Sitting of 30 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. Ainger.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

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

    Job Losses
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What recent discussions he has had with (a) the Ministry of Defence and (b) National Assembly Secretaries regarding job losses in West Wales. [76057]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): It is a great privilege for any Welsh MP to be Secretary of State for Wales, and I am especially delighted at having that honour. I pay tribute to my predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who did an excellent job. He had regular discussions with ministerial colleagues at the Ministry of Defence and Members of the National Assembly for Wales.
    Mr. Thomas: I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place on behalf of Plaid Cymru and wish his predecessor well in taking on his new responsibilities, which are also of great importance. We look forward to the right hon. Gentleman making some jinking runs down the left wing in the next few Question Time sessions.
    I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the imminent loss of jobs at Dewhirst in Cardigan and to the rundown in Ministry of Defence facilities at Aberporth. The loss of more than 400 jobs in one small market town over the next year could, at least temporarily, double the unemployment rate in the Cardigan travel-to-work
    852
    area. Will he now redouble his efforts and those of his Departmentߞhis hon. Friend the Under-Secretary already knows about Aberporthߞto ensure that there are more constructive debates, especially with the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Diversification Agency, about new commercial opportunities using the excellent site and resources that we have at Aberporth?
    Peter Hain: Those are the first best wishes I have ever had from Plaid Cymru. I am not sure whether I should thank the hon. Gentleman for them, but I shall do so in the spirit of chivalry.
    I acknowledge the hard work that the hon. Gentleman has done on behalf of his constituents in respect of the matter that he raises. I know that he is very concerned about it and so are we. However, plans are afoot to create new opportunities in his area, including, for example, plans for a technology park at Aberporth. Those plans are still proceeding and are capable of creating more than 200 well-paid high-quality jobs. In Ceredigion, unemployment is at an all-time low; the 2.5 per cent. claimant count is one of the lowest in Wales, thanks to this Labour Government.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his promotion and I look forward to working with him very closely in the months and years to come. Is he aware that the unemployed claimants figure for Conwy in west Wales has fallen from 2,240 in September 1997 to 1,178 in September 2002? Does he agree that that is a considerable tribute to the Government and local business?
    Peter Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that that reduction is a tribute to the sustained work that the Government have put into Wales in the past five years. We are now working in close partnership with the National Assembly for Wales to deliver Wales as a world class economy and as the top area for investment. Some 18,000 more jobs have been created in the past year and we intend to continue along that path.
    Lembit Öpik: It is great to see the right hon. Gentleman back in Wales. We have missed him and I wish him every success in his role in the run-up to when I take on the job myself in 2006. In the meantime, does he agree that one way of creating jobs, especially in north and west Wales, is the development of a strategic plan for airport development, perhaps along the lines of the consultation that was recently published for Wales? If so, is he willing to meet me and a delegation of interested groups that want a hub and spokes approach to Welsh airport development to see what we can do in working with the Assembly to achieve such a result?
    Peter Hain: I suspect that such generosity from all parts of the House is a one Question Time only experience. I remember well the hon. Gentleman's interest in regional airways and especially the route from Welshpool airport to Cardiff, which I was keen to promote when I was previously in the Welsh Office. Indeed, I took a flight with him from Welshpool, although I declined his invitation to pilot the plane. Given what happened to him a few weeks later, I am pleased that I did so. The matter is an important priority

    853
    for Wales and I intend to speak to the First Minister about it, especially after the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: In my area of west Wales, there are potentially 360 temporary jobs at Powergen, which has stepped in to replace the ITV Digital losses. Will my right hon. Friend work with Assembly Ministers to try to make those jobs permanent? Does he acknowledge that the 1,000 jobs that were lost when ITV Digital went to the wall had as great an impact on west Wales as the collapse of Corus on east Wales? Will he do everything possible to ensure the same amount of investment in west Wales as in east Wales?
    Peter Hain: Indeed, as a south-west Wales Member of Parliament, I understand my hon. Friend's arguments. We shall continue to work hard with the National Assembly and as a Government to create the conditions for generating more jobs in west Wales. I am sure that I do not need to point out to my hon. Friend that unemployment in her constituency has fallen by almost half since we came to power in 1997.

    Antisocial Behaviour Orders
    Mr. Mark Francois: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the use of antisocial behaviour orders [76058]
    Mr. Chris Bryant: What discussions he has had with the Home Secretary regarding the use of antisocial behaviour orders in Wales. [76065]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend and I hold regular discussions with colleagues about matters that affect Wales. The antisocial behaviour order is a useful tool in dealing with antisocial and loutish behaviour, which causes considerable distress and upset in communities throughout Wales.
    Mr. Francois: I thank the Minister for that reply, but is not it the case that many people throughout Wales feel threatened by rising crime? Given the low take-up of antisocial behaviour orders in Wales, and the fact that many people feel too threatened to testify against criminals in court, what are the Government doing to tackle such problems directly?
    Mr. Touhig: Antisocial behaviour orders have proved an effective tool because they have deterred those whose behaviour causes nuisance and upset in our communities.
    Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Twelve.
    Mr. Touhig: The hon. Gentleman is having trouble with the maths. The figure is not 12, but considerably higher.
    Several other options are available, including acceptable behaviour contracts, curfews, parenting orders, and on-the-spot fines, which are being piloted in north Wales. It is a bit rich of Conservative Members to
    854
    talk about rising crime. It has fallen by 22 per cent. since the Government came to power, whereas the Conservative Government doubled it in 18 years.
    Mr. Bryant: My hon. Friend knows that, especially in mining communities in south Wales, the antisocial behaviour of one person or a single family can ruin the quality of life of a whole terraced street. It is surely distressing that South Wales police have been able to enforce only four antisocial behaviour orders so far. Is my hon. Friend worried that local authorities in Wales are not yet prepared to make sufficient use of antisocial behaviour orders? Will he congratulate South Wales police on appointing a full-time antisocial behaviour order officer, based in Pontypridd?
    Mr. Touhig: I certainly welcome the actions of South Wales police on the matter. I chaired a public meeting in my constituency a week ago, during which the issue was discussed. My advice to local authorities and the police service everywhere is to use antisocial behaviour orders when appropriate. Parliament has given the police and local authorities the power to take such action. The crimes that worry most of our constituents—vandalism, antisocial behaviour and petty intimidation—distort and damage the quality of life throughout Wales. Parliament and the Government have introduced measures whereby the police and local authorities can tackle such crimes; they must now use those resources.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister says that he has given the police and local authorities power. However, the low number of antisocial behaviour orders that are used must worry him. Such an order is three times more likely to be issued in England than in Wales, yet the Minister has conceded that a few thugs and yobs cause misery throughout Wales. Is it not time to make life miserable for the thugs and yobs rather than the people of Wales? Will the Minister work with the police and local authorities to try to ensure clarity and ease of use for antisocial behaviour orders so that we can clamp down on the thugs and yobs?
    Mr. Touhig: I agree that we must make the procedure as easy as we can. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that there have been difficulties, and that legal advice has been taken about some antisocial behaviour orders. Once that first hurdle has been crossed, however, it will be much easier for the police and the local authorities to put the orders to the best use.
    I told the hon. Gentleman when he raised this matter in July that the Government have laid the foundations for the most co-ordinated attack on crime in a generation. Billions are being invested in fighting crime, there are 4,500 more policemen on the beat than there were two years ago, and there are 600 more police officers in Wales than when we came to power five years ago. Only investment and reform will reduce the problem. The hon. Gentleman's party, both here and in Wales, opposes that investment and reform.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend welcome the new guidance that is shortly to be issued by

    855
    the Home Office on antisocial behaviour orders? Will he ensure that he liaises closely with colleagues to roll out the orders and certificates throughout the whole of Wales?
    Mr. Touhig: Yes, I certainly welcome that initiative. My colleagues who represent Welsh constituencies may remember that I facilitated a meeting between all Welsh Members of Parliament and David A'Herne, the crime reduction director for Wales. I meet him on a regular basis, and I think that it would be productive to have further meetings with him so that we can understand the initiatives that are being taken by the crime reduction and disorder partnerships in Wales, and give them every support that we can. We had a debate on this in Westminster Hall only the other week. I urge colleagues everywhere to press their local authorities and the police service to use antisocial behaviour orders where appropriate.

    Devolved Powers
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: What assessment he has made of public perception of the operation of devolved powers in Wales. [76059]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): After three years, the devolution settlement for Wales is working well, with the Government and the National Assembly acting in close partnership for the benefit of Wales. Against that background, it is tremendous news that Cardiff is on the short list for the European capital of culture in 2008. Cardiff is Europe's youngest capital, and it is on the move towards becoming a world-class British city
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome and encourage the diversity of culture, language and meaningful local government throughout the United Kingdom, but has the newly appointed Secretary of State for Wales studied the findings of a recent study by the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, which states that the overwhelming majority of Welsh voters think that the Assembly has made no difference—or, at best, little difference—to public services in the Principality?
    Peter Hain: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is making new Tory policy on behalf of his Front Bench. Is he proposing to abolish the National Assembly for Wales? The fact is that the Assembly has been making a real difference, as we. the architects of devolution, always knew that it would. It has introduced free prescriptions for two successive years, and prescription charges in Wales are now lower than those in England. It has also provided free local bus travel for pensioners and disabled people throughout Wales, which is not provided elsewhere. It has introduced Assembly learning grants for people of limited means, funded six weeks' free home care, and seen record spending on health and education and a cut in unemployment as a result of the policies that Labour is pursuing in Wales. It is a Labour Assembly working together with a Labour Government.
    Denzil Davies: When my right hon. Friend next goes to Brussels to attend the European convention, will he explain to Mr. Giscard d'Estaing
    856
    what the principles of devolution are—bearing in mind, of course, that he should do so without being very rude? When he does so, will he point out that the draft European constitution shows that Giscard clearly has no idea about those principles?
    Peter Hain: I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. In fact, Britain's agenda in the convention on the future of Europe is to ensure that regions of nation states—such as Wales—get their voice heard right at the centre of decision making in Brussels, and that nation states form the bedrock of a union that is a partnership of nation states, not a Brussels superstate.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: At the risk of damaging the right hon. Gentleman's political career, I congratulate him on his appointment and wish him well in post—although not too well, of course.
    I have recently received the leaked Government response to the report on the foot and mouth outbreak. Paragraph 1.29 states:
    "The terms of the Welsh devolution settlement did not fully devolve animal health powers to the Assembly … The Government is in discussion with the Welsh Assembly Government on the case for devolving further powers to it to deal with outbreaks of animal disease in Wales."
    Why, then, did the Government reject our amendments to the Animal Health Bill that were designed to do exactly that?
    Peter Hain: It was because Plaid Cymru's amendments usually have to be rejected as they do not achieve the objectives that the Government are trying to achieve for Wales. We are working closely with the National Assembly to benefit farmers and everyone in Wales. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, Plaid Cymru has never created any jobs in Wales, and has never done anything to generate better health services, better schools and a stronger economy in Wales.
    Ian Lucas: Although working relations between Front-Bench Members in Cardiff and in Westminster were excellent throughout the occupation of the post of Secretary of State for Wales by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), could not Back Bench relations between Cardiff and Westminster be greatly improved? Following the vote last night, there will be more consideration of draft legislation. Would it not be a useful innovation to have Joint Committees of Back-Bench Assembly Members and Back-Bench Members of Parliament to discuss legislation for Wales?
    Peter Hain: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question. Obviously, we want to promote an increasing partnership between Members of Parliament and Assembly Members in Wales, and we shall continue to work on that. I shall consider my hon. Friend's ideas, but as he knows, pre-legislation scrutiny has been developing. We are working on that, and I would welcome ideas from him or any of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

    Free Eye Tests
    Mr. Roger Williams: If he will take steps to arrange for the devolution of powers to the National Assembly for Wales to enable free eye tests to be available in Wales. [76060]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): Certain groups of people, including those under 16, those over 60 and those in receipt of income support and other benefits, are already entitled to free NHS eye tests in the United Kingdom. The power to make regulations relating to fee exemptions for eye tests has been devolved to the Assembly.
    Mr. Williams: I thank the Minister for that answer. I congratulate the Secretary of State on spelling out so clearly the achievements of the Liberal Democratic-led coalition Government in Cardiff. They are a wonderful Government. In 1989, the Conservative Government introduced charges for eye services as part of their continuing dismemberment of the national health service. Will the Minister ensure that, in any health Bill that appears in the Queen's Speech, an enabling clause is included to enable the National Assembly to deliver free health care? Will the Secretary of State put his mouth where his Nye Bevan statue is?
    Mr. Touhig: The danger of being led by the Liberal Democrats is that they may lead us up a blind alley, as we have experienced in the past. Under the National Health Service Act 1977 and other regulations, certain groups are already exempt from charges for eye tests. Primary legislation would be required to abolition all fees for eye tests in England and Wales. As far as I am aware, the Government have no plans to do that.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I also take this opportunity to welcome the Secretary of State to his new position in the Cabinet. I pay tribute to his predecessor, who won respect from both sides of the House. I wish him well in his new job in Northern Ireland.
    Does the Minister agree with me that the Welsh Assembly might be perceived as more relevant if it concentrated on issues over which it has some responsibility, such as agricultural collapse, the NHS waiting lists crisis, and the meltdown of manufacturing jobs, rather than debating issues for which it has no responsibility, such as Iraq and the middle east, which it debated yesterday?
    Mr. Touhig: I am not clear what that has to do with eye tests, although I note that yesterday's debate on Iraq was led by Plaid Cymru. Perhaps that party has a visual problem, as one would expect. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but the subjects to be discussed by the National Assembly are matters for the Assembly. The First Minister has made it absolutely clear that the Labour-led Administration in the National Assembly are concerned about the economy, jobs, health and education. Those are the issues that we
    858
    will put across to the people of Wales, and which will give the Labour party a majority in the Assembly at the next election.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy at the moment. It is unfair to hon. Members. I call Mr. Nigel Evans.
    Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    We are always hearing demands from other political parties that they want extension of powers for the Welsh Assembly. The Minister will know that Lord Richard is conducting his own Assembly-sponsored inquiry into the number of politicians in the Welsh Assembly and the powers that they currently have. We already know that the Secretary of State for Wales and the Foreign Secretary are not so keen on referendums. The Foreign Secretary has told the people of Gibraltar that he thinks their desire for a referendum rather eccentric; indeed, he may not even take heed of what they say. If Lord Richard recommends extending the power of the Welsh Assembly, will the Minister—given the slight and slim majority that voted in favour of devolution—give the people of Wales another say in whether there should be such an extension of powers?
    Mr. Touhig: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Richard commission is matter for the National Assembly. The Assembly set up the commission, and it has agreed the criteria by which it will operate. The Government will await the commission's conclusions, which will doubtless be debated by the Assembly, and we will respond at the appropriate time.

    Regulation
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet representatives of industry and business to discuss ways in which his Department and the Welsh Executive can work together to alleviate the burden of regulation. [76062]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): I plan regular meetings with a wide range of representatives of Welsh industry and business, as well as with Assembly colleagues, to discuss the conditions for industrial and business growth in Wales.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Secretary of State aware that an increasing number of burdensome regulations are coming out of Brussels—including the agency employees directive and the equal treatment in work directive—that bear down disproportionately on small firms? Does he agree that a way must be found to alleviate this burden and to prevent the destruction of wealth creation and employment?
    Peter Hain: We are, of course, continuously working with business to effect conditions for the better, in which they can prosper. However, if the conditions in respect of regulation are as bad as the hon. Gentleman says, why is there record prosperity and more jobs being created in Wales and the rest of Britain, and why is the United Kingdom economy stronger than anybody can

    859
    remember? The answer is that we have created the conditions in which businesses small and large can prosper.

    Family Farms
    Ann Winterton: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the future viability of small family farms in Wales. [76063]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): The former Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), had regular meetings with the First Minister and agricultural matters were always high on the agenda. This will remain the case with my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State.
    Ann Winterton: According to the Welsh Assembly's own figures, last year the average livestock and dairy farm had an income of just over £100—way below the national minimum wage. No prosperity there for Welsh farmers. What proposals will the Secretary of State bring to discussions with the First Minister in order to address the extremely serious plight of Welsh agriculture, bearing in mind that the small family farm is the lynchpin of both tourism and the food industry in Wales?
    Mr. Touhig: I do not need any lectures from the hon. Lady about farming in Wales—there are a number of farmers in my own constituency. The key point [Interruption.] Perhaps Opposition Members are dividing up for the next leadership challenge. The key point for the viability of family farms is to keep them alive and growing, and to find ways in which we can help them. The National Assembly has put in place Farming Connect, which is working with farmers to find ways to improve the viability of their businesses, to implement new practices and to discover new initiatives. A range of funds has been put in place to help achieve that.
    Also, I was pleased to help with the launching, at the Royal Welsh Agricultural Show, of an event to help regain our export markets in mainland Europe for Welsh lamb and beef. Some £600,000 has been put in place to help promote Welsh meat products in mainland Europe. Those are the kind of serious initiatives that the Government and the Assembly are involved in to restore the prosperity of Welsh farming. We commend them, and it is a pity that the hon. Lady could not.
    Gareth Thomas: As someone who actually represents a Welsh constituency, and a rural one at that, may I tell my hon. Friend that agriculture in Wales has a prosperous future, thanks to the effective partnership between a Labour-led Assembly and the Labour Government?
    Mr. Touhig: That prosperous future is being delivered by a Labour-led Government and a Labour-led Administration in Cardiff. That has made the difference to the people of Wales. We should be confident and assured in our new Wales. Our economy is strong and our future is bright. It is a pity that the Opposition, who do not have any seats in Wales, have not stopped knocking Wales.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Andrew Miller: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 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 shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Miller: My right hon. Friend will understand how important sure start, and other programmes designed to tackle the needs of some of the most vulnerable children in our society, have been in constituencies such as mine. However, many families in my area still have acute problems. Will my right hon. Friend spell out, especially on a cross-departmental basis, what he intends to do to tackle need in such families?
    The Prime Minister: The issue that my hon. Friend raises is an important one for children at risk. It is true that the Government have implemented several measures—such as sure start, the new Connexions and the new help for communities through the new deal—but a Green Paper will be published early next year on the whole issue of children at risk, including how to ensure that they do not take up crime, and their family, mental health and educational problems. It is right that that is dealt with across government by a Cabinet sub-committee, which it will be, and also that we ensure that the proposals we make bear down on one of the main reasons for social exclusion in our society today.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Labour manifesto said:
    "We will not introduce top-up fees".
    Does the Prime Minister still stand by that promise—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we stand by our manifesto.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: If the Prime Minister stands by that specific promise in his manifesto, can he say why the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, when asked on Saturday to rule out top-up fees, did not rule them out? Should students believe the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: We of course stand by our manifesto, but I do not believe that the issue is top-up fees. The issue is how we ensure that our top universities get the freedom and the independence that they want, and how we make sure that as those universities develop they are able to guarantee access for poorer students. I assure the right hon. Gentleman not merely that we will stand by our manifesto commitment, but that when we

    861
    publish our proposals for a review of higher education and finance, it will be against the background of increasing access for the poorest students in our society.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The right hon. Gentleman starts by pledging himself to his manifesto, and then he starts to fudge. Let me remind him of what the manifesto said:
    "We will not introduce top-up fees and have legislated to prevent them".
    However, on Saturday, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills was asked a direct question:
    "Do you rule out top-up fees?"
    He said, "No". The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. Either he stands by his manifesto promise, or he stands by his Secretary of State. Which is it?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry to have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Government stand together on that point. [HON. MEMBERS: " Answer!"] With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I have already answered. There is a serious issue about university finance for the future. There is an issue about freedom for universities, which is important, and an issue about how we ensure that British universities, which are among the best in the world, remain in the top 10 universities—and more—of the world.
    However, there is also an issue about—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is out of order. Hon. Members are out of order when they shout so loudly, Miss McIntosh.
    The Prime Minister: There is also an issue about whether we increase the amount of investment in our higher education. I do not want to prejudge the proposals, but when we publish them I think that the right hon. Gentleman will see that they will make sure that our top universities are able to compete with the best in the world. I should have thought that he would agree with that. He will see also that the Government will increase the amount of money going into higher education so that, irrespective of their social background, our young people will get the university education that they need.
    The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question, so let me ask him one. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is just to get him into practice. The Government are committed to increasing university education and the finance for it. Is the right hon. Gentleman now prepared to drop the commitment of the Conservative party, which has refused to match the additional spending? We believe that increased university education can be delivered only with the additional spending that we want.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: I very much welcome the package of measures on fireworks announced by the Department of Trade and Industry, which includes spot fines for offenders who throw fireworks and cause alarm on the streets. However, under the current legislation on this matter—which the Government inherited—such fines can be applied only to people over 18. In Broxtowe, we have cracked the problem of pensioners throwing fireworks at each other. We need legislation to prevent
    862
    teenagers from doing so. Will my right hon. Friend commit to new legislation to curb the scourge of fireworks?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, is the short answer to that. We will introduce legislation, and we believe that there is also a role for fixed-penalty notices in such cases. Fixed-penalty notices are being piloted in three different areas of the country. They have been immensely successful. The only worry of the police forces that have worked with the orders is that they think that they do not extend to a wide enough category of offences. We are looking carefully at that in terms of the legislation coming up in the Queen's Speech.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Prime Minister said a moment ago that the issue was not top-up fees. Is he saying that he rejects the—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not tolerate hon. Members shouting.
    Mr. Kennedy: It must be election fever.
    When the Prime Minister says that the issue is not top-up fees, is he saying that he rejects the argument that they would lead to a two-tier university system and deter potential students from lower-income backgrounds?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely that any system that prevents people from going to university because of their family backgrounds and income is wholly wrong. That is why I suggest that, when he sees our proposals, the right hon. Gentleman will find that they are in large part about improving access for students from poorer backgrounds.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister clarify when the much awaited and delayed review of student finance will appear? When it does appear, will he address the concerns of more than 50 Back-Bench Labour Members who have signed a motion along the lines of my opening question? Will he take this opportunity to make it clear to everybody that he will not introduce university top-up fees as long as he is Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: First, on the timing of the review, the fact that there is a new Secretary of State obviously means that there will be a further delay in publication of the review. However, I hope very much that it will be published in the next few months.
    Secondly, I stand by the manifesto commitment, but there are serious and real issues that the review must tackle. We cannot allow to continue a situation in which our top universities are not able to compete in what is effectively a world market today. I agree that any solution to this problem is extremely difficult, but it would be irresponsible of any Government, faced with this situation, not to ensure both that we give the universities the freedom that they need to compete and that there is better access for students from poorer backgrounds.
    Obviously, I cannot prejudge the outcome of the review, but I hope that when we come up with those proposals the House will consider them sensibly. People

    863
    who disagree with them can make some proposals of their own. However, it would be wrong of the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party to pretend that there is not a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
    Mr. Khalid Mahmood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no contest in the bid for the European capital of culture? The winner is the city of Birmingham, with its fusion of culture and diversity, where more than 20 languages are spoken, with its festivals of Eid, Diwali, Baisakhi and the Caribbean carnival, and where, of course, Christmas is celebrated. We have, to name but a few, a symphony orchestra, the Council of Faiths, the School of Jewellery, and we have more canals than Venice—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can praise his native city some other time.
    Mr. Mark Oaten: Does the Prime Minister accept that unless this country joins the euro, Germany and France will continue to dominate, he will have more summits cancelled, and this country will lack influence?
    The Prime Minister: No, I think that we should join the euro if the economic tests are met, and that is the Government's position. If we joined the single currency irrespective of the economic conditions, it would be a mistake. I had not appreciated that that was the position of the Liberal Democrats.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy indicated dissent.
    The Prime Minister: Well, the leader of the Liberal Democrats says that it is not, in which case he is in exactly the same position as me. As for the disagreement with France, it is important that we argue our corner at these summits. Personally, I think that to have ruled out common agricultural reform would have been a mistake—a mistake for Britain and a mistake for Europe
    Alan Simpson: The Prime Minister will know that the United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has said that the United Nations must take a decision on Iraq this week. Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he would support the United States if it chose to conduct a war on Iraq without UN sanction, and whether the House would have the opportunity to vote on that matter and decide whether it would go down the same path?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that Colin Powell said that the resolution had to be passed this week, but of course it is important that we get a new UN resolution—that is what we are working for at the moment. It is best not to speculate on what might happen if we do not, because I believe that we will get one and it is important that we do. As for debates in this House, I refer my hon. Friend to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said on the issue—
    864
    obviously, I stand by that entirely. I am sure that the House will have the fullest possible chance to debate that issue.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Following the question from the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), will the Prime Minister tell the House and the country what moral difference he sees between those UN resolutions that bind Israel and Palestine and those that bind Iraq, and how that judgment will affect his decision making in the forthcoming months?
    The Prime Minister: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what the difference is. First, it is important to point out that the resolutions in respect of Israel and the middle east peace process apply to all the parties in the middle east, and to recognise Israel's difficulty when it is being met by terrorist acts from within the occupied territories. Secondly, I hope that he will realise, as I do, that United Nations resolutions in respect of Iraq—specifically, on weapons of mass destruction—should be obeyed. If he does agree with me on that, he must obviously face up to the issue, which is what we should do if Saddam Hussein refuses to abide by those resolutions.
    To revert to the middle east peace process, having said that about UN resolutions in respect of Israel, I still believe that those resolutions should be obeyed in full; and I very much hope and believe that it is essential, not just for the middle east but for the wider world, that a peace process be restarted there as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Eric Joyce: The Prime Minister will be aware that today is national breast cancer awareness day. Will he join me in commending the efforts of the organisers of the "walk for a cure" event in Falkirk, which raises funds locally for breast cancer charities, and in congratulating the national breast cancer charities, such as Breakthrough Breast Cancer, for their efforts in this area, which are so important to so many of our constituents?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate all those who have been involved in the breast cancer awareness campaign. As my hon. Friend knows, 97 per cent. of patients with suspected cancer are referred to a consultant within two weeks. There has been a significant increase in the number of people in the national health service working on those issues and, although we obviously still have a long distance to go, there is no doubt at all that the treatment of cancer in this country is improving.
    Mr. Michael Jack: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question about CARATs. He will be aware that the Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare scheme is an extremely successful prison-based programme, designed to break the link between the prisoner and drugs prior to release, but that not all prisoners who want to take part in the programme can do so. Will he look at the question, from within the existing prison budget, to

    865
    ensure that adequate resources are available to enable all prisoners who want to take up CARATs programme to benefit from its outcomes?
    The Prime Minister: That is a very good point. It is important that we extend the programme throughout the prison system. Sometimes that is difficult, as there is obviously a limit on the amount of resources available, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that, over the past few years that the programmes have been extended, there has been far more focus on both drug abuse within prisons and getting offenders off drugs and therefore less liable to reoffend when they leave prison. The new national treatment agency for drug abuse is working with the police, the prison authorities and others in order to ensure that we have the best possible programmes, and not only within the prison system.
    What is important is that, at least in the highest crime areas. we look at—as the Home Secretary is doing—how we can ensure that we end the absurd situation when someone can be arrested for an offence, tested positively for drugs and then put back out on the street without even the prospect of proper drug treatment. We need to explore that issue not only within the prison system but outside as well.
    Tony Wright: Could I ask the Prime Minister to tell us exactly how rude he was to Mr. Chirac? Did he remind the French President that if he was not in the Elysée he would almost certainly be in jail? Could I urge my right hon. Friend to be as rude as it takes to get Europe to sort out the idiocy of the common agricultural policy, which British consumers are paying for with their wallets and which the poor of the world are paying for with their lives?
    The Prime Minister: On the first point, I have to say that, no, I did not say that to the President. If that is a bid for a diplomatic post, it is certainly one of the more unusual ones.
    My hon. Friend's point on the CAP is important. That was why it was important to preserve the prospect of real and detailed agricultural reform. I wholly understand why the French position is different, but this is not just a British priority; common agricultural reform is important for Europe. We have managed to reduce the amount that we spend on agriculture from 60 to 45 per cent., but truthfully, if we look at the money that we are spending in the European Union, we could spend it better if so much was not still being spent on the common agricultural policy, often very inefficiently—even for the farming industry.
    The other issue, which I think my hon. Friend implies, is that it is extremely important to ensure that at the world trade round we make a good offer from the European Union for the developing world. Those are the poorest countries in the world, they desperately need access to our markets, and we should not let them down.
    Mr. lain Duncan Smith: Have 24-hour waits in accident and emergency departments been eliminated?
    The Prime Minister: No, they have not been eliminated but they are significantly down, I think is the answer.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister should check what his Department of Health is saying. It states categorically that the 24-hour waits have now been eliminated, so clearly the Prime Minister does not even believe what his Department is saying. But this week the BMA said that one in five A and E departments actually has patients waiting for more than 24 hours. Whom should we believe—the Government or the doctors?
    The Prime Minister: What the Government said was that the very long waits for admissions—more than 12 hours—are down, and it is also correct that, I think, just under 80 per cent. of patients are seen within four hours, but it is right to say that there are still far too many too long waits in accident and emergency. I would accept that entirely, but the BMA proposals for changing the situation are threefold: first, that we should have more consultants in A and E; secondly, that we should have more nurses; and thirdly, that we should have more beds. As a result of the additional funding in the health service, there are now 100 more consultants; there are 600 more nurses just in the last year alone; and there are 700 more acute beds. The solution to the problem, therefore, is to put more money into the health service, not less. That is why, with very great respect, we can take criticism from the BMA over this, but the one person who is not in a position to criticise is the right hon. Gentleman, because he is in favour of scrapping the investment that we need.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister is all over the place. His own Department said on its website today that waits of more than 24 hours have been eliminated, so they either have or they have not. If they have not, his Department should not go putting it up on its website. The reality is that, as the Prime Minister must know, two thirds of A and E consultants say that the health service is not getting better—in fact, it is getting worse. Whom should we believe—the spin doctors or the real doctors?
    The Prime Minister: Actually, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the BMA report, it is indeed true that it says that more than a third of the consultants say that things are getting worse and that just over a quarter say that they are getting better. However, as I told him a moment or two ago, they also point out that there are now some 400,000 more people being treated in accident and emergency departments; they therefore say that the Government's record means that we have to put more investment into the beds, the doctors and the nurses. I repeat: whatever the solution to the problem to which they rightly draw attention, the solution is not to cut the funding that they need.
    Mr. Martin Caton: Just before the summer recess, the Government agreed to pay compensation to the families of young Kenyan tribes people killed or maimed by British munitions at the

    867
    Dol Dol and Archer's Post army training grounds in Kenya. I congratulate the Government on making that settlement, rather than taking those people through the courts, but can the Prime Minister now assure me that clean-up procedures have been put in place so that there will be no more victims of British munitions either in Kenya or elsewhere in the developing world?
    The Prime Minister: We have done what we can to make sure that there is proper regulation regarding the control, conduct and supervision of people while using Army ranges. My hon. Friend, who has taken a deep interest in this issue, will also know that we have settled some 200 cases. It is important that we do more, and we are doing more. The Ministry of Defence is now considering the remaining cases, and I hope very much that this situation will be cleared up, not just to his satisfaction, but, more importantly, to the satisfaction of the families of those who are serving in our armed forces.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the Prime Minister find time today to have a look at the case of my constituent, Mr. Frederick Matthews of Heacham, who is suffering great pain and inconvenience as the result of a haemorrhage in the pupil of his left eye? There is a clinically proven treatment and his doctor wants to treat him, but the local hospital has said that the NHS will only fund it if he goes blind in the other eye. Is that not madness? Is it not very hard on my constituent? Will he look at the policy affecting Mr. Matthews and hundreds of other people? Does he recall that when he came to see us during the election campaign he said that, under Labour, the NHS would get better? Is he surprised that Mr. Matthews does not now believe him?
    The Prime Minister: On the particular case of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, of course, I cannot comment, but I am perfectly happy to look into it. However, on the general point about the national health service, of course the Conservatives will say that it is getting worse. [Interruption.] Of course they will, because they are against it. They want to use whatever problems there are in the national health service to say that it is a flawed idea whose time has gone.
    What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is yes, of course there are still big problems in the health service, but massive investment and improvement are also going on. The vast majority of people get good treatment in our national health service, and it is an insult to doctors, nurses and those dedicated staff of the health service always to pretend that everything is going badly. There are problems—we are working on them—but the national health service is actually improving.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Budget 2000 crackdown on big-time smugglers has reduced cross-channel smuggling by 76 per cent., and has cut associated crime. Will he join me in applauding the hardworking Customs officers at Dover and condemning those parts of the press that seek to undermine their efforts?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly welcome the work that Customs officers do in my hon. Friend's constituency
    868
    and other constituencies up and down the country. They often work under very difficult and trying circumstances. It is important, of course, that we make sure that they operate under sensible rules, which is why the Treasury announced changes the other day. Let me say to my hon. Friend—and through him to his constituents—that we applaud the hard work done by Customs officers, which is necessary because of the problems of smuggling.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: What message would the Prime Minister give to farmers in my constituency who have seen their income substantially decline since he has been in office? Is that decline caused by his growing influence in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: It is, of course, correct that farm incomes have dropped, but not just in this country. It is also the case that many farmers face severe difficulties. They will not be helped out of those difficulties, however, by the hon. Gentleman pretending that somehow there was an easy and magical solution. They have been hit by two things: by BSE and foot and mouth disease, and by the fact that world commodity prices have dropped. Let us remember that we are putting more money into the farming industry than into the rest of British industry put together, and the only way in which to provide a viable future for farming is to continue putting in that money and support, and to try to make sure that agriculture changes over time. That is why the best way forward is to implement the proposals of the Curry commission, which we set up, on the future of farming. It will not help any part of the farming community, however, to pretend that a magic wand can be waved and all its problems will disappear.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: I am normally reluctant to raise the issue of antisocial behaviour, but it is a subject of which I have some knowledge. In view of the success of the four area trials of on-the-spot fines for hooligans, does the Prime Minister plan to extend the scheme throughout the country, including my constituency?
    The Prime Minister: We certainly have plans to roll out the scheme across the country. I am sorry if the Conservative party is opposed to those plans—I think that it is—as it would be making a very big mistake. The plans will be enormously popular with the police and with local communities, because the essence of tackling antisocial behaviour is to provide the police with a simple way of enforcing the law and penalising those who break it. The whole purpose of fixed-penalty notices is to get round some of the bureaucracy associated with the court processes and so on, and to provide a simple and easy remedy for the police to use. Not only do we believe that the scheme should be rolled out across the country, but we are looking at how the powers and penalties can be extended, as the principle applies to dealing with antisocial behaviour in many forms.
    Mr. Edward Davey: On the eve of the urban summit, does the Prime Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that Britain's building industry is
    "the most inefficient in the world"

    869
    and a major cause of Britain's affordable housing crisis? Even if he does share that extreme view, should not his Government take more blame for five years of ineffective housing policy rather than scapegoating others for Britain's affordable housing crisis?
    The Prime Minister: We are putting an immense amount of money into housing, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The important thing is that the building industry faces real challenges in relation to skills and the use of land. If he listened to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made before the summer break, I hope that he would realise that the answers to the housing issue lie in many different facets. One of them is to make sure that our building industry and the private construction industry build the houses
    870
    that are needed in particular parts of the country, such as the south-east. I hope very much that he will support that policy rather than oppose it.
    Lynne Jones: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister want higher education to get its fair share of the 6 per cent. growth money allocated to the Department for Education and Skills?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I do. That is why it is important to realise that, as part of the proposals, we will put additional sums of money into higher education. That is the position of this Government, who want to invest in higher education. The Conservative party is, of course committed to cutting the education money that we have got. [Interruption.] Oh, yes: it is committed to cutting education money, not just for universities but for schools as well.

    Points of Order
    3.30
    Mr. Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to a question from me, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), said that
    "extensive consultation … showed almost universal support for the abolition of the 11-plus Transfer Tests"—
    in Northern Ireland—
    "and a predominant view that academic selection should be ended".—[Official Report, 28 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 513W.]
    I regret to say that, by providing that answer, the hon. Lady misled the House. I have already advised her office of my intention to raise the matter today.
    If you, Mr. Speaker, were to read the Department of Education report on the responses to the consultation, you would find that only 57 per cent. of 200,551 household responses received by the Department supported the abolition of the transfer test, with 32 per cent. disagreeing and 12 per cent. undecided. Fifty-seven per cent. can hardly be regarded as, to use the Minister's words, "almost universal support".
    On the question of whether academic selection should he ended, according to the Department of Education report—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I get the feeling that the hon. Gentleman is making a speech. The Minister will have heard his points, but they are not a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Beggs: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The evidence that I have indicates that the House has been misled. I request that you, sir, invite the Minister to come to the House to make an apology and clarify her interpretation of very clear results.
    Mr. Speaker: I have no such powers, but the Minister will be able to take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you noticed that, because of the rescheduling of the provisional business that was due for this afternoon—the debate on home defence—tomorrow there will be a debate on home defence in the House and a debate on the foreign policy aspects of terrorism in Westminster Hall? There is, as you know, great concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House about those two closely interrelated topics. Is there anything that you can do to advise those who prepare the business of the House that in future such a clash should be avoided?
    Mr. Speaker: No, but the hon. Gentleman can certainly approach the Leader of the House.

    Patient Choice
    3.33pm
    Mr. Peter Lilley: I beg to move,
    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reinstate a patient's right to choose the hospital in which to receive treatment within the National Health Service.
    I want to restore choice not just because it is a good thing in itself and not just because patients increasingly want to exercise choice over where, when, how and by whom they are treated, but above all because choice is the dynamic force driving up improvements in quality and efficiency. In every service where the user has a choice between alternative suppliers, the less-good, lower-quality supplier has to emulate the quality of the best or lose users and revenue.
    That is why there is a continual dynamic for improvement in those services. Sadly, that dynamic no longer exists, to the extent that it ever did, within the national health service. Even though the Government are putting 30 per cent. more in real terms into the health service, it has not resulted in commensurate improvements in quality or quantity of care. Scarcely any more in-patient operations are carried out now than in 1997 and there are scarcely any shorter waiting lists now than in 1997. In addition, we have more serious problems, which are growing more rapidly, of infections and quality of care in our hospitals than on the continent.
    The Bill proposes to reinstate the right to choose the hospital in which people are treated. I say "reinstate" because the right to choose the hospital always existed within the NHS; sadly, it was unintentionally restricted by measures, including those introduced by my Government. Unforgivably, however, the last rights of choice were eliminated by circular 117, which this Government introduced in 1999. Since then, any patient must go to the hospital where their local national health service bureaucracy is committed and contracted to send them. The director of the College of Health said that as a result of that circular there is less choice in the health service now than has ever been the case in its history.
    Patients can no longer choose to go to a hospital with shorter waiting lists or waiting times. Constituents of my hon. Friend who represents the Southampton area and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) have to wait 16 weeks and 24 weeks respectively for radiotherapy. They cannot choose to go to Bournemouth, where there are almost no waiting lists. Patients cannot choose to go to a hospital where there are better health outcomes. Patients in my constituency are contracted to be sent to a hospital that had the worst outcomes for hip operations. One in six of those treated for an emergency hip operation died within 30 days of the operation and could not choose to go elsewhere.
    It is not possible for a patient to choose to go to a hospital that he believes is cleaner or has fewer cases of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus—M RSA—infection. Sadly, the sixth-worst hospital for that is near my constituency. Patients cannot choose to go to a hospital near their relatives, even if it treated them when they lived in the area, or to a hospital with single-sex wards.

    873
    The Bill would repeal that circular and restore the right of patients to choose which NHS hospital they attend. Patients need more than that, however. They need information, especially on waiting lists, so that they can make informed choices. That information is collected by the College of Health on the national waiting list helpline, but the Government refuse to publish it. I agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that it should be published and available in every hospital waiting room and on a website, which he categorises as easyop.com.
    Information about health outcomes should be available, preferably on the basis of the pre-operative condition of the patient. We should allow for that variable, as they do in the United States, so that people can assess the success rate of different hospitals and different surgeons. Information about infection rates should be more readily available. Although that is now being made available, until recently my health service did not discuss or report it at its management meetings.
    We also need a diversity of suppliers. We need genuinely independent trusts that are not micromanaged centrally with the objective of uniformity. We also need other not-for-profit hospitals, such as charitable hospitals, and new enterprises, although they would need to meet the cost levels set by the NHS. Above all, taxpayers' money must follow patient choice. That empowers choice by rewarding and reimbursing hospitals that treat patients and ensures that the successful and popular hospitals do not run through their budgets before the end of the financial year and have to close, as was the case.
    I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Conservative party on sending the health team to other countries to see their successful health services. I am sure that the common feature that they will have discovered is that patients have choice; they have the knowledge to make an informed choice; there is diversity of supply; and patients' money, the taxpayers' money, follows their choice.
    When I published these ideas some while ago in an excellent booklet, available from my website for free or from Demos for £6.95, the Government ridiculed them and said that if patients were given back choice, they would be racing up and down the country looking for
    874
    better hospitals or shorter waiting lists. Now, of course, the Government are sending patients racing around the Mediterranean looking for the same things.
    The Government published a White Paper on involving patients in health care, which spoke of committees and consultation but did not even mention the word "choice" or the idea of giving choice to patients. Now, belatedly, the Government are trying to adopt the rhetoric of choice. I would welcome that if it involved any substantial change, but so far they have simply said that if people are still alive after they have been on the waiting list for a heart operation for six months, they will be allowed to choose another hospital that can do the operation more quickly than the one whose waiting list they are on.
    The Government have created a massive new bureaucracy to supervise that. A whole new tier of officials will mediate between a patient's GP and consultant and then talk to the patient to decide whether he or she is suitable to be given choice and, if so, where and how it can be exercised. The individual and his or her GP no longer make that choice.
    My Bill will restore choice and give patients the information to make an informed choice. There will be diversity from which they can make their choice, and taxpayers' money will follow patients' choice. Choice is not a panacea; on its own it is not a sufficient remedy, but it is essential if we are to have a reformed health service that takes advantage of the extra resources available to it by improved quality of care. I commend my Bill to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Lilley, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Frank Field, Alistair Burt, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Andrew Tyrie, Mr. Gregory Barker, Mr. David Cameron, Mr. George Osborne, Mr. Mark Prisk and Mr. Andrew Turner.

    PATIENT CHOICE
    Mr. Peter Lilley accordingly presented a Bill to reinstate a patient's right to choose the hospital in which to receive treatment within the National Health Service: 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 199].

    Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
    3.43 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move,
    That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before the House on 28th October, be approved.
    The Terrorism Act 2000 came into force on 19 February last year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the Foreign Secretary, laid orders for proscription on 21 groups on 28 February last year which were approved by this House. Since then no other groups have been proscribed, but a close watch is being kept on groups, including those looking to reconfigure and rename themselves.
    I want first to state that there is no party political difference between us this afternoon, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, for indicating to me issues that may prove appropriate for Privy Council briefings. I need to say now that there is information to do with the time for which particular groups have been monitored and the knowledge about their meetings and base which we would be happy to offer on Privy Council terms. Obviously, there will be questions about whether that is the earliest point at which groups may be proscribed, and I am happy to deal with them. Having moved the motion on proscription, I hope that the whole House will back us.
    I do not intend to repeat the long discourse that we had a year ago, or even the statements made since the attack in Bali, as Members are well aware of events, including the escalation that has changed the position radically, as well as the behaviour since 11 September 2001 of al-Qaeda and its offshoots—its network of cells and the loose confederation of those who are not part of its central core but who are prepared to support and help it. We must respond, monitor what groups are doing, how they relate to one another, and how their support systems, including funding, work.
    People's heightened awareness since 11 September last year has been reinforced by the tragic deaths in Bali and other events. However, security and intelligence services of countries across the world have been able to intervene and are on record as having done so to save communities from threat. It is in the light of those attempts, not just the events that led to loss of life, that we have moved the motion this afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport today answered a parliamentary question about a review that he and I set in motion—we asked Sir John Wheeler to investigate security levels at our airports and the way in which that related to wider security issues. We obviously take that review seriously and its general conclusions have been published this afternoon. Again. I would be happy for Opposition Members to see more detailed information on Privy Council terms. The House would expect us to act immediately on Sir John's recommendations on security tightening, and we have done so. I and my right hon. Friend are grateful for his work. We owe him a debt of gratitude.
    Andrew Mackinlay: I am grateful to the Home Secretary, and listened carefully to what he said
    876
    about security at our airports. I would wish to share information on Privy Council terms, but unfortunately I am not a Privy Councillor. However, I am concerned about our seaports, which are largely unpoliced, with the exception of my port—Tilbury—Felixstowe, and Tees and Hartlepool. Many of us are deeply concerned that our seaports are porous—I think that that is the word—as people are coming in. The immigration authorities, Customs and Excise and the police force are simply not there to provide the necessary cover. I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider, along with my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, creating a national dedicated police force for our seaports.
    Mr. Blunkett: Following the work on airport security and its relationship to air travel from airports across Europe and the world—an important factor in making our population and people travelling to our country secure from the threat of terrorism—the Transport Secretary has already told me that he is taking a close look at strengthening the present arrangements spelt out by my hon. Friend, which consist of various forms of policing, including port health and environmental health programmes. That has been drawn forcibly to my attention.
    We are also interested in putting in place technological surveillance equipment to tackle a wider threat—not simply people entering the country, but materials as well. I make that clear in case anyone who is contemplating terrorist acts or trying to get material into the country is under the misapprehension that we are not taking the necessary steps. We also want to stress, as Sir John did, the importance of people working in and around airports and our ports being vigilant—not merely those who are on policing duties but those going about their usual business.
    The report that we are putting in the Library this afternoon demonstrates that we need to tighten all forms of security, not just the obvious ones. It also behoves us to ensure that the public exercise the greatest vigilance. We need to keep our routes in and out of the country open and free. That is critical for the free movement of people, goods and commerce. It is critical that we are not damaged economically or socially, and that those who are determined to perpetrate terrorism do not get an opportunity to disrupt the lives of the nation.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Home Secretary agree that those who have hitherto enjoyed freedom and rights of way through our ports nationally must now accept that, in the interests of security, rights of way may be re-routed?
    Mr. Blunkett: Wherever there is perceived to be a credible threat, steps will be taken to ensure that people are re-routed or that diversions are put in place to secure the well-being of the public. If there is a specific concern that the hon. Gentleman would like to draw to my attention or to that of my right hon. Friends, I shall be happy to take it forward.
    Simon Hughes: My right hon. and hon. Friends will support the order. I hope that that is a helpful early indication, and I hope that the Home Secretary will feel able, at the appropriate

    877
    time, to include my right hon. Friends, or me, or an appropriate combination, in the briefings. That would be appreciated, and it would be helpful.
    Has the right hon. Gentleman further considered the Select Committee's recommendation of a common border force at our airports and seaports? Given the frequency of concern about security at our ports over the past two years, that seems a strong case well made that merits further attention from the Government.
    Mr. Blunkett: None of us would dismiss thoughtful contributions on how best to achieve that. There are wider issues of co-operation between the various law enforcement and security agencies, which the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friends and I are examining. I am yet to be convinced that the establishment of another force with another bureaucracy is the right way of achieving the objective. That has a wider read-over to issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised with me before in relation to a European joint border force. Although I have moved policy on to indicating that we would contribute to that, we are not in favour of some centralised administration that would undoubtedly lead to more people being employed in managing it than in securing our borders. I am happy to continue exploring the best way of achieving the common goal.
    I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's indication of support. We need to ensure that we are open to scrutiny and that we will answer necessary questions. I have indicated to him and his colleagues over the past 15 months a willingness to ensure that we share the maximum number of facts and the greatest amount of information, and I will continue to do that.
    Today, I am asking the House to proscribe a further four organisations, in addition to the 21 that I mentioned earlier. Those four have discernible links with al-Qaeda. Following a number of recent attacks, including the one in Bali, international co-operation and the coherence of evidence and information from security and intelligence services across the world have indicated those links more clearly. That is primarily the answer to the question why we have not banned at least one of those groups, Jemaah Islamiyah, before. The evidence base, the links that have been established, the information from security services, and information that has emerged from other events over the past few months have provided a conclusive case that they are involved with and are part of the broader federal network of al-Qaeda. Of course, evidence has emerged since the tragedy in relation to suspected direct links with the bombing.
    Since 11 September last year, we have been working closely with all those seeking to fight terrorism. We have learned even more from the bombing in Bali and want to ensure a sustained and coherent approach. That is why we are linking the four proscribed groups together. Last Thursday, on the back of action taken through the United Nations, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I issued further guidance and took further measures in relation to the freezing of assets and the movement of funds. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 will clearly help us in that regard and make it easier to monitor and take action, and we will take whatever further steps are necessary.
    878
    The proscribed organisations fall within criteria of which it will be useful to remind hon. Members. They are specified in the definition of terrorism provided in the Terrorism Act 2000, which refers to those who commit or participate in acts of terrorism, prepare for terrorism, promote or encourage it or are otherwise concerned with it. The factors spelt out alongside the original decision a year last February were as follows: consideration by the Home Secretary of the nature and scale of the organisations; the specific threat to the UK or British nationals overseas; and the presence and support of the international community. It is the support of the international community and the threat to our citizens overseas that we have weighed very carefully indeed, along with other factors, in proscribing the four groups.
    The proscribed groups are Jemaah Islamiyah, or JI, with which we are familiar in relation to allegations made about the bombing in Bali; Abu Sayyaf, a group based in the Philippines; the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which has links with those whom we believe were involved in the hostage taking in Moscow; and Asbat Al-Ansar, which is based in Lebanon. Attached to the order is an explanatory memorandum that has been available to hon. Members, setting out the reasons why those groups meet the specific criteria and match he factors to which I referred.
    Proscription sends a signal. It allows us to deal swiftly with those associated with groups that are committing terror across the world, whether they are members of them or provide support to them. It provides a coherent approach involving the UN and other international partners in seeking to attack and undermine terrorism, and it is also part of the mutuality and solidarity that we have expressed in the House on a number of occasions.
    David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us take the view that such action as has been taken, as well as that being taken today, has been long overdue? He may recall that I asked him and his predecessor in the Select Committee on Home Affairs about allegations made over the years by countries such as Egypt that Britain has been a safe haven for terrorism. I know that successive Home Secretaries have denied that that is the case. Our country should not be a safe haven of any kind for those who aim to engage in terrorism and destroy lives, as has happened so recently in Indonesia.
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree with my hon. Friend. Whenever evidence is presented, my colleagues and I will act. That is why we are taking action this afternoon; it is also why, after passing the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, we need to be not only vigilant but prepared to act whenever necessary. I respect the points that hon. Members have made.
    As I said previously, we need evidence. It would therefore be helpful if, when countries or their agencies make allegations, instead of doing so through newspapers, they presented us with evidence. It would also be helpful if newspapers checked the credibility of the allegations. Their publication creates an atmosphere of fear and undermines the confidence and morale of those who are at the cutting edge of our actions to combat terrorism. I repeat that I have every confidence

    879
    in this country's security and intelligence services, which do a first-class job. Long may that continue. Like us they are learning all the time.
    On the speed in making decisions about specific groups, I stress to the shadow Home Secretary that there is no special wisdom in government. We take the evidence that is presented, and respond at speed when people are prepared to provide verifiable evidence. If hon. Members from any party have evidence. I am happy to consider it. Some hon. Members present evidence constantly, and we check the difference between the loud-mouthed extremists who endeavour to provide diversion but, although undoubted irritants. require evidence to show that they are a threat, and those who do not clearly spell out their views or identity precisely because they constitute a greater threat and need to be taken more seriously.
    In our democracy, a right of appeal exists. An appeal is made first to the Home Secretary. If he confirms the banning order, a further appeal can be made to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. I do not imagine that many people outside the House have heard of it, but it exists.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the Home Secretary accept that the commission approaches the matter on the basis of the principles that apply to judicial review and therefore does not review the merits of the original decision?
    Mr. Blunkett: The commission has to review whether the criteria and the definitions that were debated in 2000, and when the first batch of proscriptions were made in February 2001 apply, and whether the Government and the Home Secretary properly exercised their power. That is fair, given the nature of the threat. We take time to ensure that we accumulate evidence. That is why we did not jump to proscribe only one organisation in the immediate aftermath of Bali. We wanted to have some coherence about the network of links with al-Qaeda, the evidence that could be adduced and the international position.
    We want to secure the confidence of the community and the backing of the House, and ensure that we use intelligence to tackle such groups and all their aspects, including support, fundraising, links abroad, thus making it more difficult for al-Qaeda to wreak terrorism across the globe. We take action irrespective of the creed or nationality of those involved. As hon. Members will realise, a variety of groups, which are based in different parts of the world, are linked in a loose federation to those who are determined to take away our freedom and well-being. I am glad that we appear to have the House's wholehearted support in tackling those cells and that network.
    4.4 pm
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: The Opposition welcome and support the measures that the Home Secretary has taken today. I hope that nothing that I ask will be perceived as detracting from that support. I am also aware that the Home Secretary, and any occupant of that office, bears a heavy burden, and that it is difficult to discern reality from phantoms, or to know how best to proceed even when reality appears to have a certain
    880
    shape. I am conscious that it is difficult—indeed, impossible, in some cases—to disclose the basis for some of the decisions that are made. That is a natural feature of this area of our national life.
    Within the limits of those constraints, I have given the Home Secretary notice that I want to probe the question of the timetable that led to the proscription of Jemaah Islamiyah today rather than at an earlier date. I wish to do so not because that has any practical import today—after all, the Home Secretary has now proscribed it, and we welcome that—but because it will help to illuminate whether the system as a whole and the legislative framework that backs it are working as well as we would mutually hope.
    I am extremely conscious that it is of great importance—as I hope the Home Secretary and the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats will agree—that we continue to have a framework within which there is a system of appeal, to which the Home Secretary rightly referred. Of course, if there is such a system, it will be necessary for the Home Office to accumulate reasonably robust evidence—albeit disclosable only in camera—before making a decision to proscribe, because otherwise the commission would overturn the proscription. I utterly accept, therefore, that there will inevitably be delays that would not occur if we were operating a system of proscription by fiat without appeal. I would be the last person in the House to suggest such a system. Indeed, the Home Secretary and I have had debates in the past on other matters in which I have been keen to strengthen the system of appeal, so I recognise the obligation on us to accept that there will be delays as a result of the appeals system.
    Nevertheless, the question arises as to why this has taken so long, and I want to ask five particular questions about that. First, how long has it been known, or guessed, by the security services that there was a link between Jemaah Islamiyah and al-Qaeda? Secondly, was it known that JI was active in Thailand at the beginning of the year, as has been reported? I do not know whether those reports are accurate; I am merely asking whether that was known. Thirdly, how long has it been known that the Indonesian authorities believed that JI was connected with the terrible events that took place there at Christmas 2000? Fourthly, what liaison was there between our agencies and the Singaporean authorities when or after the Singaporean authorities detained a considerable number of suspected JI agents—13, I think—in December 2001? Finally, when the Government of the Philippines detained nine people—in May 2002, I think—alleged to be connected to JI, did that Government inform our security apparatus of the basis on which they were proceeding? If so, why did that not lead to proscription at that stage?
    I re-emphasise that none of this had an unhappy result for Britain. There is no reason to suppose, for example, that the bombings in Bali would have been less likely to occur had proscription occurred earlier. I do not believe that any adverse practical consequences have flowed from the delay, and the Home Secretary has now taken the step that needed to be taken. No blame attaches either to him, to the Home Office or to the security services. I am grateful to him for making the offer to explain this matter in further detail on other terms. It is important, however, for the House—and perhaps, in due course, the Intelligence Committee—to

    881
    understand whether the system is capable of responding as fast as the quite proper legal restraints enable it to do. If the Home Secretary can reassure us, now and later, on that point, he will have our backing not only today but, as we move forward, for the continued operation of a system that is certainly much better than no such system.
    4.9 pm
    Andrew Mackinlay: I shall not detain the House, because a number of hon. Members want to speak in this brief debate. I want to pick up on and amplify the matter that I raised in an intervention on the Secretary of State, and to raise a further issue.
    I am deeply concerned about these and other terrorist groups, the growing menace of human trafficking and the likelihood of terrorist materials coming in through our sea ports. The Home Office—I am not referring to the Home Secretary himself—and other agencies do not sufficiently appreciate the nature of our sea ports. I represent the port of Tilbury, which is a secure port with it own dedicated police force, and very professional it is too. Incidentally, it celebrated its bicentenary this weekend. I am proud of the force, which is part of a much wider Port of London police force, which has now gone into decline.
    In decades past, some ports were policed by the British Transport police, but only a few ports—Tilbury, Felixstowe, Tees and Hartlepool, one on Merseyside, Lame, Belfast, Dover and perhaps a few others—have a dedicated police force. Those forces are very professional, but in many other sea ports and wharfs, including some in my constituency outside the port of Tilbury, boats come in every day. I am convinced that, day after day, people get off those boats and come into the United Kingdom unchallenged, because the immigration authorities and Customs and Excise are not present and there is no dedicated police force.
    I note what the Home Secretary said in response to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about the concept of a wider border authority for the European Union, and I am with the hon. Gentleman on that. That issue has wider implications and should be raised in a summit. I urge the Home Secretary to discuss with colleagues in his Department and across Departments the need for a dedicated national police force along the lines of the Ports Canada police and the coastguard in the United States of America. Such a force should operate in the United Kingdom. How would it be paid for? That is always the grubby problem. A small charge on each container going into our ports and a small nominal charge on each passenger passing through them could sustain an effective ports police.
    Such a force would not be instead of Customs and Excise, the immigration service and other agencies, but would buttress them. It would provide a safety net and could develop skills and expertise, and use the technology to which the Home Secretary referred. That technology is being introduced at good ports, because the port managements are investing in it. The port of Tilbury has done a great deal, and is using some wonderful technology, which I do not understand, that can see inside containers. It can prevent human
    882
    trafficking, terrorism and the other crimes that take place in our ports. That is not happening in some of its competitor ports. There is an issue of fairness and competition. All ports in the United Kingdom should have the same standards of integrity when combating crime and terrorism. I hope that the Home Secretary will think about that—I could amplify those ideas further in a meeting if that would be useful.
    The Home Secretary referred to this technology in the summer. I would have tabled some parliamentary questions had we been sitting, but we do not yet sit in the summer. There was a report of radioactive material coming through the port of Felixstowe. Funnily enough, it was eventually stopped in Tilbury, although it was nothing to do with the port of Tilbury. The technology worked, but the human response failed.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This order refers to four terrorist organisations, so it is narrower than the point that the hon. Member is making.
    Andrew Mackinlay: I fully accept and abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. In my defence, I should say that it was the Home Secretary who referred to the technology at ports, not me. I noted that, because I thought that you might call me to order. He was the guilty man, not me, but I shall move on. The Home Secretary might know of the incident to which I refer. I realise that the question of security is involved, but I would welcome the opportunity to talk to him or his colleagues about this issue.
    I have discussed in the Foreign Affairs Committee and with the Foreign Secretary my great anxiety about the presence in our scientific postgraduate institutions of members of groups such as those that are the subject of this order who are studying doctorates. The scientific community in this country is transient. It is a high-income earner for the United Kingdom, and long may it flourish, but all the indications are that our security and intelligence services and academia have not the foggiest idea who some of these people are. That constitutes a great void in our security and intelligence services, and I hope that the Home Secretary will refer to it. The organisations mentioned in the order could well have people working at the University of London, in Bloomsbury, at Imperial College, or at other of our great and proud institutions. Such people might be working on proper research 95 per cent. of the time, but what we do not know is what they are doing during the ether 5 per cent., and what they have kept in the back of he fridge.
    4.16 pm
    Simon Hughes: I told the Home Secretary and the House that my colleagues and I will support the order in this House, and in the other House later today. Given that this is the first debate on this issue for more than a year, it is appropriate first to join Ministers and others by reaffirming our solidarity and sympathy with the huge number of people who, since we last debated proscription and terrorist organisations, have suffered at the hands of terrorists. Atrocious numbers were killed in the United States in the late summer of last year. According to the latest figures, 184 people were killed in Bali just a couple of weeks ago, of whom 14 were UK

    883
    citizens, and according to research carried out by my assistant with the help of our very good Library staff, the intelligence suggests that other terrorist activities that took place between 11 September last year and the Bali incident resulted in the deaths of a further 50 people in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Tunisia, Yemen and Kuwait.
    The Home Secretary is right to say that we need to be continually vigilant in this matter, and the Government are right to say that proscription must be kept under permanent review. As I have always made clear, we have an obligation to have legislation that helps to counter terrorism. Although he was not in his current post at the time, the Home Secretary may remember my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I arguing for the end of the old anti-terrorist legislation that split the UK into two parts—Northern Ireland in one category, and Great Britain in the other—and for comprehensive legislation that treats all parts and all citizens equally. That is why we welcomed the principle of the 2000 Act and accepted the principle of proscription. Sometimes, it is necessary to take the drastic step of telling those who belong to, work for and associate themselves with certain organisations that such activities a re unacceptable in this country. We still hold to that view, which is why we will support the order, and consider it absolutely right that this country reserve the power to proscribe certain organisations in the right way.
    To pick up on a phrase that the Home Secretary used, we should, of course, never be a haven for terrorists. The justifiable argument was made that we perhaps unwittingly became such a haven, in part, during the late 1990s. There is a difficult balance to strike. We must not become such a country, but on the other hand we must be a haven for free speech and liberty for those who, within the law, want to be critical of—in spoken word and in writing—regimes, faiths and practices that they consider unacceptable. I therefore hope that the Home Secretary—of whom I, like the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), would like to ask a few questions—will accept the good faith of our position.
    Lady Hermon: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that proscription often leads to fragmentation and splinter groups, which go underground and change their names? Sometimes, proscription can lead to greater difficulties, rather than addressing current ones.
    Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady has clear local experience of that issue in Northern Ireland, and I understand her point. When we debated the legislation in Committee, her party's nominee on the Committee was sometimes critical—as were other Opposition Members—of some of the terminology, definitions and processes put forward by the Government, and that was because of his Northern Ireland experience. Now that we have common legislation that proscribes both Irish organisations and international organisations, we have a common interest in ensuring that we get it right. One of my questions for the Home Secretary is how we can get it right so that banning one organisation does not just force the people involved to invent themselves in another guise and carry on, with the inevitable lead time before that guise is also banned.
    I have a question on timing, which is not meant to be accusatorial. The Home Secretary puts the names of four organisations before us today, which are all
    884
    extremist Islamic organisations. The first, Jemaah Islamiyah, is based in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, and was put on the proscribed list by the United States, Australia and the United Nations only in the past couple of days or weeks. I have not been able to check whether it is on the European Union list yet. What triggered the Government's view that the organisation should be proscribed? I understand the delicacy of the intelligence issues, but that organisation clearly has a reputation in the areas in which it is based that has given real cause for concern.
    As for the other three organisations, Abu Sayyaf is based in the Philippines, Asbat Al-Ansar is based in the Lebanon and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan is—self-evidently—based in that former Soviet state in Asia. All those organisations appear to have been put on the EU list last October. What link is there between a decision by the EU to put them on its list and the Government's decision to put them on our list? I accept the point, which was well made by the Home Secretary, that we must not act simply on the basis of somebody's assertion of the case against an organisation. The Home Secretary has himself had experience of a case in which someone was arrested in this country but then acquitted because the United States did not produce the evidence that the authorities had been led to believe—in good faith, I am sure—would be forthcoming. The Government are right to make their own intelligence assessment and not rely on arguments put forward by another country that might have different motives to which we might not always wish to subscribe.
    Can the Home Secretary confirm that to his knowledge none of those organisations are or have been active in the United Kingdom or are or have been a threat to our interests here? I understand that in relation to activities in Indonesia, there was a clear threat if those killed included British citizens—indeed, the organisation in question there showed that it is a threat to the international community. Is it sufficient for the purposes of the legislation for the Home Secretary to be of the view that a threat exists abroad?
    Can the Home Secretary tell us when we may expect Lord Carlile's review, taking place under the process for checking on the legislation? It is due in the near future and will be helpful as an independent review of the working of the legislation. Does the Home Secretary remember whether the Government said in Committee that they would also undertake a regular review process? What is the mechanism for doing that?
    The Home Secretary may remember that the Liberal Democrats had some arguments with the Government about the definition of terrorism. I shall not rehearse them today, but we argued for a narrower definition. We accept that we lost the argument, but we were also concerned that the legislation was a matter of proscribe first, review later. On that key issue, will the Home Secretary give further consideration to seeking the advice of the Intelligence and Security Committee—on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) serves—to obtain an independent view on every case in which he is minded to proscribe? That could be done very quickly. In some circumstances, it might not be possible immediately, but it would still remain a parliamentary backstop. I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would give consideration to that process, not least because it would

    885
    give him support for his propositions in connection with information that cannot always be available to the House or the country.
    It has been suggested outside the House that one currently proscribed organisation, the Sri Lankan Tamil organisation the LTTE, might be a candidate for de-proscription, as it has been de-proscribed in Sri Lanka. Given the peace process that is under way, will the Home Secretary say whether de-proscription of the LTTE is under active consideration? Which organisations currently on the list have appealed to the Home Secretary and, beyond him, to the commission? I presume that any organisation still on the list was unsuccessful in its appeal, but whether an organisation has appealed—and to which level—should not be a secret.
    Finally, I represent a constituency with a significant multi-faith community that includes Muslims. We have to do another job that is the opposite of banning organisations. We have to educate young people who might be tempted to serve the causes of bad people. It might be useful for any such education process to list the banned organisations, and to ensure that correct information is propagated. That would ensure that people were not under any misapprehension that the organisation to which they were being recruited was involved in justified activity, whether it be in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Philippines or Indonesia. Will the Home Secretary consider ways to ensure that the communities affected—in this case, the Islamic community—can have the information that will help people with good motives to avoid entrapment in organisations that will lead them badly astray?
    This is an important debate. The level of unanimity among hon. Members of all parties shows how seriously we take it. In the past, my party asked that organisations be proscribed separately rather than collectively. We argued that differences of view about organisations meant that it was impossible to vote on them all together. We hold to that view. As it happens, we believe that each of the four organisations in the order pass the test and therefore we agree that they should be proscribed. However, we hope that the Home Secretary will consider separate proscriptions for each organisation. We also hope that there will be separate votes, if not separate debates, if the matters come before the House again while he is in office.
    4.27
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is aware of my interest in some of these matters.
    Mr. Blunkett: I could not be anything else.
    Mr. Dismore: I think that I have asked about 150 parliamentary questions on these matters over the past couple of years. My file of correspondence is probably as fat as my right hon. Friend's, but he will be interested to know that I do not propose to raise with him the question of the people whom he called loud-mouthed irritants. I assume that they include Abu Hanza, although I believe that he is a threat in a way that my right hon. Friend does not.
    886
    Moreover, press reports suggest that Abu Qatada, one of the spiders at the centre of the terrorist web in Europe,is now in detention. I am pleased about that, and hope that the reports are correct. However, I want to raise the question of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, about which I was in correspondence with my right hon. Friend earlier in the year.
    I have been looking at the criteria employed for the proscription of some of the organisations. The PFLP seems to meet all of them, but has not been proscribed. That seems rather odd. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier that proscription required that there be a specific threat to the UK or its nationals, or to those who support the international community's campaign against terrorism. Again, in that context, I am surprised that the PFLP is not on the proscribed list.
    In a letter dated 29 May—and in response to a parliamentary question that I asked at around the same date—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told me that the list of organisations was kept under review, that decisions to proscribe or to deproscribe were taken after consideration of all relevant aspects, that the list was renewed periodically, and that organisations could be added in the light of available information. I welcome the fact that four organisations are being added to the list, but given the criteria for selecting those organisations, I find it surprising that the PFLP was not selected.
    The PFLP has a long history of terrorism, going right back to 1968. I do not propose to go into it this afternoon, but it virtually invented aircraft hijacking with the 1970 black September hijacking, when Leila Khaled was detained in the United Kingdom after the death of a terrorist and serious injury to a flight attendant on an El Al airliner. That terrorism has developed and grown since those early days and I was very surprised that Leila Khaled was allowed into this country earlier this year.
    In recent times, the PFLP has become increasingly active in terrorist attacks. It rejects the peace process and its leadership is very hard line. In the past year, in particular, there have been some serious incidents, which mirror and, indeed, go far beyond those described on the list in the explanatory memorandum for today's debate. For example, Jemaah Islamiyah is being proscribed because of its links with al-Qaeda and the memorandum mentions
    "planning attacks against several targets in Singapore".
    In the past year, the PFLP attempted an attack on Ben Gurion international airport using a car bomb, which was mercifully foiled by the Israeli security services. Mohammed Kandas, a PFLP organiser, told his interrogators that he had been recruited in Iraq in 1988.
    In the same month, there was an attempted attack on the Maccabiah games in Jerusalem. Salem Taleb Al-Darawi, of the PFLP, was one of those involved. It was described as a "joint operation" and a PFLP militia group was involved. Perhaps most chilling of all was the attempt to bring down the Israeli equivalent of the twin towers when, on 7 May this year, Israeli soldiers intercepted a truck filled with more than half a tonne of high explosives, the target being the 50-storey Azrieli towers. Again, two of those involved were senior PFLP

    887
    leaders, Ra'ad Nazel, the area commander for the PFLP, who was killed in the operation, and another PFLP commander who was arrested. Let us contrast that record with that of the JI organisation, which was accused only of planning attacks. I think that the PFLP attacks were much more serious.
    The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan is being proscribed because it is supposed to have launched a sophisticated bombing campaign in Tashkent, which was directed against the Uzbekistan regime. We should note that it was not directed against UK interests. However, in the past few months the PFLP has organised more bomb attacks. On 3 September, a car bomb and three other bombs exploded in Jerusalem and nine civilians were injured. On 17 October 2001, there was a car bombing in the Gaza strip at Nahal Oz. On 16 February 2002, two children were killed and 27 wounded when a PFLP suicide bomber exploded himself at a crowded shopping mall in Karnei Shomron. On 19 May 2002, the PFLP carried out a suicide bombing in the coastal city of Netanya, in which three people were killed and 59 wounded, which was apparently planned from prison by Ahmed Saadat, the leader of the PFLP, according to telephone taps, while he was supposed to have been guarded by UK and American prison guards as part of the agreement with the Palestinians and the Israelis.
    David Winnick: I make no apology for the organisation to which my hon. Friend refers, although I certainly see a distinction—even if he does not—between it and the organisations that have been proscribed, and I deplore all forms of terrorism. He referred to the totally unjustified killing of Israeli civilians, including children, which is absolutely deplorable. I hope that he will deplore the killing of Palestinian civilians and children by the Israeli authorities in the occupied territories.
    Mr. Dismore: Obviously, I hear what my hon. Friend says and any deaths in the middle east are to be regretted. We need to do what we can to achieve a ceasefire, but one of the keys to that is an end to Palestinian terrorism. However, that is not the issue that I am dealing with today.
    We are told that Asbat Al-Ansar is being proscribed because of its activities in the Lebanon, which we are told in the memorandum have
    "been limited to small-scale bombing and assassinations".
    We can contrast that with the assassination of the Israeli Tourism Minister, Rechavam Ze'evi, on 17 October 2001, for which the PFLP actually claimed responsibility. When we contrast the PFLP record against the individual records of those organisations, it is as much as everything that they have done.
    We are told that we should be supporting the international community. After the assassination of the Israeli Cabinet Minister, even the Palestinian Authority allegedly outlawed the military wing of the PFLP, yet we do not even seem to be doing the little that the Authority has done.
    In June this year, the European Union declared the PFLP a terror organisation. To follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), there is a relationship
    888
    between our domestic anti-terrorism laws and decisions taken by the EU. I understood that the EU decision to proscribe the PFLP as a terror organisation meant that, as one of the 15 member states, we, too, must take action by—at the least—freezing the funds and assets of the PFLP. If we accept that EU decision, I fail to understand why we are not proscribing the PFLP under the order.
    We are told that we have to consider the threat to the United Kingdom and to UK citizens. There is no doubt that the PFLP is active on university campuses in the UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) suggested. For example, in January 2001 and May 2002, Leila Khaled visited the UK, but apparently we cannot prosecute her because in 1970 our laws against hijacking were not as strong as they are nowadays. If those offences had been committed today, she would have been jailed, presumably for life; yet she is allowed to come and go with impunity because the PFLP is not a proscribed organisation. In Manchester and at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, she reportedly justified suicide bombings. In the Daily Telegraph of 27 May, she stated that the PFLP has
    "a lot of supporters here".
    Indeed, an organisation has been formed—the Che-Leila Youth Brigade—which is primarily a student group and has been sending British students to the West Bank and to Gaza.
    The PFLP has never accepted the peace process in the middle east. The organisation is rejectionist. It has never renounced its intention to mount attacks overseas against Israeli citizens and, indeed, those who get caught in such attacks. We must not forget that, in 1994, the PFLP attempted to blow up the Israeli embassy in Britain. It is a terrorist organisation and has become increasingly active. We are being asked to proscribe four organisations and I cannot understand why the PFLP is not the fifth on the list.
    4.38 pm
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Next time, perhaps the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) might care to table an amendment. We could then at least address the question specifically.
    Mr. Dismore: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hogg: Not yet.
    It is right that we should not let the motion pass undebated and that several right hon. and hon. Members should participate in the debate. The motion is important. I raise no objection to the proscription of these organisations. I am perfectly prepared to accept that they genuinely are terrorist organisations that constitute a threat to us all. None the less we need to be clear that the order is draconian and that it affects British citizens dramatically.
    If you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall remind the House of the extent to which the rights of British citizens are affected. British citizens are made the subject of the criminal law and their rights to support political organisations are constrained by what is very largely an Executive action.

    889
    The explanatory memorandum is helpful. Section 11 of the Act makes it an offence to belong to a proscribed organisation. That offence is punishable by 10 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. Section 12 makes it an offence to seek support, financial or otherwise, for those proscribed organisations. That, too, is subject to a 10-year maximum prison sentence and/or an unlimited fine.
    Section 13 of the Act makes it an offence to carry placards, for example, or wear the insignia of the proscribed organisations. That, too, is backed by a sentence of imprisonment and/or a fine. Of course there are very wide powers in the Act to seize, detain and forfeit the property of proscribed organisations, and the full range of the powers in the Act are applied to terrorist organisations.
    The fact that the four organisations are largely situated outside the United Kingdom should not blind us to the fact that there may be British citizens in this country who, prima facie, support them. So we are ourselves by this proscription greatly extending the scope of the criminal law to the British citizen, and we need to be absolutely clear about the gravity of what we are doing. We therefore need to consider the procedure by which the House—it is ultimately the House—makes the order.
    To start with, the Home Secretary—or, of course, his successor—has to form a belief that the organisation in question is a terrorist organisation, and I shall return to that in a moment. Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman reaches that conclusion, he will lay an order— which will doubtless be passed by the House and, indeed, the other place, because it is subject to the affirmative procedure. But let us be absolutely clear about the fact that no hon. Member, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman, knows the nature of the evidence on which the proscription takes place, so we are entitled to ask how the British citizen affected by the order can challenge it.
    I shall tell the House. The British citizen can apply for the proscribed organisation to be de-proscribed by applying to the person who proscribed it in the first instance, and if by any chance the Home Secretary says no, one is entitled to ask what then is the appeal. Well, that is where the difficulty arises. There is no proper appeal; there is a commission. I am not blackguarding the commission—I am perfectly prepared to accept that it is staffed by very eminent and respectable people—but its powers are limited because it reviews the Home Secretary's exercise of his powers in accordance with the principles that govern judicial review. In other words, the appeal is not an appeal against the merits of the Home Secretary's decision—oh, no—it is an appeal about the procedure. Provided that the Home Secretary got the procedure right—in other words, he did not act ultra vires or in any unreasonable manner—the decision not to de-proscribe stands because there is no review of the merits. The review applies the principles of judicial review to the procedure or the exercise of the powers. That is different.
    Mr. Letwin: The issues that my right hon. and learned Friend raises are worthy of debate, but does he agree that the criteria on the basis of which the Home Secretary makes the judgment are not just whether the organisation is in his view a terrorist organisation, but whether it poses a specific threat to the United Kingdom or to British nationals overseas; whether it has a significant presence in this country; and whether there is a need to ban it to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. Given that those are the criteria on the basis of which the Home Secretary is called to judge the matter, does it not follow that the proceedings will be parallel to those in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, or judicial review on the basis of a full display of the evidence? The merits themselves cannot be questioned, but the commission will tend to ask the question that it is appropriate to ask in the light of the Wednesbury unreasonableness test. So will the commission not be investigating precisely whether the Home Secretary has sufficient evidence to be a reasonable person in making that decision? Is that not a sufficient safeguard?
    Mr. Hogg: That may be true. Clearly, the commission in question determines whether the Secretary of State was acting intra vires and whether he was acting reasonably. That is different, however, from deciding whether the decision was right, and/or whether the evidence was sufficient on its merits to justify the conclusion. That is a different matter from reviewing procedure.
    Mr. John Burnett: The night hon. and learned Gentleman is, of course, right. He has been consistent, and he is consistently right. It should be possible for the merits to be explored by a court, and that can be done without jeopardising security. I hope that he will elaborate on that point in the short time that is available.
    Mr. Hogg: I was going to come to the next point, which is that there is a limited right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. In that regard, I am talking about the jurisdiction of England and Wales and not outside—the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) will forgive me if I do not refer to Northern Ireland on this point.
    A right exists to appeal to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, but only on a point of law and from the commission—there are rules in relation to getting leave for that. I return to the point that, in reality, the criminal law is being extended and civil rights curtailed without anybody outside the Home Office having the opportunity to review the evidence. I view that, as a matter of principle, with great anxiety; that is not to say that it is not right in this case, but we should be very cautious.
    Simon Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that when we debated the Bill, he, I and others sought to amend it to allow a review before prescription by a judicial authority that there were reasonable grounds. If the legislation were amended

    891
    along those lines, would he be satisfied, or at least partly satisfied, that that would deal with the Executive power unqualified of which he is now critical?
    Mr. Hogg: It would be better than the current. position, but I will make a particular proposal, too. I have expressed my anxieties, and I now want to identify some further questions. I know that the hon. Member for North Down wants to contribute, and I shall give way in good time.
    First, we need to be conscious that what are being proscribed are terrorist organisations. Terrorism is defined broadly in section 1 of the Act. Of course, that definition catches the four organisations that are the subject of the order, many of which are related to al-Qaeda. By definition, however, it also catches, for example, people who want to supplant Saddam Hussein. Distinctions exist between sheep and goats in relation to terrorism. Some terrorists are goats, and some are sheep. The interesting question is who makes that decision. In theory, of course, the House decides, as it has the right to refuse the order. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) rightly said, however, this is a rolled-up order dealing with four named organisations. It would be. better by far to have single orders dealing with the four separate organisations.
    David Winnick: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hogg: If I may, I shall finish this point, and then I shall give way.
    The point is that we need to know more definitively how the distinction between one set of terrorism, which we regard as good because it does not threaten us, and another set of terrorism, which we regard as bad because it does, is made. Nothing in the Act provides for that; it is entirely discretionary.
    David Winnick: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as anybody—perhaps better, owing to his ministerial experience—how difficult it is for a liberal democracy to protect itself while protecting civil liberties, and, at the same time, to try as far as is possible to deny those who want to destroy us the opportunity of doing so. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is no evidence—I do not expect the Home Secretary to give us all the detailed information any more than he does—I notice that he has not questioned the information supplied to us in the explanatory memorandum. Would he not be on safer ground if he said that he does not accept what the Home Secretary has stated in the memorandum, and that he therefore disputes that the named groups are terrorist organisations?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not think that is fair criticism. In the first place, I have made it plain to the House that I am perfectly prepared to accept that the proscription of these four organisations is fair. The point that I wish to make is that the consequences are pretty draconian for British citizens. We therefore need to establish better ways of ensuring that the evidence is good.
    892
    That takes me to the point that I wanted to make in response to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, and which has also been raised by another hon. Member. I asked rhetorically why the Joint Intelligence and Security Committee of both Houses should not review the quality of the intelligence material on the basis of which the Home Secretary acts. It would at least be able to form a view as to the quality of that material. In a sense, that would be a review of the merits of the decision.
    I have a couple of other direct questions for the Home Secretary. First, which Minister decides on proscription? I refer to the substance and not the form.
    Mr. Blunkett: It would be sensible for me to reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question now. The answer is I do.
    Mr. Hogg: I am very glad to learn that. I recall from my time in the Home Office—and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—that there is a tendency to delegate decisions down to junior Ministers before the submission goes up to the Home Secretary. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the decision is not delegated to junior Ministers or officials, but that it is taken exclusively by him.
    Mr. Blunkett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman used the word "hope". I have just said—therefore, it is a fact—that, on this and every other terrorism and security-related issue, I take the decisions personally.
    Mr. Hogg: I am very glad to hear that, but I want to press the right hon. Gentleman a bit further. On what basis does he act? Is it exclusively a paper-based exercise? In other words, does he rely exclusively on a file or does he ask the relevant officials from GCHQ, the security services or whatever to come and make a presentation to him? I would like to know the answer, because I would be more cautious about a paper-based exercise than I would if the right hon. Gentleman summoned officials to a meeting and quizzed them. That is what he should do. How much consultation is held with intelligence services from other countries? That issue is important.
    I have two final points. First, I very much agree with the point that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made about regular reviews. They can be carried out in various ways, but I should like to think that a regular review would take place within the Home Office of whether these or any other organisations should be subject to proscription.
    I know that the hon. Member for North Down has been waiting patiently, but I wish to refer to justice. Let us never lose sight of the fact that we are curtailing civil and political rights and that we are extending the criminal law to British citizens who may or may not be our constituents. It is very easy to be unjust in the context of a crisis, an emergency or terrorism. I put those arguments to the Home Secretary during the debates on the Terrorism Act 2000.
    Mr. Burnett: I had hoped that my earlier intervention might tempt the right hon. and learned Gentleman into

    893
    discussing an appeals system of the sort operated by SIAC. However, I do not want to tempt him to do so for too long.
    Mr. Hogg: I have, in a sense, come to where I want to rest. I would be happy to help in the establishment of a review committee that would address the merits of proscription. The consequences of proscription are perhaps graver than we all appreciate. The fact that the House is nearly empty may be evidence of that. The fact is that we can commit serious acts of injustice in the context of a national emergency, and the House must be slow in becoming party to such a process. We must scrutinise such orders as carefully and as closely as we can within the accepted procedures.
    4.54 pm
    Lady Hermon: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I agree with his view that it is an important measure, so it is a matter of regret that the Chamber is so empty on this occasion.
    I preface my remarks by saying that the experience of living through 30 years of terrorism in Northern Ireland colours one's impressions when speaking on any measure that deals with terrorism and extends the powers of the Home Secretary. It is with the appalling consequences that thousands of people in Northern Ireland have had to endure for those 30 years in mind that we welcome the fact that we are tightening measures to combat terrorism, not just in the United Kingdom, but around the world, where Governments are taking collective action and rightly standing shoulder to shoulder with the Prime Minister. I assure the Home Secretary that although other Members from the Ulster Unionist party are not here in body, they are with him in spirit. To quote the Prime Minister, we stand shoulder to shoulder with him in tightening measures to combat the awful scourge and threat of terrorism.
    However—I realise that it is an awful moment when an hon. Member uses that word—there are two matters on which I would welcome the Home Secretary's comments. The first relates to the statement of compatibility with the European convention on human rights, on which I should like guidance. The Home Secretary knows that, according to the convention, everyone within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, irrespective of their nationality, is guaranteed the right to life and to freedom from degrading and inhumane treatment. If a non-British national who is within the jurisdiction of the UK is a member of, or associated with, any of the four proscribed organisations listed in the order, can he be deported to a country where he will almost certainly be put to death or at least subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment or torture? I am greatly worried about the powers that we are taking to ourselves because the rights, privileges and the guarantees of the convention apply to everyone in the jurisdiction, irrespective of nationality.
    My second concern relates to what I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). Although proscription rightly sends out a strong signal to terrorist
    894
    organisations, as the Home Secretary said, it often leads to fragmentation of those organisations, which go underground and rename themselves. That has been our experience in Northern Ireland of both loyalist and republican organisations, although internal feuding has also been a factor.
    I shall not give a comprehensive list because I do not want to delay hon. Members, but the loyalist list includes the UDA, the UFF, the UVF, the Red Hand Commandos and the Red Hand Defenders. They have rebranded many times, primarily because of proscription, but also because of internal feuding. On the other side of the coin, the list of republican organisations started with the IRA. After a falling out, the list was extended to include the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA. The Real IRA, Continuity IRA and the INLA are also now on the list, to name but a few. Will the Home Secretary reassure me that the proscription of the four organisations will not follow the similar tragic pattern of proscribed terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland?
    4.59 pm
    Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for the manner in which they have addressed the issues, and I will endeavour to respond to the wide range of the questions that have been asked. If questions remain that I have not tackled, I shall be happy to answer them in correspondence. As I indicated at the beginning of the debate, I shall deal on Privy Council terms with issues that require security clearance.
    I assure the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that we need to be vigorous in pursuing the intentions of proscription. If an organisation reconfigures itself—I used the term "reconfigure" earlier in the debate—and reappears with the same members presenting themselves in a different guise, it must fall under the original proscription. The key task, of course, is to ascertain that a group has done so, and I would not demur from the inference that the task needs to be performed with vigour and clarity. In other words, we have not fallen off a log, and we know that simply changing a name or vaguely reconfiguring the membership would constitute a prima facie case. I am happy to continue to discuss that, and I shall do so with the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The issue was also raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes).
    I want to make it clear that the use of these powers and the designation of proscription are designed not to damage the interests of any individual but to protect the interests of the wider community. The hon. Member for North Down asked me about the process whereby an individual would, prima facie, be sent to certain death or torture. Such considerations were the reason for the establishment of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under the 1997 Act of the same name, and for it being given powers that are wide enough to review raison d'etre and to consider evidence in camera for the decision of certification. Obviously, those provisions would apply if an individual were deemed to be a member of a proscribed organisation and was to be ejected from the country on the grounds that their presence was not conducive to the public good.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) raised several issues—fervently, as he always does. I repeat my view that all

    895
    security and intelligence issues, including proscription and the issuing of warrants, should be the job of the Home Secretary, and I take that very seriously because the buck stops here.
    I make it clear to all hon. Members that, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) rightly and generously said, I find decisions on proscription or the issuing of certificates weighty issues that have to be tackled with the utmost seriousness and care and in great detail. The unit established in the Home Office is able to provide that detail because it draws from the security and intelligence services evidence that they have adduced and evidence that they have gleaned from other such services throughout the world, with whom they have tremendous relationships.
    The intelligence services—MI5, MI6, GCHQ and the defence intelligence service—have the best possible relations and, therefore, the ability to draw on and share information. That is crucial for the evidence that we use, particularly concerning organised international terrorism. All four organisations in this measure are being proscribed on the basis of their international action rather than—this answers one or two of the questions raised—the presence in the United Kingdom of individuals who can be shown to be members of the organisations. However, we are concerned about the general support, financial or otherwise, that may be given to those organisations, which is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I acted as we did following the UN decision last week.
    In response to a question by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I have to say that there is always a difficult issue concerning the proportionality and balance between the rights of individuals in a free society and the protection and public interest of that society as a whole. We debated that at length last year, and we will continue to debate it because we are a democracy. We will continue also to debate the nature of those who review the actions of the democratically elected Parliament, embodied in the Executive who are held to account, this afternoon and on many other occasions, by Parliament. The review should be conducted by people who can ask questions about the process described by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, as well as the evidence base and the way in which that relates to the original terms of the legislation and the definitions that I gave earlier. We should not consider democracy by Parliament and elected representatives more flawed and less reliable and secure than democracy by judicial methods—the two go hand-in-hand and are pillars supporting the same structure of protection. It is important that people do not think that the democracy that we have constructed is less secure and less of a democracy because we do not constantly hand over final decisions to those who are not elected and do not have that accountability or responsibility.
    Mr. Burnett: As usual, the Home Secretary is giving a fair view of sensitive matters, which are rightly confidential. No one in the House would impugn his personal integrity. Nevertheless, I hope that he agrees that, in the interests of justice, it should be possible for a court to scrutinise in camera the merits of a decision
    896
    made by him or one of his successors with the appropriate advocate chosen from a pool of prolocutors in a process similar to that used by the SIAC system.
    Mr. Blunkett: We could obviously debate whether the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission goes far enough in reviewing matters that we are reviewing and in being able to provide a proper form of appeal. I was asked earlier about appeal and de-proscription. If an organisation—the example given was LTTE, but others are also relevant—provides evidence that it has forsworn terrorism and is clearly distanced from it, here or internationally, it is important that we take evidence from the country that has suffered most and consider whether it is still actively raising funds and engaged in other ways with international terrorism. If so, it should be proscribed. That process can take place; the organisation can produce evidence and argue its case properly, not just to the Home Secretary but to the commission. We must take a reasonable and rational view—if the organisation believes it has a case, it can take that action. I shall supply the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey with a list, but some appeals are going through at the moment, so I shall not comment any further. Lord Carlile's review is due in February, and a 15-month review will be debated in Parliament on the back of the sunset clause in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. There are so many review bodies and commissions, including those that rightly review all the warrants and certificates that I sign, that they almost constitute an industry. That is a proper safeguard, albeit one that is little known to the outside world, which assumes that we make a decision, then go away and that is the end of it. It is not, of course.
    Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the Home Secretary's helpful answer. To take up a proposal made on a couple of occasions, will he consider whether an existing body of parliamentarians—the democratically elected members of the Intelligence and Security Committee—may be given an additional brief reviewing intelligence prior to future decisions about proscription?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am minded to try to keep the balance of the Intelligence and Security Committee, for which we all have a great deal of respect. However, I am prepared to consider the kind of evidence that its members can take on Privy Council terms. I am not sure about widening the committee chaired by Lord Newton. In fact, I seem to have put myself in the hands of every form of opposition, from Lord Carlile to Lord Newton and Lady Harris. I am afraid to tell the hon. Member for North Down that no member of her party serves on that committee—we will have to take a look at that and see what we can do.
    In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), I made it clear at the outset that the proscribed organisations covered by the motion are determined by their contacts with al-Qaeda and our knowledge and proof that that is so, but that does not rule out proscribing other organisations where that is merited. I have not done that. I want to make that clear to him, because he made a powerful case in relation to Palestinian terrorism.
    There is an underlying issue, which was raised throughout the debate: the need to understand the international nature of terrorism, rather than the issue

    897
    of whether a particular group wants to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The international nature of terrorism is what we have been debating this afternoon.
    I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) to meet the co-ordinator, to see whether we can make some progress on his concerns about port security. It is as important to me as it is to him and his constituents that we get that right. We have a senior police officer working as co-ordinator and I would value the help that my hon. Friend can give. In fact, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon might be tremendous candidates for joining the security services when, at some distant future date, they decide to step down from Parliament. I shall put their names forward as they have done such a good job.
    I assure the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Dorset, that I will provide to him any answers that I have not given during the debate. It is important that answers are given to questions about the links to the meeting in Thailand, the incidents in the Philippines and Singapore, and the direct links to knowledge, at a particular juncture, about the work and actions of JI in the archipelago, of which Bali is just one part. I would like to provide that information on Privy Council terms. Clearly, knowledge has been available. Everyone who has taken an interest in these matters—I know that his right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), raised the matter in the context of a statement following the Bali attack—was aware of the kind of intervention that had saved people in Singapore, and the exchange of information that had taken place between security services on the back of it.
    As the right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out very gently and, I thought, generously, it is easy to be wise after the event. We are trying to balance what his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham believes to be a draconian power of proscription with the need to act quickly and decisively when we believe that there is sufficient evidence to prove
    898
    international links with terrorism, and a threat not just to us, but to all those seeking democracy across the world.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I propose to put together the Questions on delegated legislation.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    INCOME TAX
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (The United States of America) Order 2002 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 22nd July
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Lithuania) Order 2002 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 23rd July. [Joan Ryan.]
    Question agreed to.

    ENTERPRISE BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 4)
    Ordered,
    That the following provisions shall apply to the Enterprise Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 10th April—
    Consideration of Lords Amendments
    1. Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion—

    (a) four hours after their commencement, or

    (b) at Ten o'clock,

    whichever is later.
    Subsequent stages
    2. The proceedings on any further message from the Lords on the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Joan Ryan.]

