendments does not prevent local authority action in any other respect.
On these Benches we do not believe that a balance has been achieved. Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 seek to achieve that balance so that no one should be automatically excluded from special guardianship support services. I hope that the Minister will consider those two amendments.
Finally, on Amendment No. 108, the Bill gives a local authority complete discretion as to whether it will provide any special guardianship services when a need is established by an assessment. While the local authority must have a discretion to provide services that are relevant to local need, there should, nevertheless, be a requirement on it to provide services or to arrange for them to be provided in situations where a need is established by an assessment. Otherwise, the process of assessment and subsequent service provision will be skewed by the resource implications for the local authority. On that note, I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I rise to support the amendments in the group. I first welcome Amendment No. 104, which repeats the requirement for financial support within support services for special guardianship in the same way as for adoption support services. Of course, that leaves open many questions about the level and scope of financial support for guardianship and about parity of provision around the country. But I am glad that there is explicit recognition that special guardianship support services include financial support.
We on these Benches support Amendment No. 103. The issue of the voice of the child is one that we have considered more than once in connection with the Bill. The answer is usually that we have to trust the Government to get the matter right either by regulations or by court rules. It would be so much more satisfactory if we could see this on the face of the Bill.
I also associate these Benches with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in connection with Amendment No. 105 and the position of the birth parents. Special guardianship does not sever the legal relationship between birth parents and their children but creates an additional relationship. The birth parents may well require support services—not necessarily very extensive ones—but they are a part of the child's life and should be supported where necessary.
Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 are sensible ones. They ensure that the most obvious categories of people needing special guardianship support services—the child and the special guardian—will be entitled to an assessment. It is just nonsense to leave that to regulations.
I find myself almost at a loss for words on Amendment No. 108. As with adoption support services, I cannot comprehend a framework which provides for the assessment of needs but then allows for discretion to meet those needs. Either the Government are serious about support services or they are not.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing these matters back to the House for further
1374
consideration. I do not doubt the importance of the matters he raises or his concern; in particular his concern to ensure that birth parents and grandparents are appropriately considered in relation to special guardianship orders and support services.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating many of the words that I used in Grand Committee. He will not be surprised to know that I found them fairly persuasive. The short answer to many of his points is that special guardianship orders are new. Therefore, we have sought to give ourselves greater flexibility than we have in the Bill in relation to adoption orders, both to allow us to have a widespread consultation in 2003 on the very issues that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have raised, but also in the light of experience when the special guardianship orders come into operation. That is why we have left a number of matters to regulation. It gives us flexibility in the future.
I am very glad that the concept of special guardianship orders has been widely welcomed. All noble Lords feel that this is a considerable advance. In particular, we think they could be used for some older children, who may, for example, be being looked after in long-term foster placements, who do not wish to be legally separated from their birth parents, but who could benefit from greater legal security and permanence.
We also believe that special guardianship may apply to some children being cared for on a permanent basis by members of their wider family. Some minority ethnic communities have religious or cultural difficulties with adoption as set out in law. Again SGOs may well be appropriate.
The new order is intended to offer more than a residence order in terms of the security it brings and the support services to be made available. It is designed, as I have said, to be flexible enough to work in a range of situations.
I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. As regards Amendment No. 103, I understand his wish for an independent view to be expressed to the courts. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explained the process that will be gone through before a court makes a special guardianship order.
New Section 14A sets out who may apply for a special guardianship order and the process for making an application. A person in whose favour a special guardianship order is made is described as a "special guardian".
Applicants must give three months' written notice to the local authority of their intention to apply for the order. The local authority must then investigate and prepare a report to the court about the suitability of the applicants to be special guardians and any other relevant matters. We intend to set out in regulations the matters to be covered by the report. It is intended to use these regulations to ensure that there is an appropriate process for assessing the suitability of prospective special guardians.

1375
We shall consult on how the assessment process should work. However, it is envisaged at this stage that statutory guidance will require the results of earlier relevant assessments to be taken into account; for example, where the applicants are approved foster carers.
The court cannot make an order unless it has received a report of this kind covering the suitability of the people concerned to be special guardians. The involvement of the social services department in the process, and the requirements we make on what the report to the court should cover, will ensure that issues of the welfare of the child and their interests are investigated and reported to the court.
In addition, the Government intend to provide in-court rules that a CAFCASS officer be appointed in appropriate special guardianship proceedings. This too will be set out in court rules.
As I have made clear, we plan to consult thoroughly on the content of these rules, including when a CAFCASS children's guardian should be appointed. At this stage, and subject to consultation, we envisage that a CAFCASS officer is likely to be appointed in most cases where the court is considering making a special guardianship order. We shall want to consider carefully the circumstances when a CAFCASS officer should be appointed in cases where the court is considering varying or discharging a special guardianship order, particularly where this is with the consent of all the parties. That is why we need some flexibility.
It might not be appropriate or necessary to appoint the child as a party and have a children's guardian in cases where the application is for a variation of the terms of the special guardianship order—again—which is agreed by all parties. We would expect the child's views to be sought out and taken into account on all such questions. But it would not be necessary for a children's guardian to be appointed for that to happen. There are other routes to ensure that the court has the child's views.
Currently, children's views are generally put before the court in private law Section 8 proceedings within the CAFCASS officer's report on matters relating to the welfare of the child. Special guardianship orders will also be private law proceedings. The Lord Chancellor may make regulations specifying matters to be dealt with in any report. In addition, the court can make particular directions as to matters to be included in the report. Currently, for example, the officer must report on whether he considers that the child should be made a party to proceedings.
As my noble friend Lady Scotland intimated, the Government will shortly be undertaking wider consultation on how children are represented in private law Children Act proceedings. As she said this afternoon, the aim will be to try to find the best conduit for the child's voice, so that children's views may be heard and taken into account by the court in the most effective manner.
1376
I understand why noble Lords may be keen to write into the Bill a presumption one way or the other. I simply counsel a degree of caution. We are dealing with a new order, with no direct current experience on which to draw. We must carefully consider what is proportionate and appropriate for the child in terms of separate representation and participation. But I have given considerable undertakings carefully to consider the consultation. Under the Bill as drafted, we have flexibility to make regulations and court rules. I assure the House that, in the light of our experience of such orders, we shall in time consider whether we have the provision right or need to make further adjustments.
I turn to the question of support services. Just as support services are important to adoption orders, they are clearly important to special guardianship orders—on that I have no disagreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I return to the question of financial support. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, emphasised in Committee the important role of financial support. We agree. That is why, just as we have for adoption support, I have tabled an amendment, Amendment No. 101, to make clear that the range of support services that local authorities must provide will include financial support.
Amendments Nos. 105 to 107 seek to pre-empt some of the consultation that we want to undertake during the next year or so. The combined effect of the amendments would be twofold. First, they would insert birth parents into the list of those who could request an assessment. Secondly, they would provide that all those listed in subsection (2) had a right to request an assessment for special guardianship support services, in the same manner as Clause 4 provides for adoption support.
I want to make clear to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that I do not rule that out as a final outcome, but I am hesitant to go down that route at this stage. There is not the same strong case as there is for adoption that in every case where a special guardianship order is made we must provide specialist services for birth parents. Special guardianship is different to adoption. For a start, it will not involve the same type of lifelong permanent legal separation and transfer to another family. We know of the fundamental and unique issues to which that gives rise for birth parents and the need for specialist services to address them. The lifelong implications of adoption is one reason why it is appropriate to provide an automatic right to assessment for all those set out in Clause 3(1).
By its very nature, special guardianship does not raise the same issues. There may be circumstances in which there is separation, but in many cases there will not. Indeed, we anticipate that there will be contact in the vast majority of cases. We cannot say for certain that in every such case we should provide a right of access to specialised support services. The consultation may conclude that it would be appropriate to develop specialist services and provide a right to request access to them for all parents of children under special guardianship orders—or indeed, for grandparents, to take the point raised by

1377
the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. But we cannot stand here and say for sure that that should occur in every circumstance.
The body of evidence simply does not exist for special guardianship orders. That I why I plead with the noble Lord to recognise that we are undertaking genuine consultation. We will listen carefully and have the future flexibility in the Bill as drafted to make adjustments as we proceed. The same argument applies to Amendment No. 103.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 108. I should spare the House from repeating what I said last week on Report about support services, but the argument is the same. The provision should not be written into primary legislation, because that would mean that special guardianship services would inevitably have priority over services for children looked after by local authorities, for older people and for vulnerable adults.
As ever, noble Lords know how keen I am to give as much discretion as possible to local authorities. In that, I look to the Liberal Democrats for support. There must be some discretion. However, I also spoke last week about the additional resources that we are ear-marking for support services and the methods that we shall undertake to monitor and manage the performance of local authorities. That applies as much to support services for special guardianship orders as to adoption support services. I reiterate what I said last week: there is no point changing adoption practice and introducing special guardianship orders if we cannot satisfy ourselves that local authorities will do the right thing. We will ensure that they do.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that passionate reply. He clearly feels strongly about this part of the Bill—as do we on these Benches. I am grateful to him for taking us through his arguments.
On Amendment No. 103, the Minister came as close as he could without changing the primary legislation to conceding our case. He said that what we described was likely in most cases, but that he wanted to leave some leeway in cases in which it was not appropriate. His example was perfectly reasonable. If that is how it works in practice, we shall of course be satisfied. The issue is whether that provision should be in the primary legislation.
The Minister relied heavily on the existence of consultation. I agree that it is perfectly possible for consultation to cover many aspects of special guardianship. But enshrined in Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 in particular is an important principle that should be established in the Bill: all those who are subject to special guardianship should be assessed by their local authority for special guardianship support services. We feel strongly about that.
Amendment No. 108 is a rather different kettle of fish. I do not want to rehearse our previous arguments on adoption support services. Of course there must be some level of discretion; we have no disagreement on that. Resource is a major issue that I do not want to
1378
follow through its full course now. Although I shall withdraw the lead amendment, No. 103, we shall move Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 when the time comes.
We welcome Amendment No. 104 so far as it goes, but it still means that financial services will be contemplated only after an assessment. To get to that stage, there must be an assessment, and that is what we want to see.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 64, line 35, leave out from "information" to end of line 38 and insert "and
(b) such other services as are prescribed, in relation to special guardianship.
( ) The power to make regulations under subsection (1)(b) is to be exercised so as to secure that local authorities provide financial support."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 64, line 44, leave out "may" and insert "must"
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 106) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 128; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Freeman, L.

Alderdice, L.

Geddes, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Astor, V.

Goodhart, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Greaves, L.

Avebury, L.

Greenway, L.

Barker, B. [Teller]

Hamwee, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanham, B.

Boardman, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Bowness, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Henley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Higgins, L.

Buscombe, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Byford, B.

Hooson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Howe, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Clement-Jones, L. [Teller]

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Colwyn, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Cox, B.

Hylton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Jopling, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Denham, L.

Kingsland, L.

Dholakia, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Laird, L.

Elton, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Falkland, V.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Fearn, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Feldman, L.

Liverpool, E.

Flather, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Luke, L.

1379

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Rogan, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Roper, L.

McNally, L.

Russell, E.

Maddock, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Methuen, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Sandberg, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Seccombe, B.

Newby, L.

Selsdon, L.

Noakes, B.

Sharman, L.

Northbourne, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Northbrook, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Stewartby, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Palmer, L.

Taverne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Parkinson, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Tope, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rawlings, B.

Waddington, L.

Razzall, L.

Wakeham, L.

Redesdale, L.

Walmsley, B.

Rees, L.

Warnock, B.

Rennard, L.

Weatherill, L.

Renton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ahmed, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Filkin, L.

Amos, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Andrews, B.

Gale, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Bach, L.

Gilbert, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Berkeley, L.

Golding, B.

Blackstone, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Borrie, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brett, L.

Goudie, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brookman, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Grenfell, L.

Burlison, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Campbell-Savours, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Harrison, L.

Chan, L.

Haskel, L.

Chandos, V.

Haskins, L.

Christopher, L.

Hayman, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hoyle, L.

Crawley, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

David, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Desai, L.

Islwyn, L.

Dixon, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jeger, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jordan, L.

Dubs, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Elder, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Erroll, E.

Layard, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Lipsey, L.

1380

Listowel, E.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Rea, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Sawyer, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Sheldon, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Simon, V.

Marsh, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mitchell, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Thornton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Orme, L.

Uddin, B.

Parekh, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Pendry, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Whitaker, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Whitty, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wilkins, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Puttnam, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lora Privy Seal)

Radice, L.

