Sitting of 4 April 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair.]
The House being met, and the Speaker having leave of absence pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 3 ( Deputy Speaker), SIR ALAN HASELHURST, The Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table.

Orders of the Day
  Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Bill
    Clause 2

      STATUS OF CHARITABLE SOCIETIES TO APPEAR ON CORRESPONDENCE ETC
      9.33 pm
      Mr. Mark Todd: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 17, leave out 'and'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider amendments Nos. 2 to 4 and 6.
      Mr. Todd: It is a pleasure to bring the Bill back to the Floor of the House. It received considerable scrutiny and amendment in Committee, but there have been opportunities to reflect on further issues raised in Committee and outside, which form the basis of the amendments that we shall consider today.
      Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 deal with conveyances that were not included in the compass of the Bill. The intention is to ensure that the Bill properly covers important agreements between societies and their business partners. The amendments also deal with the protection of conveyances that charities, which may be co-operatives or community benefit societies, seek to agree. These straightforward amendments should be uncontroversial, based on our experience of debating the Bill so far.
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I simply wish to confirm that, in the overall context of the Bill and the debates on it that have taken place so far, I have no objection whatever to the amendment. It seems wholly practical.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): Clauses 2 and 3 change the powers and capacities of the societies to facilitate their ability to enter into business transactions. However, there are also exemptions to some of those provisions for societies that are charities.
      1168
      The rationale is to ensure that the charities' assets are protected and not used for a purpose for which they are not intended. That is in line with the corresponding provisions that already exist for companies that are charities.
      Clause 2 deals with part of the system of protection for charities. It requires societies that are charities to make their charitable status clear in various documents, including business letters and official publications of the societies. The aim of amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 is to provide greater conformity with company law by listing conveyances as other documents where the charitable status of the society must be disclosed. Those amendments also provide for the offences that will be committed where societies or their officers do not comply. Again, that is consistent with company law.
      Conveyances could involve societies in significant transactions. It is therefore important that societies that are charities disclose their status. The Bill will then afford charities that comply with that disclosure requirement greater protection for their assets, in the event that conveyances are outside the rules or powers of the societies.
      Mr. Andrew Love: Can my hon. Friend confirm whether the changes that she talks about will create the level playing field between industrial and provident societies and companies that is so important for future competition in that sector?
      Ruth Kelly: I am very happy to confirm that that is the intention. These amendments should do exactly as my hon. Friend suggests: provide a level playing between industrial and provident societies and companies.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: Is that absolutely necessary? Although I have argued that many changes in line with companies should be made for industrial and provident societies, may I ask my hon. Friend to give an example of why these amendments are as important as she and my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) suggest?
      Ruth Kelly: Yes, it is important that the playing field is completely level wherever possible. I have already given the example that conveyances should be listed as documents where the charitable status of societies must be disclosed. That is the purpose of these amendments in relation to industrial and provident societies.
      Mr. Tom Levitt: As chairman of the all-party group on charities and the voluntary sector, I take a great interest in the proposals. Can my hon. Friend confirm whether the Bill and these amendments are in line with the Treasury's recommendations on charity law reform generally?
      Ruth Kelly: I can confirm that the amendment's intention is to bring industrial and provident societies up to date with the current state of company law, thus providing a level playing field. On those grounds, I commend the amendment to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

      1169
      Amendments made: No. 2, in page 3, line 18, at end insert
      'and
      (e) in all conveyances purporting to be executed by or on behalf of the society.'.
      No. 3, in page 3, line 32, leave out second 'or'.
      No. 4, in page 3, line 35, at end insert
      'or
      (c) executes or authorises to be executed on behalf of the society any document such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(e) of this section,'.—[Mr. Todd.]
      Mr. Todd: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 7, at end insert—
      '(c) in relation to a society whose registered office is situated in one of the Channel Islands, means a society established for charitable purposes only ("charitable purposes" having the meaning given by the law of the Island in question).'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8.
      Mr. Todd: These amendments relate to the possibility that a society may be active in the Channel Islands. While the legislation does not relate to the Channel Islands or apply to them, it is not particularly uncommon for societies to trade there and, in some instances, be based there. During the Bill's progress, consultations have taken place with the Channel Islands authorities to ensure that they believe that appropriate provisions are included in the Bill, and they do. The principle behind the clauses amended by the amendments is, as has been said earlier, to provide societies with a level playing field so that they may trade on the same basis and with the same freedoms as equivalent companies. Obviously, there are other matters to consider which have arisen in debate in the House and in Committee, and I am sure that they will come up again on Third Reading, but we are now considering a specific aspect of the Bill. As I have said, the amendments have the support of the Channel Islands authorities.
      Mr. Lepper: I appreciate that my hon. Friend's amendments relate to the Channel Islands but, not having served in Committee, I should be grateful if he would tell me whether, in previous discussions, any thought has been given to the possibility that businesses in other parts of the world might operate in ways that weaken the protection that businesses in this country would otherwise enjoy? That may be outside the scope of my hon. Friend's Bill, but has any thought been given to it?
      Mr. Todd: I thank my hon. Friend for his slightly cryptic intervention, in which he hinted at practices in other parts of the world that may be covered by the Bill. We cannot legislate for other parts of the world, and where societies choose to carry on activities in other parts of the world, those activities are bound by the laws of those countries. The amendments relate only to societies based in the Channel Islands. Some societies
      1170
      carry on business through agencies in the Channel Islands but, because the Bill does not constitute law within the islands, it does not relate to that.
      Mr. Love: Concern has been expressed in the past about the special status of the Channel Islands, and the Treasury has taken great interest in the development of financial services law there. I am thinking in particular of limited liability partnerships. Will my hon. Friend confirm that changes relating to the Channel Islands will not weaken in any way the solid foundations of his Bill?
      Mr. Todd: I can confirm that the amendments do not alter in any sense the thrust of the Bill. They apply purely to the Channel Islands authorities, with whom we are in partnership but who, as my hon. Friend correctly states, are in a slightly anomalous legal position. I very much hope that the House supports the amendments.
      Mr. Levitt: I am intrigued by the suggestion in the amendments that the definition of charitable purposes may differ from one Channel Island to another. Is that the case, and is there not something to be said for encouraging the Channel Islands to have a common definition?
      9.45 am
      Mr. Todd: I am afraid that I am a sad soul who is not an expert on charitable activity on individual Channel Islands, and would certainly not seek to comment on how it may differ in different islands. However, presumably that matter was given careful thought by the Channel Islands authorities when they decided to support the amendments. I hope that the House, too, will support the amendments.
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien: It may be uninteresting but helpful none the less to start with the point made in the intervention by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt). If I recall correctly from my dim and distant days of studying law at the same Cambridge college as the Bill's promoter, the definition in the English legal system of the Channel Islands includes such places as Sark. It is possible that there are different charitable purposes on Sark, as it has no motorised vehicular traffic, so it may need a different definition to ensure that that is excluded. I do not know that for a fact, but it might be helpful in showing that there may be a difference. I daresay that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) has thought the matter through, as have the Channel Islands authorities.
      Mr. Levitt: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government strategy unit has proposed changes to charity law including a 10-point definition of charitable purposes—I may catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to talk about that. I hesitate to get the hon. Gentleman to suggest again what the Channel Islands should be doing, but the process that we are carrying out on the recommendation of the strategy unit to achieve a consistent approach to charities would help to clear up any anomaly.
      Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the consistency of definition in the operation of the legislation. In moving amendment

      1171
      No. 5, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire said that the applicability of the Bill to the Channel Islands is not the issue, but it has to make reference to them in the case of societies that are registered there or have them as their place of business. The hon. Member for High Peak made an important point about the need in framing any legislation to seek a level playing field and consistency of approach. During proceedings on the Bill, there has been a debate about whether the Bill pre-empts the report from the strategy unit, formerly the performance and innovation unit, about charities and the voluntary sector. The Minister has consistently assured us that it does not, but it has focused thinking about the report.
      I was much taken with the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), who asked about territories beyond the Channel Islands. The Bill's promoter rightly suggested that his hon. Friend was a touch cryptic in seeking to stay in order, but I felt that he may have been trying to explore Delphic territory. Delphi, of course, is a long way from the Channel Islands, so I am not sure that any assistance has been given.
      The amendment is important because of the way in which such entities are often based and configured. Can the Minister give an assurance that not only in the strategy unit's work, but in the company law reform work that we expect to come forward in the next Session or shortly thereafter, a consistent approach will be taken to industrial and provident societies, as well as to those that we prefer to call co-operatives and community benefit societies? One aspect of the process that the amendment highlights is that it is not always necessary to have different legislation for those entities, given that we are bringing them into conformity with the broader law as it applies to corporate entities. If we can avoid societies being encompassed by separate statutes, and instead bring them into the body of company law, that would obviously be better. Clearly, the Minister and her advisers will give that careful consideration.
      On that basis, I am happy to support the amendment, but it would be helpful to have the assurance that there will be a consistent approach across all corporate entities at a later date.
      Mr. Richard Allan: The promoter knows that the broad thrust of the Bill has all-party support. It is sensible for the provisions to encompass societies registered in the Channel Islands. Clause 2 deals with duties that will be imposed on charities, so it is important that the definition of bodies included in that broad remit is correct. It is clear which bodies are covered by England and Wales law and Scottish law, but there may be some uncertainty about those registered in the Channel Islands because, as the hon. Member fur High Peak (Mr. Levitt) pointed out, the provisions will apply to all the bodies defined as charitable under the Acts of the various islands. That is a broader remit, and I hope the Minister will assure us that we can take it on trust that the bodies that we wish to catch within the Bill's net will be broadly similar, under the various laws of the Channlel Islands, to those that would be caught by English and Welsh law and Scottish law.
      What is the position of societies registered in the Isle of Man? Are those covered by the Bill or by other English and Welsh law, or do they remain outside the
      1172
      scope of the Bill, although we have brought in England, Wales, Scotland and now, with the amendments, the Channel Islands? How widely is the net cast?
      Ruth Kelly: As I outlined earlier, clauses 2 and 3 seek to make changes to the powers and capacities of societies to facilitate their ability to enter into business transactions. However, there are also exemptions from some of these provisions for societies that are charities. The rationale for that is to make sure that charities' assets are protected and are not used for a purpose for which they were not intended. That is in line with the corresponding provisions that already exist for companies that are charities.
      To apply these provisions, we obviously need to define a charity. The Bill, as amended in Committee, already does so for societies registered in England and Wales, or Scotland. Although the Bill does not apply directly to the Channel Islands, we still need to make provision for societies based there that undertake business subject to the law of England and Wales, or Scotland. Following consultation with the Channel Islands authorities, I believe the amendment makes the necessary provisions. I am happy to reassure hon. Gentlemen who raised that point today. I therefore support the amendment.
      The Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 does not apply to the Isle of Man, but it does apply to the Channel Islands, so they are in slightly different categories. That is why the Bill needs to cover the Channel Islands industrial and provident societies that are charities, but not those registered on the Isle of Man.
      Mr. Levitt: I am sorry to keep going on about the matter, but is my hon. Friend saying that it is possible for two charitable companies operating in mainland Britain, in the same environment, carrying out the same functions, one of which is registered in Britain and one of which is registered in the Channel Islands, to operate to two different legal definitions of charitable functions?
      Ruth Kelly: I assure my hon. Friend that that is the case, which is why we have had to define a charity for the purposes of the Bill.
      On the point raised by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) about keeping industrial and provident society legislation up to date with company law, it is important to recognise that industrial and provident societies are not companies. However, we are keen to ensure that industrial and provident societies enjoy any new operational flexibilities that are introduced for companies.
      Mr. Love: As an adaptation of my earlier question, can my hon. Friend assure the House that there will be a level playing field between charities formed in the Channel Islands and those formed in other parts of the United Kingdom, so that there will be no attraction for some organisations to form themselves in the Channel Islands, rather than in the rest of the United Kingdom?
      Ruth Kelly: I shall deal first with the comments of the hon. Member for Eddisbury, and then return to my hon. Friend's question. We are keen to ensure that industrial and provident societies enjoy the same flexibilities as

      1173
      those that we grant companies in due course. The review of company law being carried out by the Department of Trade and Industry will give the Treasury the opportunity to consider updating a substantial proportion of industrial and provident society legislation through the powers given to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) in his private Member's Bill. Although we cannot start the updating process until company law has changed, we will start thinking about how to modernise industrial and provident society legislation in advance. When we respond fully to the strategy unit's report, we will also bear in mind those areas of industrial and provident society legislation that we consider ripe for reform.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: I was slightly concerned by my hon. Friend's comment to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) that any future changes to company law would need to be read across for industrial and provident societies. Although I welcome that, I hope she will acknowledge that in many respects company law has already been modernised far ahead of the law for industrial and provident societies. I am thinking particularly of audit and accounting exemptions, which leave industrial and provident societies substantially disadvantaged and having to incur considerable additional costs, in comparison with companies. Can she reassure me that that has not been overlooked?
      Ruth Kelly: As my hon. Friend knows, because he has raised these issues on many occasions with me and with the Treasury in various contexts, we are aware of the nature of that disadvantage and will give it due consideration when we consider our priority areas for reform. Of course, my hon. Friend will have to wait for a little while yet until we make those priorities clear, but I am sure he has the necessary patience.
      The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) about a level playing field for charities is indeed outside the scope of the Bill, which is purely about the differences between companies and industrial and provident societies. However, he makes a good point, and there will be a separate strategy and review of charities, which will consider changes to charity law in due course. I am sure that that review will consider the issue that my hon. Friend highlights.
      Having fully considered the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), the promoter of the Bill, I am content that the amendment makes the necessary provisions. The Channel Islands authorities support the amendment and I can, therefore, recommend it to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 6, in page 4, line 7, at end insert—
      '(8) In this section "conveyance" means any document for the creation, transfer, variation or extinction of an interest in land.
      1174
      (9) In subsection (5)(c) of this section the references to execution include—

      (a) purported execution; and

      (b) the doing of any act which (though not by itself execution) combined with other acts constitutes execution or purported execution.'.—[Mr. Todd.]

    Clause 3

      CAPACITY OF SOCIETY AND POWER OF COMMITTEE TO BIND IT
      Mr. Todd: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 36, after 'which' insert—
      not less than 21 days'.
      The amendment is perhaps of slightly more substance than the previous ones, although I have been interested in the interventions made and interest shown with regard to the first two groups. I think that this amendment merits a little more thought.
      Mr. Levitt: Thank you very much.
      Mr. Todd: I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend's contributions on this matter as well.
      10 am
      The amendment deals with the protection of a contract or business deal between a society and a third party and the need to ensure that the actions of that society where it exceeds its constitutional objects do not prevent the contract from being legal and of substance. It relates to what should be done with regard to the consequences of such an event. If a society proves to be trading outside its rules, the object of the provisions is to protect the partner or customer in the contract. However, there is also a consequence for the society, which has to work out what to do about the fact that the objects set down in its constitution have been exceeded by the actions of its officers or a committee. The steps set out in the clause represent the belief that it should be possible for a society retrospectively to agree that those acting on its behalf have done so correctly.
      The amendment sets out a notice period for a meeting at which such a decision might be made. The clause already gives a statement of the majority that must be achieved at such a meeting to secure that decision, but I think that it is perfectly legitimate that proper notice should be given for such a meeting, which will involve what may obviously be a very substantial decision for a society, as it is perfectly possible that the breach of objects is substantial and relates not only to a technical matter.
      Mr. Adrian Bailey: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am interested to know what deliberations he had with regard to the 21-day period. I can see the logic of having no fewer than 21 days' notice, but the amendment does not seem to contain a further requirement to hold the meeting within a given period. On what basis did he deal with only half the timing equation?
      Mr. Todd: That is a very reasonable intervention. The answer is that the 21-day requirement is based on

      1175
      equivalent company law. However, that may not be an entirely adequate answer, as societies are obviously rather different institutions from companies, and simply saying that we want to proceed on the same basis as that which applies to companies might be seen as inadequate. I think that 21 days' notice gives those who are concerned about the breach of an object of a society the opportunity to gather their arguments and inform members. As I said, the matter at stake may be of some substance in the society, so some individuals might wish to lobby people to vote against the resolution.
      Perhaps it is worth setting out the consequences of not passing such a resolution. In those circumstances, a liability will remain among those who have made the contract—and rightly so. We should not permit circumstances in which the servants or a committee of the society can make a business deal that is clearly outwith the objects of the society, regardless of the democratic intent of its members. The provision is therefore a serious restraint.
      Mr. Love: The argument that, because company law provides for a 21-day period, it is appropriate in respect of industrial and provident society law is not a strong one, considering that one or two shareholders will often own 75 per cent. of the voting rights in a company. In industrial and provident societies, a much wider group of people would be involved. My question relates to the provisions in a special resolution. There are protections, including the 75 per cent. vote, so one has to question whether it is necessary to specify 21 days as a special length of time and whether seven or 14 days would he more appropriate, especially where it may be necessary to pass a resolution to preclude legal action.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that, even on a Friday, I would like to observe the distinction between an intervention and a speech.
      Mr. Todd: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution on the amendment, whether it was an intervention or a speech.
      First, the wording ensures that the period should be at least 21 days. I recognise that my hon. Friends's examples involved shorter periods, but there is no reason why a society should not say that it will hold the meeting in 28 days' time or after a longer period, bearing in mind the initial point that he made, which was extremely sound. Indeed, that is why I said that my reference to mirroring company law was perhaps an inadequate answer. The institutions are very different and there are strong arguments for giving a decent interval. Before he intervened, I was setting out the sort of interval in which a genuine debate could take place about the implications of the decision. It is perfectly possible that substantial numbers of society members will profoundly disagree with a decision and wish to hold their officers and the committee instructing them answerable for that decision. This should not be some token paper process.
      It is important to reflect on whether the proposed approach is the right one. My hon. Friend referred to an example that, I would argue, set aside some of the democratic constraints under which a society should operate. If there were a requirement that the meeting
      1176
      should be held within seven days, those who would be concerned about the decision might well have very little opportunity to gather their arguments and inform their colleagues about the implications. The point is that the provision happens to be the same as that which applies in company law, but I certainly believe that any society should take the view that at least 21 days means just that. There may be circumstances in which a matter is of such substance that longer notice and greater information flow is required among members to ensure that they are properly informed about the implications of the decision that has been taken.
      Mr. Bailey: I understand the logic of my hon. Friend's argument, but I am not sure whether he has addressed my concern. A society with a very long-standing membership could, for example, use the validation of that membership as an excuse for delaying a vote for a very long time. That would mean that the society had been operating outside its original terms of reference. What are his thoughts on that particular issue?
      Mr. Todd: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Such a lengthy delay would have two important implications. The first is a positive one that relates to the content of the Bill: the third party that engaged innocently in a contract with the society is protected, whatever the delay. That is an important issue to grasp. Where a contract has been struck with a third party by a society acting outside its objects, that individual or business will be protected because they acted unknowingly of the breach of the objects. As was mentioned on Second Reading, no such protection previously existed and such parties simply had to consult the constitution of the society themselves to be sure that the contract lay within the bounds of its objects.
      The implications of lengthy delay within the society take me back to one of the Bill's foundations. Societies are democratic bodies, which is one of the reasons why they interest me, and presumably one of the reasons why hon. Members have been concerned and interested during the Bill's passage. They are interested in the fact that societies are the means of carrying out activities based on democratic will. A society might take the view that lengthy delay was required while the membership database was cleaned up to ensure that the correct people were notified of a meeting, although I cannot recall a circumstance in which such a decision was taken in my experience of societies. Most societies of which I know readily concede the inadequacy of their membership databases and recognise that it is inadequate to rely entirely on postal notices to inform people of a meeting of such substance. Members regularly do not notify societies of their changes of address, so the membership database would not be a full tool with which to notify people of a meeting. A retail society would achieve proper notification by placing notices in shops and places connected with the society's trading activities and by publicising the meeting in the relevant local media. I do not anticipate that my hon. Friend's argument about the quality of membership databases would be used to delay the process.
      Most societies' constitutions—or at least those of all the societies that I have encountered—allow members who are worried about a matter to call a meeting about

      1177
      it. If there were evidence that a retail society's board had prevaricated about the process and delayed calling a meeting to discuss such an important matter, its members could, and should, take the opportunity to call a meeting.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: The importance of general meetings for industrial and provident societies means, as my hon. Friend knows, that there is much reference to such meetings in current legislation on such societies. However, there is no requirement for 21 days' notice to be given before the meetings. Will my hon. Friend and the Minister reflect on why a 21-day notice period is so important for a general meeting to consider some issues, but not others?
      Mr. Todd: It is the same notice period as that under company law to cover similar circumstances, although I qualify that by saying that it is not an overpowering argument. If a company trades outside its objectives, there is an opportunity for retrospective correction of that position, and the notice period is applicable to that. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to ensure that a proper notice period exists for a process of such substance. One could argue that a society's ordinary general meeting should be governed by the society's rules. The governance of a society is a combination of this country's law and the society's democratic will because it sets many of its own rules. The precise process of how general meetings may be legitimately called is a combination of the society's legal obligations and its democratic decision on how to conduct its business. I have never argued that the law of this land should cover every possible aspect of how a society or company should conduct its affairs. The law should adopt a relatively light touch.
      10.15 am
      I would argue against my hon. Friend if he were suggesting that time limits should be written into law to cover other aspects of societies' operations because they should usually be left to make their own decisions. However, the provision covers an important legal obligation because individuals could face legal action if they fail to comply with their society's objectives, as was suggested previously. A time limit in such circumstances is important for individuals' protection and, especially, societies' protection. The amendment is important and I am glad that it was thought of after Committee.
      Mr. Lepper: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's points about a light touch and his wish to avoid over-regulating essentially democratic organisations in which decisions are taken by members. However, he earlier referred to ways in which the notification of the meeting might be given to members, such as by post or through advertisements. Did my hon. Friend consider whether there was any need to add such requirements to the way in which notice is given in the Bill, or does he think that that is already covered by existing guidance and legislation?
      Mr. Todd: My hon. Friend's point relates to two arguments. First, such societies are extremely diverse. I
      1178
      have given examples of retail societies because my personal experience is based on them, but there are many other co-operatives and community benefit societies that are organised in wholly different ways. A prescriptive approach to provide that a general meeting must be called in a specific way and publicised through a specific medium would be an unrealistic legal intervention that disregarded the different ways in which societies operate.
      Secondly, as I have already said, such prescription would interfere with a society's democratic right to make its own judgments. When the House considers this and other matters, we should weigh carefully the balance between the legal protections for people on which we should insist and freedom for our citizens to carry on their affairs as they wish, whether as individuals or when they act collectively in the way in which we are discussing.
      Claire Ward: I understand my hon. Friend's belief that we must balance regulation and criteria for sending notices. Does he agree that even if it is possible to have a 21-day notice period, the way in which the notices are sent out is equally important? If the majority of members could not access the notices, whether they were in the press or otherwise, the value of the 21-day notice period would be diminished.
      Mr. Todd: It is a valid point that societies could choose to implement the obligations in the clause, including the notice period for which the amendment would provide, in a nugatory way. They could conduct a token process of informing people whereby members had no genuine opportunity to find out about a decision to call a meeting or, therefore, to participate in it.
      However, the activities of those organisations and the democratic constraints under which they operate are already tightly regulated. They have to pass a regulatory test on members' involvement in order to be registered. We should therefore rely on the organisations' regulatory wisdom. Those who were fortunate enough to serve on the Committee know that we discussed the regulatory framework that might be applied to societies in future. The regulators would be obliged to consider such matters, as they do now.
      As I predicted, the amendment has generated a good deal of interest. It is a rational and sensible addition to the Bill.
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I am happy to say that I believe that the amendment is sensible and justifiable. Like the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), I am glad that it has been tabled after our deliberations in Committee.
      The hon. Gentleman made several important points in highlighting the reasons for the amendment. First, he dealt with third parties, who may transact with any entity that the Bill encompasses. They rightly start with the expectation that they are entitled to believe that those with whom they transact from the co-operative or community benefit society carry authority. That principle has informed the Bill's drafting. It is right that a transaction that may extend beyond the vires of the relevant entity's objects is called into question. If one purports to transact on behalf of an entity, it is vital that

      1179
      one has the authority to do that. It is important for third parties to know that the transaction has bound the entity, or whether they have left themselves personally liable for not acting within the proper authority of the co-operative or community benefit society.
      The importance of the matter renders special resolution ratification procedure wholly appropriate. An ordinary resolution, albeit democratic, means that a majority of one is enough. Special resolution shows the intention, in the case of a problem, to have the full backing of all those who have at least a stakeholder interest in the co-operative or community benefit society.
      Mr. Love: The amendment would introduce a minimum time period. Should a maximum period also be introduced?
      Mr. O'Brien: Like me, the hon. Gentleman has the benefit of having acted as a professional company secretary before his political life. He makes an important point, which is of genuine practical importance to those who are responsible for ensuring full democratic notification and involvement. I shall deal with it in the course of my remarks.
      Earlier, the difficulty of validation and of identifying to whom notice should be given was mentioned. I appreciate and readily accept that it may be difficult to have a live and reliable record of the full constituency of those who are rightly interested in the relevant entities. It is therefore important to consider not only whether there is a database and whether everyone can be reached by post, but a method of distributing information more widely. There is therefore an argument for considering a maximum time, which the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) mentioned. However, we should start with an appropriate minimum time, which was the focus of many interventions that preceded my contribution.
      It is appropriate to set a minimum period of
      "not less than 21 days".
      I would hesitate to propose a read-across from company law precedents in statute and through court cases that sought to clarify—or not—the law. It has become clear that such a time period is 21 clear days. I should like to believe that that precedent, set by the courts as an interpretation of statute, applies to the Bill. Those who know the arcane technicalities realise that the 21 days do not include the day of posting. There are 22 days from the time that the document leaves the office. It is important to ascertain whether there is a true read-across from company law or whether the precedent could inform what happens in the case of the Bill.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: I accept the need for a special resolution process. However, to revert to my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), I am less clear about why the special resolution process in this case is more important than such a process for demutualisation, which does not require a 21-day notice period.
      Mr. O'Brien: I shall try not to be led too far down a track that might incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I shall give a broad response to that important point. Statute must establish what requires special and
      1180
      ordinary resolutions. Today we are considering a matter that warrants special resolution. Perhaps the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) should leave until another day arguments for a special resolution process for demutualisation. There could be some valid and interesting arguments about that. If the Government proposed such a move, the hon. Gentleman and I might find ourselves on the same or opposing sides.
      Demutualisation must reflect the entity's express wish. In the clause, we are seeking ratification of an action that has already taken place, which binds the entity to a third party. Although one could get into a principled argument about the hon. Gentleman's point, it is wholly appropriate to apply the special resolution process in the case that we are considering. He should wait for another day to present his arguments about demutualisation. Perhaps the Minister has more information, given that she is blessed with knowledge about the Government's intentions; I can only speculate on them.
      A notice period of 21 days is appropriate, not least because delivery by post cannot always be guaranteed. It was argued earlier that large FTSE 100 plcs may have one or two shareholders who comprise 75 per cent. of the holdings. The plc of which I was group company secretary had 44,000 shareholders, of whom 24,000 represented approximately 67 per cent. of the shareholding. It is important to be able to demonstrate that one has made every effort to contact everyone to give them proper notice. That requires advertisements in appropriate newspapers. Many advertisements can make us flip the page over very quickly because they do not arrest the eye, but it is important that news should get around on the grapevine.
      10.30 am
      The 21-day period arose because of a habit that developed in Lancashire. The north-west has a fine tradition of co-operatives, and I am fortunate enough to represent a seat in Cheshire, whose co-operatives are combined in the United Co-op. The co-operatives in Lancashire had a thing called wakes week, when, in the old days, almost everyone used to go off on holiday. Sometimes that week's holiday would extend to a fortnight. Some companies were choosing to give notice of these meetings just as people were going on holiday, so the 21-day provision was introduced to ensure that people had got back from their holiday and had the opportunity to see the notice. Otherwise these things could all have been nicely stitched up while they were away. That is the historical explanation, and it shows that there was a good reason for the provision. The normal practice of taking a fortnight's holiday has not changed much since then, so there is a reasonable practical basis for the period being not less than 21 days.
      Mr. Levitt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I recall that the outcome of the 1970 general election might have been different if it had not been held in wakes week. He talked about sending out letters; in this day and age, would he regard the posting of a notice on a website, or the sending of e-mails to members of a meeting, as suitable ways of announcing a meeting?
      Mr. O'Brien: One could get exceptionally excited about what constitutes a proper notice. It might be