Orders of the Day

  Enterprise Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 54, 77, 279, 281, 282, 286, 294. 296, 297, 299 to 301, 305, 306 and 308, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 1

  OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 5 after "corporate" insert
  "with both a chairman and a chief executive"
  5.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I beg to move That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 2 and Government amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 6, Lords amendment No. 176 and Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 177 to 186 and Government motions to disagree thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 187 and 188.
  Miss Johnson: Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 176 to 186 provide for a statutory post of chief executive to the Office of Fair Trading. The Bill provides that the OFT consist of a chairman and no fewer than four other members appointed by the Secretary of State, who would consult the chairman before appointing any other member. That is a depersonalisation of consumer and competition regulation. We expect the OFT to have a majority of non-executive members and are giving it significant independence from Ministers.
  We have taken account of the OFT's particular circumstances in deciding not to separate the roles of chairman and chief executive at this time. The Secretary of State will appoint John Vickers as chairman for the remainder of his current term as Director General of Fair Trading, honouring the commitment that was made to him when he was appointed to that post. John Vickers will work with other members of the OFT. Given his position and the need to provide some continuity in this period of great change, I do not think that the OFT should necessarily separate the roles of chairman and chief executive. Although the Bill does not provide for a separate post of chief executive, it does not preclude it either. If the OFT wishes at any time to take that route, it can create a separate post of chief executive and select the appointee.
  The amendments would create a post of chief executive appointed by the Secretary of State. By contrast, our approach ensures that the OFT could appoint a separate chief executive if it wished to do so
  900
  and gives it much more independence and discretion. It is also consistent with the approach taken throughout the Bill and with other regulators. The chief executive of Postcomm is appointed by the chairman, who is appointed by the Secretary of State, and the chief executive of Ofcom will be appointed by the board. That is why I urge the House to accept the Government motions to disagree.
  On Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 2, I am very happy to accept the principle of the proposal that the OFT should have regard to generally accepted principles of good corporate governance in its affairs, but after much consideration, we consider it necessary to amend the Lords amendment to ensure that the OFT must have regard only to the principles of good corporate governance that may reasonably be regarded as relevant to it and that it must also have regard
  "to such general guidance concerning the management of the affairs of public bodies as the OFT considers appropriate."
  The OFT will be a non-ministerial Department and not a public limited company, and many of the principles of corporate governance are aimed at business practices that do not have obvious equivalents in government. I believe that the changes that I recommend reflect the will of the Lords to ensure that the OFT has regard to the principles of good corporate governance, but achieve that in a way that is appropriate to it as a public body.
  Finally, Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 6, 187 and 188 were tabled in response to points made in Committee. They improve the accountability and transparency of the OFT and require the Secretary of State to publish criteria for designating bodies as super-complainants. I am happy to speak in more detail about those amendments if hon. Members wish me to do so.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I come to the Bill rather late in the day after it has undergone a marathon. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who represented the Opposition in earlier proceedings, and my colleagues in the House of Lords who have done sterling work.
  The Bill tackles many issues; enterprise is only an incidental part of it. It deals with consumer protection, insolvency and competition. The question of how to stimulate enterprise has taxed Governments and others throughout the ages. Not many have succeeded in answering it. The Bill returns to the Commons in a much better state than when it went to the Lords. However, it should be a grave embarrassment to the Government that it left the House of Commons with 420 amendments and nine new clauses. In the House of Lords, 326 amendments were made, the majority being Government so-called technical amendments.
  The Bill is highly complex and deals with people's livelihoods. Like so much legislation, it may have serious unintended consequences. It is a gross understatement to describe it as ill prepared and badly drafted. The Government should be ashamed of themselves. However, it was examined in detail in the House of Lords and we broadly agree with the Government about some of the amendments that were forced upon them in the other place.

  901
  The amendments that we are considering deal with good corporate governance. The Government should be particularly interested in that, especially in view of the Enron scandal and others which have occurred since the Bill was first drafted. Those scandals have brought corporate governance into not only the public eye but that of Governments everywhere.
  Let us consider the two amendments with which the Government disagree. First, on what basis do the Government believe that the chief executive officer and the chairman should be the same person? We believe that it is important to emphasise the chairman's independence because the heart of the Bill involves the creation of a body that is free from political interference.
  I appreciate that the Office of Fair Trading will not be a public limited company, but apart from the Financial Services Authority, where else does no separation of power exist between chairman and chief executive officer?
  Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman appears not to have been listening. I provided two further examples in my remarks only a moment ago.
  Mr. Robathan: I was listening, but the examples did not appear relevant.
  I want to consider important sources that were cited in the House of Lords, including the Cadbury report. The Minister will claim that the report referred to public limited companies, but it is nevertheless relevant. It stated:
  "The chairman's role in securing good corporate governance is crucial. Chairmen are primarily responsible for the working of the board, for its balance of membership subject to board and shareholders'—
  they will not exist, of course—
  "approval, for ensuring that all relevant issues are on the agenda, and for ensuring that all directors, executive and non-executive alike, are enabled and encouraged to play their full part in its activities … Given the importance and particular nature of the chairman's role, it should in principle be separate from that of the chief executive."
  The principle is vital. The report continues:
  "If the two roles are combined in one person, it represents a considerable concentration of power".
  After that report, the Hampel report was published in 1995. It was established to review the Cadbury code. It states:
  "The chief executive officer's task is to run the business and to implement the policies and strategies adopted by the board. There are thus two distinct roles".
  The report continues:
  "Cadbury recommended that the roles of the chairman and chief executive officer should in principle be separate … We agree with Cadbury's recommendation and reasoning, and we also note that in the largest companies there may be two full-time jobs … Our view is that, other things being equal, the roles of chairman and chief executive officer are better kept separate, in reality as well as in name. Where the roles are combined, the onus should be on the board to explain and justify the fact."
  In the case that we are considering, the onus is on the Government to explain and justify the fact"
  902
  We know from the advertisements in the Sunday newspapers that the Government will appoint a strategic board. As the Minister said, it has already been decided that Sir John Vickers will take the post of chairman and chief executive, if the Government have their way. I am sure that Sir John Vickers is an excellent man. I do not know him, but he attended my college in Oxford, and that must be a recommendation, although he is younger than me. However, the question remains: should all the powers be vested in one person?
  If I could call on one person to pray in aid the idea that the powers should not be vested in one person, that person would be the Minister. There is certainly a great deal of confusion in the mind of the Government on this matter. In Committee, she said that the Director General of Fair Trading
  "currently has a wide range of functions in the areas of competition and consumer protection, many of which are being reformed in the Bill. The Government believe that in the light of the reforms, it is no longer appropriate for all those powers to be vested in one individual."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 April 2002; c. 12.]
  Perhaps the Minister will explain how it is that she seems to have changed her mind.
  Miss Johnson: I am happy to reiterate something else that I remarked on earlier. The Director General is to be backed up by a strategic board of four or five members who will oversee the work of the Office of Fair Trading under the new arrangements proposed in the Enterprise Bill.
  Mr. Robathan: The Minister did indeed say that earlier, but she has not quite explained how the powers currently vested in the Director General of Fair Trading will not be vested in the same person, although there will be non-executive directors, as she said. We believe that it is a good principle in corporate governance that there should be two people for two posts. That is true of public limited companies, and I suggest that it should also be true here, especially in a body that is required to oversee so many plcs and to consider fair trading. The Government have certainly not convinced me or my hon. Friends, or, I suggest, the Lords, otherwise.
  The second amendment under discussion is like unto the first. It talks about "good corporate governance", and I find it strange that the Government should want to change it at all. It states:
  "In managing its affairs the OFT must have regard to the generally accepted principles of good corporate governance."
  I sat in this Chamber only the week before last and listened to the introduction of a ten-minute Bill that lauded the merits of good corporate governance and stated how important it was that we all adhered to them. I do not understand why the Government want to change this proposal. Their amendment is woolly, it dilutes the purpose of having such a statement in the Bill, and it is rather meaningless. It follows the same basic idea but dilutes the principle. I do not think that it is worth opposing, but I would like the Government to explain why they intend to change the wording because the Minister has not explained, whatever she may say.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I support the previous contribution and the Lords amendments generally. This is an important issue. We are talking not

  903
  about a technical change but a fundamental issue of principle involving the question, "Who regulates the regulators?" The Bill has implications for others—the way that we shall deal with Ofcom in due course, for example.
  We are considering an extraordinarily powerful post that has very little public accountability and mechanisms to address that problem. I suggest that there are two fundamentally different ways of doing that, involving two models. It does not really matter which we adopt. and I think that we should be open-minded. The first model is the one that the Conservatives have been promoting. I would not necessarily adopt it, but it has merits and it certainly improves the Bill. It uses the model based on corporate governance. We are clearly not dealing with a plc here—there is no direct read-across—but there are lessons to be learned from the way in which good business practice operates, and if this is the amendment on offer, I will happily support it.
  The alternative approach, for which I have argued right from the beginning of this legislation, is to strengthen public accountability. That is partly captured, rather weakly, in Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4, but the principle of involving Parliament more directly in scrutinising the appointment of the Director General is a matter to which I shall return.
  Why is the issue of who regulates the regulators so important here? The appointment of John Vickers has already been mentioned. He is an admirable individual, whose work I have encountered professionally. As an economist, he is a very clever guy, and I have no doubt that he has complete integrity. That is not the issue here This post is very important in different ways. It inherits the discretionary powers that used to be held by Ministers. It has substantial enforcement powers—we debated at some length the power to initiate criminal action against cartels.
  5.30 pm
  The Government seem to believe that this new approach to competition will radically raise the productivity of the United Kingdom economy. If that is to happen, this post must have enormous powers. The underlying trend in growth of productivity has, remained pretty much unchanged since the Napoleonic wars. We are talking about revolutionary changes in the way in which the British economy functions. The person who drives that must have a great deal of power.
  There are analogies with other appointments Reference has been made to the Financial Services Authority. When the FSA legislation went through, the Opposition had legitimate concerns that Howard Davies would have unfettered powers. He is also an admirable public servant, but he has a great deal of power. There is some qualification in his case, because he is working alongside managing directors, so there is divided responsibility. Some heavy hints have been dropped that, when he moves on, a chairman will be appointed alongside the head of the FSA, so that problem is perhaps on the way to being resolved. The Office of Communications presents many of the same problems as this legislation.
  The approach that I have advocated is to follow in the footsteps of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced the Monetary Policy Committee. It would be
  904
  possible for the Minister to deal with this problem at any point through a statement, so no provision would have to be built into legislation. As we know, the Chancellor has boundless intellectual and political self-confidence. He obviously felt able to submit his appointments to the scrutiny of Parliament, and has done so. The process of confirmatory hearings has done an enormous amount to strengthen the credibility of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee and the Chancellor. It has been a great success story. I do not understand why other Ministers have not had the self-confidence to do the same.
  As regards the approach taken in this legislation, which I think is weaker but none the less a positive step and an improvement, the argument for using the corporate governance approach is partly based on the analogy with what has happened in industry. Post-Maxwell, there has been a considerable improvement in corporate governance. The system of split responsibility prevents megalomaniacs from dominating institutions. That lesson has been widely learned.
  It is not merely a question of using a business model. One of my more illustrious constituents is Mr. Greg Dyke. I suspect that, whatever people think about him, there would be considerable apprehension if he were to have unfettered executive authority over the BBC. The BBC is not a plc, and has a chairman as well as a chief executive. Split responsibility provides a balance of power: there are checks and balances in the BBC. That public agency is in some ways analogous to the Office of Fair Trading.
  We are not arguing that we should adopt this approach because it works well in plcs in the private sector, although that is a useful source of inspiration. Split responsibility is a sensible way of dealing with over-powerful, public officials who are not sufficiently accountable. I commend the Lords amendments, and will support them.
  Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: At the start of the Bill, the Office of Fair Trading is described, separately from its current constitution, as a body corporate. As such, I fully support hon. Members' suggestion that it should be subject to, and have regard for, the principles of good corporate governance.
  For a listed company, it is accepted practice, as set out clearly in the combined codes of corporate governance, that the role of chief executive and chairman should be separated. The chief executive is at the coalface and the chairman has a detached role. The chairman can stand back, whereas the chief executive may not be able to do so. The chairman can review the wider picture, resolve conflicts within the board, act as a public interface and ensure a good balance of representation on the board.
  Having heard hon. Members' comments, I have a sneaking suspicion that the Government wish to keep the chairman's role for themselves. As the Minister would doubtless be the first to say, that is not the intention behind the Bill, but it appears to be the implication of, for example, the Governments retaining the role of selecting the chairman. The principle of separation would certainly be enhanced by separating the roles of chairman and chief executive.
  Yesterday, the Trade and Industry Committee held an inquiry into corporate governance in relation to the White Paper on the new companies legislation.

  905
  We looked carefully at corporate governance and the way in which this rapidly advancing area of regulation has moved forward. In the context of that discussion, today's debate sounds very regressive. If institutional shareholders are to make a recommendation to shareholders in circumstances in which there is no split between a company's chief executive and chairman, they will almost automatically vote against, or recommend that shareholders abstain. If that is good enough for companies, why is it not good enough for public bodies?
  The Government's amendment (a) contains certain irregularities. According to subsection (a), the OFT can make up whatever guidance it wants, but despite that fact, subsection (b) implies that some note should be taken of corporate governance best practice. However, the Government are not saying that corporate governance best practice should apply in the private sector. They use the phrase "applicable … generally", which presumably could imply the same level of best practice that applies in the Post Office, for instance. Furthermore, we know that that principle will not extend to the splitting of the roles of chairman and chief executive, because the Government oppose that.
  This is not an esoteric element of corporate governance; in fact, it is one of the primary elements that institutions would consider, and which the combined code deals with in the private sector. It would therefore be appropriate to head for best practice by, for instance, splitting the roles of chairman and chief executive. Moreover, if it is the Government's intention that what constitutes best practice be decided on the hoof by the OFT, they should instead adopt a more open approach and set out what constitutes best practice.
  The combined code itself is not a compulsory document; it is a very fluid document, and if companies do not wish to adhere to any aspects of it, they need not do so. What they must do is to say how they derogate from best practice. Such items need to be set out in their annual accounts—a perfectly proper approach. which should be followed by the OFT. In other words, its principles of best practice and good governance should be set out, and if it derogates from them, that derogation should be explained in its annual report. In that way, people could tell whether it had moved away from best practice in a perhaps appropriate context at a given time.
  If the Government are going to let the OFT go its own way and pick and choose particular elements of best practice and corporate governance, will the Minister please explain what such practice is likely to consist of? We have heard precious little about it so far, and the Government's amendment looks like a reaction to the Lords proposal rather than a clearly thought-out provision.
  In considering the future of corporate governance, we should take note of Lords amendment No. 188, which states that the OFT should
  "from time to time publish … its rules and procedures for dealing with conflicts of interest."
  That is loosely worded and is—I should have thought—an acceptable way in which to proceed. If it is not acceptable, it would be appropriate for the Minister to comment on the procedure that the OFT is likely to
  906
  follow when dealing with conflicts of interest for its members or those of its committees. That does not appear to have been dealt with previously.
  Mr. Mark Field: I, too, wish to endorse the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). We should seek to divide the role of chairman from that of chief executive as an integral part of good corporate governance. My concerns include the potential power of the regulator, which could be immense, especially given the criminal sanctions against individuals for cartel offences. That point was discussed at great length in Committee.
  I also endorse the words of Lord Hunt of Wirral, who did splendid work in the other place on this issue, and of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who said that the crux of the matter was who regulates the regulator. More importantly, how will that regulation operate? We have discussed that issue on several occasions, and the Cadbury code recommends separation. That is especially important for the OFT, given the sensitive and political nature of what it will do. It is staggering that Lord Sainsbury was complacent enough to say, in the other place:
  "The OFT is a government department, not a public limited company. and many of the principles of good corporate governance are aimed at business practices which do not have an obvious equivalent in government."—[Official Report, House of lords, 15 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 714–15.]
  We have similar grounds of dispute on Lords amendment No. 2, and I wished to tease out of the Minister what the Government amendment means when it says:
  "they may reasonably be regarded as applicable in relation to a statutory corporation, to generally accepted principles of good corporate governance."
  The Government appear to be saying that what is good for the Government is not so good for business. That appears to be breathtakingly complacent, in the aftermath of the disgraceful behaviour over the Penrose inquiry into Equitable Life. The inquiry's delay has meant that tens of thousands of our constituents have not had an opportunity to take their cases to the ombudsman. Because it is a Government inquiry, it is also taking place under a veil of secrecy.
  We see parallels with the distinction between the requirements for the OFT and those for bodies in the private sector, in respect of the divide between the roles of chief executive and chairman. Given the recent scandals in both the public and the private sectors, the Minister will understand why the OFT and all other public bodies must be beyond reproach. How can the Government exhort business to get its act together if they are not willing to do so themselves?
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I apologise to the Minister and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being here for the opening speech on this group of amendments. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I reiterate a point that she has already made.
  I had thought that I understood what the Government were trying to do when we discussed in Committee the issues related to Lords amendment No. 1. The Government had previously vested the powers in one person—the Director General of Fair

  907
  Trading—but had resolved that it would be better in future for powers to be vested in a board, or body corporate, rather than a single individual. It is therefore suggested in the schedule that there be a chairman and not fewer than four other members.
  The other place helpfully explored the underlying intention of that change. The intention is, of course, to try to ensure corporate responsibility—a division of powers that does not allow their arbitrary exercise by an individual. No one is accusing the Director General of Fair Trading of acting in such a way, but there is a tendency in the media, if not in the business community, to personalise matters and to suggest that the exercise of powers by a single regulator relies excessively on that person. That is especially true when a regulator might be replaced.
  5.45 pm
  Corporate responsibility makes possible a sense of continuity and consistency on the part of a body corporate over a period of time, regardless of changes of personnel. That is a positive move, but it is curious that the Minister, in her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), seemed to be reinventing the idea that the OFT chairman would be its director general. However, although the chairman may act as chief executive, under the Bill it is possible for the chairman to be appointed and for another OFT member to be the chief executive.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman. I pointed out earlier that the Bill allows the OFT to have a separate post of chief executive.
  Mr. Lansley: I thank the Minister, whose intervention reinforces my point. That possibility—of the OFT having both a chairman and a chief executive—is entirely consistent with the structure of schedule 1. I presume that the chief executive would be one of the other board members.
  However, the Government seem to be contemplating that their objective will be frustrated, initially at least. The fact that the chairman of the OFT will be its chief executive reinforces the sense that the office is governed by an individual more than by a set of corporate responsibilities. That is a pity. Business people say that experience tells them that it is desirable to separate the roles of chairman and chief executive, and they believe that that separation should be evident in a body with so much power over them.
  There is no notion that it is best practice among regulators to separate the roles of chairman and chief executive. There are good examples of people combining those roles in a satisfactory manner, but we are moving away from that structure and towards having a board in which the roles are separated.
  Mr. Robathan: This issue is so complex that it is beyond the grasp of some very clever accountants and lawyers, but does my hon. Friend agree that the checks and balances governing the relationship between a chairman and a chief executive are especially desirable in respect of the OFT?
  Mr. Lansley: It is not just a question of complexity. Indeed, that complexity suggests that the technical
  908
  nature of a problem might be understood better by an extremely able person such as John Vickers than by a board comprising some part-time members. The point of separating the roles of chief executive and chairman is to allow the chairman not to become immersed in detail. The chief executive needs competence when it comes to technical factors, but the chairman should be able to see the strategic wood rather than the trees. That is not to say that the chief executive should not have a role in strategy, but that can happen more satisfactorily if the chairman is distanced a little from the chief executive's responsibilities.
  I had understood that that was the direction in which the Government wanted to go. Lords amendment No. 1 seems merely to reinforce that intention on the Government's part and is consistent with the structure of clause 1 and schedule 1. I am surprised, therefore, that the Government are resisting something that is in line with their intentions.
  Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interest in the register. I was a fellow of an Oxford college that received an application from Mr. John Vickers for a fellowship by examination. As one of those who voted when he became a fellow of that college, I have the greatest regard for his intellectual ability and the high standard of his written work. I have since got to know him rather better and I also have a high regard for his fairness of mind and his independence, so my remarks are in no way an aspersion upon the present personality in the role. When legislating on such a powerful position, however, it is incumbent on the House to think about what might be needed were a less suitable candidate to be in the position at some future date, or were some unexpected events to transpire that, by definition, we cannot—and would not—forecast today given the personalities involved. To have good and fair law, it is important to think about what would happen should there be problems with the personality and decisions of the director general. I do not think that that has been adequately covered so far by the legislation or by ministerial statements.
  The most obvious way in which power is sensibly limited in a pluralistic democracy is through competition. The irony of this post is that we are creating a monopoly to enforce competition on the commercial world. It is a paradox rather than a contradiction. Much as I admire competition, I would not want to advocate two or three offices of fair trading. That might be taking a good thing a little too far. However, that means that the most obvious way to control power, which we are rightly recommending to the private sector, cannot apply in this case.
  The Minister may say that legal action could be taken if individual companies or industries do not like the way in which verdicts and judgments are going. There are legal remedies, but often it is not good practice, even for a powerful company, to take a regulator to court— it prejudices the relationship considerably. Many businesses and industries understand that they have to live with these regulators for the foreseeable future and are naturally reluctant to go to court.
  There are appeals procedures against the judgments of the competition authorities, which are welcome and very necessary, but which are not sufficient for all the circumstances that might arise if a director general has

  909
  gone wrong and the concentration of power is being abused. That is the situation that my hon. Friends the Members for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) rightly said requires special attention.
  Splitting the roles could be of some assistance. There would be another senior figure to whom Ministers, the public and others could turn if it were felt that a director general had become unreasonable or unfair and was pushing the power too far. That provision would provide a balance or check in addition to the court and appeal system, which applies in some cases but not others. I want the Minister to reconsider all those factors because the Government have removed one of the most obvious ways in which this used to be done. They have decided that Ministers and politicians are particularly dangerous beings—I can understand why. given some of the Ministers that we have, although I am not commenting particularly on the present Minister. As a democrat before anything else, I believe that the correct way to control the power of powerful regulators is through democratic accountability to Ministers and this House, but the Government have made a series of legislative manoeuvres that will limit the power of politicians to intervene and, therefore, the power of the House to hold the regulator to account. That is a pity. In that context, I urge the Minister to think again about the Opposition's reasonable suggestion that a countervailing power should perhaps be introduced by having another senior person in the regulatory system who could be a court of appeal—a second place where one could go for informal redress and someone who could ultimately take action if the director general went over the top, became systematically unreasonable or became too powerful a figure.
  I can understand why the Minister might not want to retrace steps by increasing the accountability of the regulator to this House and to Ministers, although that is a pity, so the second best answer is the one that my colleagues recommended so strongly and I urge the hon. Lady to think again.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: First, the vast majority of the Lords amendments are minor drafting amendments. About 40 or 50 amendments were accepted in the other place in direct response to arguments put forward by the Opposition—indeed, some were Opposition amendments. I hope, therefore, that this Chamber will agree that the passage and consideration of the Bill has improved it as appropriate and that the Lords have played a useful role in that.
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) mentioned the strategic board, which is to be a minimum of four plus the Director General of Fair Trading, and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) mentioned accountability. First, it is not necessarily the case that it is easier to hold to account a chairman whose role is separate to that of the chief executive. Whether there is one person occupying two roles or two people with two different roles, they will still have to answer in the role in which accountability has to be exercised. We have improved that accountability in many ways, not least through the provision for public
  910
  consultation on an annual plan and a report. Although it is obviously a matter for this House and its Committees, we expect that an appropriate Select Committee, or Select Committees, will exercise scrutiny powers. A whole range of provisions have improved accountability rather than weakened it.
  Dr. Cable: According to the press, the subjects of the Lords amendments were referred to the Cabinet for discussion. Can the Minister confirm that? Can she also explain why the amendments were thought so threatening to the Government that they had to involve senior Ministers and the Prime Minister?
  Miss Johnson: I can neither confirm nor disconfirm that. I am not a member of the Cabinet as the hon. Gentleman is aware.
  This is not a question of accountability—
  Mr. Lansley: Perhaps the Minister will clarify something. She referred once again to the Director General of Fair Trading, which is confusing. I understood that we were to have a chairman at the Office of Fair Trading and that the post of director general was to be abolished under clause 2, so I do not understand why she referred to the director general.
  Miss Johnson: It is current speak. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for doing so, I am referring to the individual. It may be more helpful if I simply refer to Professor John Vickers, the current occupant of the role, and we would expect him to occupy both new roles, as I explained in my opening remarks, which the hon. Gentleman missed—
  Mr. Robathan: Was it just a slip of the tongue when the Minister referred to both new roles? Does she see them as separate roles, as we do? If so, why not have two separate people to carry them out?
  Miss Johnson: I have already explained that there is a possibility of splitting the roles. It is easy to argue whether there are two roles or one, but arguing how the role is divided is largely academic. It has strategic and operational aspects. The point is whether there is a separate strategic post. I could argue in different terms, but I am using those that have been put to me in the debate.
  6 pm
  The concerns expressed by several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), were mainly about individual decisions taken by the office. We see the role of any chairman, whether or not it is separate from that of the chief executive, exercised as part of a strategic board arrangement and providing strategic oversight. There would not be a decision-by-decision oversight of matters to do with the operation of the office.
  Mr. Redwood: I was interested in the abuse of power by the office-holder. That could take many forms. It might be a run of unfair decisions, unfair treatment in a particular case or pursuit of a line that did not tally with

  911
  the normal policy. All those things are theoretically possible and the Minister needs to tell us how they would be handled.
  Miss Johnson: I have already explained that there will be an annual plan, an annual report, and mechanisms for accountability. Those were discussed at considerable length during the Bill's proceedings. If serious problems arose or if a future chairman acted inappropriately and abused their power, the Secretary of State has the power under paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to remove from office the chairman or any other board member
  "on the ground of incapacity or misbehaviour".
  We thus have provisions to deal with the "mad and bad" under the proposed arrangements.
  The other main issue raised by hon. Members relates to aspects of corporate governance. We propose to amend those provisions because not all the principles of corporate governance are relevant to a public body or a Department. For example, the principles refer to remuneration practices and relations with shareholders, which are obviously not relevant to the Office of Fair Trading. The amendment simply ensures that the OFT has regard only to what can reasonably be considered relevant to it.
  To respond to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), the amendment is intended to ensure that the guidance, which was originally aimed at private companies, does not override for the OFT any guidance specifically for public bodies. The OFT is a public body, not a private company. Indeed, all the Hampel provisions were designed for public, listed companies. Clearly, the OFT is not a public, listed company.
  To reassure hon. Members, I stress that we expect the OFT to have regard to the combined code principles in so far as they relate to it. However, it will also have to act in accordance with rules and guidance: for example, that on public accounting, which is a different area. As I explained in response to the questions of the right hon. Member for Wokingham, if there is abuse we can deal with it.
  Under the present arrangements, it is possible for the OFT to appoint a separate chief executive officer. Currently, that is true. We envisage that we shall reconsider those arrangements in 2005 when John Vickers retires from his post to assess whether they will be appropriate after that time. They are entirely appropriate at present, however, and I hope that the House will support the motion.
  Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 181.

  Division No.343]

  [6:04pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Ainger, Nick

  Baird, Vera

  Alexander, Douglas

  Banks, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Barnes, Harry

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Battle, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Beard, Nigel

  912

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Benn, Hilary

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Berry, Roger

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blackman, Liz

  Fisher, Mark

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Flint, Caroline

  Blizzard, Bob

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Follett, Barbara

  Borrow, David

  Foster, rh Derek

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Bryant, Chris

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burden, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burgon, Colin

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Burnham, Andy

  Gilroy, Linda

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Goggins, Paul

  Cairns, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caton, Martin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hanson, David

  Challen, Colin

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Chaytor, David

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clapham, Michael

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Heyes, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corston, Jean

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cousins, Jim

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Hutton, rh John

  Crausby, David

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cruddas, Jon

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Jamieson, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  David, Wayne

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Denham, rh John

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Doran, Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Edwards, Huw

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  913

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Pound, Stephen

  Knight Jim (S Dorset)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lammy, David

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lepper, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Leslie, Christopher

  Purnell, James

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Linton, Martin

  Rammell, Bill

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Love, Andrew

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

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

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  MacDonald, Calum

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  McDonnell, John

  MacDougall, John

  Rooney, Terry

  McFall, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ruane, Chris

  McKechin, Ann

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McNulty, Tony

  Salmond, Alex

  MacShane, Denis

  Salter, Martin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sawford, Phil

  McWilliam, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Skinner. Dennis

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Miller, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Southworth, Helen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Spellar, rh John

  Mole, Chris

  Squire, Rachel

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moran, Margaret

  Stevenson, George

  Mountford, Kali

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Mudie, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stringer, Graham

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Olner, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Organ, Diana

  Tipping, Paddy

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Owen, Albert

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Trickett, Jon

  Perham, Linda

  Truswell, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  914

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Vis. Dr. Rudi

  Wishart, Pete

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Woodward, Shaun

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Woolas, Phil

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Worthington, Tony

  Watts, David

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Weir, Michael

  White, Brian

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Charlotte Atkins and

  Winnick, David

  Jim Fitzpatrick

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Flight Howard

  Amess, David

  Flook, Adrian

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Forth, rh Eric

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Bacon, Richard

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Barker, Gregory

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Barrett, John

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Goodman, Paul

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Bercow, John

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hague, rh William

  Boswell, Tim

  Hancock, Mike

  Brady, Graham

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Brazier, Julian

  Harvey, Nick

  Breed, Colin

  Hawkins, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Heald, Oliver

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Heath, David

  Burnett, John

  Hendry, Charles

  Burnside, David

  Hermon, Lady

  Burstow, Paul

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Burt, Alistair

  Holmes, Paul

  Butterfill, John

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Howard, rh Michael

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cameron, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Jack, rh Michael

  Cash, William

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Keetch, Paul

  Chidgey, David

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Chope, Christopher

  Clappison, James

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Collins, Tim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Cotter, Brian

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Curry, rh David

  Lamb, Norman

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Lidington, David

  Dodds, Nigel

  Loughton, Tim

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  McIntosh. Miss Anne

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Maclean, rh David

  Evans, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fallon, Michael

  Maude, rh Francis

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  915

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Moore, Michael

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Spring, Richard

  Norman, Archie

  Stunell, Andrew

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Syms, Robert

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Paice, James

  Thurso, John

  Paterson, Owen

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Pickles, Eric

  Tredinnick, David

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Randall, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Redwood, rh John

  Viggers, Peter

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Walter, Robert

  Rendel, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robathan Andrew

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Whittingdale, John

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Wiggin, Bill

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Wilkinson, John

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wilshire, David

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Ruffley, David

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Russell. Bob (Colchester)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Selous, Andrew

  Young, rh Sir George

  Shepherd, rh Mrs Gillian

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Simmonds, Mark

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Tellers for the Noes:

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

  Mr. Mark Hoban and Mr. Mark Francois

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.
  Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 6 agreed to.

  New Clause
  Lords amendment: No. 7, after clause 16, to insert the following new clause—Tribunal: regulations—
  (1)The Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State may together make regulations—
  (a) empowering the courts to transfer to the Tribunal for determination by it any issue arising in any civil proceedings the determination of which depends on whether provisions of Chapter I or II of the 1998 Act or of Article 81 or 82 of the Treaty have been infringed where, in the opinion of the court making the transfer, the transfer would be conducive to the efficient conduct of the proceedings;
  (b) making any rules that the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State may deem to be appropriate as ancillary to the power to make such transfers or to be reasonably required in connection therewith and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, to the effect that—
  (i) on making such a transfer, the court making the transfer may state facts that the Tribunal shall then treat as established for the purposes of determining the issues transferred to it;
  (ii) after having made its determination, the Tribunal shall remit the matter to the court that made the transfer to it, declaring the determination of that issue by the Tribunal, which, subject to any clarification or amplification by the Tribunal of its determination that may be requested by the court that made the transfer, shall then be treated as a determination of that issue by that court;
  (iii) enabling courts that have made, or have in contemplation the making of, such transfers and the Tribunal to co-operate together in any way that they deem to be appropriate to enable issues arising in the proceedings before then to be determined as efficiently as possible.
  (2) The Lord Chancellor may appoint as president and as chairman of the Tribunal judges of any of the courts provided that, before appointing a judge of the Court of Session or sheriff courts under this subsection, the Lord Chancellor shall first consult the Lord President of the Court of Session.
  (3) In this section references to "the courts" are to the High Court of Justice and the county courts in England and Wales and Northern Ireland and the Court of Session and the sheriff courts in Scotland.
  (4) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment (a) in lieu, Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 17, 74, 124, 189 to 209 and the Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendment (a) in lieu, and Lords amendment No. 210.
  Miss Johnson: Lords amendment No. 7 would give the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations allowing the courts to transfer to the Competition Appeal Tribunal issues arising in civil proceedings that require a determination of whether there has been an infringement of competition law.
  The main argument made for the amendment in another place was that, following the implementation of the so-called modernisation project, which is likely during 2004, the ordinary courts will be given the power to apply article 81 of the EC treaty in full. They may therefore have to deal with significantly more civil cases raising complex competition law issues. The argument was that the courts were not equipped to deal effectively with competition law points, which often involve complex economic evidence.
  Article 81(3) issues are thought to be particularly difficult, requiring an assessment of whether countervailing benefits arising from an anti-competitive agreement are sufficient to legitimise it. The Competition Appeal Tribunal, an expert body set up to hear appeals against decisions of the OFT on such matters, was perceived as better qualified to determine these matters.
  The Government argued in another place that it was the role of the courts to build up the expertise in competition issues needed to handle competition matters arising in civil proceedings. There are practical ways in which the expertise of judges can be enhanced and, if necessary, certain judges could be nominated as specialists in competition law. The courts will also be assisted when necessary by the Office of Fair Trading and the European Commission. Under the modernisation regulation, the Commission will be empowered to submit written observations to the national courts on issues relating to the application of articles 81 and 82, and, when we implement modernisation, we intend to provide a similar power for

  917
  the OFT. Both bodies, with the permission of the court in question, will also be able to submit oral observations as expert witnesses.
  Our current belief, therefore, is that the courts will be able to cope with the consequences of modernisation without the need for powers to transfer issues arising in civil proceedings to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. However, we recognise the strength of feeling in another place that an explicit power should be provided in the Bill to allow regulations to be made allowing the courts to transfer competition law matters to the Competition Appeal Tribunal for determination by that body. If the proponents of the amendment are right, and the courts are not able to handle competition issues effectively, there will be specific powers to allow matters to be transferred. If the Government are right, the powers need never be used. On reflection, we now agree that an amendment along the lines of Lords amendment No. 7 would be a prudent piece of future proofing, and should be made.
  However, there are some technical difficulties with Lords amendment No. 7 as it is currently drafted, which is why we propose to replace it and Lords amendment No. 209 with our amendments in lieu. I would like to highlight the main changes. First, the redraft provides that the Lord Chancellor alone, rather than jointly with the Secretary of State, would exercise the power to make regulations. There is no particular significance to that change— it is simply customary for the Lord Chancellor to have sole responsibility for such matters. Secondly, the amendment in lieu not only refers to the regulation-making power but makes it clear that the rules of court may be made in connection with a transfer. Thirdly, the amendment removes the power for the Lord Chancellor to appoint judges directly to the key positions on the Competition Appeal Tribunal. In another place, it was accepted that this power was not needed. The power exists already, but it would cut across the policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department that all appointments to tribunals should be made through open competition.
  The second amendment in lieu, to Lords amendment No. 209, makes a corresponding adjustment to the scope of the tribunal rules so that they may make provision in connection with the transfer of proceedings from a court. Lords amendment No. 209, which was a Government amendment, is superseded by the amendment in lieu.
  I would now like to turn to the remaining amendments in this group: amendments Nos. 8 to 17, 74, 124, 189 to 208 and 210. That group of Government amendments reflects work that was done in the other place to improve the drafting of part 2 of the Bill and related provisions. Part 2 is concerned with the establishment of the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the allocation to it of new powers such as the ability to hear damages claims arising from infringements of competition law. It also provides for such claims to be brought on behalf of named consumers.
  The most important changes here are the technical improvements to clauses 17 and 18 of the Bill. Amendment No. 8, for example, makes it clear that the scope of a damages claim made before the tribunal is to be the same as that made before a court. It also makes it clear that the damages or other sums that may be
  918
  awarded include all monetary awards that could be awarded by a court in respect of the relevant infringement. Amendment No. 9 ensures, among other things, that an infringement of competition law has to be established before a group claim can be brought, and that the right to bring a group claim does not affect the right to bring a claim before the court.
  Amendment No. 11, too, is worth highlighting. It enables the Competition Appeals Tribunal to order the defendant to pay any monetary remedies to the body bringing the claim for onward distribution to the relevant individuals, as long as all of them consent. The damages will still be awarded to the individuals rather than the representative body, which will be acting on their behalf in receiving the amounts due.
  Clause 19 adds a new section 58A to the Competition Act 1998 to provide that infringement findings— for example an OFT decision that a chapter 1 prohibition has been breached— will be binding in the courts when the courts are considering monetary claims. Amendment No. 17, however, clarifies that the new section does not apply in relation to infringement decisions made before the commencement of the section. It is important, for business certainty reasons, that there should be no retrospective application of the new provisions.
  Amendments Nos. 74, 124 and 205 remove the reference to the period for bringing an appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal following a decision in a merger or market investigation. It is still our intention to have firm, fixed time limits, but these timings will now be set by the tribunal's rules, on which we are currently consulting. Part of that consultation seeks views on whether those periods should be one month for a merger and six weeks for a market. We have not yet come to a view on the appropriate length of either period. However, as we may end up changing these periods in the tribunal's rules, we decided that it would be better to remove the reference to three months from the Bill.
  The remaining amendments in this group are consequential on the changes to clauses 17 or 18 or are minor and technical improvements to this part of the Bill. I do not propose to go through them in detail, but I invite the House to agree that they should be made, and I am happy to address them should hon. Members so wish.
  Mr. Robathan: We are, of course, delighted that the Government have listened to the sensible arguments put forward in another place by my noble Friends Lord Kingsland, Lord Hunt of Wirral and others. The Government are rather foolish to say that their current belief is that the provision will not be necessary. Experienced lawyers have concluded that it will be necessary, and I am therefore delighted that the Government have accepted our views. That merely begs the question why such a contingency plan was not included in the Bill in the first place. With 750-odd amendments to the Bill, however, we are not that surprised.
  We have taken unofficial legal advice on the matter, which was that amendment (a) to Lords amendment 7 is somewhat better than the one that we produced, so we are happy to accept it— one would expect a parliamentary draftsman to do better than an amateur

  919
  parliamentary draftsman. Nevertheless, I would like to thank Sir Jeremy Lever, an eminent Queen's counsel, for his sensible and public spirited assistance.
  I want to raise some concerns relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am not a lawyer, so I hope that the Minister will be able to put me right— as she knows, I have come to the Bill somewhat late, so perhaps she will be able to do so straight away. Will the Government clarify whether separate measures will be necessary for Scotland and Northern Ireland? Although the Lord Chancellor is given particular mention, I had understood that the Lord President had jurisdiction in Scotland. I certainly understand that the joint working party of the Bars and Law Societies of the United Kingdom says that, in this case, the Lord Chancellor would not have the relevant jurisdiction. Could the Minister scurry around to get some legal advice on that point before we finish our consideration of this clause?
  Mr. Redwood: I welcome the Government's change of heart in one important respect. I think that they will find that they need to make use of the provision. As for the principal arguments, it will expedite proceedings, as the general court system is very congested, and some of these cases need to be dealt with in a timely way. Furthermore, the technical complexity of this extremely voluminous Bill, which is very much in evidence this evening, will require specialists to argue the case and to adjudicate the complex issues involved. It will therefore often be necessary to send such cases to a tribunal to be dealt with by people who are well versed in this complicated area, and to ensure that they are dealt with in an expeditious manner. I hope that the Minister will enter fully into the spirit of the Government's welcome change of heart and recognise that it is not just a belt-and-braces provision. It was strongly recommended by independent lawyers of no political persuasion who have worked in this area for many years and have a firm view of how such matters should he handled.
  6.30 pm
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) for his remarks. Of course, I enter into the spirit as well as into the letter of the suggestion. I reassure him of that.
  The Government have not acted in the way that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) suggested. We have not been foolish. We believe that the provision will not, in general, be necessary and that the courts will equip themselves with the necessary expertise. Views obviously differ, so we have accepted the wisdom of the suggestion that the Bill should contain the provision. Accordingly, we have tabled amendments that are as effective and as apropriate as possible.
  I am not a lawyer, but I have taken legal advice about the issue of separate measures in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The court rules for Northern Ireland are made by the Lord Chancellor and are not a reserved matter. In fact, Northern Ireland will be covered exactly as specified in the Bill. The hon. Member for Blaby is correct about the position in Scotland, but the law will be consistent. The Lord President will make the rules in Scotland in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested. There will be a separate arrangement for Scotland, but not for Northern Ireland.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.
  Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 21

  DUTY TO MAKE REFERENCES IN RELATION TO COMPLETED MERGERS
  Lords amendment: No. 18 in page 11, line 19, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
  "(e) the European Commission is considering a request made, in relation to the matter concerned, by the United Kingdom (whether alone or with others) under article 22(3) of the European Merger Regulations, is proceeding with the matter in pursuance of such a request or has dealt with the matter in pursuance of such a request."
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22, 24, 28, 34, 53, amendments (a) and (b) thereto, 54, amendments (a) to (c) thereto, 65, 66, 78, 81, 82, 84, 88 to 90, 116, 117, 136 to 142 and 211.
  Miss Johnson: This group of amendments covers issues relating to the interaction between domestic regimes and European competition law. In particular, we have introduced amendments to clarify and improve the relationship in four areas. We have sought, first, to highlight the primacy of EC competition law where it applies and, secondly, to clarify the domestic duty to reflect that. The third point is the need to ensure that the Secretary of State can act to protect legitimate interests in cases that fall to the EC merger regime for assessment of the competition aspects. The fourth and final area is the minor changes to the power to take account of modernisation. They are sensible amendments to ensure that the new domestic regime is a good fit with EC competition law.
  The Government intend to resist the amendments to Lords amendment No. 53, and I shall take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether I can do that. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) will no doubt wish to speak to his amendments.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I wish to speak to amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 53, and to amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 54.
  This is the fourth attempt that has been made in the two Houses to try to insert into the Bill serious provisions relating to the public interest that are in line with those in section 84 of the Fair Trading Act 1973. Under the current legislation, it is possible in theory for the Secretary of State or the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading to refer to the Competition Commission a merger that might seriously affect the public interest. In the 1973 Act, the public interest is described as relating to the balance of industry and employment throughout the United Kingdom and to a

  921
  consideration of the ability of UK producers to compete in export markets. If those markets are harmed or damaged, the Competition Commission can consider a merger.
  Unfortunately, since the time that Lord Tebbit was a Member of the House, the policy of Governments of both persuasions has been not to make great use of that power. It is not true to say that it has never been used, but it has been difficult to persuade Governments to act. Ideally, I would like moves to be made so that action is obligatory while retaining as much as possible of the 1973 provision. I have pursued that aim on several occasions in the House. There is much concern in the trade union movement about this matter, and the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress and most of the major trade unions have made representations to the Secretary of State. I elaborated on that in our earlier debates on this issue.
  The Bill restricts public interest considerations to defence matters and contains a longstop provision, which means that the public interest can be referred to. However, the Government have never defined what that means or clarified the circumstances in which the provision could be used. The Conservatives tend to fear the Government's provision, believing that a horse and cart could be driven through it. However, I see the Government's approach as something of which we know not what. It is unlikely to be used in any feasible circumstances, so it is likely to be a fairly insignificant power. We therefore need a much stronger provision for the public interest to be introduced.
  We first discussed the matter in Standing Committee. The probing amendments that I tabled were based on the experience in my constituency of the takeover of Biwaters by Saint-Gobain, which resulted in the immediate loss of 700 jobs. In terms of employment, the distribution of industry, export markets and viability, Biwaters was in a good position. What happened was a disgrace. We should have activated and made use of the 1973 measure.
  I forced a vote on the issue on Report, as reflected at columns 1094–95 of Hansard on 13 June, when I managed to muster 39 in support of the measure. Some 245 hon. Members voted against it. I do not imagine that the Government are going to have a change of heart and make a concession, so I intend to divide the House on my amendments. The vote on 13 June was the only hostile vote by Labour Members because the Bill contains many acceptable provisions. Indeed, there has been little hassle throughout its proceedings. The Bill is lengthy. It has been greatly debated and many amendments have been tabled, but there has not been a raft of votes or heated discussions. Opposition Members have in general been happy with the Bill. They view it as a way to produce a dynamic economy, and that part of new Labour ideology appeals to some of them.
  922
  A third attempt was made to introduce public interest measures. When the Lords discussed the Bill in Committee, probing amendments were tabled by Baroness Turner, supported by Lord Hoyle. My amendments have a different framework and context.
  Mr. Robathan: I just want to clarify one thing. Although we may not object to everything, we are not entirely happy with the Bill. However, much of it is sensible.
  Mr. Barnes: I realise that many people in the City and elsewhere will be happy with many of the measures. However, other people are attracted to different aspects of it, such as consumer rights, which we wanted to extend to worker rights, and bankruptcy. Had things been different, the 11 Clay Cross councillors, some of whom still represent people in my constituency, might have faced a different system.
  The scope of our debate is reduced to matters associated with the European Union and clawing back powers. In addition, the definition of public interest is a bit restrictive because it refers to the distribution of employment and industry. It is drafted in that way because of the possibility that it would be debated and can be discussed only in the context of amendments Nos. 53 and 54.
  6.45 pm
  We are restricted to European merger laws. They relate to mergers of a certain scale and to a community dimension, which in turn relates to a complex threshold provision. They are handled exclusively by the European Commission rather than national competition authorities. However, European law allows national competition authorities to request the Commission to consider a merger on a number of grounds including defence interests, mergers that primarily affect the member state and cases in which a member state needs to take action to protect its legitimate interests. The amendments would instigate and extend public interest concerns.
  The subject was elaborated on and discussed in the Lords. Lord Sainsbury explained that the intention of the amendments tabled there was
  "to preserve the current position, which is that, where necessary, the UK can use the domestic merger control regime to take action on matters other than competition, such as defence, in relation to cases that fall to"
  the economic community merger regulations. He went on:
  "It is important to note, however, that the power to protect legitimate interests will not range any wider than the public interest considerations that may be taken into account under the new UK merger regime."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 789.]
  My intention is not in line with that. I want to widen the scope, even though the extent to which I can do that under the procedures of the House is limited.
  I feel strongly about the matter, especially in light of the Biwaters experience and ensuing developments. It seemed that the Government were ready to get rid of the public interest concern as it related to mergers. The House needs another chance to express its views on that so that a residual part of the public interest remains.
  Dr. Cable: I admire the hon. Gentleman's persistence and stamina. I have supported him because he has a

  923
  case, although my point of departure is different from his. The existing system, which allows Ministers to make final decisions on mergers, has considerable disadvantages. That is why the Bill gets rid of it. The problem with the system is that it leads to capricious political intervention, but it does have some advantages. Ministers are ultimately accountable and can act in a wider public interest. There will be times, such as the impact of a merger on a geographical area, when that would be useful. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is desirable to have the principle of a backstop provision.
  Mr. Barnes: There is no arrangement by which the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading can use the public interest argument when referring a case to the Competition Commission. We should consider whether that power should fall to the Secretary of State or the director, or a combination of the two.
  Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman suggests options, but we are arguing about the principle.
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman said that ministerial decisions can be capricious. As a Minister who was involved in making competition decisions, I hasten to put it on the record that they were never capricious. Had they been capricious, they would have been subject to judicial review and legal proceedings. There are rightly strict controls on how Ministers make such decisions and on how they have to be promulgated and explained. The hon. Gentleman should reflect again. There can never be a capricious ministerial decision unless it is one that is overturned.
  Dr. Cable: The right hon. Gentleman may be playing with words. He is describing the procedure correctly, but Ministers have in the past made decisions on mergers policy that do not appear to have been inspired by competition policy or the public interest. That is why the Bill was introduced and why it has the support of all parties.
  The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has made his presentation on several occasions. I am not sure that we would be well served by having another Division on the matter, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to press it to a vote, I will support him.
  John McDonnell: The debate on public interest and public security, as defined by the European merger regulations, has been extensive but not particularly clear. It would be helpful for future interpretation of the law if the Minister stated on record whether, under those regulations, the definitions of public interest and public security take any account of the distribution of industry and employment. Are rates of employment and unemployment in an area a consideration in determining public interest or public security? Can the Minister give examples in which those factors would be taken into account?
  Mr. Redwood: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the Minister catches your eye, she will comment a little more on the main purpose of these amendments and on the relation between UK and European Union law.
  When the Bill that became the Competition Act 1998 was before the House, we were assured that it would be the final statement on the necessary division between
  924
  EU law and UK law. We were told that it would implement a new system that would ensure that we were not at variance with Brussels and that we had separated powers correctly. We are now told by Ministers that the Act is far from perfect and that we must pass voluminous legislation to get it right, even though EU competition law has not changed very much. The main definitions for that law were set out in the merger regulations and other important texts that have not changed in the intervening period.
  Will the Minister explain why errors were made and why she feels that the Government have now got it right? Is she prepared to say that this is a definitive version of the relative powers of the EU and the UK in this field, barring, of course, further change because of a development in the superior law of the EU? I was pleased to hear the Minister admit that EU law in this field is superior— and that that is reflected in the Bill— because I have long believed and argued that, and I have encountered resistance from those who want to pretend that the EU is less powerful than it is. That was an important statement by the Minister.
  Mr. Djanogly: I point out, in support of my right hon. Friend, that it was repeatedly said in Committee that the previous legislation is so recent that we have not had time to assess its implications and how it works in practice.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has made the powerful point that such complicated legislation, with many regulations, takes a long time to bed down. It takes time to establish the case law by which we see how legislation is working, so the Government, figuratively speaking, have pulled up the plant to see whether it is growing, which is not a good way of practising horticulture. I am worried that they may do that again because of the enormous complexity of this Bill. They lack a sureness of touch because they are trying to marry their political wish to tell the British people that Europe has very little power and is not taking strong legal powers beyond those of the nation states in their desire to align themselves with the obviously strong powers held by the Brussels regime in this and many other areas.
  Will the Minister reassure the House that she is aware of the current negotiations for a constitution for Europe? That is important work, and drafts have been in circulation. Can she assure the House that nothing in those drafts clarifying the relative powers of the Union and the member states will mean that she, or her successor, has to return to the House within a couple of years to legislate yet again? One worries that, as the Government fumble for a solution, this will become a perpetual round of legislating, revising and amending. That would mean that all those in the business community who are desperate for certainty about the law, about who applies it and about who has power would constantly have to go to expensive lawyers for interpretations of lengthy new legislation.
  I have declared my interest in the register, and I do not speak on behalf of business, but that community is increasingly befuddled by the length and complexity of legislation and the constant changes to it. It is beginning to feel that the Government change the law rather more often than does the EU, although they claim that in some way the EU requires those frequent changes.

  925
  Will the Minister reassure us that she has taken account of all the best legal advice about the current position, and that it is now definitive? Secondly, will she reassure us that nothing doing the rounds in Brussels or elsewhere in the EU is likely to make a material change? Thirdly, will she confirm that there is nothing in the preliminary drafts for the European constitution that will require us to revise the Bill? Fourthly, does she think that there can now be a period of greater certainty and clarity to allow our competition regime to bed down for years and give us a good chance to see how it works?
  Mr. Mark Field: I support the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and I think that the issue of certainty is central to the debate about the relationship between the EU legal regime on competition and that in the UK. My right hon. Friend rightly addressed the demand from business for more certainty. It is certainly odd that legislation passed as recently as 1998 is now being updated when it has not had an opportunity to bed down.
  My concern, however, goes further, and I am interested to hear the Minister's response. There seems to be confused thinking about the role of competition policy. Indeed, it has to be said that, whatever one thinks of EU competition policy, it is fairly certain, and it has a test— the dominant position test. One of the concerns addressed in Committee and in the Lords is that the theory underlying the Government's introduction of the Bill, which will presumably be an Act before long, is that it will bring in a "substantial lessening of competition" test. It strikes me that, notwithstanding the Minister's reassurance a few moments ago, there is a risk that if we are not careful we will fall foul of EU legislation and, as a result, our businesses will fall foul of the European court. I reiterate the point that we must have give the situation proper consideration and take full legal advice. The Minister reassured us that the Bill will be part and parcel of the EU process, but I can imagine that changing, particularly as we now seem to be diverging from the dominant position test.
  I turn briefly to the contribution of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and that of my old sparring partner, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I am sure that he is aware that only yesterday the Lords finally gave the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill its Third Reading. However, I am concerned that in his desire to get a balanced distribution of industry and employment in his amendment, the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire presumes that the trade unions are acting in the public interest. I do not believe that that is the case. The trade unions act, rightly, in their members' interests, but the idea that those interests and the public interest are one and the same is naïve. I do not favour more Government control.
  7 pm
  Mr. Barnes: Of course, a substantial part of the Enterprise Bill covers consumers, who have their own individual concerns and legitimate interests. The hon. Gentleman may remember that I attempted to table another batch of amendments arguing that workers organisations should have such representation, which is
  926
  not to say that they do not have sectional and selfish interests as well. However, they also have legitimate interests, which sometimes produce a fruitful result.
  Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I cannot remember all his contributions. I am sure that, like me, he is befuddled by a number of matters that have come before the House. The Bill has not only completed its Report stage but has come back before the House today. However, I accept his point that collective interests are at stake, including consumer matters which, no doubt, we will discuss later, even if only in outline.
  Opposition Members are concerned that large consumer bodies will play a more important role in the Bill's operation than their status necessarily dictates. They are not unaccountable, but should be regarded as a party with particular interests that do not necessarily amount to the public interest. I shall be interested in the Minister's response, but I am concerned that the amendments are proposing more Government control. It would be unwise to second-guess markets, as that served the country badly in the 1960s and 70s. If that were introduced in the Bill, there would be no great advantages, either for enterprise or the business community as a whole.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: May I respond first to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes)? I recognise that he has spent a considerable time trying to convince the Government of the wisdom of his case. Like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), I admire his stamina and efforts.
  The amendments to Lords amendments Nos. 53 and 54 seek to enable the Secretary of State to intervene and act to protect matters relating to
  "the legitimate interests of the balanced distribution of industry and employment"
  in cases that fall to the European Community merger regulation—the ECMR. I am not sure that the line numbers are accurate, but I think that that is the sense of my hon. Friend's proposals. We have previously debated in the House amendments that sought to introduce the consideration of matters such as employment in cases handled under the domestic regime. I shall not repeat in detail why the Government believe such changes are undesirable, although I agree with my hon. Friend that those matters are important. The Government believe that vigorous competition is the key to ensuring that United Kingdom businesses are better able to provide long-term and sustainable employment. Our record of creating more than 1.5 million new jobs since 1997 is proof of the success of our strategy.
  The domestic regime that we have proposed ensures that competition is the key consideration—we have made it clear that that should be the focus of future merger inquiries. The European regime already operates along those lines. Under the ECMR, the European Commission looks solely at the competition aspects of the merger. Only in a very few cases is it necessary for member states to act in parallel to address non-competition concerns. We have proposed that the grounds on which the Secretary of State acts in ECMR

  927
  cases should be no wider than those in which she may act in domestic cases. It seems sensible, therefore, to link the European intervention power to the considerations specified in clause 57. However, we also need to be aware of the impact of European law in ECMR cases. The ECMR provides that the grounds on which member states can act is limited to those specified as legitimate interests or recognised as such by a decision of the Commission. The grounds suggested by my hon. Friend are neither specified nor the subject of a Commission decision, so the amendments would have no effect in law. For those reasons, I urge him to withdraw his amendments, although I respect the fact that he has said that he may wish to press them to a vote.
  Turning to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the Competition Act 1998 and the Bill deal with different matters. The Competition Act deals with the introduction of prohibitions on anti-competitive agreements and abuses of the dominant position. The Bill is mainly about the reform of the merger and monopoly regimes, which were not touched by the Competition Act. The Bill completes the process of reform. We have also taken sensible steps to provide for future changes in Europe by providing for a power to deal with EC modernisation issues, although I emphasise the fact that the amendments are minor in relation to such matters. I hope that that clarifies my point that the Bill is a complementary exercise which completes the process begun by the Competition Act. Indeed, it also completes the reform of competition legislation and the competition regime in the UK, which lay untouched for several decades before the Government came to power in 1997.
  Mr. Redwood: Is the Minister assuring the House that the Bill completes the reform process so that we are completely compatible with European Union law? We would therefore need only to make changes in future if there were a big upheaval in EU law. Will she also confirm that no such upheaval is planned in the current discussions on the constitution and other matters?
  Miss Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that it would be foolish of me to respond to his quest for assurances. We are doing our best to ensure that we do not have to make significant changes in future. I doubt whether he had a crystal ball when he was in government, and I do not have one either. The provisions are as future-proof as possible in relation, for example, to the changes mentioned by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). We are discussing the future of the dominance test with the Commission and have moved towards a substantial lessening of competition. We would like the European authorities to do the same, but if they do not, that does not pose any difficulties for us. However, that is one of the main areas of discussion on competition law. I therefore hope that the right hon. Member for Wokingham accepts my assurances.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 19, page 11, line 43, after "of" insert
  "a notice or possible notice under section 41(2) or 58(2) or"
  Miss Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 20 and Government amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 23, 25 to 27, 29 to 33, 35 to 52, 55 to 64, 67 to 73, 75 to 77, 79, 80, 83, 85 to 87, 91 to 115, 118 to 123, 125 to 131 and 212 to 225.
  Miss Johnson: I shall speak to this group of merger and market amendments in two parts. First, I shall deal with the turnover threshold, and then I shall speak to themany technical amendments that constitute the remainder of the group.
  On the turnover threshold, we agree with the Lords that clause 22 should be amended. We believe that Lords amendment No. 20, which replaced the £45 million threshold for mergers with one of £100 million, should itself be amended by amendment (a), which inserts one of £70 million.
  The turnover threshold is one of two jurisdictional tests that make a merger eligible for investigation by the Office of Fair Trading. The other test is whether a merger would create or enhance a 25 per cent. share of supply. It is important to emphasise at the outset that these are eligibility thresholds only. If a merger involves the acquisition of a business with a UK turnover above the relevant threshold, the OFT is entitled to inquire into it. It does not mean that the merger will be referred or blocked but simply that the OFT can consider whether the merger raises sufficient competition concerns to justify a reference. The great majority of qualifying mergers are not subject to any further action by the competition authorities, but it is important that they can be assessed.
  The purpose of thresholds is to strike a balance between excessive and necessary regulation. They should be aimed at ensuring that mergers of real concern can be examined, but avoid interference with cases of no material competition concern. Getting the level right is necessarily a matter of judgment.
  The Bill replaces the current assets-based jurisdictional threshold with a turnover threshold. It is widely agreed that turnover is a better indication of the economic significance of a merger. The issue is at what level the new threshold should be set. Our goal in selecting the level of the turnover test has always been to bring within the scope of the merger regime broadly the same number of companies as currently qualify under the assets test. To get this right will inevitably take experience.
  Our research indicated that a £45 million level would represent neither a tightening nor a loosening of the domestic merger control regime. In the context of a Bill that has as one of its primary aims the safeguarding of competition, we think that it would be odd to be thinking in terms of any significant relaxation of the scope of the regime. Anti-competitive mergers can do serious harm to the interests of consumers and to the economy at large. Avoiding that is the whole point of merger control and it should not be overlooked.

  929
  Amending the threshold to £100 million, as the Lords propose, runs a serious risk of allowing anti-competitive mergers to proceed without any form of scrutiny by the competition authorities. The OFT has estimated that about 50 per cent. of the mergers that can currently be scrutinised would no longer be eligible for any form of investigation. Far greater reliance would have to be placed on the alternative share of supply test. That would go against the grain of experience to date. At present a big majority of mergers that qualify for investigation qualify under the assets test. It also goes against the grain of international notification regimes, which are invariably based on turnover thresholds.
  7.15 pm
  The share of supply test can be useful in the context of horizontal mergers, but it is more complex and cannot be used to bring vertical mergers within the scope of the regime. For example, a merger that was scrutinised last year, the Dynergy/BG Storage merger, would not have qualified under a £100 million turnover threshold, or under the share of supply test. The merger could have affected domestic gas prices and is therefore the sort of case that we would want investigated.
  With a very high turnover threshold, we risk missing mergers of small but potentially significant companies with lower market shares, such as IT or biotech companies, which none the less represent a significant threat to established firms. It is because of such examples that the Competition Commission has expressed serious concerns about the impact that a turnover threshold of £100 million might have.
  We recognise, however, that the threshold figure is an issue around which there are strong feelings. We have no desire to increase unnecessary regulation in this area, or in any other. We have also noted that the assets threshold of £70 million has not been adjusted since 1994. A review of that figure might have been appropriate before long. We recognise that estimating the practical impact of the new turnover threshold is necessarily an imperfect science, and that it would be unfortunate if we had unintentionally caught too many cases. In the light of pressures for a higher figure, we therefore propose amending the Lords amendment so that the turnover threshold is initially set at £70 million.
  We offer this raised threshold amendment with some unease. If it proved subsequently that a significant number of harmful anti-competitive mergers were escaping scrutiny altogether, the Government would have no choice but to reduce the threshold to an appropriate level. We will need to keep the matter under review. I hope that the £70 million threshold will be acceptable to the House.
  Mr. Djanogly: In the same way as the Government intend to keep the matter under review with a view to moving the figure downwards, does the Minister accept that it may be more appropriate to move the figure upwards? Will the Government keep an open mind about what the appropriate figure should be after the Bill is enacted?
  Miss Johnson: Yes, indeed. We will keep an open mind. The entire discussion is about the methodology of
  930
  achieving in turnover terms the same effect as the asset threshold had before. We want neither to relax the regime nor to tighten it. We need to achieve equivalence; the question is which figure would achieve that. All our research suggested £45 million, but we have not managed to convince others of that, so we are suggesting moving to £70 million. There is a clear indication that were we to move to £100 million, there would be a significant relaxation of the merger control regime, which would be highly undesirable, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree. That is why we have arrived at the £70 million figure.
  Mr. Djanogly: indicated dissent.
  Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head in a worrying way, but does not wish to elaborate.
  The remaining amendments in the group are all primarily technical changes to the Bill to improve its functioning. They reflect work that has been done in the other place to respond to points raised by noble Lords and to check the Bill for accuracy. Unless hon. Members wish me to go through any of the amendments in detail, I do not propose to do so at this point.
  Mr. Robathan: It is unfortunate that on such an extraordinarily important and complex issue, which has taken up a great deal of the time of both Houses, with the exception of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and his supporter, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), no hon. Member has been willing to speak in support of the Government.
  John McDonnell: I was not supporting the Government.
  Mr. Robathan: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for suggesting that he was supporting his Front-Bench colleagues. [Interruption.] I know that he has a reputation to protect. I meant that it is a pity that no Government Back Benchers who served on the Committee or others wished to take part in the debate.
  On Lords amendment No. 20, the Government have been pragmatic and sensible, and we shall not oppose the change. Of course, we would prefer to stick with a £100 million threshold. None the less, I think that that is a moot point and a matter of judgment, so perhaps the compromise is a happy one. It is possible that the Government's acceptance of a £70 million threshold represents a recognition that turnovers are currently falling, so fewer people might be caught in that threshold as well.
  In the House of Lords, the Government committed themselves to reviewing the level within three years of implementation. The Minister has mentioned reviewing. Will there be a rolling review? Does she believe that she could raise the threshold if the provision proves not to work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) suggested?
  Apart from that, I think that we are happy to accept the amendments.
  Dr. Cable: I shall speak very much in the same spirit as the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).

  931
  I accept that the Minister has moved a considerable way towards acknowledging the criticisms about size levelled by the business sector. The worrying aspect of the original discussion was a sense that a number had merely been written on the back of an envelope and that it did not satisfy any scientific tests. I do not know whether the figure is right or wrong, as I am going by the information that I have been given. None the less, I gather that the CBI conducted an extensive survey of UK companies that might come within the Bill's scope in which it cited a ratio of the order of 1.2:1 in describing the relationship between turnover and assets. If that had been applied as an average, the appropriate turnover figure would have been about £85 million. I do not know whether those figures are right or wrong. Clearly, market capitalisation is very volatile and big changes have occurred in the past two years, but that seems a plausible order of magnitude to people in the industry, and I am inclined to accept their judgment.
  The key point is that the Government are keeping the matter under review and are committed to the principle of maintaining after the Bill is enacted a number of merger investigations that is roughly equivalent to the number that were conducted previously. I am not entirely clear about when the review will take place. My understanding had been that the Government would reconsider the issue after a year, rather than three years. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that point.
  In general, however, I think that the compromise that is being offered is helpful and is a move in the right direction. I am sure that most people in the business sector will accept that the provision is a useful move towards meeting their concerns about over-regulation.
  Mr. Djanogly: In supporting the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), and having examined the debate on these matters that occurred in the other place, I should like to say that there seemed to be some justification for the £100 million figure. However, I was happy to hear the Minister say that an open mind would be kept on the matter and that it would be reviewed.
  In introducing the Bill, the Government's clear intention was to help enterprise by inducing a competitive environment and a level playing field. That has been accepted in all parts of the House. On the other hand, at various stages in the Bill's passage, Opposition Members have stated our concern that, rather than helping competition, the Bill borders on restricting the ability of companies to trade and is unnecessarily onerous for directors.
  The turnover benchmark key in that context is obviously a very important issue. The merger rules are very complicated. Companies and directors that become involved in any sort of investigation must contend with enormously significant costs and a massive amount of time will be taken from them in running their businesses. There is always a fear in respect of such legislation that the OFT and the Serious Fraud Office, which will now get the same powers, will embark on fishing expeditions.
  After the Committee proceedings, the Minister should know that, having spoken to a competition legal practitioner, my understanding is that the OFT has recently changed its procedure. The OFT is not only investigating companies, but putting in place a new
  932
  procedure in which it asks companies to conduct its investigations on its behalf. It will basically send the companies lists of matters for investigation and ask them to come up with the goods. That is a serious development. Instead of having a certain amount of costs carried by the OFT, companies will now have to cover those costs themselves. In other words, they will have to employ professionals to do the OFT's work. Such concerns are very serious and are becoming more so.
  The turnover threshold is extremely important in that context. The concern is that, if we do not get the level right, it could stunt the growth of some of our fastest growing companies. We should want to encourage those companies, instead of restricting them with unnecessary regulation and cost. Obviously, stopping their growth will be bad for the economy overall.
  While I certainly appreciate that the £70 million figure is better than the original one, companies and practitioners have communicated genuine concerns to me. I therefore hope that the Minister and the Government will keep to what they have said about reviewing the figure carefully and seeing how it works in practice.
  Mr. Redwood: I usually speak as a hawkish person on competition matters. I think that it is most important that the regulator and the Government are vigilant in ensuring that no market is damaged by any company having unreasonable market power. That is especially important when mergers or acquisitions are being planned.
  I accept that it is possible for a company to seek dominance in a local area or region in the United Kingdom and that that might give the authorities reason to investigate mergers with relatively small turnovers. However, we should remember the context of the United Kingdom economy, which is the fourth largest economy in the world and is exposed to an enormous amount of overseas trading and huge competition from the five continents of the world. We are now talking about an economy with more than £1 trillion in national turnover. Therefore, even a business concern with a turnover of £100 million would represent 0.01 per cent. of total national income. If such a business were a national one, it would be unlikely to have a strong position unless it operated in a tiny marketplace, as in most of the larger marketplaces such turnover figures would be unlikely to attract the attention of the authorities.
  Mr. Djanogly: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. In that context, I think that it is worth mentioning—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I tell the hon. Gentleman that it is a good custom to address the Chair?
  Mr. Djanogly: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It may be worth pointing out to my right hon. Friend that he might want to take into account in his speech the size of the public sector. For instance, it was disclosed to the Trade and Industry Committee only the other day that the public sector now accounts for 40 per cent.—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman a second time, but as I

  933
  understand it, he is supposed to be making an intervention on his right hon. Friend and not a second speech.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Redwood: I get the drift of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) that it is important to understand the public sector context as well as the overall national income figures to which I have referred so far.
  The Minister was right to point out that there are two tests. The lower the turnover threshold in the Bill, the more the reliance on the test of 25 per cent. or more of the market. The essence of good judgment will rest on the competition authorities and those contemplating the reference in defining the marketplace. That is always the crucial, difficult issue: is the marketplace all chocolate, specific chocolate bars, or a brand that is so well known that, sui generis, it has 100 per cent. of the market? How do we handle such issues? There have been famous cases over the years, with companies wanting as generous a definition as possible, and consumer groups and others preferring a narrow definition.
  Mr. Mark Hoban: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Does he know how much time lawyers, accountants and other consultants spend on defining a market? From my experience, even in apparently straightforward matters, such as the supply of paper, the market can be fragmented in many different ways. Definition of the market is therefore so important that the turnover test may not be appropriate.
  Mr. Redwood: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees that defining the market is crucial. We must examine the turnover threshold in the light of that difficult judgment.
  Narrowly defined markets in which dominance is a problem can exist, and one could gain a dominant position in parts of the national market because the services or goods are not easily transported beyond the boundaries of a specific area. In such circumstances, a lowish turnover threshold might be desirable. Therefore I do not approach the figure of £45 million from the position that it is definitely wrong because it is low and that, as a deregulator, I should like it to be higher.
  I ask myself the question that the Minister rightly asked: will a turnover threshold of £45 million provide approximately the same as the 1994 £70 million asset threshold, with which I am happy? It has worked well, and the Government must also believe that, because they have not amended it since coming to office and the Minister said that she was trying to reach equivalence when shifting to turnover. I agree with her reasoning. It is right to move to turnover because it is more meaningful than assets when defining a market. After all, turnover affects consumers, whereas the size of the asset base makes little difference to consumers except through the mediation of price. The consumer wants to know how much turnover is being transacted, so turnover is the appropriate test.
  I believed that it was implausible for £70 million of assets to correspond with £45 million of turnover. I was therefore interested to hear the remarks of the hon.
  934
  Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who said that CBI research suggested a ratio of 1.2:1. I understand how such a figure could be derived. Earlier, I did some calculations on the back of an envelope and got a figure of at least £70 million for equivalence. If we take £45 million as the figure for turnover, we assume exceedingly profitable businesses to achieve an asset value of £70 million. The current state of most British industry and service sector activities shows that we are nowhere near the profitability that we would need on average to sustain translating £70 million of assets into only £45 million of turnover. A ratio of 1:1 would be required as a minimum; at least £70 million of turnover would be needed to achieve £70 million of assets. Even in that case, one assumes approximately 10 per cent. of turnover. That is an exceedingly good return for all but successful, well protected businesses such as pharmaceutical companies.
  The judgment is difficult to make. My first reaction on reading the amendments and the debate in another place was that £100 million was a better round number and closer to what one might calculate to achieve equivalence to the old assets test. However, the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) have persuaded me that perhaps we should start with the figure of £70 million and a 1:1 ratio of assets to turnover in the hope that one day, activities will be more profitable and the figure will prove more realistic.
  Mr. Robathan: I want my right hon. Friend to understand that I should prefer a threshold of £100 million. That was the CBI's broad assessment. However, the decision is subjective and perhaps we should not be too dogmatic in resisting the Government's amendment.
  Mr. Redwood: Logic and knowledge of business tell me that £100 million is more sensible from the business point of view.
  Mr. Mark Field: Perhaps there is some wisdom and method in the Government's madness. Given the state of the economy, a company with a turnover of £100 million this year is likely to have a turnover of £70 million next year.
  Mr. Redwood: That introduces an irreverent political point into a hitherto elegant, non-partisan debate. However, I take my hon. Friend's point: business is not as profitable or successful in the round as one would like.
  Although I understand the logic for the figure of £100 million, as a competition hawk, I appreciate the case for starting at £70 million. However, I want to probe the Minister a little more on her interesting point that the Government had been considering that the £70 million asset threshold that was set in 1994 might no longer be appropriate. There were clearly good years in the economy in the mid-1990s, and not all have been overwhelmed or eroded by events since 2000. It would therefore be interesting to know the extent of the Government's thinking about updating the assets test. If they conclude that £70 million is low for the assets test, they must also determine that £70 million is far too low for the turnover test. I cannot be persuaded that

  935
  anything less than a ratio of 1:1 produces equivalence. I should be intrigued to learn the Minister's view on that important topic.
  Mr. Hoban: We are considering an important issue and I am grateful to my noble Friend Lord Hunt for pressing it in another place. In considering the competition law reform that the Government set in train in their first Parliament and the Minister's earlier comment that she believed that we had reached the end of the process, it is important to examine the threshold for the turnover test and ensure its fitness for today's business environment. The Government have chosen a turnover limit that is the equivalent of the gross asset test under the previous regime. That leads me to question the amount of research that the Government undertook before selecting £70 million as an appropriate turnover threshold.
  Lord Hunt's amendment was based on the considerable research that the CBI carried out. It examined 500 companies in different sectors to determine the appropriate threshold for the turnover test. I wonder whether the figure of £70 million was arbitrary and based on the previous test. The Government should consider properly the right amount of turnover in today's business environment. The competition process will be greatly enhanced by a sensible threshold. Although, as the Minister said, many references are not made when a merger is called in under the turnover test, businesses are anxious about a deal being called in.
  As I said in an intervention, consultants and others have spent much time examining the structure of a deal to ensure that it does not rise above the threshold. I should hate to believe that the Government are setting a low threshold for the turnover test without considering the costs that businesses will bear by reducing it from £100 million to £70 million.
  Mr. Djanogly: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and reminds me of the old adage that turnover is for vanity and profit is for sanity. That has the important implication that, in a tough economic environment such as the one that we have now, the turnover might mean that companies will have less profit and that it would be more important to have a higher turnover figure because of that.
  Mr. Hoban: I am aware of my hon. Friend's commercial background and his understanding of these issues, and he makes an important point. A company could have relatively low profitability, which might suggest that it had a weak market position and low market share, and that it perhaps did not have the opportunity to impact on the competitive environment in which it operates. Simply because its turnover was more than £70 million, however, that application would be called in and looked at by the OFT. It is, therefore, important to ensure that the turnover level is set fairly and appropriately. The Minister referred earlier to the way in which that level could be reviewed. She intimated that it could be reviewed downwards, and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) referred to an upwards review.
  It would benefit both practitioners and Members of the House if the Minister could comment on the basis on which such an adjustment could take place, and on
  936
  when she expects that review to happen. What method of consultation would she use to ensure that we set the right level of turnover? How long a period would elapse between the Bill becoming an Act and the review taking place? Clearly, we want to ensure that we have the right answer to this, and we do not want to see too much uncertainty in the market.
  Mr. Mark Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that, following the CBI's research to which several hon. Members have referred in this small debate, one of the best ways forward might be for the Government to look at the number of companies likely to be encompassed within tile confines of such a turnover test? They could then adjust the test on the basis of, for example, the 20,000 or 30,000 companies that would be subject to the provision. In other words, the measure would have an eye to a much more broadly based market, rather than being overly hamstrung by the purely financial terms of turnover.
  Mr. Hoban: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point about the number of companies being brought into the provisions of the Bill. My understanding from reading the debates in the other place is that the £45 million level was set with a view to bringing the same number of companies into the net as the £70 million gross asset test would have brought in. I think I see the Minister nodding assent to that explanation, and I am grateful for that. We should not make decisions about thresholds simply on the basis of getting an equivalent number of companies into the net. That would be an inappropriate way of monitoring competition, because we should be looking at the impact of transactions on competition and the market, rather than focusing on the level of turnover.
  Mr. Robathan: Does my hon. Friend share my suspicion that there has been no well-justified or empirical analysis of this threshold? We thought that the original figure of £45 million was plucked out of the air. Let us take a median point and pluck the figure of £70 million out of the air, because that seems better and might satisfy us. To a certain extent it has done so. There has not been sufficient analysis of why we should have the figure of £70 million.
  Mr. Hoban: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because this is one of my principal concerns. I would not say that the £70 million figure has been plucked out of the air, because that would be unfair to the Government. It is, however, a number with which we are familiar from the gross asset test applied under the previous regime. It is important that we use a sensible figure that is based on empirical evidence. That is the basis of the £100 million that the CBI suggested, which was proposed in amendments in the other place and accepted into the Bill there.
  I am concerned that the amendment that the Government have tabled is arbitrary in the way in which it sets a threshold for applications to be investigated by the OFT. The Government should be clear that this is only a holding figure. They should reconsider it in the light of experience and empirical evidence, and I hope that the CBI survey that was used to set the figure of £100 million can be used as a basis for the research

  937
  involved. Will the Minister outline in more detail the mechanisms that the Government expect to have in place when looking at the applicability and appropriateness of the £70 million limit?
  7.45 pm
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I shall endeavour to be brief. Conservative Members have raised broadly the same issues in different guises, and I think that I can be fairly brief in my response.
  I shall deal first with the figure set for the turnover threshold. The Competition Commission's estimate of the operation of the £100 million turnover threshold is that there would be 50 per cent. fewer mergers under consideration. It is worth reiterating that figure. In fact, the analysis that the Government carried out was based on the Fame database, which gives details of 1,699,137 companies that filed in 2000–01. That showed that there were 9,966 live companies with assets of £70 million or more. It also showed 7,806 companies with a United Kingdom turnover of £45 million. So, the turnover figure was as close as we could get to that. Only 5,350 companies on the database have a UK turnover of £70 million or more. The figure for companies with a turnover of £100 million was 2,258, compared with the original number of 9,966, based on the assets figure.
  Mr. Redwood: We are talking about a merger, so we have to add one turnover to another. Has the Minister any information on how many of the mergers that have been referred and blocked under the present regime would not have been blocked under either the £70 million or the £100 million turnover figure? That is the more interesting figure for us to know.
  Miss Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I do not have the whole analysis file here, but very detailed work went on. I hope that I have explained one approach that was made by the Government, and why the figure was picked out as being the best stab that we could make. We shared our findings with the CBI, which undertook further analysis using the different methodology to which other hon. Members have referred. That suggested that it thought that the £100 million figure would be more appropriate, but its approach is based on measuring the average turnover of the companies that happen to meet the assets test, establishing a ratio of that turnover to assets and applying the ratio to the £70 million assets threshold to establish an equivalent turnover threshold. We think that that is an unreliable way of doing it.
  Changing the test means that we will inevitably cover a slightly different range of companies. We certainly think that new technology companies whose turnover might significantly exceed their asset base might be covered by the new test for the first time. I return to my original point, with which I am sure all hon. Members agree, that we are seeking to find an equivalent—by moving from the assets test to the turnover test—that captures those companies within the regime for consideration. As I have said, many of the cases are just cleared mergers or investigations that are not taken further. It is important that we look at the same segment in relation to competition issues.
  938
  It is also important to note that the turnover threshold relates to the turnover of the target company, to which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) referred. A large company may acquire any company with a turnover up to the threshold without qualifying under this test.
  I hope that I have explained why we have got to where we are. We have all agreed that we need to compromise. Clause 27(4) contains a requirement for the Office of Fair Trading to report to the Secretary of State on the appropriateness of the level. I believe that we need to reconsider this matter as time goes on.
  Assurances that the Government gave in the other place about the three-year review need to be seen in the light of the original £45 million figure. We have the same interests as Opposition Members and will want to consider how the £70 million figure is emerging to see that it is broadly producing the same playing field for competition merger concerns to be considered as the present regime does, with the improvement of the turnover test. I hope that Opposition Members will support these amendments.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Government amendment to Lords amendment No. 20 agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 20, as amended, agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 52 agreed to.

  After Clause 65
  Lords amendment: No. 53, insert the following new Clause—
  "Intervention to protect legitimate interests

  (1) Subsection(2) applies where—

  (a) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for suspecting that it is or may be the case that—

  (i) a relevant merger situation has been created or that arrangements are in progress or in contemplation which, if carried into effect, will result in the creation of a relevant merger situation; and

  (ii) a concentration with a Community dimension (within the meaning of the European Merger Regulations), or a part of such a concentration, has thereby arisen or will thereby arise;

  (b) a reference which would otherwise be possible under section 21 or 32 is prevented from being made under that section in relation to the relevant merger situation concerned by virtue of Community law or anything done under or in accordance with it; and

  (c) the Secretary of State is considering whether to take appropriate measures to protect legitimate interests as permitted by article 21(3) of the European Merger Regulations.

  (2) The Secretary of State may give a notice to the OFT (in this section "a European intervention notice") if he believes that it is or may be the case that one or more than one public interest consideration is relevant to a consideration of the relevant merger situation concerned.

  (3) A European intervention notice shall state—

  (a) the relevant merger situation concerned;

  (b) the public interest consideration or considerations which are, or may be, relevant to a consideration of the relevant merger situation concerned; and

  (c) where any public interest consideration concerned is not finalised, the proposed timetable for finalising it.

  (4) Where the Secretary of State believes that it is or may be the case that two or more public interest considerations are relevant to a consideration of the relevant merger situation concerned, he may decide not to mention in the intervention notice such of those considerations as he considers appropriate.

  939

  (5) No more than one European intervention notice shall be given under subsection (2) in relation to the same relevant merger situation.

  (6) Where the Secretary of State has given a European intervention notice mentioning a public interest consideration which, at that time, is not finalised, he shall, as soon as practicable, take such action as is within his power to ensure that it is finalised.

  (7) For the purposes of deciding whether a relevant merger situation has been created or whether arrangements are in progress or in contemplation which, if carried into effect, will result in the creation of a relevant merger situation, sections 22 to 31 (read together with section 33) shall apply for the purposes of this section as they do for the purposes of Chapter 1 but subject to subsection (8).

  (8) In their application by virtue of subsection (7) sections 22 to 31 shall have effect as if—

  (a) references in those sections to the decision-making authority were references to the Secretary of State;

  (b) for paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 22(9) there were substituted ", in relation to the giving of a European intervention notice, the time when the notice is given";

  (c) the references to the OFT in section 23(2)(a) and (b) included references to the Secretary of State;

  (d) sections 24, 30 and 31 were omitted; and

  (e) the references in sections 22 to 28 to the making of a reference or a reference were, so far as necessary, references to the giving of a European intervention notice or a European intervention notice.

  (9) Section 41(3) shall, in its application to this section and section (Scheme for protecting legitimate interests), have effect as if for the words "intervention notice" there were substituted "European intervention notice"."

  Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment (a), after "consideration", insert—
  ", or a matter relating to the legitimate interests of the balanced distribution of industry and employment,".—[Mr. Barnes.]
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 283.

  Division No. 344]

  [7:52pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Banks, Tony

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Barrett, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Burnett, John

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Reid, Allan (Argyll & Bute)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Rendel, David

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Clapham, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

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

  Doughty, Sue

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Stunell, Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Thurso, John

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Holmes, Paul

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Weir, Michael

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Wishart, Pete

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Lamb, Norman

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Tom Brake and Mr. Kelvin Hopkins

  McDonnell, John

  940

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Ainger, Nick

  Doran, Frank

  Alexander, Douglas

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Allen, Graham

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Edwards, Huw

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Etherington, Bill

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Battle, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fisher, Mark

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Flint, Caroline

  Benn, Hilary

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Follett, Barbara

  Berry, Roger

  Foster, rh Derek

  Blackman, Liz

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Borrow, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Brennan, Kevin

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Bryant, Chris

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burden, Richard

  Goggins, Paul

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Burnham, Andy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Grogan, John

  Cairns, David

  Hain, rh Peter

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Hanson, David

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Challen, Colin

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Chaytor, David

  Healey, John

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hermon, Lady

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heyes, David

  Clelland, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Colman, Tony

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Corston, Jean

  Hutton, rh John

  Cousins, Jim

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Illsley, Eric

  Crausby, David

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cruddas, Jon

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Cummings, John

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  David, Wayne

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Denham, rh John

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dodds, Nigel

  Kidney, David

  941

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pound, Stephen

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Purnell, James

  Lammy, David

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rammell, Bill

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Redwood, rh John

  Lepper, David

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

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

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Love Andrew

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Rooney, Terry

  McCafferty, Chris

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Ruane, Chris

  MacDougall, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  McFall, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Salter, Martin

  McKechin, Ann

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sawford, Phil

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McNulty, Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  MacShane, Denis

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Soley, Clive

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Southworth, Helen

  Spellar, rh John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Squire, Rachel

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Miliband, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Mole, Chris

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Moran, Margaret

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Trickett, Jon

  Norman, Archie

  Truswell, Paul

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Organ, Diana

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Owen, Albert

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Perham, Linda

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Picking, Anne

  White, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Plaskitt, James

  Winnick, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Woodward, Shaun

  942

  Woolas, Phil

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Mr. John Heppell

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 54 to 131 agreed to.

Clause 182

  CARTEL OFFENCE: SUPPLEMENTARY
  Lords amendment: No. 132, in page 132, line 33, leave out "section" and insert "paragraph"
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 133 to 135 and 226 to 228.
  Miss Johnson: These are a few minor and improving amendments to parts 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill. Clause 191 provides for professional privilege in respect of legal and banking material in the context of investigations of a cartel offence. Amendment No. 133 provides a different way of accounting for the equivalent in Scotland of legal professional privilege. This was a response to a point initially raised by the Opposition in the other place. The amendment means that the current Scottish custom and practice is properly reflected in the Bill. It follows the more recent precedent of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and provides a definition that corresponds more closely with Scottish practice.
  Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 correct a technical defect in the provisions relating to competition disqualification undertakings. They make it clear that the OFT or a specified regulator can rely on its own judgment when considering whether a person is unfit to be involved in the management of a company. That requirement applies before it can accept a competition disqualification undertaking from an individual. In making its assessment, the OFT or the regulator will take into account the same considerations in relation to a director's conduct that a court would have to do.
  Amendments Nos. 226 and 227 allow for the appointment of independent members to the Competition Commission's governing council. The addition of these independent members will strengthen the leadership of the Competition Commission, and reflects best practice in corporate governance. The council will now consist of a chairman, the deputy-chairman, the chief executive and one or more independent members.
  Mr. Robathan: We are discussing very important issues that perhaps require more airing than they have received in the past, especially since many of them were not even discussed in the Lords. Is it true that, because of the programming of discussion in Committee on the Floor of the House, cartels were not even discussed? If so, does the Minister consider that helpful?
  Miss Johnson: We are here to discuss Lords amendments, and I am unable to comment in detail on previous consideration of the Bill. The question of what

  943
  was discussed when is a matter of record in this House and in Standing Committee. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question rests to a considerable extent on the way in which the Opposition used the time available to them.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 208

  APPLICATIONS
  Lords amendment: No. 143, in page 151, line 28, after "Investment" insert "in".
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: with this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 144 to 147.
  Miss Johnson: The amendments all relate to part 8 of the Bill. Amendment No. 144 is intended to meet the concerns expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights about the provisions in clause 213 concerning applications for interim enforcement orders. The Committee's 21st report stated that it would be beneficial for the Bill to draw attention to the need for the courts to take account of the whole picture, rather than simply accepting the facts presented by the applicant. When an application for an interim enforcement order is made without notice being given to the person named in the application, the whole picture is necessarily limited to the evidence put before the court by the applicant. It is our view that, on an application without notice, the applicant will be obliged to put before the court all material facts, and that the court will consider them in deciding whether to make an interim enforcement order. The Committee agrees that that is likely to be the case, but for clarity amendment No. 144 includes that obligation in the Bill. The amendment—which applies to all applications for interim injunctions, and not simply to those made without notice—corresponds to a similar provision in practice direction 25, in England and Wales, on interim injunctions.
  Mr. Djanogly: Would not the rights in the amendments exist in any event? If so, can the Minister justify the need for the amendments?
  Miss Johnson: I had hoped that I was doing that. The Joint Committee has agreed that the presentation of the material facts before the court is important and that is likely to be the case whatever it says in the Bill. The Joint Committee was concerned about the expression of that in the Bill, in terms of the responsibility for human rights. We have taken that guidance and expertise into consideration when tabling Lords amendment No. 144 which makes that explicit.
  Mr. Hoban: I appreciate the reasons that the Minister has given for tabling the amendment, and we all agree with them. However, would the provisions increase the time it takes to obtain interim enforcement orders? What impact would it have on the process?
  Miss Johnson: It is a matter of making the obligations clear and not of altering the time scale. If anything, the process would be speeded up, not hindered.
  944
  Lords amendments Nos. 145 and 146 were made in response to an amendment tabled in the Lords Committee which the Government agreed to consider. When clause 224(5) left this House, it read:
  "If the OFT is preparing advice or information".
  The amendment recognised that those words were inconsistent, given that the section in fact requires the OFT to produce such advice and information.
  Lords amendment No. 147 is a technical amendment to clause 227, which concerns the supply of goods and services. The definition of the arrangements for supply when the Bill left this House mirrored that currently in section 138(3) of the Fair Trading Act 1973. That section refers to "documents" and "correspondence", which do not take account of today's world of internet transactions and other forms of electronic communications and commerce. Lords amendment No. 147 updates those provisions to include arrangements made by electronic means. Lords amendment No. 143 makes a minor drafting change in the title of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 144 to 147 agreed to.

Clause 233

  STATUTORY FUNCTIONS
  Lords amendment: No. 148, in page 166, line 13, at end insert—
  "() In subsection (1) the reference to an enactment includes a reference to an enactment contained in —

  (a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

  (b) Northern Ireland legislation;

  (c) subordinate legislation."

  Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 149 to 155.
  Miss Johnson: The amendments all relate to the information exchange provisions in part 9 of the Bill. Lords Amendments Nos. 148, 149 and 150 are minor technical amendments to clause 233. Lords amendments Nos. 148 and 149 ensure that the definition of "enactment" in clause 233 can include Scottish and Northern Ireland legislation, and subordinate legislation. That is to ensure that the Scottish and Northern Ireland legislation can be added to schedule 14 by order after Royal Assent, and so brought within part 9.
  Lords Amendment No. 150 ensures that the order-making powers in both subsections (1)(c) and (4) of clause 233 are subject to negative resolution procedure. Subsection (5) of clause 233 of the Bill as it left this House referred only to the power to amend schedule 14 in subsection (4).
  Mr. Greg Knight: Why does Lords amendment No. 148 not include a reference to a resolution of the Welsh Assembly?
  Miss Johnson: I may have to undertake to write to the right hon. Gentleman on the point that he has raised. I cannot answer that point now, but I am grateful to him for raising it.

  945
  Lords Amendments Nos. 151 and 152 bring the disclosure gateway for criminal proceedings in part 9 into line with the equivalent gateway in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Amendment No. 151 amends the gateway to allow disclosure to "any person" for the purposes of criminal proceedings. We made that change after listening to concerns expressed by the Local Authorities Co-ordinating body on Regulatory Services—LACORS—and the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy that part 9 would have prevented trading standards from disclosing information to consumers and private bodies to assist them in bringing private prosecutions. Industry bodies in particular have used such information to assist with successful private prosecutions for copyright theft. We do not wish to prevent such cases being taken in future, and saw no reason why the gateway for criminal proceedings in this Bill should be any narrower than that in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
  8.15 pm
  To accompany the widening of the gateway for criminal proceedings, we have introduced an additional safeguard which must be taken into consideration by a public authority before information is disclosed under the gateway. Lords Amendment No. 152 therefore adds a requirement that, before disclosing information for the purposes of UK criminal proceedings, the disclosing authority must have satisfied itself that the disclosure is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it. This amendment responds to one tabled in the Lords Committee and, together with amendment No. 186, brings clause 237 into line with the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
  Lords Amendment No. 153 responds to two important recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure that the provisions on overseas disclosure are subject to tighter safeguards. First, the Committee recommended that the considerations that will be used by UK public authorities when making decisions on whether to disclose information to overseas authorities should be placed on the face of the Bill. Secondly, the Committee recommended that the criteria should include a consideration on whether the disclosure being contemplated would be proportionate to a pressing social need which the disclosure would address, and whether the matter for which disclosure is sought is sufficiently serious to justify disclosure. Amendment No. 153 therefore adds to clause 238 a set of considerations to which an authority must have regard before disclosing information to an overseas authority.
  Mr. Bellingham: In the other place, there was some discussion about the different rules pertaining to British overseas territories. Can the Minister elaborate on whether they will be treated any differently from other countries?
  Miss Johnson: I would be grateful for a reference to the report of the debate in the other place in which those matters were considered, because I am not familiar with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
  946
  On disclosure to overseas authorities, amendment No. 154 will ensure that legislation which is to be specified for the purposes of Community or domestic infringements in part 8 will fall within the definition of "relevant legislation". That will enable public authorities in the UK to disclose information to overseas authorities where those authorities wish to carry out investigations or bring civil proceedings under their equivalent legislation.
  If the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) could supply me with the details of the point that he has just made, I hope to be able to reply to it.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 149 to 155 agreed to.

Clause 246

  PROHIBITION OF APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECEIVER
  Lords amendment: No. 156, in page 172, line 34, leave out "72F" and insert "72FA".
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 157 to 160 and amendment No.165.
  Miss Johnson: During the passage of the Bill concerns were expressed about the potential impact that the prohibition of the appointment of an administrative receiver would have on the social housing sector. Following constructive dialogues between officials and representatives from all parts of the sector, I am pleased to say that we were able to take on board and act upon their concerns. It was recognised that both the Housing Act 1996— which covers England and Wales—and the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 provide for a moratorium period which provides an alternative means to facilitate rescues and provide a stay on unilateral action by lenders when registered social landlords are in financial difficulty. The provisions apply to housing associations that are registered social landlords.
  Lords amendments Nos. 157 and 156 and Nos. 158 to 160 are consequential amendments. They exclude organisations that are companies from the prohibition on the appointment of an administrative receiver.
  Lords amendment No. 165 ensures that the enabling power extending administration and company voluntary arrangements to industrial and provident societies does not apply to industrial and provident societies that are registered social landlords.
  Lords amendments agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 157 to 160 agreed to.

Clause 247

  LIQUIDATOR'S POWERS
  Lords amendment: No. 161, in page 176, line 8, at end insert—
  "() Subsection (2) shall also not apply to a company if—

  947

  (a)the liquidator, administrator or receiver applies to the court for an order under this subsection on the ground that the cost of making a distribution to unsecured creditors would be disproportionate to the benefits, and

  the court orders that subsection (2) shall not apply."

  Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 162 to 164, 174, 175 and 229 to 264.
  Miss Johnson: Before detailing the amendments and the thinking behind them, I wish to thank the Opposition parties for their keen interest in the fine details of this legislation. I am extremely grateful for the various amendments that have been tabled in both Houses relating to the corporate insolvency provisions of this Bill.
  I am grateful because those amendments have provided us with an opportunity to revisit the drafting of the provisions and to refine it so that our policy aims are clarified in the Bill. Indeed, this process was started way back in the summer, during the debates in this House. It was at that time that our attention was drawn to the potential pitfalls that we faced in seeking to make the administration procedure practicable and workable while ensuring that it remained both fair and focused. I believe that we now have a Bill that is exactly that, and it is for that reason that I am grateful to hon. Members and to those in another place. I shall now turn to the details of the amendments in question.
  The need for Lords amendment No. 161 was recognised following an amendment tabled, but not moved, by the Opposition in the Lords Committee. It gives the office holder the ability to apply to the court in order that he does not have to implement the ring fence in instances where, despite the net property exceeding the prescribed minimum, he or she feels that the costs of distributing the prescribed part would outweigh the benefits.
  Mr. Djanogly: In what circumstances is the provision likely to apply? I agree with the thinking behind the amendment, but its application is quite general.
  Miss Johnson: I believe the provision could apply in cases where there is a huge number of unsecured creditors. In such cases, the costs of distributing the prescribed part may be disproportionate to the benefit gained from the distribution and the office holder should be able to take action to disapply this new section.
  In order to obtain an order under this subsection, the office holder will have to satisfy the court that the costs of distribution would be disproportionate to the benefits.
  We are grateful to the City of London Law Society for bringing the need for Lords amendments Nos. 162 and 163 to our attention. Our policy has always been that the calculation of the prescribed part will not apply to charges created before the section's commencement, but that it is to apply to any floating charge created after the section's commencement. An existing floating charge granted prior to commencement will not be subject to the new section.
  948
  Where a company has granted both pre- and post-commencement floating charges, an insolvency office holder would pay out to fixed security holders, then pay the expenses of the winding up, then pay any remaining preferential claims, then pay out to the pre-commencement floating charge holders, and then he would apply the prescribed part to the net property available to the post-commencement floating charge holders.
  It is not anticipated that there will be a problem with pre-commencement charges that have subordinated their claim to a post-commencement charge. They will have done so in the knowledge that they will be waiving their right not to be subject to the new section 176A.
  Lords amendments Nos. 164, 174 and 175 are consequential and technical amendments necessary to ensure that the appropriate insolvency provisions extend to Scotland in addition to England and Wales, to align the Bill with the Insolvency Act 2000 and facilitate the drafting of insolvency rules. They are consequential on other amendments to the Bill.
  Lords amendment No. 164 applies to clause 249. It will ensure that the powers that a Scottish liquidator has to take antecedent recovery actions against a company are also included in part I of schedule 4 to the Insolvency Act 1986 and will, as a result of clause 249, need the sanction of the court or the liquidation committee, or a meeting of creditors where there is no committee, before taking any such action. The reason for the amendment is to ensure that the benefit flowing to unsecured creditors from the abolition of the Crown's preferential status cannot be used for such actions without creditors' approval.
  Lords amendments Nos. 174 and 175 ensure that provisions in clauses 249 to 251 will extend to Scotland.
  Lords amendments Nos. 229 to 234 deal with purposes of administration. Lords amendments Nos. 235 to 240 and 242 to 245 deal with time scales, while amendments Nos. 241 and 246 to 258 are technical and relate to schedule 16, which deals with the detailed processes of administration.
  Lords amendment No. 241 applies to the types of payments to be made to an administrator, and Lords amendments Nos. 246 and 252 deal with various matters which would normally be required in accordance with the Insolvency Act 1986 when a company goes into creditors' voluntary liquidation but which, where that liquidation follows immediately after administration, are not necessary or appropriate.
  I should be happy lo give the House further details of the amendments in this group if hon. Members wish.
  Mr. Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for her lucid explanation of the amendments, but I am suspicious by nature and I seek clarification and reassurance in respect of Lords amendment No. 161, which states that the subsection shall not apply to a company if
  "(a) the liquidator, administrator or receiver applies to the court for an order under this subsection on the ground that the cost of making a distribution to unsecured creditors would be disproportionate to the benefits".

  949
  8.30 pm
  Can the Minister tell us the precise scope of that provision? My concern is that if a liquidator has inflated his or her fees, or has a large fee built in, inflated or not, could that be an argument for the liquidator saying that a distribution to unsecured creditors would be "disproportionate to the benefits". I am concerned that a fat-cat liquidator could use that provision to deny a payout to a small, unsecured creditor solely on the grounds that he or she wished to be well paid for the work undertaken. I hope that the amendment would not lead to that situation.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I am interested in the concept of proportionality in that context. Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to, or is he concerned about, the validity of the mechanisms that are available to judge proportionality in that case? While I follow his argument and share his concern, I am interested to know whether the judgment of proportionality will be appropriate in such cases.
  Mr. Knight: Perhaps I have not given that matter the depth of thought that I should have done. I will no doubt want to reflect upon it later.
  What I find slightly sinister about the provision is the requirement for the court to have a role. We all know that a liquidator can make all sorts of applications to a court—after all, he is not paying and the costs will come out of the general funds. What about the poor unsecured creditor? How does the creditor have a voice to tell the court that it should not go down that road, as the liquidator is using the provision as an excuse for not paying him when he should be paid—the liquidator is merely ensuring that he gets his own fees? I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that the Government are not introducing a loophole that would allow fat-cat liquidators to ride roughshod over the poor unsecured creditor.
  Mr. Mark Field: It is a great pleasure to join in debate with my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). I suspect that they are already having withdrawal symptoms at the prospect of not being able to speak at such a late hour on Wednesday evenings. I was intrigued to see a long-lost interest in insolvency matters coming to the fore.
  I am glad that the Minister has agreed with many of the Lords amendments. We discussed this matter at length in Committee and there were clearly some technical concerns. On a personal level, I am grateful to the Minister for thanking those hon. Members who contributed to the Standing Committee. I confess that on my website, which I have got up and running recently—I am sure that the hon. Lady is a regular and has logged on to it to find out what is going on in the Cities of London and Westminster, and I only wish that many other people were similarly minded—I made it clear that one of the least glamorous aspects of parliamentary life is being involved in a Standing Committee, going through legislation line by line. When I say that it is the least glamorous, it is not a reflection on the Minister, of course; it is because one has to grind through the technical amendments.
  950
  I hope that we were able to make some positive contributions to the insolvency provisions in the Bill. I pay tribute to a number of law societies, in particular the City of London Law Society, to which the Minister referred. Its contribution on the technical aspects of floating charges will, I hope, ensure, that the insolvency provisions will remain intact for some time.
  Mr. Robathan: I wish to put right an earlier omission. I paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who took this Bill through the Standing Committee for the Opposition, but I did not mention those who sat with him on the Benches in Committee and did very valuable work, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly).
  Mr. Field: My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and I are in a nice position—we find that we are positive experts on this legislation since the Opposition Front-Bench trade and industry team has changed entirely.
  Crown preference is one area that we discussed at some length in Committee that has not been mentioned—apart from a tangential reference by the Minister earlier. I appreciate that some of the amendments would protect the position of unsecured creditors to a certain extent in the event that Crown preference was done away with. When we first considered the provision, the Minister was keen to make it clear that there would be a windfall of about £70 million to £100 million a year on which the Crown would no longer be looking for first preference.
  One of the potential problems with Crown preference is that a number of smaller companies—indeed, they need not be particularly small—have a good arrangement with the local Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue and thus have an arrangement by which they do not have to pay all their outstanding debt to the Government up front.
  The football sector has been depressed recently and constant concern has been expressed about it. The Minister may have read in the financial press of the worry about some football clubs, which had come to positive agreements with their local Inland Revenue office about large sums of money that were due at a particular time. The imposition of Crown preference will mean that if a football club looks as though it is about to go into administration or even to go bankrupt, the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise may decide to pull the plug earlier. That will be the result—no doubt unintentional—of the imposition of Crown preference. One of the underlying intentions of the measure, rightly, is to stop failing companies going to the wall either unnecessarily or too soon.
  Mr. Hoban: Before I became a Member of the House, I had personal experience of working with companies that did not have a high asset base—their principal assets were people. I am concerned that not only football clubs but IT companies, architects and design companies will be affected. A slight pause in their income flow and in the collection of their debts might give rise to the situation to which my hon. Friend

  951
  refers—triggering bankruptcy by the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise, to get the money immediately rather than letting the business trade through.
  Mr. Mark Field: I thank my hon. Friend, who has articulated my point rather more clearly than I could. I hope the Minister will be able to draw something from what has been said and that she will be able to deal with the genuine concerns that have been expressed about Crown preference.
  The subject is extremely technical and I applaud the Government for holding large-scale consultations during the past few months and especially over the past two or three years. I have already referred to the local law society in my constituency, but several professional bodies, in particular the Association of Business Recovery Professionals has also made constructive comments that will ensure that our amendments make the law much more workable.
  Mr. Djanogly: The Minister kindly offered to give us further explanations if required. I should appreciate her further comments on the provisions on administrators in amendment No. 241, as those provisions have been developed since we last discussed them. Will the Minister also explain why, in amendment No. 244, a decision was taken to insert the words "one year", while amendment No. 245 specifies six months?
  I concur with my hon. Friend and the Minister as regards the comments about the input to the Bill.
  Mr. Greg Knight: As regards amendment No. 241, I am troubled by paragraph 65, which states:
  "The administrator of a company may make a payment otherwise than in accordance with paragraph 64 or paragraph 13 of Schedule 1 if he thinks it likely to assist achievement of the purpose of administration."
  What does that mean? If an unsecured creditor becomes an irritant and is becoming belligerent with the administrator, could the administrator pay them off to get them off his back? That could happen if my interpretation is right. I think that it was an American politician who said that his concern about democracy was that
  "the wheel that does the squeaking is the one that gets the grease"
  My concern is that the provision might mean that the belligerent unsecured creditor always got his money, while the reasonable person who tried to obtain a payout by moderate dealings with the liquidator was left out in the cold.
  Mr. Djanogly: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and he makes a very good point. I note that the administrator could make such a payment if he thought that it would be likely to help to achieve the purposes of administration. Again, I reiterate my original request: I would appreciate it if the Minister would explain that issue.
  Mr. Hoban: My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) suggested that, under Lords amendment No. 241, a belligerent creditor could put pressure on an administrator to settle his debt early. However, would not Lords amendment No. 242 provide
  952
  a means by which a creditor could become an irritant to a liquidator? Could not a creditor start to make noises about making claims to the court, saying that the administrator was not performing his functions as quickly or as efficiently as reasonably practicable? So there could be opportunities for the creditor and the administrator to play off against each other to reach a good deal.
  Mr. Djanogly: I thank my hon. Friend for his worthwhile comments. The instances could vary, and it would be most helpful if the Minister could provide an explanation. Other hon. Members and I raised concerns in Committee relating to the ability to question the administration costs that could be involved.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: It is as though we are back in Committee talking about all the problems that might arise with lousy administrators. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole object is to try to ensure that other companies are not pulled down when a company goes bust? That should not happen unnecessarily if the administrator has the power to make such judgments.
  Mr. Djanogly: The point of administration is that the company has the best possible chance of survival. The administrator will come in, and he has powers to let staff go and to run the company in place of the directors. However, when he has been appointed, the company is very often at his mercy in cost terms.
  It is interesting that most administrations end in liquidation. The Bill may change that—that was one of the purposes of the Government's changing the administration process—but one of the main reasons why companies are finally forced into liquidation is often that, once administrators are involved, they are very expensive and that the money ends up in their pockets instead of going to the creditors.
  Mr. McWalter: I obviously did not make myself clear. I was talking not about companies in administration but about other companies that want administrators to carry out their jobs in such a way as to rescue them from the difficulties that they may face if the first company goes under completely. That was the point that I was trying to make.
  Mr. Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point in so far as the implications of an administration may be that the company continues to trade, so its creditors will benefit to the extent that they will not be pushed under by the fact that the first company does not survive, although that is not always the case in practice.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Greg Knight: The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) has made a telling point. We should have concerns not only for other companies that may be pulled down but for other small businesses that are not incorporated, such as the sole trader or the man who runs a corner shop and who may lose his livelihood as a result of these provisions. Lords amendment No. 242, for example, states:
  "A creditor or member of a company in administration may apply".

  953
  Is there not a case for saying that anyone aggrieved in this process may apply—for example, someone who is not a creditor or a member of a company but an unsecured creditor who may lose his business? Those are serious matters.
  Mr. Djanogly: Indeed they are, and I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. The situation is serious, and, to that extent, I would be most appreciative if the Minister could reply to our points.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I am enormously grateful to Opposition Members for their questions on these matters.
  First, I want to respond to the question asked by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). Lords amendment No. 161, to which he referred, was brought forward by his noble Friends in another place in response to the debate. I am not sure how his paranoia is progressing—I think he described himself as paranoid, or used words to that effect—and I do not know whether telling him that his noble Friends were responsible for the amendment will help or hinder his condition, but I offer that as a reassuring titbit.
  Mr. Knight: I am grateful to the Minister. I have never described myself as paranoiac—I think that I said that I was suspicious by nature, which is slightly different. My party colleagues in another place have made several improvements to the Bill. The context of my question to the Minister was whether those changes went far enough. Is she satisfied that Lords amendment No. 161 contains sufficient safeguards to prevent the sort of harm that I fear?
  Miss Johnson: I think I entirely understood the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I note that I should have described him as suspicious by nature. To reassure him, only the court can disapply the prescribed part. In response to his point about so-called fat-cat liquidators, the court will be able to consider whether the office holder fees are fair and reasonable. The office holder will have to make the case to the court that it should make the order sought. It will therefore be for the court to consider the reasonableness of what is being laid before it. I hope that that reassures even a right hon. Gentleman of suspicious mind.
  On the points made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), I reiterate our thanks to the City of London Law Society, particularly in relation to Lords amendments Nos. 162 and 163, and, no doubt, in relation to other work that it did on improving various aspects of the Bill. I hope that our thanks will be passed on. On Crown preference and the issues that he raised in relation to the football sector and related difficulties, the revenue departments have assured us that, in pursuing outstanding debts after abolition of preference, they will continue to offer help and support to vulnerable businesses facing genuine temporary difficulties. That includes support for business rescues via voluntary arrangements and for companies in administration. It must be remembered that the Crown Departments will not lose out
  954
  altogether, because they will benefit from money becoming available to all other creditors. The provision covers the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
  Mr. Hoban: The Minister has partly reassured Conservative Members who expressed concerns about early triggering. She referred to formal voluntary liquidation and administration, but I am particularly concerned about the informal arrangements that the Crown Departments might reach with a football club or an IT company. What guidance have they issued to show that they will continue to be as sympathetic to businesses as they were before the abolition of Crown preference?
  Miss Johnson: I do not have any guidance in front of me, but I have placed on record the fact that we have been assured about the way in which the Crown Departments will deal with such matters. I hope that the House will accept that assurance.
  The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) asked about time scales and the six-month extension. This part of the Bill was subject to consultation following the Lords Committee, and the amendments were tabled to reflect the outcome of those discussions.
  Mr. Djanogly: Will the Minister give the House an explanation of the outcome of those consultations?
  Miss Johnson: I cannot respond in detail to that point, but I shall see what I can do to deal with the matter.
  On the point about belligerent creditors, simple belligerence will not allow the administrator to pay. The payment must assist the purpose of administration. For example, it could be used to pay the supplier of something that the administrator could not obtain from any other supplier. The administrator must believe that payments will achieve the purposes of administration.
  Mr. Knight: The Minister has been generous in giving way, and I appreciate that. I am heartened by what she has just said. Is she arguing that an administrator or liquidator could not say that time taken up corresponding with a vexatious unsecured creditor was not assisting the administration and that to pay that person off would assist the process? Does she confirm unequivocally that the administrator or liquidator could not use that as a reason?
  Miss Johnson: It is difficult to comment without knowledge of individual cases. The right hon. Gentleman seeks an assurance in relation not to the Bill but to the judgments taken on individual cases by those qualified to interpret or discharge the provisions in the Bill.
  To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, the outcome of the consultation is reflected in the time scales as amended. I hope that that point meets his concerns, and that the House will agree to the amendments.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 162 to 165 agreed to.

Clause 256

  REPEAL OF CERTAIN BANKRUPTCY OFFENCES
  Lords amendment: No. 166, page 180, line 29, after "by" insert "written"
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 167 to 173.
  Miss Johnson: Although not all the amendments are related, they are all technical amendments to the provisions on individual insolvency. I thank the Opposition in the other place. With the exception of amendments Nos. 168, 169 and 173, the amendments were inspired by helpful amendments tabled by them, for which we are most grateful.
  I could comment in detail on the amendments if hon. Members wish, but I do not propose to do so. Amendment No. 166 ensures that any variation of an income payments agreement must be in writing. Given that an income payments agreement itself must be in writing, it is a sensible clarifying amendment. Amendments Nos. 167, 170 and 171 apply to clause 257 on the bankrupt's home and provide protection to what the noble Lord Freeman referred to as the deserted spouse.
  Mr. Greg Knight: I may depart company with my noble Friends in the other place on this matter. Amendment No. 166 is, on the face of it, the most reasonable amendment tabled to the Bill. However, it is a long-established facet of English law that contracts do not have to be written. I await to be corrected by a lawyer, but I recall from the days when I practised law that the only aspect of law for which one had to produce a written contract was for the sale or purchase of property—land. That was introduced in the Law of Property Act 1925 by one of my political heroes, F. E. Smith, the First Earl of Birkenhead.
  Since then, lawyers have accepted that it is reasonable that if someone is selling property, there has to be evidence of a written contract because of the risk of gazumping—but that is all that the Act has to say on the matter. It does not say that the contract has to be written, just that it has to be evidenced in writing. Why is it deemed that an agreement between the parties has to go further than the Law of Property Act and be contained in a written agreement?
  Mr. Forth: I hesitate to intervene because I am not a lawyer and my right hon. Friend is a distinguished member of that profession.
  In the context of the stipulation that a contract is to be determined by agreement between the parties, does there have to be a witness to it if it is simply verbal? One of the dangers is that we might get into the difficulty—I speak as a layman—of one person's word against another. Given the importance of the matters under consideration, it strikes me that there is a fragility or vulnerability in that context. Does my right hon. Friend
  956
  believe that a simple verbal agreement without witnesses is sufficiently robust? Perhaps there should be a provision for a written agreement in such cases.
  Mr. Knight: As I understand it, amendment No. 166 requires a written agreement—a document in writing between two or more parties. Ten or more people might witness a verbal agreement. They are honest citizens who are not going to perjure themselves. They would have heard the agreement made, but if this amendment were accepted, the agreement would be outwith the scope of the Bill, and that seems rather odd.
  9 pm
  The Minister dismissed this amendment as being technical, but we are seeking to make this a unique area of law. [Interruption.] I hear the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), muttering incoherently on the Front Bench, but I have to say to him that I am aware of only one case in English law where one needs evidence of a contract, and that is in the sale or purchase of land. We are now taking that a stage further and saying that written evidence is not enough; a written contract is necessary. Why should such a draconian provision be introduced?
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) touched on what many see as the danger here. If an oral contract is sufficient, someone who is less than honest may be willing to persuade his wife or another person to perjure themselves at a court or tribunal, and we have seen that happen in a number of court cases recently. We do not want to encourage that, but where a court can be satisfied that there is an agreement, even if it is not in writing, surely that should be sufficient.
  Mr. Forth: I want to press the Minister to give further clarification on amendment No. 167. It strikes me—I confess that I speak as a layman, but such is the role that we have in these circumstances—that we are making some rather radical alterations to the sense and thrust of the existing provision. The wording that the amendment seeks to change is clear: it says that the provision applies where the property comprising the bankrupt's estate consists of an interest in a dwelling house that, at the date of the bankruptcy, was the bankrupt's sole or principal residence.
  The amendment seeks radically to alter that sense. Instead of referring to the
  "bankrupt's sole or principal residence",
  it would refer to the
  "sole or principal residence of

  (a) the bankrupt,

  (b) the bankrupt's spouse, or

  (c) a former spouse of the bankrupt".

  By any definition, that considerably widens the scope of the provision. We need clarification from the Minister to establish whether the amendment seeks to broaden the definition so as to include more principal or sole residences, or whether it seeks to narrow the definition.
  I thought that I heard some reference to divorced spouses a moment ago, and after simply reading the wording I am not entirely clear whether we are trying to

  957
  include or exclude them. On the face of it, the amendment means that the measure will now apply to one of a range of properties in the bankrupt's estate, and that range will extend beyond the property of the bankrupt himself.
  That seems radically to alter the meaning of the provision, and it could have a considerable effect on a number of people, who may be innocent parties. I am not saying that any guilt should be attached to someone who is bankrupt. In fact, as the House will know, our cultural attitude to bankruptcy, which tends, wrongly in my view, to regard bankruptcy as a wicked act, is very different from that of our American cousins, who regard it as something benign that one must go through if one is to achieve something in future. I wonder whether we are trying to spread the blame and bring in others beyond the bankrupt himself or whether we are trying to protect those others.
  We seek from the Minister clarification about the thrust of the amendment and its likely effect. It would be helpful if she could give us some idea of the numbers involved. I do not know whether we are talking about a few unusual cases or a larger number. If we start to include spouses or exes, the numbers could rise considerably.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Lords amendment No. 167 is highly discriminatory or defective because proposed paragraph (b) refers to the bankrupt's spouse in the singular. What about polygamous marriages and the Mormon faith?
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is trying to draw me into territory that I am reluctant to enter. In turn, however, will he clarify something for me as a distinguished lawyer? Is he suggesting that polygamous marriages are sufficiently legal in our culture to be encompassed by the amendment? My lay interpretation is that in our Judaeo-Christian tradition the amendment can apply only to one spouse, not multiple spouses as he suggests. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would consider something. It is possible that under proposed paragraph (c) there would be multiple ex-spouses—that possibility does arise in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and our legal framework. My right hon. Friend was therefore half-right, but was looking at the wrong paragraph—he concentrated on proposed paragraph (b) instead of (c). I shall allow him to think about that while giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field).
  Mr. Mark Field: I may be able to assist. Polygamous marriages are not recognised in English law, but my right hon. Friend is a polygamous politician. Not only has he represented Bromley and Chislehurst but a Worcestershire seat and another seat in the European Parliament. Our right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) is also polygamous, having previously represented Derby, North.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention, I remind him that he should stay tightly on track.
  Mr. Forth: Of course I shall, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Uncharacteristically, however, my hon. Friend
  958
  underestimated me, as he forgot that I was a local councillor in Brentwood in Essex back in the 1960s. My multiplicity is almost unlimited, but it would be immodest of me to dwell on it—the House knows that that would be uncharacteristic.
  However, I wish to return to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, which applied strictly to the amendment. The Minister, as happens from time to time when we are deliberating on such matters, tried to give the impression that we were considering a technicality—we were talking about a few words that would have little effect, and that we would have a quick glance at the provision and nod it through. I suspect that we are only scratching the surface and have an inkling that the provision could be problematic, as we do not know what its scope is. We need the Minister's guidance as to whether the provision is restrictive or permissive.
  Mr. Djanogly: In his interesting speech, my right hon. Friend mentioned the cultural differences between America and the United Kingdom on the question of bankruptcy, an issue that was discussed at some length during deliberations on the Bill. One implication of the personal insolvency provision is that the insolvency period will be cut from three years to a maximum of 12 months, which has caused great concern to many of my hon. Friends and practitioners in the insolvency world. People are saying that we may move towards an American system—if you cannot pay your bills, why not just go bust and do the same thing afterwards? It would be interesting to hear my right hon. Friend's comments.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important matter, which I intended to deal with later in my remarks, but I shall do so now. Of course the time scale is relevant, in both a general sense and a specific sense. The word "former" is important. We could get into some difficulty—I refer to my hon. Friend's remarks about time scales—about the exact point at which the spouse becomes "former." My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire may be able to help us.
  When we get into the territory of nisis and absolutes, it is possible that considerable confusion could arise from the amendment as regards the exact impact of the timing of the divorce and the point at which it takes effect within the time scale that is envisaged. In one sense, it does not matter whether we are speaking of one year or three, but in another sense it does. If we are talking about longer time scales, the impact of the divorce and the legal impact of nisis and absolutes must be taken into account.
  Mr. Knight: My interest is rather in the scope of the Lords amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) touched on the widening provision of amendment No. 167. The question that the House must ask, and which I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will address, is whether the widening goes far enough or too far. The problem that we have had for too long under English law is the stigma associated with bankruptcy, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon properly said, does not apply in America.

  959
  Not many people know that early in his career, the very successful and popular worldwide entertainer, Dean Martin, was made a bankrupt.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not many people may know that, and I am not sure that at this stage the House wants to hear it.
  Mr. Forth: I shall not break into song, although I am a bit of a fan of Dean Martin myself. The serious point is that the more we probe the amendment, the more troublesome it begins to appear.
  The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): You call that probing?
  Mr. Forth: I have probed gently so far; wait till I really get going. The difficulty that we are getting into, which I hope the Under-Secretary will deal with in detail and at some length, is the subtle interplay between the mechanisms of the divorce in the case of the former spouse referred to in the amendment, and the bankruptcy proceedings.
  Mr. McWalter: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that the reference is to a dwelling house, which must be comprised in the bankrupt's estate? We are discussing one way in which people can be protected from the seizure of their home. That is all.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for seeking to simplify matters for me. I am a simple man, as he knows. I can see that he is trying to come down to my level, to help me to understand the provisions, but I am still struggling with the interplay, which I am sure exists, between the estate, the period of bankruptcy and the legal moment of bankruptcy. We are attempting to relate that to another variable, the concept of the former spouse. I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman would agree that there are circumstances in which those factors could come into conflict. The legalities involved in the bankruptcy process, the estate and the process of divorce could come into conflict. That might not make the provision unworkable—that would be going too far—but could complicate it.
  9.15 pm
  In my view, as the original wording was straightforward and easily understandable, it was also easily implementable. My fear about the amendment is that it would introduce considerable additional complications. I therefore wonder whether their lordships gave sufficient thought to it. After all, we are here to ask such questions. Indeed, they demonstrate the great value of the two-Chamber parliamentary system. Their lordships, to whom we defer in so many ways, have, in their wisdom, proposed the amendment. Our humble role as laymen—I exclude my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, who is an expert—is to cast our eye over each provision and say, "Hold on a minute: is this too clever, does it go too far and would it work in practice?" In this case, we must consider whether the provision would simply be—if my right hon. Friend will forgive me—a lawyers' charter.
  Mr. Redwood: I usually agree with my right hon. Friend, but I wonder whether he has misread the
  960
  situation. There could be a hard case that is not covered in the original words, which deal merely with the bankrupt's home. We should remember that these issues are governed by the beginning of new section 283A to the Insolvency Act 1986, which deals with the bankrupt's home ceasing to form part of the estate. I read the amendment as a helpful one that tries to explain that there could be hard cases if properties relating to the bankrupt's spouse or a former spouse are not excluded. I understand his asking where that should stop, how far back it would be possible to go and what would happen if one had several former "spice" or spouses, or whatever the plural might be. It is reasonable to ask whether such provision could become unnecessarily complicated or lax, but I hope that he will consider the possibility that a hard case might arise that the amendment would take care of, but the rather odd alternative drafting might not.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is of course right. Will he not concede, however, that when we are trying to deal with one hard case, we often introduce at least as many difficulties, problems or even harder cases?
  We touched earlier on the possibility of serial ex-spouses. I am not sure whether the amendment deals satisfactorily with that possibility. It refers to
  "a former spouse of the bankrupt",
  but what about the plural? With which former spouse does the provision deal? Is it the most recent spouse, the first one or all of them? The amendment allows reference to only one former spouse. Again, I accept that I am treading on delicate legal territory, but I wonder whether such provision is sufficient and whether the scope is adequate to deal with those issues, quite apart from problems of timing.
  Mr. Knight: My concerns are different from those of my right hon. Friend. He seems to be anxious that the amendment is too loosely drafted and could encourage too many claimants. My concern is that, if there is any criticism to be made, it is that the amendment is too tightly drawn. What about the dependent relative of the bankrupt? The amendment contains no provision in that regard.
  May I say en passant that, in view of your earlier ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I doubt whether you will be receiving a Christmas card from the Dean Martin Appreciation Society?
  Mr. Forth: May I suggest that the society might like to send a card to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in order to bring you round? A CD might help as well, perhaps including "Memories are Made of This" or something similar. I shall not pursue the matter any further.
  I recognise that my right hon. Friend is trying to be helpful, but we need to focus and should not be drawn into seeking ways of over-complicating a matter that is already somewhat over-complicated. I am beginning to wonder whether the amendment is entirely appropriate. It strikes me that, even though it is a well-meaning attempt—their lordships could not have a motive that was anything other than well meaning—to solve one set of problems, we might be in danger of creating even more.
  Mr. Djanogly: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has already opined on polygamy, but I wonder whether he has considered legitimacy, which is often a problem in wills?
  Mr. Forth: I do not know whether that is a problem with the provision that we are considering. It would be if we incorporated the suggestions that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire made a moment ago. However, I suspect that the wording is sufficiently tight to obviate the problem because we are considering "the spouse" or "former spouse".
  There is a problem with the former spouse; the serial ex presents a difficulty. However, the problem of definition is not that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) because a spouse is a spouse is a spouse.
  I hope that we shall not unearth another problem; that would be too much. However, would a marriage conducted in another legal jurisdiction cause difficulties in the definition of "spouse"? I am happy to say that I was married in New Mexico, and it was a wonderful experience. I do not know whether there would be any difficulty in recognising the marriage in our United Kingdom jurisdiction. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire can help me.
  The simple use of the word "spouse" is either legally sufficiently watertight to obviate any definition problems or in danger of introducing further difficulties.
  Mr. Redwood: I cannot help with that point, but I am worried about an ambiguity on which my right hon. Friend may like to comment. It appears that we have to choose between "the bankrupt's spouse" and "a former spouse". That could be invidious, but whether paragraphs (a) and (b) or (a) and (c) of Lords amendment No. 167 can apply simultaneously is left ambiguous because "and" or "or" are not included after paragraph (a). Is the amendment therefore defective?
  Mr. Forth: I believe that I can help my right hon. Friend. The potential conflict between paragraphs (b) and (c) or the existing spouse and the former spouse is obviated by the word "or" in paragraph (b). However, that introduces another problem. I presume that there is an order of priority, and one spouse must pre-empt the other. The existing spouse will probably take precedence over the former, or any number of former spouses, but perhaps the Minister will explain whether she is satisfied that the amendment is sufficiently clear and therefore immune from challenge.
  Mr. Knight: I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me, but I believe that, uncharacteristically, he is making heavy weather of the matter. I appreciate that his friends will not recognise that description of his contribution, but he is labouring the issue. We are considering the provision that applies when
  "property comprised in the bankrupt's estate consists of an interest in a dwelling-house".
  If we are dealing with a former spouse of several years, surely the court, in the divorce proceedings, will have settled the property on the former spouse. It is therefore no longer in the amendment's ambit.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for helping us. I was about to consider the definition of the
  962
  estate and whether there was potential difficulty in the probate stage that existed at the time of the bankruptcy. There are potential problems throughout the process in the time scales for various legal matters. Anyone who has experienced probate, divorce or any combination of those understands that they are inevitably lengthy and complex matters that must interplay in the circumstances that we are discussing. Even something as apparently simple as the concept of the bankrupt's estate must be open to doubt, because it would depend on any number of interrelationships, perhaps involving the bankrupt being the potential beneficiary of probate, on the one hand, or the other way round, if I can put it that way.
  David Winnick: Can the right hon. Gentleman satisfy my curiosity by telling me whether he has resigned from the Front Bench as shadow Leader of the House? If he has not, is his sitting on the Back Benches a new feature—and why not? It could all be part of modernisation—in which he doubles up, appearing on the Front Bench as a senior Member one day, and on the Back Benches the next? The other rumour is that all this is simply a ruse to keep the House going until 10 o'clock.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically unfair.
  Mr. Knight: Characteristically.
  Mr. Forth: Well, I am going to be fair to the hon. Gentleman and I would not accuse him of being anything other than fair and a man of great integrity. It saddens me, therefore, that he seems to suggest that my motive is anything other than to seek the truth—after all, that is why we are all here—and examine the legislation, which I thought was also our job. As for his questioning my role, the modern Conservative party is flexible and progressive, and it allows a number of different roles to be played by right hon. and hon. Members.
  I have taken an interest in this matter, and the view that I took, having listened to the Minister's brief introduction to the amendment, was that it was perhaps slightly inadequate. So I am simply playing my role as a seeker of truth and a legislator, and I shall give way to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), who, I suspect, comes into the same category.
  Mr. McWalter: In my desire to get this matter curtailed, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear it in mind that, if someone had loads of houses and loads of spouses, subsection (3) would come into play? The interests would be realised, people would get a share of the action, and out of that mess everything would eventually be settled. This provision involves a right that people would have in extremis. It is not designed to be—it could not be, because of subsection (3)—a way of liquidating all one's assets to try to ensure that one's creditors could not get at them.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. This amendment will henceforward be known as the "houses

  963
  and spouses amendment", which will help to fix it in our memories. As for "in extremis", I am rarely accused of being in extremis in any context.
  Mr. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forth: I will give way, but then I really must draw my remarks to a conclusion, because I want to give the Minister the maximum possible time. She might need all the time that is left to us to answer the questions that have been posed.
  Mr. Knight: I am not sure that that last intervention was particularly helpful. What would happen in the case of a bankrupt who had three houses that formed part of his estate, if he lived in one of them, his spouse lived in another, and a former spouse lived in the third?
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has made a valuable contribution in pointing out the difficulties that could arise from this no doubt well-meaning amendment.
  Mr. Hoban: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forth: I will give way, but this really must be the last time.
  Mr. Hoban: This has been an interesting debate on the terminology used in the amendment. The debate has confined itself to talking about legally recognised relationships. In our modern society, it is remarkable that there is no reference in the provisions to the position of cohabitees or former cohabitees. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that they, too, should be covered by the Bill?
  Mr. Forth: I almost hesitate to get into that territory. My hon. Friend tempts me, but I shall resist the temptation except to say that he has illustrated that, if we look at this matter in a modern way—after all, we look at things in a modern way in the House, do we not?—it may seem to be taking an overly restrictive approach. We hear all sorts of talk these days about partners, and we ought perhaps to give some thought to whether unmarried people come into this. I have not even touched on the matter of gender, either. After all, we talk of people of this or that gender having this or that relationship. I wonder whether the amendment is sufficiently broadly drawn to satisfy those with a modern and progressive attitude on these matters, and whether the issue of gender should be dealt with in the legislation.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), because he has added yet another dimension to the considerations that are raised by the amendment, which at first blush seemed to be perfectly straightforward. It now seems that there are worrying complications, and I hope that the Minister, when she concludes this little debate, will satisfy the House that she has the answers to all these questions, so that we can decide whether to give the amendments our approval. I hope that that will be the case, and that my modest contribution has helped the House to focus on some of these questions.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Redwood: I shall not detain the House long, but I think that my right hon. Friend has put his finger on some difficult issues raised by the amendment. The context is clear. The Bill provides for a new section 283A in the Insolvency Act 1986 when the bankrupt's home ceases to form part of the estate. It says:
  "This section applies where property comprised in the bankrupt's estate consists of an interest in a dwelling-house which at the date of the bankruptcy was the bankrupt's sole or principal residence."
  The aim of amendment No. 167 is to amend and broaden that proposal.
  In the light of my right hon. Friend's remarks and the study that I have made of this matter as he was speaking and before, I have worries that the amendment, while generous in intention by including spouse or former spouse, leaves ambiguities and difficulties that may make the legislation even less perfect than the original version. The thrust of the amendment may be sensible, but the drafting is not as felicitous as it might be.
  My first worry is that it is by no means clear whether we are talking about the principal residence of the bankrupt and the bankrupt's spouse if they happen to have different residences, or whether we have to make a choice. Secondly, the draft clause is silent on how people in positions of responsibility should determine a case if they have to choose between the residence of the bankrupt's spouse or a former spouse. My right hon. Friend has made some reflections on that, but I think that the legislation, if it is to widen the provision in that way, should give more guidance on how these invidious choices may fall to be made.
  The drafting is not as inclusive or modern as some Labour Members and others may like. I have no objection to the use of the word "spouse", but these days people often prefer the word "partner" because they want to cover a variety of relationships that could be important to the individual concerned. It is strange that the legislation should look backwards, especially under this Administration. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) asked whether it is right to single out a former spouse rather than some other dependent relative, because there could be more deserving cases. There could be difficult cases of people with important responsibilities who have become bankrupt. That has not been included in the amendment to this part of the revised bankruptcy legislation.
  I hope that the Minister will deal with the detail when she replies to this vignette of a debate. It shows that the House has an important role to play in examining the words in detail, and that, when and if they are let loose in a court, there could be scope for intelligent, well-briefed and expensive lawyers to go round and round in the interests of the person they are defending and show that we the legislators have been sloppy or negligent by allowing these ambiguities and imprecisions to remain in the legislation.
  Mr. Djanogly rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but we are running out of time.
  Mr. Djanogly: I note with interest the thought processes of my right hon. Friend in respect of changing

  965
  the word "spouse" to "partner". I should like to hear more of his views on that subject, because I am not sure that "partner" has the same meaning in law as " spouse", or, indeed, any meaning.
  Mr. Redwood: I ought not to be drawn too far down this interesting byway, as there are others better qualified to comment. My hon. Friend may well be right to say that the word "partner" has a legal imprecision. I simply raise the issue for the Minister because it is one of concern for a Government who pride themselves on being modern and inclusive. I am particularly worried about the issue of substance that I raised: are there other people in relationships with the bankrupt apart from a spouse or a former spouse—in the latter case, the relationship might be far from close or friendly—who should be included in, or excluded from, this very important provision?
  The legislation is complicated and leaves considerable discretion in the hands of those dealing with the bankruptcy issue. In certain cases, the clause that we seek to amend leaves the timing imprecise. A three-year period is mentioned, but the trigger time varies, depending on what information has been revealed, and on the circumstances of the individual bankruptcy. Of course, those called to adjudicate these matters have considerable powers of discretion as to how the bankruptcy estate should be handled and added up, and what element should cease to form part of it.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the discretion to which he refers does not extend to allowing any adjudicator to substitute words that are not included in the amendment? That is its weakness: it does not refer to partners or to a dependent relative. There would be no discretion whatsoever, therefore, in terms of taking care of a dependent relative or a long-term partner, because the drafting does not include that description or category of person.
  Mr. Redwood: That is right—that is part of the twin criticism that I am making. People are excluded who might be more deserving than those who are included, but there is also a fundamental ambiguity in the phrases "spouse" and "former spouse". Moreover, there are other complications to which reference has been made at some length, and which I will not repeat. If the provision were to go through, it would not be good legislation. To be good legislation, it needs amending to make the intention absolutely clear. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in asking the Minister to think again about those who should be included.
  This legislation is about people who have been through a miserable time. They may also have created misery for others—their creditors—who may not be satisfied. It is the job of good legislation to try to come up with a fair and judicious balance. Of course, we wish to be as generous as possible to the creditors, because they have been wronged. If we do not look after their interests, they, in turn, could get into financial difficulties, or their businesses could struggle. However, we also have a duty—as I hope my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for East
  966
  Yorkshire agree—to think about the condition of the bankrupt. Some bankrupts have been through extremely difficult times; for example, they may have made a misjudgment, or simply been swallowed up by bad luck and unpredictable changes in the marketplace. They need to live and survive, and to have some reasonable basis on which to proceed with their own lives. I understand that this legislation is trying to strike some form of balance—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks are becoming rather general. He ought to be a bit more precise.
  Mr. Redwood: I quite agree, and I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to describe the context, but my crucial point is that the amendment has to get the right balance between the bankrupt and those dependent on him, and the creditors. My worry is that it does not. It does not answer the big issue as to why this limited group of people is included, but not others who may be in need. It is unclear whether subsection (a) applies with, or instead of, subsection (b), and it is also unclear how one would judge between subsections (b) and (c). A lot is therefore left to the courts, and it leaves open the question of how, ultimately, the balance is to be struck between the bankrupt's needs of his estate, and the creditor's obviously pressing needs. It is those points that I hope the Minister will clarify.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I am grateful to Opposition Members for their enormously discursive interest in this subject. I shall respond briefly to the points that have been made, because despite speaking at considerable length the right hon. and hon. Members have failed to convince me that the aspects that worried them are sufficiently worrying to require a detailed response. Indeed, it is not clear what some of those anxieties were, but I shall not take any interventions from Opposition Members during my remarks.
  In relation to the comments by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), the Bill provides that the income payments agreements must be in writing and, therefore, we felt that it was appropriate to provide that a variation of that agreement should be in writing. The incomes payments agreement has the force of a court order and is not merely a contract, as he suggested; his points might have been relevant to a contract.
  Lords amendment No. 167 attracted much heat but not much light. It provides valuable protection for a spouse or former spouse. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was right that it deals with a particular situation—if a bankrupt still has an interest in the property in which a spouse or former spouse resides, it provides protection against the threat of losing the home. Trustees will still be able to deal with the property. On unmarried partners, the amendment is

  967
  consistent with the protection provided for parties other than the bankrupt in the individual insolvency provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Johnson: No, I regret that I will not give way.
  Mr. Redwood: It is an important point.
  Miss Johnson: It may be so. The mechanics of how the new provisions will operate have been, and continue to be, the subject of consultation with stakeholders and will be dealt with in the rules.
  As I have emphasised, the amendments are the results of the work done by the colleagues of Opposition Members in the other place. I am amazed by the suspicion with which the amendments have been greeted, but I hope that Opposition Members have been reassured on those points.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 167 to 175 agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 176 to 186 disagreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 187 to 208 agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 209 disagreed to
  Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 209 agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 210 to 264 agreed to.
  9.45 pm

Schedule 24

  TRANSITIONAL AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
  Lords amendment: No. 265, in page 322, line 23, at end insert—
  "(2) The Secretary of State may treat any consultation carried out with the President of the Competition Commission Appeal Tribunals (before the appointment of the President of the Competition Appeal Tribunal) as being as effective for the purposes of section 15(1) as if it had been carried out with the President of the Competition Appeal Tribunal."
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 266 to 366.
  Miss Johnson: I hope that the House agrees to Lords amendment No. 265. The remaining amendments in the group, Nos. 266 to 326, are to the transitional, consequential and repeal schedules. The vast majority of them are consequential to various sectoral enactments such as the legislation covering gas, electricity and airports, and they follow the template of amendments made on Report to the legislation covering broadcasting and telecommunications. These sectoral enactments include a mechanism by which the licence modifications proposed by the relevant sectoral regulator but disputed by the licensee can be referred to the Competition Commission. Such references currently rely on
  968
  procedural provisions in the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1998 that are being modified or repealed by the Bill.
  In addition, the amendments cover the merger and market transition provisions. I can give more detail on weights and measures if hon. Members so desire.
  Mr. Forth: I hope this time that I can tease a little more in formation out of the Minister. It is not good enough that she should stand up and say that she is cross at being kept here so late, that she does not propose to take interventions or answer questions.
  Miss. Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman is generous enough to put into my mouth words that never crossed my lips, and meanings that never existed. I do not know where he gets his ideas from.
  Mr. Forth: Perhaps we shall have to read Hansard tomorrow to see what was said, although the tone and sense will not come across on the cold page. However, I shall try a little harder to coax the Minister into giving us some more information. I always thought that the point of this exercise was that the Minister should reply to the debate.
  Mr. Redwood: The Minister would not give way to me earlier when I wanted to raise a point of great interest outside the House. She did not seem to care about people whose interests need to be protected by the Bill. I think that my right hon. Friend is right.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's support. The record will show how charmingly and fully the Minister responded to the debate. I hope that we will build on that as we proceed.
  This group of amendments, which the Minister has attempted to portray as innocuous and technical, covers 56 pages of text in the Bill and 60 clauses. I am always nervous when asked by a Minister to accept that material of that length and complexity, with all its attendant implications, should be nodded through because it deals with technicalities. Some of us have been here long enough to know that that is rarely the case.
  I want to start with Lords amendment No. 265, the lead amendment in the group. I have tried hard to understand it, but so far I have failed. I invite the Minister to explain it, in her charming way, to the House. I shall read out the amendment, as I want it on the record, so that when the Minister comes to explain it we can relate its content with the way in which she has been prepared to help the House.
  It reads:
  "The Secretary of State may treat any consultation carried out with the President of the Competition Commission Appeal Tribunals (before the appointment of the President of the Competition Appeal Tribunal) as being as effective for the purposes of section 15(1) as if it had been carried out with the President of the Competition Appeal Tribunal."
  I am not an entirely unintelligent individual. I have been here for a while and have read a number of such texts in my day, but that one has defeated me completely. There is probably a simple explanation. It probably has profound hidden meaning. In a case such as this, the Minister owes it to the House to give some explanation

  969
  of what the hell this is all about. Otherwise, I do not think that the House should be prepared simply to say, "Oh well, this is okay then." So, that is my first simple request to the Minister.
  When we look at the 55 pages that follow that amendment we realise that references to some important matters, such as time limits and powers of investigation, are hidden in this complex text. When I see references to such powers, I am always more than a little nervous. Time and again when we consider such provisions and powers of investigation, when we read the details we find references to
  "attendance of witnesses and production of documents … enforcement of powers under section 106: general … penalties … appeals in relation to penalties … recovery of penalties"
  and so forth. The Minister says that this has all been dealt with in a different context, so we are importing it into the Bill and that will be okay. I am not sure that that is a sufficient explanation. It will not necessarily do. The Minister may have to say a little more about how she believes that that very complex wording relates to what has gone before. For example, is she going to tell us that the words on those 55 pages—about 60 clauses, by my reckoning—are identical to some provisions that have been in force for some time and are tried, tested and proven? Are they beyond doubt and dispute? Or, is she going to tell us that there is sufficient that is new in this text to require more scrutiny?
  I do not know which is the case, because the Minister did not share that with us. She did not tell us the provenance of the wording. Therefore, we are in the dark as to whether we are being expected to accept something that is new, or something that is tried and tested, has been imported from other legislation and is deemed to be appropriate in this case. One could go through that text in some detail, but given the time limitations, sadly, that would be inappropriate.
  Lords amendment No. 290 refers to new section
  "46A Enforcement of notices under section 46".
  Subsection (1) states:
  "The High Court may, on an application by the OFT, enquire into whether any person … has refused or otherwise failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a notice".
  When one picks out such a phrase, almost at random, from this huge morass of words that we are expected virtually to nod through, one suspects that matters about which we are entitled to be uneasy or that certainly deserve further explanation are hidden within it.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forth: I was about to conclude, but I will give way just this once.
  Mr. Knight: My right hon. Friend has made a valid point. Had the Minister spent a little more time explaining in her opening remarks the ambit of the provisions, it would have shortened rather than lengthened the debate. My right hon. Friend's concerns would have been answered and he might not have felt the need to raise these important matters.
  970
  I hesitate to say this, as it is a maxim among lawyers that free advice is worth what one pays for it, but these seem to be fairly minor matters that are consequential on other issues, so the volume of the amendments should not trouble my right hon. Friend too much.
  Mr. Forth: I defer to the legal expertise of my right hon. Friend, who has obviously studied these matters much more closely than I have. If he is satisfied that these matters are relatively detailed—I will not say "trivial" as that would be the wrong term—and of limited impact, I am prepared to accept his advice and judgment.
  However, I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that the Minister owes the House an explanation of what she and the Government understand to be the importance of those words, so that, at the very least, we shall know in future whether we are being expected to accept something that is of relatively minor impact or whether the impact might be much wider.
  Even with an eye to the clock, I hope that the Minister can be a little more fulsome than she felt able to be in respect of the last group and that she can give the House some reassurance as to where we are going with the large volume of material that falls within this group of amendments, described as "minor and consequential". We are always owed an explanation as to whether "minor and consequential" means what it says. One does not have to be too cynical, or too much of a disbeliever, to suspect that sometimes something greater and of more importance lies behind those words.
  That is my humble request, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you agree that it is not unreasonable and I hope that the Minister can be a little more forthcoming on this group than she was on the last.
  Mr. Knight: I shall speak briefly, as I want to hear the Minister's response. The amendments seem to be fairly minor and consequential, but I have a question about subsection (5) of Lords amendment No. 290, on page 57. It states:
  "The High Court may punish the defaulter as it would have been able to punish him had he been guilty of contempt of court."
  That is a draconian power. Will the Minister confirm that the subsection is a replacement or a redrafting of an existing provision? If it is, I am happy. However, if it is a new provision, she should certainly refer to it in her opening remarks and she should be prepared to revisit it if it causes difficulty or injustice in the future.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: Amendment No. 265 is required to allow the Secretary of State to fulfil the consultation requirements imposed by clause 15, prior to making the rules of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. That is its purpose.
  I hope that helps Opposition Members who had difficulty in understanding the wording. I am surprised at their difficulties because I know how expert the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is in reading legislation, but I accept his humble assurances as to the difficulties that he has set out to the House. I hope that he will agree that my explanation was fulsome and detailed and gave him all the information that he needs.
  I commend the amendments to the House.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments 266 to 326 agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. Mark Hoban, Miss Melanie Johnson, Mr. Jim Murphy and Mr. Andrew Robathan; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Woolas.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together motions 7 and 8.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Suspension of Devolved Government) Order 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 2574), dated 14th October 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th October, be approved.
    That the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 2587), dated 14th October 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th October, be approved.—[Mr. Woolas.]
    Question agreed to,
    Motion made,

    JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
    That Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related to Government departments) be amended as follows:

    In the Table

    Item 7, column 2, leave out from 'Office;' to end of entry;

    After Item 8 insert

    `Justice and Constitutional Affairs

    Lord Chancellor's 11'. Department (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments); and administration and expenditure of the Attorney General's Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by Law Officers)

    —[Mr. Woolas]
    Hon. Members: Object.

  PETITIONS

    Natural Health Products
    10.1 pm
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Before I present this petition about the threats to herbal remedies and vitamin supplements on behalf of my constituents, may I say that there are three main concerns? First, nutrients are missing from the list of permitted ingredients in the food supplements directive. Secondly, the setting of maximum levels for nutrients is unsatisfactory. There are very real worries that the products outside the scope of the traditional herbal medicinal products directive should be included. Member states need to be able to introduce their own national rules. There are also concerns about the cost of implementation.
    Thirdly, the proposed ban on sales of kava kava products is based on questionable data. I draw the House's attention to early-day motion 183, in my name, which attracted 44 signatures just last night. We will all regret the fact that the proposed regulatory response is disproportionate.
    The petition states:
    The petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters declares that consumers in the UK have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European food supplements directive and the proposed European directive on traditional herbal medicinal products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Doorstep Recycling Schemes
    10.4
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: The petition of the residents of Tewkesbury and others declares:
    That over 290 Members have signed Early Day Motion No. 186 on Doorstep Recycling Schemes, and that such schemes will encourage better use of resources which, in turn, will bring significant economic benefits; that recycling provides jobs, reduces the demand for raw materials, cuts emissions of greenhouse gases and reduces the pressure for unpopular and environmentally damaging new landfill sites and incinerators; that doorstep recycling to every home is key to the future of recycling and is both effective and inclusive: where recycling centres can be inaccessible for some areas of society such as the infirm, elderly or those without a car, everyone can take part in doorstep recycling, being as simple as putting out the rubbish.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that all local authorities introduce doorstep recycling schemes.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Regulation of Care Homes
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    10.5 pm
    Dr. Vincent Cable son: I am grateful to have the opportunity to introduce an Adjournment debate on an issue that concerns many of us—the problems associated with residential care homes for the elderly. I was in the Members' Dining Room a few moments ago, and I noticed a headline in today's Evening Standard:
    "Betrayal of the Helpless. Standard inquiry reveals appalling regime of neglect in private care home for elderly".
    That did not relate to the home to which I shall refer, but it could have done. Despite the introduction of a regulatory system and the National Care Standards Commission, the problem is widespread.
    The matter that I want to raise primarily concerns a home called Lynde House, in Twickenham, which is owned by Westminster Health Care. It differs significantly from the home described in the Evening Standard article, as it is owned by one of the largest groups in the country. It is a particularly luxurious home, which, none the less, has been subject to an independent investigation, which I instigated, and which has produced some damning conclusions. I want to describe to the House and the Minister the process through which we had to go to secure that inquiry and its aftermath. I also want to raise some of the wider policy issues in terms of how the National Care Standards Commission will manage its relations with very large private providers, and some of the unresolved questions about how standards will be defined and monitored under the National Care Standards Commission.
    I shall start with a narrative of how this situation arose. I became a Member of Parliament in 1997, and, shortly afterwards, I was invited to another care home in my constituency called Brinsworth House, of which the Minister may have heard. It is a famous care home for the elderly, where many retired comedians, musicians and variety artists reside. Thora Hird is among its current residents, and Arthur Askey was a resident there. It is a wonderful institution. I was called in by the general manager, who pointed out a serious problem affecting his home—a care nurse had abused elderly patients, and he had taken steps to have the person dismissed. He had discovered, however, that that person had been hired by another care home down the road a few days later.
    The general manager called me in for two reasons. First, he wanted me to note that appalling things were happening in the unregulated private sector, that people were being hired and rehired who were well below acceptable standards, and that it was very important that the Government grasped the need to regulate the sector properly. Secondly, he wanted me to go to the local press to publicise the fact that his home had had this problem and had dealt with it. I took that to heart, as it struck me as being an exemplary way in which providers of care for the elderly in the private sector should deal with problems: in an open, transparent and public way, with nothing to hide.
    974
    Having seen that experience and good practice, I was well prepared for the events as they unfolded in relation to Lynde House. I had been made aware throughout most of last year of a growing number of complaints from relatives of residents of the home who lived in my constituency. That came to a head in November when the Catholic priest in an area of Twickenham convened a public meeting—with the local Anglican priest—to draw attention to serious concerns among some of his parishioners about care in this home. I attended that meeting, at which I heard a horrifying succession of deeply felt, very emotional presentations by relatives about the experiences that their mothers and fathers had had.
    There was a common thread to the reports. Despite paying extremely large fees—typically, £30,000 a year—the residents had experiences such as sitting for very long periods, being unable to attract attention after ringing bells, sitting in their own waste and being unable to attract any nursing or care attention in an understaffed environment. Perhaps most serious of all was the climate of bullying that existed. Examples were given of old people in their 80s or 90s being expelled or being threatened with expulsion because they had complained about the problems associated with care in the home.
    What was worse was that the residents and their relatives told me that they had approached the local health authority—the regulatory body in this instance—and had not been able to attract a reply. They had been reassured that everything in the home was absolutely fine. My concerns developed in the wake of the meeting even further when I was approached by a judge, who asked to meet me anonymously. Despite his senior position in public life, he was clearly a frightened man. He said that he wanted to tell me some things that had happened in the home, but did not wish his name to be used. He was afraid that, if it were, there would be retaliation against his mother who was in her mid-90s. I also spoke to the local GP who told me similar stories about what had been going on. She expressed her concerns and told me that she had approached the health authority, but had been unable to attract a response. She was assured that the home had been inspected and that everything was absolutely fine.
    I then wrote a letter to the chairman of the health authority, drawing these points to her attention. Somewhat to my surprise, a few days later I was contacted by the head of Westminster Health Care, Dr. Patel, the owner of the home. Without my knowledge, the health authority had copied to him my letters of complaint, so he said that he wished to set up a meeting with me. We met over breakfast, and that was very charming at one level. However, he threatened me with legal action because I, as the Member of Parliament, had written to the health authority asking for an investigation into conditions at the home. That brought home to me strongly the type of experience to which people at the home were subjected. There were threats of intimidation and legal action if perfectly legitimate points were brought into the public domain.
    I then asked the chairman of the health authority, Councillor Julie Ray, to institute a full inquiry into the home and, much to her credit, she agreed. One of the positive elements of this case is the fact that the health service is publicly accountable. She acknowledged that

    975
    there was a problem, and agreed to set up an independent investigation under a well respected, independent person, Mary McLaren.
    Although it was far from the end of the saga, the report was completed last December and January. It did not appear. I was informed that it was stuck because of objections made by Westminster Health Care lawyers. 'The matter went on and the report was refined. It was officially reported to have been finished by May, but it could still not be released because of objections from lawyers. A public report instituted by the health service and of wide public interest could not be released into the public domain because the company objected to its findings.
    The report was eventually released, but I shall not test the Minister's patience by going through it in excruciating detail. However, I wish to report simply for the record some of the main conclusions. They were extremely hard hitting, and half a dozen or so of the main points will capture the flavour of what was found to have happened in the home. The report said that the home:
    "Allowed insufficient levels of staff to operate on occasions which did not meet the high level of resident need…Allowed inadequately trained staff to undertake the care tasks and procedures required … Allowed nursing staff to continue to undertake poor practice i.e Wound Care, Record Keeping, Drug Administration, Ear Syringing…
    Failed to ensure that housekeeping and cleanliness standards were maintained at all times as domestic staff only worked until 14:00 hours … Allowed unacceptable levels of maintenance of hoists, wheelchairs and other equipment, which put the safety of residents at risk … Allowed the unacceptable provision of equipment that did not meet Health and Safety Legislation … Allowed an Internal Complaints Management system … to continue that made access to … Senior Managers seem impossible … Allowed an apparent climate of fear and intimidation as perceived by some relatives and residents … Allowed an apparent closed organisation that did not encourage `whistleblowing' by staff when some were very unhappy with certain situations despite a written policy and in our discussions with some staff … Undertook a recruitment process … that allowed appointed care staff to undertake tasks without fully assessing their competence in a working knowledge of English."
    That was in a home that charged fees of £30,000 a year.
    The criticism did not end with the home. There were also strong criticisms of the national health service in its capacity of regulator. Two in particular merit comment. The first is that
    "The Health Authority failed to implement a robust complaints system in relation to Lynde House which investigated in-depth, repeated concerns raised by relatives…when it was evident that according to the allegations the care was less than adequate".
    The second criticism is that it
    "Failed to recognise deficiencies during the team visits and inspections".
    Subsequent to the report, the new strategic health authority for south-west London convened a public meeting. It is greatly to the credit of that body that its representative made a public apology on behalf of the NHS by admitting that it had failed in its supervisory responsibility, and apologies were expressed for the distress caused. However, no apology or regret has been expressed by the company. Indeed, it published a rebuttal of every criticism made.
    We know from hearsay that Dr. Patel has left the company. I believe that he has also resigned from a series of Government working parties on which he was
    976
    an adviser and from other charitable bodies. Some of the senior management associated with the home have been moved, or possibly dismissed, although that has never been explained. However, the company has made no public acknowledgment that it was at fault, and that remains the position to this day.
    On the back of that, I want to pose a series of policy implications that arise from the events. How will the commission manage and supervise a system in which one of its largest private providers is in default of its obligations and refusing to accept any admission of failure? There is a distinction between a home that gives problems and a company that gives problems. The report makes that clear when it says that
    "Under the registered homes act"
    Westminster Health Care
    "is a corporate organisation and the body corporate is the one registered and accountable."
    We have to deal with how far the company as a whole is responsible for the deficiencies in one of its establishments.
    Since the report was published—it received a great deal of publicity in the national press—I have been deluged with letters from people around the country, bringing my attention to abuses in other Westminster Health Care homes. I now have a substantial dossier of cases, some of which are very serious, relating to at least seven homes owned by the company. I intend to ask the commission if it will investigate the company as a whole.
    Let me cite one problem. It is not in my constituency, so I cannot follow up the individual case, but it gives a flavour of the difficulty. A former nurse who worked at one of the homes in Southgate wrote to me. She said that she
    "became seriously concerned about dangerously low standards of care and incompetent management, which eventually forced me to whistleblow to the Health Authority … I was appalled that my grave concerns were ignored by WHC and the Health Authority. I was constructively dismissed … and forced to pursue a new career … Westminster Health Care use bullying and intimidatory tactics to silence anyone who questions and complains about the standards of care."
    That is exactly the pattern of behaviour that we saw in Twickenham and has been reported across the country.
    Many individual patients and their relatives and carers have written to me. One particularly distressing case concerns a former Labour MP, Michael English, who may be remembered, who was the victim of some of these difficulties. I intend to bring those cases to the attention of the commission.
    How will the Government, through the commission, deal with such cases? If a company is in denial and is comprehensively mismanaging its collection of homes, the commission has only a nuclear option—it can withdraw the licence, which means that large numbers of residential care homes are taken out of use. Is it possible to have a graduated response? Are there any penalties or sanctions that can be applied to signal to a major private provider that its service is not acceptable and that it is behaving arrogantly in refusing to accept the judgments of independent inquiries appointed by the NHS? The point could then be made without closing down a share of the private sector.
    My second set of questions relates to how standards are to be applied within the new regulations, and I am concerned about two or three in particular. It is clear

    977
    from the Lynde House experience that the contracts between the families and the home were not satisfactory. They provided insufficient protection and were insufficiently clear. Does the commission have it in mind to consider the nature of contracts in the private sector? Will it provide model contracts or explore how existing contracts can be improved?
    Is it proposed that bigger companies, which clearly have more resources and are better able to meet standards than one-man, one-house companies, can be asked to operate at higher levels of performance? I am thinking particularly of training. The level of training in the company that I have mentioned was seriously deficient. Would not it be good practice to ask the company to have its own training institution? How can the commission advance that process?
    My final question relates to staff and to a problems with staff who are unprofessional and who create serious disciplinary problems. Is there any system within the commission's approach to enable such people to be tracked, so that other homes that hire them have some cross-reference? At the moment, such staff seem to disappear into a void. Will there be a central register of staff so that issues pertaining to a lack of professional conduct can be addressed?
    I want to pay tribute to those who have brought this matter to the attention of the public. Many are vulnerable people who have had a devastating personal experience, and they have been very brave. They were initially threatened with legal action and bullied, but they have come forward and made their case in public. I am bringing it to the House because it is part of the process of ensuring that they receive justice.
    10.23 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this debate, which is clearly topical and important. All hon. Members want the best for our older citizens, and their treatment is crucial in any civilised society. For that reason it is vital for people to be able to depend on the quality of care homes, and the best way to ensure that quality is through a sensible regulatory regime. I am therefore pleased to have the opportunity to discuss that regulation.
    The hon. Gentleman began by bringing to the attention of the House the article on the front of today's Evening Standard, which claims to have carried out an investigation into a care home in Birmingham. The paper's reporter was in the Alexandra nursing home for three weeks, and alleges that she uncovered a catalogue of abuse and neglect.
    I make it clear, on behalf of the Government, that care homes for older people look after some of the most vulnerable people in our society. That is why the Government set up the National Care Standards Commission. The commission has been given the power to ensure that poor standards are a thing of the past and together with it, we are committed to tackling the abuse and neglect which sadly still take place in some of our homes today. It is important to point out that we provided local authorities with £300 million, half of
    978
    which has been used to support the care homes sector. More than £9 million of that money has been allocated to Birmingham city council.
    I shall meet the hon. Gentleman on the historical point with which he began. In the 1980s there was a huge expansion in the number of care homes, when uncapped social security money was available for publicly funded people entering residential care. Money flowed from the public purse into the care home sector. Indeed, it was the Conservatives, then in power, who sought to limit severely that unplanned and uncontrolled growth. In those days, entry to a care home was not based on need or user choice, but was driven by providers in the independent sector, which led to the unnecessary and completely avoidable admission of many older people and others into institutional care.
    Until 1993, the care home market was not strongly regulated. There were registration and inspection processes, but they were nothing like as robust as those which the Government have put in place. The system of standards introduced by this Government replaced a system in which care homes were regulated by about 250 local authorities and health authorities, each applying its own standards. The old regulatory system had been criticised for many years for lacking independence, consistency and coherence. In the absence of proper checks of individuals and homes, the most dreadful abuse was perpetrated. It was not by any means confined to the independent sector but was very significant in the public sector during the 1980s and 1990s. Indeed, independent providers themselves have been the strongest lobbyists before and after the introduction of the 1990 Act to remove regulation from local control and introduce a level playing field for independent and local authority provision. They have argued strongly for consistency through the use of national standards. It is this Government who have answered those concerns. We have gone one step further than our predecessors and created a regulation body wholly independent of local health and social care agencies.
    The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about the National Care Standards Commission, which is rightly independent of the Government—it would be wrong for me to attempt to tie its hands at the Dispatch Box. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about seeking a meeting with the commission to draw these matters to its attention, and I do not doubt that members of the commission will read Hansard tomorrow, and the issues that he has raised can be addressed. However, I am advised that the nature of the allegations mean that legal action may take place so I must be careful about what I say.
    Under the Care Standards Act 2000, we made the National Care Standards Commission responsible from 1 April 2002 for regulating—registering and inspecting—all care homes. The commission is part of the Government's programme for modernising social care, particularly for improving quality and protection for people in care services. It is a major non-departmental public body, independent of government.
    The commission's main aim, rightly, is to drive up the quality of services and improve the level of protection for vulnerable people in our society, by the regulation of social care and independent health care services.

    979
    The commission has taken over the regulatory responsibilities of local authorities and health authorities.
    We believe that people's safety and well-being are paramount. The new standards will ensure that poor-quality care is a thing of the past. They give care home owners a clear idea of the standards that they have to meet to gain and maintain registration, and users and their carers know what they can expect as a minimum. At the outset, we were aware of concern shown by care home owners that they would struggle to meet some of the standards. That is why we decided that the more challenging standards need not be implemented until 2007, and providers will be given realistic timetables to meet them.
    However, we went further than that—the Government also issued comprehensive statutory guidance to the commission setting out the supportive way in which the standards should be applied. The guidance indicates that the standards should be used to help guide care homes on action that they can take to improve their services. Most importantly, the guidance also states that the commission should consider whether care homes could fulfil the needs of service users without making environmental changes to meet the standards. The guidance particularly covers the issues of room size, lifts, baths and shared rooms and has been welcomed by the major associations representing care homes.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke eloquently about the problems at the Lynde House care home. I have every sympathy with the concern of the relatives of the residents of Lynde House nursing home to ensure that their relatives are properly cared for, and that where failures in care are identified, those responsible are brought to account. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am unable to comment in detail on complaints about the running of individual care homes, such as Lynde House. It is not that I intend to be unhelpful in this regard, but the responsibility for ensuring the quality of care provided by care homes lies clearly with the regulator, and proceedings against an individual for neglect or abuse is a matter for the courts.
    Until April this year, nursing homes were regulated under the Registered Homes Act 1984 by the health authority in which they were located. Responsibility for considering complaints about nursing homes rested primarily with the relevant health authority as the regulator and the health services ombudsman. I understand that Lynde House was first registered with
    980
    Kingston and Richmond health authority in 1996. Kingston and Richmond's regular inspections led to recommendations being made to the home owners, who complied with those recommendations.
    As a result of on-going concerns expressed by relatives of the residents of Lynde House, Kingston and Richmond health authority commissioned an independent inquiry into the home. The McLaren report was published on 21 August. Kingston and Richmond health authority was dissolved in April 2002, and responsibility for the findings of the McLaren report falls to Richmond and Twickenham primary care trust and the South West London health authority.
    How we care for vulnerable people is a matter that we consider to be very important. That is why we introduced the Care Standards Act 2000 to improve the regulation of social services, including care homes. Under the Act, the National Care Standards Commission now regulates all care homes in England. Although the commission has no jurisdiction over the McLaren report, it has completed its first inspection of Lynde House. The commission's inspection report was made available to the residents and relatives of Lynde House on 18 July at the regularly scheduled residents meeting. Action plans have been agreed with Lynde House to address the issues that have arisen out of the inspection, and time scales have been set for requirements to be met. That should ensure that residents receive appropriate good quality care that meets their needs.
    The commission will, of course, be monitoring Lynde House on an on-going basis, and we would expect it to take swift action to deal with any failures by the home. I understand that the National Care Standards Commission, the local strategic health authority and primary care trust are also working together to ensure that lessons are learned from the events at Lynde House. I hope that this sorry episode can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion for all those involved.
    In conclusion, I stress that we have ensured that the introduction of the standards will safeguard and maintain high quality care homes. The emphasis will be on ensuring people's safety and not on instantly de-registering—
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Fireworks
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
9.30 am
Mr. Michael Weir: It is perhaps slightly ironic that we are discussing problems arising from a celebration of an attempt to blow up Parliament. I have never been entirely sure whether the failure is celebrated or regretted. In 1605, Parliament was purely English, of course, as I hope it will be again soon.
I would be surprised if there were any Members who do not receive a steady stream of complaints about the misuse of fireworks at this time of year or who do not perceive a steady rise in the problem. There have already been two private Member's Bills and several early-day motions on the subject. The attendance at today's debate shows the level of interest among Members.
Fireworks can and should be enjoyed. As children, we all probably looked forward to 5 November, but time has moved on and the fireworks season has gradually extended well beyond both sides of Guy Fawkes night. The penny bangers and barking doggies of our youth have been replaced by modern fireworks, which are very powerful. Both of those developments have led to a great deal of misery within our communities.
I am sure that everyone present could list horror stories of incidents involving fireworks in their constituencies. We will hear some of them later. In my constituency, many incidents have been reported to me, both last year and this year. In one case, the front of a postbox was blown off by a firework that had been placed inside it. That is a dramatic illustration of the power of modern fireworks. In another village, more than £2,000 worth of damage was caused when a firework was jammed through a letterbox in the early hours of the morning. Think what could have happened if that fire had not been discovered quickly. It could well have been fatal.
There has already been a steady stream of other incidents. In Aberdeen, vandals destroyed the interior of a fire protection officer's car by dropping a lit firework on the back seat. That stupid action could have caused a serious explosion in a residential area. In another incident, fireworks set off in a block of flats started a series of fires, which, again, could have led to fatalities.
Those are incidents that have taken place just in my area. Since the debate has been publicised, I have received e-mails and letters from around the United Kingdom. I was struck by what I heard from John Taylor in Manchester, who told me that last year, idiots fired large rockets at planes coming into land at Ringway airport. The implications and possible consequences of such behaviour are horrendous, especially at a time when the whole of the western world is on terrorist alert.
252WH
It is not only reckless, stupid and potentially fatal actions that cause problems. From early September to late November every year—a period of almost three months—many of our communities are subjected to night after night of disruption by the continuous use of loud fireworks. One constituent compared it to living on a battlefield.
Fireworks are meant for enjoyment and celebration, but, unfortunately, they are misused by a small minority and that is causing huge distress to our constituents and to animals. Fireworks are not toys. They are extremely dangerous and can be lethal. It is no coincidence that fireworks are governed by the Explosives Act 1875. Sadly, many of the people most at risk in our society are the most vulnerable: the elderly, the disabled and children.
The number of injuries from fireworks is increasing. In Scotland alone there was an increase of some 35 per cent. during 2000 and 2001. Last year I asked some parliamentary questions to ascertain the dates of accidents involving fireworks, and the answers showed that most incidents took place before and after 5 November, not on the date itself. Even more worryingly, the majority of those injured are under 18. In a submission to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is investigating the firework difficulties, the chief police officers of Scotland stated:
"the firework season in 2001 seems to have been a watershed with a significant increase in the use and abuse of fireworks."
The Government introduced the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997, which among other things restricted the sale of fireworks to those over 18. To be fair, in 1998 there was a decrease in the number of injuries from fireworks. However, the level of injuries reported in 2001 was higher than that of 1996, and substantially higher than 2000. As I said earlier, there was a 35 per cent. increase in Scotland, but the numbers are also rising in England.
If the increase in the number of injuries is worrying, the age distribution of those injuries is even more disturbing, especially when one considers that under the 1997 regulations, youngsters should not be able to buy fireworks. Injuries to under-13s account for 34 per cent. of the total number of injuries, and a further 25 per cent. is made up of 13 to 15-year-olds. In essence, 59 per cent. of all firework-related injuries are to children under the age of 16—the very people who should not have access to fireworks. It seems clear that the age restrictions in the 1997 regulations are not restricting young people's access to fireworks.
Animals, too, are excessively disturbed by the misuse of fireworks, and some are killed or have to be put down. A recent survey of vets by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals found that more than 8,000 animals were being treated for firework-related problems. The treatment for those animals varied from prescribing sedatives to being put down. Some 90 per cent. of vets reported that they were dealing with such problems. The animals treated by those vets were generally house pets. I could not find any data on the effect on farm animals or wildlife, but one must assume that they are also being seriously affected.
One specific problem has been raised by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. It states that every year, guide dogs and other working dogs are forced to retire

253WH
after being traumatised by the irresponsible use of fireworks. Others have to be sedated, and some even retrained, leaving their owners without mobility for weeks at a time. The association reports that the problem has escalated during recent years, as fireworks have become more widespread. The association's chief executive stated recently:
"Sudden loud noises can distress guide and other assistance dogs to such a degree that they are unable to continue working. This means the end of the extraordinary partnership that has taken many months and years to develop. With the day to day costs of training, feeding, insurance and vets bills running at about £10 a day per dog, the financial costs to Guide Dogs are huge."
Although that misuse of fireworks directly affects only a portion of the population, the cost of the misuse hits everyone. It affects resources for the health service, fire brigades and police departments, let alone the cost of property damage and increases to property insurance. As the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), will be aware, the current fireworks legislation is based on the Explosives Act 1875, and the Firework (Safety) Regulations 1997. It is my contention that the legislation does not deal effectively with the problems of fireworks. The industry will point people to the voluntary code that limits the period of time over which fireworks can be sold. Unfortunately, it is a purely voluntary code and is totally unenforceable. Many hon. Members will have received a leaflet from the industry extolling the voluntary code and maintaining that it is more effective because it can react quickly to changing circumstances. That may be fine in theory, but what happens if retailers ignore the code? The answer is nothing, because the code cannot be enforced.
The voluntary code states that fireworks should be sold only during the three weeks leading up to 5 November. However, one large newsagent chain in Scotland has been advertising half-price fireworks since September, and many branches have been selling them since then. They are not alone. Such actions undermine any chance for a voluntary code.
Mr. David Drew: I apologise for missing the first minute of the hon. Gentleman's speech, which is obviously cogent and requests action.
Are not the shops that sell fireworks the problem? Standard sweet shops used to sell fireworks, but now virtually anyone can sell them and they do so over a much longer period.
Mr. Weir: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's point, which I was about to come to. I stress that I do not believe in, or seek, a complete ban on fireworks because I do not think that that would be effective and it could lead to a black market in even more dangerous fireworks. However, the industry is very much drinking in the last chance saloon and, unless real improvements are made by a licensing system, fireworks will inevitably be banned altogether or allowed only for organised displays.
I ask the Minister to consider several points. First, in reference to the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I should like her to consider introducing a licensing system by statute to replace the
254WH
voluntary code. Shona Robison, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, is attempting to introduce a Member's Bill—the equivalent of a private Member's Bill here. That Bill would introduce such a system under local government legislation, which is unfortunately the only route open to the Parliament for dealing with this matter. The Executive have indicated that they will take on some of the points that have been mentioned.
John Barrett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill being introduced in the Scottish Parliament is supported on an all-party basis? It has Labour, Conservative, independent and Green support.
Mr. Weir: The Bill was introduced by Shona Robison and has attracted some support, but it was only under pressure from the Scottish National party that the Executive decided take the issue on, and they have done nothing about it ever since.
Mr. Iain Luke: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the control of fireworks is not a political issue in Scotland, and that the need for a licensing scheme is of general concern to a broad consensus of political parties? I believe that there should be a total ban. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that cross-party consensus has been achieved, and that my colleague, the Member representing Dundee, East in the Scottish Parliament, has sponsored the Bill there?
Mr. Weir: I do not dispute that there has been some cross-party involvement in the issue. We should also find some cross-party involvement in this place. It is a great pity that the Government did not take on board the private Member's Bill.
Linda Gilroy: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important Adjournment debate. I am chair of the fireworks group, soon to be called the all-party fireworks group because enough Members of the official Opposition want to join. The hon. Gentleman will be most welcome to join the group, which has more than 60 members.
Mr. Weir: I am glad to hear that. I am sure that the group will push for a control of fireworks Bill to be introduced by the Government.
Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman join?
Mr. Weir: I shall certainly do so.
Such a local authority-based registration scheme would ensure uniformity, rather than a piecemeal system of individual local authorities deciding their own approach. Such a scheme would be able to deal with the type of fireworks that can be sold and to whom and., crucially, the time scale within which they can be sold. On the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Stroud, local authorities would decide which shops could sell fireworks. The scheme would also include the essential feature of it being possible to take action to enforce the code if its rules were broken.

255WH
It is not enough merely to strike at the retailers of fireworks—the 1997 regulations imposed restrictions on them. The users and producers of dangerous fireworks must be tackled. The restrictions on the Scottish Parliament mean that it can deal only with retailers, but this House can take further action, and there have already been two private Member's Bills and several early-day motions. It is unfortunate that the Government did not take up the private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), because it would have dealt with many of the problems.
Although it is a crime under the Explosives Act 1875 to set off a firework in the street, it is almost impossible to prove and to prosecute. I had an e-mail from someone in Edinburgh who took up the matter with a local policeman. It states:
"I spoke to our local community cop who just laughed his head off at these points—when they are so under-resourced, the police just cannot afford to go chasing kids who are letting off bangers. More to the point, in order to secure a conviction, the police must see the firework being let off, indeed, see the person light it and then recover … the used banger."
The existing law is difficult to enforce. Perhaps the time has come to consider amending it to make it an offence to possess fireworks or to carry fireworks outside protective containers, which might prevent the perpetrators from setting off fireworks in the first place. Such moves would lead to a reduction in the number of inappropriately sold fireworks, especially before 5 November, and, more importantly, would lead to a reduction in their use.
I said at the outset that I am not in favour of a complete ban on fireworks, but it is clear that some of them should be banned because they are far too powerful. Even the industry recognises the justice of that case, and it has agreed voluntarily to withdraw air bombs from 1 January next year. That is good but it is not enough. There needs to be strict limits on the power and noise of existing and future fireworks, and only a statutory code can achieve that.
Measures need to be taken to ensure the safe use of fireworks. Statistics on injuries from fireworks show that the vast majority of them occur away from organised displays. Last year, more than 76 per cent. of injuries occurred at private or family parties or in a "casual incident" in the street or other public place, while only 11 per cent. occurred at large public displays. There should be moves to ensure that more fireworks are used in organised displays rather than sold individually.
Well-organised displays are a better way for everyone to enjoy fireworks safely, but a problem is emerging. In my constituency, a well-organised display that has been held in Carnoustie for more than 20 years has been put in jeopardy because insurance premiums have increased massively and the organisers cannot afford them. In that case, Angus council has stepped in and the display has been saved. However, other people from around the country who are facing similar problems have contacted me. Some underwriters are no longer prepared to run the risk of court action by those injured by powerful fireworks, and that is putting many well-organised displays in jeopardy. If those displays stop, there will inevitably be an increase in the use of fireworks by individuals, and a consequent increase in the number of injuries to people, animals and property.
256WH
I drew that point to the attention of the House in early-day motion 1778, and I urge the Minister to discuss the matter with insurance companies to try to ensure that they reduce premiums for specific, well-organised displays, which would inevitably lead to some form of regulation. If it is not possible to get insurance companies to reduce their premiums—it is probably impossible to force them to do so—will the Minister consider the possibility of acting as an insurer of last resort for such well-organised displays, which would have to be subject to some regulation?
This is a matter of public safety and fire prevention. Taking fireworks out of the hands of individuals and leaving their use to well-organised displays would be far more effective than any number of public awareness campaigns. If the Minister fails to do that, there will inevitably be more calls for even tighter restrictions— even for a complete ban. That would be a pity, but public safety is paramount.
9.50 am
Linda Gilroy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) on securing this timely Adjournment debate and look forward to welcoming him to our soon-to-be-constituted all-party group, which has more than 60 members. Its secretary is my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who is unable to be with us today, and other members include my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who first introduced the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North and I have introduced at various times in different Parliaments.
Other hon. Members have a long track record in this matter, including the Minister's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), who introduced effective regulations in 1997. Sadly, as the hon. Member for Angus said, the effect of those regulations has subsequently deteriorated. In my first year as a new Member, I was lucky enough to be selected in the ballot for private Members' Bills. I took a Bill through most of its stages—first, in the House of Commons, then, with the assistance of colleagues there, through the House of Lords, including the deregulatory Committee, then back to the Commons, where, sadly, it fell foul of Conservative Members who were intent on ensuring that the anti-hunting Bill was not debated that day.
In 1997 we were very much concentrating on trying to reduce accidents in the wake of two deaths that had occurred at organised firework displays. Since then, two factors—animal welfare and hooligans' use of fireworks—have come much more to the fore. The fireworks group has considered how to tackle those issues in the lead-up to the forthcoming ballot, in which we hope that one of our many members will be lucky in the draw and consider taking on a fireworks Bill.
There are two possible approaches. First—the route that several of us have already tried to follow—the Secretary of State can be given additional regulation-making powers to hold in reserve in case the current attempt to put the jack back in the box does not work. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Angus that it will be difficult to make the voluntary code work, because since the millennium celebrations, a tradition

257WH
has built up of fireworks being on sale from September to February—in some communities, throughout the whole year. The second route is that taken in Northern Ireland—to ban through regulations, then positively to license certain activities.
Before I consider the pros and cons of each of those routes, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the work that she has been doing alongside the industry this year, which has resulted in a hard-hitting and targeted campaign for the current fireworks season that is very much aimed at the teenage group mentioned by the hon. Member for Angus. Its message is, "Fool with fireworks and bang goes your image", and hard-hitting posters show the nasty injuries and scars that can result from doing so. She has also worked with the industry in attempting to achieve noise reduction.
Ways have been found to get around the effective regulations introduced in 1997 by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South. The voluntary ban on air bombs will not come into effect in time for this season, but will be in operation from early January. The Minister's action plan also includes anticipating European directives that will specify a limit of 113 to 120 decibels and selling the noisier fireworks only in costly packs so that people cannot just purchase them with other fireworks.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the voluntary code applies only to boxes of fireworks and does not actually rule out the sale of small numbers of air bombs?
Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend is right. I praise the Minister's attempts to do something about the problem, but I also want to ensure that the Secretary of State has regulatory powers to put the restrictions on a statutory footing. My Bill, which was supported by several hon. Members, would have done that, among other things. It also would have provided for statutory footing to confine the voluntary sales period to the new year period and the week before and two or three weeks after 5 November.
The hon. Member for Angus mentioned the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. In discussions with officers of the association, we were alarmed to learn that each year two or three guide dogs are spooked by fireworks to the extent that they have to be retired. The costs associated with that are £20,000, £30,000 or more. In addition, because of the extended period in which fireworks are misused, guide dog owners—and other pet owners, of course—have to sedate their animals. That means that the owners of guide dogs are unable to call on their services, upon which they rely to such a great extent.
The most recent in a long series of letters from Mrs. Robinson in my constituency bears out the description given by the hon. Member for Angus. It says that what used to be
"3 days on either side of firework's night"
is now
"a relentless pounding from first dark to 2.00 or 3.00 am, every evening at least one month on either side of firework's night."
258WH
She says that her female dog
"will very probably have to be put down as she is unable to cope with the intensity of the noise levels."
She goes on to say:
"Vandals in the area are using these fireworks as weapons aiming them at animals being walked in parks."
She said that if I went round and spoke to people in her area I would get a feedback of despair.
On Saturday morning a week ago, I was in the Barbican area of my constituency where some of my constituents are being pursued under the antisocial behaviour order procedure. One aspect of their antisocial behaviour is firing rockets from the top flat of one block of flats to another. The incidents are legion—no doubt some of my colleagues will tell us of others that occur throughout the length and breadth of the country.
The Minister is doing good work to try to deal with the problem. We wish her well, but we also want to ensure that the Secretary of State has the necessary regulatory powers to take swift action without having to resort to primary legislation. Such powers would include giving enforcement agencies a crystal-clear basis on which to prevent hooligan use of fireworks, making statutory the voluntary code and—the industry was very supportive of this part of the Bill—licensing display operators. The hon. Member for Angus may be interested to know that I spoke at a conference of display operators, which was held in my constituency—in fact, the national fireworks championships are held in my constituency each year—and learned that the insurance issue is very real. An insurance broker is promoting voluntary standards that could well form the basis of the sort of standards that would be necessary under a statutory licensing system. If that did not work, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should have reserve powers to bring in a statutory licence system quickly.
The other route is that taken in Northern Ireland. There are, of course, special circumstances in Northern Ireland with different legislation-making processes. This year, the Secretary of State has taken powers to ban fireworks. That sounds draconian and I know that most of my hon. Friends want people to be able to enjoy fireworks and to do so safely, but the positive licensing system enables the Secretary of State to license the availability of fireworks in certain circumstances. We should consider that route seriously in the debates that will take place during the next Session of Parliament.
I want to quote from the Derry Journal in which Dessie Lowry, the Social Democratic and Labour party councillor on Limavady borough council, said:
"There are definitely fewer problems on the housing estates where these fireworks were thrown about. People are not having them thrown into gardens and dogs and cats are not being terrified."
I understand that other council areas have also reported a significant reduction in the number of incidents involving fireworks since the new legislation was introduced earlier this year.
Whichever route emerges from this debate, it is essential that we find ways of putting the jack back in the box. Our constituents are deeply upset. Some animals are spooked and have to be put down and many others are not able to give their valuable and necessary support to blind people because they have to be sedated for long periods of the year.

259WH
I want to ensure that none of us is faced with the death of a constituent or with the severely injured sons and daughters of constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), who campaigns vigorously on this issue, had to face the very sad death of one of her constituents last December. We want to be able to enjoy fireworks safely and I look forward to the observations of my hon. Friend the Minister.
10.2 am
John Barrett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) on securing this topical debate on an issue in which I have taken a strong interest. He made a commendable speech, which set out clearly the dangers to human and animal life arising from the misuse of fireworks.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) on her contribution. If I am not already a member of her all-party parliamentary group, I shall join very soon and I look forward to it being fully constituted. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) said that this is not a partisan issue and that hon. Members from all parties are concerned about the issues that we are discussing today.
I was elected to the House about 17 months ago and an issue that has constantly loomed large in my postbag and at my weekly surgeries is that of fireworks. With 5 November only days away and with serious safety concerns about a firefighters' strike, the issue is uppermost in many people's mind. It is clear from what has already been said in the Chamber today and from the large number of early-day motions, private Member's Bills and parliamentary questions, that my experience is not unique.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to organisations in my constituency that have campaigned long and hard—many of them long before I became a Member of this House—for new legislation on fireworks. I recently met Betty Stevenson of the north Edinburgh fireworks safety campaign group, which covers my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz). The organisation has worked long and hard to tackle the misuse of fireworks and, particularly, the problem of the under-age sale of fireworks, which has plagued many communities in my constituency such as Corstorphine, Muirhouse, and Drylaw.
I represent a constituency in Edinburgh, which is well known for spectacular fireworks displays. At new year, Edinburgh puts on one of the most spectacular hogmanay events in the world and the highlight is a fireworks display that is regularly attended by more than 200,000 people. During the Edinburgh festival, Edinburgh castle is lit by another spectacular fireworks display, and only last Sunday, at the end of the week-long Hindu festival organised by the Scottish Indian arts forum, there was yet another fireworks display. Like many of my constituents, and like people throughout Edinburgh and Scotland, I enjoy those displays; they mark out the city as unique.
I am not anti-fireworks and I do not favour an outright ban, as some do, but the current laws governing the use of fireworks are clearly ineffective and drastically need to be updated. As the hon. Member for Angus said, the problem is that much of the law governing fireworks
260WH
is almost 130 years old. That may be difficult for some to comprehend, but fireworks technology has moved on since the Explosives Act received Royal Assent in 1875.
I do not wish to belittle the measures introduced by the Government, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton, but the regulations prohibiting the sale of large or more dangerous fireworks and the Government's safety campaigns, including educational kits for schools, although positive, have only tinkered at the edges of the problem. Comprehensive new legislation is required to bring United Kingdom fireworks laws into the 21st century.
It is important to note that the misuse of fireworks affects not only people. The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, whose headquarters is in my constituency, produced the excellent but disturbing and chilling report mentioned by the hon. Member for Angus. The report makes it clear that the impact of fireworks on domestic and wild animals concerns many people. It was that report that prompted me to table early-day motion 791, and I was glad that more than 100 right hon. and hon. Members chose to add their names in support of that—the largest backing of any fireworks-related early-day motion in this Session.
The hon. Member for Angus also mentioned the number of vets who responded to the SSPCA survey. A total of 80 per cent. of vets in Edinburgh admitted having to treat animals for stress and injury directly related to fireworks. Those injuries were reported not only on or about 5 November, but for at least a three-month period. There are stories of deliberate attacks on animals—of cats being affected by inhaling smoke and of dogs being in cars where fireworks were set off.
Other dangers have already been mentioned, including the danger to human life. Recently in my constituency, a young, pregnant mother of a two-year-old was burned to death because someone put inflammable material through her letterbox. It was not a firework, but it shows that hooligans who think that they may be participating in a prank sometimes have no idea of the tragic consequences that can result.
After consulting community councils, the local police force, GPs and others in my constituency, I began a petition campaign calling on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take serious action as a matter of urgency. I was truly overwhelmed by the response. I now have thousands of names on the petition. Many people chose to send letters with their returned forms, which provided me with a catalogue of horror stories—of accidents, injuries to animals and people, and of the fear and distress that fireworks can cause. If there was any doubt in my mind about the seriousness of the issue and its impact on communities, the response to my campaign has removed it.
Why are we in such a sorry state of affairs? I believe that the voluntary code of practice is ineffective and that it fails properly to protect the public. The maximum penalty or custodial sentence has never been imposed under the law that prohibits sales to those under the age of 18, which makes a mockery of the law. It is time for the voluntary code that limits the time of year when fireworks can be sold to the public to be enshrined in law. The code does not work because too many outlets fail to adhere to it. As the hon. Member for Angus said,

261WH
many outlets sell fireworks long before 5 November. Fireworks can therefore cause fear and misery all year round.
We need rules to ensure that properly trained and licensed pyrotechnicians are at all public displays. I realise, however, that that will not stop all accidents because at a large community fireworks event in my constituency, which was organised by a licensed pyrotechnician, a young girl was hit by a rogue firework. We cannot rule out accidents, but we could minimise the danger, and the presence of trained, experienced operators would certainly help.
I do not want to portray everything as doom and gloom. We seem to be closer in Scotland than in England and Wales to tackling the problems of selling fireworks. The hon. Member for Angus highlighted Shona Robison's Bill in the Scottish Parliament, which has received all-party sponsorship. Last week, the Scottish Finance Minister, Andy Kerr, signalled the Executive's intention to press ahead with new laws on the sale of fireworks. That attitude, and the actions that it promotes, contrast starkly with the inaction at Westminster. The Government are so concerned with focus groups and popularity that it is incredible that they are not taking a bigger lead on the issue. The public would clearly welcome positive action, particularly in our city communities.
It is not a case of being a killjoy. Like other hon. Members, I enjoy a good fireworks display, but it is time for tighter regulations. There is much that the Government can do, and all parties in the House are determined that we should take action. All we need is some direction from the Government, and I hope that the Minister will provide it today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. It will not have escaped hon. Members' notice that a significant number of their colleagues are rising to speak. I will call the first of the three Front-Bench spokesmen at 10.30 am, and it is up to hon. Members how they use the time up until then.
10.11 am
Vera Baird: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I shall be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) on obtaining the debate.
The council in Redcar has taken a lead on firework safety issues. In particular, it has initiated a voluntary registration scheme for licensed retailers. Those who sign up agree to comply with legislation prohibiting the sale of fireworks to under-age children. They also agree not to sell fireworks to people they think are likely to misuse them and to tell the local authority of anyone who uses them inappropriately. The scheme is supported by a dedicated freephone number, which came into operation on 14 October. It has been widely advertised in the local papers, and shop owners and members of the public can use it to report illegal bonfires, nuisances and people who they think are selling fireworks unlawfully.
262WH
In tandem with the scheme, the council runs a bonfire strategy and a fuel management scheme. In a nutshell, those measures ensure that materials that could be used for a bonfire can be quickly removed from a public place, particularly if children have collected them for a bonfire. We are well able to remove such materials in Redcar and Cleveland because we have an effective team of neighbourhood wardens.
This year, Redcar council is spending more than £10,000 on four public firework displays, one of which is at Redcar racecourse. The benefits are obvious, and I will not set them out. Such measures will go a long way to ensuring that 5/11, as we should learn to call it, is no longer a public hazard, but a way of enhancing community involvement.
That sentiment is echoed by Chief Superintendent Kelly of my local police division. In parallel with the council's efforts, he has initiated Operation Tinderbox in Redcar, which involves the police taking education packs to schools. Contrary to the experience of the Edinburgh correspondent mentioned by the hon. Member for Angus, the initiative is being supported by a crackdown on antisocial behaviour and damage over the relevant period and in relevant locations. The police are also vigorously pursuing intelligence on the illegal storage and sale of fireworks. Chief Superintendent Kelly tells me that, again, the wardens play an important role. Like the police, they have high visibility and can deter nuisance by dealing quickly and robustly with incidents.
Those manoeuvres and tactical measures are important. The big concern in Redcar is not that there is no legislation, but that catching and prosecuting perpetrators is a problem. That is the view of Mr. Gary Flynn, the council's community safety co-ordinator, who believes that the council's measures are having an impact and that things are nowhere near as bad as they were last year.
The council's fallback position is represented by a petition in all the local libraries in Redcar. It calls for a ban on the sale of fireworks to everybody except those whom the Health and Safety Executive has licensed to make professional use of them. That petition will be brought to the House on 16 November, and the number of signatures on it will offer a final judgment on the effectiveness of the well thought-out efforts of the council and the police. Until then, in Redcar at least, the jury is out on a total ban.
10.15 am
Mr. Russell Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) on securing the debate. I shall be brief, because other colleagues want to speak.
There are two elements to the debate—the nuisance element and the safety element. I served for several years as a health and safety representative in a workplace, and I believe that safety is of paramount importance. Last year, there was a 50 per cent. increase in injuries to young teenagers, which was the highest rise in seven years. That is quite horrifying. Parliament has tried to do as much as it can to prevent accidents, and after 1997 there was a welcome decrease in injuries. Last year's figures, however, tell a totally different story.
Hon. Members who have spoken this morning have referred to the months either side of bonfire night. From the first week of September, life has been made

263WH
unbearable for many people in my area. A lady told me that she witnessed something last week that was like something one might expect to see on television. One evening, a group of six or seven youngsters were standing on a street corner when a car drove up the street at high speed and did a handbrake turn. The back door opened, and a large box was thrown from the back of the vehicle. Some 20 minutes later, everyone in the neighbourhood discovered contained that the box contained fireworks. The lady told me that she could not believe her eyes and, that if someone had told her the story and she had not witnessed it herself, she would have thought that it was pure imagination.
There is one individual in my home town who, from the first week in September, has supplied youngsters with fireworks that he procured in the Newcastle area. I immediately reported the fact to the police and trading standards people, but I was disappointed by the outcome. One of my fears was that the guy might be storing the fireworks in the locality, and that they might put those in the vicinity in danger. However, I discovered that legislation would kick into force only if he was storing them somewhere for more than 14 days. It was patently obvious that the guy was simply part of a system for passing fireworks on from his supplier to his customers.
I worked for 18 and a half years in the explosives industry. That had nothing to do with the fireworks business, but because of that experience I realise how fiercely fireworks burn—they are white hot. Recently there was a horrendous incident in Holland that caused devastation in the neighbourhood, which should be a lesson to people about how much damage fireworks can do.
Linda Gilroy: As a warning to our constituents, I believe that I am right in saying that sparklers are as hot as chip pan fat.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right.
Last year, I received a tremendous amount of correspondence, but this year I have had only a couple of letters. That is probably down to the good work of Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, who at an early stage have tried to stamp out some of the things that have been going on. Last week the constabulary issued a press release saying that a local man was charged with supplying fireworks to juveniles in the town of Dumfries. We are moving in the right direction.
Along with my hon. Friends, I applaud the work done by my hon. Friend the Minister and her Department. However, I draw to her attention something that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) drew to mine. Some firework manufacturers have said that they can make fireworks that do not produce the amount of noise that we have all experienced in neighbourhoods in our constituencies for many years. If she has not already done so, I would encourage the Minister to start talking to manufacturers about what they can do. I appreciate that a tremendous amount of the fireworks on sale in shops are imported, which creates another difficulty. However, we need to make a serious attempt to cut down on the nuisance caused, whether it is to elderly citizens or animals.
I encourage the Minister to speak to manufacturers to see if a positive start can be made to cut out the nuisance that so many people have to tolerate—not only for a
264WH
couple of weeks before bonfire night and perhaps a couple after, but, in my experience, for at least the two months before it.
10.21 am
Mr. Adrian Bailey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) on securing the debate, and I pay tribute to those who have far greater experience of campaigning on the issue than I.
In common with virtually every other hon. Member, I have been made aware of the increasing levels of noise, nuisance and antisocial behaviour, and the adverse effects on animal welfare in my constituency, which seem to have escalated year by year. In common with other hon. Members, I do not wish to be a killjoy. Fireworks are colourful, pleasurable, exciting and a legitimate way for people to celebrate special occasions and events. I want any legislation to be sensitive to people's desire to celebrate with fireworks. I also recognise that in a multicultural society, different ethnic groups have festivals and celebrations at different times of the year during which they want to use fireworks.
None the less, I think that it is necessary to have a regulatory system that will enable responsible people or legitimate organisations to celebrate with fireworks, without giving those antisocial elements that exist in most areas the freedom to use them to make people's lives hell. What is a joy for some can be absolutely appalling for others. We must frame legislation to ensure that those who wish to use fireworks joyfully can do so without other people suffering as a consequence.
I welcome the voluntary code, but only in so far as it is a long-awaited recognition of the fact that there is a problem. I do not think that it will work. One of the arguments against the proposals is that they will create a black market. I do not take that argument very seriously. People who are prepared to bypass legislation have a field day bypassing voluntary restraint. Even within the terms of the voluntary restraint, some fireworks will be used by those who wish to use them antisocially to cause an enormous level of disturbance.
I am conscious of the time and so will wind up fairly quickly. I want to see some form of licensing system. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) commented on the fact that a licensing system already operates in Northern Ireland. Although we all recognise that there are special reasons why it is implemented in Northern Ireland, it will give us a body of experience on which we can draw to implement a similar system in this country.
I can see two great advantages in that. First, it increases public awareness about the legislation on fireworks. There is currently a range of legislation, most of it very old, and people do not know what their rights are when it comes to being affected by fireworks. The pet owner whose dog is disturbed by a flying rocket will hardly go to the perpetrator and say, "You are in breach of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and I demand action." Similarly, many local authorities do not have the staff to implement legislation on noise and nuisance. We need a regulatory licensing system because, then, the conditions of the licence could be known both to the user and to the general public. That would increase people's awareness, enable the police and other law enforcement authorities to know on what basis they can act, and enable them to act quickly.