Radice, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order 56, which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form in which it is before the House shall be agreed to, unless there is a majority in favour of such amendment, I declare the amendment disagreed to.
6.12 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 not moved]
Clause 114 [Accommodation of children in need etc.]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 66, line 40, after "accommodation" insert "with their families"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have heard about some of the case law surrounding the interpretation of the Children Act 1989. We welcome the amendment to the Act set out in Clause 114 in relation to some of the conflicting cases described today. Noble Lords have referred to W v Lambeth LBC and the earlier case of A v Lambeth LBC. I believe everyone would welcome the amendment to Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 that resulted from that case.
However, despite wide support for the principle, there is widespread concern that the proposed amendment to Section 17 of the Children Act coupled with the amendment to Section 22 legitimises the current local authority practice of providing accommodation—for example, bed and breakfast placements—for children and young people in need without a parent or other person with parental responsibility under Section 17 of the Children Act, instead of providing accommodation under Section 20 of the Children Act, even where there appears to be a clear duty to do so.
We are also concerned that removing the status of "looked after children" from that group removes the duty of local authorities to safeguard and promote their welfare; to consult with them about actions that

1381
affect them and to comply with the regulations designed to ensure that placements are safe and suitable. That undermines many of the commitments made as a result of People Like Us in 1997–98.
A further concern is that the clause contains no lower age limit. Technically it could be used to validate the placement of children of any age. There is also evidence to suggest that local authorities are already using Section 17 of the Children Act to provide accommodation to asylum seeker children. The Government do not appear to disapprove in principle. In a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to the noble Baroness, Lady David, dated 5th August 2002, accommodation under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 is acknowledged as a realistic option for older children, whether local or unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, following an assessment of need. If this practice persists in relation to asylum-seeking children, it could bring about a breach of Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—the right to equal treatment.
The crucial disadvantage of this practice is that under Section 17 the local authority is not subject to the duties in Sections 22 and 23 of the Children Act and the associated regulations, which prescribe the duties of social services departments in respect of "looked after" children, including the duty to review their cases and/or apply the leaving care provisions.
If a young person is accommodated under Section 20, this additional support is mandatory depending on the assessed need. There cannot be many children or young people who need accommodation because they are no longer able to live with their families, yet do not need the support and protection laid down in those sections of the Act.
It would be unwelcome if the Government's proposal were interpreted by local authorities as giving official approval to a practice that is unlikely to meet young people's needs and that may leave them exposed to significant risk of harm. The practice already occurs, and it is largely fortuitous that it has not been exposed to judicial review. It is the view of all stakeholder organisations that it should be discouraged rather than supported by the Government, unless there are positive reasons to opt for not supporting a child who is estranged from his family environment.
In such cases action should be taken to confirm whether the young person is entitled to welfare benefits. We drafted Amendment No. 109 to clarify that the amendment to Section 17 relates to the provision of housing for children with their families rather than making any reference to children who are and indeed should be accommodated under Section 20.I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I support the amendment. I happened to attend a meeting this morning to discuss the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill to be debated tomorrow. Under the Government's
1382
amendment which we carried at recommital, the Government retain an obligation to support children but not their parents. Those advising us pointed out that that will involve splitting up families in the way argued by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones.
Since then I have read the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights published today, discussing that amendment. It makes the same point: that it will involve the splitting up of families. The Joint Committee expressed the opinion that, if that happened, it would be likely to be a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on respect for private and family life. If that is true in the one case, it is possible that it might be true in the other. If the Government do not accept the amendment, they may be taking a greater legal risk than they would wish.
Baroness David: My Lords, I raised the matter of what would happen under the amendment to Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 in Committee, but no amendments were tabled then. The matter was raised with me by various children's organisations near the time when Committee stage was drawing to a close.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in all he said about the way in which the arrangement is working now. Some children are being put into such accommodation without help or care being given to them. We do not want that; we need the care that is provided under Section 20 of the Children Act. I support the amendment and hope that the Government will lend it a sympathetic ear.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I support—
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I am not forceful enough in rising. I support the amendment, which has two aspects. First, children should never be placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation alone, but with their families. When they are alone, it is clear that Section 20 should apply.
I have spent a great deal of time working with homeless families and some years ago I produced a report on homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Among them were a number of young people under 17 and a number of young people under 17 continue to be placed in such accommodation. They are unsafe and often adults are placed in similar accommodation. Often, those adults have their own difficulties, including mental health difficulties. That means that young people are exposed to violence, the likelihood of abuse and other difficulties.
I believe that the state has a clear responsibility to ensure that local authorities do not place unsupported, unsupervised children alone in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and that that or family-centre-type

1383
accommodation should be used only when those children are in the accompaniment of their families. I therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for trying to prevent her from speaking. She always has something very worthwhile to say.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. It is clearly an issue about which they feel strongly. They have raised serious concerns ranging from what they see as the deficiency in Section 17, to unaccompanied children of asylum seekers, to inappropriate provision in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for single children.
We are clearly sympathetic to the argument that one of the key principles of the Children Act is that children are best helped within their family whenever possible. We do not tolerate the idea of separating children on a casual, frivolous or careless basis. Even though we are unable to accept the amendment for several reasons, I hope that I can reassure noble Lords of the sound reasons and practice for doing so. I hope I can address some of the issues raised, if not all of them.
The intention of the amendment is to enable local authorities to provide accommodation for the family as a means of supporting the child. Technically, it is not necessary. Section 17(3) of the Children Act 1989 states that services may be provided for the family of a particular child in need, or indeed for any member of the family, if it is provided with a view to safeguarding or promoting the child's welfare. The amendment duplicates that point, so one could argue that it is redundant on those grounds.
The second reason I urge noble Lords to think again about the framing of the amendment is that as drafted its principal effect would be to limit the provision of accommodation so that it applied solely to children and their families. It would preclude the provision of accommodation to children on their own. That would, by definition, curtail local authorities' powers to help children by leaving no avenue open to providing accommodation under the Children Act except by taking children into care. I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord intended or what he and other noble Lords would want to see.
Clause 114, which was introduced on Report in another place, was intended to address the very confusions and complications in case law which the noble Lord began his speech by addressing. The clause is intended to confirm and clarify that local authorities have a range of options available to them so that they can deal with young people and their housing needs in particular on a case-by-case basis. We do not see Section 17 as a first resort, a cheap option, whereby local authorities can place young people who, if they had a proper assessment, would fall within the provisions of looked-after children. That is a signal that we want to send to local authorities.
Much has been said about practice and about placing young vulnerable, single people inappropriately in bed-and-breakfast accommodation
1384
and not making the right choices under Section 20. We want to underpin best practice as it develops under the statutory Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families. That has been in place for about one year and it sets out detailed, sensitive guidance. I do not know whether noble Lords remember the triangle with parenting on one side, developmental needs on another and environmental factors on another. That is the framework against which we want all cases tested and appropriate provision made.
When a child or young person presents to a local authority as a child in need, it is obliged to conduct a proper-needs assessment in accordance with the framework. That is why I hope that as the practice evolves, spreads and is properly monitored and performance-managed, we will not hear of the kind of cases referred to by the noble Baroness. Lady Howarth. The whole basis of the framework is the individual assessment of a child's needs within the context of the family on an individual basis. That includes taking proper account of the wishes and feelings of young people. That is fundamental. If they want to and can stay within the family, that will be respected. We do not want to restrict local authorities' scope in that.
I want to reinforce that point because it bears on several other comments made by noble Lords. There is an argument that a lone child ought, as a matter of course, to be taken into care. If the alternative is unsafe accommodation, that would be the best option. But the experience of local authorities over the years must be respected. They have found that young people under 17 commonly resist being taken into care, and we can understand why. They resist the interference in their lives and the loss of independence. Some of them have been in care for 10 or 12 years and they want to make a life for themselves. Section 17 has traditionally provided the avenue for local authorities to be able to help them with accommodation or with cash and support. They do not have to take them into care and bring them under the full weight of the looked-after system. It is essential to ensure that the lighter touch help is available for them.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who present a particular problem. The largest number of lone children helped by local authorities are asylum seekers. The majority are young men between 16 and 17. There is a school of thought that they should all become looked-after children for safety and security, but we do not subscribe to that view. The assessment framework specifically refers to the special needs of asylum seekers, so we say that that framework, which takes into account the full needs of the child, should be applied to them as generously and as thoughtfully as it applies to any child in the country and to his family circumstances. That is what we would want to see.
I understand that there are concerns about practice and about whether local authorities are applying the framework as they should. That is a matter for which we must have a different remedy—not this

1385
amendment, but full, proper and rigorous performance-management through the Social Services Inspectorate rather than through the law.
The final point raised related to the Human Rights Act and to Article 8. I would prefer to give the noble Lord a full account in writing in response to the question he raised. We support in principle the intentions behind the amendment, but it would not have the outcomes that the noble Lord seeks.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she referred to a thorough independent assessment of the child's needs. Can we be sure that resources will be available—not only the financial resources but the trained human resources—to ensure that such assessments will be thoroughly carried out in every case?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, in the framework for assessment there is certainly a great deal of emphasis on the need for the training, understanding and sensitivity of everyone involved in the process. Secondly, the £70 million-worth of new money that we have made available—which will be ring-fenced for three years—is designed to provide additional support services and to ensure that these kinds of provisions are as effective and appropriate in the future as improvements require them to be.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness not only for a graphic response in terms of the pyramid but for a forensic reply in terms of taking apart the different elements of the amendment.
We all share the same concerns about an inappropriate use of Section 17—whether they are the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, the noble Baroness, Lady David, or my noble friend Lord Russell. It was quite interesting that the Minister considered that our amendment would not quite achieve the required effect. It may be that we need more drastic amendments to Section 17 if we are to avoid classifying children either as "with their families under Section 17" or "looked after". We may need a middle course of action which would enable local authorities to take, to use the Minister's words, "a lighter touch approach". Perhaps we should explore such an approach at the next stage of the Bill. The noble Baroness has almost made a case for us to do precisely that because the worry about the inappropriate use of Section 17 is still there.
1386
If I had a pound for every time I have heard the words "rigorous performance management" in this House over the past nine months I would be a very rich man, particularly coming from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we would be even richer if we had a pound for every new instruction, guidance and diktat that the noble Lord would wish to give to local authorities.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we have debates to come on foundation hospitals and other such matters after the Queen's Speech. I am sure that we will have great debates on the level of micro-management.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I cannot possibly anticipate legislation in the next Session.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I know—but we on these Benches are entitled to speculate.
I shall leave the issue there on this occasion because it may be that our amendment needs to be altered. But the concern is still there. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, tried valiantly to allay some of our concerns by referring to how performance management would make the difference. I remain unconvinced. We shall have a further debate on this issue at Third Reading, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 115 [Inquiries by local authorities into representations]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 67, line 12, at end insert—
"(1B) Regulations may be made by the Secretary of State requiring the local authority to provide independent advocacy services on receiving representations under subsection (1)."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 110, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 112.I shall be brief. These amendments to Clause 115 seek to give legislative cover for advocacy services for looked after children. They require local authorities to provide independent advocacy services for looked after children when representations are made under the Children Act. The other amendments in the group, with the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in the lead, are variants on this theme.
We had an interesting debate in Grand Committee which revealed a high level of agreement—not least from the Minister himself—that advocacy services were needed for looked after children. At that stage, the Government, while accepting that they could not introduce advocacy services without primary legislation, were resisting our modest amendments designed to give them the powers that they would need once there was agreement on the way forward. We on these Benches could not understand that position. I am, however, delighted that the summer has seen another Damascene conversion in Richmond House and that the Government have tabled their own