      1181
      appropriate to ask the promoter of the Bill to bear that question in mind, so that he can answer it later. It is a well established practice that notices are either written or communicated by advertisement. I have not been involved in these technical matters in recent years, but I would be surprised if some form of letter—sent either by fax, e-mail or posting on a website—were not deemed to be a proper notice. That would seem to be a proper expectation, but all sorts of regulations and laws will be developed as our experience of these matters increases.
      The 21-day provision is important because, when dealing with these serious matters, time must also be allowed in which to marshal the advice as well as the people. These matters can often involve quite technical legal and accounting issues, and it is important, for example, if people have an objection to what is taking place and wish to exercise their democratic right, that they have the chance to take proper legal advice on the matter. That can be difficult because they often have to go on a fundraising exercise first, to ensure that they can afford the legal bill. That happens in relation to popular objections to planning applications just as it does to members of a co-operative society who might feel that they have not been properly served by those in executive charge. Those are remote circumstances, but we must give people every opportunity, in the process that we enact, to get the best possible advice.
      We must also bear in mind that the 21-day provision will provide the opportunity for a number of meetings to take place in which the matter could be resolved in a rather less flamboyant way. That is often the best way to resolve these issues, and the meeting could always be withdrawn if they had been resolved in a satisfactory manner. Sometimes that can be better for the society. Seven or 14 days would not be enough. I do not think it necessary to have a maximum period, because there would be serious objections from those who wanted to exercise their rights if the matter were not resolved with sufficient dispatch. There is nothing like adverse publicity to make people act rather fast. I am happy to add to some of the arguments that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire has already made in support of the amendment, and I am happy to give our support to it at the same time.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: I rise simply to ask the Minister to clarify the point that I made in interventions on my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) about why a 21-day notice period is so important in regard to a special resolution but not to other ordinary resolutions or to what is surely the most important resolution that can come before a co-operative or a community benefit society, namely, a resolution to transform the organisation into a company or some other corporate structure. I should say that I do not intend to go to the barricades over this issue. Clearly, that would be daft. I recognise already that my point is not accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire or by the Conservative Front Bench. I fear that it would probably not be accepted by my own Front Bench either. Nevertheless, I must ask whether this is Treasury prudence gone too far, whether a lawyer has run amok while giving advice to my hon. Friend the member for
      1182
      South Derbyshire, or whether there is some other genuine reason, which I have missed, that a 21-day notice period is so important in this instance yet not in the instance of any other general meeting or resolution process for a co-operative.
      Mr. Allan: The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) made a persuasive case for his amendment in the face of some vigorous cross-examination, which he was bold enough to invite on himself at the beginning of his speech. He seems to be adopting a belt and braces approach, in that the rules of a society should anyway allow a decent period of notice to be given before a meeting to discuss an issue of such importance, but some may well not do so. He is trying to prevent a board from bouncing the membership into accepting an action that it has taken that is outside its terms of reference, and it is entirely proper that he should do so.
      Comparisons have been drawn with the period of time allowed for a company to hold such a meeting. A better comparison would be with the time that we allow for an election to take place. The hon. Gentleman made the point very effectively that it is the democratic nature of the society that is important, and that there has to be a decent period of time for the democratic debate to take place. I accept that that supports the point that was made about demutualisation—
      Mr. Thomas rose—
      Mr. Allan: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Thomas: I was merely trying to make a full round by taking on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench on this issue at the same time as every other Front Bench. If the hon. Gentleman fears that a board might seek to bounce members on this issue, why might it not seek to do so on a demutualisation issue? That was certainly a feature of building society demutualisations in the 1980s. Why should there be a 21-day notice period for this issue and not for others?
      Mr. Allan: Speaking personally, I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's argument. Sadly, we are not able to debate demutualisation today. Instead, we are debating the more specific requirements of the Bill. In that context, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) made the important point that this provision relates to a very important special resolution because it deals with contracts made with third parties and with powers being exercised ultra vires. He built a persuasive case for the 21-day notice period.
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that this measure is important—to answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas)—because it affects third parties, not because they would find that their contract had been voided, but because the executives could have a personal liability. In demutualisation cases, those who have an interest determine the interest for themselves and each other. There is, therefore, a difference between a third-party interest and a mutual interest.
      Mr. Allan: That point is well made. It is open to the membership of an organisation to change its own rules

      1183
      so that any demutualisation vote would be able to take place only after a specified period of time. The fact that one can set one's own rules covers many of the potential difficulties that have been mentioned today—the way in which notices are sent out, the conduct of the campaign of notification ahead of a meeting, and the issue of a maximum notice period, for example. One would hope that all those issues would be covered by the general rules of the society. Indeed, one would hope that it would not have been registered as a society if its rules did not cover such issues. The membership should ultimately have the power to take action if they feel that the board is behaving inappropriately by, for example, causing excessive delay. The essential point, however, which has been well put, is that we are dealing with third-party contracts and liability of board members. That means that there is a reason to specify the minimum period, and 21 days seems entirely appropriate to allow the democratic debate that must take place before such a meeting should occur.
      As I read the proposal, I imagined the scenario at a special meeting when the vote had been lost. What would occur in a society then? It could face meltdown, although we would have set out rules to allow the process to take place properly. That is outside the scope of today's debate, but, all those thresholds having been set, a board would clearly have to be careful in terms of undertaking the procedure. There is no sense in the clause that we are trying to give the green light to people saying, "Go outside your powers and simply go through the procedure to get support." That would be risky, so we are trying to make the procedure as empowering as possible for the members so that they do not feel, at any point, that they have been bounced through it.
      Ruth Kelly: I congratulate Members on the quality of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) set out a persuasive case for his amendment and the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) brought a touch of his experience and history to these matters. I have learned some things in the Chamber today. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) also brought his experience to the issues, which I intend to touch on in a few moments. My other hon. Friends also made valuable interventions.
      My general principle in working on the amendment with my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire, and on the provisions in clauses 2 and 3, has been to allow industrial and provident societies to benefit from the same freedoms that apply to companies. We have therefore taken companies legislation as our base and mirrored those provisions as closely as possible, where appropriate, for industrial and provident societies. I should perhaps emphasise the words "where appropriate", because I agree with my hon. Friends that, in any particular area, it is important to consider carefully whether exactly the same provisions that apply to companies should equally apply to industrial and provident societies. Of course, it is relevant to consider each and every case, including the 21-day notice period.
      Clause 3 sets out the implications for acts done by a society that are beyond the powers given to the society and its rules. It would allow members of societies to ratify such acts retrospectively and grant relief from any resulting liability to committee members, in each case
      1184
      through a special resolution. The clause goes on to define the procedures for a special resolution. For example, it specifies that the resolution must be
      "passed by not less than 75 per cent. Of"
      members entitled to vote. That mirrors the procedures required in company law for a similar resolution to be passed.
      Company law also requires at least 21 days' notice of a general meeting to pass such a special resolution, and the amendment would make the same provision in society law. I say to the House that 21 days is a minimum protection. The decision is perhaps equally important for companies as for societies in considering a special resolution, so 21 days seems appropriate, but, beyond that, we do not want to be too prescriptive for many of the reasons set out today, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire. Those include the diverse nature of societies, how they inform members, their constitutional rules and so forth. As a minimum period, 21 days seems reasonable.
      To return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West in relation to other resolutions that are debated and required minimum notice periods, the debating of such resolutions by societies is extremely important in the example of demutualisation. Indeed, one might argue that it is equally important, although I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury that third parties are affected by the issue under discussion today.
      10.45 am
      Other important checks are in place in respect of demutualisation resolutions. For example, two meetings are required, with notice being given before each. For the first meeting, the notice period is left to the society's rules. For the second, there is a minimum of 14 days. One might consider the combination of the two to be more onerous than a 21-day minimum period required for a special resolution under the amendment, so 21 days strikes me as a reasonable minimum for debating such a resolution. I therefore support the amendment on those grounds and agree that we should align the procedures in this area more closely with the provisions in company law. I commend it to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 8, in page 6, line 25 [Clause 3], at end insert—
      '(c) in relation to a society whose registered office is situated in one of the Channel Islands, means a society established for charitable purposes only ("charitable purposes" having the meaning given by the law of the Island in question).'.—[Mr. Todd.]

    Clause 9

      SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT
      Mr. Andrew Love: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 12, line 4, leave out `Industrial and Provident' and insert 'Cooperatives and Community Benefit'.
      The amendment would give the Bill a new short title, but the important thing is that the change would apply to all Acts of Parliament from the 1965 consolidating measure that brought together all previous industrial

      1185
      and provident societies Acts, right through to the excellent Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and carried by the House last year. The amendment's net effect would be to change "industrial and provident" to "co-operatives and community benefit" in all parts of the law. While that change is deceptively simple—people might say that in many ways it is modest—it is fundamental to the modernisation of industrial and provident society law.
      The amendment is probing, because, like my hon. Friend, I am not going to the barricades yet. However, an important principle is involved, which I raised on Second Reading, as did my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), and it has been touched on again today. I am rather disappointed that it was not taken up in Committee, because we could have had a useful discussion.
      Interestingly, the Bill is called the Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Bill. The reason for that could be that, last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West introduced his Industrial and Provident Societies Bill, so that title was not available, although I think that a more important principle is involved. That is, of course, the modernisation agenda as it relates to industrial and provident societies, which is reflected in the strategy unit report "Private Action, Public Benefit".
      In that report, the modernisation agenda was endorsed by the Prime Minister himself, who said in his foreword:
      "This report sets out a package of measures which will modernise the law and enable a wide range of organisations to be more effective and innovative, whilst maintaining the high levels of public trust and confidence which are vital to the continued success of the sector."
      I strongly believe that the name change would contribute to a number of things, such as organisational effectiveness and achieving the public trust and confidence that we want to see in this sector of the economy, both of which are referred to in the foreword.
      The strategy unit report was published in September 2002 and the consultation concluded at the end of December. Other Members will comment, I suspect extensively, on that report. It is important to review what that report said about the name change. It is easy to understand why we need a name change.
      Yesterday, when I was thinking about this debate, I realised that I had better look up what "industrial" and "provident" mean. I cannot relive the debates in the House in 1852, but I looked up the word "industrial" and the dictionary definition is "of the nature of industry or productive labour". I tried to associate that with the consumer co-operative movement, with agricultural and worker co-operatives, and even with community benefit societies such as football trusts and housing associations. It is difficult to associate any of those activities with the dictionary definition of "industrial".
      Similarly, the dictionary definition of the word "provident" is "careful in providing for the future". We could argue about that in respect of the provision of pensions, and I suspect that the Government strongly want to get across to people the message that they
      1186
      should look after themselves when they reach senior citizen status, but the term does not have any contemporary relevance to the organisations that are concerned with the law as it stands. It is redolent of a 19th century, Dickensian, Victorian vision. There were visionaries at that time, but these terms are not relevant to the 21st century.
      Claire Ward: For many young people, their main connection with a community benefit society is probably through the new football supporters trusts. For them, that is clearly a community benefit, yet it would have no connection with the concepts of "provident" or "industrial". Would not it be helpful in our approach to the next generation to use terms that they understand and appreciate?
      Mr. Love: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is an immediate turn-off for organisations that are thinking about establishing new bodies and are considering the different structures available to suggest that they form an industrial and provident society. There is no way that young people, or I suspect people of any age, will be attracted by that terminology. We need to move on and find a modern language to reflect what can be achieved by these societies.
      Mr. Levitt: Is my hon. Friend arguing that the sector needs to increase public trust and confidence, because it lacks that? Does he believe that merely changing the name will produce the extra public trust and confidence that I am sure we all seek?
      Mr. Love: The organisations that are formed under industrial and provident society law critically depend on public trust and confidence, so the need to ensure that they have that trust and confidence is a strong priority for them. The reason that I suggested a change in title was more fundamental. I think that it will improve trust and confidence, because it will improve people's understanding of such organisations.
      If we are to modernise the structures, as this Bill does, as the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West did and as I hope will be the outcome of the strategy unit report, we must also modernise the language that is associated with these organisations. Although there was a 1965 consolidating Act, these structures date back to laws that were passed in 1852 and 1862. We still use those structures as a basis, and we still use the language of that time.
      That language may have meant something at the time, and may have given Victorians and people who lived in the 19th century a vision of what industrial and provident societies were trying to achieve. I do not think that that applies at the present time. I shall take the example of a football trust, which was mentioned earlier. I was involved in the formation of a football trust in Enfield. The old Enfield Town football club has gone through considerable difficulties in the past few years. In an effort to mobilise its support, it decided to set up a football trust. It is an admirable organisation, and is working successfully. I attended meetings, and I put them in touch with the national organisation set up by the Government. When we got down to the nitty gritty of discussing how the trust would be formed, someone said, "Lads, it has to be an industrial and

      1187
      provident society". Hon. Members can imagine that the response was, "What the **** is an industrial and provident society?". It had no relevance or meaning to them. That is the problem that we face.
      The strategy unit report referred to modernisation of industrial and provident society law. A number of issues were emphasised in the report that are relevant to the debate on this amendment. I was involved in the retail co-operative movement, and I remember with dismay that everyone who tried to explain what it was would always start with its glorious 19th century heritage and would not talk about its 21st century relevance. That is an important consideration in this debate about the language.
      That terminology is off-putting. It is not possible to attract people using the language that is current in the laws that cover industrial and provident societies. They have a poor brand image. How do we get people who are trying to form an organisation to consider industrial and provident societies when there is such low public esteem for those bodies? The term is out of date and needs a fundamental overhaul.
      This is a critical issue for important sectors of the economy. It is not just new organisations that are being formed. In significant parts of the economy industrial and provident societies are already of relevance and constitute a majority in that activity. I could talk about the housing or agricultural co-operative movements and credit co-operatives, but I shall use the example of the retail co-operative movement, because it is the one best known to me and, I suspect, to other hon. Members. It has 115,000 staff members, most of whom do not have a clue what an industrial and provident society is. Frankly, if one tried to raise the issue with them, they would be put off by the idea. It has 9 million members, and although they are aware of the caring, sharing difference of co-operatives, as the old brand image used to call it, they do not understand what it is. We must do something about the problem of language.
      The strategy unit report recommended that we set down a definition for co-operatives. As well as using the terms "co-operatives" and "community benefit societies", we should define them.
      When it comes to community benefit societies, we could have the same argument about football trusts. The organisations that I know best are the registered social landlords: the housing associations. They are a big sector of the housing market. In recent years, half a million properties and tenancies have passed from the council sector to the housing association sector. It is rapidly becoming the largest social housing landlord in the country, yet it still uses this completely outdated terminology of industrial and provident society. Let us suppose that someone is trying to persuade a tenant that a transfer from council to housing association accommodation would benefit him or her. That cannot be done in the language of the 19th century.
      11 am
      The importance of comprehensibility is stressed in the strategy unit's report. There is little recognition of the advantages of industrial and provident societies. If they were known as co-operatives and community benefit societies, people would have a much better understanding of what they were. There is also little
      1188
      recognition of the difference between industrial and provident societies and companies. Most people have a vague idea of how a company operates, with shareholders and shareholder value and profits and dividends; but they have no real understanding of the nature of an industrial and provident society. We must also do something about the weak branding and the negative image. A critical factor in that is modernisation of the language.
      Industrial and provident societies face other problems in the marketplace: the lack of protection for their assets, for instance, and the threat of demutualisation, which is always there. They also have difficulties in raising money. I used to be a member of a revolving loan fund for co-operatives. Co-operative after co-operative used to tell us of the impossibility of raising money from bank managers or any other financial organisations, because no one understood what co-operatives were all about.
      A good deal of complexity is involved in industrial and provident societies. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has concerned himself in recent years with the problems of registration—the cost, and all the time and effort that must be put in.
      Mr. Lepper: My hon. Friend mentioned the brand image and the use of the word "co-operative". Is not a prime instance of that word's attractiveness the success of the Co-operative bank over the past few years? It has assets of £5.5 billion and more than 4,000 staff, and has gone from strength to strength. Many people have moved their accounts to it because of the appeal of the name, and the sense of community benefit and ethical trading that they gain from it.
      Mr. Love: The Co-operative bank is indeed a brand leader in its financial services sector. It established free banking some time ago, and it continues to set standards for the rest of the industry. I also pay tribute to the Cooperative Insurance Society, which works closely with the bank. It has done much, in a variety of ways, to establish a more ethical stance for financial services organisations—and the word "co-operative" is central to its activities. That underlines my point that if we are to improve the image we must change the language. The current image engenders a lack of trust and confidence because of the outdated language.
      Costs arise because of the way in which industrial and provident societies are composed, and because not enough people choose them rather than companies. As I have said several times today, a level playing field must be created between all the different organisations in the economy: that is crucial to the future of industrial and provident societies. It is easy to see why so many new companies are formed each year and so few industrial and provident societies. In fact that would probably happen anyway, but I think many people who are not opting for industrial and provident societies now would do so if we only modernised the language.
      The company law review has been mentioned. There have been a number of Companies Acts in recent years, but since 1965 there has been only one piece of industrial and provident society legislation, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West. Let us hope that this will be the second. Both, however, have been

      1189
      instigated by private Members, and have been given very little time in comparison with measures relating to company law and law reform, and indeed the review with which we shall be presented in the near future.
      I pay tribute to both my hon. Friends for their Bills. I am particularly impressed by this Bill. The proposals relating to assets in clause I are at the cutting edge of modernisation of industrial and provident society law. If the legislation is to succeed, however, we must also be at the cutting edge of linguistic change. Not only will my amendment take the language of industrial and provident societies into the 21st century. but; "Co-operatives and Community Benefit" will give people a more accurate picture of what is entailed in the establishment of such societies, what they are and what they do. The sector will also become much more relevant to the economy, and, hopefully, will be given an impetus to involve itself in different parts of the economy.
      I believe that my proposed new title is both user-friendly and public-friendly.
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien: It comes as no surprise to me, as a fellow member of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators, to hear such a fine speech—entirely in order, or you would have pulled him up, Mr. Deputy Speaker—from the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). He spoke for even longer than the Bill's promoter.
      The hon. Gentleman said that this issue was mentioned on Second Reading. As he will recall, it was very much mentioned in Committee, and as he knows, I support him. I too have been ably supported by the Co-operative Group. I thank Peter Hunt, of that organisation, for his briefing—and, not least, I thank my constituent Mr. Martin Beaumont, the chief executive, for his.
      Without wishing to go down the highways and byways of the great historical treatise that we have been just treated to, it would be highly desirable to change the name to the Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Bill. In fairness, it was touched on in Committee. Despite the extraordinary thoroughness of the presentation by the hon. Member for Edmonton, it is, as he said, only a probing amendment. That said, it was, to say the least, an exceptionally good exploration of the subject.
      It would be wrong not to record that the Minister said in Committee that the Government were not opposed in principle to the idea but that there were genuine technical issues about changing the name of legislation that belonged to a family of legislation with a long history. With the best will and intent, and the unquestioned skills not only of parliamentary draftsmen but of all the advisers with a view on these matters who work in Government Departments, it is possible, given all the cross-references, notwithstanding the technology available these days through electronic reading, to miss something and have difficulty in achieving the consistency required.
      It is certainly a worthwhile project. It could be used as a model of how to try to update the titular effect of Bills, equivalent to the tax law rewrite. It might be useful to review what is on the statute book and where titles can
      1190
      be changed, not least because we would realise how much law could be repealed. It would be desirable to make the statute book less long.
      In looking at the new name for the Bill, I could not help but feel that there was a certain equivalence when news was brought to me on the Front Bench this morning that the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) has been appointed Leader of the House. He had a great record—I pay tribute to him—for being a man of communities benefit when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I like to think that we can all benefit from the community of interest that he will seek to introduce, in one of his new roles, in safeguarding the interests of all hon. Members. Both I and my party offer our congratulations on his transfer.
      When I looked at the other aspect of the recommended name, the co-operative side, I was reminded of the announcement of the new Labour party chairman, who has a particular—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has paid tribute enough for the moment.
      Mr. O'Brien: I might possibly have to crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I feel that I have left Labour Members on tenterhooks as to who the new chairman of their party is—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that hon. Members and the House as a whole are more intent on seeing the successful completion of this debate than on any other consideration.
      Mr. O'Brien: I will do nothing more than allude to the fact that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), a man of the most co-operative style, is the new chairman of the Labour party.
      I am happy to say that I and indeed my party, as part of the consensual approach that has been adopted throughout the Bill's proceedings, favour the idea of the change of name, if it can be achieved in a technical and thorough manner. It is, therefore, appropriate that the hon. Member for Edmonton has suggested that the amendment is a probing one. It would be difficult today to give a conclusive view for the Government; the Minister mentioned the difficulty when we looked at the matter in Committee. With a flag that we would like the proposal to move forward and hope that there will be a thorough exercise, at this stage of the Bill we are keen that the hon. Member for Edmonton should seek to withdraw the amendment once we have had an opportunity to explore the issues.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: I hesitate to gatecrash the love-in between the two members of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on the way in which he has introduced the amendment and the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on initiating a discussion on the issue in Committee. I, too, accept that this may have to be a probing amendment; some miserable lawyer somewhere may find reason to object to what is an entirely sensible provision, which, as my

      1191
      hon. Friend said, is recommended in the Government's strategy unit report into the charitable and not-for-profit sectors.
      Hon. Members who have had the opportunity to introduce a private Member's Bill will recognise that many members of their constituency party often take a profound interest in the subject that they seek to take forward. Last year I approached a number of my party members and explained that I was introducing a Bill to amend the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. I was disappointed somewhat by the blank look on the faces before me. Having had representations from those party members to ban fox hunting or to amend various other legislation, there was some disappointment that I was seeking to do something to legislation that they had not even heard of. That gives some indication of the problems that the amendment seeks to deal with.
      Once I had got over that disappointment and was researching the types of organisations that would be affected by the legislation, I discovered that a series of organisations such as rugby clubs and women's institute country markets were industrial and provident societies. When I got in touch with my local women's institute country market and my local rugby club and asked "Are you a company or an industrial and provident society?", they had no idea what an industrial and provident society was. I only discovered that they were registered under that legal form in discussion with their parent bodies. That shows some of the difficulties that a failure to modernise the terminology to describe this form of community organisation causes that sector. It is long overdue that we bring into the 21st century the terminology that we use to describe community businesses.
      The Government's intention to legislate to create a community interest company is an entirely sensible, albeit separate approach, to other forms of community businesses. I hope that we will hear from my hon. Friend the Minister a similar commitment to modernise the legislation in this way.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton has done the House a service by seeking in his amendment to restate the case for sensible legislative change. I hope that, if we cannot reform the legislation in this way now, we will have an early commitment from the Minister to initiate the change that we want to see.
      Ruth Kelly: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on the way in which he introduced his amendment. As he has said, he has shown a consistent interest in this matter. I am aware of his concern about the use of the term "industrial and provident society", particularly the points that he made about whether the term is outdated and well understood, whether it should be replaced by what some regard as more modern, more descriptive terminology such as co-operative and community benefit society. The strategy unit report looked at the issue and concluded that the name "co-operatives and community benefit societies" should be retained and that the umbrella term, industrial and provident society, should no longer be used.
      As I said in Committee, we examined the responses to the public consultation on that report. I hope to make our response to those recommendations soon. Nothing
      1192
      in the legislation requires societies to call themselves industrial and provident societies, but it does require that the title of every society must end in the word "limited". The term "industrial and provident society" is used in the title of the relevant Acts and in some of the substantive provisions of the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968 and the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 2002. The proposed amendment would not change the names of the previous Acts or the substantive provisions in which the term "industrial and provident society" occurs. Societies would continue to be registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965.
      I recognise that part of the issue is presentation and branding, and how the movement and individual societies wish to present themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton made a powerful case about the members of football clubs and whether they see themselves as members of industrial and provident societies. Given the case that he and others have made, we considered whether we could introduce an enabling provision to facilitate a change in the names of industrial and provident society Acts and to amend all other legislation that contains references to those Acts. Unfortunately, we decided that such provision was outside the scope of this Bill. Moreover, changing the names of those Acts would probably be unhelpful at this stage. It would apply a collective title to Acts that individually bear different titles and that would make the legislation less transparent and more difficult for societies to navigate. For those reasons, I urge my hon. Friend to consider withdrawing his amendment.
      Mr. Todd: Unfortunately, it has fallen to the Minister to give the boring and disappointing answer to this interesting debate, but her response was not unexpected. She has done her duty. It is worth reflecting for a moment—I still fancy myself as a historian—on the reasons for choosing the term "industrial and provident society" to describe that sector of activity.
      I have mixed feelings about the amendment. It is logical, in the modern day, to describe the movement in a way that is much more recognisable to ordinary individuals, especially—as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward) said—to young people, who would not necessarily be aware of the background of those organisations. However, I am always struck by the extraordinary endeavours of those who founded, in Victorian times, the movement that we are discussing today and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) mentioned—the respect that we owe to people who struggled to set up organisations that provided a wide range of benefits for working people at a time when the state did not so provide and they relied entirely on their own endeavours through voluntary groups.
      The original legislation in 1852, which started the process, was moved by the then hon. Member for Shrewsbury. I cited that Bill's preamble on Second Reading, but not everybody was here then. It states:
      "Associations of Working Men have been formed for the mutual Relief, Maintenance, Education and Endowment of the Members, their Husbands, Wives, Children, or Kindred, and for procuring to them Food, Lodging, Clothing, and other Necessaries, by exercising or carrying on in common their respective Trades or Handicrafts."

      1193
      That is a good description of industrial and provident societies as they operated at that time. For example, hon. Members should note the reference to "working men". Sexism was automatic at the time and we cannot criticise people for using in 1852 language that we would not accept now. The legislation was designed specifically to benefit working people, who did not have such services available through any other means and who had sought to come together, often in the face of considerable obstacles, to create those institutions. The reference to industry—also contained in the reference to "Trades and Handicrafts"—makes it clear why the word "industrial" was chosen at the time.
      The word "provident" is not commonly used today, but the word "prudent", which is commonplace in the Treasury, has had a welcome revival, and the same might happen to "provident". It has the clear meaning of making sensible provision for future needs, which is clear in the original purpose of the legislation.
      The movement moved on and did not remain confined to working people. Any person from any background, as confirmed by the examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and others, can now become involved in such societies and seek to further a variety of goals that the Victorians never conceived of. I defend the use of the language at the time, because it was appropriate and clearly defined the organisations that existed in those days. I also salute those people who wisely provided the legislative framework to permit such institutions to carry on their business safely in law at that time, but I accept the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton. He pointed out that whatever the benefits and merits of the description then, it does not apply in present circumstances.
      I note the Minister's words with regret, albeit tinctured with some relief that we shall preserve in the legislative framework references to farsighted behaviour by hardworking individuals. The profound implications of the judgments that they made show that we owe them great credit. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment, but I respect his reasons for moving it.
      Mr. Love: I have always thought of the Chancellor as a modern-day Rochdale pioneer, although I raise that point with some trepidation in case the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) jumps up to tell us that we have someone new in that post. I wish to correct an earlier mistake and pay tribute to the founders of the co-operative movement and the community benefit movement, including the Rochdale pioneers of 1844 and J. T. W. Mitchell—a person of very humble origins —who was the chief executive of the Co-operative Wholesale Society in 1895 and took part in an investigation by a Committee of the House of Commons into retailing. His comments and his vision for the future are due great respect, even today.
      Mr. Lepper: In my hon. Friend's catalogue of pioneers of the co-operative movement whom he congratulates, I am sure that he would want to include Dr. William King and those others who in the early 1820s, some 20 years before the Rochdale pioneers, set
      1194
      up a co-operative retailing shop and a working men's institute based on co-operative principles in West street in my constituency.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Love: I do of course pay tribute to Dr. William King. I also pay tribute to George Mudie—not the Member of this House—who set up the London Co-operative Society. Some in Scotland—looking round the Chamber, I can see that there are no Members from Ayrshire here—lay great claim to the Fenwick weavers having been the originators of the co-operative principle. Whoever it was, I pay great tribute to the endeavours of all the people who created the movement that we have today.
      I freely admit that my amendment has some shortcomings, as the Minister said, but it allows me to refresh the House on the importance of changing the language in this respect. I take note, as we did in Committee and on Second Reading, of the fact that the Treasury is looking carefully at the strategy unit report and will bring forward recommendations resulting from that in the near future. I also take note of the positive way in which the Minister responded to my amendment. I can feel some sympathy for its terms, although I recognise that it does indeed lie outside the scope of the Bill. I hope that the Minister and Treasury officials will give serious consideration to the strategy unit report and to its recommendations in general, but in particular to the recommendation that we should change co-operatives and community benefit societies. I hope that they will take note of the sentiment of this House, which has been strongly expressed on several occasions, not only by me, but by Back-Bench Members of all parties. Given those considerations, I hope that the Minister will make proposals that reflect them.
      On the basis of the assurances that she has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      11.33 pm
      Mr. Todd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      It is pleasure to introduce the Third Reading of the Bill, which has occupied a significant amount of the time of the House and of hon. Members who served on the Committee.
      Let me briefly refresh hon. Members' memories as to the key purposes of the Bill and its implications. The first purpose is to remove arcane obligations on societies on the execution of agreements of various kinds. For example, clause 5 relates to the use of society seals, the way in which they are kept and operated, their function and indeed the necessity of having them at all. That has already been commended by many as a means by which a number of societies will be able to make significant savings in terms of money and administrative time in the course of their activities. It is a modest change, but one that has beneficial implications.
      The second purpose is the protection of business partners of societies should they inadvertently or—as we discussed earlier—deliberately breach the objects of their constitutions. We all accept that it is important

      1195
      that those who have business dealings with societies should have equivalent protection to those who deal with a company and should not be caught out by someone being able to point out that the society has traded outside its objects. In that case, the contract struck is ultra vires, which places that entirely innocent partner in the position of potentially losing significant sums of money. Those provisions are covered in clauses 3 and 4. Particularly as a result of additions to those clauses, the Bill has been dramatically extended from the Bill that received Second Reading. I had imagined that if the House continued to have faith in it and it passed through another place I would have a relatively modest Little package of paper to present to people and say, "This private Member's Bill has been passed partly through my endeavours." It will now be a slightly larger package of paper because the amendments, particularly on this matter, have lengthened it considerably. To be fair, they set out the protections in much more detail and therefore perhaps with greater legal protection for those who are covered.
      The third protection, which is a new element that was introduced in Committee, but is certainly valuable, is to ensure that societies that are also charities make clear that status to those with whom they form contracts. That is because those contracts will not be protected in same way as those that are made by societies that are not charities. The key element here is the balance of protection involved. It is right that the membership of a society who intend further to extend their own benefits should be treated in the same way as a company in terms of the protection of third-party contracts. However, that is not so in the case of a charity that seeks to serve the interests of third parties. It is clear in law that the assets and objects of that charity should be protected with greater rigour than is obliged in the case of companies or—after the passing of the Bill, if that is willed—co-operatives and community benefit societies. It is vital that the fact that a society is a charity is made crystal clear to anyone who seeks to make a contract with it. That effectively challenges the individual or body making that contract to look carefully at the objects of the charity to ensure for themselves that they are engaging in a contract that lies within the scope of the charity's objects, because they will not enjoy the equivalent protection that they would if they had been dealing with a community benefit society or a co-operative that was not a charity. Clause 2 covers that at some length. It is an important point for a small sector of activity.
      The final element of protection is the framework to give community benefit societies new rights to bind their assets and the proceeds of any assets that are disposed of to the purposes of the society, albeit that such purposes may be carried out through another vehicle. It is recognised that it may be appropriate to change the framework through which the object is delivered, provided that the same obligation applies to that new vehicle: in essence, that the assets may not be disposed of to those who happen to be members of the society at that time, but must be used for the purpose involved. On Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, reference was made to the importance of that provision; for example, to community benefit societies that are football trusts. Although the precise purpose may have become redundant, it is important that the society's
      1196
      original aim should continue to live in its assets and should be transferred to another society with similar aims. That is the purpose of the Bill.
      The implications of the Bill are that it would bring the relevant legislation broadly into line with equivalent company law. It would make it easier for societies to carry out the normal business of making agreements, contracts and conveyances with other bodies, without an additional bureaucratic burden or unintended risk. It could make societies slightly more competitive than they are currently; it would save them some time and money and would make it possible for them to pursue their interests more effectively and speedily.
      The asset lock clause lays the foundation to allow the implementation of one of the recommendations of the strategy unit's report, "Private Action, Public Benefit", which has been mentioned several times this morning. Incidentally, that report has received as wide a range of accolades for the quality of its thinking and the comprehensiveness of its recommendations as any report from a public institution for some years. It is pleasing that part of the Bill would implement an aspect of its recommendations.
      Lack of an asset lock provision could prevent the safe use of a community benefit society model in some circumstances; for example, in public service provision. I have long argued that some services are better delivered through a voluntary sector model, or at least one that engages with the customers or residents who use that particular service. For example, a particular village may have a direct personal interest in the way that its services are run, but there should be public support for such services, perhaps through the transfer of an asset and certainly through the provision of public money. If one were to follow that path, it is critical that there is a way of locking those assets into that particular purpose. It would be wrong if those who happened to be residents or qualifying members of a particular society were able to say, "Thank you very much, we'll take the proceeds and use them for whatever we have in mind or for our own purposes", through using the escape clauses—turning into a limited company by guarantee—that were discussed on Second Reading. The Bill thus affords a valuable opportunity to use community benefit societies as a means of delivering public services with the benefit of public assets and public money.
      I shall refer briefly to my personal history. I served on Cambridge city council for 12 years, three of them as leader, and always held the view that one should try to find ways of engaging with our citizens. Often, in Cambridge, they were willing to be engaged; they did not need much prompting. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) is not in the Chamber today, but I am sure that she would agree.
      As a member of the council, I wanted to provide ways for citizens to exercise more direct control. Cambridge is a city with a profusion of voluntary sector, charity and industrial and provident society activity. It would have been marvellous to have found ways safely to transfer some services to some local residents through the means proposed in the Bill. However, one could not do that then; the Bill would provide the basis for such judgments.