265WH
That is my central point. I thank hon. Members for their contributions and for the benefit of their knowledge, but I believe that licensing fireworks is the route that we should take.
10.25 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: Like many others, I get a lot of pleasure from fireworks and do not support a total ban on sales to the public. In Lancashire, there is a tradition of community bonfires, with treacle toffee and black peas. The bonfires bring the community together. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said, Bolton council asks people to register their bonfires and those that are not registered are removed.
As a professional chemist, I am alarmed at the size of fireworks on sale to the general public. They can buy rockets of 5 ft or 6 ft long and 9 in cakes of fireworks with multiple charges that go off over a considerable period. Those are huge explosives, which should not be in the hands of the general public. They should be available only to professional people who have been trained to set them off.
The Government should examine the classification of fireworks. The current system differentiates indoor fireworks, garden fireworks, other fireworks for sale to the general public for displays and fireworks banned from sale to the general public, which can be set off only by trained engineers at public displays. Please will the Minister consider the classification of fireworks and prevent large fireworks from being sold all year round?
There is a large mixed ethnic community in Bolton. The Hindu and Chinese communities have celebrations at different times of the year from ours, so it would be hard on those communities to restrict the sale of fireworks to two weeks before bonfire night.
10.27 am
Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) for securing this important debate on a cross-party and cross-region issue. Many of my colleagues who represent Welsh constituencies are equally concerned about the matter and their postbags are filled with letters of concern from residents who, for months leading up to 5 November, must put up with fireworks being set off in the streets outside their houses.
An elderly resident in a remote community in one of my valleys, who had been back in her home for two weeks recuperating from an illness, was disturbed in the early hours of the morning when her window was smashed by a firework. As a former lecturer, I know that one of the responsibilities of local authorities is to provide appropriate controls and appropriate leisure outlets. We must acknowledge that the voluntary system of regulation is insufficient, despite the many good examples of best practice shown by councils and neighbourhood watch schemes. If voluntary arrangements are not working, it is clear that we must go further and consider a licensing system. It is not acceptable that the quality of life of our constituents should be put in danger by the present state of affairs.
10.29 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) on initiating a debate that is topical, and would have been even more so had a firefighters' strike been scheduled for the relevant day. The subject has considerable historical resonance in this place. What the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have perhaps been too polite to point out is that what we celebrate on bonfire night—its historical origin—is the ascendancy of English and Scottish Protestants over the Catholic population.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) made the point that several separate problems arise. First, safety is a distinct problem. Each year there are about 1.000 injuries requiring attention by accident and emergency departments. As the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) pointed out, the extraordinarily high explosive power of the new generation of fireworks has a lot to do with that.
Another issue to emerge from the statistics is that, although the rate of injuries is fairly stable, there has been a big increase in injuries to teenagers. That is associated with the second problem—antisocial behaviour, rather than fireworks themselves. The kids who throw fireworks around would otherwise be setting fire to vehicles and throwing rocks.
Shona McIsaac: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the seriousness of such antisocial behaviour? For example, the front page of my local paper announced "Sixty evacuated in dangerous vandal attack". Fireworks were thrown into a crowded pub, and that sort of thing is not uncommon. No one was injured, but such incidents are not included in the figures, so matters are probably more serious than they may appear.
Dr. Cable: They are very serious. The event that the hon. Lady recounts could be described as a fairly serious crime. I know that the Minister has introduced measures to deal with the throwing of fireworks.
The third distinct element of the issue is the noise problem. Most of the people who write to us are primarily concerned about noise. They include elderly people and people with pets. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), who mentioned that the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has is headquarters in his constituency, pointed out that there is great concern about noise.
Perhaps the Minister can help me to understand: at present, the loud noise of bangers is heard for several weeks before and after bonfire night. Why is this happening? Under the 1997 regulations, as I understand matters, category 2 and 3 bangers have effectively been outlawed. Is the problem that the regulations are being ignored and not enforced, or are category 2 and 3 bangers defined in a liberal way? It is important to understand the answer. The first explanation would present us with an issue of law enforcement, and the second, as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East implied, an issue of industry standards and how to enforce them.
As to what policy we should adopt, I agree with hon. Members who have stressed the need for proper balance. One person's pleasure is another person's

267WH
nuisance. We have all been children and most of us can see aspects of a rite of passage. Community firework displays are important and valued. Open air concerts, all of which seem to finish with Handel's firework music and associated visual effects, now happen at several places in my constituency. I do not know how many hon. Members present were on the Embankment for the phenomenal firework display on millennium eve. Such events are part of a tradition. Many people enjoy them and, if they are done in the right way, we should tolerate them. That attitude should be balanced against the noise, the antisocial behaviour and the danger.
How can we achieve that balance? I would start by considering not new methods of regulation—let alone bans—but enforcement issues. We already have a substantial range of regulations, and the Minister's approach of building on them incrementally is sensible. The issue is why they are not being more widely enforced. Part of the trouble is that trading standards officers bring few prosecutions for things such as under-age selling. Perhaps the Minister has more information about that. The underlying problem is that trading standards offices are hopelessly understaffed, underfinanced and ill-equipped, yet we like to pile more responsibilities on to them. The Minister is in the process of introducing the Enterprise Bill, which will extend consumer protection powers. That will place yet more responsibility on a weak arm of local government. Until it is beefed up and given adequate support, it will not be able to perform its role.
The same is true of the police. In principle, I support the idea of imposing spot fines on people who throw fireworks. However, the police must be able to enforce it. In areas like mine, where there are not enough police officers to have beat policing, the police just laugh at such measures because they do not have the capacity to enforce the law. The enforcement issue rests on the resources of those services.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for enforcement on the streets where the nuisance behaviour takes place. Does he agree that that is a good case for the deployment of community support officers to act as the eyes and ears of police, and would he therefore encourage more extensive use of such officers by other police forces?
Dr. Cable: Yes. The hon. Gentleman is right, and I support that. It is a good initiative. Recruitment in London has been encouraging and I welcome it.
Apart from enforcement, the other way in which the Minister can make progress without bringing in widespread bans and new regulations is to tighten up on industry specification, building on the 1997 regulations, particularly in respect of bangers and the dangerous fireworks that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East has highlighted.
My final concern is whether there is a case for a ban on sales or widespread regulation. I am not sure. We would be introducing a new regulatory apparatus for objectives that are not clear. I have more sympathy with the narrow proposal that limits sales to a specific number of days, and would embody the voluntary code in legislation. There are still difficulties with that, not least the point about ethnic minorities—I have a Hindu
268WH
community starting in the north of my constituency, heading into west London. There is also the risk of people buying within the restricted time period and storing the fireworks. There are many ways in which enforcement would be difficult.
Would it be sensible to allow local councils to experiment? There are many parts of the country where there is not a Hindu population, with its particular difficulties. Might the way forward be for the Government to empower local authorities, based on their local traditions, the strength of their trading standards departments and other factors, to have a moratorium on sales during a particular period, not necessarily to impose a nationwide restriction?
10.38 am
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) on having introduced this timely debate, which covers both Diwali and Guy Fawkes night. Could he let the rest of us know how he achieved that? I never seem to manage to secure debates that are so timely.
The hon. Gentleman used the term "irresponsible use of fireworks", and that is the point. I have a dog of whom I am inordinately fond, who is terrified of fireworks. When they go off close at hand, she will hide and shiver. It is worrying for me and even more so for her. I am sure that other pet owners will recognise the symptoms. The worst time was when we accidentally passed close to a public display and she very nearly bolted. If she had not been on a lead, I would probably have never seen her again. That has happened to many people's dogs. The issue is serious, and we all receive many letters about it.
There are far too many accidents. We have heard the accident rate today. One accident is one too many, and I regret that there are any at all. As the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) pointed out, we are dealing with explosives, and explosives are inherently dangerous.
What should we do? In a well-argued speech, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) pointed out that the 1997 regulations, which were welcomed, have not achieved what we hoped that they would. Indeed, the accident rate went up rather than down last year. I remember that as a child, after much pleading on my part, my mother dispatched me with a note to the retailer that said that I was authorised to buy fireworks even though I was under 14. That was, I fear, some 40 years ago. We used to have a bonfire party in the back garden on 5 November or thereabouts, which was closely supervised by my parents, and there were no injuries. My parents were certainly responsible, and I was forced to be.
Things have changed. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) mentioned the amount of explosives in some fireworks, which is an important issue. Furthermore, the antisocial behaviour of young people seems at the root of many of the problems. In Leicestershire last year, the Leicester Mercury ran a campaign about the irresponsible use of fireworks. As a result, I received many letters. They referred to the fact that the fireworks season now goes on for five or six weeks. The hon. Member for Angus suggested that it went on for three months, which I thought was a bit long, but we must remember Diwali and hogmanay,

269WH
concerts in Twickenham, birthday parties and, this year, the jubilee. It is difficult to talk about time limits. People who say that fireworks should be sold for only, say, a month around a specific date might find that almost impossible to enforce. Apart from anything else, people will stock up on fireworks.
The big complaint is that fireworks are being let off in the street, especially bangers. As I understand it, bangers have been illegal since 1997 and it has been illegal since 1875 to let off fireworks in the street. Such acts are criminal. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, the question is one of enforcement.
Linda Gilroy: When I promoted my fireworks Bill, some people from the Police Federation were very supportive of it. From the point of view of the police, there is a problem in using the present powers. The proposal in the 1997 Bill, which fell, would have made enforcement much easier for the police.
Mr. Robathan: That is a good point. The time that the police can spend on enforcing the powers is another issue. Unusually, I commend the Government on their pilot schemes in which £40 fixed penalty notices will be imposed by the police for letting off fireworks in the street. The schemes are in Croydon, the west midlands, north Wales and Essex. That is a good way forward. The public need to show a more responsible attitude. When someone sees a teenager—it is typically a teenager—letting off fireworks in the street, perhaps the police will be informed and perhaps they will take greater action. The issue is one of education as much as anything else.
The other big issue that ties in with bangers and the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East is noise. It is just as frightening for an animal to hear an explosion from a public display as it is for them to hear an explosion in a garden or on the street. There are provisions on the subject in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Noise Act 1996, but they are difficult to enforce. Again, I commend the Government. I quote from the fact sheet sent to me with the undated letter from the Minister, which states that the Government are
"Seeking to make it easier for local authorities to use the Night Noise Offence … which targets excessive noise … after 11pm".
That is extremely sensible. Let us see how it works.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton mentioned the national fireworks display in Plymouth. I bet that there are complaints about the noise from that.
Linda Gilroy: There certainly are. It is a problem, but we want people to enjoy fireworks and to enjoy them safely. That is why other hon. Members referred to the possibility of low noise fireworks, on which I look forward to the Minister's comments.
Mr. Robathan: Funnily enough, I again commend the Minister. I do not want to steal all her thunder, but in the same undated letter she refers to voluntary restraint on the noise of fireworks. I will let her cover that in more detail. As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, the key to the issue is a balance between an individual's
270WH
freedom of enjoyment, danger to others, and the antisocial behaviour of some that restricts their consideration of others.
A degree of hyperbole surrounds the debate. There is irritation and upset, but not the misery that people claim. One of my constituents wrote to me:
"Older people are terrified and how young children sleep with this going on, I do not know."
I have two young children under the age of six, both of whom, I must admit, like sparklers. Like all of us, I have to lay my weary head down somewhere at night. During the week, I live in a very densely populated part of Westminster as, I suspect, do many of us. Although I find fireworks irritating, my children have never been woken up. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) prayed in aid the death of one of his constituents, but that had nothing to do with fireworks. The cause was petrol through the letterbox. No one is suggesting yet that we stop the sale of petrol.
Noise, however, is a real problem. If the voluntary restraint in the Government's plans works, there will be many fewer complaints because noise is what everyone notices. It is a question of consideration and responsible behaviour. It is also a question of parental control. One cannot buy fireworks if one is under 18—or rather, one should not be able to do so. So who is buying them, and who is letting their children out on the street with them? I am afraid that the responsibility lies with the parents.
More than anything, there is the issue of adherence to and enforcement of existing law. Hon. Members discussed the further licensing of sales, which might be sensible. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East made a good point about the excessive size of fireworks. However, I wonder if we really want trained firework-display personnel? I am sure that we have all lit fireworks in our time. When I was in the Army, I went on a two-week fire-training course. It was rather fun going down the pole at a fire station and using a hose. However, the rest of what I learned was mostly common sense and would have taken about 10 minutes to read about in a book.
Do we really want a total ban? I suspect that one could download instructions from the internet on how to make gunpowder. I will make a bet with anyone here, if they like. There are at least a couple of people here who could do it straight away. Clever young physicists aged 15 or 16 are probably doing it already. That is another issue on which we should not dwell for too long. Do we really want more regulation and more restrictions on individual freedom? I do not believe that we do. We do not want to make this country more of a nanny state. The problem is that the law is not observed or enforced.
How will we ensure that new laws are observed and enforced? As a Conservative, I would prefer not to have unnecessary regulation that uses up our time.
Linda Gilroy: The hon. Gentleman might like to consider the Bill that several of us have promoted. It has regulation-making powers, which can be held in reserve, and might be an additional incentive to the industry to reach voluntary agreements.
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. That is a very sensible way forward, which ties in with the

271WH
voluntary code that the Government are promoting. As a Conservative, however, I am, in general, against further regulation unless it is proved necessary. I do not believe that some of the regulations that hon. Members call for in this House and elsewhere would be enforceable or effective.
Finally, I return to the subject of my dog, Otter, of whom I am inordinately fond. She is terrified of thunderstorms. When there is a thunderstorm, she cowers under the bed or the table, but I have not worked out what regulations we could introduce to deal with that.
10.49 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson):: I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) on securing this useful debate. I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words on the issue, as I know that it is one about which many people have concerns.
Since last year's Guy Fawkes period there has been an unprecedented level of public concern about the misuse of fireworks in terms of safety, noise and general nuisance. I have seen an increase in the amount of correspondence on the issue in my constituency postbag, as have most hon. Members, which has been reflected in increased parliamentary discussion.
I have heard the representations here today seeking restrictions on the sale and use of fireworks. I am sympathetic to those who are distressed by the noise and frightened by the rogue element that misuses fireworks in public places, and sets them off at unreasonable times of day and night. I also share the deep concerns that I have heard expressed this morning about last year's increase in injuries caused by fireworks.
No one can disagree with the need to control fireworks, particularly to protect the public from harm. The question that we must address today, therefore, is how rigorous those controls should be. We also need to consider the powers that the Government have, and how best those powers can be deployed, a subject to which several hon. Members referred.
Current legislation bans the throwing of fireworks in the street, regulates their storage, and bans their sale to children under 18 on safety grounds. It also restricts, on safety grounds, the sale of certain larger fireworks to the public. There are mandatory standards for fireworks sold in the United Kingdom.
The speakers this morning called for controls that go beyond that, and I understand their concerns. I must emphasise, however, that without further primary legislation the Government cannot take action to restrict the times of year when fireworks may be sold or used, nor can they cut noise levels or introduce licensing schemes.
Currently, the Government can make regulations controlling fireworks only in relation to the safety of the public. Loud noise is a serious issue, but is not directly a question of safety. The question is, therefore, whether there are other means by which we can improve the controls and increase the protection of the public from harm and nuisance, without imposing more regulatory burdens on industry and small businesses. Such means must also allow the large number of people who enjoy
272WH
buying and using fireworks to continue to do so safely. I believe that that is possible, and on 15 October I announced a new package of measures to enhance protection and reduce nuisance. The measures will be brought forward immediately by the Government.
I will say something more on the safety of the public, because that is of primary concern to the Government. People continue to be injured by fireworks every year, and there are even occasional deaths. Even one death is too many. Sadly, during the 2001 firework season, 1,362 people required treatment of some sort at hospital casualty departments. That number is an increase on the previous year, and represents far too many people being hurt.
This year, we have focused a lot of effort on safety campaigns, targeting particularly the misuse of fireworks by teenagers. As the statistics make clear, injuries to that group are disproportionately high, and are more likely to result from casual incidents in the street or public places; they increased by nearly 60 per cent. over last year.
This year, we sent out thousands of information packs to local authorities, fire service authorities and police authorities. We also sent out 25,000 toolkit packs for schools, which include materials on organising private and public displays. In addition, we are funding posters to be displayed at prominent sites around the country, and distributing leaflets aimed at consumers. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) has already mentioned our TV filler campaign.
In addition, many local authorities and fire services run their own campaigns. There have been excellent initiatives in Manchester and Middlesbrough, where trading standards officers have worked closely with retailers to ensure compliance with the voluntary code of practice. I was interested to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) speak about the scheme in Redcar, and I shall be interested to hear how that works out. It highlights the fact that the debate is about not only legislation, but enforcement. Several hon. Members addressed that.
Creative ideas exist to get key messages across to youngsters. I recently saw work in north Lincolnshire involving a CD-ROM for schools. I know that some people believe that we should go further and protect the public by banning the sale of fireworks. The Government do not believe that a case has been made for banning the sale of fireworks and limiting their use to organised public displays. Such a ban could lead to the development of an illegal firework market and might encourage people to produce home-made devices. Sensible and considerate use of fireworks is a popular family entertainment.
I reassure hon. Members that the Government are not complacent. We accept that there is real scope to improve the control of fireworks in order to improve safety further and to tackle the distress and annoyance that fireworks cause to people and animals. That is why we have explored with the industry what else can be done and, as a result, I announced on 15 October a package of measures designed to cut the number of firework injuries and to reduce problems of noise and nuisance. I shall not reiterate the existing controls at

273WH
length because time does not allow me to do so. Safety regulations emphasise the fact that fireworks can be sold legally only to people aged 18 and over.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) made remarks about trading standards departments. They make a considerable effort by conducting mystery-shopping activities at this time of year to ensure that retailers comply with the ban on sales to under-18s. Of course, that is easier if fireworks are not sold out of white vans; that market is difficult for trading standards departments or anyone to deal with. I am assured that most shops that sell fireworks comply with the regulations.
Dr. Palmer: I welcome the package that the Minister announced and the stress that she puts on the problem of the use of fireworks by juveniles. I am puzzled that the spot fine pilot initiative applies to only over-18s. In Broxtowe, we are doing well on cracking down on pensioners throwing fireworks.
Miss Johnson: Under-16s are covered by legislation, but provisions under a Home Office Act—I am not prepared to quote it off the top of my head because I do not have it in front of me—do not allow spot fines that apply to over-18s to be imposed on under-18s. Such fines are restricted by current legislation. Powers exist that address the antisocial practice of letting off fireworks in the street. I have held several meetings to examine the work that enforcement authorities can do to ensure that existing controls are properly exercised.
Several hon. Members mentioned the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton in 1997. A future private Member's Bill might be suggested, and the Government will be sympathetic to the draft of such a Bill, although it would have to be considered on its merits.
274WH
One of the first things that we did following discussions with the industry was to consider existing products on the market. Consequently, I announced the action that we have taken on air bombs, which I do not have the time to outline in detail. Several hon. Members discussed the power of larger fireworks that are on sale. The largest fireworks are restricted by the 1997 regulations and the powers that are already in place. Packs of fireworks—so-called cakes of fireworks—are considered to be much safer than other fireworks because only one fuse is lit—that is it. They are also more expensive, which puts them out of pocket money range. Evidence shows that such multiple packs are probably not the cause of many difficulties. We are much more concerned about things that fall within pocket money range, so we are considering raising pack prices—putting noisy fireworks into larger and more expensive packs at the point of sale. As I have said, we are banning air bombs.
For the information of the hon. Member for Twickenham, bangers are things that just go bang, but there are fireworks that go bang and make light and so forth that are not actually bangers. They are not covered in the same way as bangers.
Finally, I will turn quickly to the question of animals—
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. We should now move to the debate on consumer debt. Is the Minister present?
Miss Johnson: Yes.
Mr. Gale: I apologise to the hon. Lady. The notes that were given to the Chair indicated that there would be a different Minister for this debate.
Miss Johnson: I appreciate your difficulty, Mr. Gale. My name seems to be down for a number of things today.

Consumer Debt
11 am
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I am pleased to have secured a debate on an issue as important as consumer debt. I begin by declaring an interest: I am a member of Capital Credit Union Ltd. in Edinburgh, which is an expanding and successful credit union. I hope that time will allow me to talk about the role that credit unions can play in dealing with the issues that arise from consumer debt.
All hon. Members face the problem of debt in their constituencies. For this debate, I was fortunate to receive a briefing from Citizens Advice Scotland, for which I am grateful. I should like to put on record the thanks that I am sure many hon. Members would offer to the staff and volunteers in citizens advice bureaux up and down the country for the good work that they do in our communities.
In its briefing note, Citizens Advice Scotland confirms that debt and in particular consumer debt continue to be the most consistent problems with which bureaux have to deal. The problem is growing. In 2000–01, Scottish citizens advice bureaux dealt with more than 400,000 new cases, of which just over 50,000—one eighth of the total—related to debt.
In the two citizens advice bureaux in my constituency, of more than 23,000 inquiries in 2000–01, an even greater proportion related to debt. In that year alone, the service in Scotland dealt with 160,000 ongoing cases, involving around £70 million of debt. That was an increase of £10 million on the previous year. I have no reason to believe that figures for the United Kingdom as a whole or for any of our constituencies would vary greatly from those for Scotland or for my constituency.
Of course, consumer debt is not new and there is nothing inherently wrong with consumer borrowing.
Mr. David Marshall: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that the service provided by citizens advice bureaux is very underfunded, especially in Scotland, where they have to deal with ever-increasing legislation from Holyrood as well as from Westminster? Given that 40 of the 52 forms from the Department for Work and Pensions—77 per cent. of the total—refer claimants to citizens advice bureaux, does he agree that funding of the bureaux should not be left only to local authorities and that there should be direct central funding to enable the bureaux to do their very important work?
Mr. Lazarowicz: I could not disagree with my hon. Friend's strong point. In Scotland, citizens advice bureaux have to deal with devolved legislation as well as UK legislation, so they have a heavy work load and an especially important role to play in their communities.
Consumer borrowing is not inherently wrong. At some stage in our lives, we may all have had a mortgage. credit cards, overdrafts and so on. As a result, we are able to enjoy lifestyles that would not otherwise be possible. Lending and borrowing can make the economy go round. However, the increase in the number of people taking their debt problems to citizens advice bureaux shows that the growing consumer debt
276WH
in our society is now a major problem. Beneath the broad statistics, we all know of individuals who have become trapped in a cycle of debt from which they cannot escape and whose lives, as a result, have become miserable.
Mr. David Drew: This is an apposite debate. Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the biggest problems relating to consumer debt is that people who are already in serious debt may still be chased by companies that should know only too well of such people's difficulties and still offer them finance and credit? We are not talking about fly-by-night credit companies, but about the leading banks, mortgage companies, and so on. What is his view of that problem?
Mr. Lazarowicz: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. I was just coming to that point. We are not talking about just a few fly-by-night organisations. We are talking about a need for a culture change in the industry as a whole.
Debt can arise from many causes and, even now, poverty remains a major one. That is why I and most hon. Members welcome the measures that have already been taken by the Government to tackle poverty. Poverty is not, of course, the only reason why people find themselves in debt. The major contributor to the problem is the behaviour of several businesses, big and small, which sell credit and encourage consumers to take out loans.
We all know stories about loan sharks, who prey on the poor and vulnerable in too many of our communities. I include in that category not just the local moneylender, but shops that supply goods at ultra-high interest rates to those who could not otherwise get credit at fair rates, and lenders in the home credit market—doorstep credit providers—whose annual interest rates are often in excess of 100 per cent. That market is growing and expanding.
In 1999, Provident Financial plc, the largest home credit company, charged its 1.5 million customers a typical annual percentage rate of 164 per cent. and made pre-tax profits of £155 million. In the same year, Cattles plc, which owns Shopacheck, opened 75 new branches. Those companies alone accounted for more than £ 1 billion of lending to low-income households. If that money were recycled through credit unions, it could be invested in local communities rather than going to the type of organisation that I have mentioned. I welcome the recent Government consultation on tackling loan sharks and proposals to modernise the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It would be useful if the Minister gave some idea of the progress on modernisation.
Mr. Andrew Love: Does my hon. Friend agree that when it is easier to take out a consumer credit licence than open a bank account, something must be up and something must be done?
Mr. Lazarowicz: Absolutely. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, it is too easy just to single out a few obvious bad guys, such as the loan sharks, and think that by dealing with them we have dealt with the problem. Some of our biggest and most respected financial institutions are responsible for

277WH
pushing people into unaffordable debt. Irresponsible selling by high street banks and credit card companies is a widespread phenomenon and it encourages too many consumers to bite off more than they can chew.
We all know from experience about the type of marketing and advertising that goes on. Our daily postbag at home probably contains half a dozen offers of credit at apparently attractive introductory rates. Telephone sales representatives may try cold calling, perhaps with an offer of a financial health check. One finds increasingly while paying bills that banks issue invitations to take out new credit facilities. In shops, too, there might be unsolicited invitations to take out new credit cards.
Most hon. Members have learned to throw junk mail in the bin or politely to decline the offer of whatever colour credit card is available under the latest wheeze of credit card companies. Given our generous salaries, if we get heavily into debt, we at least have some prospect of getting out of it. However, too many people are not in our fortunate position, and there are too many examples of consumers becoming trapped as a result of over-eagerly responding to invitations to take on credit.
I was struck by one example provided by Citizens Advice Scotland. I was told of the case of a 19-year-old woman who received a credit card from a well known high street building society. Accompanying her card were four cheques of £500 made out in her name. We are all familiar with that sort of marketing tool. The 19-year-old was just about to cash the cheques when her mother realised that credit card rates of interest would have to be paid on the amounts. It is not just loan sharks or moneylenders who lend at high interest; the big banks and the financial services industry need to look at what they are doing as well.
In the time available to me, I want to suggest a few ways that action could be taken. First, we must find some way of preventing people from being charged extortionate interest rates on their borrowing. Present legislation allows a court to set aside grossly exorbitant credit agreements, and to substitute them with terms that are fair and reasonable. However, those provisions are rarely used. I think that fewer than 30 cases have been considered in the courts in the past 25 years or so. In only eight of those have the courts actually held that an agreement was extortionate. The Department of Trade and Industry rightly pointed out in its consultation on tackling loan sharks that the provisions are too narrowly defined, and it suggested that the definition of extortionate credit should be changed so that the courts can deal more easily with examples of extortionate interest. I welcome that suggestion, but I think that we could go further.
Mr. Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one problem with loan sharks is that there are no written agreements? Agreements are purely verbal, so there is no way for people to go to court to sort out the matter of excessive rates of interest.
Mr. Lazarowicz: Indeed; as I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises, there are many aspects to the problem. The problem of illegal moneylending is, by
278WH
definition, one that must be dealt with differently. We also have to pay attention to regulated moneylending. Currently, it is difficult for the consumer to use the legislation that was put in place to help them.
The suggestions in the consultation paper on restricting extortionate interest rates are welcome, but I wonder whether we should approach the issue in a more simple and direct way. Why do we not consider simply setting a legally binding maximum interest rate—an interest rate cap—at a certain percentage above the base rate, so that any obligation on a debtor to pay higher interest would be null and void? If my hon. Friend the Minister would not go as far as accepting that—as I suspect may be the case—perhaps we should change the law so that there is a presumption that interest charged above that cap is extortionate. A creditor would then have to justify to the court why an interest rate in excess of such a cap were otherwise fair and reasonable.
Secondly, we must tackle the problem of inappropriate selling and marketing of credit.
Mr. Love: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend but I wanted to pick up on the point about a ceiling on interest rates. The argument against it is that companies would gravitate towards a maximum interest rate for a wider range of customers than is currently the practice. Many people would not be able to get conventional credit under those circumstances, would end up going to loan sharks and would be thrown into the hands of the illegal merchants. How does my hon. Friend respond to that?
Mr. Lazarowicz: I would not deny that there are issues that would have to be pursued if a cap were put in place. I suspect that the difficulty of interest rates drifting up towards the cap could be dealt with by ensuring effective competition in the marketplace. To allow lenders to charge annual rates of, effectively, 164 per cent. is wrong, so we should certainly consider a cap that makes such an extortionate interest rate impossible.
We also need to tackle the problem of the inappropriate selling and marketing of credit. I have a simple—perhaps too simple—suggestion. Why not bar the unsolicited direct selling of credit? By that, I mean no more unsolicited direct mail, cold calls from telephone sales representatives and the like. That may seem too radical for many—I am sure that it would represent too much regulation for the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who speaks for the Opposition—but we should bear in mind that lots of professions and businesses are restricted in how aggressively they can market their services. For example, solicitors can advertise their services, but—certainly in Scotland—they cannot phone homes at 9 o'clock in the evening to ask whether somebody has tripped over a paving stone that morning or is feeling poorly and would like to make a will. There are many restrictions on the types of selling and marketing that can be undertaken. Indeed, the House has just passed legislation to restrict tobacco advertising.
I am not suggesting that lenders be banned from advertising. They can advertise in the media or in their shop windows and send information in response to queries or, within reasonable limits, to their existing clients. If people want to get credit, they will have no

279WH
difficulty in finding out how. I am merely saying that no one wants unsolicited junk mail, telephone calls or e-mails. I observe in passing that any Government who passed such a measure might find themselves gaining a massive popularity boost in the opinion polls from people whose evenings were no longer disrupted by such telephone calls.
Mr. Drew: My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way, because many points need to be made. Does he agree that one of the worst aspects of advertising arises when advertisers who are trying to get people to roll up their debts do not make it clear that they will charge them the costs of that advertising to get them on to their books? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give that urgent consideration, because it is compounding the misery of the very people whom we should be helping.
Mr. Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. If my simple suggestion to stop the unsolicited selling of credit does not find favour with the Government or with other hon. Members, I hope that it, together with the concerns expressed during the debate, will at least serve to emphasise to those in the financial services industry—big and small, respectable and not so respectable—that they must get their act together on advertising, marketing and the various ways in which they can push their products.
Thirdly, people need to be more aware of what they are getting into when they take on credit. Interest rates must be transparent and people must know their rights under existing law—even more so if the rights of consumer creditors are to be extended as the Government suggest. Several good initiatives have been introduced by the Government and by many in the financial services industry. I hope that the national debt helpline that is being piloted by the Department of Trade and Industry can be rolled out UK-wide as soon as possible. Nationwide building society provides its customers with a simple table containing details of the key features and costs of its credit card so that customers can more easily compare the costs and benefits of different credit cards. That is an excellent initiative, and I hope that other lenders will follow its example. I do not want to suggest that the work of the major high street institutions is all bad. Many of the big banks do good work in financial education by promoting awareness of the need to manage one's finances sensibly.
More alternative sources of credit at fair rates are required. A crucial role can be played by credit unions, as community-based suppliers of low-interest loans that can release people from the loan sharks and high-interest lenders in the home credit market.
I want briefly to mention a particularly Scottish aspect of the debate that was drawn to my attention by Citizens Advice Scotland. Consumer credit is a matter that is reserved to the Westminster Parliament, but the way in which UK-wide law is applied in Scotland seems to give rise to an anomaly whereby debtors in Scotland get less protection than those in England and Wales. Provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 allow debtors in Scotland, as in England. to apply for a time order so that a court can both consider a debtor's ability to repay their debts and set a repayment figure that a debtor can afford.
280WH
Citizens Advice Scotland had begun to use that procedure and had represented clients in court, but the Sheriff Courts Rules Council—the judicial body that sets down rules in court in Scotland—now states that because UK legislation is silent on the issue of lay representation, no lay representation can be permitted in a Scottish court on that matter. Indeed, because the legislation is UK law, it states that the matter can only be dealt with by changes to UK primary legislation—to the Consumer Credit Act. I am not sure whether that interpretation is correct, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look into the anomaly identified by Citizens Advice Scotland. If legislation is required in the UK Parliament, I hope that she will modernise the Consumer Credit Act.
I have spoken for longer than I intended, but I have taken several interventions. The problems that arise from unaffordable levels of consumer debt affect us all. Too many people find themselves crushed under mountains of debt from which they find it almost impossible to break free. The problem is getting worse and I welcome the Government's action to tackle it, but I urge them to press ahead with their plans for radical reform of the laws on consumer credit and to shift the balance firmly in favour of the consumer.
11.21 am
John Barrett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on securing this morning's debate. I agree wholeheartedly with many of the points that he raised. In fact, I wondered whether I should declare an interest as someone who has relatively large debts—a mortgage, a credit card and an overdraft. As he pointed out, consumer debt is not such a problem if one has a regular income and is able to manage one's debt.
In areas of my constituency, house prices are rocketing and few people do not have significant debts. Consumer debt is not a problem for the majority in my constituency, but sadly that is not the case throughout. Areas such as Muirhouse and Pilton, which border the hon. Gentleman's constituency, have high unemployment and deprivation. I regularly see an increasing number of elderly people who are living close to the breadline and young, single parents who are struggling to get by. I recently visited my local citizens advice bureau and sat in on some cases in which, as has been mentioned, debt was a recurring issue. The funding of local citizens advice bureaux is key because they have experts who are able to give advice that people need.
I should like to raise the issue of the constant pressure on people to take on more debt. I must admit that the Liberal Democrat party constantly hounds its members to take up the Liberal Democrat credit card, but that is not a major problem—[Interruption]. I believe that the rate of interest is very competitive. People are constantly being put under pressure through not only the post but the medium of television. There are regular advertisements about rolling up debt and somehow replacing it with payment of a lower weekly or monthly amount. Such commercials are often aimed at people who have no job and are watching daytime television. They are given the misleading impression that all they have to do is make a telephone call and their problems will be sorted out. Clearly, we need to ensure that people avoid loan sharks and high rates of interest.

281WH
We need to consider the practices of reputable establishments. Some years ago, I held an account with a bank in the United States. Its literature stated that a bank should be more than a source of money; it should be a force for positive change. Frankly, I do not see that among many of our banks, which do not go out of their way to attract poorer customers because they want those to whom they can sell insurance and for whom they can provide more credit and finance.
We must look forward to adequate resourcing of those who are giving expert advice. Protection of the vulnerable is one of the key issues. The way forward is for people to avoid debt if they can. Many cannot manage to live week by week, and providing such vulnerable individuals with access to credit is not the way forward. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says about how we can protect the most vulnerable.
11.24 am
Mr. John MacDougall: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) for securing it.
I recognise that the Government have already acknowledged the issue under discussion. I am advised that the actions that they have taken so far have been supported by the setting up at the end of 2000 of a debt taskforce that has called for clearer and more understandable credit agreements. On 19 March 2001, in answer to a written question, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated:
"Tackling financial exclusion is an essential part of the Government's strategy to tackle social exclusion."—[Official Report, 19 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 30W.]
I recognise the Government's work, and that they have embarked on a massive and complex task. That has been recognised by many of the organisations involved. My hon. Friend rightly paid tribute to the work of citizens advice bureaux, as well as highlighting issues in Scotland.
We must ask what else can be tackled to minimise the scale of the impact of consumer debt. Issues that have cropped up highlight what we need to do: clamp down on lenders who prey on vulnerable consumers; put a stop to irresponsible lending; help consumers who want to settle loans early; protect a greater number of credit agreements and stop the so-called free credit deal sting; enable online agreement; improve the transparency of loan information; and simplify advertising regulations and curb misleading marketing. All of that has been referred to this morning in one shape or another.
The main issue, however, is the hidden enemy: loan sharks who approach vulnerable people—perhaps those in their younger years with high aspirations, or elderly people who fail to understand what is being presented to them, sometimes in the form of a cheque. Such people are easy prey and can be duped into signing for something for which they cannot deliver the repayments. That worries me greatly.
Much has been done in Central Fife to encourage the use of credit unions and to establish their value as a credible way of borrowing. Someone can try to sell
282WH
themselves as a friend on the doorstep when they are really one's worst enemy. No mercy is shown in the marketplace. Areas in which there has been high unemployment through the loss of traditional industries—my area has suffered badly in that regard despite the best efforts—are particularly vulnerable. Debt can lead to other problems such as desperation. Hon. Members have already raised the issue of heavy handedness during debates in the House.
The issue is not political inasmuch as no one can disagree that such serious problems must be tackled. Consumer debt is a big industry. Total UK consumer debt is somewhere in the area of £700 billion, which is by no means a small figure or one of little concern to the Treasury or us as parliamentarians. The amount of outstanding, unsecured consumer credit in the UK has increased 11-fold since 1979. In August 2000, unsecured credit had reached £122 billion. Clearly, behind it is a certain amount of human misery, which breeds other reactions and must be addressed.
As I said, much has been done. However, I hope that the debate will allow us the opportunity to focus on the scale of the challenge ahead and on the legislation that is necessary to minimise the effect of this serious problem in our society. A solution to the problem of extortionate credit rates lies in effective legislation. Although the issue is complex, such legislation could make a significant difference. It must be accessible to the consumer and help to improve the ability of consumers to make more informed choices from a range of credit options, as opposed to the hard sell option that frequently confronts them on their doorstep.
Mr. Love: The matter is being considered at European level. It is likely that the discussions will result in a recommendation to ban door-to-door selling of credit agreements. Would my hon. Friend agree with that?
Mr. MacDougall: Any measure that minimises the present scandal, in which exploitation is on the wrong side of the equation, must be considered seriously. Clearly, the Government must take the proposal on board and develop a considered opinion on it. My hon. Friend makes a good point, which highlights the need to consider other options, such as the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith on maximum interest on loans. If that is not acceptable, we must at least appreciate the scale of the problem and try to make changes in addition to the measures that have been taken to minimise effects.
Mr. David Marshall: Will my hon. Friend comment on another insidious practice that is in the small print of some agreements? So-called reputable finance houses, often the subsidiaries of major banks, are used by retail outlets that advertise zero per cent. finance. People who sign such agreements make monthly payments totalling half the amount, leaving one final payment of 50 per cent. of the total debt, which they often cannot make. If they buy televisions, videos or hi-fi equipment for £1,500, for example, they are left with a final one-off payment of £750. If they do not pay it in time—the deadline is also in the small print—they are usually

283WH
charged 30 per cent. interest on the full original loan—not on the amount outstanding. Is that not a sharp practice that the Government should stamp out?
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions must be interventions, not mini-speeches.
Mr. MacDougall: Members of the public must have more information about their choices and a range of credit options from which to choose. I do not think that anyone in this Chamber could honestly say that they would clearly understand every agreement that they may be asked to sign. We are not ignorant of the problem, yet such agreements would present a challenge to us. How can we expect the citizens of this country to understand the options that are presented to them?
I referred to the need for legislation that prevents the imposition of what I would classify as extortionate credit rates. We have already highlighted the scale of the problem and the work that has been achieved so far, but we have yet to contend fully with that very important issue. I do not know whether we will ever find the absolute answer, but any measures that the Government can take to improve on the work that has been carried out so far would not go amiss. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has highlighted, there are strong links between debt and poverty and financial and social exclusion. I hope that the debate serves as a reminder that the issue is very serious. It requires serious attention and a continued effort to try to make a difference.
11.35 am
Mr. David Drew: I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I congratulate my fellow collaborator, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz). It is good that we have already heard one of the answers to the problems: the growth of the credit union movement.
I pay tribute to citizens advice bureaux. When I am at the annual general meeting of the citizens advice bureaux in Stroud, I notice that, more and more, the discussion is given over to consumer debt. That does not belittle the other problems of housing and employment difficulties, but consumer debt is the problem of our age. Much as it pleases me that through the prudent operation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer we seem to have got a hold on public debt for the first time in a generation, on the other hand there has been an enormous growth—
Mr. Andrew Robathan: What about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's off-balance sheet debt, which many people are talking about? It is at its highest level ever, and it is growing.
Mr. Drew: I will not take the opportunity to discuss financial prudence in the macroeconomy, but I do want to make the point that the huge burden of consumer debt is growing.
I pay tribute to the citizens advice bureau in Stroud, which is under the managership of Caroline Pym, who is supported by Lindsey Waddington, Ann Horner and Chris Lingarde. They pick up issues with me all the time.
284WH
In the past week, they have picked up on the need to deal with the social fund. The most vulnerable people in society still face arrangements that many of us think are ineffective and which go about trying to help people in the wrong way.
I want to concentrate on a couple of detailed areas and then to consider consumer education, which has not been discussed, even though many people get into debt because of the complexity of the arrangements. First, I return to an issue that has already been raised: without labouring the point, I want to emphasise that what seems to be wrong at the moment is that even the reputable financial companies try to offer more and more debt to their customers. The companies might call it credit, but, in reality, we are talking about debt. We need to recognise that.
I am not going to mention the companies by name because I have not got time, but we all know that they could do more about the situation. When people are in serious debt, companies tend to exact the last penny by imposing additional interest and chasing people. That is the wrong way to handle the situation; indeed, it is reprehensible. When people are in difficulty, there ought to be a point at which they are no longer chased. At the moment, companies offer even more opportunities for people to borrow, which is extraordinary, and then they go after people. That damages those people for the rest of their lives.
When people are at the ultimate stage of not being able to pay back their debt and seek to wipe the slate clean, two courses of action are open to them. They can either seek an administration order through the county court, or they can sue for personal bankruptcy. The problem with the former is that the amount of money that people are allowed to write off through an administration order has not changed since the 1970s. It is still stuck at £5,000, which almost certainly means that, owing to the complexity and level of their debt, more and more people have to sue for personal bankruptcy. My hon. Friend the Minister may want to write to me about that.
Suing for bankruptcy comes at a cost; people must have the money to be able to do it. To us, £250 plus court fees and a petition for bankruptcy may not sound a lot, but if people have no money, it is an added difficulty to raise it, so they go further into debt. We must search for a mechanism whereby people can try to work their way out of that dreadful problem.
In the short time available to me, I want to consider the other side of the matter. One of my constituents, Marie Jennings, who is—I hope—well known to my hon. Friend the Minister, has spent a lot of time trying to work through the complexity of consumer issues. She writes regularly for the Daily Mirror, the Daily Mail and other earnest publications, and her starting point is that it is not the fault of the individual that such levels of complexity are allowed to increase. The industry fails to explain, often deliberately, what people need to know. She has spent her lifetime trying to get those points across and I pay enormous credit to her.
Mr. Love: The recent Treasury Select Committee report highlighted the issue of transparency. Does my

285WH
hon. Friend agree that there needs to be much greater transparency and simplicity in all the arrangements so that consumers know exactly what they are getting into?
Mr. Drew: My hon. Friend puts the matter more succinctly than I could. The nub of what is wrong is that we are encouraging greater complexity instead of simplification and transparency. Marie Jennings has told me many times that achieving the latter is not impossible. It may be difficult due to the myriad of different schemes, but that is up to the industry, the regulators and, therefore, the Government who appoint the regulators. I know that that is not the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, but the Financial Services Authority needs that to be at the centre of its work in this area.
We have just had the Sandler and Pickering reports. My friend, Marie Jennings, is critical of the way in which they fail to go to the nub of the issue: how to enable people to understand their pension provision, what their pensions consist of, what is happening to them, and so on. That may seem to be irrelevant to consumer debt, but we must look at people's whole-life experience. They get into debt because their financial affairs go wrong not in one area but in multiple areas. If older people are kicked out of a final salary pension scheme on whose income they were relying, they will have difficulties. Marie Jennings has told me many times that we must recognise that consumer education, starting in school and continuing, is essential and possible, but the industry, through the regulator, must take responsibility for that. It is the only way in which to prevent some of the awful situations about which hon. Members have spoken today.
That is the main message that I want to leave with hon. Members. It would be particularly useful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary considered it in terms of education and the way in which we deal with specific problems, including the one to which I referred. The problem will not go away; it will increase and it is time that we in this place and elsewhere took it seriously.
11.43 am
Mr. Michael Weir: Before I was elected, I practised as a solicitor for many years. Consumer debt always caused problems and I often had to go to court to deal with small claims and summary cause cases. I reiterate the point made about the time orders under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It would be helpful not only to individuals, but to courts if representation were available in such cases. There is nothing more frustrating for a court than to be faced with someone trying to conduct their own case and getting completely out of their depth. It takes up an extraordinary amount of time and goes nowhere.
The citizens advice bureaux give very good advice on these cases. Allowing them to be represented in court would be a major step forward, and should be instigated jointly with the Scottish Parliament. Under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, there is a similar time by which to pay an order, and representation is allowed. There seems to be an inconsistency, which the Minister should examine, which perhaps highlights the complexity of the matter in that it crosses not only Parliaments but Departments.
286WH
In its briefing note, Citizens Advice Scotland referred to what it calls the
"failure of the Social Fund",
which, I appreciate, is not directly under the Minister's control. It also says:
"The Social Fund was set up to help those on benefits cover large expenses such as household furniture or funeral payments."
It finds that the fund is failing those people, however, because a criterion for receiving the money is the ability to repay the loan. Many people who are in dire need of a loan cannot repay it, so they are turned down for the loan in the first place. Citizens Advice Scotland says that 40 per cent. of applicants are turned down for budgeting loans, 66 per cent. are turned down for community care grants, and 27 per cent. are turned down for crisis loans. Its point is that that drives away many of the people who still need to get the money to doorstep lenders, loan sharks and others, which leads to the problem of debt. I ask the Minister and her colleagues to examine how the social fund may be reformed to tackle those problems, although I appreciate that that does not fall within her remit. As I said, such people turn to unrestricted lenders.
There is also a particular problem in Scotland with in-court advisers, which, again, this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament should tackle jointly. Many courts in England have in-court advisers who can advise people in debt cases, but there is only one in-court adviser in Scotland—in Edinburgh. I ask the Minister and her colleagues to re-examine the social fund in relation not only to consumer credit, but to other forms of credit, as they all affect people.
11.46 am
Mr. Russell Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on securing the debate. This morning, we have heard about high levels of personal debt, which, we would all agree, can cause misery for hundreds of people, especially at this time of year in the run-up to Christmas. People are often lured into credit agreements to buy presents on the basis that they receive interest-free credit for a few months. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) described some of the things that can go wrong when people cannot afford to pay for the goods. A one-off payment needs to be made within a given period. When that period expires, the amount due, as he explained, can increase by as much as 30 per cent. of the initial cost, even though a downpayment was made.
In today's society, it is becoming much easier to obtain credit. Regrettably, however, it is becoming more and more difficult to escape the problems that can be caused by debt. In 2000, the citizens advice bureaux in Dumfries and Galloway had 1,930 people on their books who owed approximately £4.5 million in debt. During the following financial year, the advice service handled another £2.8 million of new multiple debt, which resulted in the overall debt figure rising to some £5.8 million.
The manager at my local citizens advice bureau recently gave me an indication of some of the horrendous problems with which people are confronted. I shall briefly mention three of them. She mentioned a client on income support who had an outstanding debt of £12,018 with a high street bank. It had refused its

287WH
client's offer to repay the debt by £10 a week. Thankfully, however, they managed to agree the terms of repayment with the intervention of the citizens advice bureau. A single man who was off sick long term following a nervous breakdown owed £22,000 to five different finance houses. The only feasible option was sequestration, but the delay in the process took its toll on his precarious state of health.
In another case, a single parent with three part-time jobs had a total weekly income of £84.40 and debts amounting to more than £5,600, including money owed to two banks and the local authority. We must appreciate that people do not have only one debt; they tend to have several debts, which may include council tax payments or rent arrears.
Mr. Drew: My hon. Friend is making an important point. One of the problems in the case of multiple debts is that those who are owed money will not talk to one another, and I regularly hear that the debtor in a case will not talk directly to the CAB. Those complexities add to the confusion and increase the problem.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. The various parties will often not talk to one another. I am sure that he and other hon. Members have experienced difficulties helping individuals who have similar problems and are familiar with the standard letter in reply, which says, "Sorry, we cannot disclose any information until we have something in writing from our client."
I have recent experience of two cases. My bank manager may think that I am just hitting high street banks, but, worryingly, high street banks have caused some of the most significant problems. The staff at banks seem to have information at their fingertips, almost at the touch of a button, and some problems seem to flow from the availability of information. In one case, the main breadwinner in a family, the husband, had become ill. The family decided to go to the bank for a small loan to cover a family event. After some detailed discussion at the bank, they were granted the £200 loan that they sought.
A couple of weeks later, the bank contacted the family saying, "We see that you also have a car loan, which you pay through the bank by direct debit. Would you like assistance with that?" The outstanding car loan was for £500 or £600, and the couple decided that it would be a splendid idea to pay it off. They paid off the car loan, increased their monthly repayments, and then the bank telephoned again to say, "It is getting near to Christmas. We realise that you are not receiving any money from your husband's employer. Is he still unwell? Would you like some assistance over Christmas?" In the end, a £200 loan became a £4,000 debt, hanging around the family's neck. It reached the stage when the family had to seek loans from the bank to make their payments to the bank. The situation became ridiculous and the family got out of the mess only when another family member assisted them.
In another case, a gentleman in his late 70s or early 80s, who had worked in a profession for many years, used his experience to provide holiday cover for businesses in a certain sector of the community. On the basis of that work in retirement, he managed to secure a loan from his bank. Regrettably, he contracted a life-
288WH
threatening illness and his part-time work stopped, but the interest charged by the bank on his loan caused him great distress and he became almost suicidal on one occasion. Finally, with the assistance of my constituency office staff, we managed to establish a new repayment scheme, which eliminated all interest.
Since summer last year, the Government have taken significant steps and introduced a package of proposals, including increased protection for some of the most vulnerable consumers by clamping down on loan sharks—we have all heard sad stories involving them. Steps have also been taken to try to stop irresponsible lending. I include banks and other high street organisations in that category. Lenders must now consider whether their prospective borrower is overcommitted.
The issue of consumers wanting to settle loans early is important. It is difficult for people to get their minds around it. It is ridiculous that people should face tough penalties for settling early. I suspect that, like me, other hon. Members have dealt with people who have tried to settle a mortgage early and found that the building society wants an astronomical figure to allow them to do so. There should be a clampdown on such practices.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on educating the public about credit was right. Consumer education needs to be part of structured systems in the 21st century. We live in a consumer-driven society. Regrettably, many people fall foul of the systems in their continual striving to keep up with the Joneses. People suffer at the hands not only of loan sharks but of lenders who are perceived as responsible.
11.56 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I add my congratulations to those that have been offered to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz). I do not know whether it was good luck or inspired judgment on his part that led to the debate being held after the release of the recent striking set of figures on consumer debt, but the circumstance prompts me to begin my remarks on a slightly different note from other contributors.
The consumer debt problem can be viewed at a micro, personal level—and rightly, because of its effect on people's lives and because of the working of the consumer credit market for individuals. However, it is also useful to look at the big picture and what is happening in the economy as a whole. There has been striking growth in consumer credit—13 per cent.—in the past year. We are in the middle of an extraordinary boom in consumer credit, at least as substantial as that of the 1980s.
I understand that in the past five years consumer credit debt has grown by about 55 per cent. In the 1980s it roughly doubled, so we are in the middle of a boom of the sort that last happened when Nigel Lawson was Chancellor, which came to a messy end. One hopes that this time things will not end in the same way. One must ask under what conditions the boom could come to a sticky end. The relevant figures were accompanied by a veiled warning from the Bank of England, in the coded language of its chief economist, that there could well be trouble along the road.

289WH
How could the trouble arise? The one thing that makes individual consumer debt unsustainable is unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) referred to that. As the Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Edinburgh, West, he has long-term, secure employment, but many of our constituents do not.
I am forcefully reminded of that when I think about my constituency, which is in many ways a model of the new prosperity. We have virtually no unemployment. House prices have gone through the roof and the prosperity is visible. However, last month, for the first time in seven years, there was a sharp increase in unemployment. People are being laid off on a serious scale by the IT industry and by City accountants. That effect is spreading through the hitherto highly prosperous suburbs of south-west London. The first signs of serious problems are beginning to appear.
What happened in the 1980s will happen now. As people are laid off, their first task is to protect their mortgage. Many of them have heavily over-borrowed. They give first priority to their mortgage payments, but that puts pressure on their other consumer debt, much of which is credit card debt and conventional bank loans. Half of all consumer debt is credit card debt. Such people then find it difficult to escape their obligations, so they borrow in order to finance their borrowings and end up in a distressing cycle.
Although the British economy is in relatively good shape compared with those of other rich countries, recession is rolling in from the United States, Germany and Japan, and compounded by deflation—which none of us has experienced because it last happened 70 or 80 years ago—it might affect us. A world in which prices are falling is an horrific environment if one is a debtor because the value of the debt rises instead of falling over time, and one gets into a debt trap. I can envisage an alarming situation arising for people who already have high levels of consumer debt.
Mr. Drew: I totally concur with the hon. Gentleman on the macro side. To return to individual cases, job loss is often compounded by relationship breakdown and by illness. It is difficult to deal with a situation in which various forces have come to bear on multiple debt. In such circumstances, people need advice very quickly, but it is often not forthcoming.
Dr. Cable: That is a helpful point. Divorce has been a key factor in personal financial distress and, as the hon. Gentleman says, people need advice. The latest figures from the CAB suggest that there has been a 35 per cent. increase in people seeking financial advice—usually in distress. That is the context of the debate.
I should like to consider some positive ways forward. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith seems to be promoting mutuality as a way of dealing with consumer debt. I strongly endorse that and I know of his work, and that of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), on credit unions. Mutuality is a way out of the trap for many who are caught with escalating debt obligations. The problem with credit unions, however, is that although the regulatory environment has
290WH
improved, we are far short of the large-scale mutual lending practice in Ireland and the United States. I hope that we shall pay more attention to that.
Secondly, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has said, there are various ways in which Government and the regulatory agencies can assist with the problem of financial illiteracy. I do not mean that in a pejorative way. We are all financially illiterate to various degrees—the FSA pointed out yesterday that collectively we lose some £700 million a year as a result of not doing elementary things like checking the relative costs of bank accounts and credit. We can all learn. The FSA could help by placing more emphasis on financial education.
The hon. Member for Stroud made my third point too. A lot of problems arise not because of rogue lenders but because of mainstream ones. The problems with banks and credit card companies are real; they often charge more than they should. I always raise the following matter in debates relating to the financial sector, but in the interests of teasing the Minister, I still ask what is happening to the Government's proposals to deal with the banking system. Three years ago, a report suggested that the cost of credit was too high. The Government have made helpful suggestions on business lending, but there has been nothing about bank lending and no follow-up on the Cruickshank report. The regulation of the payment system is still out in the ether. All those things affect the cost and availability of credit.
Where do the Government stand on the credit card market? It has been argued that credit card interest rates are simply too high. The effective rate of interest is 15 to 20 per cent. in an environment in which the actual interest rate is 2 to 3 per cent. That is a high cost of credit, and the interest is often not transparent. I know that the matter has been considered by the Office of Fair Trading, but are the Government satisfied that the credit card market is working effectively and in the interests of consumers, bearing in mind that more than half of consumer debt is credit card debt? There are big questions to be asked about banks and credit cards.
Most hon. Members have mentioned non-status borrowers and non-status lenders—companies at the fringes of lending. I share many of the concerns that have been expressed, but it is important not to stereotype all companies in that line of business. Moneylenders are not necessarily a bad thing; they exist because the banking system fails and because people who cannot get credit from mainstream banks are bound to turn elsewhere. Some moneylenders are responsible and conscious of the fact that they deal with vulnerable people, but many are outright crooks. We must acknowledge that we are dealing with a spectrum of companies with different standards of integrity.
Certain practices are, however, clearly unacceptable. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) mentioned the obvious and especially bad example of individuals who are penalised for trying to repay loans early. There are also the classic free-credit scams. People buy a washing machine on free credit, but incur penal interest rates if they miss any of the instalments by as much as a day. Their cheque or giro may have taken seven days to clear, but the credit company takes no account of that and is happy to impose penal interest rates. Other

291WH
companies start imposing much higher rates once a debtor gets into difficulties. There are all kinds of malpractice.
What does the Minister think is the best way forward? How should we deal with the many malpractices that have been highlighted in the non-status lending market? There seem to be various options, and the OFT has considered the issue. The Enterprise Bill, which recently went through the House, will give the Government new powers to make stop-now orders. How many practices could be dealt with in that way? Will it be necessary to introduce legislation to update and strengthen the Consumer Credit Act 1974? I do not know the answer, and I am interested to hear how the Minister would deal with abuses that we all recognise as real and that clearly need attention.
12.7 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), I shall focus on the macroeconomic causes of the increase in debt and on what the Government can or cannot do about it.
As the hon. Gentleman said, this debate is timely. The headline on the BBC online news at 10.16 yesterday was "UK shoppers build up record debt".
The accompanying article noted:
"Total lending rose by £8.9bn in September, the strongest monthly rise since records began in 1993"
It added that the level of debt was
"13.1 per cent. higher than the same time last year."
Similarly, mortgage lending has surged.
Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), I should disclose a small interest. I, too, feel crushed by a mountain of debt, because I have a distressingly large mortgage. However, that was my choice and, like all hon. Members, I am privileged to have a regular income and relative job security. It is about two and a half years to the next election, so I will not take out any debts that extend beyond that time. I address that remark to every hon. Member, because no one can be certain in the game of politics. None the less, we are relatively privileged. Other people have limited or irregular incomes, and many suffer the problems of consumer debt.
Like other hon. Members, I shall briefly quote NACAB Its annual report states:
"Debt cases have continued to rise this year, with a 46 per cent. increase in the number of consumer debt problems dealt with by CABx over the last five years."
It notes:
"the top three reasons for indebtedness were job loss, poverty and over-commitment."
We all have tremendous sympathy with those who plan their lives reasonably but who are struck by job loss—perhaps as a result of illness—and whose lives fall apart. One third of those surveyed owed more than £10,000.
Sue Beaumont runs an excellent citizens advice bureau in Lutterworth, in my constituency. It gives me a good service, and I hold my advice sessions there. Sue Beaumont also keeps me well briefed on issues such as this.
I turn to another point that the CAB mentioned: in September 2001, there was £1.2 billion of unsecured consumer debt. That is an enormous problem and its
292WH
impact on individuals' lives is dramatic, as we have heard. What should the Government's role be? I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
The net debt position—the difference between total saving and total borrowing—is the important and alarming factor. According to the figures from the Bank of England, the savings ratio has fallen to 3 per cent. As recently as five years ago, it was 10 per cent. Everybody in this Chamber believes that individuals are responsible for their own actions; they make choices from which they may or may not benefit. I do not think that anyone believes that the state is in the business of bailing out people who have become over-indebted. However, I think that we would also say that, notwithstanding individual responsibility, the Government are not absolved from their duty to create and maintain the right incentives so that individuals are neither encouraged to borrow too much, nor discouraged from saving too much.
The Government have discouraged savings—an issue on which I take the macroeconomic position. That is why the savings ratio has fallen. They abolished tax-free TESSAs, replacing them with less generous ISAs, which are a simple way of saving that many have taken up. The taxing of pensions through the abolition of the advance corporation tax credit has taken £5 billion a year out of people's savings.
We are now enduring a succession of leaks about how pensions will be less attractive in future—for instance, the reduction of the tax-free lump sum that people may take out. That is another discouragement to saving. The Government are so proud of their spending plans, though we now know that tax rises—perhaps up to £20 billion-worth—may be required by as early as 2006. That means that people's incomes and savings will be taxed further.
People are beginning to feel that no matter how carefully they try to save their money—in a bank account, on the stock market or in a pension fund—it will be taxed again. That is at the root of why the savings ratio has fallen. Individuals are therefore spending money, running down savings and amassing more debt, because they fear that the Government may take the money off them. The problem is not that people do not want to provide for their futures, but that the Government have not made it worthwhile for them to do so through personal savings. People are therefore spending money in a way that is traditional in this country: investing in the property market. The result is a debt-fuelled property boom, as the Bank of England identified, which is in danger of over-heating. We must all be concerned about that.
Through the Enterprise Bill, which I think the House is finally discussing again this evening, the Government plan to make bankruptcy easier. That will exacerbate the problem. Commenting on the Bill, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales pointed out that the incidence of bankruptcy arising from consumer debt, as opposed to failed entrepreneurship, is rising. The institute argued that to reduce the bankruptcy period to 12 months will encourage consumers to embark on feckless financial behaviour. It stated:
"Our overall impression on the proposals on bankruptcy is that they appear too radical. Bankruptcy will become increasingly easy, to the extent that potential bankrupts will have little

293WH
incentive to come to an agreement with their creditors, or avoid a repeat of their problems. Figures quoted in the White Paper confirm that at present more than half of personal bankruptcies, a proportion that is rising fast, are caused by consumer, not business debts."
The institute went on to argue that to reduce the period of bankruptcy to a maximum of 12 months for "honest" bankrupts would increase the number of bankruptcies. As the stigma and disadvantages of bankruptcy are reduced, there will be less incentive for debtors to reach an agreement with their creditors and so they will be more likely to opt for full bankruptcy.
Other hon. Members have mentioned the problems that confront individuals, and perhaps that is the basis on which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) initiated the debate. I was appalled by the story told us by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) about a high street bank encouraging a customer to get into such debt. That was plainly irresponsible. We know about predatory lending at high rates to poor people. We all have constituency cases of that sort. I would not necessarily describe such people as financially illiterate, but they may not be as privileged as we are, and may not have had a decent or reasonable education with some understanding of maths. However, they are plunged into debt with little hope of getting out of it often because of ghastly loan sharks. The credit unions can do a good job of helping such people, and the citizen advice bureaux do a good job in helping them to reschedule their debts.
The other, more difficult issue is the bombardment from credit card companies, which encourages debt by offering over-generous introductory rates. That could be considered a demonstration of how successful and competitive the consumer credit market is, but I think that anyone who pays debt on a credit card is foolish, because the annual percentage rate on such debts is higher than almost anything else. Nevertheless, I understand that the average credit card debt is in excess of £500 per card.
I have great sympathy with the points raised, particularly those by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith—for instance, about the encouragement caused by the advertising of unwanted offers. I do not receive unsolicited junk mail because I am registered with the mailing preference service, which I recommend to everyone, including to my constituents. However, that does not get us away from the problem. I am generally against banning things. I am generally against banning unsolicited mail, but the Government have taken on board the fact that that some practices are unhelpful and should be discouraged—if not more.
I thought that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), with an intervention from the hon. Member for Edmonton, made a good point about the need for transparency and simplicity in offers. If one does not have the wherewithal to understand things—not every one does, and not all our constituents are as fortunate as us—one can be trapped by the headline offer. Those who do not understand the small print often end up in
294WH
dire straits. On that note, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the Government's plans on the subject.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): In calling the Minister to reply to the debate, may I congratulate her on her stamina in sitting through two full debates this morning.
12.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I must add that colleagues have joined me.
I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on being selected to lead this debate. I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words in response because personal debt is on the increase. Indeed, hon. Members have commented on the fact that we read of it almost every day in our newspapers. The nation is increasingly using credit facilities, but the majority of the population do so successfully and can cope with their repayments. It is the use of credit as a tool—an enabler—that is increasing, and credit is a growing part of our day-to-day lives, but most of us can manage our loans or other credit without difficulty.
Borrowing can be a useful tool; it can help households to smooth their incomes over time, and such debt is not necessarily a problem. Manageable debt is not the same as unmanageable over-indebtedness. Debt becomes a problem only if people cannot afford the repayments, and when that happens it turns into over-indebtedness. Such debt has a cost. It has an impact on people's lives, and a cost to industry in terms of outstanding loans and goods not paid for.
We need to ensure that all consumers can manage their credit effectively. The Government want to build a nation in which all consumers understand that it is important to be able to master their finances and know how they might achieve it. People need to be able to make appropriate decisions about their finances and understand the choices open to them—and their implications.
Ultimately, individuals have a responsibility to manage their own finances effectively, but the Government's role is to empower them to do so. We need to be able to create the right regulatory framework to facilitate a competitive market environment and ensure appropriate consumer protection. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that consumers need to be fully aware of what they get into when they take credit. One way in which we might help consumers is to consider how we can address the amount of small print in credit agreements, and identify ways in which lenders can minimise it and make such agreements easier to understand.
We need to ensure that individuals are financially literate. In doing so, we need to enable consumers to make informed judgments and take effective decisions. We must ensure that the appropriate generic information on financial management and products is available to them. Also, we have a role to play later in the debt cycle in dealing with over-indebtedness when it

295WH
happens. We all need to ensure that consumers have access to debt advice and debt-management programmes when they need them.
We want to ensure that the Government's many initiatives that are designed to empower the sensible use of financial services are joined up, and that as a Government we always work in partnership with consumer groups, the voluntary sector and the credit industry to ensure that we get things right. I join several of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of citizens advice bureaux, National Debtline and others that provide invaluable advice and assistance to consumers with debt problems.
I want to address the debt statistics Although I do not deny that there are some concerns, hon. Members' worries may be unduly out of kilter with the overall debt environment. Although the sum of money owed is clearly rising, as are the number of calls to citizens advice bureaux, the number of accounts in arrears is equal to that in some previous years. County court judgments are falling. The percentage of accounts in arrears for one to three months was lower in July than it was in November 1996. I could give other figures, but I shall not spend time on them. The facts suggest that we use more credit facilities, but not necessarily that consumers are in general increasingly over-indebted. That is not to minimise the problems of over-indebtedness and the difficulties that several hon. Members have set out in persuasive detail.
The immediate question raised today is about irresponsible marketing. Two years ago, the Government set up an over-indebtedness taskforce to examine credit industry marketing techniques, among other things. I published the taskforce's first report in July 2001. At that time, the taskforce recommended that all relevant trade associations should either agree a general code of practice on marketing credit or develop their existing codes to cover best practices by no later than March this year. The taskforce agreed that best practice included, among other things, not giving the impression that easy credit was readily available and encouraging consumers to consider fully whether they could afford repayments. It concluded that the Office of Fair Trading should ensure relevant principles of marketing best practice when endorsing credit industry codes. The taskforce was reconvened this summer. It reviewed the progress of industry codes since its first report, and I expect to receive its second report soon.
An additional recommendation of the taskforce in 2001 was that a DTI working group, which includes representations from the credit industry, regulators and consumer groups, should be set up to examine specific marketing techniques. Those include the sending of unsolicited, pre-approved loans—they have been much mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith and other hon. Members—credit card checks and overdraft facilities. The marketing techniques working group met several times between autumn 2001 and summer 2002. Its recommendations have been considered by the reconvened over-indebtedness taskforce.
The 2001 report also recommended a review of advertising regulations as part of the review of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which hon. Members have mentioned. I am proposing to consult on reforming advertising regulations in the spring, with the aim of
296WH
achieving clearer regulation and ensuring that consumers receive clear and understandable information to help them in their decision-making processes.
I turn to one further aspect of over-indebtedness. I refer to the performance and innovation unit's report, "Lending support: Modernising the Government's use of loans", which recommended a review of Government policy on over-indebtedness. The review, which is co-ordinated by the DTI, will investigate the demand for debt advice and financial literacy programmes. It will clarify the roles and responsibility of Government Departments on over-indebtedness, including the role of the social fund, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir). It will make recommendations on future Government policy on reducing over-indebtedness.
The Government have a key role to play in ensuring that the market framework is right and that there is the right regulatory framework to foster a competitive and innovative financial services industry with proper consumer protection.
As hon. Members are aware, I have undertaken a radical shake-up of our consumer credit laws, which are now some 30 years old. The review of the Consumer Credit Act will ensure that it is up to date and relevant to today's modern environment, and will deliver the Government's manifesto commitment to improve protections against loan sharks. I have already consulted on increasing or removing the Act's financial limit, and I expect to publish our response to the consultation shortly. Before the end of the year, we will publish our proposals for allowing credit agreements to be made online. Most crucially, improvements will be made to the consumer credit licensing regime to make it more focused on enforcement and on strengthening consumer protection against extortionate credit of the kind that hon. Members have described.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith that it is too easy to get a credit licence. As part of my review of the licensing regime, I am also considering introducing a fitness test for applicants and an increase in the licence fee to enable the Office of Fair Trading and local trading standards departments to undertake effective enforcement in the marketplace. I shall consult on that issue before the end of the year.
As for legislating on loan sharks, I expect to make legislative changes next year. How that will be achieved will depend on the outcome of consultations that will be undertaken this year and early next year, but I expect some of those changes to be made through secondary legislation or through regulatory reform orders.
On the question of whether the big financial institutions are equally to blame for getting people into debt, I do not think that interest rate ceilings are the best way in which to deal with extortionate credit. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux concluded in a report entitled "Daylight Robbery" that a ceiling rate could not operate effectively in the United Kingdom. I shall consult shortly on toughening the protections under the Act against extortionate credit, thereby making it easier for consumers to ask for the agreements to be re-opened. That will tackle the

297WH
problem more appropriately and effectively than risking the removal of a sector of the credit market that actually helps some consumers.
Citizens advice bureaux do an excellent job in helping vulnerable consumers with debt and other problems. The Government give significant financial support to the service through a grant to NACAB, which amounted to nearly £17 million last year. Individual bureaux provide a local service, however, so it is right that they should be funded locally to provide services appropriate to their local communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned the role of financial education and literacy. There are many issues to consider, not least that some 7 million adults in Britain have literacy skills below those expected of the average 11-year-old. An even greater number have a big problem with numbers. Research shows that adults with the poorest skills are those least likely to have savings and investments and those more likely to admit to being in debt. That is why we are working to improve financial literacy and to ensure that consumers have easy access to information. Students have the opportunity to be taught personal financial education in school through key stages 1 to 4 in the school curriculum. An adult basic skills agency is working on financial literacy and basic skills and we are working with the FSA in the ways that hon. Members mentioned.
May I conclude by drawing attention to work being done—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret that the Minister will not be able to complete her speech because time is up. We thank her for her reply, and we come to the next debate.

Parcelforce
12.30 pm
Sue Doughty: Parcelforce is a wholly owned part of Consignia, which is run by the Government; or not, depending on how one looks at it. We have a strange problem, in that Parcelforce has failed to make a profit for 10 years, but now it looks suspiciously as if areas of Parcelforce's business might turn in a profit. However, it has started choking on the part of its business that might make a profit. During the company's restructuring, it pushed a different type of service on to its customers. It said that that service would be better, but was amazed when the service was accepted; it said, "We did not expect you to do this."
The company is owned by the Government and subject to regulation. I have written to the Secretary of State about the company, and I hope that the Minister knows about the problems that we have encountered. The company seems to be rushing headlong over the cliff despite the fact that the problems are avoidable. Parcelforce's operation could affect many people; people in business who sell goods and use Parcelforce to ship them to customers and people who enjoy shopping from their homes and receiving deliveries.
One of my constituents drew the problem to my attention. He owns a successful mail order company that has been in business for many years. It employs 35 people and dispatches 40,000 items a year. It pays its bills on time and does a good job. It delivers to household addresses, does catalogue work for itself and others and deals with offers in newspapers. For example, people might read their favourite newspaper and scan it for readers' offers to find the garden gnome of their dreams. They might think, "That's just the offer. The price is right. What's the charge for postage and packing?" Such a person might send away for the garden gnome to complete a collection, and my constituent might handle that business. He would wrap up the gnome, take the customer's details, sort out the money and label up the package. Parcelforce would then deliver the package, or that was the plan.
At this time of year, demand for such services increases due to a seasonal uplift. Looking at my favourite garden gnome, I might think, "Gosh! Wouldn't my dad really like a garden gnome? I'll send for one for him for Christmas." The time at which the events that I shall discuss happened is pertinent to seasonal uplift. Businesses print their catalogues around August because they want an uplift of their autumn and winter trade. Their prices must remain consistent, which is an important part of the running of the businesses.
My constituent has used Parcelforce for many years. He has considered other carriers but decided that Parcelforce understands the business. Parcelforce said that it could provide a better service using track and trace technology—I shall refer to that later—which was essential. My constituent invested £12,000 in software to run the technology, so that if a customer rang up to say, "I haven't had my garden gnome. Is he lost?" my constituent could reply, "No. He is running around a particular depot and you, madam, will receive your garden gnome tomorrow." That is important and it is what customers expect in this day and age.

299WH
After Parcelforce's announcement of the restructuring and rationalisation of its business, it met each of its customers to explain that it was withdrawing its 72-hour delivery service but could provide a 48-hour delivery service at an increased price All the businesses said, "We do not want to hear that. We have already published our prices, but we accept that we will have to take that hit because we feel that Parcelforce is the right company to do business with. Having examined the options, we feel that the company is the only one we can do business with."
In June, Parcelforce said that it was withdrawing the 72-hour delivery service and would provide a 48-hour service, which could be better for customers. However, that service is offered at the increased price of £3.20 a parcel. On 22 August, after the contracts had been signed with all its customers, Parcelforce went back to those customers and said that it was sorry, but it had got its sums so badly wrong that it could not renegotiate on price. It then said to some, but not all, of its customers that it would stop working for them in three weeks, although the contract had been signed for a year. That was Parcelforce's approach.
I took the matter up with the Ministry, although I did not get very far. We also negotiated a short extension with Parcelforce to the end of October, for which the price has increased again.
Some of the parcels business is being absorbed by the Royal Mail, but mail order businesses do not have parcels that are all of equal weight. For a book-ordering business, a transfer to Royal Mail might he possible and, if so, Royal Mail has options to pass business on to others. However, that choice was not offered to my constituent. He asked Parcelforce if he could pay a higher price rather than look around to see what other options were available. Parcelforce said that he could not pay a higher price because it could not take his business.
There is no problem with Parcelforce wanting to make a profit—that seems a sensible thing for it to do—but what will happen to my constituent's business? If he gets his costs wrong, it could be the difference between being in business and going out of business. It is possible to absorb price rises. It may be tight and businesses do not like doing it, but in the interests of continuity they may decide to do so until they enter into a new contract.
Other issues would arise if my constituent moved his business to another company. The issues around domestic delivery are very different from those of commercial delivery. If a parcel is delivered to one of the big commercial companies, there is always someone there to sign for it and delivery is usually no problem. A signature is also needed for domestic deliveries, but an arrangement needs to be made for cases in which the customer is out. Is the price of delivering on an alternative day or holding on to the parcel included? Is there a different price for delivering to a different address?
Domestic deliveries work in a different way. If someone orders, for example, a set of garden gnomes—a whole family—the price is related to weight, not to where the person lives. There is a universal price. If there is an established relationship with a customer, there are cages in which to pack things so that they are transported safely. Is international delivery possible,
300WH
and what are the compensation levels? Those are all things on which any business would want a proper deal and a contract. Parcelforce has always offered that.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I agree with absolutely everything that my hon. Friend has said so far. The impact on end customers in my constituency is more fundamental, because if her father wished his garden gnome to be delivered to Orkney or Shetland, for example, he would probably find that, in the small print of the terms and conditions of the Sunday supplement, the delivery would not be free or cheap. In many instances, delivery would not be made at all to those islands. Even if delivery were possible, there would very often be an extra charge of £15, £20 or even £30 for the package.
Sue Doughty: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. We are concerned that that will also be the case in the more far-flung parts of the mainland.
Mr. Alan Reid: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for making the point about remote parts of the country. Is she aware that Parcelforce has drawn a line across the country, stretching from Fraserburgh on the North sea to Arrochar at the head of Loch Long, and that those living north-west of that line are disadvantaged, because prices are doubled for delivery to that area? For example, in two villages that are seven miles apart, it costs more than double to deliver to the village that is further away.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) can answer that, she is a better hon. Lady than I thought she was.
Sue Doughty: I cannot answer that, but I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention, because we do not have those problems in the south of England. The point of mail order is to help those people who cannot get to shops. That includes people with disabilities, pensioners and people who do not have their own transport. A range of people want to shop at home, but may not be able to choose other places.
The problem cuts across other Government initiatives, such as e-commerce. I believe responsibility for postal services lies with the same Department as e-commerce. If my father, for example, had chosen his favourite garden gnome from a website and wanted it delivered to the north of Scotland, the e-commerce company might be deeply unhappy. The problem does not just apply to my constituent's business; it is much more widespread. My constituent contacted 15 companies to try to get them to take on the business. They had all sorts of reasons why they could not deliver: for example, they did not deliver in different parts of the country, there was differential pricing, they could not track the parcels and they did not have any arrangements to deal with signatures for domestic deliveries. Even worse, many of the 15 were going to come back with a price but had been rung by other mail order companies and backed off.
One major company, a well-known name in commercial delivery, has said that each of their 80 depots was receiving three of four calls a day from

301WH
customers dropped by Parcelforce. That is not insignificant business. That company had an appointment to see my constituent with a view to taking on his business, but it suddenly realised that it would be overwhelmed by Parcelforce moving out of the sector and would not be able to make the investments necessary or the changes to its systems. That company then backed off as well.
I wrote to the Department of Trade and Industry, and hoped for an answer in three weeks. I rang and rang and, eventually, an extension was given. However, that did not really help because it takes six months to bed in a new supplier, not six weeks. There is some discrimination going on, as well. There is another mail order company on the same trading estate as my constituent's business. In fact, it is a competitor. One was allowed to renegotiate the price, but not the other. Is that fair?
We wrote to the Office of Fair Trading. It replied that it was not its responsibility, but that of Postcomm. We contacted Postwatch, which seems to be rapidly going out of business, and were told that it had nothing to do with such cases, and in any case the man I spoke to was about to leave his job. That was the end of that.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Is not the essence of the problem that the company has a de facto monopoly in many areas of its business and is abusing that monopoly, and that the regulator is—for whatever reason—unable or unwilling to intervene?
Sue Doughty: Absolutely, and that is clear when we address the real nature of Parcelforce. The Government made it clear to me that the activities of Parcelforce were a commercial matter for the board of Consignia. However, we are now learning from Postcomm that Parcelforce may be in breach of its licence. I should like the Minister to follow that up with Postcomm, look at the licensing terms of Parcelforce and check whether Parcelforce is in breach of its licence. If it is a commercial issue—we have no problem with Parcelforce becoming commercial, and no problem with competitiveness—where do we stand?
Let us consider the Government's history on the issue. In March, the Secretary of State announced the restructure. She said that Parcelforce Worldwide would concentrate on the growing market of guaranteed next-day and two-day deliveries in the UK and overseas, and transfer its universal service to the Royal Mail. However, when Parcelforce was renegotiating its contracts in June, was it looking to fit its customers into that growing market of 48-hour guaranteed deliveries? My constituent was moved on to that basis; it cost him more but he accepted it because he thought that there would be benefits, as well as disbenefits.
Parcelforce said of itself in an annual report:
"We see real potential in the express marketplace where we've grown our revenue by 10 per cent. in the last year. It's clear that this is where a successful future lies, and …builds on the success of our Coventry hubs and on track and trace technology"
Like Consignia, Parcelforce is repeatedly examined. When its representatives appeared before the Public Accounts Committee, they said that the introduction of
302WH
track and trace technology—in which my constituent invested £12,000 to be compatible with—would make them more able to take on competitors. The Government saw the business plan and invested the money, so they must be stakeholders. Perhaps they care about their investment, even if they do not care about the customers whom Parcelforce is dumping.
I have brought the matter to hon. Members' attention not only because I am deeply concerned about my constituent, but because I want to raise with the Minister the inconsistencies involved. The Government own the business. On 28 May last year, the then Secretary of State denied privatisation plans.
We must query the role played by Postcomm. It stated that the "threat of competition" is the best way of dealing with Consignia's inefficiency but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, there is no real competition in the domestic delivery market; we wish that there were. To achieve what we want, consumers must be taken into account. Yes, let it make a profit—there is nothing wrong with that—but it is important to maintain the domestic market, and nothing is happening to generate that. It is rather like the Government taxing fuel to manage a traffic-related problem, yet failing to invest in alternative transport.
I have other concerns. Do the Government really know what is going on with Consignia and Postcomm? Does Postcomm really know what Consignia is doing? Although Postcomm is now on the case, does it really understand what is happening? In April and May this year, the then Minister implied to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that he had cautioned Postcomm about the possible effects of its proposals and stressed the need for Consigina to share information.
It seems that nobody has a clear strategy as regards the changes. In June, the Secretary of State said of the Consignia business:
"The challenge …is to improve the quality and reliability of its services, so that it can keep its customers rather than losing market share."—[Official Report, 13 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 1017.]
I wish that Consignia could see it that way, because we need to encourage a business that is good at this very specialist market.
My constituent starts with a new supplier this week. He will work hard to make the system work, but switching takes six months, not six weeks. If there are snags in the system, his business will get the blame. When other mail order companies or newspaper businesses are looking for another supplier, he may fail because his track record has been damaged by the teething problems that he has encountered. I hope not, because he is desperately keen to make it work. How will all the other suppliers that are being dumped fare? Many jobs will be lost in those companies, as well as at Consignia, and the Government may be hearing from them before too long.
The Government have responsibilities, and they must meet them. I look forward to hearing the Minister explain just how they will do so.
12.48 pm
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I begin by referring to the wider position of Consignia, which provides the background

303WH
to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made two statements to the House, in March and in June, following the announcements by Allan Leighton, the chairman of Consignia, about plans to restructure its postal services. The first phase of those plans concerned the restructuring of Parcelforce and the transport network of Royal Mail; the second related to changes in the way in which deliveries are made to households. Between them, those plans will reduce by £1.4 billion a year the costs that are being borne by the business. As my right hon. Friend made clear, that means significant reductions in the size of the work force. The chairman of Consignia announced the company's intention of achieving that on the basis of voluntary redundancies and by offering alternative jobs elsewhere in the company.
The process will be very difficult for everyone, but it is very much needed. The company showed a pre-tax loss of £1.2 billion for the last financial year. Much of that comprises exceptional costs from restructuring, but there was still an underlying loss of £318 million on its day-to-day operations—about £1.2 million for every single working day. Turnover in that year grew by 3.6 per cent., but there was a 4.8 per cent. rise in costs. Clearly, such losses cannot continue. An aim of the renewal plan that has been announced by Consignia is that losses will be eliminated and the company will return to profit in the next three years.
The Government's view is that greater commercial freedom in the public sector is the right way forward for the Post Office. We know that in exercising its new freedoms, some decisions were made that, with the benefit of hindsight, were wrong. In his announcement, Allan Leighton made the point that
"management mistakes have been made over a number of years".
Some of the international ventures that the company entered into illustrate that. However, the renewal plan is intended to address such problems and get the company back to profitability.
The Government have agreed a package of measures to help put the company on the right financial footing. They were outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in June. The company will be able to use its balance sheet reserves of £1.8 billion, which represent accumulated past dividends and cash generated by the business, to back investment in the mails business to implement the renewal plan and to support the nationwide network of post offices, subject where necessary to the relevant state aid clearances. In addition, the Government do not intend to take any cash out of the business by way of dividends during the three years of the renewal plan.
Let me turn specifically to Parcelforce and the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and other hon. Members. Parcelforce has been losing £15 million per month. As the hon. Lady said, in its 10 years it has never made a profit and has now amassed losses of nearly £400 million. Repeated attempts to make it work have not succeeded. Clearly, the situation could not be allowed to continue, because losses on the parcel business were draining the rest of the business of much-needed investment. For the sake of the company as a whole, the board decided that it had to restructure Parcelforce's operations in order to achieve profitability.
304WH
Radical reshaping has begun. Once it is complete, annual savings will be £500 million. In the future, the company will concentrate on high value, time-guaranteed express services. It has withdrawn its standard three-days-plus delivery service and is reducing its depot network from 100 depots to 51. The changes will mean that Parcelforce will have a capacity of 40 million parcels a year, reduced from 120 million in the past. The company considers that trading in excess of that capacity would put at risk the quality of service provided to its remaining customers. In particular, Consignia is concerned that delaying the restructuring or not going ahead with it would result in the board reconsidering the possibility of closing Parcelforce completely, with the loss of a further 5,000 jobs. Therefore, it is most important that the changes are put into effect.
Parcelforce will be smaller but it will be more efficient and competitive and better able to respond to the needs of its customers. It is in a fully competitive market, in which many hundreds of competitors offer courier and parcels services.
Mr. Carmichael: I am very interested in the Minister's remarks about competitive markets and commercial freedom. Today, he has heard a description of the deregulation of Parcelforce, which has meant the end of a universal service for my constituents. Postcomm seems hell-bent on doing exactly the same thing to the delivery of letters. Will what happens to letter post be any different from what has happened to parcel post?
Mr. Timms: It is important to emphasise that a universal parcel service will continue. Consignia is licensed to provide a universal postal service by Postcomm, which can take action under that licence if Consignia fails to meet its obligations. The Parcelforce division of the business will not deliver the universal service, but will be integrated into the Royal Mail, which will, of course, operate on the basis of a uniform tariff. Consignia will continue to meet the universal service obligations that we have enshrined in legislation, and the Royal Mail will take on that task. People will be able to send parcels from their local post office, just as they do now, at a uniform tariff to every part of the country.
I want specifically to comment on the case raised by the hon. Member for Guildford. She has pursued it diligently, and I commend her on that and the work that she has done on behalf of her constituents. She will recognise that Consignia now has greater freedom to operate commercially without interference from the Government, and that it is for the company to determine how to deliver a range of services that best meet its customers needs and to decide the structure it needs to deliver those services.
As a result of decisions taken by Parcelforce, there is no doubt that some services used by some customers will be changed, or even withdrawn altogether, and replaced by others. I understand that 350 out of the total 30,000 account customers will be affected by the termination of express contracts in the way in which the hon. Lady has outlined, due to the reduction in capacity by Parcelforce. That is because Parcelforce has concluded that it cannot serve those contracts profitably.
In the case of the particular organisation in the hon. Lady's constituency, Consignia tells me that the price offered was too low to fit in with its restructuring plans,

305WH
and the decision was taken to cancel the contract. The contractual requirement was for two weeks' notice and, as she has stated, that period, which ends tomorrow, was extended to nearly three months to give the company the opportunity to find an alternative supplier. I welcome her making the point, which matches my understanding of the matter, that the company has found an alternative supplier.
Consignia has also offered to support the company in reconfiguring its software systems to allow them to be used with the new supplier. The hon. Lady made a fair point about the difficulty facing the company in changing its system, which it had recently done, making a substantial investment in doing so. It is absolutely right that Consignia should make an offer, which I understand has been agreed, to help the company to reconfigure its system to deal with the new supplier.
Sue Doughty: My constituent would dispute the point about prices because he offered to pay a higher price, but it was made clear to him that his business was not wanted.
Mr. Timms: It is helpful that an alternative supplier has been found. The hon. Lady was right to draw attention to the importance of e-commerce because online purchases increased by more than 40 per cent. last year; it is an area of rapid growth. It is important that the needs of everybody in the industry should be met, whether they are supplying garden gnomes or other products. Given the variety of suppliers in the marketplace, we can expect that to happen.
The hon. Lady referred to the Office of Fair Trading, which investigated the case and concluded that Parcelforce did not infringe the requirements of competition legislation. I understand that Postcomm is considering whether there was a breach of the licence conditions, and it will shortly notify the hon. Lady's constituent of its conclusion.
I well understand, as do all hon. Members here, the desire of many of Parcelforce's customers to remain with a well-known and trusted postal service supplier. Royal Mail and Parcelforce will between them continue to offer a wide range of services, including the standard universal service, at a uniform tariff to every part of the country and a range of competitive services that have been developed to compete with other suppliers—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret that time is up. We thank the Minister for his reply.