1387
Amendment No. 115A. I shall say no more about my own amendments because I want to hear what the Minister has to say about his amendment.
However, when the Minister speaks, I hope that he will address three points. First, will he explain why the new clause, while headed "Advocacy services", does not contain the word "advocacy" anywhere in the text? It is, after all, a word that has been used in other legislation without any trouble. Will he confirm that this new clause will unambiguously enable advocacy services to be provided?
Secondly, will the Minister say why his amendment has no reference to independence, which is a feature of the other amendments in the group? Will he agree that a looked after child needs to be helped by someone who is independent of the authority against whom the representations are being made? How is that independence to be guaranteed?
Thirdly, the new clause is yet another regulation-making power. Will the Minister say when the draft regulations will be available and, even more importantly, when the Government intend to implement this new provision?
I hope that when the Minister has spoken to his amendment I shall be able to withdraw my own. But these questions are very significant in determining whether the Government's amendment is good enough. In the mean time, I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I need add hardly anything to what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has said. As in Committee, she has encapsulated the issues and the concerns involved in this matter. I shall speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 111, 114 and 115, which stand in my name.
Amendment No. 111 seeks to ensure specifically that children who have left care—care leavers—have assistance when they seek to make use of the complaints procedure in the Children Act. Amendment No. 114 seeks to ensure that children in care have assistance and independent advocacy when they seek to make use of the complaints procedure. Amendment No. 115 seeks to ensure the independence from the local authority of the advocacy service provided.
I share the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—particularly the lack of reference to independence in the Government's amendment.
Perhaps I should go back slightly and say that I warmly welcome the fact that the Minister has come forward with his amendment. The amendment seeks to introduce requirements which we had not previously sought—for example, a requirement for local authorities widely to publicise the assistance available. That is a very welcome innovation.
But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, there are concerns in regard to independence and as to why "advocacy" does not appear in the amendment. Can the Minister assure the House that the current
1388
arrangements for independent advocacy will continue under the new arrangements? I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, in speaking to these amendments, I should like to indicate that I shall not be moving Amendment No. 113. I can be brief because the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has already made the key points. Will the advice and assistance be independent? Does "assistance" include advocacy?
I wish to ask some further questions. Who will provide this assistance? What kind or class of person will they be? Will they be professionals; will they be from CAFCASS; will they be friends, or what? Could this assistance be given by volunteers, for example, or by organisations which employ volunteers to support children in this particular way, or could it be given by family members? If it is to be given by professionals, who will pay for it?
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for helping me to see how to speak to Amendment No. 115A when trying to deal with the other amendments. I am learning daily how to do these things.
The issue of independence is vital. There should be a very great degree of independence from the local authority—although local authorities in some areas have attempted the practice of providing services to other local authorities. I hope that organisations such as the National Youth Advocacy Service and A Voice for the Child in Care, which have worked hard to ensure a voice for advocacy for children, are heard and are able to provide some of these services. I believe that independence is crucial and that the Government believe that, given some of their past policies. I refer to the setting up of the CAFCASS scheme, following some of the difficulties with the panels of guardians ad litem; to the National Care Standards Commission; and to the implementation of regulation within local authorities. I could continue.
I am a former director of social services, so I believe that social workers do an extraordinarily good job. I have spoken on their behalf in this House previously. However, I also know that it is extraordinarily difficult to take a position from inside a local authority against one's employers. There are still difficulties in relation to whistle-blowing and other such issues. That is why independence is crucial.
Independent advocates often help in the informal stage of complaints under Sections 24D and 26 of the Children Act in ensuring that the matter never gets to a formal procedure. One of things that I have learnt from talking to children is that they do not really want to make a complaint; they want the issue that is bothering them resolved. Sometimes it becomes a complaint, but often it is about resolution. I hope that the independence provision will help them to have someone outside the sphere of the local authority to speak on their behalf and to gain a resolution that is, in their best interests.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Listowel

1389
and the other amendments proposed. There are many good things about this welcome Bill. As it is debated and occasionally amended, it seems to get better and better. There are no fewer than six amendments seeking more or less the same provision—plus the Minister's amendment, for which I am sure everyone is grateful. Not to have a built-in and, I emphasise, transparently independent advocacy system to represent what are often the very different interests of the young person concerned would seem both to violate the intentions of human rights legislation—clearly, in today's world, where there is so much interactivity and belief that people should express their own views—and not to be in the best interests of the child concerned as defined in the Bill.
It has long been one of my ambitions to see implemented a provision which I believe first appeared in the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. This allowed for the appointment of a personal friend—no doubt a volunteer—for each young person in care without family contacts who would, no doubt, over time gain the confidence of the youngster concerned. By definition, such a person would be independent of the local authority concerned. Those are vital qualifications in terms of what we are discussing. But sadly, to date, fewer than a third of those eligible to have such a friend have one. I realise that this scheme is not part of this particular discussion. But had such a system been fully enforced, there might well have been less need for the kind of advocacy for looked after children for which these amendments call. I hope that the government amendment will be sufficient to satisfy all of us. I look forward to the Minister's response and to his reassurance on this point, as I am sure do the proposers of the many amendments.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I should like to add our support to Amendments Nos. 111 and 114 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Almost everyone who advises children suffers in one way or another from conflict of interest. I do not exempt myself as a parent from that judgment.
Usually, when one is listening to children or young people, what they need most of all is time to go on talking until they can hear themselves think. That cannot be arrived at until there is someone who is prepared to listen to them who has absolutely no axe to grind about the case that they arguing. It seems to me that nothing other than independent advocacy can come anywhere near guaranteeing that. It is needed not only in cases of dealings with the local authority and in proceedings relating to divorce. I am sure that it is needed in cases dealing with contact. In fact, it needs to be available all round the field. Those who contribute to it provide something very valuable.
I was glad to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said in praise of social workers. It needs saying. They have been used as the whipping-boys and whipping-girls of the world for far too long. But everyone still has an interest until we get to someone whose only interest is in listening. That is what these
1390
amendments are driving at. It is a very valuable thing to try to do, and a very difficult one in which to succeed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, noble Lords who have debated with me for some time the issue of independent advocacy will know that I am very pleased to have been able to table an amendment that will secure the provision of advocacy services for the children and young people who need them most.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, posed the question of what we meant by "advocacy services". It is my understanding that there is no single accepted definition. I agree that it is important to be clear as to what we are talking about.
The National Advocacy Standards, which are due to be published by the end of this month, state:
"Advocacy is about speaking up for children and young people, in particular and whenever possible by enabling them to speak up for themselves. It is about helping them to achieve understanding, to participate in and influence decisions that affect their lives, particularly about representing their views, wishes and needs to decision-makers and seeking remedies for breaches of their human rights. Advocacy services offer independent and confidential information, advice, advocacy, representation and support".
In my Amendment No. 115A, I use the term "assistance", but I make it clear that it is intended to cover precisely these kinds of services. The National Advocacy Standards will be encompassed within Section 7 statutory guidance.
The amendment that I have tabled takes a slightly different approach from that of the other amendments in this group. My amendment inserts a new clause into the Bill which seeks to insert a new Section 26A into the Children Act. This self-contained section enables all the provisions relating to assistance to be provided in connection with the complaints procedures under the Children Act to be set out in one place.
Subsection (1) of the proposed new section provides that local authorities must make arrangements to provide assistance for children and young people who make or intend to make complaints under the Children Act procedures. This covers the standard procedure under Section 26 and also the procedure for young people leaving care under Section 24D inserted by the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000—when we had an extensive discussion about advocacy. This makes it explicit that local authorities must put in place arrangements to provide services to support these children and young people. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, suggested, one improvement that my amendment makes on the other amendments tabled on the issue is that it enables local authorities to arrange to provide assistance to children and young people who have not yet complained but who intend to do so. That will ensure that children will be given help in initiating complaint procedures and that they will have a voice in the process.
Subsection (2) provides that the assistance that local authorities put in place must include representation. That will ensure that the services provide for the needs of children and young people who need or wish to have someone to speak on their behalf. Subsection (3)(a)

1391
provides that advocacy services must not be provided by a person who is prevented from doing so through regulations. That is how we will ensure the independence of the service. We intend that the regulations will set out that a person who is the subject of a complaint, or who may be involved in considering it, and anyone involved in the line management of the case or in the casework, must not be appointed as the advocate. That means that, through the regulations, local authorities will be required to ensure that assistance is provided by those with no responsibility for the case of the child or the issues at stake in the complaint. In addition to the provisions in regulations under subsection (3)(a) of the new section, the principles of independence will also be addressed in the advocacy standards, which will be the subject of Section 7 guidance.
The other amendments tabled for Report on this issue refer to the advocacy services being independent on the face of the Bill, although they do not explain what is meant by "independent". It will be necessary, if pursued, to give a meaning to the term. Amendment No. 115 states that,
"the Secretary of State must have regard to the principle that the provision of independent advocacy under the arrangements should, so far as practicable, be independent of the local authority which is responsible for the child or of any person who is involved in investigating or adjudicating on such a complaint".
This is intended to reflect Section 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. Although I understand the intention behind it, I do not believe that it works. Unlike in the circumstances set out in the Health and Social Care Act, in these circumstances the Secretary of State will not be directly involved in arranging the provision of advocacy services.
Again, we need to be clear about what we mean by independence. Arguably, the services could never be entirely independent of the local authority, given that the local authority will always at least be commissioning and paying for them. What do we want to achieve from providing for the service to be independent? We want to ensure that the assistance provided is not influenced by the local authority. We believe that this is best done by ensuring that no-one with a direct interest in the outcome of the complaint is involved in the provision of assistance to the child or young person. We also want to ensure that the child or young person knows that the service will not be influenced. We want them to be confident that advocates are acting exclusively on their behalf and have no potential or conflicting interests and pressures. Feedback from consultation indicated that separate literature, phone numbers, logos and physical locations are more important to children and young people than the minutiae of who funds or the governance arrangements.
We believe that local authorities, subject to certain constraints, should have the freedom to decide how best to provide advocacy according to their local needs. I listened to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and other noble Lords about their concept of independence. Quite properly, there is a range of possible approaches to the provision
1392
of advocacy services, including in-house and contracted-out models. I am not confident that out-of-house provision of face-to-face services is uniformly available across the country. I would be reluctant to agree that we insist that all councils enter contracts with national advocacy organisations, although they will be free to do so.
The use of the term "independent" on the face of the legislation would prevent local authorities from using an in-house model. However, under my amendment, Amendment No. 115A, local authorities may choose either to provide assistance themselves or to come to an agreement with a national or local advocacy service provider in order to meet their responsibilities. Using the regulations to be made under subsection (3)(a) of the new section, combined with the National Advocacy Standards, which will have the force of Section 7 guidance, is the appropriate way of ensuring independence but also giving sufficient flexibility to local authorities. All noble Lords here, many of whom I have heard speak, often argue for flexibility to be given to local authorities.
Subsection (3)(b) allows us to regulate how assistance will be provided. We intend that these regulations will be used to set out persons or bodies with whom local authorities may enter into arrangements to provide assistance and the degree of choice that must be provided. I listened with care to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and we will consider his points when deciding what ought to be included in the regulations. I have some sympathy with the implication that a wide group of people should be used. When we debated the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, we had a similar discussion about the kind of people who should become young people's advisers. There was a strong consensus that we should not be hidebound by professional qualifications but, rather, we should consider the personal characteristics that the people appointed should bring to the role. I then suggested that people with experience of fostering might be appropriate. When we come to consider the matter, we will have to ensure that the people providing assistance have the proper training and skills. We cannot afford to take an amateur approach. We also feel that children and young people must be offered a choice of who should act as their advocate. One size does not fit all, and the regulations under subsection (3)(b) will set out the framework within which the service will be provided.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, also asked about funding. Local authorities will be required to fund the services. Subsection (4) reflects Section 26(6) of the Children Act 1989, which provides for regulations to require local authorities to monitor the provision of assistance to ensure that they comply with regulations. That will help to ensure that requirements in the section are met. Subsection (5) reflects Section 26(8) of the Children Act, which sets out that local authorities should advertise the advocacy services as they see fit. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, suggested, visibility of these services will be important to ensure that they can be accessed by the children and

1393
young people who need them. There is little point in having an advocacy service if children do not know about it and cannot access it quickly.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, we hope to implement the provisions in 2004, with consultation to take place in 2003–04. I cannot give a definite commitment, but we hope to accede to that aim. Noble Lords who have discussed the matter will know that it is with much pleasure that I bring my amendment to the House. It is a real advance, and I am sure that all noble Lords support the intent behind it.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he said early in his discourse that his amendment made it clear that it included advocacy. It may be because of my limited intelligence, but I cannot see how it makes that clear. Is the noble Lord prepared to table an amendment on Third Reading to make it absolutely clear?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I tried to explain that. The amendment uses the term "assistance", but it is intended to cover the sort of services that will be published at the end of the month in the national adoption standards. I listed those. I am happy to read them again to help the noble Lord.
7 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I heard the list, but the noble Lord associated the list with advocacy. We have here only the word "assistance". "Advocacy" does not appear.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I sought to explain the issue. So far as I am aware there is no agreed definition of advocacy. That is why I have used "assistance" in the amendment. I sought to explain that we shall publish National Advocacy Standards as Section 7 guidance, which is statutory guidance. That will make abundantly clear to local authorities what we mean by advocacy.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive explanation and for tabling Amendment No. 115A. I also thank all those who have taken part in this relatively short debate, which has underlined the importance of the issues involved in advocacy.
The noble Lord explained that putting "assistance" on the face of the Bill meant advocacy. We shall have to trust him on that, although I find it slightly curious that "advocacy" can be used in the heading to the new clause but does not manage to get into the text of it. That leaves some ambiguity, but we shall take the noble Lord's word as an assurance that advocacy will be included when the clause is implemented.
The one issue that may still cause some difficulty is independence. The Minister explained that the regulations would require case independence but not independence from the authority. That could cause difficulties. It is impossible for an employee to be
1394
completely independent of his or her employer. That is a fact of life. Employees have to look to their salary increases, their assessments and their career prospects. It is difficult for anyone to disentangle themselves from all those other ties. That is why we feel instinctively that independence means independence of the authority.
I heard what the noble Lord said. The matter will be left to regulation, not to the Bill. I shall reflect further. I do not wish to spoil the welcome for Amendment No. 115A, but we need to think through the remaining issue. I shall do that before Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 111 to 115 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 115A:
After Clause 116, insert the following new clause—
"ADVOCACY SERVICES
After section 26 of the 1989 Act there is inserted—
"26A ADVOCACY SERVICES

(1) Every local authority shall make arrangements for the provision of assistance to—

(a) persons who make or intend to make representations under section 24D; and

(b) children who make or intend to make representations under section 26.