      1197
      I willingly thank the Treasury team for its help with the Bill and in preparing substantial additions to strengthen it. Through their help in preparing the definitions in clause 1, the Government have set out the means by which the asset lock protection would work after appropriate detailed consultation. They rightly provided that there should be an obligation to consult and set out the type of issues on which consultation would be required. The Bill would allow the implementation of the asset lock through regulation after consultation. It is not the perfect model; I should have preferred to include rather more such definition. However, clause 1 is sufficiently constrained to reassure those who feel that the measure would be an open door for a variety of procedures. It is quite restrictive and obliges the Government to draft the regulations so that they clearly define how an asset lock would work and its implications for the community benefit society that would use it. The simple model would be where new community societies chose to adopt an asset lock at the start of their activities, while the more complex model would be where an existing community benefit society chose to adopt the asset lock and persuaded its existing membership of the need to follow that approach.
      Those who have followed the Bill with interest will want to monitor the Government's progress in drawing up the necessary regulations. Obviously, the timing will be dependent on the officials and Ministers who guide the process; nevertheless, I am encouraged by the enthusiasm and commitment shown by the Treasury so far. It indicates a firm intent to proceed at a reasonable pace.
      In conclusion, this is a modest Bill. As the person who was first in the ballot for private Member's Bills, I had a large number of Bills suggested to me—some of which could certainly not be described as modest. However, one of the several provisos that I made in deciding which Bill to promote was that I wanted a Bill that would not restrict freedoms. In some circumstances, restricting freedoms is understandable—and a number of Bills on the list this year do so—but I wanted not to restrict but to extend freedoms, and this Bill does that. It provides greater protection for existing organisations to carry out their business more effectively and it provides a framework for a flowering and extension of the community benefit societies movement. It will have wider implications beyond our conceptions.
      One of the main reasons that I am fond of this Bill—and the reason that I quoted the preamble to the 1852 Bill—is that, sometimes, from tiny little acorns greater oaks may grow. It may well be that making it easier for community benefit societies to operate may have implications for their future kind, range and scale that are wider than we can conceive of now. With those thoughts, I commend the Bill to the House. I very much hope that it will be supported.
      11.51 am
      Mr. Bailey: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on promoting this Bill and on surmounting the twin hurdles of convincing the Treasury and sufficient Members of Parliament to attend for its consideration to allow it to get as far as it has. I hope, of course, that it will reach a successful conclusion.
      1198
      The hon. Gentleman was being a little too modest when he said that this was "a modest Bill". I wonder whether the pioneers of the co-operative movement in the 1840s realised the full significance of the structure that they had devised with their particular co-operative society and whether they realised the impact that it would have not just on the economy and retail structure of the country, but on its social provision as well. This ostensibly modest proposal could have the most profound consequences. I will deal with those in a moment.
      My own long-standing association with the co-operative movement is fairly well known; I mentioned it at Second Reading. The issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and that the Treasury has said that it will try to deal with, have been of enormous concern to the movement for a long time. I welcome the amendments, which have been debated at some length today. They strengthen the Bill. I also welcome the Minister's commitment to consider creating a level playing field between company law and industrial and provident society law. From experience of talking to practitioners in the co-operative sector, I know that that is a huge issue for them.
      It is gratifying that at last this House is beginning to debate the significance and relevance of co-operative legislation —of which there is now a greater public perception. For too long, debate on our economy and public service provision was carried out in terms of the private sector or the public sector as defined by state or local government provisions. The co-operative and mutual sectors are a huge part of our economy, but that was largely unacknowledged. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) said that, when he contacted local organisations, they did not actually know whether they were an industrial or provident society or company. That reflects the lack of public profile that this form of organisation used to have. However, the situation is changing, partly as a result of private Members' Bills.
      Back in the 1980s and early 1990s, demutualisation procedures had a devastating short-term effect on some sections of the mutual movement. However, what happened demonstrated publicly the scale of the assets that those organisations and co-operative societies had. It also forced them to publicise the benefits of this particular form of ownership.
      At the same time as people were becoming more aware of the benefits of this form of ownership, the incentive to create new societies was much diminished by the absence of protection for the assets of societies and organisations such as building societies and so on. Possible providers and backers of such societies were deterred by the absence of any long-term protection of those assets. The Bill will provide a mechanism by which that obstacle to future development can be removed, and it has enormous potential.
      I wish to look very briefly at some of the areas where the Bill has potential. It offers potential for some charities perhaps to adopt a different form of legal structure to fulfil their objectives more adequately. Water utilities have been discussed in the past, as has the health and social services sector, but I will not stray into the debate on foundation hospitals now.
      In particular, sports clubs and football clubs often have huge and deep community interests, but they are wrapped up in clubs that operate in a legal framework

      1199
      that makes them accountable only to relatively small numbers of shareholders, so there is potential for conflict. In some cases, that has led to individuals taking over football clubs and, basically, asset stripping them regardless of the impact on local communities and the long-standing loyalties that huge numbers of people in those communities have to their clubs.
      This model of provision offers enormous potential. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward), who is not in her place at the moment, mentioned football trusts, but the formation of football trusts and the Bill can work together to give added protection to such organisations. That is very much in line with the concerns of people in their local communities and will do a lot to promote the concept of co-operatives and community societies in a way that enhances their attractiveness to a huge section of the community.
      I am conscious of the fact that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will draw my remarks to a conclusion by saying that this so-called modest addition to the range of options available to organise societies and companies may have a profound effect in the future, and we should be extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire for piloting the Bill through the House of Commons.
      11.57 am
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on the way in which he has piloted the Bill through its various stages in the House thus far. He has demonstrated an excellent grasp of the subject matter, which has its origins in the 19th century, as we said earlier. He has effectively consulted the organisations that use the industrial and provident society legal form and, perhaps most importantly, he has negotiated the Bill's passage through the House of Commons with great skill. Given the many obstacles that can trip up private Members' Bills, he deserves particular credit for that success.
      I welcome the Bill. I particularly welcome clause I as a further guarantee against demutualisation. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), I think that foundation hospitals are an interesting example to touch on briefly in the context of clause 1. By the time that the Bill is passed by the House of Commons and the other place —I hope that that will happen—the House will still be considering the foundation hospitals legislation, which I warmly support. Whether foundation hospitals could use the industrial and provident societies legal form is worthy of debate, perhaps not now, but certainly in considering the legislation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health may introduce in due course.
      I pay tribute to the way in which Ministers have co-operated with my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire, but I should like to flag up some unfinished business in the reformation and modernisation of the legislation that governs this sector. In Committee, we touched on audit and accounting requirements for industrial and provident societies. The most pressing problem is that societies wishing to publish interim accounts must undertake a full audit, with all the associated costs that accountants charge. Companies,
      1200
      by contrast, can simply publish interim accounts and declare that they are unaudited, which is a major anomaly. The Co-operative Group, perhaps the largest industrial and provident society, estimates that producing half-yearly interim accounts costs it about£0.25 million. The Midlands Co-operative Society, a smaller industrial and provident society, estimates that it costs £60,000 per annum to produce interim accounts, and the Colchester and East Essex Co-operative Society estimates that it costs about £30,000 a year.
      It is clearly unreasonable to place more onerous requirements on community businesses that compete with companies that are not under the same requirements. The issue is becoming increasingly urgent, and Ministers need to address it. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary acknowledged its importance in Committee and in response to my earlier intervention, so I hope that people who work for her will redouble their efforts to provide her with a solution to the problem. Another problem is the exemption from audit requirements for societies with a small turnover. Companies with a turnover of less than £90,000 are exempt from audit, but those with a turnover between £90,000 and £350,000 need an accountant's report. By comparison, since 2000, any companies with a turnover of less than £1 million can gain exemption from the cost of any audit or accountant's report. Again, there is a major anomaly in the audit requirements for smaller societies compared with similar sized companies, which needs to be addressed.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) has flagged up the fact that the Companies Directors Disqualification Act 1986 does not apply to industrial and co-operative societies. If we are modernising legislation, we must recognise that industrial and provident societies, just as much as companies, can have rogue directors, and we need to address that issue. Limits on investments were touched on briefly—they, too, need to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Industrial and provident societies are permitted to take some investments from their members, to allow much-needed capital injections into those societies. At present, there is a limit in the legislation of £20,000 maximum per member. That was a sensible limit when it was introduced, and was designed to ensure that no individual shareholder member of a society had undue influence over it, thus reinforcing societies' democratic nature. However, community businesses sometimes have difficulty raising the capital that they need for their investment programmes. Indeed, that was recognised as recently as last week, when the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Home Office jointly announced a consultation on the community interest company, another model for community businesses in future, which will be able to attract investment so that it can operate for the benefit of the community, with no £20,000 limit on its investments. Ministers accept the need for a level playing field so that industrial and provident societies are on an equal footing with companies and other mutual organisations, but that limit is another issue that needs to be sorted out as a matter of urgency.
      Lastly, I take Ministers back to the issue of the powers of the regulator. Again, the regulator is an important check and safeguard for society members and for those

      1201
      seeking to engage with industrial and provident societies. As we heard on Second Reading and briefly touched on in Committee, the regulator's powers in relation to industrial and provident societies are not as wide as they are for companies. That is an important area where modernisation is needed.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire has done the industrial and provident society movement a great service by promoting the Bill, ending for many the scourge of demutualisation and modernising the way in which ultra vires matters and matters relating to the SIB are dealt with. I congratulate him again on the way in which he has piloted his Bill through the House and I wish it a fair wind through the other place.
      12.5 pm
      Mr. Levitt: I was inspired to seek to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye in the debate because of some words that I read in Hansard, which defined mutualism as
      "a desire for more control of our lives; recognition that membership and involvement can add quality to service; and acceptance that services for a community can be best managed by that community."—[Official Report, 31 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 1114.]
      Sagacious words from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on Second Reading. Wise words always come from Members of Parliament representing Derbyshire, as we know.
      It is an opportune time to consider these issues in relation to the voluntary sector, first, because the Home Secretary has proposed a charities Bill; secondly, it is time to review the compact of understanding that exists between Government and local government on the one hand and the voluntary sector on the other, as regards the delivery of services; and thirdly, because of the strategy unit report, "Private Action, Public Benefit", which has been mentioned by other speakers. The Bill allows for charitable purposes to be achieved by means that would normally be in the province of business. The 10-point definition of charitable purposes suggested in the strategy unit report is a sensible analysis and clarification of the legal position.
      At present services are provided by three different sectors. We can visualise them as a triangle. At one corner is business, which uses the market, has a profit orientation and is traditionally owned by the few. At another corner is Government, operating by means of legislation and public spending, and constrained by democratic accountability at local and national level. At the third corner is the voluntary sector, including the co-operatives and mutuals, with a huge variety of types of provision. There are about 600,000 organisations, including 180,000 registered charities, in the voluntary sector, but for reasons of brevity, I shall not list them. In the past those three sectors viewed each other with suspicion.
      Now let us consider another triangle, with each of its points between two points of the first triangle, giving us a six-pointed star. We have arm's-length companies in the space between business and Government. An example is the one being used in the housing sector. We have "compact" partnerships between Government and voluntary service, and we have the new concept of charitable companies operating in the section of the model between business and the voluntary sector.
      1202
      The compact is
      "a memorandum of understanding between national and local government and the voluntary sector, defining co-working practices in a way that neither demeans nor exploits the voluntary sector, which has much to offer to the delivery of public service."
      I quote from my article in The House Magazine charities supplement last week. I commend the whole article, of course, as well as the article by the Charities Commission, which welcomes the strategy unit report.
      The model of the six-pointed star allows charitable companies to have a social purpose, to operate on a not-for-profit basis, to involve people and to have devolved and wider ownership, but at the same time to have business attitudes to delivery, planning, trading, efficiency and financial stability. That is extremely important. On trading in particular, it is necessary to clarify the law and allow voluntary sector organisations and charities to get the benefits as well as the protection that they need in order to trade effectively and to promote their cause in that regard.
      The strategy unit report anticipates the development of community interest companies and charitable incorporated organisations, both of which are very much in line with the Bill. By creating the idea of the charitable company and ensuring that there is a continuum, we can ensure that three different sectors no longer compete against each other and vie with each other generally in the provision of services. Instead, there will be a continuum in which one merges into another. By breaking down the isolation between business, government and the voluntary sector, we can only gain from the achievements of such organisations and develop charitable purposes still further.
      I believe that those provisions, along with those in my hon. Friend's most excellent Bill, will benefit the whole community for the future.
      12.11 pm
      Mr. Lepper: I am glad to have this brief opportunity to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd). The fact that he chose to introduce a Bill relating to co-operatives after having drawn the No. 1 spot in the ballot for private Members' Bills this year is a sign of the strength of the revival of interest in the co-operative and mutuals sector. I pay tribute to him for that and for the way in which he has guided the Bill through a process that can often be strewn with obstacles for a Back-Bench Member of Parliament.
      In the co-operative and mutual movement, we often spend a lot of time talking about our history. Indeed, we have talked a bit about that history today, and I shall do so a bit more, if I may. I have already referred to Dr. King and his pioneering efforts back in the 1820s, but it was also in Brighton that Peter Kropotkin was inspired towards the end of the 19th century to write "Mutual Aid", partly as a repost to the popularised Darwinian theories of individualism that were so dominant at the end of the Victorian era. It is perhaps no coincidence that when a group of 30 or so organisations operating on co-operative and mutual principles got together five or six years ago to act more cohesively in the Sussex area, they decided to adopt the name "Mutual Aid" for their organisation, which took the form of an industrial and provident society. I am glad to say that they were supported by the co-operative retail group in their activities.

      1203
      In the past few years, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) has said, partly because of attempts to demutualise building societies and attacks by carpetbaggers on the Co-operative Wholesale Society, we have seen the co-operative and mutual movement reviving and galvanising itself. It has done so not only because of the need to protect, but because of the need to look to the future. In the past year, two Bills on such issues have been introduced—those of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), to whom I pay tribute as president-elect of the Co-operative Congress for the next year, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz). Both those Bills dealt with aspects of co-operative and mutual organisation.
      I am proud of the record of this Labour Government in supporting co-operatives. Mention has already been made of Supporters Direct, which was established with funding from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and it was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who set up the Co-operative Commission a couple of years ago to consider the future of the co-operative movement. In public service provision and well-known examples such as those in Bristol and Greenwich, we can see how co-operative forms of organisation are making services more responsive to the needs of those who are using them. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West rightly suggested that the principles of community benefit societies might well have a part to play in the organisation of foundation hospitals.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire on his Bill and I hope that it completes its remaining stages. It is part of the welcome revival of interest in co-operative and mutual principles that I am sure will now go only from strength to strength.
      12.15 pm
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien: May I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests? I am a member and fellow of, and a parliamentary advisor to, the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators. My spouse and I are honorary life members of the Winsford Constitutional and Conservative club, which is encompassed by the Bill's provisions.
      I reiterate my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on not only coming first in the private Member's Bill ballot, but on promoting a wholly worthy Bill, which will be effective due to our considerable deliberations during its passage. It will be greatly welcomed by co-operatives and community benefit societies. They play an important role in the voluntary sector, which is supported by hon. Members from all parties as being integral to the way in which we in this country live our lives and as part of the essential culture of a civilised society as defined in a democracy under the rule of law. I have taken pleasure in the way in which we gave the Bill's provisions a good airing on Second Reading on 31 January and in Committee on 18 March, and it would be inappropriate to summarise all those arguments now, not least because there are other Bills to be considered today and we should allow them that chance.
      The official Opposition take great pleasure in being fully supportive of the Bill's intent. I was interested to note that the Liberal Democrats indicated their support
      1204
      on Second Reading, although we have heard little from them in this debate. Plaid Cymru also supports the Bill, so it is true to say that it has all-party support. The original Bill as drafted by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire had the great merit of brevity.
      Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman might not have heard much from me because, as he said, there are other interesting Bills to consider. Given that Liberal Democrat Members supported the Bill on Second Reading and participated in improving the Bill in Committee and on Report, there can be no doubt that they support the Bill. I should note that we are spending more time on Third Reading of the measure than we do on many Government Bills.
      Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that the Bill has all-party support. We shall see how much time I shall take on Third Reading to decide whether his assertion is correct.
      The initiative of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire has allowed the Government to focus their energy on addressing the matter seriously with the professional resources at their disposal. That is why the Bill's measures and detail are correct and why we should speed its passage to join other Acts on the statute book. It is a permissive Bill and will consequently be enabling legislation. Producing such legislation rather than measures that curtail and restrict freedom is the proper role of the House and an essential element of our democracy. I could not say the same of other Bills before the House.
      Clauses 1 to 3 of the original Bill were replaced by new clause 1, and new clauses 2 to 5 were added. The original clause 4 is now clause 6 and the original clause 5 is now clause 7. The Bill also now has new clause 8 and clause 9, and so it was important to keep track of it. I can honestly claim to be half-Lancashire and therefore part of the genuine heritage of the co-operative movement, a pride in which I share with many others, and I am glad that this important sector has been recognised, not least because, at the end of 2000, the 8,382 industrial and provident societies on the register held assets of £61 billion in this country. It is an incredibly important sector.
      For the purposes of that analysis, the register is divided between retail societies, including the small co-operative stores—one of which is in Bunbury in my constituency, in which I shop every week and get my ample supply of newspapers; one might call it a media store—and the wholesale and productive societies. The register also includes the agricultural societies that are so important to our rural economy, given the challenge that it faces, the fishing societies that provide the ability to supply fishing equipment to members and marketing facilities to each other, clubs—of one of which I am proud to be an honorary member—general service societies and housing societies. Given the great importance of those organisations to what is taking place in so many of our communities, the strategy unit report correctly put its finger on this important area for review, as has been mentioned earlier.
      We did not have the opportunity on Report to refer to some of the questions raised in Committee. The Minister very helpfully agreed to write to me about

      1205
      them, and I would like to place on record that she did so on 25 March. Her letter sought to deal with two particular points, and I urge all Members with an interest in the Bill to read it, as it has been placed in the Library. It had attached to it the draft regulatory impact assessment, and I am most grateful to all those who have spent time giving that assessment proper and due consideration.
      I am pleased to place on record that it is a very satisfactory and helpful document which summarises why this measure is justified and—if I may rather immodestly suggest this—vindicates the request for such an assessment. It merits reading, and the point that flows from it—to which the Minister might allude later—is that it seeks to clarify why it is fair to say that this provision does not anticipate all the measures that might come out of the strategy unit report on charity law reform. At the same time, however, it heralds some of the thinking that is probably going on as a result of the extensive consultation that is taking place because of that very worthy and welcome report.
      In regard to the regulatory impact assessment's finding on the power to restrict the use of assets—the so-called asset lock—in clause 1, the Minister's letter suggests that, without an asset locking regime in place, there would be "a serious deterrent to funders". It is important to recognise that that was not clear from the outset, and that it has become clear during our deliberations. That is part of the merit that has been derived from our having had this extensive debate on the Bill. That was important not only because we have looked at a number of the processes by which these entities are able to commit themselves and to be bound to the outside world as well as ensuring that they have modern procedures, but because, in the modern competitive world, they must have the opportunity to gain the confidence of those who would seek to fund them so that they can be competitive while maintaining the mutuality of interest of their members. Those requirements have been served by the measures that we are introducing. As with normal companies, the provisions allow for the possibility of a reduction in transaction costs and the facilitating of business transactions, which I welcome as potentially deregulatory.
      I would like to raise a practical point, which is that, in relation to the sealing of documents, there is an added benefit that is not highlighted in the Minister's letter of 25 March. These days, commercial deals are often done quickly to capture the opportunity, and co-operative or community benefit societies equally need to try to ensure that they do not lose out by being unable to act swiftly when it is in their interests and the interests of their members to do so.
      The seal is no longer needed, although it has to be considered in jurisdictions other than England and Wales. It is appropriate that we have that benefit, which is also necessary given that, these days, company executives, as well as those of co-operatives and community benefit societies, have to travel extensively, despite the fact that they are focused within their community. They are often not in the right place to be able to sign against the seal. The point is very practical, but all those who have been involved in commerce
      1206
      realise that such factors can often be a serious deterrent to getting deals done quickly and giving confidence to the counter-party.
      We discussed on Report the ramifications of ostensible authority and vires, but it would be best if we received clarification from the Minister, either today or as soon as possible, that the Financial Services Authority is to be considered. The review is coming up at the end of the year and the FSA's remit is set by Parliament, so the Government will have to come back with a recommendation, but it would be helpful to know what they have in mind or whether there is any barrier to working positively on those issues. As a registry function is provided for the sector, it would be useful to have that clarification. The Minister's letter was helpful as far as it went, and I pay tribute to that.
      Moving on from the letter, which I recommend that all those with an interest in the Bill read, my only other reservation about the process is that, as a result of the Government amendments, much will be left to secondary legislation. That will obviously depend heavily on a consultation process. That indeed helps, and as part of the asset lock-in and dedicated assets discussion we had not only consultation, but the liberal use of the word "sensitivity". I am glad to think that the question of dedicated assets and asset lock-ins can be dealt with in a sensitive way. I think that that is intended as an attempt to take cognisance of the particular conditions at any given time and the particular transactions that people may have in mind as to each society. That is sensible, so long as the overriding principles, at all times, are purpose and the community of benefit. If we always keep those uppermost in our minds, we will be fine.
      The Bill is highly worthy, likely to be effective and desirable. The point on the question of the name has been considered, but it would be helpful if the Government reiterated their assurance that the legislation is intended not as a blank cheque, but as a process by which secondary legislation is clearly itemised and dealt with under the affirmative resolution procedure, although that has already been confirmed.
      It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who has kindly sent me a note of apology to say that he cannot be here for the winding-up speeches as he has to go to his constituency surgery, none the less thinks that we are setting a good precedent for foundation hospitals. It will be most interesting to see how that develops, if he believes that the proposals on foundation hospitals relate to co-operatives, which is not how I read them.
      My only other point is technical: it would be helpful if the Minister made some reference to when the Government intend to consider the separate legislation that will apply to Northern Ireland and bring it into line. Quite rightly, Northern Ireland has been excluded from the Bill. It has different arrangements, so it would be sensible to consider whether they can be dealt with as effectively as those we have debated today.
      It is appropriate to pay tribute not only to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire, as the Bill's promoter, but to the Minister, who has handled proceedings with dedication and a seriousness of intent, and to my constituents who have helped me as they are somewhat involved in the Co-op group, not least the chief

      1207
      executive. The Opposition also pay tribute to all that the co-operatives and community benefit societies do. This is a well-deserved measure that will assist them in going forward in the 21st century. We hope that it builds on the legacy of past generations, which made available assets as well as their time, skills, endeavour and good will. We hope to acknowledge them by doing the same and adding to their good work.
      12.29 pm
      Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) for introducing this important Bill on co-operatives and community benefit societies. He has worked hard to secure the Bill's passage through the House. I applaud his constructive approach to bringing that about. The Bill has been improved through scrutiny, which is due in no small part to the illuminating and constructive debate involving hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am sure that that will produce a legislative outcome that will greatly benefit the industrial and provident society sector. I thank the House and my hon. Friend for that. I am also grateful for the support that the Opposition parties have lent to the Bill, and for the favourable remarks made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien).
      Industrial and provident societies, with their ethos of member engagement, independence and help for the community, have for many years made an important contribution to the United Kingdom's economy and society. They form a significant section of the economy. The hon. Member for Eddisbury described the diversity of the sector and the contribution that it makes. Societies also perform an important social function. The Government welcome the benefits that they produce for their members and for the wider community. A range of enterprises across all sectors of the economy can use that flexible corporate form, which, strengthened by the proposals in the Bill, should continue to prosper. We are keen to help the sector to maximise the benefits that it provides to its members, which is why we have made it clear from the outset that we support the principles behind the Bill.
      Clause 1 on asset lock-in was rightly given a great deal of attention in Committee. It will enable the Treasury to introduce in secondary legislation provisions under which community benefit societies could prevent any use of, or dealing with, their assets except for the benefit of the community. That will provide societies with the option of ensuring that their assets can be used only for purposes that are beneficial to the community.
      As the hon. Member for Eddisbury said, the proposal emerged as one of the key recommendations of the strategy unit's report into the voluntary and not-for-profit sector. The report highlighted the benefits of the proposal, stating that the current situation with no asset lock-in provision was a "serious deterrent to funders". That is an important point. The new provision could be of great benefit to industrial and provident societies.
      The report also noted that care would need to be taken for
      "robust mechanisms … to be put in place to ensure that takeovers, mergers and dissolutions are conducted in a fair and transparent way".
      Similarly, it will be important to ensure that societies with the lock can continue to evolve and change their purposes and activities accordingly.
      1208
      An asset lock-in regime is a complicated area of policy, and it is important that we get it right. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire and I took the view that it would not be possible, within the time scale envisaged in Parliament, to establish in detail exactly what the regime should look like. We need to produce a regime that will maximise the benefits to societies and the wider economy, which is why the Bill provides for a clause that enables regulations to be made at a later date giving community benefit societies the ability to lock in their assets. As the hon. Member for Eddisbury said, we will consult thoroughly with the movement and with other interested parties to ensure that we get the regulations right. They will be passed by affirmative resolution in due course.
      The question of who the regulator will be is one of the details that we have not had time to consider properly during our scrutiny of the Bill. That is why we are introducing enabling legislation, which will allow us to consult more fully with the movement, and with the Financial Services Authority on whether it would be prepared to take on that role. At present, we have no set view on the outcome of that consultation, but I can assure the House that if the Bill is enacted, officials will start work straight away to establish an asset lock-in regime, and will consult on the details of the regime as soon as it is sensible to do so. I can, however, confirm our full support for the principle and the clause.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about the current legislation being considered by Northern Ireland Ministers and officials. We are liaising closely with Northern Ireland officials to ensure consistency of approach, but, while consistency is highly desirable and will certainly be taken into account, this is ultimately a matter for Northern Ireland.
      I shall not repeat all the arguments advanced in Committee, but I will say a little about the Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 update industrial and provident society legislation in line with company law to make it easier for societies to enter into business transactions. They protect those dealing with societies and society committees from adverse consequences if societies or committees are found to have acted outside societies' rules. That will remove the current risk that apparently legitimate business transactions may prove invalid if a society is found to have acted outside its own rules. It will also remove the onus on those doing business with societies to investigate their rules before entering into contracts.
      The clauses were amended in Committee to make their effects more transparent. By setting out all the new provisions as amendments to the 1965 Act, they reduce the amount of reference to other Acts that would otherwise be necessary, and make clear the intended effects on societies. The proposals accord with the Government's agenda for modernisation of the industrial and provident society form, and with our aim to create, where appropriate, a level playing field between societies and the company corporate form.
      The aim of clauses 4 and 5 is to make it easier for societies to enter into contracts and execute documents. It seeks to do that by, again, bringing industrial and provident society legislation up to date with existing provisions of company law. The hon. Member for Eddisbury raised some important points about that. Societies will be more able to execute documents

      1209
      without having to overcome the potentially cumbersome burdens associated with having to use a common seal on all occasions, and will thus enjoy much more flexibility.
      The Bill takes an important step towards the modernisation of industrial and provident society legislation. In doing so, it will benefit societies and their members, and I am pleased to say that it has the Government's full support. Mutual societies have an important part to play in providing consumers with choice and innovative services in retail and financial markets, and in facilitating social enterprise. I believe that the Bill has the potential to add significantly to the contribution already made by industrial and provident societies.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire on his work, and on the constructive way in which he has engaged with the Department and with me throughout the Bill's passage. I also thank all who have spoken today, and who spoke during the Bill's earlier stages. The Bill makes an important contribution to the industrial and provident society movement, and will benefit that movement considerably. It will modernise the sector, and I wish it every success in the other place.
      12.38 pm
      Mr. Todd: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I thank all who have spoken today and, indeed, those who spoke during the Bill's earlier stages. Some have done both. I also thank the co-operative movement in general, particularly Peter Hunt and Matt Ball, who have worked tirelessly in providing information and support. I thank, in particular, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) for his consistently informed and constructive contributions, and for the time he has devoted to the Bill. I also thank the Treasury team, which has worked extremely well with me and my advisers, particularly the Minister, who has responded with great grace and care. I extend my best wishes to her in her future career both as a Minister and as a mother.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Litter and Fouling of Land by Dogs Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.40 pm
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Litter is a very important issue. I obviously think so—it is the second such Bill that I have introduced in the House—and so do my hon. Friends who support the Bill, many of whom supported the previous Bill. I am delighted that we have arrived at Second Reading.
  Not just hon. Members but the public at large think that it is an enormously important issue. All hon. Members who have gone round their constituencies knocking on doors and talking to people will know that many more people are concerned about litter and dog fouling than are concerned about other important issues such as the five economic tests for the euro. When I introduced the first Bill, one of the television stations did a poll and found that 97 per cent. of people supported the measure.
  Litter is unsightly. It spoils neighbourhoods and all parts of the country. We know that it is a health risk and dangerous, particularly to children. It affects urban areas, rural areas, concrete paved areas, the paths that we walk on and the lovely open spaces that we treasure.
  Another reason why the Bill is important is because we are not very good at dealing with the issue. The current culture of this country is that people drop litter in volumes but that we tolerate it. We spend most of the day walking around in the litter and spend a fortune—about £450 million a year—trying to have it cleared away and complaining that it is not all cleared away. I am not sure how much dog fouling material is cleared away, but I am told that about 1,000 tonnes a day are dropped; there is a thought for midday on Friday.
  The problem is that we do not enforce the laws. We have had laws for many years. People can be fined, but I think only about 3,000 fixed-penalty fines a year are issued for litter and 2,000 for dog fouling. At the moment, all the revenue is passed to central Government. I understand that that amounts to only about £70,000 a year.
  Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that for those of us who have the privilege of representing seaside resorts, it is a particular problem? Many visitors do not have respect for the local environment. The Bill has great support in Scarborough and Whitby, particularly among the seaside communities, which I am sure wish it well.
  Mr. Blizzard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that. I am sure that the wonderful beaches of Scarborough are marred by litter and dog fouling, as is the beach at Lowestoft, officially the best beach in England.
  The problem is that we have not tackled the issue and have made no progress on it. The central contention of the Bill is that only enforcement will work; that is the essence of the Bill. Education, campaigns and saying, "Let's have more bins" will not work. By allowing local authorities to retain the revenue from fixed-penalty fines, we will provide an income stream for enforcement.