Gloucester South-West Bypass
1 pm
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I am grateful to be granted an Adjournment debate on Gloucester's south-west bypass. The issue has transport, regeneration and economic implications for my constituency, the whole county of Gloucestershire and the south-west region.
For reasons that I shall outline, I seek £17.6 million of Government funding through the local transport plan to support Gloucestershire county council's bid to complete—at long last—the building of the Gloucester south-west bypass. In taking up the cause, I am supported by the South West of England Regional Development Agency, whose chairman, Sir Michael Lickiss, has already written to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport. I am also supported by the regional branch of the CBI, with which I met on Friday, Gloucestershire county council, Gloucester city council and, including me, five Gloucestershire Members of Parliament, encompassing all three major political parties. Such is the urgency of this matter.
I begin with the transport implications of the scheme. The bypass will bring great public transport benefits and improve road safety throughout the area. It will provide a new strategic link from the M5 south of Gloucester to the A417 west of Westgate bridge, and relieve congestion on the existing A430, known as Bristol road. It will create an efficient high-quality public transport corridor through the city and improve the immediate environment of local residents. It will also provide a long-awaited bypass for the local village of Hempsted in my constituency. In addition, it will link up with the Gloucester inner relief road to enable a substantial reduction in traffic and congestion in the centre of Gloucester, bringing environmental benefits, including pedestrianising the Gloucester docks area. Those public transport benefits are much needed in themselves and formed a chief part of the original scheme for the bypass, which was devised in the early 1990s.
However, the bypass does not just relate to transport. More than £500 million of town centre regeneration and development are hanging on the completion of the Gloucester south-west bypass. Sir Michael Lickiss, the RDA chairman, said:
"There is now a real opportunity to secure very substantial regeneration benefits in the heart of the city which could have a major impact on the economic performance of Gloucester. The completion of the bypass will act as a catalyst to create the commercial confidence needed to stimulate the regeneration of the City."
Gloucester's western waterfront is one of the most significant waterfront regeneration projects in the UK, made up of a series of interconnecting development areas that wrap around the western and southern parts of central Gloucester and overlook the canal, the docks, the river and areas of flood plain. The scheme could unlock more than £500 million of public and private investment in jobs, retail, tourism, leisure, housing and education; part of the scheme includes a new further education college in the docks. Part of the key is £17.6 million from the Government when they make the local transport plan announcements in a few weeks.
The potential output of the scheme meets all the Government's targets for brownfield development. Part of the scheme would ensure the regeneration of more

307WH
than 70 hectares of brownfield land. Almost 90 hectares of greenfield land would be protected. More than 2.000 new homes would be created. More than 4,250 m of waterfront would be improved. More than 80 historic buildings would be repaired with the support of English Heritage, which is also a key partner in the developments in the Gloucester docks area. Importantly, there would be a significant reduction in the flood plain with the removal of obstructions when putting the road in place.
Gloucester's schemes tick all the Government's boxes concerning brownfield development. The major development proposals in the area include the St. Oswald's park development, also known as the cattle market site. It is a mixed-use scheme, blending employment, retail, leisure and residential uses. It is valued at more than £100 million and would create a whole new urban quarter for Gloucester on what is at the moment a rather unattractive former landfill site. There are no major objectors to the scheme and, although the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has called the scheme in, I hope that we shall get the green light this week for the scheme to progress. Part of the difficulty is that the scheme encompasses a £700,000 contribution to the bypass, as do so many private development schemes. Uncertainty over the planning process brings about greater uncertainty in terms of section 106 moneys, on which I shall elaborate in a moment.
Westgate island is another key part of the scheme that would create a new entrance to the city centre from the west and provide a new setting for Gloucester's 900-year-old cathedral for those approaching the city. The docks basin is the key site on the western waterfront because it would provide a link between the waterfront developments and the city centre. The site has recently been bought by the RDA, which demonstrates its commitment to development in the town centre. It would provide a mixed-use development, including housing, in the city centre.
Perhaps the biggest part of the scheme is the Gloucester quays development, which is a mixed-use development, including more than 1,000 homes, a superstore, an hotel, a designer outlet centre and the new Gloscat college of further education, which would be in the docks. The new college in the docks would be alongside the 12th century Llanthony priory, which is now alone and derelict in the docks and could be used as part of a performing arts venue if it were revived alongside the campus with the support of English Heritage. Gloucester quays is valued at well over £200 million and an outline planning application has already been lodged. The key to unlock the development is £17.6 million.
The Government first accepted the bid for the bypass back in 1994 and it was made clear that that acceptance was based on Government expectations of maximising developers' contributions, but therein lies part of the difficulty. The size and scale of the now massive potential development has grown since 1994 and it is now even more in the Government's interests to complete the south-west bypass and unlock that potential. The benefits of the project are not in doubt locally and throughout the country. All local Members of Parliament have signed up in support of the scheme and I believe that the Government accept that there are
308WH
real benefits. What is uncertain is the funding. Gloucester's south-west bypass is an approved road scheme dating back to 1994. but its funding has always relied on securing significant contributions from private sector developers.
The current estimated cost for the whole bypass is £35.3 million. Contributions from developers amounting to £6.2 million have already been secured and £11.5 million of Government funding has previously been approved. That has allowed two sections of the bypass to be built, but those currently stand in isolation and do not offer the benefits that would be provided by the overall improvements. A completed bypass would make a huge difference. The two isolated parts are simply a reminder to the people of Gloucester of what could have been achieved and, perhaps, what still might be.
Original cost estimates presented in 1994 were significantly lower than the £35.3 million figure that is currently being reported. I share what are bound to be the concerns of my hon. Friend and the Department about the escalation of the costs. The speed of progress has been held back by the need to capture developer contributions as schemes led by the private sector have emerged. Indeed, the inflation of construction costs, year by year, has added more than 5 per cent. to the cost of the scheme.
Other factors have led to price increases. Those include the need for enhanced flood protection works and constraints on working due to difficulties with underground gas and oil pipelines. Time slippage and general cost inflation have also had a significant impact on the scheme. In some respects, it is a bit like a game of poker. Let me give my hon. Friend an example; a major potential private sector contribution to the bypass was linked to the development of the former RAF Quedgley, or Eastchurch site, lying to the south of the city of Gloucester. The developer had offered a £6 million contribution to the bypass, subject to its securing planning consent for a mixed-use development that would include a substantial number of houses.
As a result of a planning appeal the development proposals became the subject of a public inquiry. The inspector recommended that the proposals should be approved and that the Government office for the south-west also recommended approval. The Secretary of State, however, issued a minded to refuse letter and requested additional submissions from the parties who were represented at the inquiry. That is not intended as a criticism of the Deputy Prime Minister or his Department, but it is an example of how things can go awry if we expect all the dominos to fall into place. There are, in addition, two issues to deal with: planning, which falls under the remit of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and transport, which is overseen by the Department that my hon. Friend is representing today.
In the interim period, both the timetable and the outcome of the Secretary of State's decision are uncertain and, as time drags on, the costs will inevitably increase. In the Gloucester quays area, other developers see the viability of their project begin to suffer, and Gloscat is left in the dark as to whether the new further education college can go ahead without guarantees about the bypass; and so it goes on. The result is an

309WH
increasing lack of confidence on the part of the developers who are waiting for the road and would, in turn, encourage private development in the city.
My hon. Friend and his Department can remove the confusion and hesitation in one fell swoop by accepting the bid. In this case, it is desirable to break the link between the private sector contributions that are being sought for the bypass and the sensitivities of the planning process. I know that there have been several meetings between the Department for Transport and the city and county councils to discuss the additional funding requirements. It is understandable that Department for Transport officials have been keen to explore whether other private sector contributions might be captured and whether the regional development agency and local authorities might offer more direct support.
The city and county councils, the RDA and local Members of Parliament are confident that all reasonable avenues for support have been exhaustively explored. All the key partners appreciate that the Gloucester south-west bypass needs to be completed within a committed time scale. That is a fundamental precursor to unlocking the full regeneration potential in the city and will have a knock-on effect on jobs and prosperity in the rest of the county and wider region.
The Government have a clear opportunity to resolve the issue with an increase in the local transport plan settlement for Gloucestershire. A sum of £17.6 million will enable us to complete the bypass on budget and on time in 2005. My hon. Friend is a good friend of Gloucester and has been a regular visitor over the years. I hope that he and his Department will accept my arguments and I hope that he will listen to the partners who are involved in this massive scheme. Those partners include the regional CBI, the Learning and Skills Council—which is backing the further education college plan to move to Gloucester docks—Gloscat, the private developers, Gloucester city council, Gloucestershire county council and the South West of England Regional Development Agency.
The partners also include Members of Parliament; my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is here today, and for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ), the hon. Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) and myself, the hon. Member for Gloucester. We encompass all political parties. We need this road; it is a road to prosperity and regeneration.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister, who is a regular attender in Westminster Hall.
1.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Sometimes I feel that I am as regular an attender as you.
First, I congratulate my good friend, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), on securing this debate and on the cogent and powerful way in which he has presented his case. At the risk of embarrassing him, it has been good to witness someone who speaks so
310WH
forcibly, volubly and knowledgeably about his area and constituents. I am flattered to be called a friend of Gloucester. If there are friends of Gloucester, it is mainly because of the charm and personality of my hon. Friend.
The Government recognise the importance that the hon. Gentleman places on the completion of the bypass. I recognise his role, both in improving transport in his constituency and in the wider aims that he has set out so clearly. I appreciate that there is strong local support for the scheme.
In the time available, I want to set out what the Government are doing to ensure that local authorities can deliver improved integrated transport in their areas. I will address the specific issues that my hon. Friend has raised on the Gloucester south-west bypass. The Government are committed to sustained, long-term investment to improve local transport. That is a key element of our 10-year plan for transport. We have already made clear the importance that we place on the improvement of local transport provision.
The 1998 White Paper on integrated transport introduced the concept of five-year local transport plans—LTPs—which set transport within our wider objectives for local authorities and within our national framework for integrated transport. In December 2000, we illustrated our commitment to delivering improvement by announcing an £8.4 billion investment package to implement five-year local transport plans across England outside of London.
The local transport capital settlement, which was announced in December 2001, gave details of the second instalment of the funding, with £1.5 billion being made available to authorities in the current financial year. That increased and sustained funding will help to deliver the Government's vision of a high-quality transport network that meets people's needs and offers more choice to individuals, families, communities and businesses.
We have schemes that will help to meet the targets and deliver the outputs that are set out in our 10-year plan. They will reduce the environmental impact of traffic by improving air quality, reducing emissions and noise and reducing congestion in large urban areas. However, the projects are not only to do with infrastructure. We are providing the investment that will allow authorities to deliver a huge range of small-scale integrated transport projects, from local safety schemes, bus priority measures and park-and-ride services, to schemes to encourage cycling and walking.
I have seen at first hand, especially in Gloucester with its go-ahead thinking, what a difference such schemes can make to the safety and well-being of local communities. An especially successful local transport project is the Gloucester safer city project, which has been a major success and is a flagship for the work that a local authority can do when it uses its funding to improve transport in its area.
I referred to the increase in investment in local transport at a national level, but it has been much in evidence in Gloucestershire. We allocated £16.5 million to Gloucestershire county council in 2001–02, and £18.1 million in 2002–03, making more than £34 million in the first two years of its five-year local transport plan. That compares with a total of £16.5

311WH
million in the previous two years, and is more than a doubling of the resources available in Gloucestershire for improvements to transport. It reiterates our commitment to boosting the resources for local authorities to implement five-year plans and provides Gloucestershire with the opportunity greatly to improve its local transport provision.
I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the Government are committed to improving local transport. We have provided local authorities with not only the funding to implement the measures in their plans, but the flexibility to determine their own priorities within their local transport allocations. That is in line with the Government's policy on providing local accountability. In giving local authorities in Gloucestershire the extra resources to which I referred, we have also given them the discretion to allocate those resources within their local transport plan. Local people can now make local decisions in accordance with local priorities.
That means that local authorities, like the Government, will have to make choices and sometimes take difficult decisions about where their priorities lie. Greater local discretion may mean that local authorities have to reprioritise their allocations to meet changing demands, such as increases in the costs of individual schemes. That is just a summary of the general points that the Government have made and where we stand with Gloucestershire.
Mr. David Drew: I apologise for my lateness, which was due to my complete inability to read the Order Paper correctly. Before my hon. Friend the Minister talks about the south-west bypass, I must emphasise that our problem is that other parts of that bypass have already been completed. That is causing so much inconvenience and stress, and I hope that he will bear that in mind when he talks about how we can find the money for it.
Mr. Jamieson: That is very kind of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). He may not be able to read the Order Paper, but he has certainly read my speech because he has anticipated some of the points that I was about to make.
On the specific issues of today's debate, the Gloucester south-west bypass has a long history that dates back to the mid-1990s, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said. The proposal for Government funding was first put forward under the predecessor of the local transport plan system, the transport policies and programmes, or TPP, system.
My hon. Friend very adequately described what the bypass would do and what has been developed so far, and I will not detain the House with another description. The scheme was approved for Government funding in December 1994, and has been receiving financial support through the transport supplementary grant since April 1995. Successive Governments have demonstrated their continuing commitment to that scheme with allocations totalling £11.5 million over the past seven years. Last year, for example, we gave Gloucestershire more than £1.6 million, and £0.8 million in the previous year.
When the scheme was originally accepted for funding, the estimated total cost was £17.7 million, with £5 million provided through developer contributions.
312WH
The original programme completion date was 2000. According to current estimates, the total cost of the scheme has risen to £35.3 million, and the completion date is now about 2005. Any Government would be concerned about such delays in completing the scheme and the substantial increase in projected costs. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that we want the benefits from our investment delivered to the travelling public and the local community as quickly as possible. I am sure that that is true locally, for the development of the local economy.
I readily accept my hon. Friend's point that some of the cost increases have been unavoidable and are for additional works that could not have been anticipated when the scheme was first proposed. However, I am sure that he will appreciate that the Government, rightly, cannot provide a blank cheque for every cost overrun on every scheme. We cannot plan effectively on the basis of funding cost overruns that may happen as a matter of course.
Mr. Dhanda:It is worth remembering that £6 million has been secured in developer contributions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has made that point himself. Part of the difficulty is that the scheme dates back to the early 1990s, when the value of the scheme to Government, the county and the region was nothing like as great as it is now. The scheme now has a value of about £500 million, and is annually worth billions of pounds of revenue in jobs and opportunities. I hope that his Department will consider that when it deals with the bid for £17.6 million. It is supported not only by local agencies, which would obviously support it, but the RDA, which has put a significant sum of money—well over £20 million—into the docks area.
Mr. Jamieson:I was not trying to pour cold water on the scheme. My hon. Friend was looking a little concerned, but I was making the strong point that we must have good value for money. The people of Gloucestershire would want that as well in terms of the expenditure. It is for the local authority to make the case for increased funding and to provide adequate assurances that the scheme will be delivered without delay and further additional costs. That would be in his interests and those of Gloucestershire. If the Government unquestioningly met such increases, every pound spent on an overrun on one project would be a pound not spent on another. It could be a pound not spent on another scheme in Gloucester.
I welcome the fact that Gloucestershire county council has made good progress on securing further contributions towards the scheme from private developers that will benefit from it. My officials have been in discussion with officers from the county council on the case for additional funding for the scheme.
My hon. Friend made a coherent and well argued case for the Government to provide additional resources for the bypass to be completed. My ministerial colleagues will carefully consider the case made by the local authority for additional funds. They will assess not only the transport benefits of the scheme at the increased costs, but the points that he made so clearly today. I welcome Gloucestershire county council's agreement in principle to provide funds from its transport budget towards the additional costs, especially as that further

313WH
demonstrates its commitment to the scheme and the recognition of the priority that the council places on its completion.
The local authority has provided my Department with the required additional information to support the case for increased funding. We shall consider it carefully in coming to a decision in December on the level of further Government funding, as part of the local transport capital settlement. I assure my hon. Friend that, in considering the case for further funding, we will be all too aware of the persuasive arguments that he has made today in relation to the vital role of the bypass in the delivery of transport and economic improvements in Gloucester. However, I remind him that sometimes authorities have to make difficult decisions, just as Governments do.
I hope that, in the short time that I have had available, I have been able to convince my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester that my ministerial colleagues and I are well aware of the case that is being put forward with respect to the Gloucestershire south-west bypass, and that we shall endeavour to reach a decision as soon as is practicable.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now move on to the next debate, but, sadly, without a Minister. [Interruption.] The Minister has arrived. I confess I was padding things out a bit.

Cross-Channel Shopping
1.30 pm
Mr. David Laws: I am delighted to have an opportunity to raise this important issue, and I welcome the Economic Secretary to his place. As you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he was delayed slightly, and one could perhaps say the same of yesterday's announcement by the Government. We should be grateful that they both turned up eventually.
I do not know whether to describe the debate as timely or particularly untimely in the light of yesterday's announcement by the Economic Secretary, which, broadly speaking, I welcome. However, the debate provides an opportunity for us to scrutinise the announcement, to ask questions about the implications for relevant Treasury policy and to find out whether the Government's new policy is likely to deal with the problems that have been created in the past couple of years.
According to the press release issued by Customs and Excise and to the Economic Secretary's statement, yesterday's announcement was not a change in policy. He described it, in his introductory comments to a press conference, as the next stage in a Government strategy to combat cross-channel smuggling. A Treasury source seemed particularly insistent about this, telling the Evening Standard that it was ridiculous to speak of a U-turn, as the announcement was part of a long-term strategy. That will surprise many people who have for some time been lobbying on the matter, including many of my parliamentary colleagues, Members of the European Parliament, the European Commissioner Mr. Bolkestein and others.
The Economic Secretary's comments yesterday seem to jar somewhat with those made by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at a meeting we had with him some months ago. I am glad that there has been a rethink of the issue and that the Government have decided to move in the direction suggested by the legal judgments, the EU Commissioner and, perhaps, some of the newspapers that have campaigned on the issue recently, not least The Sun and the Daily Express.
You will probably recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, in September, the Economic Secretary was criticising the European Commissioner, Mr. Bolkestein, for raising the question of the UK Government's attitude to cross-channel trade in tobacco and alcohol. He criticised Mr. Bolkestein for trying to be a popular hero on this issue and for trying to whip up enthusiasm among the press over cross-channel trade. I was therefore rather surprised by an article in The Sun on 21 October—only a few days before this announcement—with a headline suggesting that the Economic Secretary was ordering a U-turn; that seems somewhat off-message. A rather nice picture of the Economic Secretary bore a caption stating that he was backing shoppers. The Government's thinking about this matter seems to have undergone a welcome change, but it is not yet clear whether legal pressure forced them into it, or whether they have had a change of heart.
I welcome the substance of yesterday's statement, because it is intended to deal with three areas of concern raised by, among others, the Commission, Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament.

315WH
The first issue that it deals with, in part, is the burden of proof. It is outrageous that, in a single market—and in a legal system such as ours, under which people are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty—control of cross-channel trade in tobacco and alcohol by Customs and Excise should result in people having to demonstrate their innocence, rather than Customs being obliged to establish that they are bringing in alcohol and tobacco not for their personal use, which is not restricted under EU rules, but for on-sale to other parties. For the past year or so, Customs has been operating on the presumption that the burden of proof is on individuals coming across the channel to prove that they are not smuggling.
The extent to which the burden of proof has been balanced in that way is shown by another aspect of the crisis. The Minister who formerly had responsibility for these matters—the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury—contacted me about a case that I had raised on behalf of a constituent. The lady concerned lent her car to her son so that he could travel to France. He was stopped on the way back and was found to have an amount of tobacco that was over the guideline amount but not the limit amount. The car, of course, was seized by Customs, but it was not returned to the lady; as a consequence, she had problems getting to work—Somerset is a rural area—and was in danger of losing her job.
The Chief Secretary indicated that where the owner of the vehicle was not present, they must be able to demonstrate that they were genuinely innocent of any involvement. Customs interprets that to mean that aside from where a vehicle is stolen and reported to the police prior to seizure, a person who has consented to the use of the vehicle by others accepts a risk by doing so. In other words, if you lend a vehicle to someone, you are assumed to be as guilty as they are if they come back with an amount of cigarettes or alcohol in excess of the guideline amounts. It is outrageous, by any standards, that people should be assumed to be guilty until proven innocent, but that is how the assumption of guilt has been working; people who lend out their vehicles are assumed to be guilty unless the vehicle has been stolen. That is bizarre, and I am glad that the Government have tried to address the issue.
The second issue that the Government have tried to address is the fact that, in many cases, the penalties are draconian in relation to the offence. We are not here to defend those who engage in serious, large-volume cross-channel smuggling and fraud, but some of those who have brought back alcohol and tobacco, been aware that there was no personal limit on the amount that they could bring back for personal use and been caught out by Customs officers, who have accused them of bringing back amounts over the guideline amount. For small excesses, their vehicles are then confiscated and may not be returned.
Vehicles with a value of £ 15,000 or £20,000 could have been seized and not returned as a consequence of an amount being brought back in excess of the guideline amounts by only a moderate amount. That seems draconian and unfair. Equally unfair is the fact that those bringing back tobacco or alcohol over the guideline amount by a larger amount who drive vehicles of a lesser value would, by losing that vehicle, incur a much smaller penalty than those with large and
316WH
expensive cars who, in the view of Customs officers, happened to be over the guideline amount with no good reason.
The third issue that the Government have sensibly sought to address is the mismatch between the guideline amounts for alcohol and for tobacco. People were able to bring back 90 litres of wine, which is a substantial amount by anybody's standards; one certainly could not whistle through that in a few days. However, the number of cigarettes that could be brought back was far less in magnitude and could be consumed by a household within a short time. Increasing the guideline amount for cigarettes was extremely sensible and welcome.
It is important that we do not simply focus on the good things, much though the Economic Secretary might want me to. We should highlight concerns and ask where the changes may lead and what problems may arise.
First, we must press the Economic Secretary on the amount of resources that will be available to Customs to police the new arrangements, which, in some respects, will be no easier to police than the previous ones. He will he aware of the difficulty that Customs has had in dealing with the huge amounts of tobacco and alcohol that have been smuggled during the past few years and of the need properly to resource its efforts. I hope that he will say something about that.
Secondly, will the Economic Secretary clarify the issue of stop and search, which came up in the Hoverspeed legal judgment? The Government's approach was challenged, and it was suggested—with good reason, I suspect—that Customs officers randomly stopped and searched people coming back over the channel to see whether they had more than the guideline limits. Should Customs officers stop and search individuals returning from the continent in a free and open single market? Will the guidelines for officers be clear in that respect? What evidence will give officers reasonable grounds to stop and search a vehicle?
Thirdly, we need assurances about the vehicles that Customs has seized and which are still in the pounds. People who are waiting on appeals will have heard yesterday of the change in policy and will be wondering whether the Government will now take a more reasonable line. That is particularly true, now that the guideline limit has been changed, of those whose vehicles were seized because they had more tobacco than was allowed. Will the Economic Secretary consider an amnesty to return cars that have been seized? Is he prepared to compensate those whose cars have been destroyed in the meantime? Such people will be angry to discover that the Government have changed their mind and acknowledged that it would be sensible to treat the amounts that those people brought back as being for personal use.
Fourthly, there is the substantive issue of how the new rules will work in relation to the burden of proof. The Government have given the impression that the burden of proof will again fall on Customs staff and that it will

317WH
not be for the citizen to prove his innocence. However, yesterday's Treasury press release, and the notes to editors, clarify show how the burden of proof will be treated, stating:
"In practice, this new policy also means that individuals who bring back more than that required to keep the average smoker in supply for more than six months will be required to provide an explanation to Customs for their purchase. If they cannot, then Customs may very well conclude that the goods are for a commercial purpose."
How different will that be in practice from the current arrangements? Will Customs not still put the onus on the individual to explain his circumstances in a way that meets its requirements? The approach in the press release is very different from that in the rest of the law, which assumes that people are innocent until proven guilty. If I walked down the street outside the Palace of Westminster with an expensive stereo, the police could not ask me to justify why I had it; they could arrest me only if they had good reason to assume that I had stolen it. I am not sure that the new Government guidelines are sufficiently clear in that respect.
Lastly, there is a much wider issue, which I urge the Government to consider. I had a useful meeting yesterday with the chairman of Shepherd Neame, the brewers, which has been active on this issue. There is a wider concern about the misalignment in alcohol duties between this country and the continent. Although the Liberal Democrats are not in favour of the enforced harmonisation of taxes in Europe and believe that the issue should be resolved through tax competition, there is concern about whether the arrangements can be policed satisfactorily in a single market in which people are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is not acceptable to stop and search people randomly.
I urge the Economic Secretary to hold an independent inquiry, or at least a Treasury inquiry, to consider the consequences of reducing duty in the UK towards European levels in order to tackle illegal trade. In addition, I urge him to consider the health effects of putting higher duties on tobacco and alcohol to see whether they are working and whether a reduction in duty towards the European average would have the desired effect.
Hugh Robertson: I represent a brewing town, so the jobs of many of my constituents and the survival of many local pubs are directly affected by illegal imports. I am sure that we would all agree that cutting excise duty would reduce smuggling, but Shepherd Neame has proved comprehensively that, by cutting excise duty, we could also increase the legal take, and therefore the amount of revenue available to the Treasury. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Economic Secretary whether he would be prepared to meet representatives from Shepherd Neame to discuss that proposal?
Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman raises a powerful point subtly. As an economist, I am not yet persuaded that a reduction in duty would be self-funding, but there is a case to answer. The Government have raised the issue to some extent by freezing duty on alcohol over the past few years, rather than continuing with the policy of
318WH
over-indexation pursued by the Conservative Government, as well as by the Labour Government when they first took office.
There is a case to answer and, although I realise that I am raising a wide issue at the end of a narrow debate, I urge the Economic Secretary to keep an open mind on the subject and to be willing to commission research in the Treasury to find out whether there is a case for reducing the duty differentials between the European continent and the UK.
1.47 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on securing the debate. His membership of the Treasury Select Committee gives him particular expertise in the area. He wondered out loud whether the debate was timely or untimely in the light of my announcement yesterday. It is timely for me, because it gives me chance to explain further what I said, but I always welcome the chance for Parliament to play its proper role in scrutinising Government policy.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for my announcement, and particularly welcome the fact that the new regulations will clarify the burden of proof and refine the penalties. As of yesterday, we dealt with what he described as the mismatch between the guidelines on alcohol and tobacco.
I shall deal with the questions about resources and stops in my other remarks. I shall also give some explanation of the burden of proof. On vehicles, we have already put in place procedures for reviewing any seizures and procedures for the proper restoration of fees. I have no intention of making the new package retrospective or of putting in place an amnesty because procedures are in place to deal with the problems.
To reassure the hon. Gentleman on tax, we can enforce the regime, and yesterday's announcement was an important part of enabling us to do that in future. I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) that low duty rates are no defence against tobacco smuggling. Italy, Spain and other European countries have much lower tobacco duty rates than we do, but they also have a serious cigarette smuggling problem.
Despite the common talk of booze cruises, the most serious problem lies with tobacco; the hon. Member for Yeovil, a member of the Select Committee, will be aware of that fact. Some 20 per cent. of the tobacco market is illicit, compared with only 4 per cent. of the beer market and 3 per cent. of the wine market. That was the reason why, in the 2000 Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the tackling tobacco strategy.
The Government put £200 million into that strategy, which has led to the recruitment of nearly 1,000 extra staff at our frontier ports and inland. The hon. Member for Yeovil was concerned that not enough resources were in place to operate the regime, but the resources are there. We have also installed more high-tech equipment, including a national network of x-ray scanners to detect the high volume of smuggling in freight containers. As part of the strategy, we introduced tougher sanctions and penalties, including the seizure of vehicles used for

319WH
smuggling, along with a fiscal mark to help to identify those cigarettes that have been smuggled and those on which duty has been paid.
Mr. Laws: Is the Economic Secretary saying that, in spite of changing the regulations yesterday, he can offer no comfort to people who had their car seized last week because they were 200 cigarettes over the limit? Will no flexibility be given to those cases?
John Healey: The review procedures are in place to deal with such instances, and we shall see that they are followed through. The announcement that I made yesterday does not have a retrospective impact.
I shall proceed, because the time available to me is shorter than I should have liked. Without the action that we took two years ago, it was forecast that, by this year, the illegal tobacco market would have been 34 per cent. Customs is bringing the problem under control and reversing the growth in smuggling. I shall publish figures alongside the pre-Budget report in a few weeks' time that show the improvement in Britain's tobacco market.
The results of the tobacco strategy's first stage have been especially dramatic. They include a 75 per cent. cut in smuggling alongside a 10 per cent. growth in spending in legitimate shopping. It is worth dwelling on the juxtaposition between smuggling and shopping, which offers strong evidence that the crooks, not the consumers, have been the target of customs activity. Each year, 14 million people cross the channel and nearly 99.9 per cent. pass through customs without a problem. Tobacco and alcohol is seized from only around 14.000 annually. Customs has a tough job to do in difficult circumstances. Most worryingly, we have seen recently cheats and smugglers becoming increasingly clever at mixing with and posing as honest shoppers.
It is now time to move to the next stage of our tobacco strategy, which is the new package of measures that I announced yesterday. The package of measures has the twin aim of reinforcing our action against smugglers and reinforcing our protection of the rights of genuine shoppers. It is fair for shoppers, tough on smugglers and clear about the difference between the two. It is designed to resolve arguments about the legality of customs actions, guarantee fairness for honest shoppers and bear down harder on bootleggers who corrupt the system.
The regulations that I laid before Parliament yesterday will repeal the Personal Reliefs Order enacted by the previous Conservative Government in line with European Union advice in 1992 and replace them with new regulations. The changes will make it clear that alcohol and tobacco on which tax is paid elsewhere in the European Union and which is imported into the UK for own use is not liable for duty. It will also make it clear that tobacco and alcohol imported for payment in cash or kind for profit or for reimbursement is subject to UK duties.
The new regulations remove the burden of proof on the individual to show that goods are for their own use. That was introduced in 1992 by the last Government and reflected guidance at that time from the European Union. It would be for Customs to be satisfied that goods were for a commercial purpose, and the decision would be based on criteria set out in the new regulations
320WH
in UK legislation for the first time, including the explanations offered by people importing large quantities. Customs will widely publicise those criteria and stand ready to explain its reasons for reaching its view to any court or tribunal as necessary.
In practice, Customs has always had to be satisfied that, when challenged, it can explain and defend the judgments it makes. The new regulations reflect recent interpretations offered by the courts, and represent a useful overhaul of 10-year-old EU-based legislation. They bring the UK legislation into line with the court ruling in the Hoverspeed case in July, and the reality of existing practice.
Only a tiny proportion of those entering the UK are stopped by Customs. Stops are made due to a range of factors, based on knowledge of smuggling techniques and behaviour that changes constantly. Often, they occur as a result of pre-arrival selection, informed by general, and sometimes specific, intelligence. That is supplemented by professional observation. A typical stop only lasts a few brief moments, unless the exchange gives rise to increasing doubts.
I reaffirmed yesterday the absolute commitment of Customs to ensure that its actions fully comply with its legal obligations and I called on others to ensure that they, too, met their obligations. In particular, I made clear that I expected those in the international passenger transport industry to ensure that the records kept on transport movements were complete and accurate, that the information provided to passengers did not mislead and that they co-operated fully with Customs to prevent criminal use of their operations. The best already do; the rest must now do the same.
However, there is confusion. There have been arguments concerning popular campaigns, court actions and questions raised by the European Commission, and these have sown confusion for the cross-channel traveller. They have also made it more difficult for the frontline Customs staff to run the current regime. That is why I announced the refinement of our tobacco strategy in the package yesterday. I am determined to make the position clear.
Yesterday, I announced new indicative guideline levels for cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco.
Mr. Laws: The Economic Secretary said that yesterday's announcement would clarify policy and help to clamp down on smuggling. Is he predicting that the amount of cross-channel smuggling will be cut by yesterday's measures?
John Healey: The package of announcements made yesterday mean that we will be able to achieve the targets that we have already set for our tobacco strategy. We have reached the second stage of that strategy, so we are still committed and on track to reduce the level of the illicit market in the UK by 2005–06 to 17 per cent.
Let us be clear about two things. First, those new indicative levels will help draw a clearer distinction between the shopper and the smuggler, and, in doing so, both the shopper and Customs staff will benefit. Secondly, travellers may still be stopped and have goods seized when they have amounts below the new indicative levels if Customs staff are satisfied that those goods are for resale either for profit or reimbursement.

321WH
However, we can do more to ensure that our excise duty regime draws the clearest possible distinction between the shopper and the smuggler. I confirmed yesterday that I have also asked Customs to adapt its vehicle seizure policy, to publish a clear new guide to appealing and complaining—available from yesterday—and to undertake a review of the present appeals and complaints system with the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Yesterday I also confirmed that we would not relax the regime or soften our actions against smugglers. I confirmed that those who use vehicles to smuggle on a large scale or a repeat basis would be offered no opportunity for restoration. I confirmed that Customs expects to conduct an increased number of
322WH
prosecutions, and would examine the scope to hit finances of criminal gangs using the new proceeds of crime legislation. I confirmed that violence against Customs officers in carrying out their duties will not be tolerated and will be subject to prosecution. Finally, I confirmed that cross-channel operators would be expected to play their full part in helping to tackle smuggling and helping shoppers know their rights and responsibilities.
I can do no better than cite the leader in the Evening Standard today, which said that the package struck a reasonable balance between the right of the public to purchase drink and tobacco in the EU and the duty of the Government to pursue lawbreakers who smuggle goods—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

CABINET OFFICE

  Employed Staff
  David Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many staff are employed within the Cabinet Office; and how many work within the Civil Contingencies Secretariat [76821]

  Mr. Alexander
  On 22 October 2002 there were 2,400 staff employed in the Cabinet Office. 109 of these were working in the Civil Contingencies Secretariat. Of these, 60 were working in the Emergency Planning College at Easingwold, Yorkshire.

  Executive Agencies.
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what reports his Department has published on executive agencies' and executive NDPB's performance against targets since the Executive Agencies 1999 Report and the Executive NDPBs 1999 Report. [78128]

  Mr. Alexander
  No such reports have been published. However, for individual agencies and executive NDPBs, the information is available in published annual reports and, in many cases, on websites.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Football
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many football games she has attended since 26 November 2001 in her official capacity; and where those games took place. [76603]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: I attended the Norwich City vs. Stockport County game at Carrow Road on 21 April 2002.

  Golden Jubilee Medal
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will include the Prison Service as one of the organisations to receive the Golden Jubilee Medal from Her Majesty the Queen.[77807]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: The medal is being issued to the living holders of the Victoria Cross and the George Cross, to serving members of the armed forces and Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and to the '999' emergency services. The Prison Service is not an emergency service. Accordingly, it is not eligible to receive the medal. There are no plans to re-open the matter.
  790W

  Job Location
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 19 September 2002,Official Report, column 124W, on job location, what the reasons were for the reduction in combined funding for the UK and England World Class Performance from 1999–2000 to 2000–01. [78304]

  Mr. Caborn
  The data required are not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member with detailed information as soon as possible.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of Lottery applications were successful in Shrewsbury and Atcham in each year since the Lottery's inception; and if she will make a statement. [77861]

  Mr. Caborn
  This Department has never held comprehensive information on applications for Lottery grants by constituency, either in terms of the number of applications made or the amount of money requested.

  Sport England
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she had with Sport England about North Taunton Sports Centre; and if she will make a statement.[77757]

  Mr. Caborn
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have had any discussions

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer of 26 September 2002,Official Report, column 131W, on Sport England, if she will provide a breakdown of projections for Sport England's World Class funding programme for (a) performance, (b) potential, (c) start and (d) capital (i) 2002–03, (ii) 2003–04, (iii) 2004–05 and (iv) 2005–06.[78266]

  Mr. Caborn
  The projected funding for Sport England's Performance, Potential, Start and Capital programmes for the financial years 2002 through to 2006 is shown in the table.

  £ million

  Performance

  Potential

  Start

  Capital

  2002–03

  6

  17

  9

  4

  2003–04

  5

  13

  8

  3

  2004–05

  5

  13

  8

  3

  2005–06

  5

  13

  8

  3

  Sporting Facilities (London)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the adequacy of sporting facilities in London; and if she will make a statement. [77519]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has announced our intention to establish an England-wide database of sports facilities. Information on sports facilities in England is currently held by a variety of organisations, and a single database will enable more strategic Government investment in those areas and facilities
  791W
  which are most important. My Department is currently assessing the scope, content and cost of the proposed database and how the project will be taken forward.

  Local authorities are key providers of sport and recreation and play a central role in the delivery of sport for local communities. "New Planning Guidance for Sport, Open Space and Recreation", issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, provides robust guidelines to help local authorities to plan positively for the provision and assessment of open spaces, sports and recreation facilities in their areas.

DEFENCE

  Akrotiri SBA
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) representations were received and (b) environmental impact assessment was made concerning the decision to instal the antenna in the Akrotiri SBA, Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.[R] [77919]

  Mr. Ingram
  Representations about the decision to install the antenna have been made by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, the Akrotiri Co-ordinating Committee, the Green Party of Cyprus, local authorities, non government organisations and major landowners within the proposed site and surrounding area.

  An environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the likely environment impact of the project was undertaken in 1997. The EIA was updated in 2001. The EIAs were reviewed by an independent, international panel of experts from the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), who found that there were significant deficiencies in the original assessment, when judged against today's best practice standards. They recommended that, in the event that a decision was taken to proceed with the project, we should adopt a comprehensive strategy to ensure that adverse impacts are avoided or, where this is not possible, reduced to the absolute minimum. The panel's recommendations were accepted in full and are being implemented.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what alternative locations were considered for the new antenna installed on Akrotiri SBA, Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.[R] [77920]

  Mr. Ingram
  Consideration was given to locating the antenna elsewhere and a number of alternative sites were investigated. The alternative sites were judged unsuitable for technical reasons.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment was made of the likely impact on wildlife including migratory birds, of the new antenna at Akrotiri SBA Cyprus.[R] [77921]

  Mr. Ingram
  A team of experts under the supervision of the Ministry of Defence gathered data on wildlife as recommended by an independent, international panel of experts from the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA). This work was published in a Supplementary Environmental Work Report in June 2002. A copy of the report has been 792W
  placed in the Library of the House. Proposed mitigation measures have been implemented or are being progressed within a Ramsar Management Plan. Data collection is continuing.

  The environmental work on migratory birds has continued beyond the publication of the Supplementary Environmental Work Report. The Ministry of Defence is currently collecting additional data. Survey protocols have been agreed between the MOD. Republic of Cyprus, and the IEMA Panel for day and night time flight line surveys to record the passage of birds through the proposed Pluto site, bird collision monitoring of the existing antenna and monitoring of the migration behaviour of Demoiselle Cranes. MOD and ROC staff have jointly staffed the surveys.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment was made of the possible impact on the health of the local Cypriot population of the new antenna installed at Akrotiri SBA, Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.[R] [77922]

  Mr. Ingram
  The possible impact of the new antenna on the health of the local Cypriot population has been considered carefully. It has been assessed that levels of electromagnetic emissions from the new system will be no greater than those from the system it will replace and will be well within EU safety limits. Following tests carried out last summer by its own experts and by experts from France, the Ministry of Communications and Works of the Republic announced that exposure of the public to electromagnetic radiation from the existing antenna on the Salt Lake is at least seventy six times smaller than the limit recommended by the European Union and that the installation of the new antenna is not expected to result in a significant increase in the level of emissions in the area. This confirms the results of our own assessments.

  As a further measure of reassurance the two governments are carrying out a study into the health of the Akrotiri villagers. It is also our intention to set up permanent monitoring equipment in the village to confirm that emissions remain at the very low levels demonstrated in last summer's tests.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation was held with the Government of the Republic of Cyprus over the decision to build the new antenna at Akrotiri SBA; and if he will make a statement.[R] [77923]

  Mr. Ingram
  Extensive consultations have taken place between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Cyprus about the decision to build a new antenna at Akrotiri.

  These consultations led to a joint statement in August 2001 by the two governments about the steps necessary to address concerns about the possible impact of the antenna on the health of the Akrotiri villagers and on the environment. The British Government has fulfilled the key undertakings set out in the joint statement.

  Commissioned Officers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many commissioned officers are serving on(a) HMS Invincible and (b) HMS Illustrious; and if he will make a statement. [78296]
  793W
  Mr. Ingram
  As at 25 October 2002, there were 40 commissioned officers serving on HMS Invincible and 11 on HMS Illustrious.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) commissioned and (b) non commissioned officers are serving on ships in refit or not in service, broken down by ship; and if he will make a statement. [78299]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ships not in service are appropriately manned for their routine care and maintenance. Such tasks include essential daily safety check and preservation checks and low-level maintenance. In addition, during refit, these reduced crews support project managers working on board; to maintain equipment not contracted to be worked on during refit and to prepare ships for their return to fleet.

  The numbers of (a) commissioned and (b) non commissioned officers serving on ships in refit or not in service, broken down by ship as at 29 October are:

  Ship

  Officers

  NCOs

  Ratings

  Albion1

  26

  74

  201

  Alderney

  5

  6

  26

  Archer

  1

  2

  2

  Biter

  1

  2

  2

  Blazer

  1

  2

  2

  Bridport

  3

  5

  23

  Campbeltown2

  15

  47

  156

  Charger

  1

  2

  2

  Dasher

  1

  2

  2

  Enterprise

  6

  13

  2

  Example

  1

  2

  2

  Exploit

  1

  2

  2

  Explorer

  1

  2

  2

  Express

  1

  2

  2

  Fearless3

  6

  22

  79

  Glasgow4

  22

  56

  163

  Gloucester

  7

  22

  15

  Illustrious

  11

  53

  125

  Invincible5

  39

  108

  286

  Ixworth

  0

  2

  4

  Middleton

  8

  8

  28

  Monmouth6

  11

  35

  56

  Montrose

  11

  22

  6

  Nottingham7

  9

  38

  86

  Puncher

  1

  2

  2

  Pursuer

  1

  2

  2

  Raider

  1

  2

  2

  Smiter

  1

  2

  2

  Talent8

  7

  41

  29

  Trenchant9

  10

  50

  50

  Tracker

  1

  2

  2

  Vanguard

  7

  44

  26

  1 Albion is building up crew members to support sea trials.

  2 Completion is undergoing a docking period and retains a full crew.

  3 Fearless. This figure will reduce to nil as at 31 October 2002.

  4 Glasgow is undergoing a short period of maintenance and retains a full crew.

  5 Invincible is building up her crew as she prepares to come out of refit.

  6 Monmouth. To reduce to a total of 44 on 31 October 2002.

  7 Nottingham. To reduce to 64 to support repair.

  8 Talent crew reducing as she goes into refit.

  9 Trenchant is building up crew as she prepares to come out of refit.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-commissioned officers are serving on(a) HMS Invincible and (b) HMS Illustrious; and if he will make a statement [78298]
  794W
  Mr. Ingram
  As at 25 October 2002, there were 104 non-commissioned officers (Senior Rates) serving on HMS Invincible and 50 on HMS Illustrious.

  Defence Fire Service
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members there are of the Defence Fire Service; and what equipment introduced in the last 10 years it has at its disposal. [77501]

  Mr. Ingram
  The current personnel establishment figure for the Defence Fire Service (DFS) is 1,300 covering all ranks. Precise details of current day-to-day manning levels are not held centrally as personnel below the officer grades are locally recruited.

  The DFS, established at military airfields and bases where specific fire protection is required, is equipped with modern fire fighting apparatus and rescue vehicles, a significant proportion of which has been introduced within the last 10 years

  Exercise Arrcade Fusion
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the forthcoming ARRC's exercise Arrcade Fusion in Germany.[77868]

  Mr. Ingram
  HQ Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) is holding its annual major Command Post Exercise, Arrcade Fusion, from 4 to 14 November 2002 at Javelin Barracks, Elmpt and Sennelager Training Centre. Personnel from 17 NATO Allies will take part. This is the first major exercise that HQ ARRC has conducted since it was endorsed by NATO's Military Committee as the first of the new NATO High Readiness Force (Land) Headquarters.

  General Surgeons
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many general surgeons are available to the(a) RAF, (b) Army and (c) Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement.[78282]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 1 October 2002, there were 11 General Surgeon consultants in the Royal Navy, nine General Surgeon consultants in the Army, and two General Surgeon consultants in the Royal Air Force.

  In addition, there were two Specialist Registrars within two years of qualifying as consultants in the Royal Navy and five Specialist Registrars within two years of qualifying as consultants in the Army. These personnel can be deployed, if necessary, as General Surgeons under supervision by a consultant.

  Invalided Army Personnel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many army personnel have been invalided out of the Army when deployed in(a) Sierra Leone, (b) Saif Sareea, (c) Afghanistan, (d) Kosovo and (e) Macedonia as a direct result of their involvement in the deployments; and if he will make a statement. [78286]
  795W
  Dr. Moonie
  The number of regular Army personnel medically discharged due to disabilities sustained directly from having served in these theatres of operations, as at 28 October 2002, is shown in the table.

  Theatre of operations

  Number discharged

  Sierra Leone

  3

  Saif Sareea

  0

  Afghanistan

  0

  Kosovo

  9

  Macedonia

  0

  Total

  12

  L21 Al Plastic Baton Round
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to respond to the recommendations of the Defence Scientific Advisory council on a review of the L21 A 1 plastic baton round; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library. [77102]

  Mr. Ingram
  The review of L21A1 baton round performance after one year in service was completed and provided to the Sub-committee (SC) of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council (DSAC) as requested in June of this year.

  The SC, DSAC have considered the review and have issued a statement, which is reproduced below. I am also placing a copy of the statement in the Library of the House. It concludes that there is no reason to amend the previous SC, DSACstatement that was placed in the Library of the House by my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 2 April 2001.

  The SC, DSAC statement also notes that some attempts have been made to suggest that the committee consider the L21A1 to be more dangerous than the previous system. The statement refutes these suggestions and states clearly that it is the view of the SC, DSAC that the L21A 1/L 104 weapon system is safer than its predecessor.

  DEFENCE SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COUNCIL
  Statement on the review by MOD of medical issues arising from use of the L21A1 Baton Round from June 2001—April 2002.
  1. The statement of the Sub-committee (SC) of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council (DSAC) on the medical implications of the use of the new L21A1 Baton Round was placed in the Library of the House of Commons in April 2001. The statement compared the injury potential of the L21A1 system in public order role with that of the then current Baton Round, the L5A7.
  2. The SC, DSAC requested that one year after introduction of the L21A1, the MOD should review perceived or quantitative changes in the frequency and nature of serious injuries from the system. The review was due in June 2002 and the SC DSAC received the report from MOD by the specified date.
  3. The SC, DSAC considers that on the data available, there is no reason to amend the DSAC statement that provided the medical advice to Ministers. The SC, DSAC notes that from the available data there is no definitive or even indicative evidence that there is a
  796W
  higher frequency of thoracic impacts from the L21A1; thoracic impacts will occur occasionally in operational use.
  4. The SC, DSAC requests that the performance and medical consequences of use of the L21A1 remains under review and that a further review is conducted by 31 July 2003, to consider the period 1 June 2001 to 31 May 2003—the first two years of operational use of the L21A1.
  5. The SC, DSAC has noted some claims that its medical statement on the L21A1 has shown the projectile to be more dangerous. These claims appear to have arisen from taking elements of the statement out of context. It remains the view of SC, DSAC that the L21A1/L104 weapon system is a safer system than its predecessors, when operated in accordance with agreed guidelines.

  Military Companies
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 540W, on military companies, how many private military companies he estimates provide forces for combat; and how many United Kingdom nationals in total he estimates are so employed. [77804]

  Mr. Ingram
  As I explained in my answer of 15 October to the hon Member, the FCO Green Paper entitled "Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation" published on 12 February 2002 highlighted the problem of defining a private military company. I noted that in practice, a wide spectrum of people and companies may be involved in the supply of military and security services. The Green Paper also notes that the distinction between combat and non-combat operations is not always clear. Companies may employ only a relatively small core of full-time staff and recruit personnel for individual contracts on a case-by-case basis. United Kingdom nationals could also potentially operate overseas on a freelance basis, but such activity is difficult to monitor. Given these difficulties, it is not possible to provide any meaningful estimates of the number of companies that provide forces for combat or how many United Kingdom nationals are so employed. The absence of any register of companies describing themselves as Private Military Companies further undermines any attempt to produce a meaningful estimate.

  Military Medical Records
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action has been taken to ensure that vaccinations and preventive medicinal measures are properly reported on service personnel medical records; and if he will make a statement.[78276]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is Ministry of Defence policy that all treatments and vaccinations given to personnel are to be recorded on their personal medical records. Any treatments or vaccinations administered to personnel whilst they are deployed are recorded on their operational medical record and the information transferred to their personal medical records on return. All three Services have routine administrative
  797W
  procedures in place to check that the medical records of both Regular and Reserve personnel are both up to date and accurate.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether service personnel military medical records are available to their civilian doctor if requested; and if he will make a statement. [78278]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Service medical records of ex-Service personnel are available to civilian doctors if the individual serviceman or woman consents to their release.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances Service personnel military medical records are not made available to their civilian doctor when requested; and if he will make a statement.[78279]

  Dr. Moonie
  The military medical records of Ex-Service Personnel are not made available to the individual's civilian doctor unless the individual consents to their release.

  NATO
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role NATO's Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe will play in cases where an EU-led crisis operation does not use NATO assets.[77816]

  Mr. Hoon
  EU-led operations without recourse to NATO assets and capabilities, planning and command requirements would draw on existing national and multinational headquarters available to the EU. The Operation Headquarters would be based on an existing national headquarters, such as the permanent joint headquarters at Northwood, augmented by officers from participating nations. NATO's Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe will be kept informed of the general progress of the operation. He would also coordinate responses to EU requests to NATO for planning support. These arrangements are subject to finalising agreement on modalities for EU-NATO co-operation.

  Operation Fresco
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military units have had post-operational leave cancelled or postponed in order to provide personnel for Operation Fresco.[77930]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon Member to the answer I gave on 24 October 2002,Official Report, column 439W, to the hon Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr Simpson). Elements of the following five units have had post-operational leave postponed: 1 Royal Horse Artillery; the 1st Welsh Guards; 22 Engineer Regiment; 26 Engineer Regiment; and the Household Cavalry Regiment.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made to maintain ships taken out of service to release personnel for Operation Fresco. [77931]
  798W
  Mr. Ingram
  Maintenance packages are in place on all vessels involved in providing personnel for Operation Fresco. Fleet continues to closely monitor these ships and any additional measures necessary to limit degradation will be taken.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy ships have been taken out of service in order to release personnel for Operation Fresco. [77932]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Exeter, HMS Kent, HMS Lancaster, HMS Manchester, HMS Norfolk, HMS Newcastle and HMS Portland have had their operational programmes changed in support of Operation Fresco.

  Royal Engineers
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a decision on the PFI contract in respect of the Royal Engineers establishments at Chatham and Minley [77933]

  Mr. Ingram
  We currently anticipate that a decision on the selection of Preferred Bidder will be made in January 2003.

  Ship Crews
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ships at sea on deployment have the full crew complement; and if he will make a statement. [78297]

  Mr. Ingram
  In meeting demanding manpower targets, the Admiralty Board has agreed Strategic Manning Priorities. These are reviewed annually.

  Under current priorities only submarines are required to reach 100% manning whilst at sea on deployment. Currently, however, there are eight surface vessels and three submarines on deployment outside home waters that have full crew complements.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ships at sea on deployment have a crew complement of more than five per cent. less than the full crew complement; and if he will make a statement.[78300]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are 37 surface ships and three submarines currently on deployment outside home waters. Of these vessels, 11 high readiness vessels have a full crew complement, 16 have a complement between 95–100% of their full complement, nine have a complement between 90–95% and two ships have a complement of under 90%. Of these latter two ships one has a total complement of eight and is one crew member short. The second ship, although on deployment doing valuable work, is at a lower state of readiness.

  Suicide
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) soldiers, (b) sailors and (c) airmen have committed suicide in each year since 1972 [76672]
  799W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: Centrally held statistics on suicides using consistent definitions are only available from 1984 onwards.

  There have been 445 recorded suicides between 1 January 1984 and 31 December 2001 within Regular Armed Forces (including Gurkhas). There figures are

  Number of reported suicides in the Armed Forces by Service over the period 1 January 1984–31 December 2001

  Year of death

  Service

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Navy

  2

  3

  7

  3

  6

  4

  8

  6

  6

  1

  6

  1

  5

  3

  0

  4

  4

  Army

  15

  14

  16

  11

  23

  22

  20

  22

  19

  18

  19

  16

  17

  15

  9

  9

  9

  RAF

  7

  4

  8

  7

  7

  5

  14

  8

  7

  9

  5

  3

  7

  4

  2

  1

  5

  Total

  24

  21

  31

  21

  36

  31

  42

  36

  32

  28

  30

  20

  24

  22

  11

  13

  18

  Timber
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department is taking to ensure that the timber based board products and furniture is from legal and sustainable sources; and if he will make a statement.[78069]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence's policy on timber procurement is laid down in JSP 418, the MOD Environmental Manual, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Paragraph 4023 of JSP 418 states that all timber and timber products should be procured from sustainable sources.

  The MOD has introduced a new condition of contract, which places an express contractual obligation on its suppliers to comply with the Government's policy on supply or consumption of timber and products containing wood, and, in addition, to supply data to verify that compliance.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Bushmeat
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assistance has been given to local authorities to educate residents of the dangers of illegally imported bushmeat. [75927]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  A campaign to raise public awareness of the dangers posed by illegal meat imports has been co-ordinated centrally by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. A variety of methods have been used in the campaign, including posters, leaflets, and radio fillers. Two Government information videos have just been produced. A leaflet on the importance of biosecurity has been issued to farmers. At the level of local authorities, in this financial year, Defra is funding jointly with the Food Standards Agency to provide additional training officers on import rules.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what local authorities are introducing smart card technology to improve access to and availability of concessionary fare schemes; and if he will make a statement. [77938]
  800W
  based on coroners' (or Procurator Fiscal in Scotland) verdicts of suicide, and exclude self-inflicted deaths with open verdicts, accidental deaths or deaths due to misadventure. Figures from 1995 may change as there are a number of verdicts outstanding, and from 1999 changes to these figures may be significant. A breakdown by Service and by year is as follows:

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department is currently reviewing local authorities' plans to implement smart card concessionary travel schemes and has produced an interim list of existing and planned travel schemes.
  Active schemes and schemes under implementation (England)1

  Caradon DC

  Carrick DC

  Centro (West Midlands PTE)—Coventry only

  Cornwall CC

  Greater Manchester PTE

  Hertfordshire CC

  Kerrier DC

  Transport for London

  North Cornwall DC

  Nottinghamshire CC

  Penwith DC

  Restormel BC

  1Smart cards in use but not necessarily complete issue/acceptance
  Schemes in preparation and under consideration (England)

  Allerdale DC

  Barrow DC

  Blackburn with Darwen Council (Unitary)

  Blackpool Borough Council (Unitary)

  Burnley DC

  Carlisle City Council

  Chorley DC

  Copeland DC

  Cumbria CC

  Devon CC

  Eden DC

  Fylde DC

  Herefordshire CC

  Hyndburn

  Lancashire CC

  Lancaster DC

  Marseytravel

  Nexus (Tyne and Wear PTE)

  Pendle DC

  801W

  Preston DC

  Reading City Council

  Ribble Valley DC

  Rossendale DC

  Somerset CC

  South Lakes DC

  South Ribble DC

  South Yorkshire PTE

  West Lancashire DC

  West Yorkshire PTE

  Worcestershire CC

  Wyre DC

  Smart cards have great potential to help improve people's experience of public transport by facilitating through-ticketing and "seamless" journeys. In some parts of the country projects are already well advanced. We are organising "showcase" demonstration examples to promote their wider take-up, to encourage scheme integration and help put the UK firmly in the lead in this area. My Department is working closely with the Integrated Transport Smart Card Organisation (ITSO) to create common specifications for ticketing systems to ensure smart cards introduced in one area are capable of working with ticket machines in other areas.

  Local Authority Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment has been made of the impact of the implementation of the Private Securities Act 2001 on local authorities' ability to control the activities of private clamping and towing companies; and if he will make a statement. [77334]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Private Security Industry Act 2001 will introduce for the first time effective regulation of the activities of those who clamp vehicles on private land. The Act provides for the compulsory licensing of all individuals involved in such activities. Licensing will be undertaken by the Security Industry Authority, which will work closely with local authorities and the police in ensuring proper compliance with the licensing requirement.

  The provisions of the 2001 Act do not extend to the towing away of motor vehicles. We are, however, aware of the growing concern about towing activities and are currently consulting relevant bodies about the scale of the problem and what, if any, measures should be introduced to address it.

  Private Security Industry Act
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what responsibilities under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 he plans to give local authorities; what funding will be given for these extra responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.[77332]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Private Security Industry Act 2001 places responsibility for licensing individuals in the industry with the Security Industry Authority (SIA). Section 13 of the Act allows the Secretary of State to devolve to local authorities some or all of the SIA's licensing
  802W
  functions in respect of door supervisors. After careful consideration of the issues, including the cost implications and practicality of any such devolution, the Government have decided that all aspects of the licensing of door supervisors should be undertaken centrally by the SIA. I advised the Local Government Association of this decision on 31 August. The SIA will be discussing with local authorities how best to monitor, at local level, compliance with the licensing regime.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the ability of local authorities to regulate the activities of private clamping and towing companies; and if he will make a statement.[77333]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local authorities do not have any statutory powers to regulate operators who clamp and remove vehicles from private land, including car parks where the public has access. However, under the Private Security Industry Act 2001, the Security Industry Authority has been given powers to regulate all persons in England and Wales who immobilise vehicles in such places, in part because of concerns about the unscrupulous behaviour of some clamping companies. The authority is expected to begin licensing clamping operators with effect from late 2003.

  The provisions of the 2001 Act are limited to the immobilisation of a vehicle by the attachment of an immobilising device, and do not extend to the towing away of motor vehicles. We are, however, aware of the growing concern about towing activities and, in view of this, we are currently consulting relevant bodies (such as the police and the British Parking Association) about the scale of the problem and what, if any, measures should be introduced to address it.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Bachelor of Education Courses
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will introduce a system of bursaries for four-year bachelor of education degrees equivalent to those available for students on postgraduate certificates of education.[77892]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to alter the support arrangements for students on Bachelor of Education courses, which remain the same as those which apply to other undergraduate students.

  Education (Immigrant Children)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is on educating children of immigrants separately for the first months after arrival in order to have their needs assessed.[77801]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  All children, including those from migrant families, are given the same opportunities as other children to access education. The Department has no plans to provide separate education for the vast majority of children of immigrants.
  803W
  However, a minority of children whose families seek asylum and are destitute may be educated in accommodation centres which will provide a complete package of support for the family. This education will be of the same breadth and quality as that delivered in schools and will be specifically tailored to meet their particular needs, including providing intensive support to help them learn English.

  On arrival in the centre, children will receive an initial assessment which will cover such areas as previous educational experience and attainment, knowledge of English and any Special Educational Needs requirements. Teachers will monitor progress during the length of their stay and, on leaving the centre, will undertake a final assessment with information being recorded which will be available to their receiving school.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils were excluded from(a) primary schools, (b) city technology colleges,

  School exclusion and reinstatement appeals—Maintained Primary, Secondary and Special schools

  Appeals by parents

  Appeals by governors

  Year1

  Lodged

  Number Heard

  Successful

  Lodged

  Number Heard

  Successful

  1995–96

  1,339

  1,091

  185

  141

  126

  79

  1996–97

  1,455

  1,128

  225

  87

  81

  39

  1997–98

  1,287

  1,011

  204

  122

  118

  50

  1998–99

  1,216

  964

  220

  97

  93

  48

  1999–2000

  948

  863

  317

  8

  6

  4

  2000–01

  1,095

  983

  314

  —2

  —2

  —2

  1Year in which the appeal was determined.

  2Not applicable (from 1 September 1999 the right of the LEA to overrule to governor's decision to uphold a permanent exclusion was abolished)

  Source:

  School Exclusion Appeals Survey

  Standards Fund
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list for each initiative funded through the Standards Fund the(a) budget for 2001–02, (b) outturn for 2001–02 and (c) budget for 2002–03.[76598]

  Mr. Miliband
  The tables show the grant allocated for each initiative funded through the Standards Fund, and the amounts finally accepted by local education authorities, for 2001–02 and 2002–203. Expenditure figures are not available for 2001–02.

  Standards Fund Grants 2001–02

  Initiative

  Original Grant Allocation £

  Final Grant Allocation £

  Truancy buster awards

  406,000

  406,000

  School improvement

  116,519,051

  116,481,951

  Social inclusion: pupil support

  86,311,859

  85,803,112

  Social educational needs

  38,703,686

  38,682,375

  804W
  (c) other secondary schools and (d) special schools in each year since 1988; how many of these exclusions were taken to appeal; and how many of these exclusions were successfully overturned by an appeals panel.[76777]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available information is shown in the table. Data on permanent exclusions have only been recorded reliably for the academic year 1995–96 onwards

  Number of permanent exclusions by type of school (England

  Year1

  Primary2

  Maintained Secondary2

  Special3

  Total

  1995–96

  1,608

  10,344

  524

  12,476

  1996–97

  1,573

  10,463

  632

  12,668

  1997–98

  1,539

  10,187

  572

  12,298

  1998–99

  1,366

  8,636

  436

  10,438

  1999–2000

  1,226

  6,713

  384

  8,323

  2000–014

  1,436

  7,305

  394

  9,135

  1Year in which the permanent exclusion fell after appeal procedures had been concluded.

  2Includes middle schools as deemed.

  3Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools.

  4Estimates have been made for 2000–01 because the data are known to be incomplete.Source:Annual Schools Census

  Standards Fund Grants 2001–02

  Initiative

  Original Grant Allocation £

  Final Grant Allocation £

  Children in public care

  3,710,003

  3,710,003

  Sick children

  2,000,000

  2,000,000

  Teenage pregnancies

  5,001,700

  5,001,700

  Drug, alcohol and tobacco prevention

  9,677,087

  9,662,712

  Youth service

  1,059,105

  1,053,805

  Study support

  41,458,609

  41,046,276

  Adult ethnic minority achievement

  753,825

  742,107

  Child protection co-ordinators

  990,000

  990,000

  National literacy and numeracy strategies

  112,763,910

  112,761,235

  Key Stage 3 strategy

  38,336,093

  38,212,677

  Literacy and numeracy scummer schools

  12,078,700

  11,499,940

  Year 9 booster classes

  13,320,000

  13,320,000

  Ethnic minority achievement

  81.603,966

  81,603,966

  Traveller children achievement

  8,291,488

  8,291,488

  Family literacy and numeracy

  3,677,511

  3,640,689

  Booster classes

  46,000,100

  46,000,100

  National curriculum: implementation

  1,624,495

  1,618,508

  805W

  Standards Fund Grants 2001–02

  Initiative

  Original Grant Allocation £

  Final Grant Allocation £

  National curriculum: personal social and health education/citizenship

  7,829,484

  7,829,484

  Education health partnerships

  5,700,000

  5,700,000

  Qualifications

  1,545,158

  1,545,158

  LEA music services

  50,060,500

  50,060,500

  Playing for success

  2,152,883

  2,152,883

  Early years training and development

  7,154,995

  7,154,995

  Early excellence centres

  9,245,175

  9,245,175

  Adult: pupil ratios in reception classes

  14,853,526

  14,421,322

  School achievement awards

  63,893,453

  63,893,453

  Maintained nursery school service

  8,975,004

  8,975,004

  Children of asylum seekers

  2,377,000

  2,377,000

  Excellence in cities

  149,752,000

  149,752,000

  Excellence challenges

  9,185,600

  9,185,000

  City learning centres

  80,651,002

  80,651,002

  Small education zones

  20,987,342

  20,987,342

  Gifted and talented children

  3,825,000

  3,825,000

  Specialist schools

  86,526,340

  86,526,340

  Beacon schools

  30,685,830

  30,685,830

  Pupil support allowance

  11,671,845

  11,671,845

  Pupil learning credits

  14,499,999

  14,499,999

  Grammer/non-selective school partnerships

  505,616

  505,616

  Diversity pathfinders

  323,500

  323,500

  Induction of newly qualified teachers

  34,223,840

  34,223,840

  Teacher recruitment measures (golden hellos)

  2,565,954

  2,565,954

  Training schools

  4,355,000

  4,355,000

  Advanced skills teachers

  18,487,787

  16,510,981

  National professional qualification for headship

  16,381,368

  16,381,368

  Leadership programme for serving heads

  5,227,653

  5,180,402

  Performance management

  28,000,002

  28,000,002

  Teaching assistants

  104,652,809

  104,345,784

  Small schools fund

  42,332,042

  41,487,354

  Supported early retirement scheme for heads

  5,178,100

  4,801,800

  Recruitment and retention fund

  33,000,000

  33,000,000

  Teachers sabbaticals

  4,884,000

  4,884,000

  Early professional development

  4,651,150

  4,651,150

  Welcome back bonus

  454,033

  454,033

  National grid for learning

  132,265,063

  132,121,881

  Key Stage 1 class size

  177,455,982

  177,455,982

  Key Stage 2 class size recurrent funding

  17,461,558

  17,461,558

  Devolved formula capital

  409,009,065

  409,009,065

  Seed capital challenge

  34,999,998

  34,999,998

  School laboratories

  43,494,238

  43,494,238

  Learning support units

  25,232,370

  25,232,370

  School security

  11,650,857

  11,416,297

  Fresh start

  25,519,748

  25,519,748

  New models for LEA services

  1,266,757

  1,266,757

  NDS condition funding

  239,788,348

  239,788,348

  Information management strategy

  29,999,998

  29,999,998

  NDS capital projects

  39,824,146

  39,824,146

  Classrooms of the future

  5,425,000

  5,425,000

  Total:

  2,704,475,306

  2,698,354,746

  806W

  Standards Fund Grants 2002–03

  Initiative

  Original Grant Allocation £

  Final Grant Allocation £

  School improvement

  131,562,975

  131,562,975

  Social inclusion: pupil support

  84,683,332

  84,549,663

  Special educational needs

  42,152,297

  42,119,994

  Sick children and children in public care

  5,200,001

  5,193,316

  Teenage pregnancy

  4,999,999

  4,999,999

  Drug, alcohol and tobacco prevention

  9,600,003

  9,583,860

  Study support

  48,119,999

  47,637,893

  Child protection co-ordinators

  1,378,000

  1,325,000

  Behaviour and improvement programme

  50,003,000

  50,003,000

  National literacy and numeracy strategies

  77,744,611

  77,744,611

  Key Stage 3 strategy

  97,126,316

  96,464,450

  Ethnic minority achievement

  81,064,263

  81,057,034

  Traveller children achievement

  8,155,841

  8,135,041

  Year 6 booster classes

  42,000,000

  42,000,000

  Educational health partnerships

  9,819,993

  9,819,993

  Qualifications

  1,540,756

  1,521,724

  LEA music services

  59,633,546

  59,633,546

  Playing for success

  1,813,365

  1,813,365

  Early years training and development

  7,020,009

  7,020,009

  Early excellence centres: recurrent

  9,047,080

  0,040,080

  Adult: pupil ratios in reception classes

  11,375,139

  10,985,930

  School achievement awards

  58,885,040

  58,885,040

  Nursery school project

  4,906,484

  4,906,484

  Training for educational visits co-ordinators

  2,355,600

  3,355,600

  Excellence in cities

  173,556,890

  173,556,890

  Gifted and talented summer schools

  3,816,000

  3,816,000

  Specialist schools

  108,978,953

  108,978,953

  Specialist schools (capital)

  20,550,000

  20,550,000

  Beacon schools

  40,168,850

  40,168,850

  Pupil support allowances

  8,988,000

  8,988,000

  Pupil learning credits

  19,623,621

  19,623,621

  Partnerships between grammer and non-selective schools

  308,477

  308,477

  Excellence challenge

  17,259,656

  17,259,656

  Small education action zones

  26,768,968

  26,768,968

  Diversity pathfinders

  920,150

  920,150

  Induction of newly qualified teachers

  34,835,998

  34,831,177

  Teacher recruitment incentives

  24,779,496

  24,779,496

  Training schools

  4,203,000

  4,203,000

  Advanced skills teachers

  20,058,558

  18,926,163

  Performance management and threshold assessment

  14,560,001

  14,474,890

  Teaching assistants

  103,098,945

  102,757,478

  Small schools fund

  41,600,000

  41,082,080

  Teacher recruitment and retention fund

  44,001,000

  44,001,000

  Teacher sabbaticals

  9,752,000

  9,762,000

  Early professional development pilot programme

  6,056,182

  6,056,182

  Welcome back bonuses

  205,131

  205,131

  Transforming school workforce pathfinders

  3,370,775

  3,370,775

  Fast track payments

  318,000

  318,000

  National grid for learning

  182,000,006

  181,524,946

  Key Stage 1 class size

  144,834,655

  144,834,655

  Key Stage 2 class size

  25,451,573

  25,451,573

  NDS devolved formula capital

  360,254,267

  360,254,267

  Seed challenge capital

  60,000,000

  60,000,000

  Staff workspaces

  11,999,998

  11,999,998

  Learning support units

  9,987,269

  9,987,269

  New school security projects

  9,999,996

  9,999,996

  Fresh start and new partnerships

  17,451,058

  17,451,058

  807W

  Standards Fund Grants 2002–03

  Initiative

  Original Grant Allocation £

  Final Gram Allocation £

  NDS condition funding

  346,500,441

  346,500,441

  Information management strategy

  7,039,908

  7,039,908

  Capital funding for nursery education in disadvantaged areas

  20,077,716

  20,077,716

  Capital projects

  39,216,362

  39,216,362

  Laptops for teachers

  59,846,307

  59,846,307

  Electronic registration systems in secondary school

  9,656,820

  9,656,820

  Electronic registration systems in secondary schools

  9,656,820

  9,656,820

  e-Learning credits

  29,929,186

  29,929,186

  Total:

  2,912,221,862

  2,907,843,046

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  UN Convention on Rights of the Child
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many meetings officials have attended to discuss progress towards meeting the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child(a) with organisations and Government departments within the UK and (b) with organisations in other countries.[78008]

  Mr. Denham
  The Children and Young People's Unit has lead responsibility for monitoring the UK's implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since March 2001, when the Unit took over responsibility from the Department of Health, officials have held the following formal meetings which include discussion of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:

  Within the UK

  Quarterly meetings with the devolved administrations Bimonthly meetings of the Children and Young People's Interdepartmental Group

  In other countries

  Twice yearly meetings of the EU Permanent Intergovernmental Group "l'Europe de l'Enfance"

  In addition, the Unit holds ad hoc bilateral meetings both at home and abroad with lead policy makers on Convention issues. For example, there was regular contact across Whitehall in the preparation for the UK's second report to the UN Committee. Information about the precise number of such meetings can only be gathered at disproportionate cost.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the UK's contribution towards achieving the goals of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; and what representations she has received about the UK contribution. [78011]

  Mr. Denham
  The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) does not require signatories to work towards achieving certain objectives or 'goals', nor does it give enforceable rights to individual children. Rather, it imposes obligations on the State to "respect and ensure the rights set forth in the Convention to each 808W
  child within their jurisdiction". Each signatory, therefore, is responsible for implementing the UNCRC in their own country.

  The UK signed the Convention on 19 April 1990 and ratified it on 16 December 1991. It came into force in the UK on 15 January 1992. To allow monitoring of implementation, the CRC requires State Parties to report to the UN on their progress against the Convention 2 years after ratification, and every 5 years subsequently.

  The UK's Second Report under the CRC was submitted by the Department of Health in 1999 and, due to backlogs at the UN, was only considered by the Committee on the Rights of the Child in June this year. A UK delegation comprising senior officials from across Government attended an oral examination in Geneva on 19 September. UK NGOs also submitted a report, and gave oral evidence. The Committee published its concluding observations on 4th October and this document, as well as copies of the UK's Second Report and a summary of the UK NGO reports have been placed in both Libraries.

  The Government is under no formal obligation from the UN to respond to the report, but lead Departments across Whitehall, together with the Devolved Administrations, are considering how to take the Committee's comments into account. Although there are areas where we expect to take a different view from the Committee over our obligations under the Convention, we will consider its recommendations in developing our overarching strategy for children and young people, a development which the UN Committee welcomed. We will continue to involve the voluntary sector in this work.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assistance has been given to local authorities to educate residents on the dangers to livestock from illegally imported meat. [75926]

  Mr. Morley
  A campaign to raise public awareness of the dangers posed by illegal meat imports has been co-ordinated centrally by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. A variety of methods have been used in the campaign, including posters, leaflets, and radio fillers. Two Government information videos have just been produced. A leaflet on the importance of biosecurity has been issued to farmers. At the level of local authorities, in this financial year, Defra is funding jointly with the Food Standards Agency to provide additional training for enforcement officers on import rules.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what she is doing to encourage trading standards officers to prosecute those who trade in illegally imported bushmeat. [75930]

  Mr. Morley
  My officials have discussed with local authority officers on a number of occasions the circumstances in which prosecutions are brought
  809W
  against those importing meat illegally. We have made clear that prosecutions are an important aspect of deterrence which we would like to see used where there is clear evidence of a serious breach of the rules. We are willing to work with local authorities to produce further guidance if this would be helpful. In addition the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is matching funding with the Food Standards Agency to provide additional training for officers from local authorities, including trading standards officers, on import requirements. One of the key aims of the training will be to raise awareness of the illegal meat trade and give officers advice on which cases should be prosecuted.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many penalties have been imposed on illegal meat importers since May. [76009]

  Mr. Morley
  According to data held on the Illegal Imports Animal Products Seizures (ILAPS) database, there have been 984 seizures of illegally imported meat from 1 May to 30 September 2002 inclusive. The penalty in 983 of these cases was destruction of the produce, and in the other the produce was re-exported. In addition, one successful prosecution was brought by Crawley Borough Council in July 2002 and six cautions were issued by the London Port Health Authority in October 2002.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about the animal welfare standards in(a) pig and (b) poultry farms. [76959]

  Mr. Morley
  There is comprehensive legislation in place to protect the welfare of all farmed animals. In particular, the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000, as amended, include detailed requirements for pigs and laying hens. There are also species-specific welfare codes. Arrangements are in place to implement new EU directives on pig welfare and to update the existing welfare code. New codes for laying hens and meat and breeding chickens were introduced in July.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on banning the use of animals in circuses; and whether she will include a ban on animals in circuses in the new Animal Welfare Bill. [77492]

  Mr. Morley
  The proposed new Animal Welfare Bill will be an enabling measure under which the Secretary of State would be able to bring forward detailed proposals to regulate or prohibit certain practices in order to promote the welfare of the animals concerned. It is through this mechanism that any move to restrict or prohibit the use of animals in circuses would be made. This particular issue is complex, with strongly held opinions on all sides. Any decision on the future of animals performing in circuses would only be taken after the most thorough consultation.

  Biosecurity
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many hours 810W
  have been spent by DEFRA staff at UK air and seaports assessing biosecurity since the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak. [77538]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: Staff from the State Veterinary Service, and Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate carry out a wide range of duties at ports and airports. Information on the hours spent assessing biosecurity is not available. Since 2001, SVS staff have increased their surveillance work at ports and airports.

  Bovine TB
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) minimum, (b) average and (c) maximum time taken to remove TB reactor cattle from farms in the last 12 months was. [76509]

  Mr. Morley
  For the 12 month period 16 October 2001 to 15 October 2002 the data requested are as follows:

  TB reactor removal times for Great Britain and England

  Area

  (a) Minimum

  (b) Average

  (c) Maximum

  Great Britain

  01

  23.9

  3852

  England only

  01

  24.7

  3852

  1 Animal removed and slaughtered on day of TB skin test reading.

  2 Removal affected by FMD movement restrictions

  Note:

  The data in the table relate to samples from TB reactor cattle which were subject to bacteriological examination. Data for other animals slaughtered for the purposes of TB control are not available.

  Further analysis of the data available has shown that 75 per cent. of cases were removed and slaughtered within 36 days of the skin test reading in Great Britain and in England; 90 per cent. within 45 days in Great Britain (47 in England); 95 per cent. in 56 days in Great Britain (57 in England) and 99 per cent. within 78 days (79 in England).

  CAP
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the European Commission's proposals in the Common Agricultural Policy's mid-term review to cap subsidies for individual farms. [75251]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]: The Government's policy on the commission's proposal to cap subsidies for individual farms is that it goes against the grain of proposals that are intended to encourage increased efficiency. It would discourage rationalisation and modernisation and discriminate against efficient large-scale producers.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policy is on decoupling of subsidies from production as part of the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy; and if she will make a statement. [75959]
  811W
  Mr. Morley
  We are in favour of decoupling in principle. It helps to reconnect farmers to markets, removes perverse incentives to environmental damage through overproduction and should contribute to a successful conclusion of the WTO development round and discharging our obligation to the poorest countries. However, there are a lot of issues to resolve before we can introduce a workable system.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Government aims to achieve real budgetary savings in the CAP as part of the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy. [75246]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]: The Government's view is that the Commission proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy do not go far enough. We believe that agricultural expenditure should be reduced over time and that the mid-term review should provide for real budgetary savings.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's position on the place of modulation in the European Commission's proposals for the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy. [75247]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]: The Government supports a shift from production linked support to agri-environment and rural development measures. However, we do not believe that the Commission's proposals for achieving this through modulation go far or fast enough. In particular, the proposals would not deliver real budgetary savings which are necessary to put the CAP budget on a more sustainable footing. In addition, the Commission's proposal includes a franchise excluding very small farms and ceiling on payments to the largest farms which would be unnecessarily complex to administer, and could introduce distortions in farm structures.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policy is on subsidised agricultural exports from the European Union with regard to mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy. [75250]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 October 2002]: The UK supports the commitment made by World Trade Organisation (WTO) members, including the EU, to "substantial improvements in market access (import tariff reduction); reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies; and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support" as part of the current round of WTO negotiations (the Doha Development Agenda).

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the yearly costs of the Common Agricultural Policy to the EU budget over the next four years if there(a) is and (b) is not decoupling of subsidies from production in the Common Agricultural Policy. [75958]
  812W
  Mr. Morley
  The European Commission have forecasted the annual cost of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to the EU budget until 2006, as set out in the table. These estimates assume the continuation of current policy and exclude expenditure on rural development. Without knowing how a decoupled payment system would work in detail any assessment of its impact of the EU budget would be purely speculative.

  EU budget expenditure on CAP

  Euro million1

  2003

  40,420

  2004

  41,452

  2005

  41,265

  2006

  41,770

  1Forecast

  Source: European Commission

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the Common Agricultural Policy with regard to the mid-term review. [75961]

  Mr. Morley
  We want to see a radical reform of the CAP, to secure:

  (i) a shift in support from production-linked subsidies to environmental and rural development measures;

  (ii) a significant increase in the UK's share of pillar 2 funding;

  (iii) degressivity of direct payments, on an equitable basis;

  (iv) support price cuts, especially for dairy and cereals and the relaxation of associated production controls;

  (v) decoupling of direct livestock payments from production.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when she will reply to correspondence from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton concerning Mrs. G. Gilbert, reference 163248. [70365]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 July 2002]: I regret that the Department has not been able to trace the hon. Member's correspondence.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she plans to answer the letter of 5 August from Mr Malcolm Bull of Kingston Bungalows, Ringwood. [76740]

  Mr. Morley
  A response was sent on 24 October.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will respond to the letter from the hon. Member for Leominster, of 9 August, concerning R E Williams and Sons. [78439]

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

  Departmental Initiatives
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the schemes and initiatives sponsored by her Department and its agencies which are not the subject of national roll
  813W
  out, showing (a) the authorities or areas covered by the scheme and (b) the budget of the scheme in the last year for which information is available. [75670]

  Alun Michael
  Given the range of responsibilities covered by Defra, such information is not easy to provide in the form requested. The information is being gathered and collated and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as this work has been completed.

  Departmental Land (Throckmorton)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had and what expressions of interest she has received from parties relating to the purchase of land owned by her Department at Throckmorton; and if she will make a statement. [76262]

  Mr. Morley
  No discussions have taken place between potential purchasers and Ministers or DEFRA officials about the sale of land owned by the Department at Throckmorton and no formal offers to purchase all or part of the land have been received. However, agents acting for DEFRA have been approached by one party interested in acquiring a piece of the land. That party was advised that DEFRA is not able to consider disposals at this time but if and when the land was declared surplus to Government requirements, it would be sold for the best price achievable. Home Office officials have also indicated that there are matters they may wish to discuss with DEFRA officials.

  EC Water Framework Directive
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what she is doing to ensure that river basin management plans under the EC Water Framework Directive will help to deliver the Government's commitments to sites of special scientific interest. [76385]

  (2) what assessment she has made of whether sites of special scientific interests are covered by the provisions of the Water Framework Directive established for protected areas. [76386]

  Mr. Morley
  Sites of special scientific interest (SSSI) are covered by the provisions of the Water Framework Directive to the extent that they are also "protected areas" which have been designated as requiring special protection under specific Community legislation for the conservation of habitats and species directlydepending on water. These areas will include relevant Natura 2000 sites designated under the Birds and Habitats Directives. In addition, the improved management of the water environment to be delivered through the Water Framework Directive is expected to contribute to the water quality needs of SSSIs not designated under specific Community legislation. (76384)

  River basin management plans will include maps which identify protected areas. Consideration is being given to include on such maps for information purposes all SSSI's, including SSSIs not designated under Community legislation. These maps would then provide a comprehensive summary of water quality related conservation objectives set at both Community and national level.
  814W
  The deadline for meeting the water quality objectives established by the Water Framework Directive is December 2015 at the latest. Since the Government has a target to bring 95 per cent. of SSSIs into favourable condition by 2010, implementation of the Directive will not have a direct bearing on elivering the Government's commitment on SSSIs by 2010. However, in the long term, through its emphasis on a holistic, river basin based approach to water management, using water quality criteria based on ecological parameters, implementation of the Directive will benefit SSSIs

  Egg Packers
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representation she has received from egg packers and their trading associations regarding the impact the absence of contracts between egg packers and supermarkets is having on the security of the egg industry for themselves and the producers. [77775]

  Mr. Morley
  No representation has been received directly from egg packers or their trading associations. However, letters have been received from the British Egg Industry Council and the British Free Range Egg Producers Association which raise this issue. These have been forwarded to the Office of Fair Trading, which has responsibility for the administration of competition law.

  Flood and Coastal Defence
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what rules govern flood defence committees in the UK. [76122]

  Mr. Morley
  Under section 105 of the Water Resources Act 1991 the Environment Agency has a general supervisory duty over all flood defence matters. Section 106 of that Act requires the Agency to carry out all of its flood defence functions (except certain financial functions) through Regional Flood Defence Committees.

  The current provisions relating to flood defence committees are contained in
  sections 14[en rule] 19 of, and Schedules 4 and 5 to, the Environment Act 1995. These
  provisions include the composition of committees, the creation of local flood
  defence committees, boundary matters and proceedings and membership of
  committees.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list areas periodically affected by flooding which are not covered by current flood relief schemes or by schemes scheduled for completion by 2006. [76464]

  Mr. Morley
  At present, there is no list detailing areas not protected by flood relief schemes. Indicative flood plain maps published by the Environment Agency show areas of known risk, including those where the risk is reduced by defences. However the Environment Agency with Defra support are working on a Flood and Coastal Defence Database for England and Wales and a risk assessment that is developing zoned maps of these floodplain areas that will show the residual levels of risk
  815W
  with the current flood defences. These maps should be available to the public next year. Defra and the agency are also discussing with the Association of British Insurers the provision of such information for planned defences.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many houses have been affected by flooding in England and Wales in the past five years. [76462]

  Mr. Morley
  Approximately 15,500 properties are thought to have been affected by flooding from watercourses and the sea in the last five years. This figure will include properties that have been affected on more than one occasion.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many houses the Environment Agency assesses are at risk of periodic flooding. [76463]

  Mr. Morley
  There are approximately 1.8 million domestic properties in the indicative flood plain and which must therefore be considered at risk from periodic flooding from watercourses and the sea. However the vast majority of these properties are protected by flood defences.

  Figures on internal sewage flooding from Ofwat suggest that 4,076 properties have a 1 in 5 risk and 10,856 properties have a 1 in 10 risk of being flooded by sewage. There are currently no figures available for external sewage flooding which affects gardens, highways or public open spaces, or from other sources such as highway drains and groundwater etc.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has for the introduction of compulsory labelling of(a) food and (b) other products containing fluoride; [42974]

  (2) for what reason labelling of products containing fluoride is not compulsory in the UK. [42976]

  Mr. Morley
  None. This is not a matter for this Department.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list instances where inoculation was authorised during the foot and mouth outbreak in lieu of culling. [77251]

  Mr. Morley
  There were no instances during the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001 where vaccination was authorised, although practical arrangements were made to implement a vaccination programme.

  Hares
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who the appropriate enforcing authority for the Hares Preservation Act 1892 is. [77347]
  816W
  Mr. Morley
  Under the Hares Preservation Act 1892 it is a summary offence to sell a hare or leveret between the months of March to July inclusive. The prohibition does not extend to foreign imported hares. The Act does not specify an enforcement authority. The usual procedure would be for an Information to be laid before Magistrates following which a summons would be served on the alleged offender. The police would normally lay an Information, following which the Crown Prosecution Service would take over the conduct of the prosecution from the police. Alternatively a case could be conducted by any other prosecutor such as, for instance, a local authority trading standards officer, or a private individual.

  Hire Bulls
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many hire bulls are licensed in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales; and how many hire bulls are in areas that are TB tested every (i) six months, (ii) 12 months, (ii) two years, (iv) three years and (v) four years. [76514]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no requirement for hire bulls to be licensed in Great Britain and no central records detailing their geographical distribution. Therefore the detailed data required to answer the question is not available.

  Horticulture Research International
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the future of Horticulture Research International. [77849]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by me on 15 October 2002, Official Report, column 584W.

  Integrated Coastal Zone Management
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policy towards integrated EU coastal zone management, with particular reference to Treaty base; what measures are planned under this heading; and what checks for subsidiarity have been undertaken. [77254]

  Mr. Morley
  On 30 May 2002, the European Union adopted a Recommendation concerning the implementation of integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) in Europe under Article 175(1) of the Treaty. The Government are committed to implementing this non-binding instrument which asks member states to develop national strategies for delivering ICZM through coordinated action at local and regional levels. There is no suggestion of a legally-binding European framework for ICZM.

  Live Animal Exports
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates she has made of the number of live animals exported from the UK for slaughter which are then returned to the UK for sale. [75474]
  817W
  Mr. Morley
  Statistics on exports of live animals for slaughter are available as are those on imports of various kinds of meat and meat products. Statistics linking imports of meat and meat products to animals which had been exported are not

  available. We are not aware of any animals exported from the UK for slaughter which have been returned to the UK for sale.

  CITES
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions her Department has had with other governments which are party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species to ensure that the proposal to list mahogany on Appendix II of CITES received the two-thirds majority required for the listing. [77580]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: Officials from British Embassies and High Commissions have discussed the mahogany listing proposal with the relevant authorities in a total of 96 countries, including those in Central and South America. In addition, officials from my Department have discussed the proposal with officials of the United States of America and Brazilian governments to try to persuade them of the merits of an Appendix II listing. We shall continue lobbying in support of this proposal at the CITES Conference in Santiago next month.

  Odour Nuisance
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to give powers to local authorities to deal with odour nuisance from sewers and sewage treatment works. [78602]

  Alun Michael
  I shall shortly issue a consultation document setting out the available options by which we can achieve practical ways to deal with the problems of odour nuisance from public sewers and sewage treatment works. The possibility of giving appropriate powers to local authorities will be considered as part of the consultation

  Pigswill
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what procedures are in place to monitor imported pigmeat products to ensure(a) that they have not been fed on pigswill, and (b) in cases where they have, that swill is prepared up to acceptable standards of safety and hygiene. [76304]

  Mr. Morley
  Imports into the United Kingdom of pig meat and other products are governed by European Community rules. These do not include procedures to determine whether pigmeat products have been fed on swill.

  As regards pigmeat and pigmeat products imported from other EU member states, most EU countries have already introduced domestic bans on the feeding of swill. With effect from 1 November 2002 new EU rules
  818W
  on animal by-products will impose an EU-wide ban on the feeding of swill. These provisions are designed to prevent the spread of disease in live animals.

  Pigmeat and pigmeat products imported from third countries must come from approved establishments in approved countries and must be accompanied by agreed veterinary certification. The veterinary certification confirms that public and animal health requirements for import have been complied with and ensures that imported meat is derived from animals free from disease, whether or not they have been fed on swill. It must also confirm that the meat is derived from animals which have been subjected to a veterinary inspection during the 24 hours prior to slaughter and showed no signs of disease. The meat is also subjected to post mortem veterinary inspection. Community regulations require that meat and meat products imported from third countries must be produced to standards at least equivalent to those applied to Community production.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she has to compensate pig farmers who have invested in pigswill processing plant, buildings and equipment. [76312]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government does not intend to compensate pig farmers for changes to the feed material available for their livestock following the introduction of the ban on swill feeding. However the Government is providing free business advice to those affected by the ban.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost to pig farmers of the ban on pigswill. [76313]

  Mr. Morley
  A copy of the Regulatory Impact Assessment which accompanied the Animal By Products (Amendment) Order 2002 (S.I. 2001 No. 1704) is available in the library of the House.

  Poland
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the transitional time to be granted to Poland following the country's forthcoming accession to the European Union in order to be integrated fully into the(a) Common Fisheries Policy and (b) Common Agricultural Policy; and the (i) fisheries and (ii) agricultural subject areas covered by that transitional period. [77645]

  Mr. Morley
  Negotiation of the Fisheries Chapter was provisionally closed with Poland in June 2002. A request from Poland to include sprat of the Baltic region in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) 140/2000 was agreed. Agreement on access to resources and catch quotas for all candidates is scheduled to take place shortly. Discussions on agriculture are still under way with all the acceding states, including Poland. No transitional arrangements have therefore been granted as yet. However, the offer agreed by the European Council at its meeting in Brussels on 24 and 25 October includes certain transitional measures comprising an enhanced
  819W
  rural development programme, and a gradual phase-in of direct payments. This offer is expressly stated to be without prejudice to future decisions on CAP reform.

  Recycling Targets
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the local authorities she has contacted regarding underperformance on recycling targets, and indicate how these local authorities were identified. [77454]

  Mr. Meacher
  We set targets in a way which meant all authorities would have to improve their performance over their rate in 1998[en rule]99, no matter what their starting point. For that reason, when tracking local authorities' recycling performance, we consider how much the recycling rate has increased, rather than looking simply at the rate.

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

  Adur district council

  Arun district council

  Aylesbury Vale district council

  Barrow-in-Furness borough council

  Bassetlaw district council

  Berwick-upon-Tweed borough council

  Bolton metropolitan borough council

  Bournemouth borough council

  Bradford city council

  Breckland district council

  Brentwood borough council

  Brighton and Hove council

  Broadland district council

  Broxtowe borough council

  Cambridge city council

  Cannock Chase district council

  Carlisle city council

  Charnwood borough council

  Christchurch borough council

  Copeland borough council

  Corby borough council

  Cotswold district council

  Craven district council

  Cumbria county council

  Dartford borough council

  Derby city council

  Doncaster metropolitan borough council

  Dorset county council

  Dover district council

  Easington district council

  East Dorset district council

  East Northamptonshire district council

  820W

  East Staffordshire borough council

  Eastbourne borough council

  Ellesmere Port and Neston borough council

  Elmbridge borough council

  Exeter city council

  Fareham borough council

  Forest of Dean district council

  Fylde borough council

  Gateshead metropolitan borough council

  Gloucester city council

  Gosport borough council

  Gravesham borough council

  Hampshire county council

  Harrogate borough council

  Hertsmere borough council

  Horsham district council

  Hyndburn borough council

  Kettering borough council

  Kingston-upon-Hull city council

  Lancaster city council

  Lincoln city council

  Liverpool city council

  London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

  London borough of Barnet

  London borough of Bexley

  London borough of Croydon

  London borough of Ealing

  London borough of Enfield

  London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  London borough of Haringey

  London borough of Newham

  London borough of Redbridge

  London borough of Richmond-upon-Thames

  London borough of Southwark

  London borough of Tower Hamlets

  Macclesfield borough council

  Manchester city council

  Mansfield district council

  Medway council

  Mendip district council

  Mid Suffolk district council

  Mid Sussex district council

  Milton Keynes council

  Newark and Sherwood district council

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne city council

  Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council

  North Cornwall district council

  North Dorset district council

  North Kesteven district council

  North Norfolk district council

  North Shropshire district council

  North Tyneside council

  North Warwickshire borough council

  North West Leicestershire district council

  Northampton borough council

  Northumberland county council

  Nottingham city council

  Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council

  821W

  Oadby and Wigston borough council

  Oswestry borough council Poole borough council

  Poole borough council

  Purbeck district council

  Reigate and Banstead borough council

  Rochdale metropolitan borough council

  Rossendale borough council

  Rotherham metropolitan borough council

  Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  Runnymede borough council

  Rushmoor borough council

  Rydale district council

  Sedgemoor district council

  Sefton metropolitan borough council

  Sheffield city council

  Shepway district council

  Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council

  Shropshire county council

  Solihull metropolitan borough council

  South Bedfordshire district council

  South Kesteven district council

  South Lakeland district council South

  South Oxfordshire district council

  South Somerset district council

  South Staffordshire council

  St Albans City and district council

  Stevenage borough council

  Stockport metropolitan borough council

  Stockton-on-Tees council

  Stoke-on-Trent city council

  Sunderland city council

  Swindon borough council

  Tandridge district council

  Taunton Deane borough council

  Teesdale district council

  Thanet district council

  Three Rivers district council

  Twekesbury borough council

  Tynedale district council

  Warwick district council

  Warwickshire county council

  Watford council

  Waveney district council

  Waverley borough council

  West Berkshire council

  West Devon borough council

  West Lancashire district council

  Western Riverside waste authority

  Wirral metropolitan borough council

  Worcester city council

  Worthing borough council

  Sheep Quota Purchase Scheme
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) number of applications made, (b) the amount spent
  822W
  per application and (c) the number of animals removed through the English Sheep Quota Scheme in 2002.[76674]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: The Sheep Quota Purchase Scheme (SQPS) opened on the 23 August and the tender does not close until 31 October, therefore the information requested is not yet available. To date 62 applications have been received, offering a total of 12,593 quota units.

  Sustainability Summit
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) of 17 October 2002,Official Report, columns 898–900W, if she will list the stakeholders whom she met to discuss follow-up action to the Sustainability Summit in Johannesburg; and if she will place in the Library the papers produced for the meeting. [77387]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Secretary of State and I met the following stakeholders, along with representatives from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for International Development, HM Treasury, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Cabinet Office, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales.

  Stakeholder

  Jonathon Porritt

  Chairman, Sustainable Development Commission

  Maria Adebowale

  Director, Capacity. SDC member, and member of UK WSSD delegation

  Anna Bradley

  National Consumer Council

  Chris Fay

  Chair, Advisory Committee on Business and Environment

  Simon Mills

  Corporation of London, Finance Initiative

  Ian Russell

  Chief Executive, Scottish Power

  Neil Kinghan

  Local Government Association

  Sir Michael Lickiss

  Chair. South West Development Agency

  Neil Cleeveley

  Trade Union SD Advisory Committee

  Robert Napier

  Chief Executive, WWF

  Charles Secrett

  Director, Friends of the Earth. SDC member

  Derek Osborn

  Chair, UNED UK. SDC Member

  Andy Atkins

  Tearfund. Co-chair, Development and Environment Group, British Overseas NGOs for Development

  The purpose of the meeting was to hear the views of leading individuals on future priorities and actions at UK level, in the light of the conclusions of the summit. The meeting focused on three issues that emerged clearly from the summit as priorities for action at national level in the developed world: the role of business in delivering sustainable development; energy and, in particular, renewable energy; and sustainable production and consumption. No paper was produced for this meeting.