(2) The assistance provided under the arrangements shall include assistance by way of representation.

(3) The arrangements—

(a) shall secure that a person may not provide assistance if he is a person who is prevented from doing so by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and

(b) shall comply with any other provision made by the regulations in relation to the arrangements.

(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring local authorities to monitor the steps that they have taken with a view to ensuring that they comply with regulations made for the purposes of subsection (3).

(5) Every local authority shall give such publicity to their arrangements for the provision of assistance under this section as they consider appropriate.""

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 116:
After Clause 118, insert the following new clause—
"PRIVATE FOSTERING: REGISTER
(1) In section 66 of the 1989 Act (privately fostered children), at the end of paragraph (b) there is inserted—
""a registrable private foster parent" means a person who fosters or offers to foster a child privately where the child is under the age of 11".
(2) After section 69 (power to prohibit private fostering) of that Act there is inserted—
"69A REGISTRABLE PRIVATE FOSTER PARENTS

(1) Every local authority shall keep a register of registrable private foster parents within their area.

(2) A local authority may refuse to register an applicant for registration under this section if it is satisfied that the applicant is not fit to foster privately a child under the age of 11.

1395

(3) A local authority may refuse to register an applicant for registration under this section if it is satisfied that any person living or likely to be living in the applicant's household is not fit to be in the proximity of children under the age of 11.

(4) A local authority may refuse to register an applicant for registration under this section if it is satisfied that the premises in which the applicant is proposing to foster a child are not fit to be used for looking after a child under the age of 11.

69B PRIVATE FOSTERING: OFFENCE

(1) No person shall privately foster children under the age of 11 unless he is registered by the local authority under section 69A.

(2) If any person contravenes this section he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I break my almost Trappist silence of this afternoon to return to a subject we discussed at considerable length in Grand Committee. In my view it is one of the large remaining issues before us in the Bill.
We considered private fostering with great care in Grand Committee. There was agreement at that stage that private fostering is perhaps the least understood part of childcare. There is general agreement that that lack of understanding is a cause for concern.
Over the past 30 years, many people have looked at the issue and considered what might be done to tackle it. In Grand Committee the Minister recognised the concerns that were raised but disagreed primarily on two issues. The first was the need for a registration scheme and the second was timing. I reflected on his comments over the summer and made a conscious decision to bring the issue back on Report because I believe that he was wrong, for reasons that I shall set out.
For those who did not take part in Grand Committee, it is fair to say that in the past 30 years report after report has looked at the issue of private fostering. Well known reports, such as Sir William Utting's People Like Us, have all recommended a registration scheme for private fostering. Since we last discussed the matter way back in the early part of the summer, the Social Care Institute for Excellence has conducted yet another investigation. Although its report has not yet been published, I should like to hear from the Minister what the response was and how many organisations referred to registration.
In Grand Committee, the noble Lord cast doubt on the need for a registration scheme for private fostering. He cited the legal framework of the Children Act 1989 and the duty that it places on carers and parents to notify local authorities that they are taking over responsibility for a child privately. He readily conceded that many people in that position do not register with the local authority, in many cases because they do not know that they have to. There is a lot of ignorance on the subject. I challenge the assertion that that framework is adequate. It is so widely ignored that one has to challenge its efficacy.
On re-examining the issue, I looked at the existing powers of local authorities. They are not required in any way to approve private foster carers. They can only prohibit people acting as private foster carers and they do that only in extremis.
Another argument advanced by the Minister and by his colleague in another place was that private fostering should not be registered because to do so might well drive it underground. A similar argument was advanced about the registration of childminders. It has not proved to be the case for childminding. Those who follow these matters know that the majority of private fostering cases are not registered with local authorities—indeed, almost nothing is known about the thousands of children who are in the care of private foster carers—so there is a strong case for saying that private fostering is already underground. Registering it cannot make things any worse.
The noble Lord also argued in Grand Committee that private foster carers currently do not come forward to register. He speculated that that is because they cannot see any benefit in doing so and a registration scheme would not offer them any incentive to register. However, some of the local authority pilots have reported that once private foster carers have understood the benefits of registering and have done so, it has opened up the way for them to become much more a part of the formal children's caring services in the area and to learn about issues such as their rights to benefits.
I have no wish to reopen our earlier debate on special guardians. Nevertheless, there is a correlation between the provision of childcare by a member of the extended family and the failure to take up the related benefits. People assume, whether they can afford it or not, that it is their duty to look after these children. They also wrongly believe that they are not entitled to benefit because of that family relationship.
In Grand Committee, the Minister gave a long list of arguments which I did not find very convincing. Although I have accepted many of his arguments during our consideration of this legislation, I do not find his arguments on this subject particularly persuasive.
The Minister's primary argument in this regard is about the timing. He knows as well as I do that publication of the Laming inquiry report, which is unlikely to appear before Christmas, will be a most important event for the future of childcare provision. No one will be able to ignore it. In Grand Committee, however, the Minister said that the Bill could not contain provision leading to the registration of private fostering because that might pre-empt the inquiry's findings. I did not find that a very compelling argument at the time, and, on reflection, I still do not.
The report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, will cover a wide range of childcare and child protection issues. The main focus of that substantial report, however, will be on the co-ordination of the various statutory services and on their duty to vulnerable children. The Government will not be short of work to do and issues to address when the report is published. I would even venture to say that their hands will be pretty full in responding to it. That is the first reason why I think that the Minister is wrong about timing.
This legislation is the second reason why I think that the Minister is wrong about timing. The title of the Bill is the Adoption and Children Bill. It should therefore address the issue of private fostering. Private fostering is one aspect of childcare provision, which is the matter that we have spent months discussing.
The third reason why the Minister is wrong about timing is that, in the past 30 years, the issues have not changed but simply increased in scale. In the multitude of reports that have been produced, there has been absolutely no suggestion that the nature of the problem has changed over time; the problem has simply grown larger. Children in private foster care are some of the most vulnerable in society. Not much is known about who they are, where they are or the conditions in which they live. The little that we do know has been sufficiently disturbing to make the issue a priority.
In Grand Committee, the Minister said that, as no financial transaction is involved, it would not be right to equate private fostering with childcare. I believe that, in many cases, that argument is entirely wrong. The evidence produced by various organisations investigating this issue shows that although many children are brought to this country by someone claiming to be—at least in their own definition—a relative, there is often a financial transaction between that person and the parents, who usually reside in another country, to look after those children. That evidence, more than any other, indicates that the problem will not go away but is likely to grow.
The Minister offered two contradictory arguments in Grand Committee. The first was that the Government accept that the issue is important. The second was that this House often considers legislation on social policy. I realise that he cannot predict the contents of the Queen's Speech—notwithstanding Mr Alan Milburn's announcement last week on foundation hospitals to the conference of the Association of Directors of Social Services; a very good speech which I commend to the Minister—but it is not good enough simply to say that we will eventually be able to consider an appropriate Bill to address this issue. The issue should be addressed in this Bill, which I suspect will be the key legislation governing adoption and fostering for a generation. That is why I return to the issue.
7.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in all that she said. We established in Grand Committee, and I understood the Minister to acknowledge, that the absence of effective regulation of private foster care represents a significant unresolved problem in the eyes of the Government. I believe that all of us are agreed on that. If we agree that there is a real issue here, then surely this Bill provides a good opportunity at least to lay the foundations for a remedy. Personally, I do not see how one can frame a workable remedy without incorporating in it some sort of registration scheme for private fosterers.
1398
I appreciate that whatever arrangements are eventually put in place will need to be enforceable and will need to satisfy the other test laid down by the Minister that they do not accentuate the tendency of private foster placements to "go underground". However, the Government have clearly done considerable work trying to find a way through these difficulties. We understand that it may not suit them to come forward now with a fully formed scheme. I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said about the Laming inquiry. I do not see how those conclusions will greatly advance our thinking on the risks inherent in unregulated private fostering arrangements. However, even if I am mistaken in that assumption, why pass up this opportunity to establish the basis on which the Government can act when they decide to do so?
If we do not take this opportunity, we shall be left with the provisions of the current law which are patently inadequate. There is, as the noble Baroness made clear, a lack of awareness of the law among carers. Social services departments are equally unsighted about their responsibilities. Amid this lack of awareness, there is a large—probably very large—group of vulnerable children for whom the existing law affords precious little protection.
In Grand Committee, the Minister drew a distinction between private fostering and child minding. The fact that private fosterers look after children on a very different basis from that of child minders—who are now, of course, subject to registration—is no reason, in my view, to hold back from a similar type of approval and registration scheme for private fosterers. This is an urgent issue. It is five years since the Utting report. We really should not let another five years go by before finding a way of implementing its recommendations.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I support the amendment. Only yesterday, I was speaking to a research worker in south London about private fostering—an issue of particular concern for ethnic minority communities and for the Lambeth social care project on fostered children which is funded by the Save the Children Fund. The majority of those using private fostering are either west African or Chinese. West African children have been privately fostered for a very long time. All the private foster parents are mainly white. It is estimated that there are some 10,000 children being cared for under private fostering arrangements.
African parents who put their babies in private fostering are in low-paid jobs. Similarly, those Chinese parents who use private fostering work in kitchens for long hours or in small take-away shops, which open seven days a week. All these children are under five years of age. The dilemma that we face—this is a paradox—is that child minders are registered and monitored, so why not private foster parents? That registration should be a matter for local authorities. We also know that private agencies are registered, but not foster parents. There is growing concern about private fostering that is not being registered.

1399
I turn, finally, to anecdotal issues. I say "anecdotal" because some of the African parents believe that a significant number of the current generation of teenagers, especially young black children who attend mental health clinics and hospitals and who tend to get into trouble with the police, have been privately fostered. I do not have evidence to support that assumption, but that is what I have been told. I certainly support the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may reassure noble Lords, as I did in Grand Committee, that I well understand the concerns that have been expressed. I have no doubt that further action needs to be taken. However, my problem is that this issue is both complex and complicated. That is why I shall not be in a position to come to the House with legislation during the passage of the Bill.
My honourable friend, Mrs. Jacqui Smith, announced a review in relation to private fostering on 17th January. That review is currently in process. It is engaging a wide range of stakeholders and focusing on the existing arrangements within Part IX of the Children Act. It is considering whether the latter are robust enough to protect vulnerable children living away from their parents. It is important for us to use, and carefully consider, the findings of the review rather than attempt to pre-empt them.
I do not say that the Climbié inquiry is the be-all and end-all in this regard. None the less, it is fair to anticipate that there may just be some recommendations from the process that will need to be considered. That is why I caution the House against rushing into legislation. There are some complex issues that need to be addressed. I should point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that the review is attempting to determine issues such as whether registration is necessary, or whether there are other options available.
There is also the issue of how far central government should interfere in what are essentially private arrangements made by parents. We must be sure that those changes have the right impact. Unfortunately, there is very little public awareness of what constitutes private fostering; as, indeed, noble Lords have observed. Very few people know that they are required to notify the local council of such arrangements. That is why we have taken steps to attempt to raise public awareness, including launching a campaign in this area.
There are a number of details that need to be considered as regards the proposed registration scheme; for example, we must be careful not to opt for the apparently simple idea of an age cut off, as suggested by the amendment, without thinking through its implications. Is the amendment saying that children over the age of 11 are not vulnerable? Several noble Lords have mentioned the childminding registration scheme, which offers a close parallel for children under the age of eight. However, it is my understanding that we shall shortly see legislation
1400
proposing an extension on that scheme up to the age of 14. Clearly, we need to consider whether there are sufficient parallels to follow.
So far, the review has found that registration was recognised by most stakeholders as desirable. But it is not a simple strategy to introduce successfully. I believe that we need different strategies for different types of private fostering; for example, language schools should be seen as a separate problem. We need to consider whether they should be included under the private fostering umbrella, or perhaps under some other form of registration.
A registration scheme also means different things to different people. In its purest sense, the amendment would require a list of registered private foster carers to be held by the local authority for use in enabling the relevant checks to be carried out. It has been suggested that such lists should be available for parents wishing to place their children in private fostering arrangements, in much the same way as a list of childminders might be provided. But the one danger in that proposal is that local authorities could be legitimising a lower standard of fostering that does not require any of the stringent checks necessary for mainstream foster carers.
I do not seek to criticise the noble Baroness's amendment. I recognise her concerns, many of which I share. All I seek to do is to point out that there are some very complex issues that still need to be resolved. That is why I cannot bring a suitable proposal to your Lordships' House during the passage of this Bill. However, I assure the noble Baroness that we are very exercised by the issue. We are determined to take very careful note of the outcome of the review, and of any recommendations that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, may make.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response. I can assure the House that we do not disagree on the importance of the issue that we are discussing; nor do we disagree about the practicalities involved in making this work. However, the Minister and I disagree on two points. First, we disagree on the argument that the absence of any scheme at present is worse than having a scheme that may not be perfect, or, indeed, that may not live up to the standards that he outlined.
Secondly, the Minister talked about the potential danger of bringing about a "lower quality of fostering"; but, as we know from some of the worst cases about which we have heard, that already exists. The noble Lord talked about the problem of insufficient public awareness as regards what constitutes private fostering. I have to say that I did not find some of his other arguments very convincing; for example, the state entering into what are essentially private arrangements between parents and private providers. But that is the case with childminding. The state has accepted that it is necessary to make that safe.
It is wrong to delay. I give way.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. With the best will