  1211
  That will enable councils to take action and engage them in taking action. We must change the culture that I spoke of a few minutes ago. That culture also exists within councils, which are more geared to clearing up than enforcing the law. The benefit of enforcing the law is that we make the polluter, not the poor taxpayer, pay.
  The response of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, as it was when I first proposed such a measure in 1999, was not supportive. It referred to the perverse incentive, a legal nicety whereby the person prosecuting should not stand to benefit from the prosecution. That may be true in legal schools, but our constituents would surely believe that there should be every incentive to enforce the law in this respect. I am delighted that the Government have changed their mind and that clause 117 of the Local Government Bill, now in the other place, contains the central provision of my Bill.
  There are, however, one or two differences between my Bill and the Local Government Bill. The main difference is that in my Bill, the local authority must use the money raised to enforce the litter and dog-fouling laws, but the Local Government Bill makes provision for the local authority to use the money for any of its functions. I can understand the in-built incentive to use the revenue for enforcement, because further revenue will be gained from enforcement. I can also understand why, in theory at least, there may come a time when it will be clean everywhere, so there would be no point in pouring money into enforcement. However, I stress that that will happen in theory rather than in practice and that, even with the measures in my Bill, it will take some time to achieve it.
  I am worried that some local authorities might settle for a low level of enforcement and then stop, or divert the money into more bins. If so, we would become a bit cleaner, but still fall way short of what most people would like to see. Even worse, some local authorities might not bother to take up the new powers and the revenue stream. As I said, we have to change the culture of local authorities, otherwise we could end up with postcode litter enforcement, with some authorities doing a much better job than others.
  In the past year, about a dozen pilot schemes have been tried and they have taught us two lessons. Authorities such as Newcastle, Manchester and Wigan have taken their responsibilities seriously and have made a great difference. Many fines have been handed out and the revenue gained is there for all to see. Some authorities, though—we should recall that they are all signed up to public service agreements with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—have done nothing. We must therefore ensure that all local authorities take the new powers seriously.
  How can we best ensure that? I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life for entering into discussions with me on that point. I understand that he proposes to use the corporate performance assessment and best value mechanisms, rather than straightforward compulsion. I should be grateful to my right hon. Friend if he would explain to the House in detail exactly how those mechanisms will work.
  What guidance will be issued to local authorities to ensure that they—I was about to say "get stuck into" this, but perhaps that is not the right phrase to use—take
  1212
  advantage of the opportunities provided in my Bill and the Local Government Bill? They will need a kick-start initial investment will be necessary to employ the first half a dozen wardens, but it will soon be repaid by fines, which could then be used to employ more wardens.
  Shona McIsaac: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's explanation. In Cleethorpes, Immingham and Barton, most of the complaints about litter that I hear are from residents living near large secondary schools, who moan about crisp wrappers, bottles, cans and so forth. How does my hon. Friend envisage his Bill will work when it is young people under 18 who are littering those areas?
  Mr. Blizzard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I think that, once we have a law that says that we are serious about litter, schools' whole approach will change. They will manage the problem in collaboration with the local authority, but in the knowledge that they have to do so.
  Once a momentum gets going in local authorities, there will be an increasing army of litter wardens who can make this country cleaner. How will that cleanliness be assessed? Who will decide on the standard of cleanliness that ascertains that a local authority is fulfilling its functions?
  My final question to my right hon. Friend is this: will it be impossible for a local authority to achieve the highest standard of corporate performance assessment and thus gain the flexibility to spend the fines on other things without having succeeded on the best value cleanliness standard? We must ensure that it has to meet that standard.
  The Bill is part of the Government's overall agenda for stronger communities and better local environments, along with measures on abandoned cars, graffiti, and nuisance and antisocial behaviour. Dropping litter is antisocial behaviour, and the problem is that it not just a minority who do it—many people who do not consider themselves to be beyond the law in any way are in the habit of dropping litter. We therefore face a major task. Although we know that the majority of our constituents are law-abiding people who will respond to the measure, take it seriously and obey the law, they will do so only if they think that this House and the Government are serious about enforcing it.
  12.51 pm
  Michael Fabricant: I have the honour of being one of the Bill's sponsors. It is a genuine cross-party Bill, for the reason that it makes very good sense, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on promoting it. Hon. Members will recall that when he introduced a powerful 10-minute Bill, which had the acquiescence of the whole House, he pointed out many of the facts that he has pointed out today. It is worth repeating that, as he said, £450 million a year is spent on clearing up dogs' mess. He did not comment, however, on the cost to the national health service of treating young children, as well as older people, who have been infected as a consequence of being in contact with dogs' mess.
  The Bill is called the Litter and Fouling of Land by Dogs Bill because, sadly, we see dogs' mess not only on our streets and pavements, but on playing fields, where

  1213
  much damage is done to the health of young people. I say to the hon. Member for Scarborough and What (Lawrie Quinn) that the problem is a curse not only in seaside towns—it affects people even in towns and cities such as Lichfield, right in the heart of the country. It is very much a national problem. As the hon. Member for Waveney said, more than 1,000 tonnes a day are—I hate to use the word, but I will—dumped in the United Kingdom, and it really is foul in every sense of the word.
  In Lichfield, we have two dog wardens. They do their best, but it clearly ain't enough. I like to think that Lichfield is one of the cleaner cathedral cities, but one sees dogs' mess there, too, with all the damage that it causes. Two dog wardens are not enough. Whenever I take that up with the excellent Conservative-controlled Lichfield district council, it says, "We can't afford to have any more." The Bill is a mechanism that will allow it to afford to have more. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Waveney. If the Government decide not to adopt the provision in clause 1(b), which stipulates that the money raised from fining people who commit the offence of allowing their dogs to foul is ring-fenced to pay for more dog wardens, there is a fear that councils that find themselves strapped for cash will use some, or maybe even all, that money for other projects. There will thus be no incentive for councils such as Lichfield to employ more than two dog wardens. The council needs more wardens—six, eight or 10; as many as are necessary to ensure that that curse is eradicated.
  In principle, I think that the provisions already exist. The Government sensibly introduced measures whereby authorities can retain fines levied for speeding offences caught on speed cameras. Will the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life confirm that the money is ring-fenced and that it can be used only for installing more speed cameras?
  Lawrie Quinn indicated assent.
  Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman suggests that that is so. Surely, in that case, subsection (b) of clause 1 could be included in the Bill that is currently in another place. That is tremendously important, as the hon. Member for Waveney pointed out.
  I do not want to detain the House. The Bill is excellent. I am probably about to tempt fate by saying that, in the past month, I have received more letters about dog fouling than about the war on Iraq. That is no bad thing; it demonstrates that people feel as strongly about dog fouling as they do about Iraq. The two issues may be very different, but they are important to people. Dog fouling affects the lives of ordinary people, in the streets where they walk and live, and where they allow their children to play. As I said earlier, the cost of collection may be £450 million a year, but what is the cost to the national health service? What is the cost to people's lives?
  12.57 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: I shall be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on his good fortune in the ballot, on a worthwhile Bill that has resonance on both sides of the House and on the manner in which he introduced it. I am sure that the measure will receive all-party support.
  1214
  The Bill is not anti-dog. Indeed, I should not want to be associated with something that was anti-dog—some of my best friends are dogs.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: The hon. Gentleman's only friends are dogs.
  Mr. Syms: Perhaps.
  The measure would provide balance. It is reasonable to expect people who keep pets to show responsibility and consideration for other people.
  We welcome the Bill. Dog fouling is a major problem. Estimates produced by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show that there are 6.8 million dogs in Britain, producing 1,000 tonnes of excrement a day. I wonder who estimates such interesting statistics; no doubt there are people who have more interesting jobs than that of Member of Parliament.
  The problem causes great concern to many of our citizens, especially people out walking with their children. There are also particular difficulties for people pushing prams and for wheelchair users. They have problems cleaning dog excrement from the wheels, and it is often trailed into their homes. The Bill is about good citizenship.
  Local authorities are under financial pressure due to the grant settlement and, as a result, may not accord the highest priority to the problems addressed by the Bill. I generally welcome the provision that would allow local authorities to keep fines in order to give better services.
  More than 60 per cent. of authorities never prosecute for such offences. The Bill would give them a greater incentive to do so, and would ensure that people are good citizens. In 1998, 98 per cent. of local authorities employed dog wardens, but the figure has fallen to 94 per cent., which is of great concern.
  Mr. Blizzard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It may be that a relatively high percentage of local authorities have dog wardens, but most of those authorities employ only one or two wardens. They do not do much enforcement work, tending instead to work with dog owners.
  Mr. Syms: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point.
  However, the Bill does not address a lacuna. Under section 1(2) of the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, an offence is not committed on pavements alongside a carriageway unless there is a speed limit of 40 mph or less. A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has written the following in a letter:
  "I am writing to you as a dog owner. I live in village where we have a few dogs roaming around without their owners and they leave their packages wherever they wish. I have been in touch with the dog warden for this area and he has told me that we have no law in this village to stop dogs from fouling the verges, pavements or play areas due to the fact we have no speed limit in this village. This byelaw stinks. I don't see why the careless owners cannot be fined or told to clean up after the dog. Would it be possible to get this byelaw changed as I think it grossly unfair that, in areas with speed limits in place, action can be taken to the owners, but villages like Condicote with no speed limit have to live with dirty dog owners? I feel that it should be a crime for dog owners, whether you have a speed limit or not. Hope you can help with this problem."

  1215
  That constituent would like to know how the situation can be remedied.
  Hon. Members may wonder why I am reading a letter that was sent to the hon. Member for Cotswold. It is because I am delivering his speech for him. Nothing would have prevented him from speaking on this topic except the fact that he has broken his ankle and is in his constituency. I am sure that we all wish him well.
  Under Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs codes for dog fouling, citizens are expected to take names and addresses of offenders and report them. Is that really practical? Even if there are inspectors in place, unless there are a considerable number of offenders, or unless somebody is a very persistent offender and is reported, what are the chances of somebody actually being apprehended? Even then, would they be willing to give out their name and address?
  What sort of priority will hard-pressed local authorities give to this matter? Will the cost of the fixed-penalty notices begin to recoup the cost of issuing them and enforcing them? Have any costing or regulatory impact assessments been carried out for this Bill? Although we support the aim of the Bill, there are a number of issues that we think ought to be considered carefully. If, as has been mentioned, this is being discussed in debates on the Local Government Bill in the Lords, there are some issues that will have to be considered carefully in order to improve this very important legislation. I commend the hon. Member for Waveney. Conservative Members support the intent of his Bill.
  1.2 pm
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): I am pleased to be able to continue today's theme of general agreement not only between the two Front-Bench spokesmen but between those on the Back Benches and on the Front Benches. I join other hon. Members in sending good wishes to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), although I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas)—with the gentleness for which Whips are famed—suggesting that the Labour party would regard it as a lame excuse.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on his efforts in bringing this matter to the House—not only today but on a number of previous occasions. Like him, I feel strongly about the blight caused by people who do not dispose of their litter responsibly or who do not clear up after their dog. I agree that enforcement is needed, and my comments will focus on that. However, I do not want to emphasise only the negative: we should pay tribute to those who act responsibly. Many people up and down the country not only take care of their own litter but take an interest in the tidiness of their general environment in villages and, indeed, in towns and cities.
  From environmental work that I promoted as a youth worker before entering this place, I know that young people respond to encouragement and leadership and are willing to go to great lengths to help in tidying the environment. It is not true to say that only enforcement will work. I commend the work of Encams—Environmental Campaigns—the organisation that is
  1216
  better known as the Tidy Britain campaign or group. The success of many of Encams local campaigns is significant and has involved partnership between Encams and local authorities. The answer is to inject enthusiasm into education and the encouragement of responsibility, and into the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has raised—that of enforcement. We need a balance of those two approaches. Neither is adequate on its own, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not disagree with that. However, as I said, enforcement is necessary.
  The Government are determined to tackle the problem and to reach a standard of street cleanliness that we all can enjoy. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney acknowledges that the issues contained in his private Member's Bill are the focus of considerable Government attention. Let me outline our current position on the hypothecation of the revenue from litter and dog fouling fixed-penalty notices, as suggested by my hon. Friend.
  A pilot programme began in early 2001, in which three local authorities were allowed to exercise similar provisions to those in the Bill. That was achieved through local public service agreements co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, then at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The pilot programme allowed those local authorities to use the revenue from fixed-penalty notices for litter and dog fouling offences further to improve street cleanliness. In particular, the revenue was used to provide more bins and to give financial assistance to the litter and dog warden teams. In all cases, there was a significant increase in the number of fixed-penalty notices for litter and dog fouling offences issued in those areas.
  When my hon. Friend first introduced the Bill, the Government were considering extending those pilots schemes and awaiting their outcome. As he has said, the pilot programme was subsequently extended to other local authorities applying for local public service agreements during 2002. Again, that proved very popular with the local authorities involved and, in most cases, results similar to those in earlier trials were achieved.
  Building on that success, clause 119 was included in the new Local Government Bill during the summer of 2002 to allow local authorities to retain any sum that they receive from fixed penalties for litter and dog fouling offences, rather than paying them to the Secretary of State, in relation to England, or to the National Assembly for Wales. That clause states specifically for which measures the revenue from fixed-penalty notices can be used.
  Authorities will have to use their fixed-penalty receipts to pay for their statutory functions related to litter and dog fouling, including that of giving fixed-penalty notices for leaving litter and failing to clear up after dogs. However, clause 119 also contains a provision for the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to make further regulations adding to the activities which a certain authority may finance using its fixed-penalty receipts.
  For example, the Secretary of State could enable an authority to spend its fixed-penalty receipts on specified activities related to improving the local environment

  1217
  that are not carried out under its statutory functions relating to litter and dog fouling. The new regulation-making power will be sufficiently wide to give high-performing local authorities complete freedom about how to spend their receipts. My hon. Friend has taken issue with that part of clause 119, but I hope that I can persuade him that that concern is misplaced.
  Let me stress that complete freedom to spend receipts would be given only where the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly for Wales, is sufficiently satisfied that the local authority's performance justified granting such freedoms and flexibilities. That is part of the wider approach being taken by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the rest of the Government, and it has been subject to considerable discussion with local government representatives. That judgment would be based clearly on an assessment of a local authority's performance.
  I can understand that my hon. Friend does not want local authorities to shy away from their specific responsibilities and to use revenue for activities unrelated to litter and dog fouling when money needs to be spent on those activities—in fairness, and in my experience, nor would most local councillors. In Cardiff, for example, councillors in my constituency are every bit as keen to tackle that issue as my hon. Friend and myself.
  No local authority will be given those freedoms and flexibilities if measuring their performance shows that they are not fulfilling their obligations in respect of litter and dog fouling, so there is no problem in that regard—the protection is built into the system. The Local Government Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Lords yesterday, and I am therefore very confident that those provisions will become law.
  Mr. Blizzard: For the benefit of the House, will my right hon. Friend explain how a local authority will be judged to have met its responsibilities for cleanliness, and who will make that judgment?
  Alun Michael: I do not want to go into the detail of those mechanisms, which are being discussed with local authority associations. It is important that we get that right. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but we should focus on the fact that local authorities must meet their obligations on litter and dog fouling. My reasons for not wishing to go into the matter further relate not only to the sensitivity of Members' stomachs
  1218
  as we approach lunchtime, but to the fact that such detail would pre-empt the legislation before it has completed its passage through Parliament.
  Michael Fabricant: I accept that the Minister does not want to go into too much detail at this stage, but given that the Government believe, quite rightly, that police authorities should be allowed to keep money raised from speed cameras, but can only use it for the provision of additional speed cameras, thus ring-fencing it, why is his Department running away from ring-fencing in the Bill?
  Alun Michael: It is not—the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The money must be used for certain purposes, but it would be inappropriate to ring-fence the sum completely and not give freedoms to local authorities which are achieving their obligations under the Bill as well as a much wider range of objectives. The approach is to lift local authorities' performance and set targets on specific issues, including the one covered by the Bill. By achieving those targets and doing what they are meant to do for the local population, local authorities earn greater flexibility in the way in which they use resources. We are not providing flexibility by saying that it does not matter whether or not they achieve things, but we are saying that if they achieve a high standard they should be given greater flexibility in their use of available resources. It would be inconsistent not to apply that to the matter under consideration when it is applied to other local authority responsibilities.
  The hon. Gentleman's question enables me to set out the underlying principles with greater force. I hope that he, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and all Members who take an interest in this topic—I am delighted to see that many Members do so—will accept that the Government are determined to proceed in the same direction as my hon. Friend. I hope that they also accept that it would be inappropriate for the Government to support my hon. Friend's Bill because legislation that has only just received its Second Reading in another place will meet the same requirements. I hope that my explanation satisfies my hon. Friend, enabling him to withdraw the motion.
  Mr. Blizzard: With the leave of the House, I thank hon. Members who have attended today and supported the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) for supporting it as Opposition spokesman, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he has engaged in discussion and responded to the progress of the Bill. In the light of the assurances that he has just given, I do not think that the House's time would be well spent if the Bill went into Committee, so I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

  Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1.13 pm
  Mr. Richard Allan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill creates a new criminal offence with the primary intention of achieving the positive effect of protecting our cultural heritage, as I hope will become clear as I set out the case for the measure. I shall speak about three areas. First, I shall describe who wants the Bill; secondly, I shall talk about what it will do; and thirdly, I shall explain why it is needed now.
  I start by giving credit to those who put a huge amount of work into the issue of dealing with the trade in illicit antiquities, which the Bill aims to tackle. First among those is Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn. Professor Colin Renfrew has been working on the subject of illicit antiquities for many years, both as a professional archaeologist and as a Member of the House of Lords. He heads the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research in Cambridge, which includes the illicit antiquities research centre as one of its projects. His CV makes fascinating reading for me, as he was a lecturer at the university of Sheffield in the year that I was born in Sheffield, and had become the Disney Professor of Archaeology at Cambridge in the 1980s, when I arrived there to study the subject.
  The other major influence in bringing the Bill into existence was the work of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. The Committee's report, "Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade", which was published in July 2000, recommended the creation of an offence of trading in cultural property. The recommendation received all-party support. I commend the report and the Committee for the work that it did.
  The recommendation was taken up by the Ministerial Panel on the Illicit Trade in Cultural Objects, ITAP, which was set up in May 2000 and reported in December 2000. Credit should go to the members of the panel under the chairmanship of Norman Palmer, Professor of commercial law at University College London, for their excellent work in bringing together all the major players on the subject.
  The Bill has been drawn up by Government lawyers working with officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who have also provided excellent explanatory notes, for which I am extremely grateful.
  Michael Fabricant: I support the Bill which, as the hon. Gentleman points out, is founded on a report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. However, another report queried whether antiquities owned by the British Museum and other institutions, such as the Elgin marbles, ought to be returned. It was decided that they should not be returned. Can the hon. Gentleman assure me and the House that the Bill will not lead to further calls for the Elgin marbles and other such properties to be returned?
  Mr. Allan: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that the Bill has nothing to do with anything that was taken from another country 200 years
  1220
  ago. That is a separate argument for another day. The Bill is about material that is being taken now, both in the United Kingdom and other countries, as I hope to show.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I welcome the Bill. For me, it is a matter of regret that it does not deal with matters such as the Parthenon sculptures. If the Bill had been in force 200 years ago, would Lord Elgin have been committing a criminal offence?
  Mr. Allan: I shall set out the case in detail, referring to present-day examples. We need to consider countries such as Iraq, where in some senses similar circumstances pertain, in that there is uncertainty about who is in government, which creates the conditions for cultural objects to be removed. Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose, in the context of uncertainty of legal status and the removal of cultural objects. I shall come to that later, but for now I reiterate that the Bill has nothing to do with anything in museums that arrived there some years ago. It deals with the trade taking place now.
  I thank the officers of the British Museum, who have given me invaluable assistance, as well as the all-party parliamentary archaeology group, which has almost 150 members in both Houses. The group backed the Bill with a recommendation in its recently published report, "The Current State of Archaeology in the United Kingdom".
  My aim has been to keep the Bill narrowly focused, so that it can be properly considered in the time available to a private Member's Bill. I hope that the House will appreciate that it has been kept to six short clauses and that the temptation to expand its scope has been firmly resisted. The aim of the Bill, in short, is to make a contribution to the protection of archaeological sites and buildings of historical interest by drying up the market for objects taken from any such site, whether in the UK or elsewhere.
  We have a framework of protection for our heritage in the UK that is established in law to protect listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments. The Bill seeks not to change the scope of that protection, but to complement it by dealing with those who sell objects that have been removed in contravention of those laws. That the Bill is necessary is a sad testament to the fact that there are some individuals who carry on flouting the protection laws and carry out illegal excavations on ancient monuments, or strip architectural elements from listed buildings. Recent cases that cause concern include the suspected removal of bronze artefacts from the Yeavering Bell hill fort in Northumbria and Roman coins from a site in Wiltshire, which are currently being dealt with by the British Museum. Both those cases were reported at the end of last year.
  If there are problems in the UK, we should be aware that they can be far worse in other countries, especially where the authorities are hard-pressed with other security concerns. I worked in archaeology in Ecuador some years ago, where the illegal excavators were known as huaqueros. It was frequently a race against time for legitimate archaeologists to get to a newly discovered site before it was plundered. The name "huaquero" is local to South America and especially northern Peru. In preparing for the debate, I checked the origins of the word and my memory, and found that it comes from the

  1221
  Quechua word "huaca", which means a sacred place or temple and comes from Inca times. There is even a song about huaqueros, whose chorus goes:
  "Huaquero, huaquero, let's go robbing graves.
  Dig, dig until dawn.
  Dig, dig until dusk."
  One cannot get much plainer than that. Indeed, the prevalence of the trade is such that there are local words for the perpetrators in many countries. In Guatemala, they are known as huecheros, from the Maya word for armadillo, "huech". In Italy, they go by the name "tombaroli", and in the UK, they are generally referred to as nighthawks. However, those who loot archaeological sites will always remain huaqueros to me.
  The UK has an interest in such activities because so much of the international art market is based here, especially in London. It is important to state that mainstream legitimate dealers in antiquities take great care not to handle illegal property. The main dealers' organisations such as the British Art Market Federation and the Antiquities Dealers Association have played an active part in the panel working on the matter. Legitimate dealers have an interest in seeing the Bill passed and have nothing to fear from it, as they will be protected from buying such tainted artefacts by the good practice that they follow. Their interest is in seeing those who are less scrupulous and work in the illegal market prevented from undercutting legitimate trade by buying in cheap artefacts of dubious provenance.
  In particular, we can assist dealers by enhancing the databases that already exist for informing them what artefacts have been stolen. Those databases are run by a number of organisations such as Interpol, the main law enforcement agencies such as the Metropolitan police and the FBI and private organisations such as the Art Loss Register. In respect of archaeological material, which cannot be registered on a database because, by definition, we do not know what it is while it is still in the ground, we have evolved another system—the International Council of Museums or ICOM red list. That system has successfully covered west African artefacts by listing a range of types of artefacts that are known generally to be stolen, and it is now being extended to south America. It covers some very important material that is being looted from south America—something that originated from a recent conference between ICOM officials and officials of the Colombian Government. Some very important progress can be made in establishing risks and publishing that information widely to dealers.
  We also need information on each other's heritage legislation so that dealers can understand whether something has been taken in contravention of the local heritage laws. Some work is being done at European level by the European heritage information or HEREIN network, which involves all the heritage departments in the Council of Europe. Its website contains important and helpful information allowing people to see what cultural laws apply in any particular country within the jurisdictions covered by Council of Europe members. That could be helpfully extended, particularly among signatories to the UNESCO convention on the
  1222
  prevention of trade in illicit cultural objects, so that a much wider range of legal information is available to people.
  Mr. Dismore: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any moves in the European Union to harmonise laws protecting cultural objects such as those described in the Bill? As he says, one of the problems is the disparity between different countries. If everybody were to operate under the same regime, bearing in mind the international nature of the trade, it would make life an awful lot easier.
  Mr. Allan: I am aware that conventions have been worked through quite successfully. In particular, the Granada convention on architectural heritage and the Valetta convention on archaeological heritage have been adopted by the United Kingdom. While those conventions do not have the legal implications of an EU mandate, in signing up to them we are necessarily signing up to certain responsibilities that will help to harmonise our common understanding of what we mean by protection of architectural and archaeological heritage. There are some very positive moves in that regard. I congratulate the Government on having made the UK a signatory to the UNESCO convention; again, we are committing ourselves to a path of common understanding of what kind of measures are necessary to protect heritage internationally. The Bill is intended to support the Department's work. Important harmonising work is taking place, but not through the scary, more politically contentious mechanism of directives.
  As well as having databases of legislation and artefacts, we can assist dealers by working with the organisations that represent them on the codes of practice that they follow. Indeed, I have been impressed by the work, which has come through the panel, that shows the care that dealers take to ensure that they are not buying material with an illegal provenance.
  I have set out the background to the Bill and the support for it and I should now like to describe as straightforwardly as possible its operation. It establishes the concept of a tainted "cultural object", which is
  "an object of historical, architectural or archaeological interest"
  that has been removed in circumstances that constitute an offence in the jurisdiction from which it has been taken. That means that the Bill covers objects from anywhere in the world. A dealer who knowingly trades in such an artefact will commit an offence under the measure and be liable for the penalties that it sets out.
  The penalties have been designed to mirror those for offences of handling stolen goods. To obtain a conviction, the authorities must prove that an individual knowingly traded in tainted objects. That provides an adequate defence for dealers who follow good practice in checking the provenance of the material that they buy. The impact of the Bill on reputable dealers will be minimal; they recognise that in their support for the measure.
  However, the Bill makes it clear that anyone in the illegitimate market who considers trading in illicit antiquities cannot do that without considerable legal

  1223
  risk. Inability to dispose of such material will act as a serious deterrent to those who would engage in looting archaeological sites or historic buildings.
  Mr. Dismore: Wearing my lawyer's hat, I am worried that the Bill does not define "object" per se. Would "object" include human remains? The Select Committee report refers specifically to them. Would the Bill cover human remains? Would it cover earth samples from a site? They are potentially important archaeologically, but may not be included in the common or garden definition of "object".
  Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention human remains. That is a contentious subject to which other legal considerations apply. If the Bill progresses, such detailed tests can be applied in Standing Committee. We have tried to make the definition of what constitutes a tainted object as broad as possible. Although the Bill does not try to create a broad legal liability—it is specific in the measure—we tried to devise a broad definition of the objects. Clause 2(6) refers to remains. However, we would need to have a further discussion on the breadth of the definition and its application to human remains, and time will not allow that today. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can accept that response for the moment.
  The Bill is urgently needed. This week, I received a visit from the police. It was most welcome because they were officers from SCD6—the art and antiquities unit of the Metropolitan police. Detective Chief Inspector Tristram Hicks and Detective Sergeant Vernon Rapley provided helpful information on the scale of the trade that they are trying to tackle. They referred to the National Criminal Intelligence Service's threat assessment. In 2001, it identified art and antiques crime as a level 2 threat to national security because of the link between theft and transport of such items and organised crime. Terrorists do whatever organised crime does, and the lines between who carries out such theft are therefore blurred. However, it is clear from NCIS, special branch and FBI information that there is a link between the removal and transport of cultural objects and the funding of terrorism. The police gave examples of specific cases, which hon. Members may find informative.
  In September 2001, the art and antiquities unit intercepted and seized £3 million of Bactrian art. We are not therefore talking about odd bits and pieces. The pieces are 3,000 years old and had been looted by members of the Northern Alliance and sold via Pakistan to fund the war effort against the Taliban regime. They are currently being held by New Scotland Yard, and are awaiting restoration when the Kabul museum has been rebuilt.
  It is important to note that looting frequently takes place in conflict zones, and we clearly need to recognise that, in the context of what is currently happening in Mesopotamia, where a huge amount of cultural material will be looted. People from various unpleasant factions—I do not want to identify who they are now—will seek to market that material in places across Europe where they can command the best prices. The retrieval of that kind of material is essential to the nation-building exercises that have to take place in post-conflict zones, and I hope that the Bactrian art that is now being
  1224
  held by Scotland Yard will make its way back to the museum in Kabul. I know that the Ethiopians have been very keen to retrieve a lot of their material so as to have a network of museums of which they can be proud, and I think that there will be similar demands in the future from other countries that have suffered conflict.
  In 2000, a valuable Indian stone frieze was seized from a London auction house by the art and antiquities unit. That piece was being sold by Sri Lankan terrorists to fund their war effort. In terms of the scale of what is going on, in the last two years 300 pieces have been seized from Egypt, many of which were fakes. There is an interesting mix between the fake trade and the genuine trade, in that people try to hide genuine pieces in boxes of fakes. Eight hundred pieces, with a value of between £3 million and £4 million, have been seized from Afghanistan, Pakistan and eastern Iran, and 20 pieces have been seized from India, Sri Lanka and Cambodia. I am told that Cambodia is no longer one of the major sources because everything that can be taken from there has been taken. That is a crying shame, because Cambodia is a nation that desperately needs to regain a sense of its national identity, having lost a lot of its very important material.
  Two pieces, valued at between £3 million and £5 million, have been seized from Iraq, and three hundred pieces were seized from Italy, including a shipwreck that was destroyed by UK suspects. There are questions about how shipwrecks will be dealt with, because they are also covered by certain conventions, but I hope that material taken from shipwrecks will fall within the scope of the Bill. That is something that I want to tease out in Committee.
  Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. On the subject of shipwrecks, he will be aware that there have been a number of programmes on television recently about divers going in and retrieving objects. What would be the position under the Bill of those shipwrecks that occur outside territorial waters and do not therefore fall under the jurisdiction of any single country?
  Mr. Allan: That is another matter that I would like to tease out. My understanding is that shipwrecks have the status of protected sites and, if an offence were committed by removing material from a shipwreck within territorial waters, those objects would become tainted under the Bill. If that were to happen in international waters, however, those responsible would not be subject to any national jurisdiction. In those circumstances, the objects would not necessarily fall within the scope of the Bill.
  I also hope that we can put a stop to the nonsense that occurs at the moment when material is brought forward by people who claim to have recovered it in international waters, when that is not the case. Such cases would clearly be a matter for a police investigation, but I hope that we would be able to prove that the objects had been taken from national waters, that the national legislation had been breached, and that the objects had thereby become tainted.
  To finish off my list, two pieces from Yemen were seized, and three from Morocco. On the urgency of the Bill, I am told that, in relation to all the objects that I