  TB
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets her Department has set for the time it should take to remove from farms, cattle that react positively to the TB skin test. [76508]
  823W
  Mr. Morley
  There is a target of 10 working days for the removal of TB reactor cattle from farms.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of farmers suffering TB outbreaks in their herds have adequate isolation facilities in which to house infected cattle; and if she will make a statement. [76510]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on stock isolation facilities is not routinely gathered by Defra. When TB reactors or animals that react inconclusively to the TB test are disclosed, farmers receive verbal guidance on isolating those animals from the rest of the herd while awaiting slaughter or re-test. In addition, Defra has provided farmers with free guidance on reducing the risk of TB in their herds either by means of cattle to cattle spread, or from a wildlife reservoir.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to provide financial assistance to farmers who need to improve biosecurity through new isolation facilities to cope with possible outbreaks of(a) TB and (b) other infectious animal diseases. [76511]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no plans to provide financial assistance to farmers to help them to establish new isolation facilities, either in respect of(a) TB or (b) other infectious animal diseases.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to include TB test dates on cattle passports. [76512]

  Mr. Morley
  As a biosecurity measure Defra has advised farmers purchasing cattle to ascertain when the animals being bought in were last tested for TB. There are no plans to include TB test dates on cattle passports.

  Twenty-day Rule
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of failure to obey the 20 day rule there have been, resulting in(a) fines and (b) warnings. [77303]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: Between 11 February 2002 and 23 October 2002 the Animal Movement Licensing System identified 7,616 apparent infringements of the 20 day standstill, which were subject to investigation by the appropriate local authority. This compares with approximately 650,000 recorded movements over that period. Most of the apparent infringements are likely to have been minor, such as an incorrect address entered into the movement report. Where however, an apparent infringement is found to be a breach of the movement legislation in force, this is dealt with, in most cases, by means short of prosecution. This can include verbal or written warnings or requiring a farmer to obtain an Individual Movement Licence before moving livestock.

  The information sought is not available in the form requested. In 2001 44 prosecutions were brought for offences under the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983 as amended. Provisional figures for the current year to end September indicate that 23 prosecutions have been taken.
  824W

  Water Industry
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the estimated output is of the smallest non-domestic water supply source which would produce a financially viable return; [76936]

  (2) what assessment has been carried out of the smallest non-domestic water supply source which might produce a financially viable return from customers. [76937]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government published a consultation paper, on July 31; "Extending Opportunities for Competition in the Water Industry in England and Wales". This proposed competition only in the non-household sector, with an eligibility threshold of a minimum of 50 Megalitres (Ml) a year. The consultation period closed on 1 October and we are now considering responses.

  In preparing the proposals. assessment was made of the broad cost breakdown between the main elements of the supply chain, the likely scope for making savings on these, and the ranges of charges paid by users. Experience shows that the market will determine financial viability in a competitive environment.

  These issues will be taken into consideration as we balance the need to create opportunities for competition whilst continuing to secure the Government's wider objectives for the water industry, which include protecting public health, the environment, social and economic goals, and safeguarding services for household customers.

  Wood for Good Campaign
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the objectives are of the Forestry Commission's support of the Wood for Good campaign. [77579]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 10 July 2002, Official Report, column 953W.

HEALTH

  Agency Nurses (Worcestershire)
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust in 2002–03 to date of agency nurses; and what the cost was in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [77243]

  Mr. Lammy
  Actual costs to Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust of using agency nurses are in the table.

  £ million

  2000–01

  3.3

  2001–02

  4.3

  2002–03 (to September 2002

  4.3

  Source:

  Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
  825W

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being undertaken relating to the physical causes and treatment of CFS/myalgic encephalomyelitis; and if she will make a statement. [75135]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has two research projects in progress on chronic fatigue syndrome/ myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME). One is "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/1\4E: Systematic Review", at the University of York, which started on 5 January 2000 and is on-going. Information from this has informed the Chief Medical Officer's (CMO) task force on CFS/ME on evidence-based guidance.

  The other is "Cognitive Behavioural Therapy in Chronic Fatigue", at North Bristol NHS Trust, which began in August 2000 and is due to end in late 2004.

  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. Following the publication of the CMO's working group report on CFS/ME, the MRC was asked to develop a broad strategy for advancing biomedical and health services research on CFS/ME. The MRC has appointed an independent scientific advisory group which includes scientists with expertise in such areas as epidemiology, physiology, immunology, infections, clinical trials, paediatric neurology and psychological medicine. The advisory group will draw on the working party report and recent expert views of the field. It will also take into account the concerns of patients and carers and the interests of consumers generally. Details of the advisory group and a note of the first meeting are now available on the MRC website, at www.mrc.ac.uk.

  Association of Community Health Councils
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to announce his funding plans for the ACHCEW for the remainder of its term. [77429]

  Mr. Lammy
  The date of abolition for the Association of Community Health Councils of England and Wales (ACHCEW) is yet to be determined. Officials will be discussing with ACHCEW the best way of funding the remainder of its term once that decision has been made.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on the ability of(a) community health councils and (b) the ACHCEW to retain staff of (i) the absence of a date for abolition, (ii) the decision not to allow community health council staff to transfer to the successor bodies and (iii) the absence of committed funding for the remainder of their term of employment. [77430].

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department is aware of the concerns of Community Health Councils (CHCs) following the announcement that they are to be abolished. There will be no automatic transfers into the new Commission either for CHC or Association of Community Health Councils of England and Wales (ACHCEW) staff. The Commission is independent and fundamentally different from CHCs. As such it must be free to make its own decisions on staffing. Officials are 826W
  working with trade unions to agree a human resources framework to support CHC staff in seeking suitable alternative employment. Progress is being reported through newsletters to CHC staff. CHCs will be abolished once the new system is functioning. The date of abolition for CHCs and ACHCEW has yet to be decided but we will make an announcement as soon as a date has been set. In the meantime the 184 HCs continue to function and will be funded until their abolition.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Health what timetable has been set for the winding up of(a) community health councils and (b) the ACHCEW. [77428]

  Mr. Lammy
  Community health councils (CHCs) will be abolished once the new arrangements for patient and public involvement are functioning. There is no abolition date for CHCs or the Association of Community Health Councils of England and Wales as yet, but we will make an announcement as soon as a date is set.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Community Health Councils will be abolished; and what support is being given to staff of CHCs in the transition to new arrangements. [78148]

  Mr. Lammy
  Community Health Councils (CHCs) will be abolished once the new arrangements for patient and public involvement are functioning. There is no abolition date for CHCs or Association of Community Health Councils of England and Wales as yet, but we will make an announcement as soon as a date is set. Officials are working with trade unions to agree a human resources framework to support CHC staff in seeking suitable alternative employment.

  Dental Care
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce the complexity of the forms issued by the Health Benefits Division to be completed by students when reclaiming the cost of dental care; and if he will make a statement. [76955]

  Mr. Lammy
  The HC1 claim form has been carefully designed to collect all the information necessary from all groups, including students, to carry out a calculation of their entitlement to help with health costs, based on income support arrangements. People only need to complete the sections of the form which apply to them.

  Dental Treatment
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of(a) the average cost of dental treatment by an NHS dentist and (b) the average cost of treatment at the new NHS drop-in centres being developed. [76245]

  Mr. Lammy
  The average gross cost for a course of dental treatment including patient charges in the general dental service (GDS) in England was £36.33 for adults in 2001–02. The average cost for a course of treatment for charge exempt adult patients was £53.61.

  Comparable information for dental access centres (DACs) is not available and the pattern of treatment provided in DACs is not directly comparable to the

  827W
  GDS. Total revenue available for DACs in 2002–03 is £35 million. It is anticipated that around 300,000 patients will be treated in these centres during the course of this financial year. Final allocations will be adjusted to take account of the overall performance of each centre.

  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to raise the retirement age for general dental surgery principals; and what his policy is on retention of seniority payments for such principals. [76247]

  Mr. Lammy
  At present general dental services (GDS) principals are removed from dental lists on 1 April following their 65th birthday, but can continue to work as assistants, or privately. We plan to amend the GDS regulations to increase this age limit to 70 years at the next available opportunity, which is likely to be in the spring of 2003. Principals who continue to work beyond the age of 65 will retain entitlement to claim seniority payments in accordance with the conditions set out in Determination III of the Statement of Dental Remuneration.

  Donor Cards
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people he estimates hold donor cards; and what measures have been taken since 1997 to raise awareness and encourage people to get donor cards. [77157]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: The latest Gallup Survey commissioned by the National Kidney Patients Association in 2000 indicates that 28 per cent. of the population carry a donor card. This equates to about 16.5 million people in the United Kingdom.

  Since 1997 we have launched a number of publicity campaigns and initiatives encouraging people to join the national health service organ donation register (ODR), to carry a donor card, and to discuss their wishes with their relatives. Advertising on television, radio and press at time of launch was supported by public information leaflets which contain donor cards and forms to join the ODR.

  The organ donation literature line, 0845 60 60 400, and the campaign website (www.nhs.uk/organdonor) complements and supports this activity as do very successful partnerships with the voluntary sector, the general practitioner surgery network, Boots, Goldfish and other banks, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority, the Passport Agency and GlaxoSmithKline.

  In addition, United Kingdom Transplant's 2002 initiative with local authorities, encouraged people to join the ODR when they enrol on the electoral register.

  The Department also runs two separate campaigns specifically targeting Asians and African Caribbeans as people from these communities are more likely to suffer from conditions that lead to kidney failure, resulting in a need for a transplant.
  828W

  Duhenne Muscular Dystrophy
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the statement by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) of 22 October 2002, Official Report, column 61WH, on Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, how the £2 million on research into Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy in 2001–02 has been spent; and if he will make a statement. [77679]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: There are five research projects into Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its grant in aid from the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology.

  Four are led by Professor T. Partridge at the MRC Clinical Sciences Centre's Muscle Cell Biology Group. These are:

  "Study of factors influencing repair and regeneration of skeletal muscle", which is investigating ways of enhancing the mechanisms that promote the normal regeneration of muscle and of counteracting the factors that inhibit the process in genetic disorders such as DMD;

  "Investigation of fibrogenic mechanisms in dystrophic muscle", which is investigating fibrosis, a feature of chronic muscle trauma, which is implicated in the clinical decline of DMD;

  "Identification of muscle specific promoter/enhancer regions of collagen 1 gene", which is looking for genes encoding collagen 1, because the accumulation of excess collagenous connective tissue is thought to play a part in the pathogenesis of DMD, and once the gene has been found, it is hoped that production can be reduced; and

  "Investigation of the mechanisms that generate revertant muscle fibres", which aims to discover why people with DMD have an unusual production of dystrophin despite the presence of mutations that ought to prevent its production.

  One is led by Professor K. Davies at the MRC functional genetics unit. This is "Molecular analysis of neuromuscular and neurological disease", which involves the molecular analysis of DMD.

  Elective Surgery Abroad
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 813W, on elective surgery abroad, if he will define reasonable access in paragraph three of his answer. [76622]

  Mr. Hutton
  "Reasonable access" means that the national health service should require through contracts an overseas provider to facilitate visits by recognised NHS bodies such as Commission for Health Improvement, whenever requested to do so.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of his departmental officials are involved in work on foundation status for NHS trusts. [74555]
  829W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 October]:Departmental officials currently working on policy Services NHS Trust, June 1995 to August 2002, ordinary and day development for National Health Service foundation case admissions combined, all specialities trusts are required to co-ordinate and produce detailed proposals for a new form of NHS organisation in order to meet Government objectives to devolve operational control of the most successful NHS trusts whilst enhancing accountability to local stakeholders. At this stage their usual work primarily includes researching and drafting papers for Ministers on specific policy issues; preparing for the necessary legislation; consulting with key stakeholders; and, handling parliamentary business and ministerial correspondence.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 17 October 2002,Official Report, column 922W, what the usual work is of each of the nine staff of his Department working full-time on foundation trusts. [76848]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: Departmental officials currently working on policy development for national health service foundation trusts are required to co-ordinate and produce detailed proposals for a new form of NHS organisation in order to meet Government objectives to devolve operational control of the most successful NHS trusts while enhancing accountability to local stakeholders. At this stage their usual work primarily includes researching and drafting papers for Ministers on specific policy issues; preparing for the necessary legislation; consulting with key stakeholders; and, handling parliamentary business and ministerial correspondence.

  GP Walk-in Centres
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of GP walk in centres. [75565]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 October 2002]: National health service walk-in centres are a programme to pilot delivery of a new type of accessible and nurse led primary care service.

  There are now 42 such centres and the independent national evaluation concluded that they were making a valuable contribution to improving primary care access. Walk-in centres and services therefore have an important and continuing role in securing local delivery of NHS Plan targets for access and emergency care. We are currently considering how best to ensure that primary care trust exploits this potential.

  Mid-Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting for in-patient treatment in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust on 31 March 1997; and how many months between 31 March 1997 and the latest available date the number has been below that level. [77137]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is shown in the table. The in-patient waiting list for the trust was 8,391 at the end of March 1997 and has not been below that level since then.
  830W

  Patients waiting for elective admission, Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust, June 1995 to August 2002, ordinary and day-case admissions combined, all specialities

  Quarter/month

  Total waiting

  June 1995

  6,568

  September 1995

  6,440

  December 1995

  6,350

  March 1996

  5,835

  June 1996

  6,463

  September 1996

  5,909

  December 1996

  7,258

  March 1997

  8,391

  June 1997

  8,690

  September 1997

  8,967

  December 1997

  10,542

  March 1998

  11,360

  April 1998

  11,422

  May 1998

  11,517

  June 1998

  11,834

  July 1998

  11,804

  August 1998

  11,791

  September 1998

  11,615

  October 1998

  11,382

  November 1998

  11,347

  December 1998

  11,359

  January 1999

  11,172

  February 1999

  10,475

  March 1999

  9,967

  April 1999

  9,961

  May 1999

  9,980

  June 1999

  9,824

  July 1999

  9,488

  August 1999

  9,465

  September 1999

  9,395

  October 1999

  9,372

  November 1999

  9,483

  December 1999

  9,851

  January 2000

  10,233

  February 2000

  10,416

  March 2000

  9,865

  April 2000

  9,953

  May 2000

  9,823

  June 2000

  10,154

  July 2000

  9,703

  August 2000

  9.405

  September 2000

  9,486

  October 2000

  9,375

  November 2000

  9,050

  December 2000

  9,466

  January 2001

  9,282

  February 2001

  9,288

  March 2001

  8,894

  April 2001

  8,853

  May 2001

  8,868

  June 2001

  8,850

  July 2001

  8,898

  August 2001

  8,917

  September 2001

  8,968

  October 2001

  8,657

  November 2001

  8,787

  December 2001

  9,228

  January 2002

  9,198

  February 2002

  9,646

  March 2002

  9,732

  April 2002

  9,874

  May 2002

  9,986

  June 2002

  9,838

  July 2002

  9,928

  August 2002

  9,804

  Source:

  Department of Health form KHO7 and Monthly Monitoring
  831W

  National Health Care (Essex)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the National Health Service Trusts management structures and patient organisations in Essex with specific reference to(a) mental health, (b) dental care, (c) hospital trusts, (d) chiropody, (e) ambulance services, and (f) strategic management; how many (i) managers and (ii) administrative staff are in each category; and if he will make a statement on the reporting structure for national health care in Essex. [75885]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. It is not possible to separately identify those medical and dental staff who are managers. Essex Strategic Health Authority is the headquarters for national health service services in the Essex area. The health authority is accountable to the Department and is responsible for supporting local NHS organisations in delivering the NHS Plan, building capacity and supporting performance improvement across all local health agencies.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what procedures are in place to monitor the number of patients and the related cost associated with NICE approved treatments that enable comparisons with the pre-approval phase of the treatment and ensure that NICE guidance is being acted on; [75803]

  (2) what procedures are in place to monitor uptake of treatment following its approval by NICE. [75802]

  Mr. Lammy
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has commissioned a research project through the national health service research and development methodology programme to evaluate the impact of its guidance on clinical and managerial practice. Preliminary results are expected in December 2002.

  The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will be the principal external inspector of the implementation of NICE guidance, and details of this inspection are currently being agreed between the Commission and the Department.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to ensure that all patients have access to testing to ascertain whether they would benefit from a NICE-approved treatment. [75795]

  Mr. Lammy
  None. The responsibility for arranging tests and deciding what treatment is best for the patient rests with the clinicians concerned. This is done in consultation with the patient, fully taking into account National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidance and informed by the patient's clinical history.

  NHS Treatment
  Mr. David Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the number of people who die prematurely in the UK each year(a) while waiting for NHS treatment and (b) as a consequence of negligent treatment within the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [76292]
  832W
  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect statistics on the number of people who have died while on the waiting list for treatment. Data are collected on how many patients are removed from the waiting list without being treated but these are not broken down into specific categories.

  Data on the number of patients who die prematurely as a result of negligent treatment in the National Health Service are not collected.

  Non-specialist Surgeons and Physicians
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations his Department has received concerning(a) the harmful effect on patients of being treated by surgeons and physicians who are not specialists in their field and (b) the chances of such patients making a full recovery; [75773]

  (2) what representations his Department has received concerning the number of patients undergoing treatment by surgeons and physicians who are not specialist in their field. [75779]

  Mr. Hutton
  None. All doctors must work within the limits of their professional competence, as required by General Medical Council (GMC) guidance, Good Medical Practice. Doctors should not, therefore, be given or take on responsibility for patients if they are not competent to do so. This is to ensure that patients receive the highest quality of care and have the best chances of making a full recovery.

  Nevertheless all National Health Service patients in hospital are likely to have some contact with a doctor who is not a fully trained specialist. The NHS in England employs about 31,700 doctors, not yet qualified to work independently, in training grades and about 11,800 staff grade doctors, some of whom are trained specialists. 24,400 NHS consultants supervise the work of all of these doctors and are responsible for the care patients receive. Consultants are all trained specialists included on the specialist register held by the GMC.

  Ophthalmology Surgery (Worcestershire)
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the saving would be to the county health services in Worcestershire of moving elective ophthalmological day care surgery to the Diagnostic and Treatment Centre at Kidderminster from(a) Worcestershire Royal Infirmary and (b) Alexandra hospital, Redditch. [77244]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Worcestershire Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust is currently carrying out a countywide review of ophthalmology services. No decisions have been made on changes to ophthalmology services in Worcestershire, and no detailed cost analysis has been undertaken on the relocation of ophthalmology services to Kidderminster from other acute hospitals. All factors, including any financial implications, will be evaluated fully in determining the nature of future developments.
  833W

  Organ Donors
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on donor shortage; and what he proposes to do to increase the number of donors available. [77158]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: There is a world-wide shortage of organs for transplantation. There are a number of reasons for this not least that there is a welcome reduction in the numbers of people dying in circumstances in which organ donation would have been possible, for example, the decreasing number of fatal road accidents and improvements in neurological surgery.

  We are taking specific action to increase the number of donors available by investing in initiatives to raise public awareness and the benefits of organ transplantation, particularly in the ethnic minority populations where there may be a greater need for transplantation, implementing measures to help ensure that potential donors are identified and that we increase the use of both living and non-heartbeating donation. Nearly £4 million is being invested in the national health service through United Kingdom transplant to boost the number of life-saving organ transplants. This is funding 35 donor liaison schemes to improve procedures for identifying possible organ donors and the steps to take so that relatives are approached and given the opportunity to decide about donation. It is also supporting 25 living donation programmes, 10 additional transplant co-ordinators and six non-heartbeating donor programmes.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many organ transplants have been made in each year since 1997; how many people have died waiting for organ transplants in that time; and for what organs they were waiting. [77159]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: The number of organ transplants in each year since 1997, the number of people dying waiting for a transplant and the organ they were waiting for is shown in the table.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Dying on waiting list

  Kidney

  284

  304

  290

  286

  249

  Cardiothoracic organ

  175

  161

  163

  122

  100

  Liver

  73

  86

  75

  66

  65

  Total dying on waiting list

  532

  551

  528

  474

  414

  Transplants

  All organs

  2,779

  2,674

  2,695

  2,709

  2,717

  PALS Services
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts have so far established PALS services; what estimate he has made of the extent to which PALS services are functioning; and which trusts do not yet have a PALS service: [77424]

  Mr. Lammy
  This information is not collected centrally. It is the responsibility of strategic health authorities to monitor Patient Action and Liaison 834W
  Services (PALS) development. £10 million was made available to health authorities for PALS in 2002–03 and this will be recurring in the primary care trust baselines.

  Pharmacy Dispensing Contracts
  Mr. Andrew Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pharmacy dispensing contracts were issued in each of the last five years. [77246]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information on the number of decisions on applications, or of decisions on applications on appeal, relating to the provision of National Health Service pharmaceutical services for the years 1996–97 to 2000–01 is contained in tables 10 and 11 respectively of the Department's statistical bulletin "General Pharmaceutical Services in England and Wales 1991–92 to 2000–01". Information on the number of community pharmacies providing NHS dispensing services which opened in the same period is available in table 4 of the same bulletin. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Prescription Charges
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 798W, on prescription charges, if he will list the average prescription charge per prescription item dispensed for each year listed; and if he will make a statement. [77031]

  Mr. Lammy
  The charge per prescription item was set out in the table included with my answer of 15 October 2002,Official Report, column 798W.

  Private Treatment
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private patients received treatment in(a) England and (b) each NHS region in each of the last six years as (i) in-patients and (ii) day cases, in NHS pay beds. [76607]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table gives information on private patients admitted to national health service hospitals in England in each of the last six years for which information is available. A breakdown by NHS region will be placed in the Library.

  Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) for private patients treated in NHS hospitals in England

  Year

  Ordinary admissions

  Day case

  1995–96

  66,928

  40,254

  1996–97

  63,308

  41,063

  1997–98

  70,503

  49,458

  1998–99

  77,937

  64,568

  1999–2000

  80,815

  63,809

  2000–01

  72,708

  53,516

  Source Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what baseline his Department will use to demonstrate that organisations have secured a 1 per cent. increase in cost efficiency and 1 per cent. increase in quality
  835W
  equivalent of its budget, as set out in paragraph 8.4 of "Improvement, Expansion and Reform: The Next Three Years". [75714]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 22 October 2002]: This requirement relates to the value for money public service agreement (PSA) target:
  Value for money in the NHS and personal social services will improve by at least 2 per cent., per annum, with annual improvements of 1 per cent., in both cost efficiency and service effectiveness.

  The PSA covers the three years from 2003–04, so the baseline for the target is the cost and quality of services in 2002–03.

  Radiographers
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many radiographers are employed by each NHS health authority; and what the comparative figures were for each year since 1997; [75789]

  (2)how many radiographers were employed within the NHS for each year since 1997; [75787]

  (3)how many radiographers have left the service of the NHS for each year since 1997, broken down by each NHS health authority. [75788]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about the number of radiographers working in the national health service since 1997 by health authority area has been placed in the Library.

  Information about the number of radiographers leaving the NHS each year is not collected centrally. The non medical work force census records the number of staff working in the NHS each year as at 30 September. It shows the net change in the last year taking account of leavers, retirements, returners and new staff joining the work force.

  The number of radiographers employed in the NHS has increased by 940 between September 1997 and September 2001.

  Radiotherapy Waiting Times
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received concerning the introduction of a national standard method for calculating radiotherapy waiting times to enable waiting times to be directly compared between radiotherapy centres; and what plans he has to introduce such a national standard. [75749]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has received informal representations from the Royal College of Radiologists and others about the introduction of radiotherapy waiting times monitoring. The NHS Cancer Plan set out maximum waiting time targets for first cancer treatment, which will come into effect over the next few years. Arrangements to monitor these targets are currently being put in place and will cover radiotherapy where this is the first treatment.

  Individual radiotherapy services are expected to audit their waiting times for radiotherapy as part of the national standards for cancer. This is monitored locally through the peer review appraisal process. We do not
  836W
  collect data centrally on these waits. Radiotherapy waiting times data will be available when clinical audit datasets are implemented.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has undertaken of the implications of the Competition Commission Tribunal Appeal Judgement Bettercare Group Ltd v. The Director General of Fair Trading on resources allocated by government to the purchase of residential care by statutory social services providers from the private sector. [76215]

  Jacqui Smith
  The competition commission appeal tribunal's (CCAT) judgment in the Bettercare case stated that the Competition Act 1998 applied in the particular circumstances that were presented. One implication of this is that potentially local councils' commissioning of care services could be subject to the Competition Act, but each case would need to be considered in the context of its facts. The judgment did not comment on whether the particular health and social care board involved in the case or other councils are presently contravening the Act. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) will now reconsider the issue of the alleged anti-competitive conduct of the board involved in the case. Beyond this, no general assessment of the implications of this ruling can be made. I understand that in deciding not to appeal the judgment the OFT had in mind that the European Court is currently considering a similar case (case T-319/99 FENIN v. European Commission). The outcome of this case is expected before the spring of 2003. This may assist in clarifying further whether the Act applies to the commissioning functions of public bodies.

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the procedure for letting the contract for supply of smallpox vaccine; and if he will list the companies which he invited to put in tenders. [76273]

  Mr. Hutton
  After 11 September 2001, the Government decided to augment its existing stocks of smallpox vaccine. For reasons of national security, confidential discussions were held with five companies with known production capabilities in the United Kingdom and Europe and proven track records in the delivery of high quality vaccines. This confidential process was needed to secure stocks quickly in the light of a renewed assessment of risk.

  The companies, whose agreement to being identified has been obtained, were Acambis, Aventis Pasteur MSD, GlaxoSmithKline, Powderject and RIVM. Our requirements for the vaccine strain, timing, and delivery were made clear to each of the companies, who were then given time to submit their written responses.

  Transplant Surgeons
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of
  837W
  the supply of transplantation surgeons in the United Kingdom (a) at present and (b) if targets for increased transplant activities are met. [74238]

  Mr. Hutton
  Consultants in transplant surgery are not separately identified but are drawn from a range of surgical specialties including cardiac and general surgery (including hepato-biliary) and urology. Postgraduate deans funded 11 new transplant training fellowships from April 2001.

  These are aimed at providing additional training in organ transplantation to surgeons nearing the completion of their training. Following the publication of "A Health Service of All the Talents: Developing the NHS Workforce", workforce has been recognised as key to the successful delivery of the NHS Plan. New national workforce planning and development structures have therefore been set up to take up the challenge of delivering a multidisciplinary and integrated health and social care workforce to support service improvement. The supply of transplant surgeons necessary for the delivery of increased transplant activity will be kept under careful review.

  Worcestershire Health Authority
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the financial deficit for the Worcestershire health authority at its dissolution on 1 April, and how this was divided between the primary care trusts that took over its commissioning role. [76243]

  Mr. Lammy
  Worcestershire health authority had a financial deficit of £2,200,000 at its dissolution on 31 March 2002.

  The three primary care trusts (PCTs) in Worcestershire, Redditch and Bromsgrove PCT, South Worcestershire PCT and Wyre Forest PCT, have agreed to divide the £2,200,000 as follows:

  £000

  Redditch and Bromsgrove PCT

  711

  South Worcestershire PCT

  1,286

  Wyre Forest PCT

  203

  2,200

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the average penalty imposed following conviction for breach of an antisocial behaviour order has been in cases where the offender was fined; [76684]

  (2)How many prosecutions have been brought for breach of an antisocial behaviour order; and how many have resulted in a conviction; [76682]

  (3)what the average prison sentence imposed following conviction for breach of an antisocial behaviour order has been, where the offender was sentenced to immediate imprisonment. [76683]
  838W
  Mr. Denham
  The available information, relating to breaches of anti-social behaviour orders in England and Wales, covers the period 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2001 and is shown in the table. The analysis covers only those breaches by persons issued with Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) during this period and notified to the Home Office.

  Persons proceeded against for breach of anti-social behaviour orders by outcome England and Wales—1 June 2000 to 31 December 2001

  Number

  Persons proceed against

  139

  Persons found guilty

  125

  Persons fined

  Number

  18

  Average fine amount (£)

  116

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody

  Number

  56

  Average sentence length (months)

  5.5

  Asylum Seekers
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what relevant statistical evidence of(a) crime rates, (b) illegal working and (c) health service demands was used to inform the decision to withdraw asylum seekers' right to work; [77115]

  (2) how he plans to monitor the effects of the change to asylum seekers' rights to work; and if he will undertake to review the situation should there be evidence that there is a detrimental effect on asylum seekers in terms of health, crime and illegal working. [77114]

  Beverley Hughes
  I made it clear when I announced the abolition of the employment concession earlier this year that this reflected the increasing timeliness of the asylum decision-making process.

  The concession was established when widespread delays occurred in the asylum system, and we have always made clear that we would review its operation in light of our ongoing reforms to the asylum system. By the time I announced its abolition in July, it had become largely irrelevant and applicable to only a minority of applicants.

  The vast majority (around 80 per cent. of asylum seekers) currently receive an initial decision within six months and we are committed, with our programme of increased resources and ongoing legislative reforms, to further improving the speed of the system for new applicants.

  We also believe that while we continued to operate the concession, an incorrect perception existed that all asylum seekers had permission to work while their cases were considered. This was not the case, and this decision underlines our determination to maintain a robust asylum process which helps those fleeing persecution and not those seeking work in the UK. Those who seek to enter the UK for the purpose of work have a range of

  839W
  schemes open to them, and we continue to open up more routes to allow people to come here and work on a legal basis in ways which boost our economy.

  Those asylum seekers who had already obtained permission to work prior to 23 July 2002 will retain that right until such time as a final decision is made on their claim, while those who had sought permission to work but have not had a response prior to July 23 will have had their requests considered in line with the concession. We have also retained a discretion to grant permission to work in exceptional cases.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he intends to reply to the letter dated 9 July from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding his constituent Mr. A. Innes of Banff. [77309]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: Due to an administrative error, the hon. Member's letter was not forwarded by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to the appropriate area to provide a reply. It has now been passed to UK Visas for their response. I am very sorry for the delay.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the letters of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight dated 24 May and 24 July under his reference V1008944/2. [78074]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) wrote to the hon. Member on 23 October. I am sorry for the delay in responding.

  Cowboy Builders (West Sussex)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make funding available from the distraction burglary budget or other crime prevention resources to help expand the first check point scheme based in Lancing, West Sussex, dealing with cowboy builders. [78167]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: We have made substantial funding available to local crime and disorder reduction partnerships (CDRPs), under the safer communities initiative, the communities against drugs programme and the partnership development fund, to enable them to tackle their crime problems. The Worthing and Adur CDRPs have been allocated £155,072 and £104,154 respectively for 2002–03 under these initiatives. No further central funding has been set aside for distraction burglary projects in 2002–03;

  It is for CDRPs to decide on the priorities and plans for their area and to direct their funding accordingly. In the case of Worthing and Adur, their plans have already been made and approved. If First Check Point wishes to inquire about the possibility of obtaining funding from this source, it will need to contact those local authorities.

  It would be open to anyone seeking to set up a similar local scheme elsewhere to approach their CDRP in the same way.
  840W

  Criminal Justice
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that the parts of the Criminal Justice Bill for which he is responsible are subject to pre-legislative scrutiny on-line. [75306]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 24 October 2002]: The Criminal Justice Bill will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Committee prior to the second reading of the Bill. The Home Affairs Committee is expected to publish a short report which will be available on-line. On-line consultation will not be possible, given the short time-scales between the Queen's Speech and introduction.

  Drug-related Crime
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to target support in the fight against drugs on specific communities. [76675]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The fight against drugs involves co-ordinated action to deal with the supply of drugs and drug-related crime, as well as strengthening communities to resist drugs, and providing treatment, harm minimisation and education services. Resources for all these services are targeted according to local needs, so they can target the drugs which do the most harm, problematic users and the most vulnerable sections of society. We will continue to review the way that the available money is allocated to ensure that it is easily accessible and reaches the areas where it can be most effective.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is planning to strengthen the capability of the Customs and Immigration Services to deal with trafficking in illegal drugs; and if he will make a statement. [77498]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: The Concerted Inter-agency Drug Action group comprises representatives of the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the security and intelligence agencies and a number of other relevant Departments and agencies (but not the Immigration Service), and is chaired by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. It has developed a strategy for tackling supply of heroin and cocaine from source to street as part of the overall drug strategy, an update of which we intend to publish later this year.

  Gloucestershire Constabulary
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the ability of Gloucestershire Constabulary to provide acceptable levels of policing during the forthcoming financial year; and if he will make a statement; [77036]

  (2) what recent representations he has received on the grant settlement for Gloucestershire Constabulary; and if he will make a statement; [77034]
  841W
  (3) if he will review the grant settlement awarded to Gloucestershire Constabulary; and if he will make a statement. [77035]

  Mr. Denham
  Spending Review 2002 has made additional resources available for policing. By 2005–06 spending on the police will amount to around £1.5 billion more than in 2002–03. The final grant position for individual police authorities for the next financial year will take account of the allocation of resources for 2003/04 and the outcome of the recent review of the police funding formula.

  We will take decisions on both the Spending Review and the make-up of the police funding formula shortly. During the recent consultation period on the options for changing the funding formula responses have been received from Gloucestershire police authority and an hon. Friend. All responses are being taken into account, and we are considering very carefully the implications for police authorities of implementing each of the options for change.

  I intend to provide sufficient resources to support Gloucestershire, along with all other police authorities, in maintaining stable levels of service and continuity in local policing.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been employed by Gloucestershire Constabulary in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [77037]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Gloucestershire Constabulary is currently at record levels of officers.

  Year as at 31 March

  Police Strength

  Civilian Support Staff

  1992

  1,174

  367

  1993

  1,149

  375

  1994

  1,159

  381

  1995

  1,163

  381

  1996

  1,133

  415

  1997

  1,133

  435

  1998

  1,104

  423

  1999

  1,104

  504

  2000

  1,114

  484

  2001

  1,173

  506

  2002

  1,183

  545

  Source:

  Home Office Statistical Bulletins—Police Service Strength 1997–2002. Home Office historical data 1992–1996

  Homicide (Minors)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have(a) had cases initiated against them and (b) been prosecuted for cases which involve the death of minors in each of the last five years. [75554]

  Hilary Benn
  A suspect in a homicide case is defined as(i) a person who has been arrested in respect of an offence initially classified as homicide and has been charged with homicide, or (ii) a person who is suspected
  842W
  by the police of having committed the offence, but is known to have died or committed suicide prior to the arrest.

  Data on homicides, held centrally, can identify the number of suspects involved and those indicted. The figures for homicide victims under 16 years are given in the table:

  Total number of suspects

  Total number of suspects indicted for homicide

  1996–97

  95

  75

  1997–98

  83

  64

  1998–99

  97

  73

  1999–2000

  75

  45

  2000–01

  88

  19

  Data as at 3 October 2001; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts, or as further information becomes available.

  In order to avoid duplication of suspects, only the suspects in relation to the first victim have been counted. If there are cases where the first victim is over 16 years and there are other victims under 16, the associated suspects will not have been included.

  The number of suspects indicted in the last couple of years has not necessarily fallen These figures will change with time. In the published homicide statistics, data are shown according to the year in which the police initially recorded the offence as homicide. This is not necessarily the year in which the incident which led to the death took place, nor the year in which any court decision was made. The statistics all refer to the position as at 3 October 2001. Subsequent court hearings or other information received will change the figures given, so too much importance should not be placed on the 2000–01 figures.

  Homicide statistics are published annually in chapter 4 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales". The latest statistics relating to 2000–01 were published in December 2001 in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2000".

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have complained to the Parliamentary Ombudsman about delays in the immigration and nationality directorate. [75660]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on complaints against Departments investigated during 2001–02 is set out in the Parliamentary Ombudsman's Annual report for 2001–02, copies of which are available in the Library, or on the Parliamentary Ombudsman's website at:

  A total of 35 complaints were made to the parliamentary ombudsman about delays in the immigration and nationality directorate between 1 April 2002 and 30 September 2002.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the Immigration and Nationality Department Board to
  843W
  answer the letters of the hon. Member for Ashford of 11 June, 30 July and 11 September on the subject of the Mutabarruku family. [76739]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) wrote to the hon. Member on 25 October. I apologise for the delay in doing so.

  National Firearms Certificate Holders Register
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of delays in the national firearms certificate holders register database has been; and if he will make a statement. [76791]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The national firearms certificate holders register is being developed on the police national computer (PNC) by the police information technology organisation (PITO) using its own internal resources. An integral part of the project is to provide a link between the local systems used by forces and the national database on the PNC. The procurement exercise to engage contract support to develop and implement the necessary interfaces failed to provide a satisfactory solution. PITO estimate that the manpower costs associated with this part of the project totalled some £21,000. I understand that PITO have recently issued a non-binding expression of interest for a re-tender to provide a single firearms licensing management system and to build the interface to the PNC. It is unlikely that the register will now be operational before summer 2004 and work is already being developed to achieve that aim.

  Notifiable Offences
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) notifiable offences and (b) convictions per notifiable offence there were for each of the last five years in (i) South Somerset and (ii) West Somerset; and what the average figures were in districts within the same departmental family of comparable policing areas. [77017]

  Mr. Denham
  Information referring to number of(a) notifiable offences (b) the number of convictions for notifiable offences and (c) the proportion of convictions per notifiable offence for the Avon and Somerset police force area is given in the following table. Data giving the proportion of convictions per notifiable offence for selected other police force areas are also given.

  Data relating to the areas specified in the question are not centrally available for three of the last five years.

  Notifiable offences, convictions for notifiable offences and convictions per notifiable offence in the Avon and Somerset police force urea, and convictions per notifiable offence in selected police force areas1 1997–98 to 2001–02

  Avon and Somerset4

  1997–982

  1998–993

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Notifiable offences

  144.556

  150,089

  147,104

  149,254

  178,991

  Convictions for notifiable offences

  n/a

  16,766

  18,743

  17,186

  n/a

  Convictions per notifiable offence

  0.11

  0.13

  0.12

  n/a

  Convictions per notifiable offence in selected police force areas

  Bedfordshire

  n/a

  0.13

  0.12

  0.12

  n/a

  Cleveland

  n/a

  0.16

  0.18

  0.17

  n/a

  Derbyshire

  n/a

  0.14

  0.15

  0.15

  n/a

  844W

  Notifiable offences, convictions for notifiable offences and convictions per notifiable offence in the Avon and Somerset police force area, and convictions per notifiable offence in selected police force areas1 1997–98 to 2001–02

  Avon and Somerset4

  1997–982

  1998–993

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Dorset

  n/a

  0.15

  0.15

  0.14

  n/a

  Gloucestershire

  n/a

  0.13

  0.14

  0.14

  n/a

  Hertfordshire3

  n/a

  0.17

  0.17

  0.13

  n/a

  Humberside

  n/a

  0.12

  0.13

  0.12

  n/a

  Northamptonshire

  n/a

  0.14

  0.04

  0.12

  n/a

  North Yorkshire

  n/a

  0.19

  0 21

  0.18

  n/a

  Nottinghamshire

  n/a

  0.13

  0 14

  0.13

  n/a

  Thames Valley

  n/a

  0.11

  0 10

  0.11

  n/a

  Warwickshire

  n/a

  0.14

  0.12

  0.12

  n/a

  n/a = Not available

  1 The other police force areas included on this table are those which have similar levels and patterns of recorded crime to Avon and Somerset.

  2 The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the coverage and rules in use until 31 March 1998.

  3 There was an increase in notifiable offences during 2000/2001 due to boundary changes on 1 April 2000.

  4 Some police forces adopted the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in advance of the national implementation in April 2002 Changes in crime statistics in these forces will be strongly influenced by the changes in recording practices. Numbers of recorded crimes will be affected by changes in reporting and recording.

  5 The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the expanded offence coverage and revised counting rules which came into effect on 1 April 1998

  Sources:

  Criminal Statistics, England and Wales

  Crime in England and Wales, 2001–02

  Home Office Court Proceedings Database

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the ratio of police officers to notifiable offences for each of the Police Authorities in England for the latest year for which statistics are available; and if he will make a statement. [77496]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: The requested details given in the table are based on information available in the Home Office Statistical Bulletins "Crime in England and Wales 2001–02", published in July, and "Police Service Strength—England and Wales, 31 March 2002", published in September. The ratios may have been affected in comparison to the previous year as a result of some police forces implementing the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard in advance of its national implementation on 1 April 2002.

  Number of crimes recorded by the police per police officer

  Police force area

  Crimes per officer1

  Avon and Somerset

  58

  Bedfordshire

  49

  Cambridgeshire

  51

  Cheshire

  34

  Cleveland

  49

  Cumbria

  34

  Derbyshire

  49

  Devon and Cornwall

  33

  Dorset

  40

  Durham

  31

  Essex

  38

  Gloucestershire

  43

  Greater Manchester

  53

  Hampshire

  39

  Hertfordshire

  37

  845W

  Number of crimes recorded by the police per police officer

  Police force area

  Crimes per officer1

  Humberside

  57

  Kent

  36

  Lancashire

  42

  Leicestershire

  42

  Lincolnshire

  42

  London, City of

  13

  Merseyside

  37

  Metropolitan Police

  40

  Norfolk

  40

  North Yorkshire

  42

  Northamptonshire

  50

  Northumbria

  35

  Nottinghamshire

  68

  South Yorkshire

  42

  Staffordshire

  55

  Suffolk

  42

  Surrey

  31

  Sussex

  47

  Thames Valley

  52

  Warwickshire

  44

  West Mercia

  51

  West Midlands

  48

  West Yorkshire

  61

  Wiltshire

  34

  1 Based on number of recorded crimes in the year ending March 2002 and the number of full-time equivalent police officers in post on 31 March 2002.

  People Trafficking
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the number of victims of people trafficking who have been removed from this country and then been subsequently trafficked back to the UK or to other EU destinations in the last five years. [77382]

  Beverley Hughes
  As people trafficking is not yet a criminal offence, there are no figures currently collected on the number of cases of trafficking. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill currently before Parliament creates a new offence of trafficking for the purpose of prostitution, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. This will enable us to tackle the worst forms of exploitation pending the introduction of more comprehensive legislation when parliamentary time permits.

  The only available estimates of the levels of trafficking are based on a Home Office research study "Stopping Traffic" (Police Research Series 125, published in 2000), which indicated that there was intelligence to suggest that some women and children are trafficked into the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation. This was estimated at between 140 and 1,400 per year, but it was impossible to make a more accurate assessment of numbers. The report concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that this was on a large scale compared with other European countries. The report did not attempt to estimate the number of people who were trafficked a second time, having previously been removed.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the number of women illegally trafficked to Britain against their will for use in vice rings in the last 12 months. [77554]
  846W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  As people trafficking is not yet a criminal offence, there are no figures currently collected on the number of cases of trafficking. The only available estimates of the levels of trafficking are based on a Home Office research study "Stopping Traffic" (Police Research Series 125, published in 2000), which indicated that there was intelligence to suggest that some women and children are trafficked into the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation. This was estimated at between 140 and 1,400 per year but it was impossible to make a more accurate assessment of numbers.

  Police Funding (Avon and Somerset)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes are planned in Government funding for Avon and Somerset police between 2002–03 and 2003–04 [76944]

  Mr. Denham
  Spending Review 2002 has made additional resources available for policing. By 2005–06, spending on the police will amount to around £1.5 billion more than in 2002–03. The final grant position for individual police authorities will take account of the allocation of resources for 2003–04 and the outcome of the recent consultation process on Local Government Finance Formula Grant Distribution.

  We will take decisions on both the Spending Review and the police funding formula shortly.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of convictions were entered on the Police National Computer within three days of the conviction in the last six months; [77119]

  (2) what the average time taken to input conviction data on the Police National Computer, broken down by force, was in the last six months; [77122]

  (3) what proportion of police forces met the target of three days between conviction and entry of that conviction on the Police National Computer over the last six months. [77121]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: Information is not collected in the form requested. Courts are required to notify court results (in conviction and other cases) to police forces within three working days of completion of the case. Under performance standards set by the Association of Chief Police Officers, police forces are required to input court results (in conviction and other cases) onto the Police National Computer within 72 hours of the receipt of information from the court about the case disposal. We are determined that such key information should be recorded on the Police National Computer in a timely fashion- We therefore commissioned Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to manage and monitor a 12-month programme of work for every force to improve the timeliness of the inputting of key data. As regards court results, the primary purpose was to clear backlog of outstanding cases. The Inspectorate's first report showed considerable progress. Its second report, on the programme overall, which indicates substantial further progress, is under consideration.
  847W

  Retail Crime
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government have introduced since 1997 to enable retailers to ban customers from their premises. [78176]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs), which have been available since April 1999, can be used to exclude people from specific areas such as retail premises or shopping centres. ASBOs are currently granted by magistrates on application from the police or local authority.

  The Government have also provided support to the British Retail Consortium to assist them in setting up retail crime partnerships. Members of these partnerships use exclusion notices to prevent people from entering their premises.

  Rural policing funds
  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government has to absorb rural policing funds into the main formula by increasing the sparsity factor. [76947]

  Mr. Denham
  The option to incorporate the £30 million rural policing fund into the main formula and to increase the sparsity component to one per cent. was one of a number of options for change that were included in the local government finance formula grant distribution paper in July.

  We are taking into account all responses received during the consultation period and are considering carefully the impact of implementing each of the changes. We shall announce our conclusions shortly.

  Speeding Offences
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the powers of a police authority to apply money raised from speeding fines for anti-speeding strategies. [77838]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: All revenue from speeding offences is normally paid to Her Majesty's Treasury. Under a scheme currently being rolled out nationally, however, fixed penalty fine revenue from enforcement by the use of speed and red-light traffic cameras can be re-invested to meet the costs of such enforcement. Deployment of cameras so funded is subject to strict conditions, including that sites must have a history of speed related casualties and that the cameras must be clearly visible and conspicuous, in order to deter speeding. Money left over goes, as before, to Her Majesty's Treasury.

  UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs
  Mr.Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whom he plans to send to represent the Government at the 46th session of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs to be held in April 2003; and what issues the Government expect to raise at the session. [77355]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: The Government are normally represented by a Home Office official at commission sessions. The 46th session
  848W
  will include a ministerial segment, but the Government will not make a decision about representation at this level until the new year, when the agenda for it will be finalised.

  Youth Inclusion Programmes
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to fund Youth Inclusion programmes beyond their initial three-year period. [76977]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: We announced on 21 October that the existing Youth Inclusion programme will receive funding for a further three years from April 2003. These schemes, which operate in the most deprived neighbourhoods in England and Wales, have been successful in engaging those young people most at risk of crime, leading to reductions in arrests and rates of crime in the local areas. The Youth Inclusion programme is one of a range of measures that we have introduced to address youth crime. The programmes include work with families, schools and in neighbourhoods, and our programme to reduce street crime.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Damages (Minors)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he will require that, when an award of damages to a minor is invested, the principal sum is guaranteed in the event of a fall in the value of the investment. [77649]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Court Funds Office (CFO) is the Office of the Accountant General of the Supreme Court. One of the functions of the CFO is to administer funds paid into court on behalf of children when an award of damages is made by the court. The CFO will hold money until the child's 18th birthday unless a Court Order instructs otherwise.

  Money is invested in one of two ways:
  the CFO seeks the advice of its investment service based at the Office of the Official Solicitor and Public Trustee (OSPT), on the investment of money in stocks and certain unit and investment trusts; or
  the money is placed to the CFO special account that pays a competitive gross rate (before tax) of interest with instant access.

  The investment approach to be applied depends upon the investment policy set by the court, the requirements of the fund, the age of the child and the amount of money held. Smaller sums held for shorter periods are placed on deposit and the principal sum will be secure. Larger sums held for longer periods are invested for the long-term usually, with equity exposure. In these cases, no absolute guarantee of capital value can be given.

  Judicial Appointments Annual Report
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when the fourth Judicial Appointments Annual Report is to be published and what information this edition will contain. [78777]
  849W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Judicial Appointments Annual Report, covering the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002, is published today. The report includes comprehensive narrative descriptions and statistics on appointments to the judiciary, Queen's Counsel, lay magistrates and general commissioners of income tax. It describes the continuing development of the Lord Chancellor's appointments policies, procedures and initiatives, including the establishment of the Commission for Judicial Appointments, and progress in implementing other recommendations from Sir Leonard Peach's 1999 scrutiny.

  Copies of the report have been placed in both Libraries. The report is also available on the internet.

  Magistrates Courts (Greater Manchester)
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was awarded in fines in each of the last 12 months and what percentage of such fines have been(a) collected and (b) written off by each magistrates court in Greater Manchester; and what assessment the Lord Chancellor has made of the impact of court enforcement officers in fine enforcements. [77809]

  Yvette Cooper
  Magistrates courts committees (MCCs) have a responsibility for the collection of a range of debts imposed by the magistrates courts and the Crown court. Debt collected includes not only fines but also fees, compensation, confiscation orders, legal aid contributions and some maintenance orders. It is not possible to separate out only fines from the total.

  Greater Manchester magistrates courts committee was unable to provide a monthly breakdown of figures. Data are collected from each of the 11 court houses in their estate on a quarterly basis. The figures for the last four quarters are set out in the following table. The percentages in the debt paid and debt written off columns include amounts that have been imposed in previous quarters. It is not possible therefore to isolate the amounts imposed that have been paid and written off in any particular quarter.

  The Government remain committed to improving the enforcement of financial penalties and addressing variations in performance. Current variations in performance across the country are far too wide. Work is under way with the MCCs to look at the reasons behind the wide variations to improve their performance.

  Imposed (£)

  Percentage debt paid1

  Percentage debt written off2

  BOLTON

  October to December 2001

  378,009

  93

  23

  January to March 2002

  332,802

  114

  21

  April to June 2002

  397,130

  94

  27

  July to September 2002

  381,990

  95

  28

  Bury; Rochdale. Middleton and Haywood; Wigan; Leigh

  October to December 2001

  1,478,681

  62

  8

  January to March 2002

  1,545,300

  63

  25

  April to June 2002

  1,504,221

  57

  6

  July to September 2002

  1,827,840

  47

  11

  MANCHESTER

  October to December 2001

  1,405,793

  55

  52

  January to March 2002

  1,602,245

  64

  52

  850W

  Imposed (£)

  Percentage debt paid1

  Percentage debt written off2

  April to June 2002

  1,593,020

  62

  42

  July to September 2002

  1,550,876

  69

  55

  OLDHAM

  October to December 2001

  293,132

  89

  37

  January to March 2002

  248,668

  96

  40

  April to June 2002

  232,114

  120

  53

  July to September 2002

  212,528

  122

  25

  SALFORD

  October to December 2001

  254,800

  161

  72

  January to March 2002

  197,860

  136

  75

  April to June 2002

  266,617

  117

  41

  July to September 2002

  235,158

  107

  44

  STOCKPORT

  October to December 2001

  380,056

  84

  36

  January to March 2002

  333,999

  95

  42

  April to June 2002

  342,505

  113

  21

  July to September 2002

  402,187

  82

  33

  TAMESIDE

  October to December 2001

  334,432

  73

  27

  January to March 2002

  277,520

  78

  29

  April to June 2002

  342,115

  64

  24

  July to September 2002

  322,791

  69

  40

  TRAFFORD

  October to December 2001

  895,558

  38

  8

  January to March 2002

  1,072,288

  26

  7

  April to June 2002

  1,106,034

  30

  18

  July to September 2002

  1,038,753

  32

  88

  1 Includes civil debt and debt imposed in previous quarters and paid in the present quarter.

  2 Percentage debt that was imposed in previous quarters but has been deemed uncollectable in the present quarter.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Websites
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the website links associated with his Department, including sites now dormant or closed, and indicating whether they are live, dormant or closed; what the start up costs were for each site listed; what the operating costs were in each year since start up for each site; which company hosted each site; what assessment takes place for each site; which company does the assessment; if he will place the assessment reports in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [75585]

  The Prime Minister
  The current 10 Downing Street website "pm.gov.uk" was launched in February 2000 at an initial cost of £75,000, hosted in-house. The running costs in each subsequent financial year are as follows:£185,000 (2000–01), £187,000 (2001– 02

  The number of page impressions and visitor sessions that the site received is monitored weekly in-house and usage statistics are published on the site (www.pm.gov.uk). The 10 Downing Street website received 3,268,240 visitor sessions and 46,379,169 page impressions last year.

  Two other sites—"annualreport.gov.uk" and "inyourarea.gov.uk"—were launched in July 2000 at an initial cost of £55,000, hosted by Peasy Ltd. The running costs in each subsequent financial year were as follows:

  851W
  £11,750 (2000–01) and £28,500 (2001–02). Both sites are currently being incorporated into the main Downing Street website

  Special Envoys
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those persons who, since 1 May 1997, have acted as a non-official special envoy on his behalf in countries outside the UK. [77684]

  The Prime Minister
  As has been the practice for previous Administrations, if it is helpful to the UK Government individuals may be asked to carry messages or undertake particular tasks on behalf of the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary. We do not maintain a record of such occasions.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the visits undertaken since 11 March by Lord Levy in his capacity as special envoy, giving in each case the dates of the visit, the persons met, and the purpose of the visit. [77800]

  The Prime Minister
  In his capacity as the Prime Minister's envoy, Lord Levy has travelled overseas to exchange views on the Middle East peace process with a range of contacts since 11 March.

  Lord Levy visited Israel between 22 and 24 March and 15 and 17 July. He met Israeli contacts including Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Defence Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, President Moshe Katsav, Chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee Haim Ramon, and Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg. Lord Levy also met US Envoy General Anthony Zinni and US State Department Senior Advisor for Israeli-Arab Negotiations Aaron Miller while he was in Israel in March.

  Meetings also took place on both of these visits with Palestinian Authority leadership including President Yasser Arafat, Sa'eb Erekat, Mohammed Rashid, Mohammed Dahlan and Jibril Rajoub.

  Between 7 and 9 July Lord Levy visited Morocco and met King Mohammed VI. He also met King Mohammed's advisor Andre Azoulay, Foreign Minister Mohammed Benaissa, and Deputy Foreign Minister Taib Fassi-Fehri.

  On 17 and 18 July Lord Levy visited Egypt. He met President Mubarek, Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa and Presidential Advisor Dr. Osama al-Baz.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Solicitor General on how many occasions the CPS has(a) prosecuted and (b) declined to prosecute an offender for breach of an antisocial behaviour order in 2002. [76681]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: A breach of an antisocial behaviour order is a criminal offence. The CPS is responsible for the review and conduct of such cases. In considering the decision to
  852W
  prosecute, Crown Prosecutors apply the evidential and public interest tests as set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

  The CPS holds no central records in respect of particular offences. The information is held on individual case files, and could only be obtained by examining each relevant file in every CPS office: the costs of this exercise would be prohibitive.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Air Industry Levy
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much levy was received by the Government in financial years(a) 1998–99; (b) 1999–00 and (c) 2000–01 in respect of (i) the Airbus A320 Launch Aid, (ii) the Airbus A330/340 Launch Aid, (iii) RB211–535 aeroengine, (iv) V2500 aeroengine, (v) EH101 helicopter and (vi) Lear 45 executive jet; and if she will make a statement. [77901]

  Alan Johnson
  Unfortunately the Government cannot disclose the levies received by programme, as the information is commercially confidential and market sensitive under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Public Information. However, I can provide the total levies received for those programmes for the financial years requested. These are as follows:

  Financial Year

  Total levies received for A320, A330, RB211–535, V2500, EH101

  1998–99

  £152.4 million

  1999–00

  £187.2 million

  2000–01

  £130.9 million

  Airbus 340
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the Government has invested, broken down by financial year, in British Aerospace plc for development of the new airbus A340–500/600 wing; and if she will make a statement. [77904]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government did not invest in the Airbus A340–500/600 wing programme.

  Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects solicitors dealing with mining and compensation claims to have received the chronic bronchitis and emphysema pensions model on computer disc. [77974]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department issued a spreadsheet based pensions calculator to claimants' representatives on computer disc in June 2002, as an interim measure to assist solicitors. The spreadsheet is also available on the website.

  An enhanced pensions model is being developed and is currently undergoing comprehensive testing. Such testing is necessary to ensure that the model is calculating damages correctly before it is issued to claimants' representatives.
  853W
  The Department is liaising with the Coordinating Solicitors Group on both the testing and the plans for issuing it once testing is complete. It is currently planned to release the model in stages-and we expect that the first phase will be released by the end of the year, subject to resolution of certain outstanding issues.

  The pensions model is a complex piece of software and a number of parties are involved in the test and issue process. It is not possible to exactly predict when the complete model will be available, as further problems may be identified during the remaining period of testing that could require fixing before final release.

  Cleaner Vehicles Task Force
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much financial assistance has been given to the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force in each of the last five years: what future support is planned in the next two years; when the Task Force is next due to report; what assessment has taken place of the effectiveness of the Task Force; and if she will make a statement. [78265]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department and the Department of Trade and Industry provided secretariat support to the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force (CVTF) and we jointly funded the publication of the Task Force's various reports. The final report of the CVTF "The Way Forward", was published in June 2000 containing a range of recommendations for Government, industry and others on encouraging the production and introduction of cleaner vehicles and fuels. The Government published a formal response to these recommendations in December 2000 (Cm4932) as well as providing a further update on progress in March 2002. Copies of these documents are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Hydrogen Technologies
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department has sponsored research into the possible contribution of nuclear energy to the creation of hydrogen to power fuel cells. [77235]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department is not currently sponsoring specific research into the possible contribution of nuclear energy to the creation of hydrogen to power fuel cells. We are, however, actively investing in sustainable hydrogen technologies through industrial research and development on fuel cells via the DTI Advanced Fuel Cells Programme. This is worth approximately £2 million per year. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) is investing in fundamental research into sustainable hydrogen technologies at approximately £3 million over four years (through the SUPERGEN initiative) and also in fuel cell technology through generic mechanisms (approximately £500,000 per year).

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evaluation she has made of options available to introduce hydrogen-based fuel for transport. [77236]

  Mr. Wilson
  Hydrogen can be generated via a number of routes and may be used in modified internal combustion engines or fuel cells to power vehicles. The 854W
  forthcoming Energy White Paper will discuss the prospective use of hydrogen and fuel cell technology in transport, industrial and other stationary applications.

  Security Operation (Barrow)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many personnel, at what cost, and how many Royal Navy vessels were involved in the security operation at Barrow-in-Furness for the docking of the Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal vessels in September. [77769]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 28 October 2002]: Security for the transportation of nuclear material is regulated by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS), the security regulator. It is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken in connection with nuclear material. The costs of compliance with regulatory nuclear security requirements are borne by the company. Details of those costs are a matter for BNFL.

  No Royal Navy vessels were involved with the security operation at Barrow-in-Furness.

  Trent Aero Engines
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the Government has invested broken down by financial year, in Rolls-Royce plc for development of the next generation Trent aero engines; and if she will make a statement. [77905]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government will invest £250 million between the years 2000–2003, for the development of the Rolls-Royce Trent 600/900 aeroengines. Launch Investment has helped to maintain the UK's competence in aerospace research and development by supporting Rolls-Royce as a manufacturing centre of excellence in the UK. Rolls-Royce currently employs within the UK 26,500 employees in the civil aerospace sector.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce legislation to allow the development of offshore wind farms outside the 12-mile territorial limit; and if she will make a statement. [78142]

  Mr. Wilson
  It is important that a legislative framework is in place so that developers are able to build wind farms beyond the 12-mile territorial sea limit. The Government intends to legislate as soon as a place for a Bill is available in the legislative programme.

TRANSPORT

  Air Transport (Consultation Document)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many copies of the Department's consultation paper on Future Development of Air Transport in the UK: South East have been issued with the figure of £15,000 instead of £1,500 in paragraph
  855W
  19.19; and what measures have been taken to inform those in possession of the erroneous publication of this mistake. [76810]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In paragraph 19.9 of "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East)" main, and the second paragraph of section 12.2 of the "South East summary consultation" document the correct wording should be "…subject to a maximum payment of £15,000."

  The error has been corrected in reprints of both documents and an erratum has been posted for the web version. Letters correcting the error are being sent to all residents who received a summary document in the initial mailing. The hon. Member will also want to be aware that as part of the compulsory purchase policy review, my right hon Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is currently consulting on options that might lead to the revision of the existing Home-loss payments provisions.

  A27
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his plans in respect of the Beddingham level crossing on the A27; and whether his plans will include options for consultation with the public. [77689]

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

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Norman Baker, dated 30 October 2002:
  "I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question in respect of the Beddingham Level Crossing on the A27 and plans for public consultation.
  Because of the urgent need to improve safety for both road and rail users at the level crossing, the Highways Agency is consulting on proposals to provide a bridge over the crossing. This was announced in the recent Press Notice (HA483/02) giving details of the Government's rolling programme for dealing with congestion and safety at junctions on the trunk road. The proposals being developed take into account the recommendations from the South Coast Multi Modal Study (SOCOMMS)
  The safety issues with the level crossing are long standing and are likely to increase in future due to possible increases in train services along the south coast line. Traffic management measures have been installed with some beneficial effect but the Agency, Railtrack and the Health and Safety Executive (HOUSE) do not see these as the solution. The HSE (Railway Inspectorate) consider that whilst the number of incidents has reduced the crossing is a high risk site and the highest in the south east. Without grade separation soon the Executive will instruct Railtrack to install full barriers at the crossing instead of the existing half barriers. Should this happen the lost time to road traffic will rise to approximately 20–24 minutes in any hour. This would have a dramatic effect on road capacity and result in a significant increase in the delays that already occur and the amount of queuing currently experienced during peak periods along the A27 in both directions. This in turn would lead to greater pressure on parallel routes as traffic sought to avoid the delays.
  We are arranging a public exhibition for the first week in December, with a Preview exhibition for Councillors, and other elected representatives on the 5th December. A newsletter will be issued to local residents shortly, explaining our proposals and inviting them to an exhibition. We will write to you again nearer December with a formal invitation to the Preview and exhibition
  856W
  If you would like any further details Phil Barnett (Project Manager on 01306–878481) or Paul Arnold (Team Leader on 01306 878475) in our Dorking office would be pleased to help you."

  A59 (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will examine the safety of the junction of the A59 in Lancashire at the Clitheroe and Sabden turnoffs and fund changes to it. [77654]

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

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr Nigel Evans, dated 30 October 2002:
  "I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent parliamentary question about safety on the A59 trunk road at the Pendle Road/Sabden Road staggered junction in Lancashire
  The Highways Agency has been monitoring accidents at the junction following the improvements that were undertaken in 1999. The analysis of this accident data indicates a common factor in all of the accidents, namely, collisions between vehicles emerging from the side roads and traffic travelling through the junction on the A59. A number of options have been identified to address this type of accident, and a detailed traffic count and analysis of turning movements is currently under way.
  We are in discussion with the Lancashire Police and plan to meet with them again early next month to agree a strategy for implementing any changes. Our provisional view is that the most appropriate solution would be to make modifications to the existing junction. Our preferred options involve introducing right turn bans, to limit the risk of conflicts occurring, and measures to narrow the A59 carriageway through the junction to restrict opportunities for overtaking and to reduce speed.
  As you may be aware, the A59 is one of a number of routes identified for transfer to local highway authorities in the 1998 White Paper, "A New Deal for Trunk Roads". Under this process, known as detrunking, we are working to a programme for transferring responsibility for the A59 to Lancashire County Council in the spring of next year. This process allows for a fair and equitable transfer of funds to local highway authorities that the Agency would have spent on these roads, including finance for possible schemes such as this.
  Depending on the extent of the changes that are adopted to this junction, it may be possible for the Agency to undertake the work within funding allocated for this financial year. Should this not be the case, then it will be for Lancashire County Council as the new highway authority to decide on the improvements they wish to take forward from the funds that they are allocated.
  I hope this is helpful. If you would like any further information about this matter, please contact the Agency's Route Manager for the A59, Trevor Hunt, Sunley Tower. Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester M1 4BE (Tel 0161 930 5691)."

  Airport Security
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what plans his Department has to review airport security measures. [78601]

  Mr. Darling
  Aviation security measures remain at an enhanced level following the attacks on 11 September last year. The Government keep these measures under constant review, and from time to time additional protective steps will be taken as the situation demands.

  In May this year, as part of the process of continuing review, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I appointed Sir John Wheeler to conduct an independent examination of airport security. The terms of reference

  857W
  for this work, set out in full in the report Sir John submitted to us on 13 September, included a focus on the threat from serious and organised crime at UK airports and the role of the Police Service.

  The Government are grateful to Sir John for the care with which he analysed the issues, and we have considered carefully his findings and recommendations. These, together with his introduction to the report, are today being placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The main body of the document contains information about operational security matters, and for that reason it would not be appropriate to publish the report in its entirety.

  The Report endorses the National Aviation Security Programme and the commitment of those working to deliver its objectives. It also makes some valuable recommendations around the need to strengthen strategic direction, to undertake a detailed multi-agency assessment of the potential threats from serious and organised crime, and to overhaul the arrangements by which airports may be 'designated' for policing by uniformed officers. The Government are happy to accept in principle all of Sir John's recommendations. My Department and the Home Office are working closely together on implementation, which will bring in the police and other control agencies and the airport industry.

  Cliffe Airport
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 23 October (ref 74930), what provisional estimates his officials have made of the proportion of take-offs from the possible Cliffe Airport that would take-off towards the east, with reference to wind direction patterns. [77831]

  Mr. Jamieson
  For appraisal purposes, The South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (S ERAS) assumed, for all options, that around 30% of departures would be to the east.

  Double Decker Buses
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the EU Bus Directive; and if he will make a statement on the future use of double decker buses in the UK.[Transferred] [77880]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Directive was adopted on 20th November 2001. Officials at my Department are in the process of completing an initial consultation requesting views on the proposed method of implementing it into UK legislation. We are proposing to integrate the requirements of the directive into a consolidation of existing bus and coach regulations to make them simpler and easier to understand. It is hoped to implement this consolidation in the latter half of 2003.

  The Directive will have no effect on the use of existing double-decker buses operating in the UK. Our regulations will permit the current design of low floor, accessible double deck buses to continue to be produced.
  858W

  Manchester Metrolink
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what extra funding his Department will commit to phase 3 of the Manchester Metrolink extensions following the recent tenders. [78417]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This matter is still under consideration.

  Overseas Drivers
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures exist to check the driving documents of overseas drivers entering the UK to see if they are involved in outstanding road traffic offences from previous visits; and if he will make a statement. [78525]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Enforcement of road traffic law is an operational matter for the police. I understand from the Association of Chief Police Officers that the police do not make any specific provision for checking the driving documents of overseas drivers entering the UK. Police require drivers to produce their driving documents routinely after most police stops and following road accidents and traffic offences. The nationality of a driver does not make any difference to this process: all drivers are subject to the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts.

  Details of endorsable road traffic offences committed in Great Britain by all drivers are maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and may be accessed by the police (via the Police National Computer) in cases where such drivers are stopped at the roadside.

  Additionally, my officials are currently pursuing the ratification of the European Union Driving Disqualification Convention which was adopted and signed under the United Kingdom presidency by all member states. This convention will ensure that a driving disqualification imposed on a European Union citizen in any member state is recognised across all other member states.

  Pensioner Bus Passes
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to extend the concessionary fare arrangements to offer free bus passes to all pensioners. [77844]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 29 October 2002]: The Transport Act 2000 guaranteed that from 1 June 2001 all pensioners have been entitled to a free bus pass allowing half-fare travel on local buses, as a minimum. From 1 April 2003 the concession will also be extended to men aged between 60 and 65. We have no plans to extend these provisions, but the legislation does not prevent local authorities from providing concessionary fare schemes which are more extensive than the statutory minimum.

  Railways
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his Answer of 15 October,
  859W
  Official Report, column 711W, on railways, how many miles of new rail track, excluding repairs to existing track, have been constructed since May 1997. [77786]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Railways (Bonds Financing)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what recent discussions have taken place between his Department, the Strategic Rail Authority and the Treasury into the role of bonds as a financing mechanism within the railways; and if he will place copies of related correspondence in the Library; [76474]

  (2) what research has been conducted by and for (a) his Department and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority into the role of bonds as a financing mechanism within the railways; and if he will place copies in the Library. [76195]

  (3) what representations have been received by (a) his Department and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority on the role of bonds as a financing mechanism within the railways; and if he will place copies in the Library. [76206]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has not commissioned any research on the issue of bond financing of railways. It has received a number of representations on rail finances, some of which touch on matters relating to bond financing. The Department would generally expect to seek advice as necessary on such issues from the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA).

  The SRA is itself now considering a number of options for the future financing of the rail industry. However, no firm proposals involving such options have been put to the Department or the Treasury.

  For completeness, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear to the House on 27 June 2002, Official Report, column 976, Network Rail plans to replace its short term bridge finance through longer-term loans securitised against its future income.

  Rural Bus Challenge
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for money allocated to but not spent through the Rural Bus Challenge in 2001–02. [77954]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All the £20.5 million awarded to projects successful in the Rural Bus Challenge competition held in 2001–02 remains allocated to those projects. Challenge projects are typically designed to last for 2 or 3 years and expenditure is spread over the relevant financial years.

  Seat Belts (Buses)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which is the competent authority to determine the requirements for(a) the fitting of and (b)the use of seat belts in buses and coaches in the UK. [77879]
  860W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Regulations on the fitting and use of seat belts in coaches and buses are prepared by the Department for Transport and approved by Parliament in accordance with Directives agreed within the European Union.

  Severn Tunnel
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Severn Tunnel will remain open in the event of a fire brigade strike. [77792]

  Mr. Jamieson
  During any industrial action by the Fire Brigade Unions, it is expected that passenger and freight services will operate nearly normally through the Severn Tunnel. The exception will be the transport of some hazardous materials which will be re-routed around the Tunnel.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the(a) condition of and (b) need for infrastructure schemes on the West Coast Main Line north of Preston. [77609]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA's West Coast Strategy document describes, principally in Appendix A, the main infrastructure measures which are expected to be involved, both for the route as a whole and for specific sections.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment his Department has made of the feasibility of asking train and freight operating companies to purchase cheaper rolling stock than that envisaged in the Strategic Rail Authority's consultation document West Coast Strategy; [77612]

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of the additional costs that train and freight operating companies will need to bear to meet rolling stock requirements envisaged in the Strategic Rail Authority's consultation document on the West Coast Strategy; and from what sources these costs would be met; [77608]

  (3) what estimate his Department has made of the likely final level of compensation that will be paid to (a) each passenger train operating company, (b) each freight train operating company and (c) the Royal Mail as a result of (i) the proposed decision to establish a fast line speed maximum of 125 miles per hour rather than 140 miles per hour and (ii) the proposed rolling stock requirements outlined in the Strategic Rail Authority's consultation document West Coast Strategy; and from what sources such compensation would be paid. [77611]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA's West Coast Strategy sets out a package of proposed measures, including infrastructure works and rolling stock changes, which together would deliver the benefits from the upgrade and provide good value for money. The detailed specifications for replacement rolling stock have yet to be fully worked up. The SRA are continuing to discuss these issues with the passenger and freight operating companies and with Network Rail. The cost implications will depend on the final service specification which is agreed, and the terms of the new or revised access agreements which will need to be
  861W
  entered into between the SRA and the train operators. These agreements will also be subject to the Rail Regulator's approval.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the cost of concentrating possessions in periods close to public holidays outlined in the Strategic Rail Authority's consultation document on the West Coast Strategy to the tourist industry in(a) the North West and (b) Blackpool. [77613]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The proposed engineering programme set out in the SRA's West Coast Strategy has been designed to minimise the impact on all passengers and in particular to reduce the need for weekend and Bank Holiday possessions. For much of the time that works are taking place, trains will continue to operate between London and the north west without interruption. The alternative to total closure of certain sections of the route for limited periods would be considerably more weekend possessions, with an adverse effect on the leisure and tourist industry. However, if the industry has specific concerns about these proposals they should respond accordingly to the SRA's consultation.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the signalling arrangements envisaged in the Strategic Rail Authority's Consultation document West Coast Strategy will have to be replaced with ERTMS technology to meet EU requirements.[77614]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The requirements set by the EU for the implementation of ERTMS do not include a specific deadline.

TREASURY

  Census 2001
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the 2001 census; and if he will make a statement. [77401]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 30 October 2002:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking what assessment has been made of the accuracy of the 2001 Census. (77401)
  Census 2001 results are the first to represent the entire population. This was achieved through a new strategy known as the 'One Number Census'. One of the key elements was an independent follow-up survey. The Census Coverage Survey (CCS), as it is known, involved an intensive face-to-face survey of a sample of over 16,000 postcodes containing 320,000 households covering every local authority in England and Wales. By combining the results of the Census and the CCS, it was possible in 2001 to estimate the total resident population-the 'one number' - to a high level of precision. plus or minus 0.2 per cent., and to provide information on the characteristics of those persons missed by the Census.
  862W
  Thus in 2001, the Census results represent 100 per cent. of the population. Census response, that is the proportion of people returning a form in England and Wales, was 94 per cent. The 6% of people estimated to have been missed by the Census have been added to the counts using a statistical process that was subject to extensive consultation, and based on the results of the CCS.
  I am confident that the approach we have taken to the 2001 Census provides the most accurate estimates of the population both nationally and for each of the 376 local authorities in England and Wales. No census ever gets responses from 100 per cent. of the population. The 2001 Census was designed from the outset to take full account of this to provide what users of statistics really want—figures representing everyone.
  In addition, the 2001 Census has undergone rigorous testing and quality checking throughout both the fieldwork and processing. Census tests were carried out in 1997 and 1999 and a survey designed to measure the accuracy of response to each question has been completed. Furthermore, a comprehensive set of verification and validation checks were built in to the processing of the data, and data quality played a key role in all aspects of processing the forms. All information on accuracy will be contained in a Census Quality report to be published in 2003.
  Information published so far about the accuracy of the Census is available on the National Statistics website at www. statistics. gov. uk.

  Church Restoration and Repairs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts regarding(a) fiscal and (b) other support for church restoration and repairs. [77833]

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations are being made by the UK Government to the European Parliament on the issue of VAT on church repairs; [78317]

  (2) what representations he has received in connection with the possible extension of the listed places of worship grant scheme beyond March 2003. [78316]

  John Healey
  The Government's long-term objective is to secure a reduced rate of VAT for the repair and maintenance of listed buildings which are used as places of worship. At present the formal European agreements in place on VAT prevent us from doing so. As the Chancellor said in Budget 2001, the European Commission has indicated that it will review its reduced rates for VAT in 2003. The Government have introduced a grant scheme to run in the interim period, until the review has been completed.

  Firefighters' Strike
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what preparations he has made to ensure the safety and continuity of service to the public in the event of a firefighters' strike. [77669]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions on 28 October 2002,Official Report, column 527W.

  Money Laundering
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the Government's policy is on action relating to countries named on the OECD's latest money laundering blacklist; and if he will make a statement; [78455]
  863W
  (2) what action he has recently taken to encourage(a)Grenada, (b) Nauru, (c) St.Vincent and the Grenadines and (d)the Cook Islands to comply with the OECD anti-money-laundering system; and if he will make a statement. [78454]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are working actively with other members of the Financial Action Task Force to help jurisdictions on the FATF list of non-cooperative countries and territories to strengthen their anti-money laundering systems. An FATF delegation will visit Grenada in December to review progress, and an IMF mission in 2003 will provide technical assistance to the Cook Islands.

  Most countries are taking measures to improve their systems, and the Government welcome the decision of the FATF last month to remove Russia, Dominica, Niue and the Marshall Islands from the NCCT list in view of the progress they had made. However, in December 2001, the FATF decided to implement counter-measures against Nauru in view of its lack of progress. These counter-measures involve enhanced surveillance and reporting of financial transactions with Nauru.

  Taxation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the taxation and national insurance to be raised as a result of the measures covered by IR35 in(a)2002–03 and (b)2003–04; and when that estimate was made; [78106]

  (2) what taxation and national insurance revenues have been raised as a result of the measures covered by IR35 in (a) 2000–01 and (b)2001–02; [78105]

  (3) how many individuals pay tax and national insurance following PAYE/NIC rules as a result of the measures covered by IR35 [78107]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the yield from the introduction of service company legislation to counter avoidance in the provision of personal services were published in Appendix A2 of the March 2000 Financial Statement and Budget Report.It was estimated that 90,000 companies were potentially affected at the time of the introduction of the new rules to tackle avoidance, and that around half would continue to operate subject to additional income tax and National Insurance contributions on deemed payments when required. The Inland Revenue continues to monitor the situation and to ensure that everyone pays the right tax and NICs.

WALES

  Manufacturing
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding manufacturing in Wales. [760

  Peter Hain
  Working with the First Minister, the Government are developing policies for a strong manufacturing sector in Wales, despite the slowdown in the world economy and the weakness of the euro.
  864W

  Barnett Formula
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last discussed the impact of the Barnett formula with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [76067]

  Peter Hain
  I have not yet had a chance to discuss the impact of the Barnett formula with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it has served Wales well.

  Illegal Drugs
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he will take to help combat misuse of illegal drugs in Wrexham. [76068]

  Mr. Touhig
  I am concerned by the use of illegal drugs throughout Wales and have regular meetings with the police, National Assembly for Wales and the Home Office to discuss the situation and solutions to this blight on our communities.

  Economic Development
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held with Ministers in the National Assembly for Wales about economic development issues in south-west Wales. [76069]

  Peter Hain
  My predecessor had regular discussions with Assembly Ministers about economic development across the whole of Wales, and I intend to continue with these meetings.

  Cockle Beds
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary on cockling on the Dee. [76070]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend, the former Secretary of State for Wales, raised this issue with the First Minister last year. He also visited the hon. Member's constituency to discuss this and other issues.

  I have also raised this issue with the Assembly Rural Development Minister and Transport, Planning and Environment Minister.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the Health Minister in Wales to discuss her hospital building programme. [76071]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State will continue to meet regularly with the National Assembly of Wales Health and Social Services Minister to discuss a range of issues, including the NHS in Wales.

  Gravel Extraction
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary to discuss alternatives to sand and gravel extraction from the Bristol channel. [76072]

  Peter Hain
  Like my predecessor, I intend to have regular discussions with the First Minister about issues affecting Wales.
  865W
  I understand that it is primarily sand, which is extracted from the Bristol channel. This is currently the primary source of fine aggregates for the south-east Wales market.

  I know that the Assembly is looking at a range of options for satisfying this demand. Their objective is to find a long-term solution which is economically viable, as well as being environmentally acceptable.

  SMEs
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about prospects for small and medium-sized enterprises in Wales. [76073]

  Peter Hain
  My predecessor met regularly with Cabinet colleagues, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to discuss a wide range of issues, including small businesses and I will of course continue to do so.

  Small and medium-sized enterprises account for over 99 per cent. of all businesses in Wales and are therefore crucial to the economic success of Wales. A number of measures in the Chancellor's budget will make a significant contribution to supporting small businesses in Wales. 6,000 Welsh SMEs will benefit from the corporation tax starting rate cut from 10 per cent. to zero and a further 13,000 will be helped by the 1 per cent. reduction in the small companies' rate. In addition, thousands of Welsh SMEs will benefit from measures to simplify their VAT.

  Employment
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly concerning unemployment in Wales. [76075]

  Peter Hain
  I fully intend to continue to hold regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of issues including unemployment in Wales.

  The Government recognise that certain sectors, particularly manufacturing, have experienced tough times, due largely to the world economic slowdown.

  However, based on the non census adjusted figures for both Wales and the UK, there is evidence that we are closing the traditional gap between Welsh unemployment and UK unemployment. Welsh unemployment, at 5.3 per cent., is now barely higher than the comparable UK rate of 5.2 per cent.

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly on reducing long-term unemployment in Wales. [76079]

  Peter Hain
  The Government's long-term ambition is that by the end of the decade there will be a higher proportion of people in work than ever before.

  Based on non-census adjusted figures for both Wales and the UK, there is evidence that we are closing the traditional gap between Welsh unemployment and UK unemployment. Welsh unemployment, at 5.3 per cent., is now barely higher than the comparable UK rate of 5.2 per cent.
  866W
  Employment measures such as the New Deal have been a huge success in Wales and are having an impact on long-term unemployment. In total, some 6,300 long term unemployed people in Wales have secured sustained jobs through New Deal between the start of the New Deal 25 + programme in July 1998 and June 2002, when the most recent figures were published.

  Flooding
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what actions have been taken to reduce flooding of the rivers Teme and Severn in areas which cross the Welsh-English border. [76074]

  Peter Hain
  Flood prevention measures to protect land and property in Wales are a matter for the National Assembly.

  Cardiff Art Gallery
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding the creation in Cardiff of a gallery for contemporary Welsh artists. [76076]

  Peter Hain
  Like my predecessor, I plan to have regular discussions with the First Minister about a range of matters affecting Wales.

  On 19 June, the National Museums and Galleries of Wales published a consultation paper, 'Views of the Future', setting out options for displaying the nation's art collection, including the work of contemporary Welsh artists.

  In due course, the museum will report on the outcome of this consultation to the Assembly's Culture Minister.

  Dairy Farming
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on dairy farming in Wales. [76077]

  Peter Hain
  This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales regarding the length of waiting lists in Wales. [76078]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will continue to meet the National Assembly First Minister and Health Minister regularly to discuss a range of issues including the length of waiting lists.

  I know that the Assembly and Welsh Trusts are working on a range of initiatives to tackle waiting lists, including recruitment and retention plans and the appointment of out-patient managers to manage booking arrangements for patients attending clinics.

  Drugs and Crime
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the co-ordination
  867W
  taking place between his Department, other Whitehall departments and the Wales Assembly to combat drug abuse and drug-related crime. [76080]

  Mr. Touhig
  The UK Government, both the Wales Office and other Whitehall Departments, are committed to working with the National Assembly for Wales to tackle drug abuse and drug-related crime in Wales; I have regular meetings with my Ministerial colleagues, both in Whitehall and in the Assembly, to discuss these issues.

  The National Assembly has developed its own strategy for tackling substance misuse: "Tackling Substance Misuse: A Partnership Approach". This strategy focuses on the problems in Wales and has Welsh solutions. This is one of the strengths of devolution: it enables the unique situations in Wales to be addressed by solutions that are tailor made for our communities.

  In addition, the UK Government, working in conjunction with the National Assembly, is working to tackle the underlying causes of social deprivation. People in more affluent areas have better opportunities and life choices than people in deprived areas, who may turn to drugs as a means of escaping from their lifestyles.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how often has(a) he and (b) his Under-Secretary attended meetings of the (i) Agriculture, (ii) Justice and Home Affairs, (iii) Environment and (iv) Transport Councils of Ministers in (a) 2000 and (b) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [76081]

  Peter Hain
  Neither my predecessor nor the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has attended any meetings of the Council of Ministers.

  Clearly there is a limit to the number of people who can participate in any one delegation. Where council meetings cover issues of particular interest to the devolved administrations, the priority must be to accommodate Ministers from the devolved Administrations wherever possible.

  Assembly Ministers have attended numerous council meetings as part of the UK delegation, including seven meetings of the Agriculture Council and one Environment Council.

  The Government are committed to involving the devolved Administrations in formulating the UK's policy position in Europe, wherever appropriate.

  Steelworkers' Pensions
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the National Assembly Government First Secretary and other Government colleagues concerning the pension situation of Welsh steel workers. [76082]

  Peter Hain
  My predecessor had regular meetings with Cabinet colleagues and the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales and discussed a range of issues including steelworkers pensions. I will of course continue to take a close interest and this will include discussions with stakeholders.
  868W
  The issue of ASW workers' pensions was also raised at Welsh Affairs Committee on 15 October 2002, at which my predecessor participated. The Government is trying to address the issue of security for pension scheme members and will consider this in the forthcoming Green Paper.

  Welsh Language Broadcasting
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the promotion of digital broadcasting in the Welsh language throughout Wales. [76083]

  Peter Hain
  Like my predecessor I plan to have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and Assembly Ministers about a wide range of matters affecting Wales.

  The Government recognises the key role which S4C plays in nurturing and developing the Welsh language throughout Wales, and the importance of their moving forward with the development of their digital service.

  Education
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Welsh Assembly about cross-border needs for further education provision. [76084]

  Mr. Touhig
  I regularly meet Welsh Assembly colleagues to discuss a range of issues, including further education provision.

  Community Safety
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary on community safety, and if he will make a statement. [76085]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with Assembly Ministers about matters affecting Wales.

  The Assembly and the Crime Reduction Unit for Wales have key roles in promoting community safety.

  We have seen a period of intense activity which has resulted in the local partnership approach making a real impact, backed by funding of £22 million from the Government and the National Assembly.

  Proportional Representation
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the consequences of the use of proportional representation in Assembly elections. [76086]

  Peter Hain
  The electoral system is a matter reserved to Parliament under the devolution settlement and the Government have no plans to bring forward legislation to change it.

  Redundant Steelworkers
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to work with the National Assembly to help the steelmakers made redundant at Allied Steel and Wire in Cardiff. [76066]
  869W
  Peter Hain
  My predecessor the right hon. Member for Torfaen maintained regular contact with the National Assembly for Wales and the First Minister on the plight of Allied Steel and Wire and of its workers.

  He recently met South Wales representatives of the National Association of British Steel Pensioners together with my right hon. Friend, the member for Aberavon, to listen to their concerns about law reform.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many referrals for suspected benefit fraud were generated by his most recent television advertising campaign; and what proportion of these resulted in(a) a full investigation and (b) successful prosecution or other penalty. [74848]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Referrals come to the Department from many sources and it is not possible to identify separately those generated by the television advertising campaign. The primary objectives of the Targeting Fraud campaign are to positively reinforce honest behaviour, to create a climate of intolerance to benefit fraud and to undermine its social acceptability, rather than specifically to invite fraud referrals. Evaluation shows that public attitudes are moving in a positive direction as a result of the campaign.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much is paid to a postmaster who reports a case of suspected benefit fraud; and what plans he has to increase this amount. [74845]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The amount of the award which may currently be paid to a postmaster who reports a case of suspected instrument of payment fraud is £10.00. In cases where Post Office staff show exceptional diligence, a reward of £25.00 may be considered. There are no current plans to increase these amounts.

  Child Benefit Claims
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has for allowing claims to child benefit to be made electronically. [78859]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The draft Order to enable claims for child benefit to be made was approved by both Houses in July. From October 28 2002 our customers are able to make a claim or report a change of circumstances electronically via the internet.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Starter Homes Initiative
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the successful bidders for the second round of the Starter Home Initiative and indicate how much each one will receive. [75967]

  Mr. McNulty
  The list of successful bidders for Starter Home Initiative Round 2 funding and the allocations made to each one are set out in the table below. Some of the bidders are assisting key workers across a number of local authority areas.
  870W

  Bidder

  Funding allocation £s

  Boleyn and Forest Housing Society

  1,705,650

  Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing Association

  1,291,500

  Metropolitan Home Ownership

  735,000

  Moat Home Ownership

  3,486,000

  Aldwyck Housing Association

  840,000

  Swaythling Housing Society

  2,142,000

  Apex Housing Group

  188,100

  Midsummer Housing Association

  103,000

  Northcote Housing Association

  1,055,750

  Oakfern Housing

  105,000

  Sovereign Housing

  493,500

  Southern Housing Home Ownership

  1,921,500

  Airways Home Ownership

  882.000

  Soha Housing

  287,000

  Thames Valley Housing Association

  1,218,000

  Signpost Housing Association

  945,000

  Western Challenge Housing Association

  420,000

  Sarsen Housing Association

  472,500

  Knightstone Housing Society

  220,500

  Devon and Cornwall Housing Association

  105,000

  Touchstone Housing Association

  262,500

  Angevin Specialist Homes

  100,000

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what definition of key workers her department is using in the Starter Homes Initiative. [76589]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Starter Home Initiative is assisting primarily teachers in schools, police, nurses and other health workers to buy their first home. Bids for Starter Home Initiative funding were also invited to assist other key workers, and as a result some social workers, care workers, occupational therapists, fire fighters and transport workers are also being assisted.

  Rural Planning
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with rural organisations on the subject of developing the capacity of parish and town councils to handle more of the planning process. [76992]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Deputy Prime Minister has had a number of discussions with rural organisations, including the Countryside Agency, where he has discussed the role of parish councils in the planning process.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's officials have also had discussions with the Countryside Agency and the National Association of Local Councils on the role of parish and town councils more generally.

  Affordable Housing, Salisbury
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many units of affordable housing have been built in Salisbury constituency in each year since 1997. [77231]

  Mr. McNulty
  Figures for the actual provision of affordable housing in Salisbury constituency including all new affordable housing as at 1st April for each year for the period 1997–2002, are as follows:

  1997–86 units

  1998–105 units

  871W

  1999–116 units

  2000–85 units

  2001–138 units

  2002–121 units

  A total of 651 affordable housing units were provided over the period 1997–2002 at an average of 108 per year.

  Domestic Hedges
  Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce legislation to limit the height of domestic hedges; and if he will make a statement.[77048]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon Member to the answer given to the hon Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Simon Thomas) on 22 October 2002,Official Report, column 290W.

  Urban Summit
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on (a) events organised for, (b) planned release of documents at and (c) number of registrants for the Urban Simmit in Birmingham at the end of October. [77234]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Urban Summit will be held on 31 October and 1 November at the International Convention Centre in Birmingham. The Summit will include plenary sessions with keynote speakers and panel sessions, as well as 28 Themed Sessions, nine site visits and over 20 fringe events. All announcements regarding documents to be published at the Summit will take place shortly. The Urban Summit is for 1500 delegates and all places have been allocated.

  Home Demolition
  David Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many public and private sector homes were demolished in England in 2001–02 in each local authority area. [77300]

  Mr. McNulty
  Private sector dwelling demolitions funded by local authorities and local authority dwelling demolitions totalled 15.2 thousand in 2000–01, the latest year for which a breakdown by local authority area is available. Demolitions of local authority dwellings amounted to 13.9 thousand, and the numbers in each local authority area are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) pursuant to the answer to the honourable Member for Tunbridge Wells of 24 June,Official Report, column 672W, on mobile phone masts, what assessment his Department and the Working Group have made of the proposed Deloitte & Touche review of the 10 Commitments voluntary code of practice adopted by the five mobile telephone operators; [77004]

  (2) if he will take steps to ensure that the review of the code of practice adopted by the five mobile telephone operators includes the extent to which (a) members of the public, (b) school governors, (c) councillors and (d)
  872W
  other interested parties were consulted on siting and erection of mobile phone masts as per Commitment 1 of that code. [77003]

  Mr. McNulty
  The review by Deloitte & Touche, commissioned by the Federation of Electronics Industry (FEI), is a thorough assessment of the operators' ten commitments. The review has not yet been completed, but we expect to see the results by the end of 2002.

  Commitment 1 by the mobile phone operators is to develop, with other stakeholders clear standards and procedures to deliver significantly improved consultation with local communities. The operators' performance against this will be assessed as part of the review and Deloitte and Touche will be talking to local community groups and local authorities.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library copies of the site share statistics for mobile telecommunications masts. [77616]

  Mr. McNulty
  The site share statistics for mobile telecommunications masts are gathered on behalf of the telecommunications industry by the Federation of Electronics Industry (FEI).

  They are collated quarterly and show: the numbers of mast that are sharable; the numbers that are shared; and the percentage of shared masts to shareable masts. We will place the latest version of the statistics in the Library at the earliest opportunity.

  Firemen's Strike
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) in the eventuality of a firemen's strike how many (a) green goddesses and (b) armed forces personnel will be stationed in (i) Essex and (ii) Mid Essex to provide fire cover and other services and where they will be stationed; [77138]

  (2) in the eventuality of a firemen's strike in Essex what specialist training will armed forces personnel receive to deal with fires and other emergencies; what duties will armed forces personnel be allowed to carry out; what duties that firemen currently carry out will not be performed by armed services personnel; and how many retained firemen are expected to carry on working and provide cover for fire fighting and other emergencies; [77139]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the contingency plans to provide cover for accidents and fires in Essex if there is a firemen's strike [77140]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Emergency cover in Essex, as with the rest of the country, will consist of a number of elements including Green Goddess crews, breathing apparatus teams, rescue teams equipped with specialist equipment and the police. The provision of MOD emergency fire cover has been planned in consultation with the Chief Fire Officer to maximise call-out response times and the availability of a range of firefighting capabilities.

  Personnel have been trained and equipped to provide basic emergency fire and rescue cover. The level of training is dependent on the skills already held by personnel and the role that they would perform in the event of a strike. Drivers and basic crew only require a short training package because of the simple nature of

  873W
  the equipment and because of the basic level of cover given. Fire Rescue Teams fulfil a more difficult role, which utilises technical equipment in dangerous situation. Some Fire Rescue Teams are already trained and experienced in the use of breathing apparatus and other specialist equipment but additional personnel have also been trained in these techniques. Other support training as well as driver training includes first aid training and specialist equipment maintenance training. Basic training lasts up to five weeks, depending on skill levels and role, plus any other necessary follow on training.

  The command and operational structure for emergency fire cover has been designed to enable maximum flexibility and use of available resources, whether from within a county or from assets deployed nearby in neighbouring counties. The fire crews will use a number of temporary stations across the country but the deployment of fire fighters will be based on the assessment of how best to respond to an emergency in the quickest time possible.

  Retained Firefighters provide a very valuable service to their communities. We anticipate that in the event of industrial action, many retained firefighters will continue to protect the communities in which they live and work.

  The MOD's emergency cover will not replicate the fire fighting capabilities of the Fire Service, but will minimise, as far as possible, the danger to human life. Service personnel will provide basic fire and rescue cover.

  Sustainable Development
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what assessment his Department has made of the role of a legally binding framework relating to the delivery and auditing of sustainable development by local authorities; [77584]

  (2) what steps are being taken by his Department to allow local authorities to (a) increase self-determination and control and (b) increase local accountability of the delivery of sustainable development objectives; [77583]

  Christopher Leslie
  The Local Government Act 2000 placed a duty on local authorities to prepare community strategies for promoting the economic, social and environmental well being of their communities and contributing to sustainable development in the UK. Our guidance does not stipulate a timetable for the preparation of community strategies but we have introduced a statutory Best Value Performance Indicator to report on the progress of each authority.