1401
in the world, and even if the principle were agreed, does she agree that we are simply not in a position to be able to place detailed proposals in this Bill? That is the real problem.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I should be interested to know what the Minister believes will emerge from the Laming inquiry that has not emerged from all previous inquiries.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is not just a question of the Laming inquiry, though I hope that we shall be very much informed by it. I spelt out in my response some of the problems that I foresee arising in a registration scheme. I believe that we need to work out the practical implications involved.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I do not doubt for a moment that both the practicalities and the details need to be addressed. However, I have not received a satisfactory answer on the issue of timing. I therefore propose to take the measure away. However, I intend to return to the matter at Third Reading. In the mean time, I shall bear in mind the comments that the Minister made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Motorsport Industry
7.30 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to ensure that the British motorsport industry remains a world leader.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I declare an interest as president, unpaid, of the Motorsport Industry Association. For the past 25 years Britain has dominated the global motorsport industry with specialist teams, racing car manufacturers and parts suppliers forming a cluster of expertise. The industry has an annual turnover of £4.6 billion and employs 40,000 people in 4,000, mostly small businesses. Recently there have been signs that the industry is drifting into crisis.
Successful attacks on our position have been made from the USA, Germany and Italy. They recognise the huge knock-on effect in terms of the UK's wider reputation for technology, innovation and design brought by success in global motorsport. Motorsport is not only about developing vehicles and technology. One of the main reasons Honda, BMW, Mercedes and Fiat invest in motorsport is for the development and
1402
training of their people. They learn vital lessons in teamwork, timely delivery and competition. It is an environment that brings out the best in people.
Sadly, we appear to be witnessing the beginning of a brain drain of motorsport talent away from the UK. As overseas motorsport clusters begin to grow, such as in Germany, around Mercedes, BMW, Toyota and Porsche, we shall see those areas attracting growing numbers of UK motorsport personnel. People, and their innovative and competitive minds, are singularly the most valuable resource within the "community of knowledge" that is Motorsport Valley UK. The Government must ensure that the working environment not only retains these talented people but also attracts more of them to this cluster. The majority of motorsport-linked companies have freely chosen to opt out of the Working Time Directive. That option might be lost in 2003, and those companies forced to comply with a 40-hour week or less.
The essence of successful on-time delivery to the deadlines imposed by world motorsport customers is flexibility of working hours. No motorsport event has ever been delayed by the failure of delivery of a spare part! Once the flexibility of our workforce is lost, the UK loses yet another competitive advantage.
The Government need to consider their tax treatment of businesses in this valuable sector to find a better understanding of some of its unique aspects. Could an advice note be issued from Her Majesty's Treasury to the Board of the Inland Revenue covering clarification of motorsport engineering, R&D and circuit developments? An example would be that of development expenditure under SSAP13, where engineering products used in motorsport have a life of just a few months yet must be written off over two or three years. If such activities, which are more correctly described as applied research, could be 100 per cent expense in the year in which they occurred for tax purposes, that would encourage and benefit innovation in motorsport.
I understand that the aerospace industry receives favourable tax treatment on R&D expenditure. But motorsport companies spend a far higher level of R&D, as a percentage of their sales—often exceeding 25 per cent—than any other part of the engineering sector. Will the Government apply a similar helpful approach to motorsport?
The predominantly small businesses rely for their success on substantial interaction and collaboration with other advanced engineering companies—from precision to bio-medical micro-engineering; from aerospace and defence to automotive. It is important that world-class standards are maintained across all these sectors in the face of increasing competition.
Overseas governments appear more willing to find creative ways to subsidise or support businesses in motorsport and so gain the valuable international recognition for their own countries. I believe that the Italian Government, in support of the growing cluster around Ferrari, provide motorsport export rebate schemes and subsidise factory visits from overseas customers through their state tourist offices. It is vital

1403
that our Government move quickly, and with just as much creativity, to level this playing field. If they do not take urgent action, our industry will suffer the same fate as the once world beating British motorcycle industry—it will be destroyed by complacency.
All world-class sports events such as the World Cup or the Olympics receive state support. The televised audience for the Formula One series is of a similar size. The British Grand Prix is hugely important to this country. It is vital that this event is secured for the long term to add value and international recognition for our industry. I think that it is right to congratulate the Government on providing the extra cash to speed up the building of the Silverstone bypass. Substantial private funding has been secured for Silverstone, and yet further funding is needed. A bid has been delivered to the Prime Minister and government Ministers by Sir Jackie Stewart, and I hope that that will be seriously considered.
This November, Wales is again hosting a round of the World Rally Championship, the most prestigious event of its type, which attracts large tourism revenues into South Wales. What role are the Government playing to ensure that that event remains in the UK? UK motorsport, as a sport, and the many circuits and venues on which it depends, is starved of government support. A review of sports funding by the lottery, UK Sport or Sportsmatch shows motorsport to be virtually ignored—a few thousands of pounds compared to millions for other sports. Why is that so? Motorsport is the most capital intensive of all sports but it has no parent body from which it can derive funds. The sport relies on finance from individuals and the industry for its funding.
Healthy and active motorsport would benefit the industry and jobs, and secure our international competitiveness. Government funding should be made available more freely to develop the grass roots of the sport, to create a ladder of improvement for young drivers, and to assist in the updating and development of venues. The sport requires a national review to establish the most appropriate areas to which government support should be directed.
Professor Porter, of Harvard University, has indicated to the Government on several occasions that the Motorsport Valley performance engineering cluster is one of the rare global "jewels" in our industrial crown. The MIA put forward the industry's own cluster development strategy last year. The entire programme gained substantial financial and resource support, exceeding £10 million per year, from a wide range of advanced engineering companies from aerospace to automotive, defence to ceramics.
Such clear and substantial support, offered in March of this year, demonstrates just how keen and enthusiastic industry is to develop this valuable cluster. It is an asset which we cannot afford to lie fallow as we watch this sector slip away overseas and bureaucracy struggle along. Can the Government urgently find some way to match these commitments and make inroads into these cluster development plans?
Richard Burden, the Member for Birmingham Northfield, was recently appointed the parliamentary representative for motorsport. I very much welcome his appointment. In a debate in the other place in June, he called on the Government to do everything they can to nurture a sport and industry in which Britain excels. The Minister for Sport agreed and said that the strength of the sport and industry coming together bodes well for the future. He applauded the MIA and the MSA for playing an important role and working together. I am therefore mystified as to why neither the MIA nor the MSA has apparently been invited to join the DTI's competitiveness panel. They are, surely, the two key players. As the membership bodies, they represent the industry and the sport. The MIA has been the single source of cluster and industry knowledge for the past three years and represents nearly 300 members. On behalf of that business community, many members of which have contacted me before this debate, I believe that I am entitled to a full explanation from the Minister of that oversight.
This surely demonstrates the need for greater cross-Whitehall working. A number of officials in the DTI and DCMS have an interest in motorsport. The industry wants and deserves a clear leadership role and a strong voice in Whitehall. For, in the mean time, in a fast-moving international sector, overseas competitors are stealing this industry from under our noses.
May I urge the Government to change gear, up the pace and secure a victory for Britain in this vital economic race?
7.41 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever on initiating this debate, on his persistence and effectiveness in raising these issues—he ensures that they are periodically discussed in your Lordships' House—and on covering the ground so effectively, as he always does. I have some questions for the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, who will respond. I hope for satisfactory answers.
Before going further, I should declare an interest. I am the director of a public company, one of the smaller subsidiaries of which supplies wiring, connectors and other equipment to the motorsport industry. I say that because it is the custom of the House to declare an interest and also because that is one of the reasons why I have a particular interest in this subject. My interest in motor racing goes back quite a long way. I remember in the 1940s when I was in short trousers that one weekend at school I swapped my two prize conkers for some Dinky toys. Although my conkers had carried all before them, unfortunately the Dinky toys that I got in exchange did not. But the incident led to an interest that has continued to this day.
My first question for the Minister is: do the Government really appreciate the value of this industry? My noble friend mentioned some of the key facts. It has a turnover approaching £5 billion, more than 30 per cent, I believe, exports. It also has a wider value. The industry, although very specialist, is a leader in advanced engineering and has transferable

1405
capabilities into the automotive and aerospace sectors. The technology is of much wider potential application in precision engineering generally. The industry also involves the development of important skills, which can be transferred outside the specific area of the motorsport industry.
As my noble friend said, the sector is mostly the preserve of smaller companies which are not necessarily always heavily capitalised. It is a fiercely competitive sector. The enterprise that those companies bring to the motorsport industry and, through that, to the wider precision engineering industries of this country is invaluable. I hope that the Government understand the importance of nurturing such activity.
My second question is: how effective do the Government believe regional development agencies are in supporting this process? I know that they have made a number of statements of support. But is there really very much to show for that? To the extent that they have provided support, is it really targeted in a way best suited to sustain the activities in Motorsport Valley?
My noble friend referred to the brain drain. That can take place at any level, from the top—at the strategic level—down to the skilled mechanics. It is terribly important that, having attained an international reputation for this specialised industry, we do not let it slip away to Germany, Italy or elsewhere where there is growing competition and an aspiration to take over the position that our industry carved out for itself.
My third and final question is: can we please have an explanation—my noble friend also asked for this—of the composition of the competitiveness panel, which I believe is due to meet fully for the first time next week? If the Government really have overlooked the MIA, that would be a contradiction of all that the panel is supposed to correct. The MIA, one would have thought, is the one body absolutely core to deliberations of that kind. The fact that the governing body of the sport, the MSA, is also, I believe, not involved at this stage, is baffling. Why will the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which has a much broader remit because it covers the ordinary automotive industry, be involved when the specific representatives of the motorsport industry—the subject of the whole exercise—will be excluded?
I hope that the Minister will give reassuring answers to our questions. Noble Lords taking part in this debate want to draw attention to the fundamental importance of this industry, despite its small size. We want it to flourish.
7.47 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, for introducing this Unstarred Question. I am delighted to be able to signal the interest in and support for the British motorsport industry that exists on these Benches. If I am not joined on this occasion by other speakers from the Back
1406
Benches on this side of the House, that is at least in part because my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, who made his maiden speech on this subject five years ago—almost to the day—will this time answer questions from the Front Bench. I wish him many happy returns, if that is the right expression, and look forward to his speech.
My noble friend Lord Davies said in his maiden speech that the motorsport industry was the nearest that the UK had to Silicon Valley; and, even if Silicon Valley has had, in the intervening five years, a ride—I was going to say "a roller-coaster ride", but perhaps it would be more appropriate to say a ride that was akin to spinning out from a two-lap lead back to the middle of the pack—it is still a compelling analogy. The British motorsport industry represents a competitive cluster, like Silicon Valley, of which Professor Michael Porter, as other noble Lords have said, can be proud. The position built up over the past 50 years through the extraordinary efforts and abilities of post-war pioneers, such as Charles and John Cooper and Colin Chapman, has bequeathed an industry whose direct impact on economic activity and employment is significant and whose indirect impact—through technology transfer and so on—is greater still.
It has not all been plain sailing—or racing uninterrupted by emergency pit stops. We should remember the original national champion, BRM, which in two decades went from being the Laurel and Hardy of Grand Prix racing to the world champions and back to being the Basil Fawlty of Formula 1 before expiring. Teams and companies have come and gone. As in all creative and entrepreneurial fields, to succeed you have to take risks, and if you take risks you may fail. I believe that, from the day they were first elected, this Government have understood that and have consistently taken steps to foster an environment in which dynamic, creative and high-tech industries have stood the best chance of succeeding from a base in this country. The motorsport industry has benefited, and will continue to benefit, from that.
In what specific ways, then, is the motorsport industry important and of benefit to the country as a whole? As a sport, it may not be everyone's cup of tea. But, for a large minority of the population, it is a sport for which, whether as participant or spectator, there is an enthusiasm as powerful as that for our other national games and sports. It produces tourist and other visitor revenues at events large and small. As with the new Rockingham circuit near Corby, it can be a powerful instrument for regional regeneration.
The design and manufacturing part of the industry is an important employer of highly skilled workers. That, in turn, nurtures the high value-added design and development specialists who serve the mainstream motor industry. Sir John Harvey-Jones used to argue that ownership of manufacturing industry was important because, wherever the head office was, there also would be the highest value research and development centres. The success of the British motorsport industry has contributed to the ability of the UK in this field if not to disprove that, at least to mitigate its effects, as the specialist design and R&D