  1225
  have described that are suspected of having been looted, it has been possible to bring only one criminal prosecution to date. That is related to the difficulty of proving the offence of theft that took place in the first place. The Bill seeks to assist in such cases by allowing the prosecuting authorities to prove a breach of national heritage legislation, as opposed to having to prove theft. We hope that that will bring more objects within the scope of the legislation. I am told that there is one ongoing investigation in which the parties who had to be interviewed in order to demonstrate that theft had taken place were involved with the Iraqi authorities. That investigation has had to be put on hold for the time being.
  I hope that the House accepts the case for this legislation. It will make an important contribution to the protection of cultural heritage at home and abroad. It is well targeted, and limited in scope. It also has widespread support both inside and outside Parliament, and I believe that it is timely and urgently needed to tackle a serious and growing problem. I commend the Bill to the House.
  1.34 pm
  Shona McIsaac: Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), I am a member of the all-party archaeology group, so I am more than happy to support this excellent Bill. He has already touched on the July 2000 Select Committee report, which I hope the Minister has read. There is also the excellent first report of our all-party group, which, apart from considering the state of archaeology in the UK, made specific recommendations on the trade in illicit cultural objects.
  I want to clarify what is meant by "cultural object", as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) asked about that. For example, UNESCO says that such objects are
  "broadly defined, and as well as works of art it includes mineral and palaeontological specimens as well as antiquities, objects of ethnographic interest and elements of historic buildings and moments which have been dismembered."
  That gives an idea of what we are dealing with.
  Michael Fabricant: What the hon. Lady is saying is helpful, but, of course, "cultural object" is defined in clause 2(1) as
  "an object of historical, architectural or archaeological interest."
  Does she agree that human remains, particularly those of some antiquity, would probably be of archaeological interest and would therefore fall under that definition?
  Shona McIsaac: I do not think that that is necessarily the case, although we could argue about it, probably at length, in Committee. As far as I am concerned, certain palaeontological specimens would be covered by the Bill, such as rare fossils. The hon. Gentleman is talking about human remains, but where do those start to become palaeontological rather than purely archaeological? There is a question involving definitions and boundaries here.
  Michael Fabricant: Whether something is palaeontological is one thing, but an object would not
  1226
  have to be stone age to be covered by the Bill. For example, I and most archaeologists would argue that remains found under the city of York, or Jorvik, which is its Viking name, are of archaeological interest. Human remains may be much more recent, and that example relates to about 1,000 or perhaps 2,000 years ago, although I had better not go into Viking history.
  Mr. Allan: Twelve hundred years ago.
  Michael Fabricant: I am advised that the figure is 1,200 years. Such remains would be a darn site more recent than those from the stone age.
  Shona McIsaac: Of course they would be a lot more recent. As my hon. Friends have just said to me, the hon. Gentleman should stop digging. That is my advice to him at this stage.
  Some people think that the issue is minor, but I do not think that it is minor at all. It is fundamentally important. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam touched on the criminal activities involved in dealing in illicit cultural objects, but we must all consider the fact that by removing objects and selling them illegally people are stealing history. They are denying others knowledge that they could gain through studying archaeological artefacts in situ, which would give us the context.
  For example, the discovery of Roman amphorae in Herculaneum would not raise any eyebrows, but finding some in Orkney or in India would create a lot of excitement, as it would be significant. However, if an object is taken away and out of its context, it becomes almost meaningless. We are talking about stealing history—stealing culture itself.
  Estimating the value of that market is particularly difficult, but we should consider insurance claims in the UK for stolen artworks, which amount to about £300 million. If only a small proportion of those stolen works found their way into the illegal market, a great volume of money would be involved. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam gave a few examples, and I want to add some of my own to the debate to show the scale of the problem that we are dealing with. In 1997, an arrest in Germany brought to light hundreds of icons that had been stolen from 46 to 50 churches in Cyprus.
  Mr. Dismore: It is interesting that my hon. Friend has referred to that incident. I suspect that there may not be time for me to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that was one of the issues to which I wanted to refer in particular. As my hon. Friend knows, I have an interest in Cyprus. I have seen the frescos that were looted from the occupied zone in northern Cyprus, and what happened is important. I pay tribute to the late Dino Leventis, who was one of the great movers behind attempts to deal with the illicit art trade, especially in Byzantine artefacts and remains. Sadly, he is no longer with us, but he played a great part in dealing with these problems.
  Shona McIsaac: That intervention shows the nature of the problem. Cyprus has been a particular difficulty, given the political set-up there. Political problems and instability can create an environment in which such thefts, plundering and looting can occur.

  1227
  In 1998, a police raid on a villa in Sicily revealed antiquities stolen from just one site that were worth more than £20 million. I visited Sicily last year, and I was astonished by the lax attitude taken by the Italian authorities in some of their monuments. As I was going round Roman villas and Greek temples, people were picking at the edges of Roman mosaics and putting tiles in their pockets, but the guards did not bat an eyelid. At the Greek temples, people were picking up small stones and putting them in their backpacks. I was amazed that no one seemed to regard picking up a bit here and a bit there as a problem. Much art and artefacts are stolen from sites in Italy, and tend to find their way on to the illegal and illicit markets in London.
  Mayan sites are a particular problem in South America. It is estimated that about 1,000 pieces of Mayan pottery and other artefacts go on to the markets in the USA every month. Many sites in South America are looted and plundered.
  The illicit trade covers a wide variety of offences. It may just be a failure to get a proper export licence. That is at the lower level of crimes related to cultural objects. At the upper end, people steal valuable items to order. That is increasingly associated with organised crime. There are links with drug trafficking and the illegal arms trade. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, links with terrorist groups have increasingly been established during investigations into stolen cultural objects.
  Sometimes, the object itself, whether it is artwork or an artefact, is used as currency in drug deals. Instead of money changing hands, it is stolen artworks. There is a connection with money laundering and the laundering of artworks carried out in the illegal drugs trade.
  Mr. Allan: The hon. Lady refers to the coincidence of the stolen art trade and the drugs trade. That reminded me of an incident that police officers told me about, which showed how things can sadly go wrong. A group of ancient heads were recovered at a port in the United Kingdom. The officers involved suspected that they contained drugs, and tried to ascertain whether that was the case with the aid of a Black & Decker. Given the state that the heads were left in, they had less value than when they arrived.
  Shona McIsaac: They would certainly be less valuable after being attacked by a Black & Decker!
  There has been a great increase in this illicit trade over recent years, for a number of reasons. One is the opening up of areas in, for instance, Asia and Africa. New sites are constantly coming to light, and are being plundered. Moreover, the looters have better means of detection—better metal detectors, for example. I have heard that some are even beginning to use geophysical surveys to establish where objects are under the earth so that they can dig them up and get out quickly. The internet is providing many new ways of selling the objects, and the police are finding it difficult to track them down.
  There has been phenomenal destruction of sites in Egypt. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam knows of the case of Jonathan Tokeley-Parry, but at the time of his arrest he had been smuggling antiquities out of Egypt since the early 1990s. In an attempt to disguise them, he would dip them in
  1228
  wax or plastic and then paint them to make them look like cheap souvenirs. Some of the stolen goods have been returned to Egypt, and those—let alone the ones that have not been found—demonstrate the sheer volume of the illicit trade in which he was involved.
  Mr. Dismore: I would have mentioned a lacuna in the Bill in my speech if I had had time. Clause 3 refers to the acquisition, disposal, import or export of an item, but not to the alteration of an item. What if someone acquires a piece legitimately, subsequently discovers it to be bogus—or rather tainted—and alters it, but does nothing to dispose of it? I think that that too should be an offence.
  Shona McIsaac: According to my recollection of the Bill, it is a question of knowingly purchasing antiquities—
  Mr. Dismore: I am talking about altering them.
  Shona McIsaac: I think we can discuss that in Committee.
  Let me list some of the objects handled by the character I mentioned earlier. There were 25 papyrus texts dating from 300 BC, Coptic textiles, a sixth-dynasty limestone relief of a seated woman, terracotta statues, Graeco-Roman mummy masks, a bronze statue of the god Horus, a royal head carved in granite, coloured reliefs from Egyptian tombs and 35 items looted from the tomb of Hetep-Ka. Further items have subsequently been returned.
  That was just one individual dealing with some sites in Egypt. It gives us an idea of the extent to which Egypt is being plundered to feed markets that are largely in the west.
  I am also becoming increasingly concerned about looting in Mali, which has more archaeological sites in Africa than any other country except Egypt. A recent survey of just 125 sq m discovered that 45 per cent. of the 834 archaeological sites in the area had already been looted, 17 per cent. of them to a serious extent. Looting is spreading, and it is taking place before proper investigation is possible. We are losing history: history is being stolen. The percentage of sites looted in Mali represents a phenomenal theft of history. Our knowledge of human culture simply vanishes in such cases.
  In 1997 and subsequently, the magazine British Archaeology has reported that looted objects are still pouring into the country. That is why the Bill is necessary. We must create a criminal offence: this loophole has been there for far too long.
  Objects are being removed from sites in the United Kingdom, too. It is an offence to remove an object from a scheduled ancient monument but not all ancient monuments in the UK are scheduled. I believe that about 20,000 sites are not scheduled, which means that there is phenomenal potential for those sites to be looted.
  Even from the scheduled monuments there is looting. The Roman site of Corbridge at Hadrian's wall has been looted on many occasions. One night, about 55 holes were dug into that Roman fort by night-hawks trying to find coins and other objects to sell.

  1229
  The other site in the UK that caused great concern was Wanborough near Guildford. The horde of coins that was plundered there was worth about £2 million. Again, we have lost the context: we do not know how that find relates to the religious buildings that were on that site.
  Although it is not touched on by the Bill, I hope that English and Welsh law can be changed to mirror Scottish law. In Scotland all new finds are property of the Crown and that can help to deal with looting, whereas in England and Wales, new finds are not property of the Crown unless they are deemed treasure, and treasure is determined by the metal content of that find. That is a great loophole in the law. Making all new finds in archaeological sites property of the Crown could help to stop some of the looting of our ancient monuments.
  Mr. Dismore: There is another problem with the definition of monument in the Bill. It would not catch, for example, people who were simply using a metal detector in an open field if there were no building nearby. My hon. Friend is right when she talks about treasure and metal content but other objects may be found through field-walking in an area that is of general interest but does not contain an excavation or any other site that is defined as a monument in the Bill. Would she like to comment on that?
  Shona McIsaac: Someone who is metal-detecting or field-walking may find something and remove what they find without proper excavation. While there are good metal detectors who work with archaeologists on sites, if some people detect something and dig through, they can destroy the archaeology and that is a worry.
  If anyone wants to appreciate the sheer volume of the problems relating to stealing culture, they should read a book that was published by the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research in Cambridge about three years ago called "Stealing History", the phrase I used earlier—people are stealing our history. That book details many of the most serious cases of plundering and looting of archaeological sites in the UK. It also details cases involving Khmer temples, mosaics from Kanakariá, Cyprus, which may be the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon alluded, Lydian treasure from Turkey, the Moche tombs of Sipán in Peru, the Wanborough Romano-British temple and many others, including those in Mali that I mentioned.
  It is a phenomenal problem. We have not taken it seriously until now. The Bill goes some way to dealing with that problem. I hope that every hon. Member in the House today will support the Bill and that it clears all its stages as soon as possible, because we cannot allow our history and heritage to be stolen at such an alarming rate any longer.
  1.54 pm
  Michael Fabricant: I rise to support the Bill. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said, its genesis lies in the report produced by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, on which I have the honour to serve, although I was not
  1230
  serving on it when the report was issued in July 2000. I had decided to take a brief break from that Committee and sit on the Home Affairs Committee instead. After a year and a half, I decided to rejoin the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Apart from anything else, the Ministers in that Department are much more interesting than Home Office Ministers.
  I was relieved to hear that the Bill will not cover cultural objects that have been in the possession of British museums—I consciously use the plural—for several years. The Elgin marbles are a rather controversial group of objects that the Greek Government would like to obtain. As I said, I am delighted that they would not fall within the ambit of the Bill, because the Elgin marbles have been better cared for in the United Kingdom than they would have been if they had been kept in Greece. Over the past 50 years, cultural objects kept in Greece have suffered huge corrosion.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Although we have been reassured by its promoter that the Bill would have no effect on, for example, the Elgin marbles in the British Museum, does my hon. Friend share my worry that the Bill would strengthen the argument for returning the Elgin marbles, because it would alter the atmosphere and environment in which the debate takes place?
  Michael Fabricant: I share my right hon. Friend's concern, which is why I intervened on the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam at the outset to ask about that specific point. I was greatly reassured and I know that people both inside and outside the House will note his response. When the Minister makes his winding-up speech, I hope that he will emphasise that this important Bill does not cover objects such as the Elgin marbles.
  The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) made an important point when she said that once an object is removed from its original place, without detailed records kept of where, how and in what condition it was found, it becomes almost worthless, certainly so far as archaeologists are concerned. She was right that it is vital to keep records of where objects are found.
  I come from a seaside town and often saw people walking around with metal detectors. I hope that whenever such people find something—whether treasure trove or not—they record where they found it and, preferably, do not move it until archaeologists and other experts are brought to the site. It is worth noting that Israel has a separate police force, the architectural police, to deal with the problem. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes has witnessed, as I have, people picking up objects in the area of the Parthenon, and in Herculaneum and Pompeii, for example. Remarkably, the guards simply stand there, and seem to do nothing but watch as objects are picked up and put into rucksacks. Sometimes objects are even broken off buildings and put into rucksacks, which is truly extraordinary.
  Shona McIsaac: In places such as Herculaneum, Pompeii and Villa Imperiale in Sicily, I saw people

  1231
  breaking bits off: they were not loose bits lying in the soil nearby; people were actually chipping away at the edge of mosaics.
  Michael Fabricant: That is a crime in every sense of the word. It is not only Europe that is affected. I am a keen walker and I have been to Inca sites in Peru, Mayan sites in Belize and the Yucatan peninsula, where there are no guards at all. It is worth noting, although it does not fall within the ambit of the Bill, that they have the problem not only of people breaking off objects for sale or for souvenirs, but of people clambering all over sites—I must confess that to some degree I, too, have committed that crime—and presumably damaging those objects of antiquity. That has to be wrong. Such objects tell us about our whole heritage. That is true not only of the nation of Britain, but of the nations that existed in the old Mayan and Inca civilisations. They, too, represent the heritage of our planet and the human race.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam raised an interesting point about shipwrecks. Time and again, we hear about objects that are retrieved from shipwrecks. Incidentally, huge sums of money are generated by people sponsoring those archaeological investigations into shipwrecks and selling the objects that are pulled out. That gives rise to the question of whether those objects were retrieved from shipwrecks in territorial waters or outside territorial waters on the high seas. The provenance of such objects is unknown. It is imperative that when the Bill passes through Committee—on the assumption that it will, as I hope, receive its Second Reading—it includes a clear definition to ensure that it covers even objects that are found on the high seas: otherwise, that would be a major lacuna.
  Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman may be comforted to know that work is being undertaken on that in relation to the UNESCO convention on the protection of underwater cultural heritage of 2001, so there is a multi-front push aimed at dealing with the problem. The hon. Gentleman is right that some situations at sea require specific international agreement.
  Michael Fabricant: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reassurance.
  I hope that the Bill will receive considerable support in the House, given that it is welcomed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and that it will protect not only the heritage of other nations, but that of our own. The Bill is rather like the previous Bill that we debated, which dealt with dog's mess and will help to control the activities of people who look after dogs, in that it will control the activities of people who go around with metal detectors—a perfectly reasonable activity—by ensuring that they do not knowingly, or unknowingly, because they simply cannot be bothered to find out about it, remove objects of archaeological interest. Let us never forget that those objects tell a story about our past, and by knowing about our past we can perhaps learn something about our future.
  2.2 pm
  Roger Casale: I want to make a few brief remarks to put on record my support for this important Bill. First, I congratulate the hon. Member
  1232
  for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on promoting it. In many ways, it is unique, because it will affect the work of three Departments—the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is represented in the Chamber today by the Minister.
  Those who think that looting and pilfering from archaeological and artistic sites is an activity that is engaged in by petty criminals on the margins need a wake-up call, and the Bill provides that. Such activities are increasingly linked to the world of organised international crime—not only drug trafficking, but terrorism. It is no surprise to learn that organisations such as the Taliban that show such disdain for human life have a similar disregard for our cultural heritage and are willing to trade in, and on, it.
  Of course, nobody wants to restrict the legitimate art trade. It is a great joy to be able to enjoy exhibits from other countries in our own country. I do not want to trespass too far into the debate about the British museum, which is so full of objects from abroad that some people—not me—refer to it as the British swag bag. We like to be able to enjoy those objects. I am sure that many hon. Members have had the opportunity of visiting the wonderful Aztec exhibition, but Mexico, traditionally, does not allow artistic objects out of the country.
  While we want opportunities to see artistic objects from abroad in our own country and there is also a legitimate art trade, we must clamp down on looting and the illicit trade in objects pilfered from artistic sites. We want to improve access to sites of our own cultural heritage, as well as stamping down on international terrorism and drug running, where there are so many financial links to the trade in illicit objects. We need the Bill.
  As has been said, many artistic objects from Italy are traded through London. Members of the all-party group on Italy, of which I am chairman, have been in touch with the Italian Government about that trade. The group supports the Bill and would be pleased to work with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam and the Government, if they support the measure, on strengthening bilateral co-operation to clamp down on the illicit trade in artistic objects from Italy.
  2.5 pm
  Mr. Mark Francois: It is a pleasure to speak on the Bill, which was so clearly presented by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). The Bill has supporters on both sides of the House, including the all-party group on archaeology, ably represented by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) who made a well-informed contribution to the debate—as did the promoter of the Bill.
  The Bill can trace its own cultural heritage back to the previous Parliament, when the then Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport conducted an inquiry into all aspects of the illicit trade in cultural property. The Committee's report, published in July 2000, recommended creating an offence of trading in certain categories of stolen or illegally excavated cultural property.
  The Committee's work was complemented by the establishment, in May 2000, by the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, of a ministerial

  1233
  advisory panel on the illicit trade in cultural objects, otherwise known as ITAP. As we have heard, the panel was chaired by an eminent barrister and, in December 2000, it recommended a similar criminal offence. ITAP defined the offence as to
  "dishonestly import, deal in, or be in possession of any cultural object, knowing or believing that the object was stolen, illegally excavated, or removed from any monument or wreck contrary to local law".
  Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend think that the locus of the Bill would cover icons stolen, or given away illegally, from the Soviet Union as its Government were collapsing and needed hard currency? Does he consider that the Bill could cover works of art stolen during the second world war, where there is no acknowledged owner but where the object originated in a state occupied by German forces?
  Mr. Francois: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I understand that the provisions will apply only to items stolen after the Bill comes into force; it would not be retrospective in the way that he suggests. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has recorded an important point to which the Standing Committee will doubtless return.
  We understand that, like us, the Government are broadly sympathetic to such a measure, but that constraints on parliamentary time have meant that it has not been possible to enact it. The Bill would remedy that.
  The Bill makes it an offence for a person or corporate body knowingly to acquire or dispose of, import or export a
  "tainted cultural object … of historical, architectural or archaeological interest".
  Such an object would be tainted, as defined in clause 2, if
  "it is removed from a building or structure of historical, architectural or archaeological interest where the object has at any time formed part of the building or structure, or … it is removed from a monument of such interest".
  That means that the Bill is wide in its geographical scope and in the type of situation for which it provides protection. Geographically, it applies to
  "the United Kingdom or elsewhere,"
  thus avoiding a prescriptive list of countries or specific jurisdictions that are to be covered by its conditions. The Bill would make it an offence to trade knowingly in tainted cultural objects from whichever country around the globe they happen to originate.
  The Bill also encompasses a variety of types of location for which it provides protection. It potentially covers theft from situations as diverse as ancient monuments, archaeological digs, iron age hill forts, maritime shipwrecks and military battlefields. As someone with a strong interest in military history, I am especially pleased to see the latter two categories covered. I happen to believe that naval shipwrecks and battlefields, as places that recall the ultimate sacrifice, are worthy of particular respect.
  I want to provide some practical examples of how the Bill might operate. During the second world war, my father, Reginald Francois, served for a time at Scapa
  1234
  Flow, the great natural harbour in the Orkneys, which was the principal base of the then home fleet of the Royal Navy. Shortly after the outbreak of hostilities, the battleship HMS Royal Oak was torpedoed by a German submarine. She still lies at the bottom of the harbour as a war grave. Moreover, in 1919, shortly after the conclusion of the first world war, a number of capital ships of the German high seas fleet were deliberately scuttled. They still lie on the sea bed at Scapa Flow. Official diving expeditions regularly visit those ships, as is right and proper. However, there are sometimes unofficial expeditions, when attempts are made to remove artefacts, some of which might ultimately come up for sale to less-than-scrupulous private collectors.
  I can give a land-based example from the heart of my constituency—Rayleigh castle, the oldest castle in Essex. On occasion, individuals have attempted to remove small items from what is left of that fortification. I am therefore pleased to welcome this measure this afternoon—both as the Opposition spokesman and as an hon. Member with constituency interests. The Bill will help to protect sites in my constituency.
  Importantly, the Bill does not seek to impose a restriction on the trade, import and export of cultural objects per se. To seek to create a much wider restriction would prove unworkable and, in any case, would be likely to fall foul of international law. The United Kingdom enjoys a specialised, yet very important, trade in legitimate cultural objects. That trade should not be put at risk by overly restrictive legislation. In that regard, the Bill requires a relatively high burden of proof. I think that it was deliberately designed to do so. In order to gain a conviction under this legislation, the police—or, in certain circumstances, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise—working with the Crown Prosecution Service, would need to prove that the accused knew or believed that the object was tainted and acted dishonestly in the acquisition, disposal, import or export of the object. It would therefore be difficult, for example, to convict a person who had purchased a tainted cultural object but had done so in all good faith that it had been acquired legitimately. Nevertheless, where such tests are met, the Bill—which carries a maximum prison sentence of seven years—would, we hope, have sufficient deterrent effect to reduce the number of incidents of such cultural crimes occurring in future. That sentence means that the measure is by no means toothless.
  The regulatory impact assessment relating to the Bill suggests that its provisions would not be overly burdensome. As the explanatory notes that have helpfully been prepared by officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport point out, the impact of this legislation on charities or voluntary organisations is likely to be minimal. The businesses primarily affected will be those operating in the areas of art, fine architecture and the antiquities trade—including dealers and auctioneers. However, importantly, the Bill should help to regulate that trade for legitimate businesses, thus providing protection for them to carry on their lawful business, while making it more difficult for unscrupulous and illegal traders to operate. That must be welcome.
  Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend accept, too, that legitimate businesses and traders in those objects

  1235
  always check their provenance and, therefore, because they would not knowingly trade in objects that come within ambit of the Bill, they will not be affected by it?
  Mr. Francois: That is exactly my understanding of how the Bill is designed to operate, and it must be good that it seeks to uphold the integrity of those who act within the law and to punish those who work outside it.
  Taking account of all those factors and in wanting to reiterate the important point that a number of my hon. Friends made about the Elgin marbles, I wish to say that, overall, this is a worthy and relatively non-contentious Bill. Her Majesty's Opposition are therefore pleased that the Bill is being given a proper Second Reading on the Floor of the House. Finally, as this represents my debut at the Dispatch Box, I am doubly glad to wish the Bill well as it passes towards its consideration in Committee.
  2.15 pm
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) on a very fine debut at the Dispatch Box. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on securing time for this important Bill and, indeed, on the manner in which he introduced it. I am also grateful to hon. Members for the fact that we have had a wide-ranging debate, in a relatively short time, on an absorbing subject that concerns so many across the political spectrum.
  I should like to draw the House's attention to the background to the Bill and to the Government's most recent statement on protecting and sustaining the historic environment. In "The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future", the Government express our commitment to protecting both the international heritage and the cultural legacy of this nation. Of particular concern to us in recent years is the well-documented rise in the international illicit traffic in art and antiquities. Apart from threatening the integrity and commercial stability of the United Kingdom's art market—a point made a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Rayleigh—that activity contributes, through plundering monuments and sites, to the wholesale destruction of the world's archaeological and architectural heritage.
  The increasing number of private culture consumers and the rise of culture tourism on a global scale have combined to open up new markets and stimulate demand. New technology has also revolutionised the means of detection and destruction. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) wanted to say more about that, and she certainly could have talked about the fact that the bulldozer, sticks of dynamite, power tools and metal detectors, which have been mentioned, have replaced the pick and the shovel—sometimes with disastrous results.
  Far from injecting hard currency into hard-pressed local economies, local people usually receive very little in return for destroying their own cultural heritage. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes listed places that are poor by any standard but have great cultural treasures that ought to benefit the people of those areas, and we must do everything that we can to help them.
  1236
  Asset-stripping that finite resource is, by definition, economically unsustainable. Not only are we concerned about the violent separation of major archaeological finds from their geographical and social context, but we are now more aware of the link between trafficking in antiquities and other illegal and, indeed, organised criminal activities—notably, of course, drug smuggling, money laundering and the corruption of impoverished bureaucracies overseas.
  Meanwhile, London, by virtue of its long-established commercial function, has become known as a centre of the global supply network in stolen and unlawfully removed cultural property. The pattern of movement and dispersal through a chain of dealers is a regular practice and details of provenance—as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) told us—can become lost in the process, and it is very important that we address that. Licit and illicit antiquities become hopelessly mixed, and looted artefacts acquire a patina of legitimacy, as dealers and auction houses can ultimately sell them without provenance.
  Despite the many positive steps in this country, particularly in London, towards self-regulation, it is widely acknowledged that many antiquities surface on the London market without any declared previous history or archaeological context. The British antiquities market depends for its continuing success on the standards and perceived integrity of its participants. Indeed, the auction houses and established galleries, have a strong business interest in the elimination of the illicit market. Dealers' associations affiliated to the British Art Market Federation maintain that their members have made considerable efforts in the past decade to distance themselves from such traffic, including, for example, by adopting voluntary codes of conduct under which participants undertake to the best of their ability not to import, export or transfer the ownership where they have "reasonable cause to believe" that an imported object has been stolen, illegally exported or illegally removed or excavated.
  In July 2000, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), conducted an inquiry and published a report, "Cultural Property: Return and Illicit Trade". The inquiry brought together the opinions of national Governments, archaeological bodies, the antiquities trade, journalists, cultural groups, police and other law enforcement agencies. The Government welcomed the Committee's recommendations on proactive measures to prevent the UK from being used as a haven for illicit traffic in cultural property. Following the recommendation to introduce a criminal offence of
  "dealing in cultural property in designated categories from designated countries which has been stolen or illicitly excavated in or illegally exported from those counties after the entry into force of the legislation, with a defence in law based on the exercise of due diligence as defined in that legislation",
  my Department appointed an expert advisory panel to review legislative and non-legislative options for action. The panel's membership, as we have heard, was drawn from the worlds of archaeology, museums and the art trade, and its report, published in December 2000, was a significant landmark in the development of public policy in this area, not least because it represented for

  1237
  the first time a consensus between all groups interested in the trade in cultural objects on practical measures to improve the current situation.
  The panel recommended that
  "to the extent it is not covered by existing criminal law, it be a criminal offence dishonestly to import, deal in, or be in possession of any cultural object, knowing or believing that the object was stolen, illegally excavated, or removed from any monument or wreck contrary to local law".
  The provisions in the Bill before the House have arisen as a result of that recommendation, which the Government accepted in "The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future". The Bill is not party political, but has arisen from a need in the heritage and trade sectors. The policy has Government support, but essentially it has been driven and informed, under the aegis of the Select Committee and the illicit trade advisory panel, by those who will be most affected by the measure.
  Mr. Francois: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way and for his kind remarks earlier. He is right that the Bill is not party political, but may I press him on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the Elgin marbles? As the legislation is not retrospective, will he confirm for the record that it will not in any way affect the status of the Elgin marbles, and that that remains the position of Her Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman means the Parthenon sculptures.
  Dr. Howells: I can confirm that the Parthenon sculptures, as my hon. Friend refers to them, would certainly not be covered by the legislation.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam stressed the importance of international co-operation. Certainly, the more co-operation and co-ordination that we can get, the easier the task will be and, hopefully, the fewer the number of prosecutions under the Bill when it comes into force.
  Among the other key recommendations of the ministerial advisory panel was accession to the 1970 UNESCO convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. The convention makes provision to secure the protection of the cultural heritage of the United Kingdom and other signatory countries. People should remember that the convention protects our cultural heritage as well as that of other countries. The convention is not retroactive; it is applicable only to cultural objects stolen or illicitly exported from one state party to another state party after the date of entry into force of the convention for both states concerned. The UNESCO convention has been adopted by 93 countries to date, including in recent months Albania and Rwanda. Such widespread adoption enhances its value as a means of protecting cultural heritage in the UK and other signatory countries.
  Mr. Dismore: On the subject of states, can my hon. Friend clarify the applicability of the Bill to the Crown?
  1238
  Many of the bodies that may be dealing in art objects may be Crown bodies in one form or another. Some of the museums, for example, may be Crown bodies.
  Dr. Howells: I do not know, but I shall try to find out for my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will have hours of play with that in Committee.
  In completing the formalities of acceptance on 31 October 2002, the UK Government sent out a powerful signal both to those who do so much damage to the world's cultural heritage and to the international community that the UK is serious about playing its full part in the international effort to stamp out the illicit trafficking in cultural objects.
  The need for a criminal offence is at the heart of the Bill. Action on the matter was considered too important to be left to the vagaries of private law, and a do-nothing option is not viable, nor is a mere amendment to the existing offences under the Theft Act 1968. Given the continued and continuing growth of the illicit traffic in cultural objects, experience shows that voluntary codes of due diligence are limited in their effect on the criminal element of the trade, which ignores them. The panel has advised, and the Government agree, that a pre-emptive measure such as the creation of a new criminal offence to counter the illicit traffic in unlawfully removed cultural objects is the best solution.
  It is worth remembering that until recently, the UK was branded as an internationally renowned centre of illicit trade in antiquities. It is true that for the previous 30 years or so, the UK stood on the sidelines of decisive international action against illicit traffic in art and antiquities. However, today the British art and antiquities market is operating in a very different climate. Since publication of the recommendations of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in 2000 and of the ministerial advisory panel in December of the same year, there has been dramatic progress on measures to combat the looting of archaeological sites and the unlawful trafficking in cultural property. The Government have recently become a state party to the UNESCO convention and are working to introduce a package of measures designed to strengthen their treaty obligations, central to which is the creation of a new criminal offence of dealing unlawfully in cultural objects.
  The Government acknowledge the wide-ranging support for the Bill across the House. That support cuts across party interests and across the often mutually exclusive worlds of archaeology and the antiquities trade. I am pleased to see that the Bill is endorsed by the all-party parliamentary archaeology group in its recent report on the current state of archaeology in the United Kingdom. Once again, let me say how pleased I am to offer the support of the Government for the measure. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Mr. Allan: With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this interesting debate and commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No.63 ( Committal of Bills).