  Average length of stay in bed and breakfast for homeless households in any form of temporary accommodation, as at 31 March 2002

  less than 1 week

  1 week to less than 1 month

  1 month to less than 3 months

  3 months to less than 6 months

  6 months less than 1 year

  1 year or more

  Total

  Adur

  0

  6

  8

  2

  1

  0

  17

  Arun

  0

  18

  14

  6

  1

  0

  39

  Chichester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  874W
  The Local Government White Paper Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services introduced a national framework for assessing the performance of authorities which shifts the focus to the delivery of outcomes. The cornerstone of this framework is the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) which will provide local people with clear and concise information about their council's performance. The Government is also committed to giving local authorities greater freedom to deliver by removing unnecessary bureaucracy. In addition to the action taken for all authorities, CPA will be used as the basis for offering extra freedoms to the best performers. We expect that such authorities will use these freedoms to deliver sustainable improvements to the quality of life of their communities. We intend to announce the details shortly.

  National Assembly for Wales
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from the National Assembly for Wales concerning the Richard Commission on the Assembly's powers and electoral arrangements. [77648]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Welsh Assembly Government intends the Commission to operate independently. How it conducts its work is a matter for the right hon. Lord Richard QC and his colleagues.

  Rent Charges
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the ability of local authorities to waive amounts owed by a pensioner who has stayed in hospital beyond the current maximum time limit before benefit claw-back becomes liable. [77843]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The setting and collection of rents, including decisions on whether or not to waive rent charges for local authority tenants in particular circumstances is a matter for local discretion.

  Any such decision may be influenced by the application and interpretation of Housing Benefit rules which are the reponsibility of my right hon. Friend, the Member for Oxford East.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 15th October, col 296W, how many of the 128 households in West Sussex in bed and breakfast accommodation have been housed in this way for longer than(a) one month, (b) six months, (c) one year and (d) two years.[78193]

  Mrs. Roche
  Available information as reported by local authorities in West Sussex is presented in the table below.
  875W

  Average length of stay in bed and breakfast for homeless households in any form of temporary accommodation, as at 31 March 2002

  less than 1 week

  1 week to less than 1 month

  1 month to less than 3 months

  3 months to less than 6 months

  6 months less than 1 year

  1 year or more

  Total

  Crawley

  6

  14

  17

  9

  0

  0

  46

  Horsham

  n/r

  n/r

  n/r

  n/r

  n/r

  n/r

  n/r

  Mid Sussex

  2

  6

  11

  14

  0

  0

  33

  Worthing

  3

  5

  4

  6

  0

  0

  18

  West Sussex reported totals

  11

  49

  54

  37

  2

  0

  153

  Note:

  Includes any households which, although not in B&B on 31 March. had been accommodated in B&B at some time since their application to the local authority. n/r denotes information not reported. B&B includes annexe-style units where some or all facilities are shared with another household.

  Source:

  DTLR/ODPM P1(E) housing activity returns (quarterly)

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make an assessment of the frequency with which Government planning inspectors disallow section 106 agreements following the successful allowance of an appeal; and if he will make a statement. [77986]

  Mr. NcNulty
  Since 1999, The Planning Inspectorate has decided 17 appeals under Section 106B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Ten have been allowed.

  Coalfield Regeneration Trust
  Mr. David
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the allocations of the monies from the Coalfield Regeneration Trust were for(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [77976]

  Mr. McNulty
  Funding for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust for 2000–01 and 2001–02 was provided as follows:

  2000–01

  2001–02

  England

  £15.650m

  £24.397m

  Scotland

  £2.434m

  £1.847m

  Wales

  £1.776m

  £1.455m

  Community Regeneration Trust
  Mr. David
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the basis on which monies under the Community Regeneration Trust are allocated to England. Wales and Scotland.[77975]

  Mr. McNulty
  Funding for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust is a devolved issue. My office provides core funding for the Trust's activities in England, the Welsh Assembly provides core funding for the Trust's activities in Wales and the Scottish Executive provides core funding for the Trust's activities in Scotland.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Government of Sudan regarding the transparency of Sudan's oil revenues.[74888]
  876W
  Mr. Macshane
  We have not made representations recently because this issue is being handled at the peace talks at Machakos.

  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement in the peace process in Sudan. [76606]

  Mr. Macshane
  The UK government is actively engaged in the peace process in Sudan. The UK Special Representative for Sudan, Alan Goulty, is leading the UK observer delegation at the peace talks. He and his team work closely with the mediators. We also carry out intensive consultations with the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army in Khartoum and elsewhere. We co-ordinate our efforts with international partners.

  Mr. Ian Stillman
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation of Mr. Ian Stillman, who is in an Indian prison.[75964]

  Mike O'Brien
  Mr. Stillman is a long term resident of India who is physically handicapped. He was arrested and convicted on narcotics charges and has been in prison in Himachal Pradesh since 28 August 2000. We are very concerned about his welfare and are in close touch with him and his family. We have raised his case with the Government of India on many occasions. Most recently my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke with the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Vajpayee, on 12 October and I spoke with the Indian Foreign Secretary on 16 October.

  Our High Commission in New Delhi will be following up these conversations with the Government of India to clarify the next steps in Mr. Stillman's case, as well as pursuing with the Himachal Pradesh authorities practical questions relating to Mr. Stillman's welfare. I very much hope that he will be released from prison soon.

  Angola
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with the clearance of landmines in Angola.[76743]
  877W
  Mr. Macshane
  A total of eight demining NGOs, including two British (HALO Trust and Mines Advisory Group (MAG)) are active in Angola. The cessation of military hostilities earlier this year has allowed them access to areas previously inaccessible because of insecurity.

  According to data available from the Angolan Government, NGOs, and UNICEF/UNDP sources, humanitarian demining agencies in Angola have in 2002 collectively worked on a total of 35 minefields, of which 29 have been completely cleared. This work has involved clearing a total of 1.5 million square metres of mined/ suspect land and more than 500 km of road. A further 3.5 million square metres have been surveyed during the same period in the provinces of Cunene, Benguela, Bie, Huambo, Kuanza Norte, Luanda, Malanje and Moxico. Throughout the course of the year demining NGOs have uncovered and destroyed over 2,000 anti-personnel landmines, 176 anti-tank mines and 28,000 items of unexploded ordnance (UXO).

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with(a) the MDC and (b) the UN over investigations by the UN Commission on Human Rights of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe.[76905]

  Mr. Macshane
  FCO Ministers and officials have regular discussions with the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) and other opposition and civil society groups, on developments in Zimbabwe. The UK supported the EU's draft resolution on Zimbabwe at the UN Commission on Human Rights in April this year in Geneva. Officials have regular contact with UN officials at all levels.

  Rough Diamonds
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions(a) her Department and (b) other Government departments have had with participant governments regarding the development of national action plans in preparation for the establishment of an international certification scheme for rough diamonds.[77062]

  Mr. Macshane
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the lead department for the Kimberley Process international certification Scheme for rough diamonds, which we expect to start in January 2003.

  The European Commission has issued a draft Regulation, setting out how the Kimberley Process will be implemented in the EC. The FCO has submitted an Explanatory Memorandum for parliamentary scrutiny, in advance of final approval of the Regulation by the Council.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is setting up a Government Diamond Office to implement the Regulation within the UK and is preparing guidance for companies.
  878W
  We have had discussions with a number of other participants about their implementation and understand that they are also in the process of completing their plans for implementation.

  Shener Levent
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the human rights implications of the forthcoming trial of Shener Levent of the Afrika newspaper in Northern Cyprus. [77089]

  Mr. Macshane
  I am disappointed that Sener Levent is again being tried in court for publishing articles critical of the Turkish Cypriot authorities. I condemn all attacks on press freedom, and call upon the Turkish Cypriot authorities to ensure full respect for the right to freedom of expression of Sener Levent and all Turkish Cypriots. The British Government made official representations when Sener Levent and Memduh Ener were imprisoned in August and we will continue to follow this case closely.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what steps are being taken to ensure that communications between weapons inspectors working in Iraq with the United Nations are secure; and if he will make a statement.[77280]

  Mr. Macshane
  It is the responsibility of UNMOVIC to ensure its readiness to operate effectively on the ground in Iraq.

  UNMOVIC have told us that they have identified, but not yet procured, a range of new technologies and equipment that should ensure encrypted communications of both voice and data between inspectors in Iraq and the UN offices in New York and Vienna as well as internally within the UN Monitoring Centre in Baghdad.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the text of the resolution prepared by the United States and United Kingdom for the United Nations Security Council in respect of action to be taken against Iraq to permit international inspectors and to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. [77222]

  Mr. Macshane
  The draft resolution is under discussion at the United Nations Security Council in New York. A copy will be placed in the House Libraries when it has been agreed.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to ensure that weapons inspectors are reintroduced and active in Iraq as soon as is possible.[77509]

  Mr. Macshane
  Discussions on a new Security Council resolution focusing on Iraqi disarmament and the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq are continuing in New York. Planning by the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA for their inspection teams to enter Iraq is at an advanced stage, and they expect to be ready to do so soon after the resolution has been adopted.
  879W

  Turkey
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what recent discussions he has had with Turkey about EU enlargement. [77032]

  Mr. Macshane
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Foreign Minister Gurel on 24 September during his visit to London. They spent much of the meeting discussing EU Enlargement, with particular reference to Cyprus and Turkey. HMG welcomes the major reforms that Turkey has adopted in recent months and believes that Turkish accession to the EU would be in the best interests of Britain and of Europe as a whole.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs Council held on 21st to 22nd October; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement.[76930]

  Mr. Macshane
  My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and the then Minister for Europe represented the UK at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Luxembourg on 21/22 October. Conclusions were agreed by consensus and no formal votes were taken. The Council adopted the "A" points listed in document 12354/1/02 PTS 44. Copies of this document will be placed in the Library of the House.

  General Affairs Session

    PROGRESS OF WORK IN OTHER COUNCIL CONFIGURATIONS
    The Council took stock of developments in other Council configurations during September and October, noting that the issue of the EU Return Programme on Afghanistan and its financing would be on the November JHA Council's agenda.
    PREPARATION OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL (BRUSSELS 24/25 OCTOBER)
    Enlargement
    Delegations welcomed Ireland's ratification of the Nice Treaty and broadly supported the annotated draft agenda for the European Council in accordance with new procedures agreed at Seville. The Council confirmed that ten countries were expected to accede to the EU by 2004 and that accession negotiations with these countries should be concluded at the Copenhagen European Council, with signature of the accession Treaty following in Athens in April 2003.
    The Council also supported the Commission's evaluation of Romania and Bulgaria's progress, noting the Commission's plan to present updated pre-accession strategies for these countries at the Copenhagen European Council. Turkey's recent and substantial progress was also noted.
    Agreement was found on the institutional questions (weighting of votes in the Council; QMV threshold; future size of the European Paliament and seat allocation).
    The Council also agreed the EU Common Position on the Competition Policy Chapter with the Czech Republic. Consultations on this with Slovakia will continue.
    Kaliningrad
    The Council took stock of discussions with Lithuania and the Russian Federation and expressed the hope that a solution could be agreed at the EU/Russia summit on 11 November. The Council proposed that the following elements should be contained in the package: (i) Lithuania should implement national border control regulations by January 2003, in line with chapter 24 of the EU Accession Treaty; (ii) the Facilitated Transit Document (FTD) should be available as of January 2003, in accordance with the
    880W
    Commission communication of 18 September 2002; and (iii) use of Russian passports, FTDs and other valid travel documents should be sanctioned by Lithuania until December 2004, for transit by train.
    FLOODS: ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EU SOLIDARITY FUND
    The Council, Commission and Parliament have jointly agreed to a draft Institutional Agreement to establish an EU Solidarity Fund. Signature to the Agreement and formal adoption of the regulation by the Council will proceed as soon as possible, enabling the EU to demonstrate its solidarity with the victims of recent floods in Central Europe.
    External Relations
    MIDDLE EAST
    The Council took stock of the situation, following High Representative Solana's readout of 'Quartet' discussions on the roadmap towards achieving a comprehensive settlement by 2005. Ministers condemned the terrorist attack in Hadera, Northern Israel and expressed concern about the humanitarian situation in the Middle East.
    WESTERN BALKANS
    Albania
    The Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Albania, in parallel to the Consultative Task Force (CTF) meetings, which will encourage further reforms.
    Bosnia and Herzegovina
    The Council noted the October election results, complimenting the authorities' efficient organisation but stating that the low turnout was disappointing. The Council called for the early creation of new governments committed to vigorous reform. The Council reconfirmed the EU's commitment to work actively with the new authorities to this end.
    Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY)
    The Council regretted that the 13 October election turnout was insufficient to enable the election of a new President in Serbia. It urged all political parties to work together to ensure that the process of selecting a new President would be conducted in a manner safeguarding democratic stability in a period of reform.
    KIMBERLEY PROCESS
    The Council supported the Kimberley process' aim to establish an international certification scheme for global trade in rough diamonds. It agreed to take the necessary steps to support this and adopted a Declaration to this effect.
    RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA
    The Council took stock of preparations for the EU-Russia Summit, to be held in Copenhagen on 11 November 2002. The Summit is expected to assess the Russia-EU Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, and will discuss EU enlargement plus international issues.
    IRAN: HUMAN RIGHTS
    Council conclusions were adopted on the establishment of an EU-Iran human rights dialogue. The Council welcomed Iran's agreement to this dialogue and underlined its concern at current violations of civil and political rights.
    INDONESIA: TERRORIST ATTACK IN BALI
    The Council condemned the attacks of 12 October. It reaffirmed the EU's long-term commitment to the fight against terrorism and the need for the international community to act together.
    IVORY COAST
    The Council was briefed by the Presidency and the French delegation on the latest developments. The Council condemned the violence in Cote d'Ivoire, reiterating its attachment for the principles of the African Union, which condemns any recourse to force in order to obtain political change. It also welcomed the cease-fire agreement and offered support to ECOW AS mediation efforts.
    ESDP
    Ministers had an exchange on the state of play concerning EU-NATO relations.

    Democratic Republic of Congo
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the situation in the Ituri region of the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if he will make a statement. [77330]

    Mr. Macshane
    The security and humanitarian situation in the Ituri region remains serious as a result of ethnic clashes and fighting between rebel groups. The United Nations Secretary General has asked the Ugandan Peoples Defence Force (UPDF) to stay in the Ituri region to provide law and order, until an alternative Congolese force can perform this role. The UN peacekeeping operation has also been asked to increase its presence in Ituri.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what humanitarian assistance is being provided to the Ituri region of the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if he will make a statement.[77329]

    Mr. Macshane
    The UK is not at present providing any direct humanitarian assistance to the Ituri region. UK assistance to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is focused on human rights projects. Relief assistance is provided through the UN and international NGOs. This year the UK expects to spend over £14 million in the DRC on direct humanitarian and conflict resolution assistance.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Uganda to ensure that its remaining forces in the Ituri region of the Democratic Republic of Congo cease partisan involvement in ethnic conflict; and if he will make a statement.[77328]

    Mr. Macshane
    The United Nations Secretary General has asked the Ugandan Peoples Defence Force (UPDF) to stay in the Ituri region to provide law and order, until an alternative Congolese force can perform this role. The UK has reminded the Ugandan Government of the UPDF obligations to the local population.

    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which UK companies were named in the report to the UN on 21st October by the UN Panel on Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as violating OECD guidelines; what representations have been made to these companies; and what action will be taken.[77059]

    Mr. Macshane
    Twelve UK registered companies are amongst the 85 listed in Annex III of the UN Panel report (S2002/1146), which can be found on the UN website (www.un.org). The Panel alleges that these companies have violated the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The report does not go into detail. We have encouraged the companies that have contacted us to seek further information from the UN. We are considering a substantive response to the report's recommendations.
    882W
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recommendations made by the report to the UN of 21st October by the UN Panel on Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo, with particular reference to the recommendation to impose financial restrictions on companies and individuals involved in abuses; and if he will make a statement. [77058]

    Mr. Macshane
    We welcome the report, which recommends a wide range of potential actions. We are considering a substantive response. It is too early to comment on specific proposals.

    United Nations Day
    Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government has to mark United Nations Day. [77237]

    Mr. Macshane
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs issued a press statement on 24 October to mark United Nations Day.

    That evening my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development was guest speaker at a UN Day reception at her Department's Headquarters hosted by the United Nations Information Centre (UNIC).

    Uganda
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Uganda regarding the raid on the offices of the Monitor newspaper. [76974]

    Mr. Macshane
    I refer to the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr Nigel Waterson) on 22 October Official Report, column 201W.

    Poland
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Poland.[77365]

    Mr. Macshane
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met his Polish opposite member in London in July and hopes to make his second official visit to Poland in due course.

    EU Enlargement
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Swedish Foreign Minister regarding(a) EU enlargement and (b) the euro. [77364]

    Mr. Macshane
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs meets his Swedish counterpart Anna Lindh, regularly in the margins of the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC). The Secretary of State visited Sweden on 29–30 August 2002. He most recently met Anna Lindh at the European Council on 24–25 October 2002. Discussions have covered the range of EU topics including EU Enlargement and the Euro.
    883W

    Irish Referendum
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the result of the Irish referendum and its implications for the EU. [77368]

    Mr. Macshane
    I am very pleased that the Irish people voted in favour of the Treaty of Nice. Nice is necessary for enlargement to take place smoothly by 2004. Enlargement is essential for European stability, security and prosperity. However, important and difficult negotiations lie ahead between now and the Copenhagen European Council in December.

    Cameroon
    Mr. Caton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Cameroon; and whether he has identified an improvement since the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture visited that country in 1999, with particular reference to the use of torture. [77629]

    Mr. Macshane
    The UK continues to be concerned about the human rights situation in Cameroon. We continue to use every available opportunity, bilaterally and through the EU and Commonwealth, to bring pressure upon the Government of Cameroon to implement substantial human rights and governance reform generally. We do not believe that there have been substantial improvements to the situation since the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture's report in 1999.

    The FCO's Anti-Torture Initiative was established in October 1998. Phase 3 of the initiative was launched in July this year and was marked in Cameroon by a joint British Council-British High Commission seminar aimed at raising awareness of the issue in Cameroon.

    The British High Commission in Yaounde has funded projects to provide human rights training for the forces of law and order, and works with local NGOs to promote action on human rights problems.

    Collective Defence
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's policy is on the question raised in the note by Mr. M Barnier to Members of the Convention on the Future of Europe, CONV 264/02, as to whether an undertaking of collective defence should be enshrined in the Treaty on European Union. [77819]

    Mike O'Brien
    The Government's policy, and the policy to which the EU collectively committed itself at the European Council of Nice in December 2000, is that NATO remains the basis for the collective defence of its members.

    Iran
    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his visit to Iran; and what discussions he 884W
    has had with Iran in its role in seeking to resolve the dispute between the Palestinians and the Government of Israel. [78308]

    Mike O'Brien
    During his visit to Iran on 9 October, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed a number of regional issues, including the Middle East Peace Process, with both President Khatami and Foreign Minister Kharrazi. He urged the Iranians actively to support a two state solution and to cease any support to those opposing the Peace Process. We therefore welcome the statement by the Iranian MFA spokesman on 15 October that Iran would not reject a two state solution provided it was acceptable to the Palestinians and Israelis.

    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received on the purpose and objective of their policy of sanctions against Iran; and if he will make a statement. [78307]

    Mike O'Brien
    It is for the US to explain their policy on Iran. Our own policy is one of critical engagement with Iran.

    Pitcairn Island
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) a Minister and (b) an official within his Department last visited Pitcairn Island. [77685]

    Mike O'Brien
    No Minister has visited Pitcairn recently. An FCO official accompanied the Governor on a visit to the island in 1995.

    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a Governor of Pitcairn Island last visited the territory. [77686]

    Mike O'Brien
    The Governor of Pitcairn is due to visit Pitcairn in November. The previous Governor visited the island in September 2000. The previous Deputy Governor spent six weeks on the island in November/ December 2001.

    Correspondence
    Mr Tony Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when UK Visas will reply to the letter of 27th June from the honourable Member for Manchester Central, regarding Mr. AM reference NBI/1003564/7/8 [77533]

    Mike O'Brien
    I will reply to my hon. Friend shortly.

    Nepal
    Dr. Jenny Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the gifting of non-lethal military equipment to the government of Nepal using funds from the Global Conflict Prevention Pool. [78206]

    Mike O'Brien
    I refer the hon. Member to a Ministry of Defence Departmental Minute dated 22 July, which is available in the Library of the House of Commons and which gives full details of non-lethal military equipment to be gifted to the Government of Nepal, including those made from the Global Conflict Prevention Pool Fund.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield

Human Trafficking
Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What point they have reached in preparing legislation to make trafficking in human beings (as defined in the relevant United Nations protocol and other than trafficking for purposes of prostitution) a criminal offence; and what funds they will provide for specialised agencies providing care and protection for victims of trafficking in Britain.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, an offence of trafficking for prostitution will be created by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. We intend to legislate against trafficking for the purposes of both labour and sexual exploitation as soon as parliamentary time permits, but before July 2004, in line with the recently adopted EU framework decision. We are committed to supporting the victims of trafficking and are currently working with the voluntary sector to establish a comprehensive support network. That will be established on a pilot basis from next year.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which at least gives us a date to which we can work. However, will the Government study the comparative report on trafficking and victim protection newly published by Anti-Slavery International? Surely they would find it helpful in framing new legislation.
As to funding, does the Minister recognise that two years ago the Home Office acknowledged the need for a budget for this specific issue but nothing has been done? Do the Government accept that this form of modern slavery can be defeated only if its victims are protected and enabled to give evidence so that convictions can be secured?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I welcome the publication of the report to which the noble Lord referred. We shall study it carefully; I am sure that it will he important and help to shape policy in future. We recognise the importance of finding safe, secure places for victims of trafficking. That will no doubt feature as part of the approach to be adopted in the pilots next year. We very much welcome the activity of non-governmental organisations.
The Government have recognised the need to address human trafficking. On prevention, we have provided funding—about £70,000—to raise awareness of the abuses suffered. Funding for remedial action has
190
been given to the Anti-Slavery International project in west Africa, including in Benin. We have also made about £ million available for the International Labour Organisation programme in the Greater Mekong region—parts of Cambodia, China, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam. So we are providing significant funding and recognise the international nature of the problem.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in what way is extant law defective? If it is, exactly what is proposed to remedy it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I said in my Answer, we are strengthening the legislative framework by including the offence of trafficking for prostitution in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. We are also committed to falling in line with the EU directive by July 2004. That will mean proposing legislation by that time to address some of the other trafficking-for-labour and exploitation issues.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, first, perhaps I may pay tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on his last appearance in the House in that capacity and say how much we look forward to his appearance in a new capacity.
The Minister rightly says that we are working towards the EU directive date of 2004. Are the Government working in the councils of the European Union for careful consideration to be given to trafficking through central and eastern Europe where much of it takes place? Can he assure us that the governments of those countries about to become full members of the European Union are fully aware of the dangers of traffickers, especially from Russia and associated countries, beyond their borders?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we recognise that the problem can only be tackled internationally. That is an important strand of the Government's strategy to deal with it. As I said, a new EU directive recognises the importance of such international action. We must work closely with our colleagues, especially in the accession countries, to tackle what is widely recognised as a terrible problem. I know that your Lordships' House shares our concern.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, are the Government in consultation with the Scottish Executive given that the creation of such an offence would, I think, be devolved to the Scottish Parliament? To ensure that trafficking does not confine itself to one side or other of the Border, it is important that legislation should be passed on both sides. Concerning the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, I understand that the Scottish Parliament is not yet legislating. It is important that it should catch up. Have the Government any information?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that colleagues north and south of the Border are working

191
closely on the issue, which clearly affects both parliaments. As the noble Baroness says, we have shared concerns and shared interests.

Rural Payments Agency
2.41 p.m
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the name standing on my Order Paper. I am so sorry, my Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
Whether extra staff or funding have been allocated to the Rural Payments Agency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I think that the Animal Health Bill is getting to all of us.
This is the first full financial year of the Rural Payments Agency's operations. The agency is part way through a major rationalisation programme that will in the longer term result in staff reductions. However, to deal with immediate pressures, there will be a short-term increase in temporary staff, taking total numbers from 3,161 last year to 3,314 this year. Consequently, the administration budget will rise from £108 million to £111 million.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. My confusion was because I want to take the opportunity on behalf of all those on these Benches to pay tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I do so not only for what he has done within the Chamber—his contributions have always been welcome—but for the wider world outside. Someone was muttering at me and I was caught slightly adrift.
I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he agree that it is unacceptable that his department is still making late payments? Will he confirm that the department pays interest on the late payments and tell us what that cost has been during the past year?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the department and the agency clearly regret late payments. Some compensation will be paid in respect of those late payments which relate to problems caused by the RPA or by the cattle tracing system. However, as regards last year's late payments which resulted from industrial action, it is not the Government's habit to pay compensation for delays caused by such events outside their control. Therefore, no interest payments will be made on those schemes, which were mainly arable.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, how many beef producers have not yet been paid their beef special premiums when the deadline for payment was 30th June 2002? Will the Minister confirm that many delays
192
have been caused by technical difficulties and procedures of the offices of the British Cattle Movement Service and say what he is going to do about it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are talking about EU money and RPA payouts which amount to nearly £3 billion. In relation to the bovine scheme, it is a requirement of the Commission that we cross-check against our tracing system. That has led to queries on almost 20 per cent of all claims and as a result there has been some delay in payment.
In respect of the bovine payments, 95 per cent have now been paid. Of the cases we have examined, 72 per cent are without a problem. We have looked at the records of 12 per cent and they have been corrected. Seven per cent have rightly been rejected, and some 9 per cent are outstanding. However, the number of cases that can be attributed to some fault or inaccuracy of the RPA or the cattle tracing system is less than 0.1 per cent. In other words, cases involving about 200 animals in the whole system can be put down to internal errors. The remainder have been due to failure to notify or lack of clarity in the notification. Although there is a problem—we acknowledge that and will pay compensation where it is our fault—it amounts to a small proportion of the total.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, has there ever been a costing of preparing and sending out each cheque to farmers? I ask that question because recently my husband received about five cheques for less than £2 each, all for the same thing. It must cost at least that amount to send them out. Would it not be a good idea if someone considered each case and said, "Look, we can write out one cheque instead of all these little cheques"? It all happened within a period of about 10 days.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree that some rationalisation of the system is desirable. That is one of the matters being addressed by the RPA in examining its systems. On the other hand, each payment must comply with the rules and be made in a form that can be audited. In the new system, which will not be introduced until the end of 2004, we need to combine the ability to audit each claim with a more user-friendly way of delivering the money and requiring the documentation.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, how many payments remain outstanding following the foot and mouth outbreak?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I can answer that question as it is presented. I have already said that 5 per cent of the bovine payments are still outstanding. The vast majority of those relating to foot and mouth have been paid, except those that are

193
disputed. There are still some disputes outstanding, but in respect of the bovine scheme, which is the main concern, 5 per cent remain outstanding.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, how much money is involved?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the total pay-out of the RPA is £2.9 billion. I shall write to the noble Baroness, but I can say that the bovine payments are a substantial part of that amount. As I said, 95 per cent of those have been met for the past financial year. In terms of the breakdown of the scheme, it may be sensible if I write to the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Sharples.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, how many cases have been held up because of fraud?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not have those figures. Every case in which fraud is suspected is investigated in detail. The level of fraud is low. However, it is a continuing problem and perhaps one of the reasons for the bureaucracy and the complicated nature of the documentation in the first place.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the cheques for under £2 paid to the noble Countess were for an animal?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is a question best addressed to the noble Countess. I would not wish to intervene between her and her spouse's relations with the RPA. I suspect so, but the noble Earl should ask her.

Euro: Economic Tests for UK Entry
2.50 p.m.
Lord Taverne Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to announce the results of their assessment of the five economic tests for entry into the euro-zone.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have consistently said that they will complete an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, do the Government realise how this matter is becoming more urgent all the time? What is there to add to the thorough analysis carried out last April by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which came to the conclusion that the tests have been passed? Will the Government listen and take note of the comments made yesterday by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the damage being caused by delay, as demonstrated by
194
the fact that there has been a dramatic drop in Britain's share of foreign direct investment into the European Union from 52 per cent in 1998 to 24 per cent last year?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am interested in the suggestion that the assessment of the five economic tests should be privatised. I have a great deal of respect for the National Institute of Economic and Social Research—it once offered me a job—but the assessment is the responsibility of the Treasury.
As to the comments of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry yesterday, she is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of inward investment. That is why it is one of the five tests. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that inward investment is the key driver of productivity, growth and overall economic performance. Outside figures show that in 2001 we had a higher share of inward investment than any other member state of the European Union and the second highest in the world.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the fact that the Government will require two years to make an assessment of this matter mean that they will not commit themselves until after the next general election?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, neither I nor the Government have said that it will require two years. I said that they will complete the assessment within two years of the start of this Parliament. Therefore the second part of the noble Lord's question does not apply.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, leaving aside the first of the five tests, that of sustainable economic convergence—which is virtually unanswerable—does my noble friend agree that the second test requiring flexibility is the most important? Does it include and incorporate the growth and stability pact, where greater flexibility is clearly required?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have always refused to be drawn into saying which of the five tests is the most or least important. I shall not be drawn now.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is not one of the first principles of a fair referendum that the people know and are crystal clear about what they are voting for? How can that be so when so many basic questions have remained unanswered? For example, what fiscal rules will govern the euro? Will it be the present so-called "stupid" rules or the rules that might replace them? Is there to be an elected president? What will Britain have a veto over, if anything? What does Mr Prodi mean by a "single economic government"? We do not even know the name of the organisation we would be asked to join. Unless the Minister can answer those questions, would he not agree that under those circumstances it is inappropriate to hold a referendum and that we should call the whole thing off?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is very interesting. I have been challenging the Opposition in this House to follow the views previously expressed by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in another House for a very long time, and they have failed to do so. Now the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has come out, and I am delighted to hear it.
We are not holding a referendum tomorrow. A referendum will be held when an assessment of the five economic tests has been completed; when all of the accompanying studies have been completed and published; and when Parliament and the Government have taken a view on the matter. When all those actions have been completed, there will then be an opportunity for a full public debate before the people of this country are asked to decide.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does my noble friend—
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Minister—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, perhaps we should hear first from the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can my noble friend enlighten the House about the current thinking of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will the assessment be made according to the criterion of beyond a reasonable doubt or the weaker criterion of the balance of probabilities? I know of no proposition in economics that can be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have not used either the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" or the phrase "on the balance of probabilities", which I thought applied to legal matters. The phrase we have used, which will not please the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is "clear and unambiguous".
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that there is a great deal of hypocrisy about this discussion because this country, certainly in the short term, could live comfortably inside the euro-zone or outside it? The decision on whether or not we join in the end is a political one—and surely the country needs leadership on that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. The consideration that the Government are giving to this matter is, in the first instance, an economic one. Of course there are political and constitutional implications, as we have always made clear, but it must be in the economic interests of this country. We must be satisfied that that is the case before we put the matter to the people of this country.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, while I am satisfied that the five economic tests have already been met, there remains the problem of the exchange rate at which we enter the euro mechanism. Does my noble friend accept that this is one test that is much more important than any of the five?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no sixth economic test; there are only the five tests.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, as recent research confirms that less than 10 per cent of the British economy is involved in trade with the other countries of the European Union, can the Minister tell the House why the Government are even vaguely considering joining the misguided EMU project, especially as none of that trade would be lost if we do not join?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and his advisers have been in constant touch with Treasury officials about these matters. I have never heard it suggested that less than 10 per cent of our trade is with the European Union—that clearly is not the case. I listened very carefully to the words used by the noble Lord, and he did not say what proportion of our trade is with the European Union. He used a roundabout phrase, which I shall read very carefully and write to him about it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, does not speak for all of us who do not wish this country to scrap the pound? We would very much welcome an early referendum—indeed, as early as possible—but is not this the worst possible time to advocate entry into the euro, after Mr Prodi has described the growth and stability pact as "stupid" and the Germans and the French have indicated that they will break the pact because they have now recognised that one size does not fit all? Would it not be better if the Government rested on their laurels—which are great so far as concerns economic stability and progress—and said that we will never go in?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sympathetic to the splits in the camp of those who are opposed to the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi—if I read him right—is in favour of calling off the referendum, but I did not hear him propose calling off the previous procedures. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would prefer to hold the referendum now, without all the precautions that we propose to take. They will have to sort it out between themselves. I do not speak for Mr Prodi in this House.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I really think that we must move on now.

Gypsy/Traveller Sites
3 p.m.
Lord Aveburyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to implement the report from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the provision and condition of local authority gypsy/traveller sites in England.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the research on the provision and condition of local authority gypsy/traveller sites in England was only recently published. Therefore, Ministers will need some time to consider the implications of the sites research and how it will inform future policy development, and the planning for the Government's 2003 spending review. Local authorities will certainly be involved in the consultation process, as their day-to-day knowledge on the ground will be crucial if our policies are to have any chance of success.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that at this stage we can at least decide that a mistake was made in 1994, when Parliament left it entirely to private owners to provide all the necessary gypsy accommodation? Does he further agree that the research proves that the combined resources of local authorities, social landlords, the housing corporations and the private sector will be needed if we are to deal with the impending crisis in terms of shortage of accommodation? Does the Minister accept the estimate by his researchers that at least 1,000 new pitches will be needed over the next five years? If that is correct, will not local authorities in the areas where gypsies habitually reside have to take specific account of the needs of gypsies in their homelessness strategies?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, to risk an accusation of being pedantic, I am not going to agree with any aspect of the research. The report was made to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—it was not "from" the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as stated in the Question. So there is no timetable; there is no money; and Ministers are considering this report, which was provided to the department.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the report referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggests the need for an expenditure of £16.78 million over the next five years to bring sites up to standard, including those that have been closed. That level of spending cannot be met from site income. Are the Government giving serious consideration to how the money will be raised—preferably from central government rather than entirely from the budgets of local authorities, which might have to raise their council tax in order to meet it?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there has already been a government programme for refurbishing the sites which is coming to the end of its third year. We must look at the 2003 spending review. I accept that there
198
are differences in sites. Private and county council sites have caused problems for some residents, as opposed to district council sites, if only because of the way in which rent officers become involved. It is a valuable piece of research that has been produced for the department. It raises many serious issues about the lack of pitches. It is right to say that it highlights a shortage of some 2,000 pitches. It is much easier to cope with the disturbances that occur in urban areas as a result of some the travellers' anti-social behaviour if legitimate sites are available. That is clearly identified in the research.
Lord Condon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the challenge of dealing with traveller trespass and associated criminal damage is a major point of friction between police and the public in a number of counties? Does he further agree that any clarification of designated sites is to be welcomed as it will encourage a more consistent police response and enhance police-public relations in those counties with the most severe challenge?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I certainly agree with the right reverend Prelate. The police in some areas have made it clear that they will not move people on if there are no sites for them to be moved to. That is a responsibility of the local authorities. He is quite right: there are major issues. So that no one runs away with the wrong idea, I should say that the report deals only with sites and numbers. It does not deal with management or with anti-social behaviour. That is another issue altogether.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the right reverend Prelates on these Benches appreciate and support the sentiments expressed by Members of this House on the occasion of the final appearance in this House of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his role as Archbishop. We should not like the Government to adopt a national policy of any kind on travelling Archbishops! But do the Government realise that there is a crying need for a national policy that can be applied as regards the entire Roma community in these islands?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, first, perhaps I may apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Condon, for seeing him only out of the corner of my eye.
Lord Condon: My Lords, the apology is accepted!
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there needs to be a policy. There will always be travellers and nomads, in whatever country. It is right that provision is made in a civilised fashion so that they are part of an inclusive society as much as they want to be. That requires education and support from government and local government. It is right that we do that, and that we review the position from time to time. I cannot say that it would be a good idea to impose the conditions that have applied in the past as regards site requirements.

199
I am not in any position to do so. The report will be considered and we shall have consultation with local authorities on the best way forward.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that, when consideration of the report is complete, the Government will continue, as previous governments have, to support local authorities which apply the planning regulations equally to all people, whether travellers or non-travellers?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Government will support all local authorities which apply the planning regulations in accordance with the law.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, has this country had an influx of gypsies from eastern Europe, where in some countries they have been very badly treated? If so, are they adopting the traditional way of life of our gypsy population?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not know. All I can say is that most people in this country would not be able to obtain their fruit and vegetables were it not for an "influx" of people from eastern Europe to pick them. There is a big shortage of such workers. This is a seasonal issue. People come to this country in their thousands to carry out this activity, and they return home during the winter. This is not an "influx" in the way that the noble Lord put it in his question.

Adoption and Children Bill
3.6 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 3 [Maintenance of Adoption Service]:
Baroness Barkermoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 3, at end insert ", and
( ) for the provision of information about adoption support services"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return once again, in a slightly different way, to an issue that has been in the forefront of our considerations; namely, how best to organise and provide support for people who adopt children.
Over the many months that we have worked on the Bill, we have returned time and again to the key question of what it is reasonable to expect local authorities to provide in terms of post-adoption support. We have had interesting and, at times, heated discussions about the way in which adoption services should dovetail with other support services for children.
We have had equally interesting debates—in large part informed by the outstanding contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland—on how best to set up a system of adoption support which will enable local authorities to recognise the distinct problems that adopted children have, without giving
200
them greater importance than those of many other children—for example, those with special educational needs.
We have argued at considerable length about the duties of local authorities to provide adoption support once they have fulfilled their obligation under this legislation to assess adoptive families and adopted children in terms of their support needs. I think it is accurate to say that we have reached no agreement on the matter, and it is highly unlikely that we shall reach agreement on a working definition of support that would meet everyone's requirements.
This amendment has not been debated previously. We on these Benches have considered all the previous discussions and have arrived at a different position which I hope will find favour with the Minister. The amendment is not about requiring local authorities to make particular service provision. It is about placing on the face of the Bill an explicit duty on local authorities to provide an adoption information service.
Clause 3 requires local authorities to maintain an adoption service. I suspect that a response to the amendment will be that it is unnecessary on the grounds that if a local authority is under an obligation to maintain an adoption service, surely it would need to provide information about it. However, I fear that in practice that does not necessarily follow.
In my work outside the House, I frequently spend time sitting in, or walking into, local authority social services department buildings where I often see notices encouraging people to become an adoptive parent. The precise issue at the heart of the amendment is not the provision of services by the local authorities but the problem of adoptive parents' complete lack of knowledge of the services available and where to find them. During the adoption process, many adoptive parents become more familiar with social services departments than the rest of us. But they still do not know the complete range of services they can access.
For some adoptive parents the first few years of adoption—and it is a life-long process—will be fine, with the result that they have minimal contact with the statutory authorities. However, something may go wrong down the line when parents are out of the loop and do not know how to find the help they need. We talk endlessly about the value of support and, sometimes, crisis intervention for adoptive families. The amendment simply requires each local authority to maintain an adoption service. It makes no comment about how it should be provided. The service could, for example, be contracted out to a voluntary organisation or a children's organisation.
As a result of the many hours of discussion, I have reached the fundamental conclusion that if we give adoptive parents nothing else, we must give them the chance to access services when they need them, even if they pay for those services themselves, which happens frequently, as adoptive parents will confirm. With that in mind, I move this amendment. I hope that my explanation of it finds some favour with the Minister. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate again the provision of adoption support services. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said that we do not agree, but there is agreement on the essential need for available proper adoption support for everyone who needs it. It would not be right to leave the House in any doubt that we are committed to ensuring that local authorities do the right thing. All the evidence suggests that adoption support is essential to help to ensure that adoption works for children, who are the paramount consideration, and for the parent, or parents.
Although we disagreed with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, for reasons I do not need to repeat for the fourth or fifth time, we do not disagree one iota with the need to ensure that proper support services are available. I reassure the House that it will be part of my department's performance management of local authorities to provide appropriate support services. We are ensuring through the National Care Standards Commission and its successor body that adoption services will be properly inspected in future. That will also be an important matter for consideration.
Again, I have no argument with points raised by the noble Baroness about the importance of available information. She talks of seeing in social services departments promotional literature encouraging responsible people to consider adoption, and stresses how important it is that information should be available at that first stage and throughout the adoption process and beyond. As she says, adoption is for a lifetime. We have recognised that in the Bill which makes clear that adoption support services must be available after adoption has taken place.
The Bill already gives us all we require in the placing of responsibility on local authorities. The range of adoption support services will be set out in regulations made under Clause 2. The provisions in Clauses 2 to 4 will be used to underpin our new framework for adoption support services and financial support promised in the White Paper. The amendment would provide for Clause 3(2) to set out that local authorities must make and participate in arrangements for the provision of information about adoption support services. Again, I have no argument that adopters should be informed of the types of adoption support available, and we have made clear that local authorities must make that information available.
Clause 2(6) sets out what is meant by adoption support services. It specifies that this includes counselling, advice and information. Through the duty on local authorities to make and participate in arrangements for the provision of support services in Clause 3(2)(b), local authorities are already under an obligation to arrange for the provision of information. The regulations that follow will expand on precisely how that duty should be exercised. On Report, I explained that we were giving careful thought to how we can best assist those affected by adoption both to
202
be informed about and to access the various support services. I agree with the noble Baroness that clear and accessible information about the availability of the services is critical if those affected by adoption are to be helped to access the right support services at the right time.
As I said on Report, as part of this work we are considering the role that key adoption support workers might play in helping those affected by adoption both to identify support needs and to help them to access services to meet those needs The key worker would not necessarily have to be a current council social worker. In our recent consultation document on adoption support we asked detailed questions about the key workers. We are analysing the responses to that consultation.
In conclusion, the Bill as now drafted meets all the requirements that the noble Baroness seeks. I also give my commitment to her and the House that we will ensure that the timely provision of as much accurate and concise information as possible will be part of a rigorous performance management regime for adoption support services.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply, which added to his previous statements about the possible role of key workers. There was not much clarity on that on Report. As the noble Lord knows, I eagerly anticipate the evaluation report, which he has informed us will come in about three years as a result of our discussions. When we discuss those matters, we shall assess the information on the basis of the extent to which there is a uniform baseline of adoption provision. All the reports produced by the department have time and again shown up the patchy nature of adoption support services. That is a very important issue for the increasing number of people whose adoption happens in one local authority and who then move to another. We have talked about that before. People's needs are not uniform, so I am not asking for uniform services throughout the country, but there needs to be a baseline. The provision of information is a fundamental key factor in that.
I am heartened by what the Minister has said about the potential role of key workers and about the advice and guidance that will come from his department on the provision of information. At this stage in the Bill it always feels as though we have debated things seven or eight times, but I believe that it has been helpful to do so again and put a bit more on the record. I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Adoption support agencies]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 17, after "adoption" insert "other than for the purpose mentioned in section 97(1)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 to 6. On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, tabled amendments about

203
registered adoption support agencies being able to obtain information from the registrar-general and adoption agencies. In response, the Government tabled an amendment to insert Clause 97. These amendments are mostly consequential on the new Clause 97.
Amendment No. 2 is in Clause 8, which amends the Care Standards Act 2000 to make new provision for the registration of adoption support agencies by the registration authority. It allows agencies other than adoption agencies to provide support services in connection with adoption, provided they are properly regulated. This could include, for example, birth records counselling. Subsection (1)(a) provides that an undertaking is not an adoption support agency simply because it provides information about adoption. This allows organisations to be able to provide general information about adoption without having to register and be regulated. Amendment No. 2 changes subsection (1)(a) by inserting a reference to the new clause for information in connection with pre-commencement adoptions. The effect is that, if an undertaking provides information for the purpose of Clause 97, it will need to be a registered adoption support agency. By requiring it to register, we will be able to provide robust safeguards and ensure that intermediary services are provided to an appropriately high standard by staff with the necessary training and expertise.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 are in Clause 9, which authorises the making of regulations for the exercise of functions of local authorities, voluntary adoption agencies and adoption support agencies in relation to adoption. Since we put in Clause 97, we have reviewed our policy for access to information for adoptions made after enactment. We consider that adoption support agencies should also be able to play a valuable role in helping adoption agencies with the post-Bill scheme by carrying out some of the work at the request of adoption agencies or at the request of individuals who wish to apply for information held by adoption agencies. Amendment No. 3 omits the reference to support services so that regulations can make provisions for any purpose relating to the exercise by adoption support agencies of their functions in relation to adoption. The effect of that is that they can be regulated in their role of assisting adoption agencies in the disclosure of information for adoptions made after the Bill's enactment.
Amendment No. 5 is a technical amendment necessary to include a reference to the new clause on information for pre-commencement adoptions. Amendment No. 4, which is not directly consequential on Clause 97, is a technical amendment inserting a reference to Clause 45 in Clause 9(2).
Amendment No. 6 is in Clause 11, which amplifies the powers in Clause 9 in relation to the charging and payment of fees. Clause 11 enables the appropriate Minister to make regulations prescribing the fees that may be paid and charged by adoption agencies to persons and organisations that provide facilities as part of the adoption service, such as other adoption
204
agencies and adoption support agencies. The amendment first provides that regulations may enable local authorities as well as voluntary adoption agencies to charge fees for the provision of counselling services. Secondly, it provides for those fees to be regulated. Provision has already been made for adoption agencies to charge a fee in connection with the disclosure of information.
Clause 97 makes provision for regulations that would authorise the charging of fees by registered adoption support agencies, the registrar-general and adoption agencies. The amendments complete the necessary range. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [General power to regulate adoption etc. agencies]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 3 to 5:
Page 8, line 2, leave out "support services"
Page 8, line 4, after "12," insert "45,"
Page 8, line 4, leave out "and 56 to 65" and insert ", 56 to 65 and 97"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 11 [Fees]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 9, line 34, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations under section 9 may prescribe the fees which
may be charged by adoption agencies in respect of the provision
of counselling, where the counselling is provided in connection with the disclosure of information in relation to a person's adoption."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Placing children with parental consent]:
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 14, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) Application may be made to the court for a declaration that the consent of a parent or guardian under subsection (1) has been validly given.
( ) The court may make an order prohibiting an adoption agency from placing a child for adoption under this section where the court is satisfied that any person mentioned in section 1(4)(f) is able and willing to care for the child."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have debated placements and placement orders on every occasion that the Bill has come before us. As your Lordships will be well aware, the Bill currently envisages adoption agency placements being made pursuant to consent given under Clause 19 or under a placement order made under Clause 21. Placement orders cannot be made unless either the child is already subject to a care order under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 or the court considers that the threshold condition for making a care order under that section—significant harm to the child—is satisfied.
In previous debates on the placement provisions, the Government appear to have acknowledged that there could be circumstances in which, despite the apparent consent of the parents to the proposed placement, court involvement may be necessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, came up with the best

205
expression last time when she referred to circumstances in which there was a danger of consent being withdrawn. I drew attention to a middle way that could be inserted into the Bill in those circumstances.
However, the Government have resisted any attempt to amend the Bill to provide that there should always be a placement order. Many of our debates have centred round that. They have suggested that if an adoption agency is concerned about, for example, whether a father who does not have parental responsibility should be consulted about the plan, perhaps against the mother's wishes, it will be able to invoke the court's inherent jurisdiction to resolve the issue.
Another area of concern is where there was some question mark about the capacity of the parents to give a valid consent to placement, perhaps because of learning disability or mental health problems. Placement cannot be made without either the consent or a placement order. However, it is possible to envisage circumstances, such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, in which, with the patient not actively opposing placement, it might be hard to satisfy the "significant harm" threshold. Nevertheless, if either the agency or the CAFCASS officer were unsure about the consent, the placement could not go ahead.
Amendment No. 7 would allow the court to become involved in two ways. First, after a judicial hearing it could make a declaration that a parent had given a valid consent, thus enabling the agency to continue with its proposed placement under Clause 19 and greatly reducing the risk that the issue might be reopened later on the hearing of the final adoption order application.
Secondly, where concerns were raised either by the agency itself or by the CAFCASS officer about the need to ascertain the views of a father without parental responsibility or another relative or relevant person such as a foster carer, the amendment would allow consideration of whether the placement should be prohibited or at least delayed pending the consideration of that parent's views.
Amendment No. 16 enables rules to be made under which the CAFCASS officer could refer to the court any concerns he or she had about either of the above matters. Clause 101 as currently drafted does not make it clear that such a referral would be possible.
In essence, the purpose of both these amendments is to ensure that there is a facility for court involvement where it is needed. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for enabling us to address for the final time, I hope, the issue of placement by consent. He has conscientiously and thoroughly raised this issue, thereby allowing us to debate the twin-track approach to placement. These debates have been productive at
206
each stage of our consideration and helped to clarify the issues. I should therefore like carefully to explain why these amendments do not meet our concerns.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. said, the amendments address two main issues. The first is how to ensure that consent to placement for adoption is given validly and properly, and the second is how to ensure that, in consents to adoption placements, the adoption agencies fully, properly and appropriately consider and involve unmarried fathers and others whom the noble Lord mentioned.
Amendment No. 7 concerns the issue of consent. Apart from baby placements under the placement for adoptions provision in Chapter 3, an adoption agency may place the child for adoption with consent if it has the consent of the parents under Clause 19. Very importantly, that consent has to be witnessed by a CAFCASS officer who is independent of the adoption agency, whose job it will be to ensure that consent is given properly and with the full understanding of the parents. We are all clear on that point. The amendment is concerned with what should happen if the CAFCASS officer does not think that the parents are able to give consent with full understanding. It has been suggested that in such circumstances the court should be able to make an order on the application of the agency or the CAFCASS officer indicating that consent has been properly given. The courts would therefore become involved.
There are various reasons why I do not think that that is the right approach. The first consideration is why consent cannot be given validly and why the parents might not be considered capable of giving consent. The officer may feel, for example, that, even after the explanation has been provided, the parents have not been fully informed and require more information, more help and more support. In such circumstances, the obvious route would be for the officer to notify the agency that it should provide further information, counselling and support. I think that that would be a relatively straightforward assessment. However, the Bill provides an answer for such cases, and the process will provide for that need to be satisfied.
The issue may not be about the lack of information but about the officer's doubts about the parents' capacity to give consent or consistency in their desire to give consent. We are concerned that the type of court declaration proposed by the amendment is not the right approach. First, we are not entirely satisfied that the amendment makes clear what type of process or hearing the court should hold to determine the issue of consent.
Secondly, the amendment raises serious issues about the next step. What can the court do if it considers that the parents are not capable of giving consent? The crucial issue is what should happen then. For example, could the court force the parents to attend so that the court itself can explore the issue and make its own judgment? If so, would the agency have to return to the court to apply for a placement order? If so, would we

207
not end up with a two-stage process to obtain a placement order rather than a simple one-stage process?
In all logic, we should hope that the basis for the confusion about whether the parents genuinely wish to give consent—in which they might change their mind—or are capable of giving consent will be picked up at a much earlier stage. We believe that those issues should be addressed either in the adoption panel or when the agency itself becomes involved. If there is genuine doubt about the capacity to give consent, we believe that the way to resolve it would be for the CAFCASS officer not to certify the consent and to notify the agency of his concerns. Subsequently, application for a placement order can be made.
Where there is no Clause 19 consent but the agency considers that the child should be placed for adoption because the child is at risk of significant harm, Clause 21 would place the agency under a duty to apply for a placement order. Subsequently, the court would become involved and be able to decide whether the parents are capable of giving consent. Subsequently, the placement order could be made providing that the harm threshold has been met. If the court is not capable of giving consent, the placement order hearing could enable the parents' consent to be dispensed with as provided for under Clause 52(1). The child's welfare would be taken into consideration above everything else.
We are therefore convinced that the placement order provisions in Chapter 3 already provide for an appropriate court hearing to determine whether there should be a placement for adoption in cases where there is real doubt about parental capacity to give consent. We do not believe that the significant harm threshold will present an inappropriate barrier to placement. I should perhaps add that one of the reasons why we are so committed to the significant harm threshold is the necessity to be consistent with the Children Act and all the protection that it offers—a point that the agencies clearly made to us when we examined the issue one year ago. When the previous version of the Bill was published, in March, it did not include the significant harm threshold for placement orders. Many stakeholders expressed many concerns about the omission. We subsequently agreed with their judgment and have accordingly amended the Bill.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we are looking for appropriate processes that will suit the condition of each family and each child. We want rapid processes, as set out in the Bill and subsequent regulations, that are consistent with the Children Act. We do not believe that the amendments offer any improvement on that.
I appreciate the second issue which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seeks to address in his amendments—the concern to ensure that adoption agencies properly involve and consult wider family members including unmarried fathers in proceedings for placement with consent. We entirely agree with the importance of ensuring that that happens. Although I hesitate to use the word safeguard—which I know, for
208
the noble Lord, is like a red rag to a bull—the Bill contains a considerable number of safeguards to ensure that that does happen. We resist the amendment because we do not believe that it is necessary to impose an additional safeguard, especially one offering scope for further delay and confusion.
I should explain my understanding of the changes proposed in the two amendments. When a CAFCASS officer witnesses a consent under Clause 19, he should also examine what the agency has done to consult and work with wider family members. If the CAFCASS officer is unsatisfied, he can apply to the court so that it can make an order blocking the adoptive placement, perhaps pending the agency carrying out the work. The intention of the amendments as I understand them is to provide a check on agencies to ensure that these important issues—which relate to Article 8 of the ECHR and the right to family and private life—are picked up. I think that that is absolutely right. However, I argue that the processes in the Bill and the procedures that will follow will ensure that they are picked up at an earlier stage than that proposed by the amendment.
First, all agencies will be bound by the clause to which we have often referred, Clause 1(4)(f), to consult and involve relatives, wider family members and others with a significant relationship with the child, and to consider their willingness and their capacity to care for the child. We have already made clear that the new regulations and the accompanying guidance will require those obligations to be discharged from the very beginning of the process at the point at which the agency is considering whether or not adoption is in the best interests of the child. We believe that that will be a responsive process and we intend to ensure that it is a thorough process focused on child welfare.
Secondly, we have also said that we are willing to provide in court rules a route for agencies to apply to the courts for guidance so that they do not have to rely on inherent court jurisdictions whenever they are not sure what is the appropriate action to be taken in a complex family situation. I reinforce that point again. As part of the decision-making process the adoption panel will scrutinise the agency's plan for the child. That includes, by definition, a very careful examination of whether the agency has properly explored the wider family situation. The fundamental review of adoption panels constitutes an extra safeguard to ensure that that happens. Therefore, there is a strong independent element here. Scrutiny will be undertaken before a final decision is taken that adoption is in the child's best interests. That will take place well before any CAFCASS officer becomes involved. We believe that we have to get the matter right at that stage of the process.
Thirdly, all children looked after by local authorities will come under the new independent reviewing officer system to be established under Clause 118. That system will include all children accommodated and covered by Chapter 3 of the Bill, whether they are voluntarily placed, under statement orders, actually placed with prospective adopters or simply

209
accommodated pending placement. Each of those children will have a care plan which will have to be reviewed regularly by the authority. Independent reviewing officers will take part in every review. That is yet another independent element to make sure that the views and the needs of the child are taken into account. That process will, of course, include Article 8 rights concerning links with parents, relatives and so on. If the authority devises, or seeks to implement, a plan that breaches a child's human rights in that respect, for example, by separating him or her from wider family members, the reviewing officer will first notify the authority of his concern in the expectation that the plan will be modified to take account of it. If the authority does not do so, the reviewing officer can inform the child's parents, who can take action on the child's behalf, or he can alert CAFCASS. That is another barrier to things going wrong. All those processes would occur well before a CAFCASS officer became involved. That is not a snapshot; it is an ongoing function that can be continually reviewed.
I am going into the detail as I want to place on record the layers in the process where we hope to pick up on anything that may lead to a disaster. I hope that noble Lords are reassured that we are addressing the important concerns that the amendments raise and that they will understand why we do not think that it is necessary or proportionate to add another court process in the manner suggested.
These amendments are complex. We are aware that they raise important issues. We are impressed by the seriousness and the scrupulous attention to detail that has gone into drawing them up. I hope that my response reinforces the purpose of the Bill but also convinces the noble Lord that he can have confidence in the Bill and its processes.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that careful reply. I appreciate the care that went into it in terms of taking us through what the Minister perceives to be the safeguards. I confess that she recounted an impressive catalogue of safeguards. However, the problem is that it does not have the final backstop, which is precisely what this set of amendments was designed to achieve.
I am slightly disappointed that the Minister appears not to have a clear idea of the procedure by which the amendments would operate as a fair degree of trouble was taken to brief the department beforehand and illustrations were given of how the process would work. Earlier, I spared the House the full catalogue of exactly how the process would work on several alternative bases depending on who took the initiative in taking the matter to court. I could recount—but I shall not do so—the precise procedure that was given to the department. Therefore, I am slightly disappointed by the Minister's lack of understanding of exactly how the process would work. The basis on which it would work is highly logical and, in my view and that of those who briefed me, it would have worked in a perfectly satisfactory way.
210
However, as regards the Government's placement orders scheme, it is difficult to insert a new brick in that edifice without that having perhaps unintended consequences. I believe that the Government, birth parents, CAFCASS and others will find that they do need the backstop that I mentioned. Although I am disappointed, I shall not press the amendment at this stage. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Contact]:
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 17, line 18, leave out from "child-to end of line 19 and insert "is placed for adoption"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 8, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11. These amendments deal with baby placements. I hope that in the light of the recent disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I can give him some better news on this group of amendments as they concern issues which he raised on Report on 14th October. We are bringing forward the amendments late but that is simply a measure of the fact that we have carefully considered the matter and have had more discussions with stakeholders about how to deal with baby placements and, in particular, with regard to the legal limbo into which the noble Lord feared some placements might fall if after the six weeks period the mother disappeared before the formal consent had been sought.
I remind noble Lords how the provisions for baby placements work. Under Clause 18 an adoption agency may place a child for adoption under six weeks old without needing either a placement order or a formal consent under Clause 19. This provision to permit placement under six weeks enables young babies to be placed for adoption even if the mother is not yet in a position to give formal consent to placement under Clause 19.
Clauses 47 and 52 provide that any consent given by the mother of a child to the making of an adoption order or to placement under Clause 19 is ineffective for the purposes of making an adoption order if it is given less than six weeks after the child's birth. As we have discussed at various stages of the Bill, that allows the mother time to recover from the birth and time to receive additional counselling to ensure that she is making the right decision for herself and the child. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised anxieties in that area. We hope sincerely that that will not constitute the first counselling that is offered but will constitute the final stages of counselling.
The effect of Clause 18 is that the agency may, with the parents' consent, place a child for adoption when it is under six weeks old. The process for seeking that consent will be set out in the adoption agency regulations. But in order to have a consent to placement for adoption that will be a valid basis for making a final adoption order under Clause 47(4), the agency will have to return the child to the mother after the six week period to get the formal consent.

211
On Report the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was concerned about the situation where a mother had given consent when the child was under six weeks old but the agency was unable to locate her. He asked what the legal status of the child would be in those circumstances. He was worried that the child would be moved to a temporary foster placement in the mean time with all the disturbance that that would involve. I reassure the noble Lord that we are clear that there would be no need for any temporary movement to foster placement. We believe that that would be undesirable and wrong; it is certainly not a requirement of the Bill. We have taken advice and worked through the issue. We are satisfied that, in the light of the work we have done, the status of the placement in legal terms would be that the child would still count as placed for adoption under the Bill after the six-week period. There would be no need for any temporary foster placement. Once a child had been placed for adoption under the Bill, the child remains in law placed for adoption unless something happens to change that situation—for example, if the agency or the parents seek to withdraw the child from the placement.
We hope that there will be very few situations in which a mother consents to a baby under six weeks being placed and then disappears entirely. It is hard to imagine the tragedy that that would involve. It would mean that the agency was never able to obtain a formal consent under Clause 19. However, there would be nothing to stop the adoptive placement proceeding as an agency placement all the way through to the making of the final adoption order. The difference would be that, rather than the final adoption order being made under the second condition in Clause 47(4) on the basis of a valid Clause 19 consent to placement, the adoption order would have to be made under the first condition in Clause 47, with parental consent or with that consent having been dispensed with. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that the legal situation is watertight. The detailed examination prompted by his question uncovered a couple of matters in relation to which we wanted to put the position beyond doubt. That is what our amendments will do.
The amendments provide that where a child under six weeks old has been placed for adoption but after the six weeks the agency does not yet have authorisation under Clause 19, the rules for removal set out in Chapter 3 of the Bill still apply. Only the adoption agency may remove the child from the placement. However, the mother or parent can request the return of the child at any time. The child must be returned within seven days, the only exception being where the local authority applies for a placement order.
The second area in which we are proposing changes is in relation to contact. The effect of the amendments is to ensure that the provisions for placement contact orders in Clauses 26 and 27 cover baby placements which begin when the child is under six weeks but continue after that point without a Clause 19 consent being obtained. In view of the importance of sibling
212
contact, we are doing that in order to ensure that siblings and other relatives who wished to apply for contact were able to make use of the contact provisions and that they would not be shut out from the very early weeks of a child's life, especially if there was any gap period between the six weeks and the giving of the formal Clause 19 consent. That is obviously important to grandparents. The amendments aim to make it crystal clear that the benefits of the placement provisions in terms of rights of return and access to contact apply in any gap between the six-week period and formal consent being given under Clause 19.
I hope that the noble Lord feels that we have addressed the concern that he raised. We have taken very seriously the need to be absolutely clear in law. I hope that he agrees that the amendments provide a clear legal status for those babies after the six-week period. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Contact: supplementary]:
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 18, line 7, leave out "less than six weeks old" and insert "placed for adoption"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [General prohibitions on removal]:
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 20, line 8, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(b) a child is placed for adoption by an adoption agency and either the child is less than six weeks old or the agency has at no time been authorised to place the child for adoption,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Recovery by parent etc. where child not placed or is a baby]:
Baroness Andrewsmoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 21, line 9, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) a child is placed for adoption by an adoption agency and either the child is less than six weeks old or the agency has at no time been authorised to place the child for adoption, and"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Child to live with adopters before application]:
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 27, line 35, leave out from "them" to "preceding" in line 36 and insert "at all times during the period of six months"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment, which I also tabled on Report, is designed to highlight my concerns about the procedures that are proposed to apply to non-convention intercountry adoptions. My understanding, which the Minister confirmed on Report, is that where an adoption application to a UK court is required, unless it relates to a convention adoption, the child must have had his or her home with the applicant for three years out of a five-year period prior to the application being made. As I read it, that is a change to the position provided for under the Adoption Act 1976, as modified by the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999. In my opinion, that is a change for the worse. Requiring children to have

213
to wait for more than three years for their legal position to be secured cannot possibly be in their best interests.
As I said in our earlier debate, many countries of origin are likely to balk at provisions which are obviously out of step with those that rightly apply to domestic adoptions. The Minister indicated to me that the draft intercountry adoption regulations have recently been the subject of consultation, particularly in the context of our obligations under The Hague convention. She kindly said that she would include in her and her department's deliberations the issue of what the appropriate residence period should be for relative intercountry adoptions. That was a welcome assurance.
However, as I said, there is a wider concern. This issue does not relate simply to relative intercountry adoptions. Although Clause 42(6) allows for an adoption application to be made sooner than normal if the court approves, the Minister said that that provision would be invoked only in cases that were considered to be of an exceptional nature. I do not believe that that covers the concern that I raised on Report and which I raise again. It is an unnecessary hurdle, apart from being a drain on court time.
The amendment, if agreed to, would specify the same six-month period before which an adoption order may be granted in respect of all intercountry adoptions, regardless of whether they are convention designated or non-convention non-designated adoptions. I hope that the Minister will provide me with some reassurance on those issues.
I do not wish to anticipate what the Minister may say about government Amendment No. 15, which is grouped with this amendment. He will know, I am sure, that it has been commented on by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I hope that the Government will take those comments into account. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should begin by apologising to the House for the late tabling of the government amendments. The period between Report and Third Reading is very short but we tabled them later than we would normally like. We wanted to get this important and complex issue right.
I turn to the amendments relating to the time that the child should live with the adopters. I believe and hope that the amendments that I have tabled, at least with regard to their regulation-making powers, deal with the concerns raised in relation to Amendment No. 12, to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just spoken. As he said, my noble friend Lady Andrews outlined on Report the current position under the Bill and explained that we would return to the issue of the time that the child should live with adopters in intercountry cases following further consideration.
Under Section 13 of the Adoption Act 1976 where the applicant is a parent, step-parent or relative of the child or the child was placed by an adoption agency or in pursuance of an order of the High Court, the child
214
must live with the applicants for 13 weeks before the adoption order can be made. In cases of intercountry adoption, which are not agency placements, the child must live with the applicants for 12 months.
Under the Bill the residence periods are set out in Clause 42. For non-agency placements which are not provided for elsewhere in Clause 42, the residence period is three out of the previous five years. That is the provision to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, objects. However, we have taken a power in Clause 83(6)(a) to enable regulations to provide that provisions in Chapter 3 of the Bill, including Clause 42, apply with modification or do not apply to children brought in under Clause 83. It is our intention to use the power to provide that the child must live with the applicants for six months where the correct procedures have been followed and 12 months where they have not. Where Clause 83 does not apply, the standard residence periods set out in Clause 42 will apply.
However, it is intended that Clause 83 will apply to all but a very limited group of people. The exceptions are likely to be, for example, parents in prescribed circumstances. Under Clause 42, the residence period for parents is 10 weeks. Therefore, in the vast majority of cases of intercountry adoption, the time that the child has to live with the adopters will be set out in regulations as six months where the appropriate procedures have been followed, as envisaged by Amendment No. 12.
This group of amendments is intended to make clear the residence periods that should apply in relation to convention adoptions. It is also intended to ensure that the same modification powers are available for the early implementation of the restrictions on intercountry adoption.
In summary, in relation to intercountry adoption, wherever the correct procedures have been followed, we intend that the child should live with the adopters for six months. That should ensure that children have time to adjust and settle with their new families and that the local authority is able to monitor the placement satisfactorily prior to the court making the order. Where the correct procedures have not been followed, we intend that the child should be required to live with the adopters for a minimum of 12 months in order to allow the child to settle with his new family and in order for the local authority fully to assess the family in lieu of the checks that would have taken place before the child went to live with the family.
I turn to the amendments which deal with the question of to whom the provisions on intercountry adoption should apply. We have received representations from intercountry adoption stakeholder groups expressing concern about intercountry adoption by relatives. They have suggested that, at present, the welfare of the child is not paramount because it is treated predominantly as an immigration rather than an adoption issue. They have raised concerns about the lack of preparation of relatives who adopt from overseas and the fact that the suitability of relatives to adopt is not assessed unless the child's home country requires it. They have made

215
clear that that means that we cannot be sure that those relatives will provide a safe, secure environment for the child. We have listened carefully to the issues raised by the stakeholder groups and believe that we need to address that important matter.
Clauses 83, 85 and 134, the transitional provision in paragraph 11 of Schedule 4 and Section 56 of the Adoption Act 1976 place restrictions on the circumstances in which children may be brought into or taken out of the United Kingdom for the purposes of adoption. At present, those restrictions include the requirement for a person wishing to bring a child into the country for the purpose of adoption to be assessed and approved by an adoption agency and for a person wishing to take a child out of the country for the purpose of adoption to be in receipt of an order permitting that. However, those safeguards do not apply when the prospective adopters are the child's natural parents, natural relatives, guardians or step-parents.
In the light of the concerns raised about that lack of safeguards, we have returned to the case for exempting those groups and have decided that something must be done to address the matter. The approach that we have taken through the amendments is to remove the specific exemption of parents, guardians, relatives and step-parents from the provisions which set out the restrictions. Then, in each case, a regulation-making power has been taken to enable us to prescribe that the provisions setting out restrictions on bringing in or removing a child are not to apply—or, where necessary, to apply with modification—to parents, relatives and step-parents. That reflects the need to be flexible and to be careful that we do not impose the restrictions inappropriately.
Using regulation-making powers will provide the necessary flexibility to react to changing circumstances. Through experience and discussions with other countries, it may become clear that it would not be appropriate to include certain groups in the restrictions. Therefore, we shall consult, and the use of regulations will allow us to respond.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 deal with the position under the Bill. Amendments Nos. 30 to 33 deal with the position under the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978, and Amendments Nos. 41 to 44 deal with the position under the Adoption Act 1976. Before I leave Amendment No. 15, perhaps I may say that we have received the opinion of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Clearly it is impossible to do anything about it this afternoon but I anticipate that, when this amendment goes to the House of Commons, we shall seek to bring forward other amendments to give effect to the committee's proposal that the regulation-making powers should be affirmative in the first instance and negative on subsequent occasions.
Because the amendments remove the explicit exemption of parents, guardians, relatives and stepparents from the restrictions, that gives us additional powers in relation to residence periods. It means that we shall be able to use the regulation-making powers
216
in Clause 83, in the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 and in new Section 56A of the Adoption Act 1976 to make regulations to specify the time that a child must live with a parent, relative, guardian or step-parent in intercountry adoption cases.
These are detailed amendments, but our intention is clear. We intend to ensure that children who are adopted from overseas by parents, relatives, guardians and step-parents are properly safeguarded. We recognise that such children are potentially vulnerable, that they need to be protected and that their relatives may well need the same assessment of their suitability and/or help to prepare for adoption as would be the case in relation to a stranger planning to adopt a child from overseas.
However, we are also clear that we do not want to impose unworkable restrictions and that we need to take the advice of those working in the field as to any groups that should legitimately be excluded. That is why we have taken care to include in the amendments regulation-making powers that provide the necessary flexibility to react to experience, changes in practice and the views of professionals.
I hope that, on that basis, the House will accept that the amendments that we have tabled address the concerns behind Amendment No. 12 as well as the other matters that I addressed in introducing them.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he could be absolutely clear about the commitment that he gave regarding Amendment No. 15. He said that he imagined that the Government would seek to amend the amendment when it went to the Commons. Will he give a commitment that, through the usual channels with the other place, he will ensure that it meets the requirements of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, clearly I cannot give a guarantee as to what the House of Commons will do. I cannot imagine that that will not be the case. That is what we propose to do.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I very much welcome the thought devoted to this issue by the Minister and his colleagues and, indeed, by his department, and I welcome the assurances that he has given today. I am extremely grateful. I believe that the Government's amendments have addressed in very large measure the concerns that I raised. I also greatly welcome the modifications that the Government have proposed to Clauses 83 and 85. I consider that they represent an improvement to the Bill.
In general, I want to place on the record how much we on these Benches appreciate the willingness shown by the Government throughout our deliberations on the Bill to respond positively to the concerns raised from around your Lordships' House. I believe that this has been a very constructive series of debates. We have a better Bill as a result of those debates, and I believe

217
that all noble Lords share my appreciation of what Ministers have done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 83 [Restriction on bringing children in]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 47. line 17, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his remarks, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 85 [Restriction on taking children out]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 48, line 41, leave out from beginning to "adopters" in line 1 on page 49 and insert—
"( ) the prospective"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 85, insert the following new clause—
"POWER TO MODIFY SECTIONS 83 AND 85
(1) Regulations may provide for section 83 not to apply if—

(a) the adopters or (as the case may be) prospective adopters are natural parents, natural relatives or guardians of the child in question (or one of them is), or

(b) the British resident in question is a step-parent of the child,

and any prescribed conditions are met.
(2) Regulations may provide for section 85(1) to apply with modifications, or not to apply, if—

(a) the prospective adopters are parents, relatives or guardians of the child in question (or one of them is), or

(b) the prospective adopter is a step-parent of the child, and any prescribed conditions are met.

(3) In this section, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations and "regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Assembly."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 101 [Officers of the Service]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 17:
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, I feel sweetness and light are clearly breaking across the House. However, we still have a few amendments to deal with today. I am confident that the Government will give them a favourable passage. Perhaps those are famous last words.
218
I probably succeeded again in confusing the Lord Chancellor's Department with the amendments. They appear to have been again put on the Marshalled List in truncated form. I hope that the department will be able to respond despite the fact that the amendments are somewhat flawed. Clearly I shall be interested to hear whether the Government accept the logic stated previously by these Benches.
On Report, the Government introduced an amendment to the effect that relatives may apply under Clause 26 for contact with a child whom the agency is authorised to place for adoption. It removes the earlier requirement that relatives needed to apply for leave first before making such an application. It should be mirrored in the case of special guardianship.
The amendment addresses what has become a rather illogical situation. Relatives seeking contact with a child placed for adoption do not need to apply for leave to apply for contact. However, the same people seeking contact with a child in accommodation or care need to do so. There is no obvious rationale for retaining that differentiation. Relatives are generally successful when they apply for leave making the leave stage arguably an unnecessary use of the courts' time. If their application is, in rare cases, inappropriate there is already a mechanism in Section 91 of the Children Act to restrict future applications. It is surely time to raise the presumption that they may apply for contact unless they need to be restricted from doing so rather than vice versa. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, I reassure the noble Lord that, although there is a problem with the drafting, I fully understand what he seeks to do. The amendment seeks to permit relatives to apply for Section 8 orders for contact with children in care without the leave of the court.
The leave requirement is intended to ensure in the context of Sections 10 and 34 of the Children Act that applications concerning children are made by those who have a genuine interest in the upbringing of the child. In practice, leave is nearly always granted for relatives. The application for leave should be filed at the same time as the application and one fee is taken. So relatives should see little difference in practice whether or not leave is required.
There is a concern about accepting the amendment for two reasons. One is the definition of "relative" as in Clause 145. This is broad and includes,
"a grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt, whether of the full blood or half-blood",
or by affinity or step parent. Many of those relatives will have taken an active interest in the upbringing of the child and should have no difficulty in obtaining leave. But some of those caught under the definition may have had little relationship with the child and in those cases there may be a real question as to whether court proceedings are in the best interests of the child.
We think that the existing position is best preserved. We must see these arrangements from the perspective of the child and what is best for him or her, particularly where those children have already suffered abuse within the family.

219
I understand the noble Lord's point. He points to the distinction between the amendment in relation to placement contact orders so far as concerns adoption and the wider issue he raises. I understand that the two situations are different. Section 8 contact orders are for use in a wide range of situations including for contact with children in family situations where the child is neither in care nor subject to any court order. In those normal family situations there is no legal barrier to contact with the relatives. Where contact orders are sought, therefore, it is likely to be where there is dispute about contact. In that case, we believe that it is appropriate in the interests of the child that the leave requirement be in place as a screening process, as I have already suggested.
In contrast, a child placed for adoption is under a totally different situation. The end objective is separation from his or her family. The child is not in a normal family situation. He is under the supervision of the adoption agency which will oversee any kind of contact. There is no presumption of contact with those persons. There is already a filter for contact in adoption placements because the adoption agency looks after the child's interests. But we did still want to allow for relatives to apply to courts for contact if they were unable to secure it through the agency. That is why we have allowed them to apply for Clause 26 contact orders and why there is no leave requirement in that situation.
I hope that the noble Lord accepts that there is a valid distinction. However, the Government recognise that some relatives—we think in particular of grandparents and siblings—may have genuine concerns about whether the leave requirement imposes a barrier against an application even if, as our experience suggests, the concern is more perceived than real.
I place on record, therefore, that the Government are considering what changes to guidance and secondary legislation may be necessary to ensure that the application for leave process is as simple as possible and that there are no barriers, real or otherwise, to a concerned relative making an application for the benefit of the child.
We believe that it is right for there to be a distinction. But we are willing to look at the practical circumstances to see whether, through regulations, there is a case for streamlining the application for leave.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He makes an interesting distinction. With a child in care there may well be a dispute surrounding the child and, therefore, there is a need for a slightly different pattern than in circumstances where the adoption agency has an overview under Clause 26. That was helpful. His undertaking to see whether the guidance can clear away some of the barriers associated with applying for leave was also helpful. It would be helpful if consultation and discussion were to take place
220
between stakeholder organisations and the department. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
Clause 115 [Special guardianship]:
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 66, line 20, at end insert—
"( ) a birth parent;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 105, debated on a previous occasion, was a similar amendment.
There has been considerable debate in Committee and on Report on the special guardianship provisions. Your Lordships are aware that on these Benches we had two problems with the special guardianship provisions. The duty on the local authority to provide an assessment was dealt with by a tied vote on Report and, therefore, will not be raised again. The second issue related to birth parents not being included specifically in the list of people who may request support services.
The effect of the special guardianship order is to exclude the parent from decision making about the child. 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 lop-sided—or at least, even if parents do not have the right, that they are included in the list of prescribed persons. Therefore, the parent should have help to adjust to the new arrangements.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, confirmed in Grand Committee, at col. CWH 356, that birth parents may well be included in the list of those within the "prescribed description" who may ask for support, we suggest on these Benches that this right to request support should be contained in the primary legislation, otherwise it is likely that local authorities will give it a low priority. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, we considered this matter on Report. At that stage I said—and I repeat—that because such a guardianship does not sever the legal relationship between the parent and the child, the birth parents have important interests that need to be looked after in the interests of the child. Therefore, the inclusion of birth parents within those categories of persons who can request a needs assessment is an important element, not only for the birth parents but for the child. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond even more positively than he did on Report in this respect.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I always attempt to respond positively. As noble Lords will know, when we previously discussed the matter I informed the House that we already had the ability to use the power in subsection 3(c) to prescribe other people who may be assessed, which would be a means of including birth parents.

221
However, I am sympathetic to the intention, which I think provides a signal in the legislation that we anticipate that birth parents are likely to be key recipients of special guardianship support services. Alas, the noble Lord's amendment is technically flawed. The reference to a birth parent causes some difficulty because that is not defined in the Children Act.
Therefore, in the spirit of understanding and good fellowship in this Bill—which I think we have all enjoyed—I suggest that the House passes the amendment and we shall seek to make a minor amendment in another place in order to make the provision technically correct.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I cannot refuse an offer such as that. I am deeply grateful to the Minister for his "charity"—if I may put it that way. I thank the Minister for his remarks. Many people will be extremely happy with that reply, and not just noble Lords on these Benches.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 116 [Accommodation of children in need etc.]:
Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 68, line 20, after "accommodation" insert "with their families"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 21, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 22. The amendment to Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 in Clause 114 of the Bill is welcome in so far as it confirms the power of local authorities to provide accommodation for children with their families under Section 17.
Such confirmation is urgently needed because the law has become confused on that point as a result of contradictory decisions in three Court of Appeal cases. We discussed them at some length last time. All three cases are now subject to appeal to the House of Lords. If an amendment to this effect is not made, we must await a decision by the House of Lords on those cases. If its decision does not allow for families to be provided with accommodation under Section 17, the opportunity for sorting out the problem will remain unresolved for the foreseeable future.
However, despite the general support for the principle behind the amendment, there is widespread concern that the proposed amendment to Section 17, coupled with the amendment to Section 22 of the Children Act, 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 Act, instead of accommodation provided by Section 20 of the Act, even when there appears to be a clear duty to do so.
Secondly, removing the status of the "looked-after" child from this group also removes the duty of local authorities to safeguard and promote their welfare, to consult with them about actions that affect them, and to comply with the regulations designed to ensure that
222
placements are safe and suitable. That undermines many of the commitments made as a result of People Like Us.
Thirdly, the amendment contains no lower age limit. Technically it could be used to validate the placement of children of any age.
Lastly, there is evidence to suggest that local authorities are already using Section 17 of the Children Act to provide accommodation to asylum seeker children. It appears that the Government do not disapprove of this action in principle; I quoted last time from the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to the noble Baroness, Lady David, dated 5th August. If that practice persists in relation to asylum seeking children it could be a breach, as mentioned on Report, of Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—the right to equal treatment.
The crucial disadvantage to this practice is that under Section 17 the local authority are not subject to the duties in Sections 22,23 and 24 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 case and/or apply the leading 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 out there 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 these sections of the Act. For example, they may need advice and support to apply for welfare benefits to which they are entitled, and/or they may need someone to enter into a contract on their behalf, as children do not have contractual capacity. 11 they are accommodated under Section 20, and therefore have "looked-after" status under Section 22, they will have a social worker who will deal with such matters for them; if they are accommodated under Section 17, they will not. We question which children, who cannot live at home, would never have a potential need for this kind of support.
It would be unwelcome if the Government's amendment, as we mentioned on Report. was interpreted by local authorities as giving official approval to a practice which is unlikely to meet the young person's needs, and which may well leave him or her exposed to a significant degree of harm.
On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, outlined that it was not necessary to curtail the power of the local authority to provide accommodation for lone children under Section 17 to ensure good practice because, first, the framework for the assessment document would ensure that the child's needs were fully explored. We disagree with that because many young people who present to social services in need of urgent accommodation, for whatever reason, may he given short-term accommodation in bed and breakfast and may never be subject to a full care assessment. Who will press the local authority to complete this task if there is no one looking out for the child's interests?

223
Children who have been in care for 10 to 12 years may resist "being taken into care" and the consequent loss of independence, because they want to make a life for themselves. With the greatest of respect to the Minister, such children would not be "taken into care" because they would already be "looked-after" by the local authority if they were still "in care". If they were not, they would be eligible as care leavers for leaving care support, including accommodation under Section 24, as amended by Clause 114.
The other argument is that children who had not previously been looked after, might not want to be "looked-after", with all that that entails, if all they really want is housing because they have left home. However, in our view they remain children in law for whom someone needs to be responsible. If the parents cannot be, for whatever reason, the state must. The framework for accommodation under Section 17 does not provide for that, but under Section 20 it does.
Where any such children are ready to move to semi-independent living with a need for only minimal, additional support, the possibilities for placement of looked-after children under Section 23 are sufficiently wide to enable the local authority to place them in "independent" living arrangements—for example, supported lodgings—while they are still looked after, so that the child is not left without formal protection; and, more specifically, has a named person to contact should he have need of advice and support. Once such children cease to be minors, they would be eligible for aftercare support under Section 24. However, the same would not be available if the accommodation is provided under Section 17.
Noble Lords on these Benches are concerned that the potential risks to many children opened up by the possibility of accommodation for lone children under Section 17 outweigh the potential advantages for a few independent children who, recently estranged from home, may prefer not to be received into accommodation. The key point is that if they are provided with housing under Section 17 rather than Section 20, no one will be responsible for protecting their welfare. As the largest group that is likely to be affected is asylum-seeking children, this may have disastrous consequences for an already vulnerable group of children. It cannot be right that the law fails to protect them, and even potentially discriminates against them, in this way.
Our amendment is intended to find the right balance between respecting the needs and wishes of children who are ready for independent living and ensuring that those who cannot live in their family environment for whatever reason are adequately protected. It clarifies that local authorities can provide accommodation for children with their families under Section 17, but prevents the local authority from housing children alone without social work support, as this would derogate from their responsibilities as a corporate partner.
I very much hope that this amendment receives widespread support in the House today and that, whether or not it is passed, the Government will assure
224
us that they share the concerns about the practice and will issue strong guidance to local authorities. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I broadly support the thrust of this amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I believe that we still have a problem here. It is a matter that I raised previously. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give a sympathetic response.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am not sure that I can be quite as brief as the two previous speakers, but I shall do my very best. I am well aware of the situation as outlined by the noble Lord. As we debate these issues today, I am reminded that we discussed them in almost identical terms last week. The noble Lord and I have different views on the weighting as regards the question of balance about who we protect and what cost is incurred to others who may fall outside that band of protection.
I shall begin by reassuring the noble Lord that we entirely agree with the spirit of this amendment, and of the consequential amendment to Section 22 of the Children Act. We endorse the approach that children are best helped within their family. However, the amendments present a major problem; namely, one of balance between care and concern for children whose options will be reduced rather than addressed by what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. Perhaps I may offer the House an explanation.
During our previous debate, I sought to make four points. First, I sought to reassure the noble Lord that the amendments that had been made on Report in another place were precisely necessary to clarify beyond doubt the power of local authorities to provide accommodation for young people under Section 17 of the 1989 Act. That addresses the confusion raised by the state of case law. Secondly, I tried to reassure the noble Lord that Section 17, as amended, was not a licence for local authorities to avoid their responsibilities to provide for children who should have the protection of being looked after. I reiterate and emphasise the latter, because that is certainly the burden of what we believe. We do not want to see avoidance of Section 20. We want to see children being given the accommodation that is right for their age, for their condition, and for their needs.
Thirdly, I sought to explain that, if the amendment succeeded, the pendulum would swing to the other extreme and there would be no avenue open to local authorities under the Children Act, other than taking children into care. Fourthly, we tried to explain that the amendment, as drafted, would have a negative knock-on effect, because it would make it impossible for young people to be provided with accommodation on their own. I understand what the noble Lord said regarding 16 and 17 year-olds, but we must recognise that there are some youngsters of that age who may possibly have spent their lives in care, or who may, for whatever reason, be excluded from the family home

225
with no other relatives or friends with whom they can share homes, for whom this flexible form of accommodation available to the under-17s is most important.
I wish I could reassure the noble Lord on the most important point; namely, that there is a very positive and critical role for the framework as regards the assessment of children in need, and their families, as the basis for determining the sort of accommodation that is thought right for each child. The whole burden of the framework is addressed to the individual needs of the child and to the care that must be taken to assess the parenting capacity, the needs of the child, and the social and environmental situation in which they are growing up.
The noble Lord has reiterated and extended his concerns as regards asylum seekers. He also raised the question of age limits, with which I shall deal shortly. However, I hope that our original responses were reinforced in a letter sent to noble Lords that went into some detail on those points. Although I can assure the noble Lord that we have reconsidered the matter, I am afraid that our arguments have not changed in the week that has just passed, because the situation, as we see it, has not changed.
In the letter we sought to reassure the noble Lord, and the noble Earl, who is not now in his place, and addressed the issues that arose following concerns that Section 17 might have the effect of separating families, and those relating to the Home Office's Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, which deals with such matters as failed asylum seekers who do not comply with removal restrictions, or those who apply for asylum late. I can assure noble Lords that Section 17 not only complies with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but also enables local authorities to accommodate families together who might otherwise be split up. It provides greater flexibility and choice of provision.
In addition to the fact that Home Office Ministers will have taken advice about compliance with the ECHR, Section 17(3) of the Children Act 1989 states that services,
"may be provided for the family of a particular child in need or for any member of his family, if it is provided with a view to safeguarding or promoting the child's welfare".
Again, I should stress that there is nothing in the existing law that prevents a family being accommodated. All the choices that the noble Lord addressed are possible. There is nothing in the legislation, as amended by this clause, that implies, or impels, the separation of children from their families. Therefore, the proposed amendment duplicates what is already possible with regards to accommodation.
The noble Lord raised the question of the lower age limit. It is worth reflecting that Section 20 of the Children Act specifies that looked-after provision must be made for children under the age of 16. It is very unlikely, for example, that a child of 13 would not be accommodated as a looked-after child. We must trust agencies to make the right decisions in that regard.
226
However, the real point here relates to 16 and 17 year-olds who have a very individual notion of what constitutes the right thing for themselves, many of whom are seeking independence.
During the debate on Report, the noble Lord raised the concern that differential treatment of children might bring about a breach of Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—the right to equal treatment. Again, I reassure the noble Lord that the obligations that we have set out relating to the assessment framework, to which there is a specific reference, are the same for local children as for asylum-seeking children. Asylum-seeking children will not be disadvantaged; they must be treated the same as children born in the United Kingdom; otherwise, Article 2 issues may arise.
I return to the framework and the emphasis that it places on the wishes and feelings of young people. We do not believe that it would be helpful to restrict the ways in which local authorities can provide help. Our amendments to Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 are designed precisely to clarify that those choices shall be available.
If accommodation under Section 17 were not available, young people could only be provided with accommodation under Section 20. In consequence, they would have to be designated as looked-after children. That is the real problem for children at that transitional age. That is why we were careful in another place to include the specific and consequential amendment to Section 22. That ensures that providing accommodation under Section 17 does not mean that a child became looked-after. Amendment No. 22, the consequential amendment, reinforces Amendment No. 21, so the answer to it must be the same. It causes the same problems.
Let me explain briefly what removing local authorities' ability to choose to provide that intermediate form of accommodation means. At present, given the lack of certainty caused by case law, the Local Government Act 2000 enables local authorities to provide help with finding and/or funding accommodation, rather than providing accommodation themselves. Although that is indeed one route for a young person who is capable of operating independently, the local authorities' problem is that they often cannot find landlords who are willing to take on such young people.
So if providing accommodation becomes a problem, helping young people with finding accommodation or with funding it is obviously easier. By restoring the provision in Section 17, we want to ensure that councils have greater flexibility to use their own accommodation when suitable. I should also point out that councils' reliance on bed-and-breakfast accommodation—which is dreadful and inappropriate accommodation that can often put children at risk—becomes less likely if councils have the flexibility to use their own accommodation. So that is a positive response. We hope also by providing accommodation to stop some of the drift and even disappearance of some young people.

227
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also raised the issue of practice and to what extent we could guarantee that practice would be appropriate. Each child who is assessed under the framework may or may not need to be put into care or to become looked after. In the framework for assessment, the determining factor is what is right for that child. The social workers responsible for the child will be responsible for that decision.
When we announced increased funding for social services for children, which is the source of funding for assessment, we also made it clear that we would not be doing so unless we thought that we could guarantee better performance on councils' part. That is the condition attached. Not only do we have in place in-year monitoring as part of comprehensive performance assessment; we are working with all of the key interest groups to develop it further.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we understand his concerns. The amendment would cause more problems than it would solve. A combination of Section 17 with the options in place under the framework for assessment will help to solve the problem.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, what she said is in many ways extremely illuminating, but what guidance will incorporate the considerations that she has just discussed? That cannot be done simply by performance management, can it?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I do not want to mislead the noble Lord. I shall take advice on that and write to him. I shall provide the precise information for him and for the rest of the House.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. I also thank her for taking considerable trouble to take us all through the considerations that apply, the different sections of the Act, how they can be used and the intention behind the amendments to Section 17. However, as she is well aware, we on these Benches are fearful, especially in the context of children who are asylum seekers, about what will be the impact of the ability to use Section 17. Simply relying on the framework for assessment or performance management in the manner that she described is inadequate.
We are at Third Reading; we are late down the road on this matter; but the Minister still cannot tell me whether guidance may be issued about the precise use of those sections and how they interplay. I can well understand the need for flexibility but, given how the Act works, children being looked after do not constitute an onerous burden—certainly not equivalent to that of children being in care. If children have been in care, after 16 they can be accommodated under Section 24. If they are younger than 16, they really should be looked after.
228
I am in a difficult position here, but I hope that the Minister can prevail on her ministerial colleagues and on her department to issue guidance on that matter. It would not be right to press the amendment now, but I hope that she will use her best efforts to ensure that the interlocking of those different sections is well understood by local authorities—or at least that there is a sporting chance that they are understood.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we shall give the matter serious consideration.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive reply. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved]
4.45 p.m.
Clause 119 [Advocacy services]:
The Earl of Listowelmoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 71, line 8, at end insert—
"(6) In making arrangements under this section, the local authority shall have regard to the principle that the child or young person should be offered the assistance of a representative of their choice; and this shall include the right to have an independent advocate, who shall be, as far as is practicable, independent of the local authority which is responsible for the child or any person who is involved in the investigation or adjudication of any representation under section 26 by or on behalf of the child or young person.""
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the effect of my amendment is to ensure that advocacy services for children in care and care leavers should as far as possible be out of house—independent of the local authority. The amendment allows local authorities the flexibility that the Minister is so concerned to give them. They are urged only to,
"have regard to the principle",
that a fully independent advocate should be provided. If there is no such service locally, the local authority is not bound to avail itself of one.
It is vital that children in care and care leavers have an option—a choice of someone to advocate for them who will put their interests first. With respect to the Minister, it is not good enough for advocates to have considerations other than the interests of the child. It is not good enough that such people should be employed by the same local authority in which the child is in care, or from whose care it has come—even if that employer is at some remove from the child. Someone whose promotion may depend on his relationship with that local authority is someone whose interests are closely involved with the authority.
Out-of-house arrangements are not absolutely independent. They are normally local authority-funded. However, such agencies have been known to pursue their concerns about a young person without remuneration. They do not suffer from many of the same conflicts of interests as do local authority employees.