1407
companies carry out increasing amounts of vital and lucrative work for the large motor manufacturers all around the world.
Finally, motorsport is a vigorous stimulus to the development of technology for the everyday driver. That makes him or her safer, more comfortable or more frugal with the world's resources. That is why the industry is important. What, then, should the Government do? I believe that, apart from setting the entrepreneurial environment that I mentioned earlier, they should concentrate on, to coin a phrase, education, education, education. That was a theme emphasised in his maiden speech five years ago by my noble friend Lord Davies.
I support the Government's contribution to infrastructure at the Silverstone bypass that was mentioned earlier. There are also specific initiatives in place; for example, the DTI has invited the industry, along with the regional development agencies, to pool their resources in training and education.
But I believe that we should be careful not to subsidise an industry which is quintessentially commercial and competitive. I suppose I was a little surprised by the vehement advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, for fighting subsidy with subsidy. There may be a proposal to handicap Ferrari in Formula 1 through weight penalties or whatever, but I was struck by the fact that the strongest competing teams do not consider that to be the right way to reinvigorate Formula 1. I believe that is an example that the Government would be well advised to follow. Our industry should not be disadvantaged, although small measures of support would be welcome; but nor should it be mollycoddled.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it is a privilege to join in this debate, initiated by my noble friend Lord Astor, because I believe that speakers on all sides of the House are expressing concern about the current standing of motorsport in this country. That is not to say that we are being particularly critical of the Government, but we are worried that motorsport itself is not justifying its past successes.
I declare an interest as a member of a number of motorsport clubs, as a past competition licence-holder and as past president of the Auto-Cycle Union—a position held now by my noble friend Lord Jopling. We must not forget that motorcycle racing is equally as prestigious as motorcar racing in this country and around the world, and it, too, should be given consideration in tonight's debate.
We are very worried about losing our national prestige as the leading constructors of chassis and engines. We are also losing employment. We are concerned, too, about losing spectators at major events such as the British Grand Prix. I know that there were special circumstances this year, when the tickets were cut in half because of the problems and the threat that the Grand Prix might be lost if the road improvements were not completed. I congratulate the Government on what they achieved very rapidly at Silverstone.
1408
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, should bear in mind that we appear to be awfully bad at managing traffic at our major sports events, whether they are held at Twickenham, Murrayfield or, in the old days, at Wembley. I also include many horse-racing events, and so on. We simply do not seem able to manage traffic flows as they do in other countries.
I often go in Baltimore to the baseball park, which holds 50,000 people with perhaps two or three matches a week. One can drive to the ground 10 minutes before the start of the game and leave at any time, and there is no traffic congestion. If other countries can achieve that type of traffic management, we should be capable of doing far better than we do at present. I know that the problem is partially down to the police and partially down to local authorities, but it is an issue which we should consider seriously if we are to maintain the number of spectators at sports events in this country. I believe that the average driver is becoming rather fed up with the traffic jams at so many events.
We should give praise to Sir Jackie Stewart at the British Racing Drivers Club. He set a fine example in trying to encourage the nation to develop our past achievements in relation to motor racing. He has also encouraged some entrepreneurs, such as Lord March, who has achieved splendid things at Goodwood. He has attracted all manner of praise from many parts of the world for the way that he has presented motor racing at the Goodwood track and at the hill climb on his own estate. Men such as Lord March, Tom Wheatcroft at Donington and others can show the way if they are given the opportunity and are not frustrated by the complicated planning problems that so often arise in almost every development in this country today.
I am concerned that we are being slowly removed from centre stage. BMW, Mercedes and Ferrari are taking over what used to be our home ground. We do not seem to be able to rise to the challenge, and we should help our industry in any way that we can. I am particularly concerned at American racing, which, with its IRL system, is very different from our form of racing. Enormous TV coverage is given to the sport in that country. It seems to me that motor racing takes place almost every day somewhere in the United States, and it receives a great deal of coverage with huge spectator gatherings. I feel that we are losing out in that respect, too, and that we are also losing out with regard to the cars that we used to build and export to the United States.
Indeed, I should like to see a change of fortune for those who drive for this country. I know that David Coulthard is doing well and is among the top two or three drivers in the world. But where are the rest? They are slowly slipping out of the frame and are not developing as quickly as one would like. In a strange way, the people in this country seem to support the drivers more than they do the cars. That is also what the press are interested in. We should see what we can do to improve the situation.

1409
I hope that the Minister will say a word about Sport England, which has become a major issue in relation to the lottery. At present, the organisation does not have a chairman or a chief executive. That does not bode well for sport in this country because Sport England has overall responsibility for so many things, but not of course for the detailed work of motor racing. However, it is there to present the case for Britain. I hope that the Minister will explain what has gone wrong with Sport England and with the distribution of lottery money.
The whole issue is now one of leadership. I am not asking the Government to throw money at the sport because, in many ways, money is not the problem; it is the technology, the salesmanship and the presentation that have gone wrong. It is desperately important that the Government recognise that we are on a downward road and it is up to them to try to help us to regain the position of world leader in motorsports, in engines, in chassis development, and in racing technique.
8 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, we are extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever for introducing this debate. I must begin by declaring an interest as one who, years ago, used to race cars as an amateur, and who is currently president of the Auto-Cycle Union, the governing body of motorcycle sport, to which my noble friend has just referred.
In that capacity I want to talk about the position of motorcycle sport with all its different disciplines: road racing, grass track trials, moto-cross and enduro events. First, I must say how impressed I have been by the support for motorsport from Coventry University, where my noble friend Lord Plumb is chancellor. The university fully recognises the importance of the British motorsport industry to the United Kingdom economy, particularly to the West Midlands. Building on its world-class work and reputation in automotive engineering and in transport design and the potential for motorcycle design and development, it has now, I am glad to say, established a centre for motorsport engineering and a new degree course in motorsport engineering in partnership with the industry. In that way it is playing its full part in providing the future intellectual capital and research to maintain the United Kingdom's world leadership and position. I warmly commend it.
The motorcycle industry is worth £3 billion a year to our economy. It employs 15,000 and there are 1.5 million active riders who have a close connection with the motorcycle sport. Enthusiasm for riding on the roads and the sport itself feed off each other. The number of competitive licence holders in the UK has been growing steadily and currently is no fewer than 22,000. However, it is important that we start investing in the future of the sport so that we can produce more world-class athletes. I say "athletes" because the young people who compete in motorcycle sports are stupendous athletes. Anyone who has seen moto-cross events will understand that, like the legendary man on
1410
the flying trapeze who flew through the air with the greatest of ease, these young men are extraordinary. At the other, perhaps less spectacular, end, in trials the judgment and the balance of the competitors is quite astonishing.
I am irritated that archery currently also has about 21,000 members and has been granted funding of nearly £90,000 over the past seven years. In 2002 the Government have provided no funding whatever to the ACU. In the past 10 years funding has been poor, with an average of only just over £8,500 a year, making a decade total of around £86,000. Other sports such as skiing have been award £671,000 in the seven years up to January 2002, yet motorcycle sport which has seen over 30 world championship titles in the past 10 years taken by British riders, has barely seen 10 per cent of the figure given to skiing.
Funding is needed to encourage youngsters to get involved in the sport. There is a steady decline in the number of competitors under 18 years-old with less than 17 per cent of the competitive licence holders this year belonging to that age category. Valentino Rossi, the current Italian World Moto Grand Prix champion, has been drawing attention to the few young people coming for training in this country compared with Italy, Spain and Germany.
To enable us to continue to compete at world level and to discover new talent, we need to put more money into all motorcycle disciplines, from club racing to the national and international arenas. Ice skating has produced no major world stars since Torvill and Dean, yet in the past eight years that sport has received nearly £35 million. That is just not fair. Motorcycle sport has produced champions in road racing, such as four-times World Superbike Champion Carl Fogarty and in off-road racing, the 11-times indoor and outdoor trial champion, Dougie Lampkin. But the sport has not received anywhere near enough support or recognition.
Funding is required to support not only the riders, but also the volunteers and marshals who are the backbone of the sport. It is important that safety regulations are properly looked after in this potentially dangerous sport and there has to be training.
This year the World Superbike round at Brands Hatch had a crowd of over 120,000 people, the largest sporting crowd in Britain, for yet another consecutive year. But the crowds want to watch home talent and this Government are not fulfilling their part in assisting the development of such riders. Most events are much more modest club events without the spectators and the cash generation that we saw at Brands Hatch.
The treatment of motorcycle sport is not fair. I challenge the Minister to make a case that it is and if he cannot do so, I ask whether he will meet a delegation from the Auto-Cycle Union, which represents the sport, so that we can hear a more considered reply than he is able to give us tonight.
8.6 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, as is often the case in your Lordships' House a short debate can be a riveting one. We have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, for introducing this one.
Is it not a curious cultural anomaly of this country that we have the well documented self-destruction of the motorcycle industry followed by the more gradual self-destruction of the mass motor industry and yet in motorsport, particularly in Formula 1, we have a situation where most of the innovation and development has been carried out in this country, and within a 20-mile radius of Banbury? Small companies are working within their particular expertise, innovation and design of engines, chassis and so on.
It does not stop there, but continues into other areas of motorsport which are less publicised but which nevertheless involve a great number of people, whether on track or off-road. The noble Lord is right to talk about the brain drain of expertise to other countries. I am reminded of what happened in the film industry in the world of special effects. Special effects for cinema, which form a great part of what Hollywood does in blockbusters, were developed in this country by small companies that had the same kind of expertise. However, the brain drain has caused that expertise to go to the United States. We have not been able to gain the added value from that expertise, probably for the same reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Monro, mentioned. I believe that he spoke of our failure in salesmanship and presentation.
The motorsport world is a rough one, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, recognises. There are always those who envy what we do and hope to do it better. Even in the world of tuning and customising of cars, over the years we have seen the European Commission trying to introduce legislation that limits what can be done with a manufactured piece of road-going machinery in terms of altering its performance and so on. We have resisted that because it is what we do well. There are hundreds of small operators in this country—small businesses, often consisting of no more than six or seven people—who do this kind of work brilliantly. It is what other countries wish they could do. The Italians used to do it in the motor industry, but we took over. It would be a great pity, as the noble Lord said, if we lost that expertise. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has taken that on board.
I have a particular interest in motorcycles. I paid great attention, as always, to what the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said. The image of motorcyling has improved because of what has happened in motorcycle sport. It has put a rather heavy emphasis on the production for the domestic market of race replica machines, but, on the other hand, motorcycle racing is now producing national figures who are the match of those who drive motor cars.
These people are very necessary. What they say is followed closely by the young. Most of them are keen on road safety. We need to bear that in mind. One year, at the lunch for the Birmingham motorcycle show, I
1412
sat next to Steve Webster, the champion at that time of sidecar racing—a discipline I do not think was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. That year he was the only automotive British world champion. Rather naively I asked him, "What kind of motorcycle do you ride at home?" He looked at me with absolute horror. He said: "I haven't got a licence. My wife would be horrified if she thought I was going out on the roads in this dangerous activity". So, it is a curious business. These great stars of the track are often great models to the young and to others.
Motorcycling is becoming an extremely popular business. It will be helped shortly by the Mayor of London, Mr Livingstone, forcing people on to scooters. They will not be able to park them anywhere, but they will be there. Often inexperienced people will be driving them and they need these kind of heroes.
I have nothing further to say. It has all been made clear by excellent speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, will fully understand. I wonder whether his understanding—which I know he has—can be translated into government action and support along the lines suggested in your Lordships' House today.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever for asking the Government what plans they have to ensure that the British motorsport industry remains a world leader.
I have a particular personal interest in motorsport. As a small child I remember feeling very privileged to be able to spend hours at what we in my family called "The Works" at Thames Ditton, Surrey, where my grandfather, together with his dedicated team, custom-built AC Cars, latterly with the input of Carol Shelby and the Ford engine. There I learnt the true meaning of the word "precision", as my cousins and I watched the engineers in brown coats pouring over plans and overseeing the making of simply beautiful machines.
Motorsport has endured as one of Britain's most popular and successful sports. Almost 800 motor clubs are registered with the motor sport association, which oversees about 5,000 events annually in 22 different disciplines. Some 30,000 individuals hold competition licences and at least 100,000 people compete in total. This massive home market, worth some £400 million alone, helps to make Britain the world's leading motorsport nation. Britain has at least 60 permanent motorsport venues, more than any other country in Europe. Events take place in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. British marshals are the best in the world. Many foreign events import them to raise local safety standards.
UK motorsport, which includes most of the Formula 1 and world rally teams, plus several thousand "behind the scenes" companies, provides full-time employment for nearly 40,000 people, together with another 100,000 employed in part-time positions. They include truck drivers, mechanics,