  Needle Stick Injury Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  2.29 pm
  Laura Moffatt: I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.
  Mr. Eric Forth: It is unusual, is it not, for a Bill to have such a brief introduction, but I am sure—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order.
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 4 July 2003.

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    HOUSING (OVERCROWDING) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 20 June.

    HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (OFFENCES) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 20 June.

    GOVERNMENT POWERS (LIMITATIONS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 16 May.

    CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL, by Her Majesty's Command, acquainted the House, That Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, had consented to place Her Prerogative and Interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 13 June.

  Rural Development
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  2.31 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: It is always a pleasure to speak in an Adjournment debate, especially on a Friday afternoon, when the House is normally so full. I am also grateful for the opportunity to raise what I consider to be a particularly important matter not only for the Braintree district, but for rural areas throughout south-east England and probably further afield.
  The printed title of the debate is considerably wider than the matter that I wished to raise today. The original unabridged title was "The threat of speculative development in rural areas", which stemmed from events in my constituency and, in particular, the parish of Stisted. Stisted is situated a few miles from the town of Braintree, but it is an example of completely unaffected rural England. It is a small village that still retains a school, public house and church. In addition, there is a wide-ranging hinterland. The area is high-grade agricultural land interspersed with small woodland areas of oak and lime—the traditional woodland of eastern England, going back to prehistoric times.
  It is the local wish and belief that the area should remain in that condition and local people are much exercised about what has happened recently. A farmer in the Stisted parish sold an allotment of land in the region of 50 acres in size. I am told that he believed that he was selling it for the purpose of grazing horses, but the price paid was above that of agricultural land. Soon afterwards, other events came along, but it is worth recalling that the land itself is adjacent to a nature reserve and close to other woodland, and is served by narrow, country back roads.
  However, local people soon discovered that the modern age had intruded, as the sale of the land was being readvertised via the internet. It was being advertised not as one whole lot of 50 acres or so, but in small plots of up to one fifth of an acre. The internet parcels had divided the land into 236 individual plots and the asking price was between £3,000 and £6,000 a plot. It is estimated that the agricultural value of the land was £2,500 to £3,000 per acre. The interneted plot land value was about £25,000 per acre. Quite a tidy profit would be made if all the plots were sold. It is true that Gladwish, the company that offered the plots, did not pretend that the land had planning consent. The advertisement on the internet said specifically that the land was sold without planning consent and that the company's business and purpose was to sell agricultural and forestry land. However, it also said that agricultural land prices are lower than those for plots with planning consent, that land prices rise faster than house prices and that a solicitor was not necessary to complete the transaction. I do not think that I need to declare an interest at this point because that is a negative for solicitors, not a positive.
  Stisted was not the only site that was advertised on the internet. Gladwish advertised sites in Sussex, Norfolk, Surrey, Hertfordshire, Hampshire and Bedfordshire, and I understand that other companies trade in a similar

  1241
  way. Last month's Farmers Weekly ran an article on the problem in Norfolk and quoted a spokesman for Gladwish as saying:
  "It might be that one day some of these plots will get permission for development."
  The Eastern Daily Press, which serves an area of East Anglia slightly north of my division, reported that the Office of Fair Trading had ordered Gladwish to remove a statement from its website that said that it would be deemed "unethical" if people approached local planning departments about plots' planning potential before sales were completed. It also said that representatives of the company would meet prospective purchasers only if they turned up at the site with cash. I do not know whether the literal meaning of "cash"—pounds, shillings and pence, as it once was—applies, or whether cash may include credit cards. I suspect that the company requires a ready form of cash to allow completion there and then.
  A spokeswoman for the Council for the Protection of Rural England said that
  "barbed wire and fence posts are appearing in very scenic areas"
  of the Norfolk site. In Stisted, the fear is that the new plot holders will start to site caravans, huts and shelters on the land, that the land will be divided into small segments and that the area will assume the character of a shanty town.
  The scheme reminds me of the champagne auctions that were held in our county some 100 years ago. Such events were a Victorian version of what we are seeing now, although there are several differences. Land developers would go out to the darkest corners of rural Essex and buy large tracts of land at almost give-away prices. They advertised the land in London, hired trains to take Londoners to the station nearest to the land, and offered a plot of land and a glass of champagne for £5. The whole of eastern and southern Essex was covered with plots that were marked out on maps. Some of the plots grew into towns; Basildon was a plot-land town long before it was a new town. If one looks at maps of some large areas of country in Essex, they are marked with plots, roads, and even with sites for public houses and hotels. However, the grass still grows as it did 100 or so years ago.
  There is a fundamental difference between such auctions and the internet operation. The Londoners were brought down to see the land. They could make a judgment about whether to buy or not and they bought on the spot—with or without the benefit of champagne. However, it is believed that few people who buy land on the internet come to see it first. They buy it as a commodity.
  Local people from the parishes of Stisted, which is in my parliamentary division, and Greenstead Green gathered at Stisted village hall a few fortnights ago. Greenstead Green is in the division of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), which comes within a few yards of the site. Stisted village hall is not the Albert hall. Its dimensions are much smaller and when I entered it a little late because of another engagement, it was packed. It was standing room only; there were more than 200 people in the hall. When one considers that the combined population of
  1242
  the parishes of Greenstead Green and Stisted is no more than 900, one begins to understand the proportion of people who were exercised by what was to happen.
  The sale of agricultural land carries with it a general development order, which allows the owners of any part of the land to fence it, construct shelters in connection with animal husbandry and go a little further if they claim that it is to be forestry land. People who bring a sheep on to their plot can construct a shelter for the sheep or themselves. The entire 50 acres could easily become a mosaic of caravans, camper vans and sheds in connection with pseudo-smallholder activities.
  There was some concern at the public meeting about the speed with which Braintree district council could move. Everybody acknowledges that it moved with exemplary speed. In days, it laid an article 4 direction. I was not too familiar with that before the problem arose. However, once laid and approved by the Secretary of State, it prohibits any form of development on the land, including fencing and constructing shelters.
  The direction has two parts. First, it prohibits the erection of fences, walls and temporary buildings without planning consent. That prevents the other feature of the modern age, the car boot sale. There is no 28-day provision for such use once an article 4 direction has been laid. Secondly, it prevents the use of the land as a campsite either for caravans or tents.
  My praise does not extend only to Braintree district council. The Secretary of State, operating through the Government office for the eastern region and the appropriately named Mr. Speed, approved the order in seven days. Consequently, the residents of Stisted and Greensted Green feel that they have the best protection that the law can currently provide.
  There is a problem that, once the plot holders realise that the land cannot be used for make-believe farming or forestry, it will become neglected and become a parcel of thistles, ragwort and other weeds, which can damage not only that land but neighbouring land and preserved and managed woodlands. The Weeds Act 1959 gives local authorities the right to take action if a landholder fails to deal with weeds, especially those that I mentioned. There is an obvious anxiety that the Act is not frequently invoked and that it may be expensive for local authorities to pursue up to 200 plot holders in connection with thistles and ragwort that are spreading beyond the land. Nevertheless, local action has halted the initial danger.
  I bring the matter before the House for two reasons. First, I want to convey as loudly as possible a warning to those who skim the internet against buying plots of land unseen, without legal advice and local authority search. For the companies involved, the scheme has been a modern version of the south sea bubble. Large sums of money can appear to be made, but they can also be lost. Gladwish does not appear from its internet site to be losing money. I am not a frequent user of the internet, someone has to gain access to it for me so that I can see what it is. However, I have read that Gladwish boasts and brags that its sales rose from £92,000 in 1995 to almost £5 million last year. So it is not losing any money. Indeed, it makes a point of saying that it is continuing to make money.
  For the Government to help as much as they can, they must alert local authorities as to the steps that need to be taken quickly to protect land when this problem arises.

  1243
  These days, we have kits and packs for everything. A kit or pack might well need to be made available to local authorities by the Government, showing them exactly the circumstances in which an article 4 directive can be made, and how the process to make it takes place. Such information used to be contained in a Government circular, but these days perhaps it needs to be more detailed than that, and more readily available.
  In conclusion, unless the problem of internet sales is dealt with, the whole structure of town and country planning—particularly country planning—will become a shambles, just as those sites will do if they are left unchecked.
  2.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on securing a debate on such an important issue. As he has said, its import travels far beyond the boundaries of his own division. It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend because, when I made my first dithering contribution to the House—that is, my maiden speech—he followed me. So, seeing him on his feet will always bring back memories of a mixture of heady, happy and very scary moments for me.
  It would be useful if I put this matter into the broader context of planning in the south-east. My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that part of the Braintree district is in the London-Stansted-Cambridge growth area. That area has been experiencing strong job growth, and household formation has been growing at a faster rate than the housing stock. It will initially be for the regional planning body to prepare a sustainable development strategy for the growth area, and to consider whether the exceptional circumstances exist to justify a review of the green belt. If that is the case, draft regional planning guidance 14 should broadly indicate where local development frameworks should review green belt boundaries.
  However, the fact that land is located in the south-east, in areas such as Braintree, does not mean that it should be developed. We have made it clear that, in deciding which sites to allocate for housing, local planning authorities should assess their potential and suitability for development against a range of criteria which includes: the availability of previously developed sites; the location and accessibility of sites to jobs, shops and services by modes other than the car; the capacity of existing infrastructure, including public transport, water and sewerage, to take the additional development; other utilities and social infrastructure; the ability to build communities; and the physical and environmental constraints on the development of land.
  Of course, in a plan-led system, the need for up-to-date development plans is in everyone's interest. The Braintree local plan was adopted in 1995, and makes provision for development up to 2001. The first draft of the replacement plan was deposited in January 2001, and a revised deposit is due in the near future. This is not ideal, but I should point out that it is not a reflection on Braintree district council; in part, it is a reflection on the system that the planning legislation currently before the House intends to change.
  It is important to put the matter into context, because that leads me to what I want to say about speculative developments. Despite our clear plan to build
  1244
  sustainable communities for the future, there will almost inevitably be some who wish to misinterpret our intentions. I have to say strongly, however, let them be warned. It is a mistake for developers and property companies to think that the need for housing in the south-east can be used to undermine long-standing policies for the protection of the countryside and the green belt. To put it quite simply and starkly, it cannot.
  We have repeatedly made it clear that we will protect our countryside and take action to make the best use of land, especially previously developed land. For example, following the Government's revision of policy planning guidance note 3 on housing in 2000, developers must take account of the 22,000 hectares of developable brownfield land in London, the south-east and east before touching green fields. That in turn will help to focus development in towns and cities, rather than leapfrogging the green belt into other areas.
  We have also made it clear that it will be essential for all development, especially new housing developments, to respect the principles of sustainable development and address potential impacts on the environment alongside social and economic goals. In that way, we can ensure that in tackling housing shortages we protect the countryside and enhance its quality rather than create unnecessary urban sprawl. However, we must also address the housing needs of rural communities, which are often the guardians of the countryside.
  To reinforce the point, we have said in the communities plan that we will maintain the target that 60 per cent. of additional homes should be built on previously developed land. We will also ensure that every local authority has undertaken an urban capacity study, as set out in PPG3, to identify the full potential for using previously developed land and conversions. We will protect the countryside through a target for each region to maintain at the very least, or indeed to increase, the area of land designated as green belt in local plans. We will use green belt and countryside protection tools to maintain the openness of the countryside around areas of growth and to prevent urban sprawl.
  Wasteful use of land will, therefore, be prevented by ensuring that land is not used in a profligate way and that development extends into the countryside only where other sustainability considerations make that the best option.
  Turning to the specific issue that has caused so much concern for my hon. Friend and his constituents, I should explain that permitted development rights, granted by Parliament, are removed only in exceptional circumstances, and only when a real and specific threat to the interests of the proper planning of an area has been demonstrated. To do otherwise would undermine the rights granted to the public to undertake minor works, and certain temporary uses, without the need for planning permission.
  However, when it is shown that such a threat exists, we appreciate that prompt action is required, by both local government and central Government, to ensure that, in appropriate instances, permitted development rights are removed before uncontrolled and potentially harmful development takes place. Moreover, as announced in the planning statement "Sustainable Communities—Delivering Through Planning", we are

  1245
  reviewing permitted development rights to see whether they are appropriate. A research report is due in early summer. Of course, I am unable to comment on its findings until we have seen its recommendations, but I will ensure that the concerns raised by my hon. Friend are put into the review process.
  In the meantime, the situation at Stisted is an example of our commitment to protect the amenities and appearance of the countryside. On 24 March, Braintree district council made the article 4 directions in respect of the Stisted site. As my hon. Friend said, the council then submitted the directions to the Government office for the east of England on 26 March. They were approved within two days of receipt. That shows, beyond doubt, that we will support the removal of permitted development rights where clear and compelling reasons have been provided. Fencing land into individual plots for sale to gullible people, apparently as an opportunity for housing development, will not be the easy ride that some speculators erroneously believe it to be.
  My hon. Friend will be comforted by the fact that we have also confirmed article 4 directions at other locations in Essex, and elsewhere in the east of England. Sadly, the story of Stisted is familiar: property speculators sub-dividing land and selling plots as "investment opportunities". In all instances, the local planning authorities have produced clear and compelling evidence that the uncontrolled exercise of permitted development rights would harm interests of acknowledged importance. We have shared their view that numerous fences and assorted temporary buildings and structures, erected without proper planning control, do not necessarily reflect the character and appearance of unspoilt areas.
  My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that, in the past year alone, for example, we have confirmed 16 directions relating to the sub-division of land in the east of England. Five, including those at Stisted, are in Essex, of which three are in the green belt. In nearby Hertfordshire, eight directions have been approved, seven of which are in the green belt. Two directions have been approved in Suffolk, and one in Norfolk. I trust that my hon. Friend agrees that that shows our commitment to support local councils in their fight to protect the countryside.
  All those directions allow local councils to require that planning permission has to be obtained for what was previously "permitted development". In that way, development that may have adverse effects on the character of the countryside can be brought within full planning control. I should, of course, point out that the
  1246
  effect of the directions is not to prevent development outright. That is not the purpose for which they are intended.
  As I said, the developer would still be able to seek planning permission, but firmly within the bounds of the planning and development control framework. Such directions enable the council to have control over the situation, and to decide any application in the light of the development plan and any other material considerations, such as relevant planning policy guidance. The process also allows local residents to make representations on any application for planning permission that may subsequently be made, which they clearly could not do under a regime of permitted development rights.
  That applies in the case of Stisted. Braintree district council can take the views of local people into account when reaching a decision on any subsequent planning application. We have no doubt that that will provide a satisfactory and robust mechanism for the proper planning of the area to take place.
  I fully appreciate the point that my hon. Friend made about neglect and disrepair should people have already bought land that they can no longer do anything with, and I shall put that into the pot with the wider review of permitted development rights.
  Make no mistake, the Government remain committed to the principle of greenbelts and their role as an effective planning tool in shaping sustainable development patterns. The Government are about delivering sustainable solutions to meet the clear and pressing need for housing that everyone recognises. However, we remain committed to the protection of the countryside against inappropriate development. When a real and specific threat has been shown to exist, even from permitted development, we will act quickly to support local planning authorities in their responsibilities for the proper planning of their area, as has been the case in Stisted. In that way, we will protect the countryside for the benefit of all. Moreover, we are committed to maintaining or increasing the area of greenbelt in each region.
  I thank my hon. Friend once again for raising such a crucial matter. It is clearly important to him and his constituents. It is equally important to everyone as we go through a period of growth in London, the south-east and the east. My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not allude to the south sea bubble, but I hope that future champagne parties in Stisted are to celebrate my hon. Friend's hard work on behalf of his constituents, and are not an historical throwback to the last century and the selling off of land.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o 'clock.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Exhibitions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list events at which his Department has exhibited in each of the last three years, stating for each(a) the purpose of exhibiting, (b) the cost of exhibiting and (c) the number of staff attending for the exhibition. [107614]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Privy Council Office has not exhibited at any event in the last three years.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what the estimated level of saving to the Department is from the use of market testing in 2002–03. [107774]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Privy Council Office has not used market testing in 2002–03.

  Members' Pension Scheme
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on the basis on which the additional subventions from public funds are being made to the hon. Members' pension scheme; what discussions he has had with hon. Members who are members of the Pension Fund on the subject of additional public funding; and what alternatives to additional public funds were discussed on how to meet the shortfall in hon. Members' pension scheme. [107373]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My statement to the House on 24 March 2003,Official Report, column 2WS, explained that the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1987

  BASE Estimate 60y

  BASE Estimate 60y

  Levy @ airport (IRR)

  Levy@ all airports (IRR)

  RPI + x% @ airport (IRR)

  RPI + x% @ all airport (IRR)

  Package

  Airport

  Runway

  NPV

  IRR

  £2

  £4

  £1

  £2

  1%

  2%

  0.5%

  1%

  5B

  LHR

  1st

  111

  13.3

  15.8

  18.4

  15.4

  17.6

  15.8

  18.2

  15.1

  16.8

  6

  LGW

  1st

  -392

  6.1

  9.1

  11.8

  25.1

  32.1

  9.2

  11.5

  22.4

  25.2

  7

  STN

  1st

  -873

  5.8

  7.5

  9.0

  14.1

  16.8

  7.8

  9.5

  13.7

  15.7

  CO2 Emissions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the annual CO2 emissions from the transport sector were in each year since 1990; and what plans he has in place to reduce these. [107234]

  Mr. Spellar
  Annual carbon dioxide (CO2) and other emissions from the transport sector are published each year in the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, which is available at www.naei.org.uk, and in Transport Statistics Great Britain, which is available via my Department's website at www.dft.gov.uk. Ratified data
  876W
  requires the Government Actuary to value the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund at three-yearly intervals and to make recommendations as to the amount of the Exchequer contribution. The Act further requires the Government to implement the Government Actuary's recommendations with effect from the following financial year.

  The Senior Salaries Review Body will no doubt consider the balance of funding of the pension scheme, as between Exchequer and members, in its next review of parliamentary remuneration.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the President of the Council what policy on(a) core hours and (b) flexible working hours is operated by his Department. [107654]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Where operationally appropriate, staff in the Privy Council Office may take advantage of flexible working hours. The flexible working day is between 7.30 and 18.30, for which core times are from 10.00 to 12.00 and from 14.00 to 16.00. A half-hour break should be taken between 12.00 and 14.00. Staff may build up excess hours of up to a day and half and work with a deficit of up to one day within any four-week 'flexi-time' accounting period. Flexi-leave to use up excess hours requires line management approval and is agreed where operationally possible.

TRANSPORT

  Airport Development (South-East)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish revised projections for the Internal Rate of Return for the Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted options presented in Table 14.11 of SERAS Stage Two Appraisal Findings report, taking account of the new maximum airport landing charges recommended by the CAA. [106216]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 April 2003]: The calculations, taking account of the new maximum airport charges for the period 2003–04 to 2007–08, are as follows:

  is available up to the year 2000. CO2 emissions from the transport sector since 1990 are set out in the following table (all figures are given as megatonnes of carbon equivalents).

  Road transport

  Other transport

  Total

  1990

  29.7

  4.9

  34.6

  1991

  29.5

  4.8

  34.3

  1992

  29.9

  4.7

  34.6

  1993

  30.3

  4.7

  35.0

  1994

  30.4

  4.5

  34.9

  1995

  30.1

  4.4

  34.5

  877W

  Road transport

  Other transport

  Total

  1996

  31.3

  4.5

  35.8

  1997

  31.7

  4.3

  36.0

  1998

  31.5

  4.1

  35.6

  1999

  31.7

  3.9

  35.6

  2000

  31.5

  3.8

  35.3

  Note:

  Figures given in this table are emissions "by source" and do not include emissions from the production of transport fuels and electricity. "Other transport" includes railways, domestic aviation and military aircraft, shipping, naval vessels and off-road sources. For further details, please see the explanatory notes in the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory and in Transport Statistics Great Britain.

  The Government have taken a number of steps in recent years to reduce total carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector. Precise measures in place to reduce these emissions vary between different modes of transport. But in each case they essentially comprise some or all the following:
  adopting more stringent technical standards to limit the emissions at source
  supporting research and development to develop cleaner technology
  applying economic instruments to encourage the cleanest use of existing technology and/or the purchase and use of new, cleaner technology.

  On the road transport side, the Powering Future Vehicles Strategy, published in July 2002, sets out our plans for supporting the shift to low carbon vehicles and fuels, and sets ambitious targets for future sales of low-carbon vehicles. The Energy White Paper, published in February 2003, complements this Strategy and explains the further steps the Government are taking to improve the carbon efficiency of transport. Key measures include:
  the graduated vehicle excise duty and company car tax systems, introduced in 2001 and 2002 respectively, which reward those who choose the most carbon-efficient vehicles;
  fiscal incentives and other grants for low-carbon vehicles and fuels (including biofuels, which can deliver significant lifecycle carbon savings);
  the setting up of a Low Carbon Vehicles Partnership bringing together key stakeholders from the automotive, energy and other sectors to help bring about a shift to low carbon vehicles and fuels;
  working with the European Commission to develop further voluntary agreements with automotive manufacturers to deliver further reductions in new car CO2 emissions.

  London Underground
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects London Underground to be transferred to Transport for London. [107265]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 1 April 2003,Official Report, column 610W, to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).

  Trains
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his forecast date is for replacement of the last operational slam door train on British Railways. [93606]
  878W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Rail Authority is leading an industry wide Mark 1 replacement Programme to ensure that all Mark 1 rolling stock is removed from the Network by 31 December 2004 as required in the 1999 Rail Safety Regulation. Because of the failure of Railtrack to ensure an adequate power supply for the South London Network, it has become clear that it may be necessary to provide for around 300–350 vehicles to operate on the network after December 2004. The SRA hopes these vehicles will be removed from the network in spring 2005.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of state for Defence what the(a) mandate, (b) range of duties and (c) composition is of the existing Joint Regional Teams in Afghanistan. [106679]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 2 April 2003]: Provincial Reconstruction Teams (as Joint Regional Teams are now called) are deployed with the agreement of the Afghan Transitional Administration. Their role is to assist in extending the Transitional Administration's authority, help to develop a stable and secure environment in the Afghan regions and facilitate security sector reform and reconstruction. The teams deployed so far are led by the US and include both military and civilian personnel.

  Container Incident
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was in the Levins containers found in the former First World War training area near Saltdene; what happened to this material; and what representations were received from the Health and Safety Executive about the disposal of this material. [106785]

  Dr. Moonie
  Four Levins containers were recovered to Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) Porton Down from the Brighton area in October 1993. It is believed that these are the items to which my hon. Friend is referring.

  The containers were opened at Porton Down in 1994 in accordance with normal procedures and were found to contain sand and water.

  No representations were received by DSTL Porton Down from the Health and Safety Executive concerning the disposal of these containers.

  Departmental Invoices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions on which(a) his Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2001–02. [104318]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Bills Agency is a shared service centre for the Ministry of Defence accounts payable and debt management function, paying the bulk (4.5 million per annum) of the Department's bills.
  879W
  In financial year 2001–02, the agency had a Key Target to pay 99.5 per cent. of correctly presented bills within 11 calendar days, as a response to the overall Government target of 30 days. Actual performance against the target was 99.9 per cent.

  Information on the occasions where we failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Depleted Uranium
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to review the use by British forces of depleted uranium ammunition in the light of its environmental impact in Bosnia-Herzegovina; [107139]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the findings of the UN Environment Programme's report on depleted uranium in Bosnia and Herzegovina. [107138]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have no current plans to review the use of depleted uranium (DU) ammunition by British Forces.

  United Nations Environment Programme environmental assessment of Bosnia-Herzogovina concluded that the recorded contamination levels are very low and do not present immediate radioactive or toxic risks for the environment or human health. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 2 April 2003, Official Report, columns 735–36W, to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn).

  Gulf War (Compensation)
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether(a) civilian support staff and (b) military personnel are required to prove that injuries or illnesses are Gulf war related before they are entitled to compensation from the Government. [105954]

  Dr. Moonie
  Claims for common law compensation made against the Ministry of Defence by anyone are considered on the basis of whether or not the Ministry of Defence has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a legal liability to pay compensation we do so.

  No-fault compensation for Service personnel disabled as a result of their Service is provided in the form of the War Pensions Scheme. A war disablement pension can be paid for any disablement provided a causal link to Service is accepted.

  As at 31 December 2002, 2,364 Gulf veterans were in receipt of a war disablement pension (this figure includes awards for both Gulf and non-Gulf related illness).

  HMS Sheffield
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1), what guarantee there is in the sale document that HMS Sheffield will never be owned by the Argentinian Government; [105434]

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) the Argentinian Government and (b) the Chilean Government about the sale of HMS Sheffield; [105433]

  (3) what plans he has to sell HMS Sheffield. [105432]
  880W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 28 March 2003]In common with all Government-to-Government sales of surplus United Kingdom defence equipment, the sales documentation for HMS Sheffield contains an undertaking by the buying Government that they will obtain prior formal consent of the Ministry of Defence to the transfer of possession of the ship or its equipments to any third party. Additionally the Government that buys HMS Sheffield from the United Kingdom will be required to apply for an Export Licence from the Department of Trade and Industry, which will involve submission of an end user certificate.

  The subject of the sale of HMS Sheffield has been discussed during contacts between United Kingdom and Chilean Defence Ministers on issues of mutual interest since the declaration of the ship for disposal. The subject has not been raised in similar bilateral meetings with the Argentinean Government.

  Negotiations over the sale of HMS Sheffield for future use to an acceptable overseas government are in their final stages.

  Iraq
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether UK forces will seek to deliver humanitarian relief in disputed territory in Iraq. [106844]

  Mr. Ingram
  Until the security situation in Iraq stabilises enough for civilian aid agencies to deploy fully, United Kingdom forces will continue to deliver humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq where it is needed and where they are able to do so. However, we cannot deliver that assistance if doing so poses unacceptable risks to British soldiers. By disguising his militia as civilians, Saddam Hussein is disrupting the provision of aid. This is entirely consistent with the disregard he has always shown towards his own people.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what responsibilities under the Geneva Convention coalition forces have to deliver humanitarian relief in disputed territory in Iraq. [106846]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and will comply fully with its obligations under that Convention. The application of the provisions of that Convention depends on the progress of the conflict and may differ across the country. The provision of humanitarian assistance by United Kingdom forces has already begun in towns in southern Iraq where the situation has stabilised enough to make this possible. That effort will continue until civilian aid agencies can deploy fully.

  In other areas where United Kingdom troops are present, we are monitoring the humanitarian situation and stand ready to provide whatever assistance is required once local elements of the regime collapse and a secure environment is established.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to parachute aid into urban areas meeting fierce resistance in the Iraqi conflict. [107123]

  Mr. Ingram
  We currently have no such plans.
  881W
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions have been given to the Royal Mail regarding parcels and mail to the armed forces involved in action in Iraq. [107142]

  Mr. Ingram
  Advice given to Royal Mail Group on the subject of mail to personnel deployed in the Gulf is as follows:A surface parcels service is not available, and parcels should not be accepted.
  Airmail letters and packets up to two kilograms in weight should be charged at the BFPO European rate, which equates to first class inland postal charges.
  Forces Free Air Letters ("blueys") are available free of charge.
  The BFPO numbers applicable to deployed forces and HM Ships have been specified.

  I refer my hon. Friend also to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 2 April 2003, Official Report, column 912, to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams).

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his oral answers to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) on 31 March 2003,Official Report, columns 651 and 660, if he will make a further statement on his Department's policy on postal services to Her Majesty's forces in the Gulf.[107380]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 2 April 2003,Official Report, column 912, to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams).