229
I regret that my amendment is poorly worded. I apologise for that; my legal adviser is currently abroad. But I hope that the Minister will find the spirit of my amendment acceptable.
Advocacy services for children, introduced to legislation for the first time in the Bill, are an important step forward. I, and all those involved in the field, appreciate the efforts of the Minister and Government in this area. However, I regret to say that the services will be flawed if there is not the vital sufficiency of independence; otherwise, I am concerned that the proposals will fail to fulfil their potential. I beg to move.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, throughout the debate, on all sides there has been a real commitment to listening to children and a deep concern for their welfare. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, expressed that earlier. Indeed, the inclusion of the clause, which has been widely welcomed, is a reflection of how the Government have responded to troubled children who need help to speak out about their care and concerns. Therefore, in supporting my noble friend's amendment, I want to acknowledge how far we have come and also to encourage the Minister to take what might be one further small step for the Government but a leap for the rights of children.
My personal links through Childline and the National Youth Advocacy Scheme have given me the opportunity to hear directly from many young people in care. As we have said before in this Chamber, their difficulties are varied when wanting to make representation. They range from arguments about rules, to their rights not to be moved from one placement and placed into another, thus losing all contact with friends and schools, to allegations of bullying and indeed abuse.
Many, however, do not want to invoke the full complaints procedure. They need someone to help them negotiate through difficult patches. Others need immediate removal from their situation to protect them. But what they all need is a trusted adult alongside them—someone they see as representing their interests, and no others, to see them through the process. More than anything else, these young people have said that they want that to be independent of the system or the individuals about whom they are complaining.
I have no doubt that there are many good social workers and legal workers in local authorities who could do that, but is it a right principle? There are real problems about conflict of interest. I have thought through whether reciprocal arrangements would work, hut, as the Minister will know, the panels of guardians ad litem ran into real difficulties because of differences between local authorities attempting to ensure their independence. From that, we gained the independent group of CAFCASS.
Within a local authority, responsibility for a client and an employer can come into conflict. As a former director of social services, I have experienced that to a great degree. The Minister might like to consider how
230
an advocate employed by a local authority would take forward an application for a child under human rights legislation when he has signed contracts binding him to abide by the policies and procedures of his employing authority?
There was an attempt at independence in the context of the Children Act complaints procedure where an "independent person" means independent of the local authority. But the role of these individuals is severely curtailed to consideration of the issues without making any investigation or necessarily seeing the child. Let us take it the whole way forward and have real independence.
While anecdote is not evidence, it is worth reminding ourselves of what can happen if the child does not have independent representation. Perhaps I may tell your Lordships of a 14 year-old who made a complaint on behalf of 11 children in her children's home. The little ones were so terrified at night that they were sleeping under the local bandstand. The regime was oppressive but did not stop the severe bullying between the young people.
The young woman received a letter from her local authority legal department, not in child-friendly terms, telling her to present herself at the town hall at a given date and to "explain herself". The letter went on to state that although the local authority lawyer would be present, together with senior members of the administration, she had no right to legal representation. What the local authority did not know was that she had contacted an independent advocacy scheme and arrived with an advocate and a lawyer who finally found 22 allegations against the local authority. What happens to young people who have not found independent help in circumstances such as those? It was clear that this local authority had no intention of giving her independent advice.
I know that the Minister believes in letting local authorities get on with their job. It is a view I largely share. But is he aware that the fastest growing group of referrers to independent agencies are local authority social workers who feel they can do no more within their own system? I also know that the Government are not keen on central schemes. But is the Minister also aware that, as I understand it, there were discussions with the Department of Health and the Association of Directors of Social Services when a scheme was considered to top-slice—I realise that that is not a nice word in local authority terms—a tiny amount of funding from local authorities properly calculated to ensure that any child in care could choose his advocate and know that the funding would he available?
It is a kind of insurance fund for each child and it would go with the child, but of course not all children would use it. It would also save the voluntary sector having to bill 151 separate authorities. In the long run. it would therefore be cheaper. Would the Minister consider looking at such a scheme again, if only at somewhere to run it as a pilot?
Perhaps I may ask the Minister one final question of clarification of his reply on 23rd October. He said:

231
"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".—[Official Report, 23/10/02; col. 1391.]
Does the Minister not accept that in a local authority there is a clear line management all the way through to the director and, through corporate working, to the chief executive? Ultimately, that will be with the members, particularly in an era of cabinet working where one member is likely to be responsible for these services. How will the Minister ensure that there is no one with a direct interest involved in investigations in these circumstances?
If as an adult one is seeking advice or help for what one sees as an injustice, there is a wide range of independent services to which one can turn. I urge the Minister to offer our most vulnerable children—children in care—at least this one.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Listowel and what was admirably said in addition by my noble friend Lady Howarth. The most important point made in this debate and previously was the growing need of such children—the most vulnerable and least achieving of the children in our society—to have an independent voice.
We already know that a number of the children have begun to be more vociferous and organisations such as the Advocacy Consortium are already doing some work in this respect. I like the idea that some central funding would totally remove the charge of lack of independence because a local authority was paying, however supposedly independent the organisation undertaking the work.
Whether that is possible or not, we must have a guarantee from the Minister that these services will be available to children in care. Many of them have been in care for a long time and by definition they will feel intimidated about making a complaint against those who are in charge of them. Noble Lords may remember that I referred to the Children Act under which there was a plan to have a "friend" for every child who had been in care and was not in contact with the family. Whether or not that plan can ever be resurrected, an organisation to which these children can go must be established. Childline is one of the most effective voluntary organisations and has been of huge practical help to young people, but the danger that these children are in—often, sadly, when they are in local authority care—cannot be overstated. I hope that the Minister will feel able to give a greater guarantee than he has in the past.
5 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on what he has already done about advocacy, but he understands well enough that progress is incremental and that a parliament is an assembly of Oliver Twists. Therefore, I do not think that he will take it personally if we ask for more.
232
The principle of conflict of interests, referred to by both the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, is crucial. The local authority to which the noble Baroness referred, which summoned a girl to appear, telling her that she had no right to legal representation but that the local authority lawyer would be present, was acting as judge and party in its own court. Therefore, as I understand it, it was in breach of the principles of natural justice and liable to judicial review. It might have found that a great deal more expensive than allowing the child a decent advocate.
We need a further definition of what is "advocacy". I have experience of the problem. I once represented a student of mine in a situation which appeared to put his interests in conflict with those of the college. I am glad to say that, in the end, appearances proved deceptive, but they were the appearances at the time. As I served a very good college, I had the great fortune to receive a note in writing, under the hand of my head of department, stating that he understood that my duty was to serve the interests of my student regardless of those of the college, as long as I understood in return that the department's duty was to both the students concerned as they were both members of the department.
But they do not all come like that—and it is because they do not all come like that that this precaution of legislation to prevent conflicts of interest is vitally important in terms of justice. When one thinks of the possibility of judicial review, it is vitally important to the saving of local authorities' money—and that needs to be done, too.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I support the intent of Amendment No. 23. Last week on Report I welcomed the Government's amendment, which inserted Clause 119, in place of my amendments designed to introduce independent advocacy. However, I said that the welcome was tempered by concerns about independence, those concerns being shared by a number of noble Lords. We could not see that there was genuine independence from the local authority, only that the Government were promising case independence. The House should be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for tabling the amendment, which allows us to debate again the importance of independence.
The amendment does not require that all advocacy services are independent but that a looked-after child should be able to choose his or her advocate and, so far as is practical, to choose an advocate who is independent of the authority. It is thus a very modest amendment. I am not sure that its drafting is entirely right, but that is not a point for today.
I hope that the Minister will be somewhat more reassuring than he was on Report about the Government's commitment to the independence of advocacy services. At that stage the Minister seemed to say that it would be acceptable for an authority to provide only in-house advocacy services. I do not believe that that is good enough. A local authority may find it impossible to contract with an outside advocacy

233
provider, but I doubt that that will ever be the case. If that were to be the case, I concede that the provision of in-house advocacy would be better than none. However, in practice, there should always be the option available to the authority to arrange for some kind of outside and independent advocacy services.
I shall listen very carefully to hear whether the Minister states that the regulations will enshrine both choice for the child and proper independence wherever possible. I hope that the Minister will not put the freedoms of local authorities above the interests of this vulnerable group of children.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, noble Lords—particularly those who took part in the debates on the Children (Leaving Care) Bill and the Health and Social Care Bill—will know that it was with great pleasure that I was able to bring forward the government amendment on Report. All noble Lords will agree that it is a very great advance.
I recognise the description of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, of the Oliver Twists in the House. I have learnt that noble Lords are usually not satisfied with whatever the Government bring forward—that is fair enough—and I understand the points that have been raised about independent advocacy. However, we should not underestimate the role played by a number of local authorities in showing how advocacy can work effectively. That is why I trust local authorities to take this matter forward.
Unfortunately, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, is not in her place, but I was struck by the theme of her reflections on the whole question of trust. As someone who came into public life as a member of a local authority, I uphold the principle of placing trust and responsibility in local authorities. We have an ability to do that here. Many local authorities will choose to use external organisations to provide such advocacy, but some will wish to provide it in-house. The publication of our advocacy standards, the consultations that we will undertake and the regulations that we will bring before both Houses will enable us to ensure that, where a local authority has decided to provide services in-house, those services are effective and meet the problems that a number of noble Lords have suggested might occur with an in-house service.
Let me address the detail of the amendment and, first, the question of choice. I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who has great experience in this area and is a champion of children and children's rights, that I fully agree that giving a child or a young person a choice is important. We should reflect on the fact that we intend to use the regulation-making power in Clause 119(3)(b) to set out that the child or young person should be provided with choice in relation to who should be appointed to act as his or her advocate.
I therefore do not feel that it is necessary to set out on the face of the Bill that the child should be provided with a choice. However, the fact that we intend to do this in regulations, and that the regulation-making
234
power enables us to make quite detailed provision in relation to this issue, meets the point raised by the noble Earl.
As to the remainder of the amendment, as a number of noble Lords have suggested, there are some technical flaws in its wording. It is not clear exactly how it would work. The amendment provides that when the local authority is making arrangements for the provision of assistance to children and young people, it shall have regard to the principle that the child or young person should be offered a choice of representative. However, it does not place any kind of duty on the provider of the service to ensure that in a specific case the child has a choice. Given that the second part of the amendment is directed towards requiring the service to be independent of the local authority, the local authority does not have the input into appointing the advocate which would be required for it to ensure that the child or young person has a choice.
In addition, we must face up to the fact that there are bound to be occasions when the child's choice of advocate is not suitable to act on his or her behalf. To what extent should the local authority or the advocacy organisation running the service be tied to ensuring that the child or young person gets his or her choice? I do not have easy answers to that point. There needs to be full consultation. These matters are finally best answered through regulations. The national advocacy standards also stress that choice is important in the provision of advocacy services.
I turn to the question of independence—an issue that we discussed at some length on Report. The word "independent" is not a term with any precise meaning. The amendment seeks to give it meaning in this context. It does so in two ways. First, it sets out that the advocate,
"shall be, as far as is practicable, independent of the local authority".
Secondly, it sets out that the advocate shall be independent of,
"any person who is involved in the investigation or adjudication of any representation".
I shall take the second point first. A number of noble Lords commented on it specifically. I re-emphasise that the power that we have taken in subsection (3)(a) of new Section 26A to be inserted into the Children Act enables regulations to be made to ensure the independence of the person providing the advocacy to the child or young person. I stated to the House our clear intention that the regulations made under subsection (3)(a) would provide that the advocate must not be the subject of the complaint; be involved in the line management or case management of the case; or be involved in the investigation or consideration of the complaint. That goes further than what is set out in the amendment, which does not set out that the advocate must not be the subject of the complaint or be involved in the case management or line management.
The Government will be consulting on the regulations. That will enable us to take a view from all those involved in advocacy services and children's

235
rights services about what other measures might be appropriate to include in regulations in order to secure independence. Again, the regulation-making power gives us scope to make detailed provision and to respond to the concerns of practitioners and to changes that may be required over time in the light of experience.
The other provision in the amendment relating to independence is that the advocate shall be,
"as far as is practicable",
independent of the local authority? What does independence mean? The fact that the amendment needs to use that phrase reflects the difficulty of defining what is meant by the term. "Independent" can have different meanings in different situations. What is required in terms of independence may be viewed differently from different perspectives. Arguably, the service will never be entirely independent of the local authority because it is the local authority that will be funding the provision of the advocacy service.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, suggested that we did some top-slicing and created a national service. I do not believe that we ought to go down that route. Local authorities are statutory organisations. It is their responsibility to ensure that proper advocacy services are in place and, at the end of the day, they should provide the funding. Out of the extra resources that local authority social services will receive over the next three years we believe it appropriate that they should fund such services. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is probably right. It is certainly our experience in the National Health Service that patient advocacy and liaison services are having a very positive impact in dealing with issues as they arise, and quickly, before they are allowed to fester. It is in the best interests of local authorities to have effective advocacy services, whoever runs them, in operation.
We must not confuse "independent" with "separate". I return to the point that I made earlier. There are many examples of excellent in-house advocacy and children's rights services being run by local authorities with those services located and managed separately from the organisation. I should regret the fact, if the House decided to accept the noble Earl's amendment—which I accept comes from the best of motives—that it would mean forcing 40 or so local authorities to dismantle their existing schemes, preventing children and young people from working with local advocates with whom they have built up a good relationship.
We must also remember that, very often, the consultation that we have had with stakeholders has emphasised to us the importance of a variety of schemes being provided. I refer not merely to services by national organisations. It has been suggested that where a local authority, for instance, has a much wider programme of encouraging the participation of young people, there is every advantage in advocacy not being separate from that but being part of the service that is provided across the range of local authority provision.
236
The challenge for me is to ensure that this will work. If I am insisting that local authorities be shown some discretion, I must assure this House that we shall make sure that that works out okay for young people.
On Report, I explained that the national advocacy standards will build on the regulations to inform the way in which independence works in practice. The standards set out the core principles of how we want councils to provide and commission advocacy services. We want to ensure that the child or young person knows that the service will not be influenced. We want children and young people to be fully confident that advocates are acting exclusively on their behalf and have no potential or conflicting interest. I have no disagreement with any noble Lord who has spoken on that matter. I should not have brought forward the amendment on Report had I thought that by giving some discretion to local authorities I should be setting up a situation whereby those local authorities would inhibit that advocacy from operating effectively.
We will ensure that local authorities implement this provision in a sensible way, according to the standards that we set out, and we shall performance-manage them. I urge noble Lords, who know how keenly I feel about advocacy, to allow for some local authority discretion.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may query one aspect of his remarks. It seemed to me that there was quite a lot of support for the intentions behind the amendment, if not for the wording—the Minister has fairly pointed out that some areas could be tightened up. Am I right in understanding him to say that there may well be some local authorities that would want exclusively to run the advocacy services, and that he would be happy with that—that is, if there was not a chance for some independent, albeit approved, group of people such as the Advocacy Consortium to be involved as an alternative, as a choice for the young people concerned? If that is what he means, is he quite certain that it fits within the requirements of human rights legislation in terms of transparency so far as concerns independence?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government would not take any action that they believed to be outwith human rights legislation. My argument is this. I raised the issue of the technical deficiencies in the noble Earl's amendment. On top of that, I have a substantial difference with the noble Earl. First, it is essentially appropriate for local authorities to make their own decisions about independent advocacy in the context of the national advocacy standards. Secondly, they can decide to run those services in-house. The Government want advocacy to work effectively, and to ensure that, we want to allow local authorities that run successful advocacy services to be allowed to continue to do so. However, we will keep a close eye on the general performance of local government in this field. We

237
would not hesitate to intervene if we came across local authorities that had not established effective advocacy services.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, before the Minister sits clown, he did not answer clearly the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, as to whether it is intended that some local authorities should run advocacy services to the exclusion of any other kind of advocacy for the children concerned.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we will consult on regulations. We want local authorities to have discretion in this area; they should be shown flexibility. But the safeguards are the national advocacy standards, which we will performance-manage to ensure that local authorities provide effective advocacy services.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, and everyone who took part in the debate. The House clearly wishes the Minister to take great care in the implementation of the provisions and to watch over the process to ensure that the advocacy provided is independent.
I welcome what the Minister said about consultation. He emphasised that there would be extensive consultation before implementation of the regulations. I welcome his assurance that he will ensure that advocacy services will be provided. Given those assurances, and recognising the important step taken by the Minister and the Government in putting advocacy services on the face of the Bill for the first time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Barkermoved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 120, insert the following new clause—
"PRIVATE FOSTERING
After section 66(4A) of the 1989 Act there is inserted—
"(4B) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the circumstances in which local authorities may oversee the registration of private fostering.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, not long ago the noble Earl, Lord Howe, commented that it had been enjoyable to work on this Bill, and I agree. There has been much intensive, heartfelt discussion and much co-operation throughout the House. The Minister frequently listened to the points made and agreed to them. There has also been much cross-party agreement, and, perhaps more interestingly, huge disagreement within parties on some issues. This amendment is the final substantive area for discussion—what a brilliant example of co-operation on which to finish. Many noble Lords will regard this as the most extraordinary amendment, and, on reading the text, may have believed that there was a mistake, and that the amendment should have been tabled in the Minister's name. It could have come from his own pen, but it is mine.
We have discussed private fostering several times, and many noble Lords were present last week when we returned to the subject yet again. Over the months of
238
discussion, we have established that there is unanimous agreement that the issue is important. We have agreed that the complete lack of regulation of private fostering must change. We have not agreed on exactly what should be done or on the urgency of the situation.
On Report, the Minister made some important points in respect of the amendments tabled, which I took on board. He talked about the current review, which is almost complete, and the need for the Government to take into account the views expressed as part of that consultation. He mentioned the forthcoming report by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into the death of Victoria Climbié. We need to be mindful of the recommendations of that independent report. He talked about the difficulties of determining exactly how any regulation of private fostering should work. He also talked about the difficulties of dealing with details such as what to do about language students, and the age at which children should be subject to regulation if they are privately fostered.
The Minister made a powerful and persuasive case that Ministers need flexibility in this respect. That is why the amendment in my name would give the Minister the widest and most permissive regulatory powers. We on this side of the House usually rail against such measures at considerable length. However, I have accepted that that is what is needed in this case.
Why does the measure need to be included in this legislation? I return to the point that this Adoption and Children Bill is the correct legislative home for measures on private fostering. After the publication of the Laming report, it is likely that there will be yet another set of arguments in favour of a registration scheme. Every report on the subject for the past 30 years has said that registration is important. I strongly believe that the primary legislation needed to enable a registration scheme for private fostering to come into play should be this Bill; otherwise we will have to wait until an unspecified future date when another suitable Bill can be used as a vehicle for it. By that stage, we would have lost valuable time in dealing with the last unregulated area of childcare.
For those reasons, I believe that it would be right to include the provision now. In doing so, the House would not be pre-empting the Laming report, nor would it be acting imprudently. I strongly believe that we should not wait for yet another childcare crisis to happen, to which we would have to react by legislating very quickly.
For all those reasons, I believe the amendment is the right way to go. It places no requirement on the Minister. It is a permissive power that can be used at any time. The history of regulation on adoption legislation is remarkable. Adoption legislation containing regulatory powers has been passed over the years, but some of those powers were not brought into play until 15 or 20 years later. Indeed, some of them were never used, such as those in the 1940s legislation.
I think the amendment is wise and sensible. It is a concession to the point that the Minister raised last time. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have supported the noble Baroness on the issue on two previous occasions. I am very much in sympathy with her wish to seize this legislative opportunity on a matter of such importance. We have all acknowledged in earlier debates that children who are privately fostered are some of the most vulnerable in our society. We cannot be confident that there will be another such legislative opportunity in the foreseeable future. I support the amendment.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, although I have not spoken on the issue, I have followed the Bill closely. I support the amendment. I have spent some time consulting on the probability of us not taking this small step at this time. The more we invite or introduce new cultures into the British system, the more we have to realise that some people do not see fostering in quite the same way as we do. Some people think it is easy to send their child over to stay with an aunt, a cousin or somebody else. The local authority must have a means of registering people who do such informal fostering. If it does not have such a means, it cannot be blamed when things go wrong. This is a very small clause to deal with a very important issue. Hundreds of children are coming into this country with no protection. I should very much like the Minister to agree to it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have always recognised that, without question, something needs to be done about private fostering. I hope that noble Lords will acknowledge that I have recognised the concerns that have been expressed throughout the passage of the Bill. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for always trying to meet my objections and coming forward with a new amendment. I accept that she has cleverly tried to give hugely wide permissive regulatory powers to meet almost every objection that I have raised.
However, I have grave doubts about giving such wide regulatory powers before the policy on what is to be done is sorted out. By making those powers so wide and so vague the noble Baroness may, inadvertently, detract from the focus that is required.
I recognise the concern expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that there will not be a legislative opportunity in the future once the policy is decided. Noble Lords will know that we are engaged in substantial discussion with stakeholders on what is to be done. Ministers are clearly always wary about giving any promissory note about future legislation. I shall simply repeat my earlier comment that, although legislation on adoption comes round fairly infrequently, legislation relating to children and children's issues is not infrequent. If it is decided that legislation is required, of course the Government will look for the earliest opportunity to bring it before your Lordships.
We have a problem. The Children Act 1989 provides a legal framework for notification that requires the private foster carer and the person with parental responsibility to notify the local council of the
240
proposed private foster care arrangements. Under that framework, once the local authority knows about the impending arrangements, the Children Act requires the authority to satisfy itself that the welfare of the child is being satisfactorily safeguarded and promoted by others by supervising, regulating and advising in respect of the private placement. The local authority is required to visit at specified intervals and to report on those visits.
The local authority must satisfy itself that the foster parents, household and accommodation are satisfactory. It has the power to impose requirements or, if there are serious concerns, to prohibit the fostering arrangement. Common types of private fostering arrangements include the practice of African children being sent to England to benefit from a good education, with the expectation of improved life chances for the child. Many teenagers move in with the parents of boyfriends or girlfriends following family rifts and others stay with school friends or neighbours following family disagreements, separation or divorce. Many children come to language schools and are accommodated by host families. Children come from Chernobyl or the Balkan countries for extended holidays to learn, to have specialist health care and for recuperation.
There have been concerns about all that for some time. My department has taken a number of measures and actions to increase the awareness of the general public and to improve local authority activity on private fostering. As a result of that and of a recognition that more needs to be done, we have instigated a review of the current arrangements surrounding private fostering. That review is still in progress. It is focusing on whether the existing arrangements in Part IX of the Children Act 1989 and its associated regulations are robust enough to protect vulnerable children living away from their parents. The review seeks to determine how appropriate the current framework is and how it could be improved through a number of options. We have clear in our minds that any changes have to get the right balance between safeguarding children and recognising parental responsibility across the range of children who are presently privately fostered.
We have investigated the current notification and assessment process, the thresholds of intervention and the possibility of discrete standards. The review has looked at what registration would mean for private fostering, how the awareness of private fostering could be increased, especially through the work of other professionals, and whether different groups of children ought to be handled differently.
We have involved a wide range of stakeholders and listened carefully. British Council meetings have included other departments with an interest, including the Department for Education and Skills, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. This is a thoroughgoing review. We also need to take into account the findings of the Climbié inquiry, which may well make recommendations that we need to consider.

241
I have already recognised that the noble Baroness is seeking to be helpful in drafting an amendment that would give the widest possible discretion to set up a registration system.
I would, however, just caution the House: there is no easy and straightforward answer to address all the issues to the right level and extent. I doubt whether we could, as the amendment suggests, truly mop up all of the issues in one general, unspecific provision in this legislation. Indeed, given noble Lords' attitude to giving wide and unspecified powers to the executive, I doubt whether this provision could really commend itself to the House.
Surely it would be more sensible to use the findings of the review properly. The very reason for instituting the review was to avoid a knee-jerk reaction and ensure a proper and reasonable response to the concerns. Of course we may need additional regulating power—but for what? The amendment is certainly not clear about that. Indeed, it seems to propose nothing more than powers that are already available. Private fostering is already regulated—although there is general agreement that that is not working—and the circumstances are already defined in the Children Act.
The amendment states that local authorities "may oversee" the regulation of private fostering, which is a wide provision. I should think that the last thing that anyone, including the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, would want is alaissez-faire approach to this issue. Children's safety is important and we must have legislation that specifically requires local authorities to perform their duties.
I do not seek to criticise the noble Baroness, and I understand completely why she has moved this amendment. I think that she will understand that I very much agree with her sentiments. Action on private fostering needs to be taken, and it is clear that the current regulatory system is not working effectively. However, although I do not want to go over ground that we covered on Report, a number of very difficult issues remain to be decided before we can confidently produce legislation. For that reason, I hope that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords will accept that, although I cannot recommend accepting the amendment, the Government are as exercised as she is to ensure that we sort out this problem for the long term.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to noble Lords to hear that I accept that the Minister and I largely agree on this issue. I know that he shares my concern that the current system is clearly not working. I also accept that this amendment is not the definitive word on the regulation that is necessary to make private fostering safe. The amendment would, however, do two things. First, it would give the Government permissive powers to oversee the regulation of a registration scheme. The Minister described the position in private foster care. Currently, however, local authorities have only reactive powers. They can prohibit people from continuing to care for a child only when they have sufficient evidence that something has gone wrong. They have absolutely no
242
power to prevent unsuitable people from becoming private foster carers in the first place. That is a key distinction.
I have no wish to revisit our recent lengthy debates on the issue. However, I know that the Minister shares my concern that, as evidence currently being gathered shows, private fostering is changing from an informal agreement between relatives and members of the extended family to something much closer to a commercial transaction. That is the key impetus for our desire to give local authorities the power to stop unsuitable people from becoming private foster carers in the first place.
Like the Minister, I do not like the breadth of the proposed powers. However, I do not believe that any of the objections which he raised cannot be met by the wide powers in this amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, although the noble Baroness criticises the current legislation—and by implication the decision of local authorities not to implement it—Amendment No. 24 does not oblige local authorities to register. The amendment's exact terminology is that local authorities "may oversee"; they would not be obliged to register. I understand what the noble Baroness is seeking to do. She is trying to make a provision that is sufficiently wide to enable the Government, once we have concluded our review, to legislate through regulation. My own view is that, if there is to be a substantial change in policy, it should be done through primary legislation. However, I also believe that, by making the power so wide, the noble Baroness is detracting from the ability to require local authorities to take action. I therefore think that there is a genuine drafting problem here.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, it is extremely interesting to hear the Minister, for once, making the type of argument that we on this side of the House have been making week in and week out. Tomorrow, therefore, some of us will probably not only read Hansard but frame it.
There may a problem with the drafting of my amendment, but the Government still have an opportunity to change it and toughen it up. As I said, I do not think that any of the objections that the Minister raised cannot be dealt with by the amendment itself. I do not doubt that future legislation will address children's issues. However, as I have said time and again for 30 years, we have known about this issue but not satisfactorily tackled it. Although I do not think that my amendment is the answer, we can, by signalling our intention to move the issue up the agenda before publication of the Laming report, strengthen the hand of those who seek an answer.
I am very sorry to end on this note because the Minister has listened and been extremely generous in most of his responses to our points. This time, however, I do not find his arguments compelling. I should therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
5.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 138.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Avebury, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Barker, B.

McNally, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Maddock, B.

Bhatia, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bradshaw, L.

Methuen, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Newby, L.

Chan, L.

Northover, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Dundee, E.

Prashar, B.

Falkland, V.

Razzall, L.

Geraint, L.

Redesdale, L. [Teller]

Goodhart, L.

Rennard, L.

Greaves, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hamwee, B.

Roper, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Russell, E.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hooson, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Jacobs, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Taverne, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Laird, L.

Tope, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Walmsley, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Weatherill, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Crawley, B.

Ahmed, L.

David, B.

Amos, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Andrews, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Desai, L.

Barnett, L.

Dixon, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Berkeley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dubs, L.

Billingham, B.

Eatwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Borrie, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Filkin, L.

Bragg, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Brett, L.

Gale, B.

Brightman, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brookman, L.

Goudie, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Burlison, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Greenway, L.

Carter, L.

Grenfell, L.

Chandos, V.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Chester, Bp.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Chorley, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Christopher, L.

Harrison, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Haskel, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hayman, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

244

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Nicol, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Orme, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Parekh, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Patel, L.

Hoyle, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Pendry, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Peston, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Inge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Prys-Davies, L.

Radice, L.

Islwyn, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Rea, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Jones, L.

Richard, L.

Jordan, L.

Rooker, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Layard, L.

Sheldon, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Simon, V.

Lichfield, Bp.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Lipsey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Listowel, E.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

McCluskey, L.

Thornton, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Turnberg, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Turner of Camden, B.

Varley, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Whitaker, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Whitty, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Wilkins, B.

Mitchell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Monson, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Morgan, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.58 p.m.
Clause 123 [Restriction on advertisements etc.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 72, line 34, at end insert—
"(6A) References to an adoption agency in this section include a prescribed person outside the United Kingdom exercising functions corresponding to those of an adoption agency, if the functions are being exercised in prescribed circumstances.
"Prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 25, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28, 46 and 50. This group of amendments provides a clearer and more straightforward text than the current draft of the provisions they concern and provide a better foundation for regulations.
Amendment No. 25 concerns Clause 123, which restricts the publication of advertisements indicating that persons other than adoption agencies are willing to make arrangements for the adoption of a child. Clause 123 is designed to provide the most effective restrictions on adoption advertising in the United Kingdom. It is a UK-wide provision and makes

245
explicit reference to the Internet, so there can be no doubt that the Bill covers that medium. Given the nature of the Internet, it is difficult to restrict information that flows from a website hosted by an Internet service provider located in another country. We would seek the assistance of the authorities in that country if we had concerns for the welfare of children, or would apply for a derogation under the e-commerce directive, if the Internet service provider were located in a member state. We intend to provide for derogations through regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972.
If a person were to see information on the Internet and then act on it by bringing a child into this country for adoption, the Bill would provide us with the means to penalise them, if necessary. If they did not comply with the conditions in Clause 83, which provides restrictions on bringing children into the United Kingdom, they would face a penalty of up to six months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both. In the event that the case was referred to the Crown Court, they would face up to 12 months' imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both.
Amendment No. 25 inserts new subsection (6A) into Clause 123, which provides a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State. If he considers that a body outside the United Kingdom corresponds in its functions to a United Kingdom adoption agency—it may not be an adoption agency as such, as some countries may not have adoption agencies—and if it provides the necessary protection, he may use the power to prescribe that the body is, for the purposes of Clause 123, to be treated as a UK adoption agency. As a consequence, such a body would not be considered to act in contravention of Clause 123, if it were to advertise in the United Kingdom.
The amendment will make it possible for a body established in another country that corresponds, in the sense that I have described, to a UK adoption agency to advertise its services in the UK. That might be helpful to prospective inter-country adopters, who may, for example, be able to obtain information advertised or distributed in the UK, if such a body has been prescribed as corresponding to a UK adoption agency. By requiring that the body must correspond to a UK adoption agency, the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that such bodies are properly regulated in the country in which they are established. That condition is necessary to ensure that there are proper safeguards in place to protect the welfare of children. Amendment No. 26 is consequential on Amendment No. 25.
Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 relate to Clause 125, which provides that contravention of Clause 123 is an offence and sets out the penalties. The Government implemented the e-commerce directive through regulations that came into effect in August. The directive aims to remove obstacles to the growth and competitiveness of e-commerce in the European Community. It places an obligation on each member state to ensure that providers of information society services, such as Internet service providers, established
246
on its territory comply with its national law. Generally, each member state will be prohibited from restricting the freedom to provide information society services from another member state.
The directive also limits the liability of intermediaries, such as Internet service providers, to circumstances in which there is actual knowledge of illegal activity and corrective action is not taken expeditiously. The directive is binding on the United Kingdom, and we must ensure that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with it. We will take the necessary steps to ensure that the restrictions in the Bill are compatible with the e-commerce directive, by using a regulation-making power contained in the European Communities Act 1972. We are taking the same approach for other legislation now before Parliament, including the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill and the Enterprise Bill. The amendments take the advertising provisions as far forward as is practicable.
Amendment No. 28 omits subsections that provide defences for electronic distribution of an advertisement or information in Clause 125. As amended, Clause 125 would provide that a person was not guilty of an offence under the clause unless it were proved that he knew or had reason to suspect that the clause applied to that advertisement or that information. We will ensure that the liability of Internet service providers is provided for in a way that is consistent with the directive in the 2(2) regulations.
Amendment No. 27 will remove from Clause 125 the reference to the distribution of electronic advertisements or information that is no longer needed.
Amendment No. 46 introduces paragraph 13A into Schedule 4. It is a free-standing transitional provision, which enables the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations that the references to an adoption agency in current English, Welsh and Scottish adoption legislation include a particular body that, he considers, corresponds to an adoption agency in the UK. That would enable such a body to advertise without contravening restrictions on adoption advertising in England, Wales and Scotland.
Amendment No. 50 omits the reference in Schedule 5 to paragraph 13 of Schedule 4 and inserts a reference to paragraph 13A, which is to be inserted by Amendment No. 46. When Clause 123 comes into force, the transitional power will no longer be needed and will be repealed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 72, line 35, after "(6)" insert "or (6A)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 125 [Offence of breaching restriction under section 123]:
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:

247
Page 73, line 32, leave out from "section" to "unless" in line 34.
Page 73, line 38, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 130 [Disclosure of information]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 76, line 21, leave out "authority" and insert "organisation"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 29, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 47. They are technical amendments.
Amendment No. 29 is a minor technical amendment to correct a mistaken reference in Clause 130. As the Bill stands, Clause 130(5)(b) refers to the disclosure of information by the "registration authority"; it should refer to the "registration organisation".
Amendment No. 34 seeks to amend Clause 143 which allows the appropriate Minister to make, by order, any supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving provision that he considers necessary or expedient in order to give effect to the Act. That is a standard provision and is included in most Bills. Its use is restricted only to what is necessary or expedient for the purposes of, or in consequence of, giving full effect to the provisions of the Bill.
The amendment clarifies who the appropriate Minister is, when an order under Clause 143(1) has UK or Great Britain extent. In England and Wales, it would have been the Secretary of State and the Assembly acting jointly: for Scotland, it would have been the Secretary of State. We would have needed two orders for an enactment with UK extent. Amendment No. 34 resolves that problem by ensuring that amendments to enactments with a Great Britain or UK extent can be made by an order made by just the Secretary of State. Before any order is made using the powers in Clause 143(1) that could, if Scottish Ministers had the power in the Bill, be made by the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Ministers must be consulted. Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 ensure that it is clear that, as was intended, Clause 143(1) has UK extent.
Amendments Nos. 35, 38 and 47 are consequential on amendments that were made on Report; namely Amendments Nos. 128 and 149, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. The amendments did not change the effect of the provisions, and, after consultation with the Scottish Executive, we accepted them. On Report, Amendment No. 149 omitted paragraph 19 from Schedule 4, so Amendment No. 35 omits the reference to paragraph 19 of Schedule 4 at Clause 149(5)(d). Amendment No. 38 omits the reference to paragraph 19 of Schedule 4 at Clause 150(5). Amendment No. 47 removes the reference in Schedule 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 134 [Scottish restriction on bringing children into the United Kingdom]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 30 to 33:
Page 78, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) In section 50 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (restriction on removal of children for adoption outside Great Britain)—

(a) in subsection (1), "not being a parent or guardian or relative of the child" is omitted,

(b) after subsection (3) there is inserted—

"(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations provide for subsection (1) to apply with modifications, or not to apply, if—

(a) the prospective adopters are parents, relatives or guardians of the child (or one of them is), or

(b) the prospective adopter is a step-parent of the child, and any conditions prescribed by the regulations are met.""

Page 78, line 29, leave out "the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (c. 28)" and insert "that Act"
Page 79, leave out lines 5 to 9.
Page 79, line 44, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations may provide for this section not to apply if—

(a) the adopters or (as the case may be) prospective adopters are natural parents (whether or not they have parental responsibilities or parental rights in relation to the child), natural relatives or guardians of the child in question (or one of them is), or

(b) the British resident in question is a step-parent of the child,

and any prescribed conditions are met."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 143 [Supplementary and consequential provision]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 34:
Page 84, line 36, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of subsection (I), where any provision of an order extends to England and Wales, and Scotland or Northern Ireland, the appropriate Minister in relation to the order is the Secretary of State.
( ) Before making an order under subsection (1) containing provision which would, if included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, be within the legislative competence of that Parliament, the appropriate Minister must consult the Scottish Ministers."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 149 [Commencement]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 88. line 22, leave out ", 19"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 150 [Extent]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 36 to 38:
Page 88, line 32, leave out from "enactment" to "has" in line 33.
Page 88, line 38, leave out ", 143(1)"
Page 89, line 3, leave out "paragraphs 19 and 22 extend" and insert "paragraph 22 extends"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 39:
Page 113, line 12, at end insert—
"In section 48 (regulation of fostering functions), at the end of subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(f) as to the fees or expenses which may be paid to persons assisting local authorities in making decisions in the exercise of such functions"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report, the Government tabled an amendment to ensure that local authority adoption agencies are able to remunerate and pay expenses to members of adoption panels. The amendment was necessary because of concerns expressed to us that some adoption agencies felt that they did not have the legal power to make such payments. This amendment makes similar provisions in relation to local authority fostering panels. The purpose of Amendment No. 39 and the amendment we tabled on Report was to help to ease the problem of recruitment of panel members, which can then cause delays in the system.
In commending the amendment to the House I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of panel members, both in fostering and adoption. They do excellent work and we need to do everything we can to support and encourage more people to apply. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Transitional and transitory provisions and savings]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 40 to 46:
Page 117, line 1, at end insert—
"10A In section 13 of the Adoption Act 1976 (child to live with adopters before order is made)—

(a) in subsection (1)(a), at the beginning there is inserted "(subject to subsection (1A))",

(b) after subsection (1) there is inserted—

"(1A) Where an adoption is proposed to be effected by a Convention adoption order, the order shall not be made unless at all times during the preceding six months the child had his home with the applicants or one of them.",

(c) in subsection (2), after "subsection (1)" there is inserted "or (1A)",

(d) subsection (4) is omitted."

Page 117, line 1, at end insert—
"10B In section 56 of the Adoption Act 1976 (restriction on removal of children for adoption outside Great Britain)—

(a) in subsection (1), "not being a parent or guardian or relative of the child" is omitted,

(b) at the end of that section there is inserted—

"(4) Regulations may provide for subsection (1) to apply with modifications, or not to apply, if—

250

(a) the prospective adopters are parents, relatives or guardians of the child in question (or one of them is), or

(b) the prospective adopter is a step-parent of the child,

and any prescribed conditions are met.

(5) In this section, "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations and "regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the National Assembly for Wales.""

Page 117, leave out lines 17 to 20.
Page 117, line 42, leave out from "may" to end of line 45 and insert "provide for any provision of Part II to apply with modifications or not to apply"
Page 118, line 14. at end insert—
"( ) Regulations may provide for the preceding provisions of this section not to apply if—

(a) the adopters or (as the case may be) prospective adopters are natural parents, natural relatives or guardians of the child in question (or one of them is), or

(b) the British resident in question is a step-parent of the child,

and any prescribed conditions are met."
Page 118, line 17, at end insert—
"11A In section 72 of the Adoption Act 1976 (interpretation), subsection (3B) is omitted."
Page 118, line 34, at end insert—
"13A (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for the references to an adoption agency in—

(a) section 58(1)(c) of the Adoption Act 1976 (c. 36), and

(b) section 52(1)(c) of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (c. 28),

to include a prescribed person outside the United Kingdom exercising functions corresponding to those of an adoption agency, if the functions are being exercised in prescribed circumstances.
"Prescribed" means prescribed by the regulations.
(2) Before exercising the power conferred by sub-paragraph (1) in relation to the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (c. 28), the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendments Nos. 47 to 50:
Page 120, column 2, leave out line 18.
Page 120, column 2, line 18, at end insert "In section 50, the words "not being a parent or guardian or relative of the child"."
Page 121, line 47, leave out "11" and insert "10A"
Page 121, line 47, leave out "13" and insert "13A"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may take a moment to express my appreciation of one aspect of the drafting of the Bill. I refer to the inclusion of an

251
index of defined expressions, which is to be found in the last three pages of the Bill in Schedule 6, page 122. That invaluable device enables the reader to tell at a glance whether a particular word or expression is used in the text of the Bill in its ordinary dictionary sense or in a special statutory sense.
Your Lordships will see that the index is in two columns. Column one lists those words and expressions which are given a special meaning in the Bill. Column two states the clause where the meaning is to be found. Perhaps I may take an example. Clause 35 at page 23 of the Bill requires prospective adopters to return a child to the adoption agency if the agency is of the opinion that the child should not remain with the prospective adopters, and the adoption agency "gives notice" of its opinion to the prospective adopters.
The dictionary definition of "notice" in this sort of context is "intimation" or "warning", which, so far as the dictionary definition goes, may be oral or in writing. The reader of the Act will want to know whether "notice" is used in its ordinary dictionary sense or in a more restricted sense such as a notice in writing; perhaps whether it would be enough to pick up the telephone.
As the Bill contains an index of defined words and expressions, the reader will not have to search long or far for the answer. Column one of the index tells the reader immediately that, indeed, "notice" has a special meaning. Column two tells him immediately where that meaning is to be found: Section 145, where "notice" is defined as "notice in writing". Therefore, a telephone call would not be sufficient.
I do not know why every lengthy Act of Parliament does not contain an index of defined expressions. It costs little effort to compile, takes up little space in the Act and saves the reader much trouble. The Public Bill Office tells me that only three Bills in 1998 contained an index of defined expressions. There were none in 1999; two in 2000 and two in 2001.
I submit that all lengthy and complicated Acts of Parliament should contain such an index. My thanks go to those concerned for including an index in the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his kind comments. I shall ensure that they are read by those who drafted the Bill. I agree with the noble and learned Lord; having an easy-to-understand glossary is of use to a Minister as it is to every other Member of your Lordships' House. I commend that very good practice of my own department to other government departments; that is, in a corporate sense.
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2002
6.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October be approved [39th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the House will know, the Terrorism Act 2000 came into force on 19th February 2000 and signalled the Government's determination to do all they could to defeat terrorism in all its forms. At the time that that legislation was passed by the House we would little have been able to predict the events of some 18 months afterwards, or how our perceptions of the scale, form and risk of terrorism would expand.
On September 11th 2001 we saw the tragic events in New York. The extent to which terrorists could go in pursuit of their goals was a shock to all the civilised world. Further, we have recently seen the horror which took place in Bali. Again, that has drawn the attention of the world to the risks that ruthless terrorists pose to order and civilisation in all countries of the world. Clearly, many countries now see terrorism as potentially as great a threat to world peace as other forms of risk have been seen previously.
The development of terrorism as a threat has increased the importance of international cooperation around the world between governments which are concerned to work together to defeat it. Certainly, it has heightened the level of awareness in the United Kingdom of the risk of terrorism. At a local level, for ordinary British citizens it has reinforced the importance of heeding travel advice where possible, recognising how difficult it is to obtain appropriate travel advice which will be able to forecast and correctly judge such risks. By its nature, terrorism is unpredictable. Things we would have thought impossible have taken place in the past year or two.
An important part of the Terrorism Act 2000 is the power to proscribe organisations concerned in international or domestic terrorism. It is a heavy power which should be used only where circumstances warrant. Under the Act the Secretary of State has the power to proscribe any organisation which he believes is concerned in terrorism. The criteria used are that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
The impact of proscription is to make it more difficult for international terrorist organisations to operate in the United Kingdom and seeks to deter them from coming here in the first place. We hope and expect that it acts as a powerful deterrent in that it inhibits activity in the first place. The proscription offences are a means of tackling some of the more low-level support activities for terrorist organisations. Finally, the Act is a powerful signal of the Government's and society's rejection of those organisations' claims to legitimacy.

253
The House may remember the penalties for proscription. They bear on the membership of a proscribed organisation: that is an offence. Similarly, it is an offence to support a proscribed organisation or to display support in public for a proscribed organisation. Relevant sanctions apply.
When considering which terrorist organisations should be subject to proscription, the Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors, including those indicated to Parliament by Ministers during the passage of the Bill. He takes into account: first, the nature and scale of an organisation's activities; secondly, the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; thirdly, the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; fourthly, the extent of the organisation's presence in the United Kingdom; and, fifthly, the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism.
There have been no changes to the list of proscribed organisations since the order proscribing 21 international terrorist organisations came into force on 29th March 2001, although the list of proscribed organisations and the need to make judgments about whether others should be proscribed are kept under constant review.
As the House knows, the order recommends the proscription of four organisations. It might be helpful if I commented briefly on each of them. The first, Jemaah Islamiyah, which I shall refer to as JI, is the name of an Islamist extremist group based in Indonesia, Malaysia and the southern Philippines. I shall illustrate its past activity. In December 2001, 13 JI members were arrested in Singapore. They had been planning attacks against several targets in Singapore, including the British Council, the High Commission and the US, Israeli and Australian embassies.
The second organisation is the Abu Sayyaf Group, which I shall refer to as the ASG. It is an Islamist extremist group based in the southern Philippine island of Mindanao. The group has committed a number of kidnappings: in April 2000, 21 people of different nationalities were kidnapped from a resort in eastern Malaysia; in August 2000, an American citizen was kidnapped and held captive for eight months; and in May 2001, the ASG conducted an armed raid on a holiday resort, took 20 people hostage and killed two of the American hostages during that activity. The ASG has killed hostages when ransoms have not been paid and is known to have links to Al'Qaeda.
The third organisation is the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the IMU. It was formed in 1998 out of a more general political Islamic resistance to post-Soviet rule in Uzbekistan. In February 1999, it launched a sophisticated bombing campaign in Tashkent, directed against the Uzbekistan regime. The close ties to Al'Qaeda and the Taliban meant that it often followed the agenda of Al'Qaeda and the Taliban. Osama bin Laden is widely reported to have given money and training to it on the understanding that it followed his agenda in central Asia.
254
The final group is Asbat Al-Ansar, which was formed in 1985. It is a Sunni Muslim terrorist organisation based primarily in the Lebanese-Palestinian refugee camp of Ain Al Hilweh. Its terrorist actions have so far been limited to bombings and assassinations within Lebanon, including the assassination of the leader of Al Ashbashi. It is believed to have been responsible for the murder of four Sidon judges in 1999. Its most recent attack, in January 2000, was against the Russian Embassy in Beirut when it used rocket-propelled grenades and small arms.
I have previously indicated the factors that are taken into account in making judgments about who should be proscribed. Clearly, the Home Secretary has had to exercise his judgment about each of those organisations against those criteria. Clearly, access to related intelligence-based material on those organisations is also an important part of that process.
Proscription is both a fair and proportionate response to the terrorist threat that is found in this country and abroad. It is clearly not aimed at any specific community or at any religion; it is aimed at terrorists. There is a fair and robust appeal process already in place. The Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission is an independent judicial tribunal. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th October be approved [39th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being in my place at the start of this debate. We on this side of the House very much welcome the steps that the Home Secretary is taking. We accept that this approach is the result of very careful intelligence gleaned from international sources. It has obviously been given additional impetus by the events in Bali, which, if nothing else, show how unpredictable terrorism can be throughout the world. What procedure is there for keeping the organisations under constant review? The Minister referred to the appeals procedure. Is there a review procedure within the Home Office? In general, we support the order.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I have a question for my noble friend about the list. What evidence is there that a group operating in Uzbekistan or Lebanon is also a danger to British citizens in the United Kingdom? Will he comment on extreme organisations in India, for example, which were responsible for killing British citizens? Those organisations have not been proscribed on the terrorism list. I refer to the VHP, Shiv Sinna, Bajrangdal and RSS. They were widely reported to be responsible for the murder of many innocent people in Gujarat. At least three British citizens were also murdered by them. Will they be considered for inclusion on the list in future?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I speak on behalf of those on these Benches. We share the Government's

255
view of the danger of international terrorism and the noble Lord's horror at the events of 11th September last year in the United States, the bombing in Bali earlier this month and the events in Moscow during the past few days.
When debating the original list, we objected to the inclusion of 21 different organisations in a single order. A statutory instrument cannot be amended and it is therefore impossible to vote on the exclusion of one organisation, however weak may be the case for treating that organisation as terrorist, without scrapping the whole order.
There was genuine argument about whether some organisations belonged on the original list. There is no reason to doubt that all organisations on the list are terrorist organisations. They are already all on the United Nations list of terrorist organisations. We therefore support the order.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, raised some important questions. My honourable friend in another place, Mr Simon Hughes, has asked on various occasions whether it would be possible to be somewhat more forthcoming about the evidence. Perhaps that could be done in the Select Committee responsible for intelligence and security in the other place.
Although we support the order, that does not alter the principle involved: we continue to believe that there should be separate orders for each organisation. There may be controversy about one or more of the names on the list. We should not object to several orders being moved as a group with a single debate, thereby incurring no extra time.
But, given the draconian nature of the effect of an order against an organisation, we believe that there should be a separate debate on each organisation so that it is possible for Members of each House to take a proper decision in respect of each organisation. Indeed, I understand that a challenge is currently being made in the courts as to whether it is proper for the Home Secretary to lump more than one organisation together in a single order. Therefore, we believe that on this occasion issues do need to be aired, although, as I have made clear, we support the order today.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I start by thanking both Front Benches for their explicit support for the order and for recognising that it is necessary and proportionate. I shall respond to the specific questions raised.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asked about the review procedure. Clearly, if there is no longer a need for an organisation to be proscribed because the circumstances have changed and its threat has been removed, it is possible for that to happen. The Home Office chairs an inter-departmental working group at official level, comprising representatives from all relevant government departments and agencies, including the FCO, the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Northern Ireland Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers. The group reviews all organisations listed as proscribed. In
256
practice, the membership of that organisation advises the Home Secretary before he considers whether or not to use his powers under the Act.
My noble friend Lord Ahmed asked whether it was necessary to proscribe a terrorist organisation acting in Uzbekistan. As I believe he implied, it is not only a question of a threat to British citizens in this country; it could be a question of a threat to British citizens abroad. It is also possible that we would consider it our duty, as our contribution, to support actions against international terrorism. International groups might also merit proscription because, if they were not so proscribed, the future risk to UK citizens might be real and substantial.
My noble friend also raised—I believe we have corresponded with him on the matter on previous occasions—the issue of VHP in India and a number of other organisations. I am afraid that I shall give the same answer as was given to my noble friend's written questions. The list is kept under review and a decision to proscribe or de-proscribe is taken after careful consideration of all the facts.
If my noble friend feels that we should consider any further points, I hope that he will write to me or to the Home Secretary and we shall look at them. But a judgment always has to be made. I believe that it would be disproportionate to proscribe every single terrorist organisation in the world that potentially posed some risk. No country acts in that way. Therefore, a judgment has to be made about where and when one believes that the risk to British citizens or to global security is sufficient to trigger proscription by the United Kingdom Government.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his question. There is no reason to doubt that these are terrorist organisations. I believe he is correct that the legislation does not prevent more than one group being listed in one order. However, I do not believe that that was his point. Basically, he was saying that, from his perspective, it would be desirable to deal with them as separate orders, or even as a grouped amendment. I shall reflect on that. I would say only that today's order contains a coherent list of a group of organisations, all of whom have Al'Qaeda connections. Therefore, it seemed both efficient and appropriate to group them under one order. I hope that that goes some way to meeting the questions raised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Racism in the Theatre
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Baberghrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with progress made in combating racism in the theatre.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Eclipse conference started from the premise that racism exists within the theatre, and the Eclipse report summarises the discussions that took place there. Ideally, the conference should have been attended by chief

257
executives and artistic directors but, of the 125 theatres invited, fewer than a quarter attended, while some would have preferred to send education officers or marketing managers. A mixed understanding of racism was shown by some and there was a reluctance to accept that it even exists in the United Kingdom.
Twenty-one recommendations were outlined in the report. Those included: advice to all theatre boards to inform themselves of the new amendment to the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000; that the Arts Council should implement equal opportunities training for all boards and senior managers; and that, for those boards and senior managers, seminars should be held to discuss and share methods of positive action and equality in employment.
Since the publication of the report, seminars have been held in Yorkshire and in northern, north-west, east England and south-west regions. More will take place during November in the West Midlands and in southern arid south-east England. Representatives from most theatres in those areas attended the first seminars. According to the Arts Council, some were making progress and others had a long way to go.
Unfortunately, the view of some who attended has been that the employment of black and Asian people is a financial risk. They give as grounds that their presence on the stage or in management fails to attract potential audiences. Some active hostility was shown. The old objection to casting—for example, as regards Afro-Caribbeans in roles originally intended for white actors—is still being put forward, in spite of such prejudice having been shown in the majority of cases to be unfounded.
At the other end of the spectrum are theatres which are making real advances. A short time ago, the Theatrical Management Association, together with Barclays Bank, presented for the first time its special award for theatres with the best anti-racism records. Five regional theatres were mentioned at the presentation—the award going to the Contact Theatre in Manchester.
Instrumental in achieving that was Kully Thiarai, who set up the work leading to Contact's success. She then moved to become joint artistic director of the Leicester Haymarket Theatre—one of those among the five with good anti-racism records mentioned at the award presentation. Mandy Stewart, the Haymarket's chief executive, says that the Eclipse report has sharpened awareness but that that theatre has always been committed, particularly through its programming and casting policy, to the representation of ethnic minorities.
Of Leicester's total population of approximately 285,000, about 40 per cent are non-white. The Haymarket employs permanently 70 people, of whom only 10 per cent are non-white. But last year it also employed 99 performers of whom 57 were white and 42 non-white, marking a significant move forward for that theatre.
258
People sometimes talk as if the work of changing things is a recent development. I quote Neil Bartlett, Artistic Director of the Lyric Theatre, Hammersmith, who says that, in fact,
"some theatres and theatre workers have been quietly and creatively changing both their thinking and their work practices. It is important that this work is recognised alongside the lack of change elsewhere".
The Lyric, Hammersmith, recognises that London is the most ethnically diverse city in the world and it is committed to reflecting that cultural diversity in its staff, board, artistic programme, education activities and audience. As an equal opportunities employer, it has always aimed at encouraging applications from all sections of the community. However, unlike Kully Thiarai's findings in Leicester, the applications received fail to reflect the diverse population of London or the United Kingdom. Consequently, the Lyric remains an overwhelmingly white organisation.
The Lyric will widen its advertising to include The Voice, the Asian Times and the local job centre. It seems therefore that more should be done to encourage applications from those in ethnic minorities aspiring to work in theatres nationwide and that this advertising project should be recommended to theatre managements in general.
The Lyric has introduced a positive action training programme. It is to be developed over the next six months and funding for this development will be sought. When vacancies occur for senior management posts, new job descriptions will state that a commitment to and knowledge of culturally diverse arts practice is essential. The theatre is also ensuring that all staff are informed about the new amendments to the Race Relations Act. In respect of productions, the Lyric will seek to ensure that those featuring all-white casts are the exception rather than the rule and particular care will be taken to audition actors from ethnic minorities while at all times taking care that the policy of best candidate for the job still applies. That, of course, is a valid point and it is important in the theatre and elsewhere that the best candidate factor should never be lost sight of by all employers committed to cultural diversity. It might be well, too, for theatre management always to keep in mind the bad old days when, for instance, Hollywood film makers, in employing actors of African descent, almost invariably cast them in roles as menials or comic relief. I am thinking in particular of "Gone with the Wind".
The Arts Council statistics for 1999 to 2000 show that out of staff then employed in British theatre only 80 were Afro-Caribbean and Asian and out of 463 board members only 16. Kully Thiarai at Leicester is currently the only non-white artistic director of a major mainstream theatre, a fact which may perhaps be an unpleasant surprise to Members of your Lordships' House. Ms Thiarai has listed recommendations to theatre organisations willing to develop a non-racist programme. She writes:
"Small things can have a huge effect".

259
She suggests:
"A black box office member, a culturally diverse print or image, some non-European food in the bar, all say something about your organization".
She continues:
"Cultural diversity doesn't have to be a burden. It can be hugely liberating, particularly for us as artists".
The Arts Council has declared it a priority and is currently revising its action plan which will take place in 2003 through the Black Regional Theatre Initiative and the Arts Lottery programme. Over 10 per cent of a total of £29 million new funds for the theatre are to be used to support it. The aim is to use it to embrace training initiatives, five training bursaries for black and Asian practitioners and a number of annual bursaries for black and Asian directors.
Five million pounds have been allocated to the Decibel project, a programme of arts events due to take place in 2003–04 and whose object is to challenge the perception of the arts in England to reflect contemporary British society. The project will feature the work of African, Caribbean and Asian artists, develop new networks and co-ordinate a national festival. That means artists as writers, actors and staff in theatres. In 2001–02 there were four Arts Council regularly funded black, Asian and Chinese companies: Nitro, the Tanasha Theatre, the Tara Arts Group and Yellow Earth, and several more touring companies able to function through the national touring programme funds.
All those measures seem promising for a racism-free future in the theatre. The various organisations committed to attaining it are willing and energetic. Funds which appear to be adequate are available. Things are beginning to look hopeful with more and more people involved in the theatre becoming aware that a Utopian vision of a race-equal United Kingdom is not yet in being. W. H. Auden defined civilisation as,
"the degree to which diversity is attained, unity retained".
It is a good definition to bear in mind. Much progress has still to be made and prejudice overcome.
6.44 p.m.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the debate. Perhaps I may be permitted to apologise to her for causing her unnecessary anxiety by appearing in the House rather later than I had expected. I congratulate her on an excellent setting out of the issues for consideration today. I declare two interests. I am Principal of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama; and I am a former executive director of the National Theatre. In that capacity, I failed to attend the Eclipse conference although I had a good excuse. However, I recognise that it was a great disappointment that so few people at the most senior levels of organisations were able to attend.
Ten years ago, the National Theatre, for which I then worked, presented a new production of Rodgers and Hammerstein's wonderful musical "Carousel", which is set, as many noble Lords will know, in a
260
fishing village in New England in the late 19th century. It was directed by Nicholas Hytner, who is now Director Designate of the Royal National Theatre—and nobody who saw "Carousel" or any of his other productions before or since will be surprised that he was chosen for this most public of theatre jobs. He assembled a fine cast, including a brilliant young singer/actor named Clive Rowe, who played "Mr Snow", a character described by his creators, Rodgers and Hammerstein, as "big, be whiskered, overbearing" and as "narrow-minded and smug, but mustn't alienate the audience, so requires experienced comic actor with immediate warmth". The other essential characteristics for the role are that he should be about 30, with, "a lyric tenor voice with a heroic top A".
Clive Rowe had, and still has, apart from no longer being 30—I am sure he will not mind my revealing that—all the necessary qualities to play the role. Indeed, by the time all avenues had been explored, he was the only actor who really had the lot. He was brilliant—and had a huge personal success in the part.
Clive Rowe, is black and I am sorry to say that this fact caused enormous consternation in the breasts of certain critics who should have known better. "Good heavens", they said, "this is outrageous. There were no successful black fishermen on the New England coast in the 19th century". This was, as they saw it, "political correctness"—that vile, overworked phrase—within the hallowed portals of the National Theatre.
Writing a few months later in the Independent, Nicholas Hytner said,
"Horrified by the unreality of a black Enoch Snow, what neither of them"—
the critics in question—
"cared to consider was the unreality of the rest of the show. They seemed unconcerned by the constant presence of a 30-piece orchestra, and by the odd propensity of these particular New Englanders to break into song at the drop of a hat, or to employ ballet as a regular means of discourse. It didn't bother them that the sea was represented by blue lino, the shore by green carpet. But a black man representing a herring fisherman—hold the front page".
He continued in the same article:
"An evening in the theatre rests on a sort of imaginative conspiracy between actor and audience …every age—every show—conspires differently to achieve its own reality …what seemed real to movie audiences of the 1920s seems hopelessly artificial now. Although the appearance of non-white actors at Stratford caused a frisson twenty years ago, it now passes without comment"
That was 10 years ago. Does it now pass without comment? You might think we had moved on from that kind of blinkered response. Sadly, however, despite Nick Hytner's optimism, the press still thinks it worth commenting on the fact that, for instance, David Oyelowo played Shakespeare's Henry VI for the RSC recently, or that Adrian Lester is to play Henry V for the Royal National Theatre, directed, unsurprisingly by Nicholas Hytner, not because those actors are among the finest classical players of their generation, which they certainly are, but because they are both black and, as we all know, medieval English kings on the whole were not. It is time we grew up. But

261
whether this can legitimately be seen as a symptom of racism, either in the theatre itself or in the people who attend it or comment upon it, I am not sure.
Those who dwell on these issues in this way are exhibiting something else—a sort of cultural paralysis which results in a depressing inability to recognise that the world has changed. In fact, as far as the employment of performers from ethnic minorities is concerned—and my noble friend has already indicated this—theatre in many of its forms has made a good deal of progress in the past 20 years, as a quick scan of cast lists will reveal. That does not mean, however, that we can afford to be complacent about the many barriers to be overcome by people from minority groups of all kinds. I refer to a recent debate in your Lordships' House on disability in relation to the performing arts where many of the same issues were evident.
Those people from minority groups who wish to make a career in the theatre, or who might form a larger percentage of the audience for theatre if they felt it better represented the true diversity of our culture, still need to be encouraged. I should like to focus briefly on two aspects that need attention. One is recruitment to boards and senior management positions, which my noble friend Lady Rendell has already referred to. The other is the vital importance of training and education in changing attitudes and aspirations.
On the matter of recruitment, until we have enough people from what I hope I can call, without offence, non-traditional backgrounds in leadership roles in arts organizations—that is, fewer people like me and more like Kully Thiarai, who has been referred to already, or like Venu Dhupa, the former executive director of the Nottingham Playhouse, who was instrumental in getting the Arts Council's Eclipse initiative going—I agree with my noble friend that we shall not get the changes which she and others would like to see. Bottom up processes, seeking out and encouraging those who need to be helped to take advantage of the opportunities that theatre offers, are absolutely vital. But theatres, like other businesses, are led from the top. That is where we look for signs that change is not just on its way but that it has actually arrived.
There are still regrettably few chairpeople, artistic directors and chief executives from ethnic minority groups. The Eclipse recommendations are intended to address that issue, among others. Along with my noble friend, I welcome the enormous amount of thought and effort that has gone into developing the action plan, which will be implemented shortly.
On the matter of education and training, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I regard these as the most important mechanisms for combating the effects of racism. I now lead an organisation which prepares young people for careers as musicians, actors, stage managers and stage technicians. We deliver a high quality, specialised education to a relatively small number of talented students. But we also recognise a responsibility to extend the reach of such education in two main ways:
262
first, by developing strategies to widen access so that our students come from the broadest possible range of backgrounds; and, secondly, by ensuring that, while the basis of our education will inevitably remain rooted in western traditions, it also acknowledges that the mere preservation of these traditions will not be enough if arts organisations are to respond and to develop in a changing cultural landscape.
We have developed an innovative programme—CONNECT—within which students and teachers at the Guildhall school are working with education and community partners in Newham, Tower Hamlets and Lewisham to engage young people in those areas. This has required working in a number of different artistic languages, using a variety of creative approaches and leadership skills. These inclusive processes can embrace everything from classical to popular, western and non-western genres, set repertoire—written and oral—and new works created through collaborative workshops. Much of the resulting work takes place in local venues, as well as in established performance spaces, both at the Guildhall school and elsewhere.
These inclusive, collaborative processes can also be seen at work in a ground-breaking project called the Art of Regeneration, which was launched recently at the Albany Centre in Deptford. It is led by the National Theatre, but it works with the London boroughs of Lewisham and Greenwich, and a number of other partners, including, I am pleased to say, the Guildhall School of Music and Drama. It involves the provision of arts-based programmes to people in those boroughs who have so far had little opportunity to participate.
These programmes, such as the Guildhall's CONNECT, are already vastly oversubscribed. Their success depends critically on partnership, flexibility. openness, and encouraging people from diverse backgrounds and with a broad range of skills to embrace new ideas and to learn from each other. It is my firm belief that racism, or any other unacceptable form of exclusion, in the theatre will be combated effectively in the long term only through initiatives of this kind. That is the way we shall grow a generation of audiences and practitioners who have the confidence and the interest to set the agenda for the future. It will take time, and it will take commitment of resources. I know that the Government, and in particular the current Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, understand this very well. Despite the fiscal and political challenges that lie ahead, I hope that the necessary courage and determination to make progress will not fail.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for securing this debate. I congratulate her on her dedication in ensuring that black, Asian, Chinese and others are given equal opportunities to enrich the diversity of arts and entertainment in Britain. This Unstarred Question today is a timely and appropriate follow-up to her Question posed nearly two years ago in your Lordships' House.

263
The Arts Council of England changed its policies in the year 2000 to allocate, over six years, £20 million to fund black, Asian, Chinese and other minority ethnic organisations in new developments, theatres and individual projects. Benefits from this investment have yet to emerge and feed into the Arts Council's initiative, which is called Diversity 2002.
Here I wish to acknowledge the help of Mrs Lee Fulton, a media and culture consultant, and Andy Cheung, who, as an Arts Council Fellow, worked in the Department of Culture, Media and Sports for a limited period. They are my friends and they have provided me with up-to-date relevant information. Positive action training through bursaries and fellowships has begun to enable a diversity of talent from many ethnic backgrounds to acquire experience in a range of organisations from art galleries to theatres. Charities such as the Paul Hamlyn Foundation have funded some bursaries.
But where have these fellows and bursary holders progressed? Has the first group of 15 Arts Council of England Fellows been given sufficient support to enter mainstream arts and culture organisations?
Of the two Chinese artists trained, one is working in Hong Kong but is due to return soon. The other is struggling to survive by writing for a new tourist magazine called Chinatown. So I look to the Minister for answers.
The national training organisation of the arts and entertainment sector, known as Metier, surveyed employers in 2000. It reported serious under-representation of people from minority ethnic descent in the areas of classical drama, music and dance in the roles of performers and managers. Only 2.5 per cent of nearly 3,000 employees in Metier's arts skills 2000 research project were from black, South Asian and Chinese backgrounds.
A welcome development is the extension of positive action schemes beyond London and the South East, such as the North West Arts positive action trainee scheme. In addition, North West Arts will be inviting applications for three-year fixed term funding for theatre organisations in the region. Between one and four awards of between £20,000 and £50,000 per annum are likely to go to culturally diverse companies.
The past 10 years have seen the emergence of a number of performing arts bodies. I shall concentrate on those in the Chinese community. The British Chinese Artists' Association was established in 1992 to address the lack of profile, funding, resources and opportunities for British artists of Chinese descent. It became a registered charity in 1996. Since then the British Chinese Artists' Association has promoted through its specialised audience and artist database more than 100 events in performance, music, dance and visual arts.
The Yellow Earth Theatre is a London-based international touring company formed by five British East Asian performers in 1995. Funded by the Arts Council of England and London Arts, the Yellow Earth Theatre is a pioneering theatre company that
264
celebrates and integrates the best of East-West theatre. It aims to establish an East-Asian arts centre and youth theatre in London. The Mu Lan Chinese Theatre Company has been producing contemporary British/Chinese plays reflecting life in Britain.
Clearly, it is difficult for talented black and minority ethnic artists to progress in British theatre. The number of Equity membership cards is a useful indicator of that progress. I understand that they are difficult to obtain, particularly for newcomers to the theatre such as black and ethnic minority artists.
A further barrier is that of casting where black, Asian, and Chinese artists tend to be limited to parts where their racial background determines the character role that they play. Not surprisingly, this method of casting means that minority ethnic people have few opportunities in mainstream theatre. We heard this evening from the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about recent positive changes, but even when the play, opera, or musical is in a non-European setting—such as Gilbert and Sullivan's "Mikado" or Puccini's "Madam Butterfly"—how many character parts are played by non-Europeans? Is there a case here of institutional racism for the theatre to answer?
Finally, we are grateful to government for the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which makes it obligatory for all public authorities to take account of the impact of their policies on the ability of black and minority ethnic people to be employed and to have access to their services. All public organisations are expected to produce race equality schemes and to implement them. Should not more be done by theatres, in addition to those measures described by the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act? I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to my questions on the progress made in combating racism in the theatre.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Rendell for initiating a discussion on the question of racism in the theatre. The subject is important, because racism is always unacceptable wherever it occurs, particularly in the arts which are based on the principle of equal human worth and, rightly, believe themselves to be free of conventional prejudices.
Two reports in recent years have highlighted the magnitude of racism in the theatre. I have in mind the Glass Ceilings report published in August of this year, and the Eclipse report published just four months earlier. Between them, they showed that, although considerable progress has been made, we still have a long way to go. For example, out of 2,009 permanently employed staff in regional theatres, just over 80—that is to say, about 4 per cent—are from black and Asian communities. At senior levels, there are 463 board members, as mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lady Rendell. Of these, just under 20 are blacks and Asians; that is, about 3.5 per cent of the population.

265
The depressing picture does not simply end with the under-representation in employment. Both reports point out that the roles in which the blacks and Asians are cast tend to be racially stereotyped. There are hardly any black and Asian stage managers, artistic directors, technicians, designers, or marketing officers. Until recently, there were few scholarships, bursaries, or traineeships for ethnic minorities; and, therefore, no realistic prospect of the ethnic minorities rising to important technical, managerial, or other senior positions in the next few years.
Further, little attempt is being made to draw on the great theatrical traditions of the ethnic minorities and bring them into a creative dialogue with the mainstream Western theatrical tradition. As far as I can see, only a limited attempt is being made to take the theatre to the Asian and black audiences and increase their theatrical literacy. As I observed earlier, and as both my noble friends Lady Rendell and Lady McIntosh most sensibly pointed out, there have been significant changes for the better during the tenure of this Government; for example, £25 million has been specifically set aside for the theatre, 10 per cent of which is earmarked for diversity projects.
The National Theatre has launched its transformation season, which focuses on new writings—some of which are from ethnic minorities. I must also mention the considerable work carried out by the Royal Shakespeare Company. However, despite all this, as both reports point out, and as I said earlier, there are problems requiring urgent attention.
What should we do? I should like to make three or four quick suggestions. First, regional theatres should review their equal opportunity policies, develop positive action programmes, introduce a system of ethnic monitoring, and build up a database of regionally available talents.
Secondly, the Arts Council needs to play a proactive, co-ordinating role in this area. It should build up a national database and website of Afro-Caribbean and artistic talents. It should also introduce companies to venues, bring in blacks and Asians as local and national advisers, act as a broker between touring companies and theatre buildings, and monitor the progress of regional and local theatres. The council should also encourage a more extensive system of bursaries and traineeships, popularise the practices of theatres carrying out good work, and encourage regional theatres to invite blacks and Asians as guest directors from time to time.
It would also help greatly to ask boards appointing artistic directors to include in the job requirement an interest in, and knowledge of—and, perhaps, even a commitment to—minority art and artists. The Arts Council, and other funding agencies, should also encourage boards of theatre companies to recruit ethnic minorities, develop long-term strategies and targets, and foster diversity of themes and cast.
Finally, ways need to be found to attract black and Asian audiences. This would have several advantages. Obviously, it would increase revenue. It would also create a climate conducive to the emergence of artistic
266
talents among the ethnic minorities. Indeed, if I may say so, it would also wean away large chunks of ethnic minorities from addictive and often rather mediocre television to the communal, interactive and living reality of the theatre. The taking of the theatre to the ethnic minorities should also, over time, enrich the mainstream theatrical tradition and output.
How do we achieve that aim? How do we take the theatre to the ethnic minority audiences? There are various ways in which that can be done. Theatrical productions should draw on ethnic minority experiences, both by concentrating on those experiences and by integrating them into mainstream theatre. Theatre timings could also be changed to suit ethnic minority patterns of work and life. There is already a rich theatrical tradition among ethnic minorities, including street theatre, which can be both exploited and brought into a creative dialogue with the mainstream Western tradition. A building dedicated to black theatre would also be helpful. It could act as a focus for ethnic minority interest in the theatre.
I have great confidence in my noble friend Lady Blackstone. Her record in this area of fighting racism is most commendable, as is her commitment to the arts. I can say that from several years of close association with her. I hope that both my noble friend and the Secretary of State will respond positively to many of the constructive suggestions that have been made in the debate by my noble friends and myself.
7.9 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I, too, should like not only to thank my noble friend Lady Rendell for tabling this Unstarred Question, hut also to congratulate her on raising this sensitive issue in your Lordships' House. I did not attend the conference to which my noble friend referred, so I shall give a personal view as a black person. From the introductory remarks of my noble friend and from what other noble Lords have said, the House will have come to the certain knowledge that race matters even today in British society. Racism exists in all our institutions and in the conditioning of British citizens alike.
Some of your Lordships may recall how Stephen Lawrence's life ended in a tragic assassination on a spring evening in Eltham in south-east London. He was an 18 year-old British citizen of Caribbean descent. He was waiting at a bus stop with a friend. The reason for his assassination was sheer bigotry—bigotry over the colour of his skin. The United Kingdom was shaken by that unimaginable act. For most people it was unthinkable, but for black British citizens it was an expression of the racism that affects their daily lives in one way or another.
The country was forced to debunk the idea that there were only a few bad apples in the barrel and confront the fact that its very institutions were racist. Since the Macpherson report, many steps have been taken to introduce laws and rules to get rid of bigotry in all of Britain's institutions. Among them are the

267
strengthening of the Race Relations Acts—which was long overdue—and the setting of targets by many institutions to combat injustice.
As a result, black people have made considerable headway in society. Progress has not been easy, but it has been steady. Black people's progress has been a direct result of pressure placed on institutions to change their structures and systems in the country in order to end discrimination.
Today's debate poses the question whether we are satisfied with the progress made in combating racism in the theatre. Black people find it difficult to envisage a set of criteria to demonstrate results in the highly competitive field of theatre for actors and actresses. But in many of its institutions, the theatre is an employer where black people still remain underrepresented, as evidenced by my noble friend Lady Rendell and other speakers.
That is not to say that there are not trained personnel to take those jobs, but the available figures suggest that the playing field remains uneven and that discrimination continues, because there is no representation of black people where decisions are made. The theatre is almost all white at its top. Black people's interest is not best served when an ethnocentric view is the only deciding factor—whether in employment or in the theatre itself.
It is noticeable that UK institutions go to the United States of America to recruit black actors. Black actors from Britain must go to the United States for any recognition or opportunity. Examining that phenomenon, one comes to the conclusion that there is a lack of exposure for home-grown black actors.
It is often said that there is a natural aptitude for the stage that is ignored by prospective producers. As a race, black people display a natural rhythm—I add that the exception stands before you. Black people feel deeply and express it. I am reliably informed that those two qualities are necessary to create good performers. We cannot afford to allow that lack of exposure to continue. That would be to deny trained actors the right to practise their trade; and to deny our country real engagement with its rich diversity of talent.
In my view, it is impossible to set effective targets. I therefore look to the Government to reconsider how they fund ethnic arts and artists. Funding must be sufficient; it must allow black people autonomy; and it should recognise that in some communities—certainly in my community—it is impossible to raise the match funding that is often required. The lottery has given a grant to a black theatre company, the Talawa Theatre. Match funding has now become a nightmare. The Afro-Caribbean community cannot raise the large sums required to set up and run its own theatre. There is therefore no space for seed-bedding.
In her role as chair of the London Arts Board, Lady Hollick said:
"The innovative and dynamic work created by London's diverse arts community contributes to our capital's status as a world city".
268
Today, more than one in three Londoners are from black and minority ethnic groups. That represents more than half of the country's culturally diverse residents, yet there is not one theatre in London that is black-owned and black-led to be a showcase for black actors. We must do better.
7.16 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for introducing this debate on her Unstarred Question. I hope that she will feel encouraged after our contributions on what is a complex subject—racism generally and especially in the arts—to introduce a further debate to which more time can be devoted. In my attempt to reduce a complex subject to the proportions that I can discuss tonight, I shall have to fall back on some personal reminiscences.
As a young man first working in London, I was perhaps a little further to the Left than I am now. I was certainly much concerned with racism in this country. I was reminded of that the other evening when I watched an excellent programme on BBC4—now a beacon in public service broadcasting—that demonstrated the disastrous, sad and disgraceful treatment of West Indians in the immediate post-war period. Large numbers of West Indians who, having served in the forces during the Second World War, came here expecting—indeed, having been encouraged to expect—to become part of an integrated multiracial society were soon disappointed. I must mention that the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, who spoke about racism generally, made a moving contribution to that programme.
I used to discuss such matters and the frustration that one had with the lack of progress towards a multiracial society in this country with Lord Pitt of Hampstead, whom I remember fondly. He used to say to me: "My dear boy, if you see what happened to those great ideals in the post-war period, is it any wonder that the ethnic minorities have retreated back into their own cultures, rather than doing what we had all hoped that they would do: try to merge into a multiracial culture in this country?" That is so true and is partly responsible for the continued existence of racism in this country in the terrible way that it is manifest in some areas—that certainly applies to the Macpherson report.
The Macpherson report definition of institutional racism does not necessarily apply to the theatre. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, I worked close to the theatre and had the great honour of knowing quite well some performers from the ethnic communities. To give two extremes, I knew Ram Gopal, the great classical dancer and choreographer, and I knew a number of black actors, both male and female, who were just starting their careers in an area in which it was difficult to find work.
I also used to attend many of the drama school productions and was then concerned about how few students there were from the ethnic minorities. It was interesting to listen to the noble Baroness,

269
Lady McIntosh. I remember going to the Guildhall, where I felt there was a notable absence, despite the music—and we know of the contribution which people from the West Indies make to that. However, I imagine that after 40 years that has changed and that if I now went to drama schools I would find many young black actors. We see on television how talented so many of them are.
During the 40 years which have elapsed, the role of ethnic minorities has increased and changed in this country. Against the background I have described, we have seen a slow improvement. It has been based, at the worst, on blatant ignorance and seldom on pathological hatred such as the kind I witnessed at the Mosley meetings in North Kensington just after the war. I attended out of curiosity, and I saw that shamed figure unrolling maps at crucial moments in order to show the selected areas where under his scheme the races of the world were to be shoved. That confirmed me in my view that what we needed and wanted was a multiracial society, and I am as disappointed as many to find that that has not happened.
While there is blatant ignorance at one end of the spectrum, there is also, not only in this country but in others, as I discovered when I worked in business, often visiting Africa and other places, a deplorable lack of curiosity by Europeans about the culture of the countries in which they live and work for long periods.
Much has been said about the role of schools and education. I believe that that, too, is vitally important. I remember a debate in your Lordships' House on drama schools and theatre and the need to bring to students who were not making academic headway the usefulness of drama. The debate was picked up by a school in south London, which for the first time decided to put on a drama production, which ambitiously was "Macbeth". The entire cast comprised young black men. They had had a short time to prepare and the text was rough hewn in its production, but the energy and the enthusiasm were fantastic.
I attended one night, and there were several performances. The principal told me that the whole morale of the school had been changed by the production. He said, "It is better than football because they work together and enjoy it". It was a very physical production, but, nevertheless, think of the opportunities given to people from poor, ethnic minority back grounds in south London by having a whole new area of life opened to them. I wish that more schools did such things. Unfortunately, interest in politics and Hansard is diminishing, so they do not often read our debates. But I hope that someone in education will pick this one and put on another production. I do not care what it is—probably not "The Importance of Being Earnest", but something more suitable.
That leads me to the problems in the theatre which were dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. In the professional theatre there is the imperative to attract and hold audiences. That must be balanced against the problems we are discussing
270
today. Understandably, much of the ethnic theatre is didactic and political, which is not often appealing to audiences, particularly in this country, who look for amusement and distraction. There is a great deal of frustration.
There is also the problem of suspension of belief which one must face. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to that. She was right in saying that "Carousel" is wonderful. People from ethnic minorities can play English kings in opera productions because, like "Carousel", the structure is so extraordinary and imaginative that one can get away with things which cannot be done in the legitimate theatre.
In summary, the situation does not cause me great alarm because I have read the Eclipse report. It is most interesting and I have read it thoroughly. I do not agree with much of it, because it is too political and people are in too great a hurry. However, a deplorable instance is related by one contributor, Tiata Fahodzi, who is the artistic director of a well-known touring company. I am afraid to say that I am not familiar with his work. I shall not mention any names because ultimately he received an apology. But his account is an example of the clumsiness which occurs in this country where race is concerned.
The company was putting on a matinee performance and unfortunately computers were stolen from the building that afternoon. When the performance ended, the management saw fit to disregard the white actors but to take all the black actors and in full view of people leaving the theatre to strip-search them. That of course is disgraceful. It has to be said that an apology was made after the usual excuses one often hears on such occasions. However, that shows the extreme insensitivity which can occur.
I am much heartened by the contribution in the Eclipse report of Tyrone Huggins, Artistic Director of the Theatre of Darkness. I agree with his personal approach and I know his work. He has written a lot of interesting theatre and his attitude to the frustrations and anger felt by many of the ethnic communities is not to take the short-term view. To be realistic, one must take his approach. He hopes that in 20 years' time his nephews and nieces will look at his work and not see it as predominantly Afro-Caribbean but as part of the work of British black people. He hopes that 20 years on from that the situation will have changed, to the extent that people will be curious and interested in the origins of black people and that full integration and understanding will have begun. In conclusion, I want to quote that contributor. He asked whether he was guilty of excessive patience and lack of expectation. He said:
"I don't know and I honestly don't care. I'm playing a very, very long game. Things will change. They have to".
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, on introducing I he debate. As we have already heard, in April 2002 a number of English theatre groups released a report designed to tackle institutionalised racism in the

271
theatre. The report contains a strategy which is aimed at greatly improving opportunities for black, Asian and Chinese artists working in English theatres. The report addresses issues such as the number and seniority of staff from culturally diverse communities and the programming of work created by black, Asian and Chinese practitioners in theatre.
The Eclipse report was drawn up by the Arts Council of England, the Theatrical Management Association, the East Midlands Arts Board and the Nottingham Playhouse. It also had the backing of the wider theatre sector. It looked at the issues of governance, artistic programming, employment opportunities, professional development and audience development. It was also used to aid the implementation of the arts funding system's national policy for theatre in England, which places a priority on diversity and inclusion.
The recommendations of the Eclipse report followed two one-day conferences at the Nottingham Playhouse theatre in 2001. The aim of the conferences was to set out to encourage debate and solutions to institutional racism in the theatre, starting from the premise that institutional racism exists within the theatre sector. This was determined by the Arts Council statistics for 1998–99 that showed poor representation of black, Asian and Chinese people in particular on the boards and staff of English theatres, and by the findings published in the Macpherson report in 1999, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, referred.
On 29th April this year, my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns asked the Government for their response to the Eclipse report. In particular, my noble friend referred to a target set of March 2003 for every publicly funded theatre organisation in England to have reviewed its equal opportunities policy and ascertained whether the targets set are being achieved, and, if not, to draw up a positive action plan to develop opportunities for African, Caribbean and Asian practitioners. At that time, the Government were not prepared to issue a definitive response, and so we look forward to the Minister's response today.
The Arts Council of England has emphasised the need for the theatre to engage with audiences and artists from a broader, more diverse range of backgrounds. There is a need for the theatre to reflect real life accurately. It is important that the theatre reflects the cultural diversity of society in the 21st century.
Clearly, there are funding issues that must be satisfactorily addressed. In addition, as noble Lords have said, we cannot underestimate the importance of effective training and education. The overall aim must be to ensure representation at all levels. This must mean artists, writers and producers, as well as all levels of management. At the same time, we have to be realistic. It is not only a question of meeting targets—for example, it is probably unrealistic to expect as broad a diversity of communities working in theatre in rural Dorset as in, say, Stratford in east London—there is also bound to be some tension between the
272
wish to attract particular audiences and the need to cover costs. Theatres have to be practical and measure supply and demand if they are to survive.
This particular point was discussed in some detail in a recent edition of the "Front Row" programme that I listened to on Radio 4. It featured Steven Luckie talking to Mark Lawson about an initiative called the "Eclipse Theatre", which is aimed at addressing the lack of black material, black audiences, actors and back-stage personnel in British theatre. Steven Luckie's emphasis happens to be regional theatre, and his initiative is operating in the new Wolsey in Ipswich, the Bristol Old Vic and the Nottingham Playhouse. One of the key priorities of the Eclipse Theatre is audience development.
Of course there are a number of ways to attract diverse audiences, and different objectives can be achieved which help to combat racism. For example, the National Theatre is currently in discussion with the Football Association with regard to the possibility of touring with a relatively new play by Roy Williams, who happens to be a major black playwright. The play is called "Sing your heart out for the lads" and is about a young, black British football fan and the challenges that he faces as a supporter. The aim is to put on this play for the benefit of young football supporters, an idea that links so well with current initiatives being pursued by several football clubs to combat racism.
It is important for those in the theatre to look to other cultural and artistic channels for examples of success in overcoming racism, both for the artists and audiences alike. Last Friday, I attended the official opening of the British Empire and Commonwealth Museum in Bristol. I was amazed to find, housed in this new museum, a purpose-built radio broadcasting unit. The museum had obtained a restricted service licence for 22 days to experiment with a new station called "Commonwealth FM". In the first weeks of the museum's life, the unit has broadcast in Punjabi, Somali, Cantonese and Arabic to audiences across Bristol. This museum had made the conscious decision to develop a project that would draw people in from the many different communities in and around Bristol and representatives from those communities were involved in making programmes, presenting, producing, running, editing and researching material of their choice.
Most of the groups covered issues faced by their own communities and, as the project began to gather momentum, individuals simply arrived at the museum having heard about the radio project and were encouraged to take part. The premise of Commonwealth FM was to make radio programmes. It has done this and, at the same time, broken down barriers, with a complete cross-section of age groups, nationalities and cultures all working together in what they can now feel is their local museum—a museum that celebrates diversity through our history. I wish the museum well and I hope that it will repeat this project with a new broadcasting licence in the near future.
Other examples of breaking down barriers from which those in the world of theatre may take heart must include the pop world and television. Role

273
models are surely key to setting the pace for change, whether they be Otis Redding, Freddie Mercury, Jennifer Lopez or Ms Dynamite. The MOBO—Music of Black Origin—Awards play a major part in generating role models and raising the profile of successful artists. On television, "The Cosby Show", the "Fresh Prince of Belair" and "Sister Sister" are great and attract massive audiences, although I do worry that such programmes are rather stereotypical and tend, because they have all black casts, to ghettoise community culture.
In contrast, on the breakfast show "Rise" on Channel 4 this morning, a broad representation of different cultures was present. In my view, this is the better route to effectively breaking down barriers.
This is a timely debate and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, much more could be said in support of all of those, including the Arts Council, National Theatre, the Nottingham Playhouse and others to whom I have already referred, for the valuable work that they have undertaken to combat racism. Of course, one thing that we must never lose sight of is consumer choice. While we support the overall objectives set out in the Eclipse report, consideration has always to be given to presenting works that people want to see, a point made very well by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.
In conclusion, I agree with Peter Hewitt, the chief executive of the Arts Council of England, when he talked about,
"the need to change the mindset and artistic theatre practice to reflect the diverse society of Britain in the 21st century".
It is hoped that the necessary commitment, financial investment and courage to meet this end will prevail.
7.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Rendell of Babergh for introducing the debate. It has raised a number of extremely important issues.
In considering the Question, I should like first to make the general point that the Government abhor racism and will do everything they can to ensure that it is eliminated from all forms of public life, whether in the theatre, sport, the way we are governed, the way we are policed, the way we are taught.
The Question asks whether the Government are satisfied with the progress in combating racism in the theatre. The answer has to be that as long as there is any question of there being racism in any walk of public life we must remain dissatisfied.
But let us probe the Question a little further. We should ask ourselves the direct question: is the theatre racist? To answer that we must ask ourselves, first, if the theatre deliberately discriminates on grounds of race in terms of those whose work it promotes and who it welcomes as its audience; and, secondly, whether it deliberately does not promote equality of opportunity.
274
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, my answer is that the theatre does not deliberately set out to do any of this but that sometimes it may do so unthinkingly. Black, Asian and Chinese artists still, perhaps with some justice, may not feel that they get enough exposure on the stage. Black audiences may not feel welcome in some institutions. We have to encourage a change of attitude so that talent will out in terms of artists, and audiences are broadened across all ethnic and social groups. What we have to do is to ensure that theatre, like other art forms, properly reflects the diversity of the population. That is a more helpful starting-point than accusing the theatre of racism.
I am not sure whether the Eclipse report, mentioned by nearly all speakers, definitively proves to us that the theatre is racist. What it does do is tell us that we need to ask a large number of questions about diversity and about discrimination, open or hidden. We need to examine funding streams, appointments to boards and management practice and programming policy. We need to go on asking whether the way in which theatre works allows it truly to reflect the society from which it springs. That is what it has to do.
I start from the belief that theatre, like all the arts. is about opening up possibilities and not about closing them down. It is about talent, not about prejudice. It is about offering opportunity for the spectator to watch interesting, stimulating performances and for the performer to realise his or her art. That is what is important—not the colour of someone's skin, but what he or she can do. Logically, in artistic terms, discrimination of any kind—except artistic discrimination and the ability to enable and support what is truly excellent—has absolutely no part in the modern theatre.
We have to face the facts, too. The Government do not run theatres; nor should they. Some theatres run with the help of public money. Many, including in the West End, run without any at all. So, when we talk about the theatre, we are not talking about homogeneous public sector institutions but about a mixed economy of public and private institutions.
Perhaps I may give some background detail to the Eclipse report. The report is an account of a conference funded by East Midlands Arts, the Theatre Management Association, the Arts Council and the Nottingham Playhouse. It represented the industry itself recognising its own failings and trying to see what more can be done. It is inevitably a snapshot of informed opinion, being an account of a conference that took place with a particular audience at a particular time; nevertheless, it gives us plenty of food for thought.
The conference was aimed at senior managers of middle to large scale presenting and producing theatres and was set up in response to discussions around cultural diversity and the roles and responsibilities of regional theatres.

275
The report is a useful contribution to the debate and has given the Arts Council a number of things to think hard about. It has identified key areas where funders can implement change. It contains some sobering facts, which may be of particular interest to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall and to the noble Lord, Lord Chan. Employment representation in English theatre for African, Caribbean and Asian staff was 4 per cent in 1998. The latest figures show that this improved to 4.8 per cent in 2001. African, Caribbean and Asian board members represented 3.5 per cent of all members in 1998. That rose quite substantially to 6.3 per cent in 2001. There is clearly some way to go despite those improvements.
Responding to my noble friend Lord Parekh—I am most grateful to him for his generous comments—I should like to add just how much I have learnt from him about the broader area of racial equality in this and other societies. However, I would say to him that both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I do take the figures that I have just quoted extremely seriously.
The Arts Council, too, is taking the Eclipse report seriously. It is tackling issues of management and governance. It is running regional seminars on positive action and equality of opportunity. A lot of work here is to clarify legislation that already exists through the Race Relations Amendment Act and equal opportunities policies.
Regional Arts Council officers continue to visit the theatres that did not attend the Eclipse conference; and, as part of their funding agreements for 2003–04, all funded theatres are required to review their equal opportunities policies and to set up a positive action plan. I think that that provides the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, with the reply that she was seeking. All theatres involved are to be assessed on an on-going basis, with the emphasis in the first instance being on what support is needed from the regional officers.
Perhaps I may mention one or two other initiatives. The Arts Council is working to improve the numbers of black and Asian actors working in the subsidised theatre and, together with arts and business, it is introducing board training for blacks and Asians. The Arts Council is also launching Decibel—mentioned by my noble friend Lady Rendell—which is a diversity project whose mission is to challenge perceptions of the arts in England to reflect contemporary British society, thus encapsulating the whole ethos of what the Government aim to achieve. Five million pounds has been allocated to that project which will support the national programme of events next year.
The Black Regional Initiative in Theatre is another key strategic development scheme that seeks to develop a more equitable black and Asian theatre across the country.
One way of encouraging change is through funding, as my noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids, implied. Apart from using funding agreements to ensure equal opportunities and positive action, the Arts Council is using the funding system to try to make
276
significant changes to the balance of what is funded. In 2001, the Arts Council of England gave a significant boost from lottery funds to the Capital Arts projects, with £29 million being allocated to black, Asian or Chinese arts organisations. Again, this was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Rendell. It is a major step forward.
In addition, in distributing the new £25 million of theatre money from the last spending review, 10 per cent was reserved for ethnically diverse projects— again, a major step forward. For example, Leicester Haymarket will receive an additional £400,000—a 41 per cent increase—to allow it to increase its focus on South Asian theatre.
Perhaps I may give one or two other examples of good practice. Around the country, we do see signs of progress. The Leicester Haymarket is one of the most exciting examples of a theatre meeting its communities' needs. It is the only building base producing theatre with a black artistic director—Kully Thiarai—who is joint artistic director with Paul Kerryson. The work presented at the Haymarket reflects the communities of Leicester in every way. It is an example of the arts infrastructure taking into account the demography of the city in which it is located. The theatre's programming policy is inclusive, casting actors regardless of their race but ensuring that they reflect the local community.
A further example of how energy and collaboration can bring about real results is the creation of Eclipse Theatre. In direct response to the report, Nottingham Playhouse has joined forces with the New Wolsey Theatre, in Ipswich, and the Bristol Old Vic to launch a range of initiatives to develop the national profile of black middle-scale regional theatre.
The Playhouse, the New Wolsey and the Bristol Old Vic will be producing three major pieces of black theatre, the first of which will be a production of Errol John's classic play, "Moon on a Rainbow Shawl" in February next year, directed by the acclaimed black director, Paulette Randall.
Good practice should not just be adopted by the subsidised theatre. We need to see it in the West End too. The success of the West End in promoting shows such as "Umoja" and "Bombay Dreams", which have drawn ethnically diverse audiences to the theatre, is something to celebrate.
As I said at the beginning, I do not think that we should conclude that the theatre is institutionally and systematically racist—but we can conclude from the available evidence that in terms of employment practices it needs better to reflect the diversity of the population; and the theatre must always ensure that it is attracting as wide an audience as possible.
I am glad that we can show that progress is being made. If we tackle the issue of diversity properly, we should in time eliminate racism. I am confident that through the example set by theatres such as the Nottingham Playhouse, the Leicester Playhouse and Tricycle, through the continuing influence of the Eclipse report and the continued action of the Arts Council and the commercial sector, progress can be

277
sustained. But there is still more to do. Am I satisfied with progress? So long as there is progress still to be made in any aspect of policy, I, for one, will not be satisfied. But I am reasonably confident that common sense and pragmatism will prevail. Certainly, as a Government, we will continue to work with ACE and others to try to bring about the necessary changes.
278
Finally, to pick up a comment by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, I hope that will mean that before long we will no longer need to comment on the fact that a superb performance of "Hamlet" was by a black actor rather than that it was by an outstanding classical actor.
House adjourned at nine minutes before eight o'clock.

  Judicial Appointments Annual Report
  Judicial Appointments Annual Report
  US Steel Safeguard
  US Steel Safeguard
  Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention
  Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention
  Newspapers: Waste Disposal
  Newspapers: Waste Disposal
  Flood and Coastal Defence
  Flood and Coastal Defence
  Water Framework Directive
  Water Framework Directive
  Piers: Heritage Lottery Funding
  Piers: Heritage Lottery Funding
  Treasure Trove on Beaches
  Treasure Trove on Beaches
  Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland Institutions
  Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland Institutions
  Belfast to Bangor NIR Line
  Belfast to Bangor NIR Line
  Airport Security
  Airport Security