1413
engineers, tyre fitters, electricians, computer programmers, salesmen, secretaries and people in public relations, administration and planning.
The Royal Academy of Engineering points out that all motorsport events revolve around what is essentially an engineering competition. Their lifeblood is the brainpower and inventiveness of designers and engineers, and, as such, the calibre and standard of their education are of paramount importance. The demand is for all levels of engineers, not simply at graduate level, where competition is at its height. The sector needs "hands on" technicians with practical and academic skills in modern technologies. A recent MORI poll for EMTA (the Engineering and Marine Training Authority) showed that over 50 per cent of young people associate engineering with a dirty working environment and that they relied mostly on family members and school careers teachers for their information on engineering. Motorsport, properly used, can attract young people into "clean" types of engineering.
Motorsport is highly popular with young people, especially through computer-based video games and television. The Government, working with the industry, should use the clean engineering environment of motorsport to dispel these myths among teachers and school children. This will increase interest in engineering, just as the glamour of NASA has done in the USA, and so benefit the UK generally.
The challenge and glamour of motorsport are motivational and should be used to their utmost to encourage children to study engineering. The MIA and its industry members have actively supported the initiatives Formula Student, Formula Schools and F1 in Schools, which are all design and engineering competitions for students. These excellent initiatives rely primarily on the funding and good will of industry and individuals, with virtually no government funding involved—just £500 from the DTI in the case of Formula Student, which attracts entries from over 35 universities. The DTI and the Department for Education and Skills should be more generous and active in their support for these educational initiatives and work alongside the MIA to maximise their success.
Graduate level courses were first pioneered by Oxford Brookes University and the Swansea Institute, the latter offering the very first degree in motorsport engineering in 1998. Since then, the MIA education council has encouraged many colleges and universities to develop courses which use motorsport at their heart. I join my noble friend Lord Jopling in congratulating Coventry University on its support of the industry. These provide NVQ, HND, BSc and MSc level qualifications in various branches of motorsport and at technician to Masters level.
These courses have proved outstandingly popular, with applications far outstripping supply—a unique experience for engineering courses. This allows educators to ensure that the very best applicants join the courses, and, more importantly, to invest in improving their engineering facilities. However, now
1414
that a successful formula has been found to encourage engineering studies, it is proving difficult for the establishments to find adequate resources to equip themselves satisfactorily to teach these subjects or to recruit and retain the staff required. Government support is needed to ensure that these popular, fast-growing engineering initiatives deliver the required results to satisfy the demands of British industry at large.
Tourism is a major economic generator for the UK, and recently the Government have focused on heritage and sports tourism initiatives. Motorsport is the largest income generator within UK sports tourism, not only through the major international events of world superbikes, world rally, Formula 1 and the CART race at Rockingham, but in the many other events which take place each year, many in rural locations. Added to these are the many motorsport museums and corporate events that are open for tourist business every day of the week. We know that motorsport creates substantial rural income, whether from Forestry Commission roads or local farmhouse bed and breakfasts.
This debate is extremely timely, given the Secretary of State's announcement in July of a programme involving an independent study to look at the key issues facing motorsport, a Motorsport Roundtable and the development of a long-term partnership programme between the industry, sport and government at national and regional levels.
What that all adds up to, time will tell. We understand that the Roundtable has proposed the formation of a motorsport competitiveness panel, which will include industrialists and relevant industry and sport bodies, with representatives from relevant government departments and agencies. Will the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, confirm that the Motorsport Industry Association will be invited to join this panel
We have already heard today from my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever that the MIA has been the single source of cluster and industry knowledge for the past three years. This is something which is currently being overlooked.
In addition, while this proposed panel meets and extra industry research is carried out by the DTI (a process that could take up to 12 months) we fear that the industry is slipping away before our eyes—a classic case of fiddling while Rome burns. Could the Government not release substantial funding in the interim to support the cluster development work that has already gained support from within the industry? Furthermore, could not the DTI increase support for the Motorsport Valley RDA programme and encourage it to make resources available with more urgency than has been shown?
In conclusion, those cars that I saw being built years ago represented the basis of what we had then and what has endured: a world class industry which deserves our whole-hearted support. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to

1415
listen to what has been expressed with conviction and to respond positively to the real concerns shared by noble Lords today.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for introducing the debate. As president of the Motorsport Industry Association, he is well placed to comment on the issue in the House. His speech raised many of the important issues that we must address.
I shall spend the bulk of my speech responding to the issues relating to motor car racing, because it has been the subject of most of the debate, but I would be remiss not to respond to the interest expressed by both the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, in motorcycling. We all recognise that one of the great advantages of motorcycling is that the skill level—which is not greater but certainly no less than that involved with motor cars—is considerably more visible because the riders can be seen so well during the execution of those skills. I therefore agree with the noble Lord that it has much to offer our young people—not least, I always think, because of the old adage that people who have learnt to drive on two wheels subsequently make rather better drivers on four wheels when they get the chance.
There is much that we ought to applaud in the development of motorsport. On the question of subsidy and support, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, will recognise that the sports councils make their allocations to sports according to transparent and public criteria, which include need, public interest in the sport, the contribution that they make to increasing participation and international success. The noble Lord, supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that he thought that the case could be made more effectively directly to Ministers. I shall certainly convey that request to my colleagues to see whether a meeting with the interests of motorcycling at heart can be arranged.
Turning to the more general issues raised in the debate, we should recognise that the Government fully understand the significance of the sport of motor racing and the fact that we are the world leader. Seven of the 11 major companies that race are based in that wonderful area that some people have described to me as the South Midlands, but which—as my noble friend Lord Chandos reminds me—I referred to in a debate five long years ago as Silicon Valley. We all know that those talents are concentrated in a limited part of our country, but they are most important, because they raise the level of engineering skills in this country. They set a bench-mark that we ought all to applaud.
I bow to no one in the advocacy ably advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in support of other noble Lords, of the importance of engineering and engineering skills. I happen to be the father of two sons who are both engineers—neither of them having inherited their skills from me, I hasten to add. One of them works in the motor industry although, regrettably, he has taken his talents from the United
1416
Kingdom to Detroit. But I am well aware of the fact that we have much to do to develop engineering skills. Motorsport can attach significant glamour to engineering—a point made by the noble Baroness.
Let me emphasise that the Government are most concerned about vocational education and to ensure that people pursue educational courses from age 16 to 18 to help to establish their subsequent interest in engineering and technical skills—which are part and parcel of the more rarefied forms of engineering performed at graduate and post-graduate level. Such vocational courses reflect the fact that the Government recognise that we need to pay due regard to skill level at every level. We do not produce sufficient high quality engineers and we must attend to that problem. That is an important part of the general sustaining of skills necessary for the industry in which we are taking pride in this debate for its role as a world leader.
We all recognise that motorsport has an enormously passionate and devoted following—sufficient for the Government to recognise the point made forcefully by the several noble Lords that access to Silverstone has been scarcely adequate in recent years to meet the needs of those who want to attend. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, broadened that point to cover other sporting events. I sympathise with him; we all know the enormous frustration—not to mention the deterrent effect on attendance—caused at major sports occasions when it is so difficult to obtain access.
The Government take pride in and accept the generous comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Stewartby and Lord Astor, about the improvements to the approach road to Silverstone, which have ensured that people had a better journey both to and from the track this year than in previous years. That is an earnest of the Government's recognition that the sport is of course important for those who participate in it and watch it, but it is also important for the engineering skills that it engenders and the industrial and technical support that is employed to sustain it.
I also mention that, although we have overwhelmingly discussed Formula 1, there are other encouraging developments. The noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, asked me about regional development agencies. My noble friend Lord Chandos referred to the fact that support from the regional agency has helped to develop the Rockingham circuit, which is an important development for a different kind of motor racing from Formula 1, but one that produces its own thrills and interests. I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding us of that.
I also pay tribute, as have others, to the 18 institutions—of which Coventry is a significant one—that play their part in ensuring that we have the skill levels to help us to ensure that our present lead is sustained. Of course, there was comment on the dangers presented by the Italian challenge. There is not much that the Government can do in the short term about the excellence of Ferrari and the problems that others have had in competing with it during the past two or three years. But it is only four or five short years ago since British firms were to the fore.

1417
Excellence and leadership in the sport tends to run in cycles over a fairly limited period and I am sure that the whole House is united in the hope that we shall wrest that leadership from Ferrari in the near future. It is inevitable that Ferrari has a beneficial spill-over effect in Italian interest in the sport—not that Italian interest in the sport was ever at a low level; it has always been an important part of Italian culture. However, we must emphasise our contribution.
Tax concessions are on the agenda of the committee set up to consider such issues. There have been complaints that the motorsport industry is not directly represented on the main body, but I assure the House that the competitive working group will consider such issues. It has, of course, the capacity to set up sub-committees in which motorsport will have the chance to make its case fully and present its position.
I reassure the House that the Government take seriously both aspects of motorsport—the enormous enjoyment that it brings to our fellow citizens and the unique dimension of the sport in engendering technical and engineering competence. It places demands upon skill levels that we ought to value and enhance. I assure the House that the Government have that at the forefront of their mind.

Adoption and Children Bill
8.30 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 117:
Before Clause 119, insert the following new clause—
"POWERS OF COURT IN CERTAIN FAMILY PROCEEDINGS
In section 37 of the 1989 Act (powers of court in certain family proceedings) there is inserted—
"(7) Where in any family proceedings in which a question arises in respect to the welfare of any child, the court shall have particular regard on the evidence before it to—

(a) the wishes and feelings of the child considered in the light of his age and understanding;

(b) the need for the separate representation of the child concerned, and upon making an order for separate representation the court may appoint a children's guardian;

and these shall be considered specified proceedings within the meaning of section 41 of this Act.""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 118:
Before Clause 119, insert the following new clause—
"PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO REPRESENTATION OF CHILD
In section 41(6) of the 1989 Act (representation of child and of his interests in certain proceedings) there is inserted—
"(j) on applications under section 8 in specified circumstances to be established by rules of court""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 126 [Territorial application]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 74, line 15, leave out from "society" to end of line 16 and insert "whose principal office is in England"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 119, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 120 and 121. They are technical amendments to the provision relating to the territorial application of the Adoption and Children Act register, made necessary by the amendment made to the Care Standards Act 2000 by Clause 16 of this Bill, which was inserted in Grand Committee.
Clause 126(1) provides the definition of the English adoption agencies to which the provisions on the register will apply. Subsection (1)(b) states that the definition includes,
"a registered adoption society, where the registration authority is the National Care Standards Commission".
Clause 126(2) enables the register to be extended to apply to adoption agencies in Wales, and Clause 126(4) enables the provision for the register to act as an agency for payments to be extended to agencies in Wales.
Those subsections refer to,
"registered adoption societies, where the registration authority is the Assembly".
Under the Care Standards Act, there are two registration authorities—the National Care Standards Commission in England and the National Assembly for Wales in Wales. The Care Standards Act imposes several functions on the registration authorities, including the function of registering voluntary adoption agencies under the Act—such agencies are referred to as "registered adoption societies" in the Bill—and the function of inspecting those agencies.
Clause 16 inserts a new Section 36A into the Care Standards Act. The new section will ensure that, given that branches of adoption agencies will not be registered separately, the National Assembly for Wales has the appropriate level of scrutiny over Welsh branches of voluntary adoption agencies registered in England. Similarly, it will ensure that the National Care Standards Commission has the appropriate level of scrutiny over English branches of voluntary adoption agencies registered in Wales.
The principle of Section 36A is that an agency that has its principal office in England will be registered by the NCSC and an agency that has its principal office in Wales will be registered by the Assembly. It also provides that the NCSC will be the registration authority for the inspection of voluntary adoption agency premises in England and that the Assembly will have the same function in Wales. If a voluntary adoption agency has, for example, a principal office in England and a branch in Wales, the registration authority inspecting a branch of the agency will be a different registration authority to the one that registers the agency as a whole.
Because it is possible that, in respect of a small number of agencies, it may not be easy to identify what is meant by the term "the registration authority", we