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the potential environmental impact of the use of depleted uranium ammunition in the current operations against Iraq. [107140]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is not possible to carry out environmental impact studies in Iraq at the present time. However, we accept the Royal Society's assessment of the potential effects of depleted uranium (DU) on the environment, as detailed in the two reports on "The Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium Munitions" (2001, 2002).

  DU particulate remains highly localised to the points of impact where DU munitions have struck hard targets: only in these small areas would DU levels be significant enough to necessitate precautions to prevent or reduce possible intakes. This view is supported by the United Nations Environment Programme as well as the Royal Society's DU Working Group.

  The Royal Society's report on "The Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium Munitions" Part II states that
  "Modelling of the amounts of DU re-suspended from soil in the years following a conflict indicates that the estimated inhalation intakes will not lead to any increase in the incidence of lung cancer or any other cancers among children or adults. Nor are they likely to lead to any significant effects on kidney function."

  Land Sales
  Sue Doughty: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's sites in the South
  882W
  East of England that (a) have been sold to developers in the last six years and (b) are available for sale to developers. [105748]
  Dr. Moonie
  The following lists provide details of those properties that have been sold to developers in the last six years in the South East of England and properties that are or will be available to developers.

  Properties sold by the ministry of defence in the last six years to developers

  Kent

  RAF Manston

  Territorial Army Volunteers Reserves Association HQ, Maidstone

  Old Park Barracks, Dover

  Deal Barracks

  Army Careers Information Office, Roper Road, Canterbury

  Army Careers Information Office, Dover

  Land at Richmond Close, Upnor

  Barrier House, Chatcham

  Sussex

  TAC, Denne Road, Horsham

  81, Bexhill Road, St. Leonards-on-sea

  Territorial Army Centre Preston Barracks, Brighton

  Greater London

  Part of Woolwich Arsenal West

  Land to North of Aerodrome Road, Hendon

  RAF Hendon

  RAF Hendon East Camp

  Kenley aerodrome

  Stanmore Park

  Royal Army Medical College, Millbank

  Master Gunner Place, Woolwich

  I Artillery Place, Woolwich

  Rushgrove Street, Woolwich

  Territorial Army Centre Harrow

  TAC Heston

  TAC Finchley

  TAC East Ham

  TAC Cobham

  TAC Slough

  Surrey

  Former army firestation, Deepcut.

  Land at Broadoaks Crescent, Byfleet

  Land at Broadoaks, Byfleet

  Land at Woodbridge, Guildford

  Land at Gordon Road, Camberley

  QE Barracks, Guildford

  TA Centre, Sandfield Terrace, Guildford

  Land at Tolworth

  Land at TAC Batts Hill, Redhill

  Hampshire

  Royal Pavillion, Aldershot

  Ordnance Stores Centre Weyhill, Andover

  The Bungalow, Fleet Road, Aldershot

  Land at Coopers Lane, Bramley

  Land at Gun Hill Road and Middle Hill, Aldershot

  883W

  Land at Lasham Airfield

  Land at Martin Lines, Beacon Hill Road, Church Crookham

  Pumphouse triangle, Bordon

  Area K, Bordon

  Anglesey House, Aldershot

  Guillemont Square, Minley

  TAC Redan Road, Aldershot

  TAC Carlton Road, Southampton

  Ordnance Stores Unit Liphook

  Queen Elizabeth Barracks, Church Crookham

  Land at St. Christopher's Road, Cove

  Farnborough Aerodrome

  Cambridge House Gosport

  Land at Defence Munitions Gosport

  SCU Leyden Petersfield

  Eastney Furniture Store

  St. Georges Barracks South

  Stubbington WT Station

  Gunwharf Portsmouth

  Series House Winchester

  Fintington South

  Fintington North—QinetiQ

  Portsdown WOTS—QinetiQ

  Alverstoke—QinetiQ

  Part of Fraser Range—QinetiQ

  Part of Hilsea Sportsfield

  Land at USSG—Portsea

  Land at Ferry Road Eastney

  Property at HM Naval Base—U Thorneycroft

  Land at Felicia Park Gosport

  Sub Station Site at Eastney

  House at 2 Redan

  House at 12 Redan

  Land at Stamshaw

  Land at Matapan Road

  Land at Tipton Lane Gosport

  Land at Northway Road, Hilsea

  House at 18 Jellicoe Avenue, Gosport

  House at 4 Redan Gosport

  House at 1 Admiralty Cottages Gosport

  Part of Fraser Range East

  Plots at Jarvrin

  Prater Industrial Land Gosport

  Portsdown OFP Land

  Peewit Island Gosport

  Land at Marchwood

  RMA Eastney

  Dean House

  Plot at Dean House

  RNUD Botley

  Brunei House Portsmouth

  Rowner Filling Station Gosport

  Oil Fuel Depot Rowfant

  Gas Governor Site—Chichester

  Land at Manor Way—Leigh-on-Solent

  29 Fort Road—Alverstoke

  Priddys Hard Gosport

  MQs Rowner Gosport

  884W
  Berkshire

  Land at Sidestrand Road, Newbury.

  Greenham Common

  Land at Ditton Park, Datchet

  Land at Poperinghe Barracks, Arborfield

  Land at Boundary Hall, Aldermaston

  Storage Depot, Station Road, Thatcham

  Buckinghamshire

  Land at Medmenham

  Land at RAF Medmenham

  TAC Wooburn

  TAC High Wycombe

  Oxfordshire

  Leafield Comms centre

  Land to North of RAF Benson

  Beckett Cottage, Shrivenham

  Defence Clothing and Textile Agency, Didcot

  Properties to be sold by MOD to developers

  Kent

  Land at Whitewall Creek, Frindsbury

  Land at TAC Faversham

  Sussex

  Drill Hall, TAC Bexhill Road, St. Leonards-on-Sea

  TAC Hawkhurst

  Greater London

  Canteen Site, DGIA, Feltham

  Officers' Mess, DGIA, Feltham

  Land at RAF West Drayton

  Land at TAC Dulwich

  Surrey

  Building 76/77, Deepcut Bridge Road, Deepcut

  Longcross Barracks, Chertsey

  Hampshire

  Cambridge Military Hospital, Aldershot

  Land falling out of Project Connaught (details unknown until preferred bidder announced)

  Queensgate site, Farnborough

  Civil Enclave, Farnborough

  RE Lines and St. Lucia Lodge, Bordon

  Land at Vine Close, Aldershot

  Fort Southwick Gosport

  Rowner Footbridge Gosport

  Land at Marchwood

  Tipnor FPU

  Berkshire

  Staff College, Bracknell

  Buckinghamshire

  Land at ACF/ATC Marlow

  Halton Hospital

  Land at TAC Aylesbury

  Oxfordshire

  Families Club, Ambrosden

  Vauxhall Barracks, Didcot

  RAF Bicester

  Medical Records
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will write to the hon. Member for
  885W
  Portsmouth, South regarding his answer of 7 November 2002, Official Report, column 454W, concerning service personnel medical records. [84151]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have written today.

  Operation Resonate North
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the status is of Operation Resonate North; and if he will make a statement. [107121]

  Mr. Ingram
  In view of the ongoing air operations against Iraq, patrols in the No Fly Zones are now redundant. This does not mean that we have in any way reduced our humanitarian concerns for the Iraqi people. Our servicemen and women have daily risked their lives enhancing the security of the civilian population for over a decade, and we will continue to demonstrate that commitment.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who paid for the services of(a) his Department's police and (b) Home Office police at the demonstration at RAF Menwith Hill on 22 March; how many from each were deployed; and if he will make a statement. [107232]

  Mr. Ingram
  136 additional Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) officers were deployed at RAF Menwith Hill over the 24 hour period, 22 March 2003. The cost of routine MDP services at RAF Menwith Hill is borne by the United States Government. Additional MDP costs occasioned by demonstrator activity is borne by the Ministry of Defence. The funding arrangement and numbers of Home Department Police deployed at RAF Menwith Hill on 22 March 2003, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made to enable servicemen and women from the Gulf to(a) telephone and (b) e-mail home; and what the costs are to the service personnel. [105643]

  Mr. Ingram
  Personnel are allowed 20 minutes telephone time per week and open access to e-mail. Both are free of charge. These arrangements have been in place for some time for personnel deployed in support of Operations Resinate and Oracle. For those deployed in support of Operation Telic, we continue to build up all aspects of the Operational Welfare Package as quickly as possible. For the duration of the combat phase, operational security considerations will govern the availability of both telephones and e-mail facilities to troops in a combat role. Any troops unable to use their allowance for operational security reasons will be able to accumulate their allowance for use at a later stage in the operation.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal By-products
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will issue technical guidance on the use of on-farm incinerators for the purposes of complying with the EU Animal by-products regulation. [107215]

  Mr. Morley
  Interim guidance is already available on the DEFRA website. Full guidance will be sent with a letter to all livestock farmers about disposal of fallen stock under the EU Animal by-products regulation shortly.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the level of change in farm incomes between 2001 and 2002. [106383]

  Mr. Morley
  Total income from farming in the UK in 2002 is estimated to be £2.36 billion which is 15 per cent. (14 per cent. in real terms) higher than its 2001 level. Total income from farming is income generated by production within the agriculture industry, including subsidies, and represents business profits plus remuneration for work done by owners and other unpaid workers. Total income from farming per full time person equivalent rose by 19 per cent. (18 per cent. in real terms) to £11,107.

  Although having risen in each of the last two years, total income from farming is still 62 per cent. below its peak in 1995 (after more than doubling between 1990 and 1995). The long term trend in income has been downwards although it rose and fell dramatically in the nineties due to changes in exchange rates, world commodity prices and the impact of BSE.

  More detailed information on farm incomes can be found in a Statistics News Release titled Provisional estimates of farm incomes in the United Kingdom' published on 30 January 2003 (amended 31 January 2003), which can be found onthe Defra website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/esq/work_htm/Notices/account.pdf, and in the publications Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2002 and Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom, which may be found on the Defra website at http://www.defra.qov.Uk/esq/m publications.htm.

  Food Chain (Terrorist Threat)
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken in the last five years to develop a network of laboratories for the(a) detection, (b) identification, (c) diagnosis and (d) research into (i) biological agents and (ii) technology to counter terrorist action to British (a) farms and (b) food supplies. [105072]

  Mr. Morley
  Terrorism is a scenario we do consider seriously. DEFRA has for many years had in place emergency planning and contingency planning for dealing with threats to food supplies and agriculture. Such threats come not only from terrorism or a deliberate action; they can be part of nature.
  887W
  As part of normal business the department does carry out research against potential contamination of public water supplies and research in areas such as exotic animal disease detection, diagnosis and control.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) training and (b) technical advice has been provided by her Department to officers of Customs and Excise who are due to take over responsibility for anti-smuggling controls on illegal imports of meat from 11 April. [106107]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]: Defra is working with Port Health Authorities and HM Customs and Excise to ensure Customs have the resources and knowledge to fulfil their new role. Detailed tables of products, countries and allowances have been prepared by Defra for use by Customs officers working in passenger terminals, postal depots and with cargo. Defra has provided guidance to Local and Port Health Authorities on Customs' new role and is contributing to HM Customs guidance to their officers. Defra has, since last autumn, paid for additional staff to carry out checks on illegal meat and plant imports at major ports and airports. These staff will be retained for an interim period from 11 to 30 April to give technical support to Customs officers on their new responsibilities.

  Light Pollution
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures the Government are taking to combat light pollution in urban areas. [106610]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have issued "Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice", and guidance on good street lighting practice to encourage the use of lighting types which prevent or minimise unwanted upward illumination.

  Food Supplies
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of food purchased by the(a) MOD, (b) NHS and (c) DFES was locally sourced in the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [103348]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]: Defra is leading an initiative designed to encourage key public sector bodies to procure their food and catering services in a manner that promotes sustainable development and does not discriminate against local and UK suppliers. However, we do not hold information on the proportion of food purchased by the MOD, NHS and DfES from local sources. This is a question that should be addressed to them, although they may only be able to supply figures for food purchased from UK sources, as they are unlikely to collect such detailed information. DfES does not purchase food for schools or other educational institutions, as this is the responsibility of individual schools etc or, where budgets have not been delegated, that of the local education authority.

TREASURY

  EU Funding
  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total EU funding to(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England was in each of the last three years. [107314]

  Ruth Kelly
  A breakdown of all EC receipts paid in Scotland, Wales and England is not held centrally. However, details of total UK public sector receipts, broken down by Fund, from the EC Budget for the period 1996–97 to 2001–02 can be found in Table 3.2 (page 12) of the Government's White Paper: European Community Finances (Cm 5547) published in July 2002.

  International Finance Facility
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether additional capital raised through the International Finance Facility will count against the target of gross national product that the United Kingdom has pledged to spend on aid to developing countries; and how it will be accounted for. [105676]

  John Healey
  The International Finance Facility will seek to provide the additional resources necessary to meet the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

  The UK is committed to reaching the 0.7 per cent. of GNI target in the longer term; the IFF provides a realistic and feasible way to rapidly increase aid flows and make faster progress towards this target in the years up to 2015. The accounting treatment of the disbursement of funds raised through the IFF is subject to further technical discussions.

  Marriage Fees
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the costs of waiving the fee charged to couples seeking to marry in less than the 15 day waiting period where one partner has been called up for military service overseas; and if he will make a statement. [106998]

  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 John Denham, dated 4 April 2003:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the waiving of fees charged to couples seeking to marry in less than the 15 day waiting period. (106998)
  The fee payable to me as Registrar General is 28 for each application to reduce the 15 day waiting period. It was set when the power was introduced on 1 January 2001 and is a prescribed fee that represents the costs to the Registrar General of providing this service and I have has no power to reduce or waive it.

  Wine and Spirits
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how the total revenue from duty on(a) wines and (b) spirits is calculated in any one year; [105515]
  889W
  (2) what the total value of wine brought across borders to the UK in 2002 is; [105499]

  (3) how much wine and spirits were smuggled into the UK last year. [105494]

  John Healey
  The total revenue from the duty on wines and spirits for any one year is calculated from the net duty receipts recorded by HM Customs and Excise Central Accounting Operations. Details of the amount of revenue received on wines and spirits are published in Customs' annual report, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  The declared value of wine imports in 2002 was £2.01 billion, excluding duty and VAT.

  Figures for the total volume of wine and spirits smuggled in 2002 are not available. Estimates of the value of alcohol products smuggled by cross-Channel passengers in 2002 and estimates of the total of fraud affecting alcohol products in 2000–01 were published in "Measuring Indirect Tax Losses" in November 2002, a copy of which is also available in the Library of the House.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office to what use the national network of civil defence bunkers established during the Cold War is being put. [103429]

  Mr. Alexander
  Following a review of emergency planning arrangements in 1992, all the civil defence regional headquarters in England and Wales were offered up for sale on the open market and are now under private ownership.

  Senior Civil Service
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on ethnic minority representation in the Senior Civil Service. [106668]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Civil Service is making progress on increasing the representation of minority ethnic staff at Senior Civil Service level.

  As at October 2002, 2.8 per cent. of staff at this level were from a minority ethnic background. This is up from 1.6 per cent. in April 1998, and represents good progress towards our target of 3.2 per cent. by 2004–05.

  There is a range of action in place to ensure sustained action to improve representation at senior levels.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many staff were employed by his Department in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [106982]

  Mr. Alexander
  The information is not available in the format requested. Staffing figures for Civil Service Departments and agencies are published twice yearly by press notice, copies of which are laid in the Libraries of both Houses. Information relating to 1 April 2002 was 890W
  published on 31 October 2002, and information for October 2002 was published on 27 February this year. Information relating to 1 April 2003 is not yet available. The figures are also made available via the worldwide web at: http://www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics/documents/pdf/staffing_03.pdf

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Conservatory Construction Industry
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to protect industry standards and law-abiding companies from rogue traders in the household conservatory construction industry. [106250]

  Mr. Wilson
  DTI is already rolling out the Quality Mark Scheme for builders and tradesmen in the domestic repair and maintenance sector. A detailed business plan is currently under development to underpin the next stage of the Scheme. It is expected this will be put to Ministers for their approval shortly. The Quality Mark Scheme aims to raise standards in this sector, bring peace of mind to consumers and provide reputable companies with a competitive edge. It covers all the main trades in this sector, including conservatories, and requires tradesmen to be independently assessed against a range of standards including workmanship, skills and qualifications, customer care and financial probity.

  Contracts (Russia)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what UK requirements and guidelines she sets British companies signing contracts in Russia in respect of their policies towards their Russian employees. [104746]

  Ms Hewitt
  Any UK company wishing to enter into a business arrangement with a Russian partner would be advised to satisfy itself as to all aspects of the contractual arrangements which it was being asked to enter into. In line with our aim of actively promoting corporate social responsibility, we would also encourage companies to work with their partners and suppliers to address the economic, social and environmental impacts of their policies and activities. In the light of this, one good way of achieving these goals would be to act in accordance with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and to perform at least the standards they suggest.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the running costs in 2002 were of(a) her Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff, and (b) her Department. [106004]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Consolidated Resource Accounts published by the Department of Trade and Industry for the financial year 2001–02, show total administration costs for the department and its agencies of £520 million.
  891W
  Of these administration costs the amount spent on Ministers' private offices were £4.08 million of which staff costs were £1.70 million.

  Complete data are not yet available for 2002–03.

  Huntingdon Life Sciences Group
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the current status of her Department's provision of insurance services to Huntingdon Life Sciences Group. [105626]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Haris) on 17 December 2002,Official Report, columns 733–34W, and the replies given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 27 January 2003, Official Report, column 592W, and 6 February 2003, Official Report, column 394W, which set out the current status of my Department's facilitation of insurance for Huntingdon Life Sciences Group plc.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding has been granted by the Sub-Post Office Start-up Capital Scheme to assist with one-off capital costs associated with the refurbishment or relocation of rural post offices. [107101]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand from Post Office Ltd., who administer the scheme, that, as at the end of February 2003, 156 grants to a total value of £1,130,409 had been approved, of which £883,773 had been paid out.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department held with Post Office Ltd. over the imposition of payment rate on postmasters for conducting Post Office card account transactions; what payment rate has been agreed; and if she will make a statement. [107372]

  Mr. Timms
  Ministers and officials have regular contact with Post Office Ltd. to discuss a range of issues. Remuneration for postmasters is a commercial matter between Post Office Ltd. and the postmasters.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role her Department is playing in the(a) employment and (b) remuneration of network development managers for the Urban Network Reinvention Programme for the Post Office. [107378]

  Mr. Timms
  None. These are operational matters for Post Office Ltd.

  Telephone Services
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to(a) review and (b) amend regulation of (i) the pricing and (ii) the advertising of the pricing of premium rate telephone services. [106957]

  Mr. Timms
  The basis of the regulation of premium rate telephone services is being changed by the Communications Bill, when the whole telecommunications regulatory regime will be modified to implement the EC Electronic Communications Directives. The arrangements for regulating premium 892W
  rate services will, however, as far as possible, follow the present model based on compliance with a code of practice established and enforced by the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS) with back-up powers exercised, if necessary, by the sector regulator (currently OFTEL, but in future OFCOM).

  The code of practice embraces issues of pricing, provision, content, promotion and marketing of premium rate services, and provides for ICSTIS to investigate complaints and adjudicate on them. All this is expected to continue under the new arrangements. The Communications Bill gives OFCOM power to set conditions for the purpose of regulating the provision, content, promotion and marketing of premium rate services. It also gives OFCOM power to approve a code for regulating premium rate services (such as the ICSTIS code) and explicitly provides that such a code may, in particular, contain provision about the pricing of premium rate services and provision for enforcement of the code. Premium rate service providers will also continue to be subject to the rules governing non-broadcast advertisements and promotions set out in codes administered by the Advertising Standards Authority (the ASA).

  Utility Companies
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received about delays caused to(a) construction and (b) other development projects due to obstruction by utility companies. [106765]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department receives representations from time to time about connection and other issues where development projects interact with utility services.

  These are generally a matter for the parties concerned. In the case of certain connection issues, the electricity regulator Ofgem may be able to provide a determination.

HEALTH

  Public Benefit Corporations
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the members of a public benefit corporation will have any role other than to(a) appoint and (b) elect the board of governors; [105120]

  (2) whether the members of a public benefit corporation will have a role other than to appoint or elect the board of governors. [105591]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to parliamentary approval, national health service foundation trusts will be set up as public benefit corporations. The minimum requirements for the constitution of public benefit corporations, including the role and function of the membership, are set out in Schedule 1 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. Subject to approval by the Independent Regulator, individual NHS foundation trusts may add to these minimum requirements under their constitution.
  893W
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for the legal status of bodies corporate formed using investment by NHS Foundation Trusts. [105119]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to parliamentary approval, subsections (4) and (5) of clause 17 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will give national health service foundation trusts financial and investment powers, including powers to invest money, form subsidiaries and enter into joint ventures, subject to any terms set in their authorisation by the Independent Regulator. Unlike for NHS trusts, for NHS foundation trusts the power to enter into joint ventures or subsidiaries will not be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.

  Asthma
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of general practices(a) have a nurse with an asthma diploma and (b) have a nurse-led asthma service where the nurse does not have an asthma diploma; and if he will make a statement. [106616]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The Government is investing significantly in training provision in the National Health Service, which includes diploma programmes in the nursing management of asthma. Over the next three years, 2003–04 to 2005–06, an extra £96 million will be made available to ensure that all health professionals, including those working in primary care, have the right knowledge and skills to meet the changing and specific healthcare needs of all patients. The Department will be working with workforce development confederations to ensure that optimum use is gained from this investment and good practice is disseminated.

  Co-payments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what way a co-payment for health or social services will differ from a charge. [102151]

  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce co-payments for the public services for which he is responsible. [102200]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: As my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister made clear on 2 April 2003, Official Report, columns. 914–15, we have no intention of introducing co-payments or extending charges whereby patients or users pay for a proportion of their treatment or care, beyond those services such as prescriptions and dentistry to which they already apply and which have been in place for some time.

  Consultants
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants there are on average in an accident and emergency department in(a) England and (b) each strategic health authority. [106206]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information relating to the average number of accident and emergency consultants, within trusts that have an accident and emergency department, in England and in each strategic health authority, is shown in the table.
  894W

  Average number of hospital medical consultants with an Accident and Emergency specialty within trusts that have an Accident and Emergency department by Strategic Health Authority

  Health authority

  Averages1

  England

  2.8

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  2.5

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  3.8

  Birmingham and The Black Country

  2.9

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  3.2

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  3.0

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  3.6

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  2.7

  Dorset and Somerset

  1.4

  Essex

  1.8

  Greater Manchester

  2.8

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  2.2

  Kent and Medway

  3.5

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  2.7

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  2.0

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  2.4

  North Central London

  3.2

  North East London

  3.4

  North West London

  2.9

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  3.4

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  1.4

  South East London

  2.8

  South West London

  3.0

  South West Peninsula

  2.8

  South Yorkshire

  3.2

  Surrey and Sussex

  2.2

  Thames Valley

  2.8

  Trent

  3.4

  West Yorkshire

  5.3

  1 Averages were calculated using the number (headcount) of A&E consultants within trusts that have A&E departments.

  Sources:

  Department of Health 2001 medical and dental workforce census Department of Health form KH12, 2001–02

  Diabetes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the terms of reference are of the new diabetes tsar. [106629]

  Mr. Lammy
  The terms of reference for the national clinical director for diabetes are set out in the 'National Service Framework for Diabetes: Delivery Strategy' which was published in January 2003.

  The national clinical director for diabetes, Dr Sue Roberts, will oversee the implementation of the national service framework for diabetes by:
  Supporting National Health Service clinicians and managers in reaching the standards and delivering the targets
  Ensuring clinical commitment through professional leadership at national level
  Advising Ministers and officials in the Department on priorities and progress
  Working with the NHS Modernisation Agency, the National Institute for Clinical
  Excellence, the Commission for Health Improvement and the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection when it is established in 2004, and other bodies to support delivery

  A copy of the 'National Service Framework for Diabetes: Delivery Strategy' is available in the Library.

  Drugs Education
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is his Department's policy to include organisations which support the legalisation of cannabis in the list of organisations it recommends to schools for providing advice to young people on drugs. [107210]
  895W
  Ms Blears
  Poster 31166 was not produced for schools, although teachers could register to receive it. The Department is not aware of any material produced by organisations listed on poster 31166 that explicitly promotes the legalisation of cannabis.

  Policy on recommending to schools who should provide advice to young people on drugs is the responsibility of the Department for Education and Skills (DIES). DfES do not recommend or endorse specific organisations for providing advice to young people on drugs, although they do fund training for schools. This is to ensure that schools have the knowledge and skills to make such decisions based on the needs of their pupils and the policy of their school governors.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much it cost to produce the poster for schools 31166—Where to find resources; how widely it was distributed; and what representations he has received about it. [107211]

  Ms Blears
  The poster was not produced for schools, although teachers could register to receive it. The total production and distribution cost for poster 31166 was (fully inclusive of all mailing costs) £7,200, at a unit cost of 16p.45,000 copies were produced.

  The poster was distributed to people who had registered to receive general health promotion information and to health promotion units. Two thirds of the original print run have been distributed. The poster is available on the Department's website. While there are no plans to print further copies at this stage, updates and corrections will be made to the document displayed on the Department's website. I am not aware of any further representations about this poster.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria the Department used to decide which organisations to include as resources on drugs on the Department's poster for schools 31166—Where to find resources. [107213]

  Ms Blears
  The poster was not produced for schools, although teachers could register to receive it. The list of contacts included covered larger national organisations that produce information for the public on a range of health issues, including drugs. As poster 31166 clearly states, this list is not exhaustive and inclusion does not signify endorsement by the Department.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the criticisms of Lifeline Drug Information and Advice contained in paragraph 207 of the Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2001–02. [107214]

  Ms Blears
  Following the Home Affairs Committee's report, the Government gave a commitment to review its rules on the use of public money to fund drugs communications with young people. The review was undertaken by officials from the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills, as well as voluntary sector partners, academic and communications experts. The new rules have now been approved by Ministers and will be made public shortly.
  896W
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department had with the Home Office before producing poster 31166—Where to find resources; when the last meeting took place between his Department and the Home Office to discuss drug education in schools and how frequently such meetings take place. [107212]

  Ms Blears
  Officials from the Department of Health and the Home Department are in regular contact over matters of drug policy, and meet frequently. The Departments work closely together to co-ordinate delivery of the national drug strategy although this would not include detailed discussions on each piece of work.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he plans to take to ensure that staff working in non-foundation trusts are not recruited by foundation trusts; and if he will make a statement on the creation of competition between hospitals. [105951]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service foundation trusts will play an important part in promoting career development within the NHS and staff will continue to move between employers as part of normal career development. There will be a number of safeguards to prevent development of inappropriate competition between NHS employers in a particular area:All NHS foundation trusts will, presuming it is agreed, implement the new "Agenda for Change" national pay system for the NHS;
  Other local NHS organisations will be able to exercise influence over the running of a NHS foundation trust through its membership and governance arrangements;
  NHS foundation trusts will be subject to a statutory duty of partnership just like other NHS trusts;
  NHS foundation trusts will provide services at the national tariff rate and will be subject to a system of financial flows that operates on the principle of payment by results. They will not be able to increase charges for clinical services to reflect higher wage costs;
  Under the national tariff, any cost increases relating to enhanced terms and conditions for staff would have to be absorbed by NHS foundation trusts themselves and it will not be in their interest to take action leading to local wage inflation.

  Health Bodies (Information Requests)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has provided to strategic health authorities and primary care trusts regarding their requirement to reply to hon. Members who seek information from them; and what guidance he has given as to a reasonable amount of time before such replies are received. [105595]

  Mr. Hutton
  Strategic heath authorities and primary care trusts are required to adhere to the standard national health service response time as outlined in section 6 (Response to Requests for Information) of the "Code of Practice on Openness in the NHS". A copy has been placed in the Library. An
  897W
  acknowledgement must be sent within four working days and, where possible, the information should follow within 20 days.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the relative hospital bed occupancy rate was of(a) married and (b) unmarried (i) males and (ii) females in the last year for which figures are available. [106096]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on hospital bed occupancy rates by gender and marital status is not available.

  Nurses
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurse returners(a) have been recruited to return to practice schemes, (b) have successfully completed these schemes and (c) have subsequently been employed by the NHS in England, for recruits entering schemes (i) from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000, (ii) from 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001, (iii) from 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 and (iv) from 1 April 2002, including the latest statistics available, in (A) England and (B) each NHS region. [106209]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Number of Nurses and Midwives who have returned to work in the NHS1

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–032

  Northern and Yorks

  295

  733

  545

  —

  North West

  622

  331

  288

  —

  Trent

  368

  744

  412

  —

  West Midlands

  334

  384

  344

  —

  Eastern

  352

  453

  403

  —

  London

  258

  561

  738

  —

  South East

  622

  807

  660

  —

  South West

  183

  466

  373

  —

  Total

  3,034

  4,479

  3,763

  —

  South3

  —

  —

  —

  459

  Midlands and Eastern3

  —

  —

  —

  586

  North3

  —

  —

  —

  319

  London3

  —

  —

  —

  500

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  1,864

  Overall total

  13,140

  1 Figures for those attending and completing return to practice courses are not available.

  2 For April to September 2002 only.

  3 From 2002 the NHS regions have changed from eight to four.

  Source:

  Quarterly returns from Workforce Development Confederations

  Between February 1999 and September 2002 13,140 former nurses and midwives had returned to work in the National Health Service. Return to practice courses for nurses, midwives and health visitors who wish to return to the NHS are free and from 1 April 2001 healthcare professionals returning to the NHS receive a minimum of £;1,000 income to support them whilst they are retraining (£1,500 for midwives). They are also entitled to assistance with childcare costs and the cost of travel and books. In both 2001–02 and 2002–03 the Department allocated funding to workforce development confederations for 4,500 former nurses and midwives to attend return to practice training
  898W
  An Evaluation Study commissioned by the Department of Health, show that 86 per cent. of people that had completed a Return to Practice course in the last three years had returned and remained in practice.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the vacancy rate was for nurses working in coronary care in(a) England, (b) each NHS region and (c) each NHS trust in each of the last six years; [106598]

  (2) how many nurses were working in coronary care in the NHS. [106597]

  Mr. Hutton
  Nurses employed in coronary care are included in the number of nurses employed in acute, elderly and general care.