1419
feel that it would be most appropriate to amend Clause 126 so that the definitions of voluntary adoption agencies refer instead to where the principal office of the agency is. That will meet the objective of ensuring that agencies that have their main presence in England use the register when the register applies to England and agencies that have their main presence in Wales use the register when the register applies to Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 120 and 121:
Page 74, line 21, leave out from "societies" to end of line 22 and insert "whose principal offices are in Wales"
Page 74, line 33, leave out from "societies" to end of line 34 and insert "whose principal offices are in Wales"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 122 to 127 not moved.]
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 96, line 1, leave out paragraph (i).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 98, line 36, at end insert—
"30A In section 56 (authorised courts), in subsection (3), for "Great Britain" there is substituted "Scotland"."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 100, line 9, leave out paragraph 39.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 130 and 148 are technical drafting amendments. Amendment No. 130 will leave out the amendment to the Insurance Companies Act 1982 in paragraph 39. It is no longer needed, as that Act has been repealed.
Amendment No. 148 amends Schedule 4 to preserve the ability to amend and rectify registrations in respect of pre-1976 Act adoptions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 131 to 134 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 103, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) after subsection (4)(a) there is inserted—
"(aa) any person who by virtue of section 4A has parental responsibility for the child;""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 135, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 136 and 137.
Clause 110 inserts Section 4A into the Children Act 1989 in order to enable a step-parent to acquire parental responsibility for a child of his or her spouse. Section 4A provides two alternative routes for step-parents to acquire parental responsibility. Such
1420
responsibility may be acquired either by agreement between the step-parent and the parents who have parental responsibility for the child or by order of the court.
The measure is intended to provide an alternative to adoption if a step-parent wishes to acquire parental responsibility for his or her step-child. It has the advantage of not removing parental responsibility from the other birth parent and not legally separating the child from membership of the family of that birth parent. The amendments to the Children Act 1989 provide for step-parents to be able to hold parental responsibility for a child.
Amendment No. 135 amends paragraph 55 of Schedule 3, so that it inserts a reference to,
"any person who by virtue of Section 4A has parental responsibility for the child"
into Section 10(4), which covers the power to make Section 8 orders, of the Children Act 1989. That means that a person who obtains parental responsibility for a child as a consequence of new Section 4A is entitled to apply to the court for any Section 8 order—residence, contact, prohibited steps or specific issue orders—with respect to that child. Currently, they could apply to the court for leave to apply for a Section 8 order or, if they have a residence order, apply for a Section 8 order.
Amendment No. 136 amends paragraph 62 of Schedule 3, which amends Section 33 of the Children Act 1989, which deals with the effect of a care order. That section provides for the exercise by the local authority designated by a care order of its parental responsibility with respect to a child. The amendment substitutes a new Section 33, which provides that the local authority designated by a care order shall have the power to determine the extent to which a person who has obtained parental responsibility for a child as a consequence of new Section 4A may meet his parental responsibility for the child. The amendment also replaces references to the Adoption Act 1976 with the appropriate references to the Bill.
Amendment No. 137 amends paragraph 63 of Schedule 3, which amends Section 34 of the Children Act 1989, which is headed "Parental contact etc. with children in care". The effect of the amendment is that, if a child is in local authority care, the local authority may allow that child reasonable contact with a person who has obtained parental responsibility for him or her as a consequence of new Section 4A. That would already be the case, if a step-parent had a residence order immediately before the case order was made. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 136 to 138:
Page 104, line 18, leave out paragraph 62 and insert—
"62 In section 33 (effect of care order)—

(a) in subsection (3)(b), for "a parent or guardian of the child" there is substituted "—

(i) a parent, guardian or special guardian of the child; or

(ii) a person who by virtue of section 4A has parental responsibility for the child,",.

1421

(b) in subsection (5), for "a parent or guardian of the child who has care of him" there is substituted "a person mentioned in that provision who has care of the child",

(c) in subsection (6)(b)—

(i) sub-paragraph (i) is omitted,

(ii) in sub-paragraph (ii), for "section 55 of the Act of 1976" there is substituted "section 84 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002",

(d) in subsection (9), for "a parent or guardian of the child" there is substituted "a person mentioned in that provision"."

Page 104, line 25, at end insert ", and
(b) after subsection (1)(b) there is inserted—
"(ba) any person who by virtue of section 4A has parental responsibility for him;""
Page 105, line 34, at end insert—
"( ) after sub-paragraph (8) there is inserted—
"(9) This paragraph does not apply to a local authority placing a child for adoption with prospective adopters"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 139 to 143 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 109, line 29, at end insert—
"In section 23 (standards), at the end of subsection (4)(d) there is inserted "or proceedings against a voluntary adoption agency for an offence under section 9(4) of the Adoption Act 1976 or section 9 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 144 amends the Care Standards Act 2000 to provide that the national minimum standards are to be taken into account in proceedings for an offence against a voluntary adoption agency either under Section 9(4) of the Adoption Act 1976 or Clause 9 of the Bill. Proceedings may be brought against a voluntary adoption agency for a breach of any regulations which are made under Section 9(2) of the 1976 Act. Regulations will be made under Section 9(2) in relation to voluntary adoption agencies similar to those made under Section 22 of the Care Standards Act in relation to fostering.
Those regulations cover issues such as the persons who are fit to manage an agency, the fitness of premises and so on; they regulate the way the agency is to be run. The draft regulations for voluntary adoption agencies have been issued for consultation along with the draft national minimum standards. Similarly, regulations will be made under Clause 9, as amplified by Clause 10, covering the same sorts of issues in relation to the running of adoption agencies and adoption support agencies.
The national minimum standards expand on and explain what is required in the regulations. For example, one of the draft regulations requires a voluntary adoption agency to provide the registration authority with a statement of purpose. Standard 1 of the draft national minimum standards sets out what should be included in the statement of purpose. Draft standard 2 sets out the skills required to manage an agency.
Therefore if the registration authority is to judge whether the agency has breached a regulation it will be important to refer to the appropriate standard in the national minimum standards to be clear what is expected. It is essential for the registration authority to be able to take the national minimum standards into account when bringing a prosecution for a breach of the regulations. On that basis I hope that your Lordships will be able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Traditional and transitory provisions and savings]:
[Amendments Nos. 145 to 147 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 116, line 2, at end insert—
"Registration of adoptions

(1) The power of the court under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 1 to amend an order on the application of the adopter or adopted person includes, in relation to an order made before 1st April 1959, power to make any amendment of the particulars contained in the order which appears to be required to bring the order into the form in which it would have been made if paragraph 1 of that Schedule had applied to the order.

(2) In relation to an adoption order made before the commencement of the Adoption Act 1976, the reference in paragraph 4(3) of that Schedule to paragraph 1(2) or (3) is to be read—

(a) in the case of an order under the Adoption of Children Act 1926, as a reference to section 12(3) and (4) of the Adoption of Children Act 1949,

(b) in the case of an order under the Adoption Act 1950, as a reference to section 18(3) and (4) of that Act,

(c) in the case of an order under the Adoption Act 1958, as a reference to section 21(4) and (5) of that Act."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 116, line 4, leave out paragraph 19.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 150 to 153 not moved.]
Clause 136 [Orders, rules and regulations]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 80, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) under section 9 which includes provision made by virtue of section 45(2),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 137 [Rules of procedure]:
[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 81, line 19, leave out from "that" to end of line 20 and insert "the person may attend and be heard"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the rules of procedure which will cover adoption and placement hearings. Clause 137 says that notification of a hearing is required to be given to those

1423
whose consent is required; that is, largely birth parents, but the notice must say that the person need not attend unless the court requires it or the person wishes it.
My amendment is about language. Of course it is clear to us all that a birth parent can attend a hearing. But I am not convinced that many birth parents, for whom the adoption of their child will be a difficult and emotional matter, will read beyond the bit about them not needing to attend unless the court requires it. In short, the message needs to be more positive and welcoming. In most cases birth parents should be encouraged rather than discouraged.
We discussed the matter in Grand Committee when this amendment had the distinction of being the last amendment to be debated. The Minister explained that under the existing regulations the letters of notification sent to parents were a little more inviting than the language of the Bill implies and she said that there was no reason why consultation should not take place before the new court rules were issued under the Bill, once it is an Act. But she also graciously said that she would look further at whether the Bill could make explicit the underlying thrust of my amendment.
I have tabled the amendment again in the hope of hearing a little more about that from the Minister. The lack of a government amendment rather suggests that her advisers have said "No", which would be a pity. If that is the case, will the Minister give a commitment to consulting with the adoption and children's organisations before the new rules are finalised as there is certainly support for an approach which is more positive and inclusive than the dry words of the Bill imply? I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am unhappy that I cannot give the noble Earl happier news. The reason is simple: if noble Lords look at Clause 137, it is not quite as negative as it appears at first glance. Subsection (3)(b) states:
"of the fact that, unless the person wishes or the court requires".
It is phrased thus because on occasion the court will wish to order that someone attends. We understand that this is a delicate moment for parents who may wish not to attend. One does not wish to put undue pressure on them, particularly if they have already gone through traumatic proceedings.
Although the provision remains as phrased, I assure the noble Earl that, in accordance with good practice, the issue shall be dealt with sensitively. Sometimes the local authority will nuance the letter depending on the nature of the parent who is to receive it. We will certainly consult on the rules before they are published, if that assists the noble Earl. We understand why he has expressed these concerns.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for all that she has said. I accept her assurance completely. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 138 [Supplementary and consequential provision]:
[Amendment No. 157 not moved.]
Clause 140 [General interpretation, etc.]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 83, line 43, at end insert—
""fee" includes expenses"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker [Viscount Simon]: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 160 I must advise your Lordships that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 162 to 164 inclusive due to pre-emption.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 84, line 46, leave out subsections (4) to (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 161 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 162 to 164 not moved.]
Schedule 6 [Glossary]:
[Amendment No. 165 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 120, line 13, at end insert—
"fee section 140"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 120, line 31, at end insert—
"records (in relation to section 82" Chapter 5 of Part 1)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 168 is a small technical amendment to insert into Schedule 6, the Bill's glossary, a reference to the word "records" in relation to Chapter 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 144 [Commencement]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 85, line 38, after "(1)" insert "(other than an order bringing paragraph 52 of Schedule 3 into force)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment to Clause 144, which makes provision in relation to commencement. Clause 144(1) provides for the Bill to come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State appoints by an order. Clause 142 provides that before the Secretary of State makes an order under Clause 144(1) he must consult the National Assembly for Wales.
This amendment provides that where the Secretary of State makes an order bringing paragraph 52 of Schedule 3 into effect, he is not under an obligation to

1425
consult the Assembly. Paragraph 52 amends the Adoption (NorthernIreland) Order 1987 and applies only to Northern Ireland and it would be inappropriate for there to be a requirement to consult the Assembly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 169A:
Page 86, line 16, leave out "and 56 to 65" and insert "56 to 65 and (Pre-commencement adoptions: information)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 145 [Extent]:
[Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 not moved.]
House adjourned at ten minutes before nine o'clock.

  Zimbabwe: EU Travel Ban
  Zimbabwe: EU Travel Ban
  Guatemala and Belize
  Guatemala and Belize
  CAFCASS Annual Report
  CAFCASS Annual Report
  Freedom of Information Act 2000, Section 77
  Freedom of Information Act 2000, Section 77
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  First World War Debt
  First World War Debt
  Theatres and Cinemas: Safety Inspections
  Theatres and Cinemas: Safety Inspections
  Foreign Language Capability
  Foreign Language Capability
  UN Committee on Rights of the Child
  UN Committee on Rights of the Child
  OSCE: UK Delegation
  OSCE: UK Delegation
  Traffic Congestion
  Traffic Congestion
  Houses of Parliament: Sitting Hours
  Houses of Parliament: Sitting Hours