  As at September 2001, the number of nurses employed in the acute, elderly and general care was 177,900.

  The national health service vacancy survey, first collected in March 1999, collects information on the number of posts which trusts are actively trying to fill which have been vacant for three months or more. Between March 1999 and 2002 the three-month vacancy rate for acute, elderly and general nurses has fallen from 3.6 per cent. to 3.2 per cent.; this demonstrates that our recruitment and retention initiatives are making an impact.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of student nurses, who successfully completed a three year nursing diploma course to become a registered general nurse, failed to register with the Nursing and Midwifery Council within one year of completion of their course in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [106175]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since 1 April 2002, of the 18,766 nurses completing diploma and degree studies, 17,782 (95 per cent.) are now registered, 930 (5 per cent.) are pending awaiting fee payment and 54 (0.3 per cent.) have, to date, made no attempt to register. Separate figures for those completing diploma and degree studies are not held.

  Registration with the Nursing and Midwifery Council during 2001–02 was disrupted when the computerised registration system was closed down for 12 days in March 2002.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of student nurses undertaking three year nursing diploma programmes to become registered general nurses failed to complete the course in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [106208]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on nurses failing to complete their studies were last collected nationally in 2000–01. The following table shows the number of leavers (nurses who failed to complete the course) by 2000–01 for the last four cohorts where there were substantial numbers of active students undertaking three year nursing diploma programmes.
  899W

  Started

  Leavers

  Percentage

  1997–98

  16,028

  3,287

  20.5

  1998–99

  15,997

  2,938

  18.4

  1999–2000

  17,504

  2,338

  13.4

  2000–01

  16,899

  1,035

  6.1

  Note:

  This data are based on a snapshot in time of a particular cohort(s) and therefore each year there will still be students who have yet to complete their course.

  Net Present Costs of PFI v. PSC Option

  Trust

  PFI £000

  Public £000

  Savings in net present value terms £000

  Percentage difference

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,166,326

  1,179,431

  13,105

  1.11

  West Middlesex University Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,082,900

  1,088,000

  5,100

  0.47

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  240,600

  241,613

  1,013

  0.42

  St. George's Hospitals NHS Trust

  565,565

  565,768

  203

  0.04

  West Berkshire Priority Care NHS Trust

  273,245

  282,228

  8,983

  3.18

  Total projected savings

  —

  —

  28,404

  —

  Details of expected savings on PFI schemes are not held centrally for schemes with a capital value below £20 million.

  United Kingdom Accreditation Service
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will recognise the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) as the sole national body for the accreditation of laboratories and transfer the functions of Clinical Pathology Accreditation (UK) Ltd. to UKAS. [105488]

  Mr. Hutton
  United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) is the sole body recognised by the Government for accreditation of various tests and calibrations undertaken by laboratories and those organisations providing certification and inspection services. Pathology laboratory accreditation is for the most part overseen by Clinical Pathology Accreditation (UK) Ltd. (CPA), which has long-standing expertise in accrediting pathology laboratories. UKAS and CPA have established a Council Partnership and agreed a Memorandum of Understanding. In brief, this agreed the two organisations would work together for the benefit of laboratories interested in both UKAS and both CPA accreditation. This is a sensible approach and the Department of Health does not wish to change it.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support his Department has given to the Accreditation Awareness Campaign run by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. [105490]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health has been consistent in its full support for the accreditation awareness campaign run by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS). The Department uses UKAS accreditation services whenever it is appropriate to do so.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the expected saving to public funds from the private finance initiative schemes due to become operational in 2003. [105724]

  Mr. Hutton
  Listed are the private finance initiative (PFI) schemes with a capital value of £20 million or above scheduled to become operational in 2003 showing details of the expected savings to public funds.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Access Radio
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many FM access radio licences, as foreseen in the Communications Bill, could be issued to(a) the City of Manchester and (b) the UK; and how many of these will be found (i) in existing national sub bands held by the BBC and (ii) within frequency allocations currently suggested by the Radio Authority to carry future commercial radio stations. [106674]

  Dr. Howells
  The evaluation of the 15 pilot stations, published by the Radio Authority on 19 March suggested that there may be as many as five frequencies available in Manchester, although the exact extent would need to be reviewed in the context of precisely-defined demand.

  The precise numbers of frequencies available for access radio stations across the UK has not been established. However, there would be little point in legislating for a new tier of radio if there was not available spectrum. The Radio Authority's report on future FM frequency availability published on 4 March found that there was likely to be a significant, although still finite, resource for services of very small coverage.

  Further research will be required into overall FM capacity for access radio. It is expected that this will be taken forward by OFCOM.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Government expect to publish their draft Order facilitating access radio. [106675]

  Dr. Howells
  We first need to consider the recommendations of Professor Everitt's evaluation of the 15 pilot stations. It is too early to say when a draft Order may be published.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her Department's total spending
  901W
  was on advertising and promotional campaigns between April 2002 and March 2003; and what the cost of each campaign was, broken down by costs relating to (a) television, (b) radio and (c) print media. [106441]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has had a nil spend on advertising and promotional campaigns relating to television, radio and print media between April 2002 and March 2003.

  Free Television licences (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her most recent estimate is of the number of pensioners over-75 in the Buckingham constituency who are receiving a free television licence. [107155]

  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing, who administer the concession as agents for the BBC, are not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 4,300 people aged 75 or over living in the Buckingham constituency.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what expenditure has been incurred by her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental bodies in 2002 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if she will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [106273]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department's expenditure on opinion polling, focus groups and other forms of market research for 2001–02 is shown in the following table.

  Activity

  2001–02

  Opinion polling

  17,595

  Focus groups

  229,820

  Market research

  310,800

  1 (a) Research undertaken that would assess consumers' perceptions of digital television and (b) questions on culture and the internet for Culture Online included in an omnibus survey.

  2 (a) Eight focus groups with teachers, children and adults for Culture Online and (b) consultation with a group of young people when developing a national arts award, regarding the structure of the award.

  3 An online survey of the use of culture web-sites of existing users of six cultural web-sites for Culture Online.

  The opinion polling figure is revised from £36,382 presented last year as the difference is proper to 2002–03.

  The Department's agency, the Royal Parks Agency, did not incur expenditure on opinion polling or focus groups in 2001–02. Its expenditure on market research relating to annual visitors survey, Stakeholder Audit and monitoring the Kensington Gardens cycle trial was £59,840.

  Information on expenditure by the Department's non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tourism (Northern Ireland)
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the reasons for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board not being included in VisitBritain. [106898]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 3 April 2003]: VisitBritain is the name which the British Tourist Authority will use in future. The British Tourist Authority was set up by the Development of Tourism Act 1969, and it is this Act which is clear that duty to promote Britain abroad covers Scotland, Wales and England, but not Northern Ireland. I am happy to say, however, that the excellent formal and informal co-operation between VisitBritain and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board will continue in future, and a revised and strengthened memorandum of understanding between the two is in the final stages of preparation. Although the 1969 Act does not provide for the Chair of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to be a member of the VisitBritain Board, the Chairman has accepted an invitation to have observer status on the Board.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff are employed by her Department. [106286]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 3 April 2003,Official Report, column 780W.

  Travel Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost was of travel by train by staff in her Department in 2002. [106343]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not readily available without incurring disproportionate cost.

  My Department ensures that staff use the most efficient and economic means of travel commensurate with meeting departmental operational needs.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Al-Qaeda
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received on the involvement of al-Qaeda in terrorism in the Middle East. [105976]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Al-Qaeda and related groups remain a real and sophisticated threat. They form an international network, not only confined to the Middle East. The UK, together with the US and international partners, remains committed to dismantling their international terrorist network.

  Chad (Islamist Mercenaries)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning incursions made by Islamist mercenaries from Chad into(a) Sudan and (b) Nigeria; and what representations he will be making to the Government of Chad concerning these incursions. [106421]

  Mr. Rammell
  There are persistent reports of fighting in Darfur, Western Sudan, involving tribes and groups from Chad and Libya. Recent unconfirmed reports allege that Chadian mercenaries were involved in the attack against Al-Tinah on the Sudan/Chad border. Chad has closed the border with Sudan and deployed troops there to uphold the security agreement signed between Sudan and Chad.

  The Nigerian police regularly report on the presence of substantial numbers of Chadians among those arrested in violent conflicts in Northern Nigeria.

  It is for the Governments of Sudan and Nigeria, rather than the British Government, to make representations to the Government of Chad on these matters.

  Commercial Confidentiality
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance his Department issues to civil servants on how to deal with claims from organisations that the information they provide to the Department is commercially confidential. [105556]

  Mr. Rammell
  Guidance to staff in British Trade International, including staff in overseas posts, emphasises the need to ensure that all information is handled carefully, and that information received from or about a British business should not be disclosed, without the latter's permission, to other firms or organisations.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 25 February from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Ms E. Vaswani. [106181]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary replied on 31 March to my right hon. Friend's letter on behalf of his constituent.

  Ethiopia/Eritrea
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) the Ethiopian Government, (b) the Eritrean Government and (c) the United Nations on the demarcation of the boundary between Ethiopia and Eritrea. [105428]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK maintains regular dialogue with the Governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea as well as the UN regarding the demarcation of the boundary between Ethiopia and Eritrea. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed this with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi when he visited the UK in February. My noble Friend Baroness Amos discussed it 904W
  with the Eritrean Ambassador and Head of the Political Department of the ruling party in March. Our ambassadors in Addis Ababa and Asmara have frequent contact with the governments of both countries and with Legwaila Joseph Legwaila the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General. We have made clear to both Ethiopia and Eritrea that they must respect the decisions of the Boundary Commission, in line with their commitments under the Algiers Peace Agreement.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Spain regarding commemoration of 300 years of British sovereignty in Gibraltar in 2004. [106027]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no such discussions.

  Great Lakes Region
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the leaders of the states in the Great Lakes Region on(a) violent crime and (b) small arms proliferation. [105423]

  Mr. Rammell
  Small arms proliferation remains a significant problem in the region. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no recent discussions with the leaders of the states in the Great Lakes Region on violent crime and small arms proliferation. But the UK works extensively in Africa with Governments, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and NGOs on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) issues. We have committed significant resources from our Global Conflict Prevention Pool for SALW to assist the Secretariat that supports the 2000 Nairobi Declaration.

  Iran
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on human rights abuses in Iran. [106130]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary regularly receives a wide range of representations about the human rights situation in Iran. My right hon. Friend and I regularly raise human rights with the Iranian authorities, including with the Iranian Foreign Minister when we met on 6 February.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met Iranian officials. [106129]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I met the Iranian Foreign Minister in London on 6 February.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Ministers
  905W
  in his Department next plan to meet their (a) Indian and (b) Pakistani opposite numbers to discuss Kashmir. [106538]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, regularly raises our concerns in relation to Kashmir with the Governments of India and Pakistan, including during frequent telephone calls. Pakistani Foreign Minister Kasuri has accepted an invitation from the Foreign Secretary to visit London in the near future. The Foreign Secretary also hopes to meet the Indian Foreign Minister in the UK during May. Dates for these visits have yet to be confirmed.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring he is undertaking of the situation in Darfur, Sudan, with particular reference to(a) the number of death sentences recently carried out, (b) women's rights and (c) reform of its judiciary. [105665]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are monitoring developments in Darfur and are following the cases of those sentenced to death. In relation to women's rights and judicial reform our focus has not been on Darfur specifically, but we have been in contact with the Government of Sudan about the role and function of the special courts.

  Our ambassador to Khartoum has requested permission to travel to Darfur and will do so as soon as possible.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Arab-African conflict in Darfur, Sudan. [105666]

  Mr. Rammell
  Historically there have been clashes between tribal groups in Darfur over access to land and water. There are also long-standing claims of insufficient development in the region. Recently the frequency of clashes has increased and Government forces have also become involved.

  The British embassy in Khartoum continues to discuss the situation in Darfur with a wide range of Government and National Congress party officials, in addition to Darfur MPs and other local representatives. Our ambassador has requested permission to visit Darfur and will do so as soon as possible.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the aerial bombardment in Rier, Sudan; and what monitoring he is undertaking of use of Antatov bombers, by the Government of Sudan. [105667]

  Mr. Rammell
  UN Security and the US-led Civilian Protection Monitoring Team are unaware of any recent incidents of aerial bombardment in Sudan.

  On 4 February, the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army agreed an addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on cessation of hostilities. The addendum aimed to strengthen the MoU which was signed at Machakos on 15 October 2002 and extended on 18 November 2002. It contains many new and welcome initiatives to build confidence between the parties and to make less likely the sorts of outbreaks of fighting which we saw in
  906W
  Western Upper Nile in January. We also welcomed the establishment of the new Verification and Monitoring Team (VMT) and have committed US․ 500,000 to support its important work.

  Zimbabwe
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on human rights abuses of British citizens residing in Zimbabwe. [106133]

  Mr. Rammell
  The British High Commission in Harare has this year received a small number of representations from British citizens in Zimbabwe about ill treatment. Where appropriate, the British High Commission has taken the matter up with the Zimbabwean authorities. We remain ready to do so as and when necessary.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Educational Maintenance Allowances
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when children in each London local authority will be eligible for educational maintenance allowances. [105969]

  Margaret Hodge
  The national Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) scheme will be available from September 2004 across the whole of England.

  EMA is being piloted in a number of areas, 16 of which are in London. In areas such as Regent's Park and Kensington North which are not part of the pilot scheme, the first tranche of eligible students will be those who reach the compulsory school leaving age in the 2003/2004 academic year.

  ICT
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent on ICT(a) in total and (b) per pupil in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in England in 2001/02. [106193]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The total spend on ICT in schools in 2001/02 was £563 million. The average expenditure per pupil was £58 for primary schools and £88 for secondary schools.

  The latest information on ICT in schools was published in Statistical Bulletin 07/02 'Survey of Information and Communications Technology in Schools 2002', which is available from the Library. An enhanced version of this with total expenditure data is on the Department's web-site www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of higher education students' fees are wholly remitted on account of income; and what proportion of students have home postcodes which attract additional university funding from HEFCE. [104947]
  907W
  Margaret Hodge
  In England and Wales students on full-time undergraduate courses and their families are expected to make a contribution towards the cost of their tuition only if they can afford to do so. The percentage of students in England and Wales in academic year 2000/01 (latest year for which data are available) who have been assessed to make a nil contribution towards the cost of their tuition is 42 per cent. This figure includes those students eligible for student support studying in further education colleges, and also English and Welsh domiciled students studying at UK institutions.

  According to latest available data, around 30 per cent. of English-domiciled students registered at English higher education institutions and 48 per cent. of English-domiciled students registered at English further education attracted additional funding from HEFCE. This funding was allocated on the basis of postcodes to support recruitment and retention of students from low participation neighbourhoods.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether student musicians will be exempted from increased tuition fees. [104508]

  Margaret Hodge
  No.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he plans to recover post-course tuition fees from students who have been(a) resident in the UK but go abroad after graduation and (b) resident abroad before commencing their studies.[105399]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are mechanisms in place to recover loan repayments for maintenance from UK students who live abroad after graduation, and who are outside the UK tax system, through direct payments to the Student Loans Company. The arrangements for collecting varied fees from EU graduates and UK graduates that go abroad will be based on these mechanisms.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people aged 14 to 19 are studying for a vocational qualification in(a) further education colleges, (b) schools and (c> on-the-job training in each of the learning and skills council areas.[105137]

  Margaret Hodge
  The numbers of 16 to 19-year-olds studying vocational qualifications in schools and further education colleges (including sixth form colleges) at end 2000 by each local Learning and Skills Council area are given in the following table. The year 2000 is the latest for which comparable figures are available. The figures include people studying NVQs, VCE A-levels, GNVQs and equivalents.

  Also included are the numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds in Government Supported Training (GST). Local level information for other forms of work-based training is not available.

  Numbers of 14 and 15-year-olds in schools are not available by type of course being studied.
  908W

  Participation in vocational qualifications1 in England by local LSC area, end 2000

  16 to 19-year-olds2

  16 to 18-year-olds2

  All Schools3

  Sixth form and other FE colleges4

  Government supported training5

  North East

  County Durham

  600

  6,000

  3,000

  Northumberland

  1,000

  2,700

  1,400

  Tees Valley

  200

  10,100

  3,900

  Tyne and Wear

  2,200

  12,400

  5,900

  North West

  Cheshire and Warrington

  1,300

  8,600

  3,200

  Cumbria

  900

  4,700

  2,600

  Greater Manchester

  900

  31,500

  11,300

  Greater Merseyside

  3,000

  16,700

  8,300

  Lancashire

  600

  19,000

  6,500

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Humberside

  600

  11,400

  4,700

  North Yorkshire

  1,500

  7,100

  3,400

  South Yorkshire

  1,300

  14,300

  6,100

  West Yorkshire

  4,800

  24,300

  8,100

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  1,100

  9,700

  4,100

  Leicestershire

  1,600

  9,700

  2,500

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  900

  6,100

  2,500

  Northamptonshire

  1,300

  5,900

  2,300

  Nottinghamshire

  1,100

  11,000

  4,100

  West Midlands

  Birmingham and Solihull

  2,300

  14,500

  3,000

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  1,000

  9,400

  3,200

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  900

  7,900

  2,300

  Shropshire

  200

  5,100

  1,900

  Staffordshire

  1,300

  12,300

  4,500

  The Black Country

  2,000

  13,100

  5,100

  East of England

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  1,000

  6,600

  1,600

  Cambridgeshire

  1,300

  6,300

  1,900

  Essex

  2,100

  14,500

  4,100

  Hertfordshire

  2,000

  8,500

  2,000

  Norfolk

  800

  7,100

  2,100

  Suffolk

  1,100

  6,100

  2,300

  London

  London Central

  3,000

  11,000

  1,900

  London East

  3,600

  20,800

  4,200

  London North

  2,000

  10,700

  1,600

  London South

  2,400

  9,500

  2,100

  London West

  3,600

  13,400

  2,100

  South East

  Berkshire

  1,500

  6,400

  2,700

  Hampshire and the Isle of Wight

  700

  19,100

  5,200

  Kent and Medway

  4,400

  13,000

  3,700

  Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire

  2,600

  10,900

  3,900

  Surrey

  1,500

  7,800

  1,300

  Sussex

  2,200

  13,300

  3,000

  South West

  Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole

  1,200

  6,100

  2,700

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,000

  16,200

  5,400

  Gloucestershire

  800

  5,300

  1,800

  Somerset

  400

  6,000

  2,000

  West of England

  1,400

  8,900

  2,700

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  700

  6,700

  1,600

  1 Highest qualification aim of student. There will be some whose highest aim is an academic qualification, but who combine this with a lower level vocational qualification.

  2 Age as at 31August.

  3 From January 2001 Annual Schools Census. Includes all 16 to 19-year-olds in maintained and independent schools and City Technology Colleges. Excludes special schools, as qualification breakdowns are not available.

  909W
  4 From the LSC's Individualised Student Record—final data for snapshot at 1 November 2000. Includes all 16 to 19-year-olds in sixth form colleges, general FE colleges, tertiary colleges and specialist colleges.

  5 From the Training and Enterprise Council's Management information Service combined with the trainee databases, as at end 2000.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Employer Liability Insurance
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to ensure that main contractors working for government authorities ensure that their specialist and sub-contractors have in place employers liability compulsory insurance; and if he will make a statement. [100856]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on 27 March 2003,Official Report, columns 369–70W.

  MPDI Network
  Mr. Heyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what effect HSE's October 2002 warning of the need for replacement of all non-Transco owned MPDI networks within 30 metres of buildings has had on the development of(a) a complete picture of all such networks, irrespective of ownership and (b) a programme of work for their replacement that is agreed with their owners. [102242]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) issued an alert to occupiers of sites and local authorities with their own gas mains that medium pressure ductile iron (MPDI) pipes need to be replaced. This followed enforcement action requiring Transco to carry out an agreed accelerated programme of replacement of all MPDI gas mains located within 30 metres of buildings by the end of 2002.

  The effect of this was that a small number of additional sites with MPDI gas pipes have been identified as a result and HSE will ensure a programme of remedial measures is implemented.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners collect benefits from post offices in Derbyshire. [98895]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of pensioners in Derbyshire receiving DWP benefits (including War Pensions) collectable from post offices is 88,274 as at the 28 December 2002. This figure includes benefits paid by giro cheque, which can also be paid into a bank or building society account.

  Some customers who are paid direct into an account can also collect their benefit in cash at post offices through network banking arrangements at the Post Office. There are no data available on the number of benefit claims collected in this way.
  910W
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) number and (b) proportion f those who have their pension paid into a bank or building society account are paid (i) weekly and (ii) monthly in arrears in (A) the Scottish Borders, (B) Scotland and (C) the UK.[106646]

  Mr. McCartney
  The available information is in the table.

  The number and proportion of retirement pensioners receiving payment directly into a bank or building society account as at 25 January 2003 is as follows:

  Area

  Number

  Proportion (percentage)

  The Scottish Borders

  11,082

  53.1

  Scotland

  368,348

  45.9

  Great Britain

  4,547,874

  49.6

  Note:

  Figures for the Scottish Borders are for the area of the local authority.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents were permitted by the Child Support Agency not to name the father of their child because of fear of violence in each year for which the concession has been available. [100048]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 2 April 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask how many lone parents were permitted by the Child Support Agency not to name the father of their child because of fear of violence in each year for which the concession has been available.
  I do not have the information to answer this fully. I do however have some relevant information in relation to sole parents who are in receipt of "prescribed benefits". They are obliged to provide information to the Agency. Some parents may not wish to provide this because they have a genuine fear of violence or intimidation from the other parent, or where there are child welfare issues, which would mean that it would not be prudent to contact the other parent. We do not press the parent with care to provide information about the alleged other parent if there are reasonable grounds to believe that to do so may harm or distress the parent with care or any child living with him or her—this is known as "good cause".
  I do not have figures relating to periods before April 1997. Since then approximately 120,000 applications were on the grounds of a genuine fear of violence or intimidation. My best estimate is that around 100,000 of those cases were lone parents.

  Fraud Prevention Board
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who is on the Fraud Prevention Board. [99066]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department and the Post Office work closely together through a number of forums to improve instruments of payment security and combat fraud. One such forum is the Fraud Prevention Board
  911W
  which is jointly chaired by the Deputy Divisional Head of the Department's Fraud Strategy Unit and the Head of Security, Post Office Corporate Clients.

  Fraud Prevention Board members are drawn from areas of the Department and Post Office responsible for fraud and security; contracts; service delivery and operational analysis.

  Housing Benefit
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people received Housing Benefit in the last year for which figures are available; and what percentage of British households claimed Housing Benefit. [103935]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  British households receiving Housing Benefit in 2002

  Number of Housing Benefit recipients

  3,806,000

  Housing Benefit recipients as a proportion of all British households (percentage)

  51.8

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households claiming Housing Benefit which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit household can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share arrangement.

  2. Figures includes estimates for local authorities that have not responded. This estimate is based on historical and regional data. These types of estimates are standard practice in reporting totals where there have been non-respondents.

  3. The figures exclude any Extended Payment cases.

  4. Caseload figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand, and percentages rounded to one decimal place.

  5. Information on the number or proportion of British households who claimed Housing Benefit during 2002 is not available.

  Sources:

  1. Average of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload counts taken in February, May, August and November 2002.

  2. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister household estimates mid 2001.

  Independent Schools (Health and Safety)
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many inspections have been made of independent schools by the Health and Safety Executive in each of the last ten years; and of those inspections, how many of the schools(a) have subsequently had an asbestos survey carried out by an expert and (b) have followed HSE guidance on asbestos. [94381]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Asbestos is one of a number of risks considered when a school is inspected. The number of independent schools which have been inspected, had asbestos surveys or followed HSE guidance on asbestos is not separately identified. However, the information that is available is as follows:

  Number of inspections

  LA controlled Schools

  Other Schools1

  1995–96

  197

  116

  1996–97

  538

  340

  1997–98

  542

  271

  912W

  Number of inspections

  LA controlled Schools

  Other Schools1

  1998–99

  306

  269

  1999–2000

  319

  198

  2000–2001

  368

  147

  2001–2002

  283

  156

  2002–20032

  133

  130

  1 Other schools Volutary Aided. Foundation and Independent Schools

  2 Provisional

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the development and roll out of Jobcentre Plus. [105496]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus was launched in April 2002 with the merging of the Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency providing services to working age people. Through our expanding network of modern, welcoming offices and the introduction of modern technology we are providing a better service to customers, employers and the local community.

  The roll-out of the new integrated offices is progressing well and we currently have more than 160 offices delivering the new service. On 10 December 2002 we announced the order of roll-out for the rest of the country to take place over the next three years.

  We are also investing in modern technology to improve access to our services. The introduction of new contact centres, touch-screen Jobpoints and improved internet services are enabling our customers to enquire about benefits and job vacancies at a time and place convenient to them.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the procedures are for consultation with(a) staff, (b) local communities and (c) local hon. Members over a proposal to reduce the services of or to close a local jobcentre. [105478]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  From its introduction in April 2002, Jobcentre Plus inherited two large networks of offices from the former Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency that provided services to people of working age. This estate has around 1,100 Jobcentres and 400 social security offices.

  This formation of Jobcentre Plus allows us to bring our services together into integrated offices providing help with both claiming benefits and moving into work. In locations where we currently, for example, have both a Jobcentre and a Social Security office providing separate services it may make sense to replace them with just one integrated Jobcentre Plus office to provijde all of our services.

  We are making sure that our plans for the rollout of Jobcentre Plus services are communicated widely. In June 2002 a letter was sent to MPs whose constituencies may have been affected by the rollout in 2002–03. District Managers also wrote to their local MPs, staff, trade unions and other local stakeholders to share their early" plans for the provision of services within the

  913W
  district and to invite comments. District Managers responded to the comments they received and wrote again in September 2002 with details of the agreed plans.

  On 10 December 2002 I gave a written statement, Official Report, columns 8–9 WS giving details of the rollout of Jobcentre Plus for 2003–2006 and, in January 2003, a letter was sent to those MPs whose constituencies would be affected. District Managers will be contacting MPs and local stakeholders as planning begins in each new district.

  Medical Services
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to amend the grading system used in audits of medical assessments of claimants to allow for a specific grade for those reports which are not fit for purpose. [103103]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Medical Services and doctors in the Department's Corporate Medical Group regularly review the effectiveness of medical quality audit systems. Medical Services' aim is to maintain the highest standards of medical quality. The Department's decision makers judge whether a report is fit for purpose. Reports that are not fit for purpose are identified and returned to Medical services to be reworked.

  New Deal
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many participants in the New Deal for(a) Young People, (b) 50 Plus, (c) Lone Parents and (d) Long-term Unemployed have accepted permanent employment with the Department for Work and Pensions, broken down by year. [95227]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is not available for all of the Department and its agencies.

  The following table provides information on the number of people who, having been taken on under the subsidised employment option of the New Deal in the former Employment Service (ES) and Jobcentre Plus, have gained permanent employment in Jobcentre Plus. Information broken down by each New Deal is not available.

  Number of people who have gained permanent employment with ES/Jobcentre Plus1

  1998–99

  18

  1999–2000

  88

  2000–01

  123

  2001–02

  63

  2002–032

  21

  1 Jobcentre Plus was launched in April 2002. The Employment Service and Benefits Agency ceased to exist at the same time.

  2 Up to end December 2002.

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus

  In addition, up to July 2002 a further 3,556 people have been taken on across the Department from the New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25 plus. These people have come through the Department's normal recruitment processes. Information on how many of these have secured permanent jobs is not available.

  Pensions Payment
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners had their pensions collected on their behalf from a post office in the most recent week for which figures are available. [105546]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. Information is available of pensions customers who have an appointee recorded on their benefit account. As at 25 January 2003, of the 10.2 million pensions customers, 0.77 per cent. are recorded as having an appointee to collect their pension at a Post Office. Pensioners can also arrange to have their payment collected on their behalf by an agent. There are no reliable figures available for pensioners who choose this option.

  SchlumbergerSema
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the levels of performance against the key performance targets in respect of SchlumbergerSema(a) for each of the last 12 months and (b) since the re-awarding of its contract; on how many occasions a financial remedy has been applied to SchlumbergerSema since it was first awarded the Benefits Medical Assessment Contract; how much the financial remedy was on each of the occasions until the re-awarding of the contract; how much the financial remedy was on each of the occasions since the re-awarding of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [105365]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Service credits for failure to meet contractual service level targets are commercial in confidence and not disclosed under part 2, paragraph 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  A copy of the information relating to the key performance targets has been placed in the Library.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether people who stop being entitled to income support or jobseeker's allowance in favour of the new tax credits will retain access to grants and loans from the Social Fund. [106118]

  Malcolm Wicks
  With the introduction of the new tax credits from April 2003, we estimate that more than 75 per cent. of families floating off income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance will gain by at least £20 a week—some by much bigger amounts. Anyone who receives the child tax credit at the maximum rate or any other rate greater than the family element, or the working tax credit where a disability or severe disability element is in payment, will qualify for Sure Start maternity grants and funeral payments from the regulated Social Fund, provided that all of the other eligibility criteria are met.

  Budgeting loans and community care grants from the discretionary Social Fund target the available help on the neediest people in our society who qualify for income-related benefits. We have taken the view that access to these elements of the Fund should not be

  915W
  extended to a wider range of people with higher incomes as such help would be poorly targeted and potentially very costly.

  Crisis loans will continue to be available to anyone in an emergency or as a consequence of a disaster where there is no other means of preventing serious damage or serious risk to their health or safety or that of their family. There is no requirement for a crisis loan applicant to be receiving an income-related benefit or a tax credit, but any income or capital they have will be taken into account.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the entitlement is to the Winter Fuel Payment; how many have received it in each year since its introduction; how much it has cost in public expenditure in each year; what percentage of this represents the cost of administration of the payment; and what his estimate is of the cost of the payment if it were to be restricted to those entitled to the pension credit. [106448]

  Mr. McCartney
  Most people aged 60 and over who normally live in Great Britain are entitled to a Winter Fuel payment. From winter 2000–01, the payment has been either £200 or £100 depending on the composition and circumstances of the household.

  Information on the numbers of payments and total expenditure for each year from 1997–98 is set out in the following table.

  Number in receipt (million)

  Great Britain Expenditure (£ million cash)

  1997–98

  9.759

  191

  1998–99

  9.953

  194

  1999–2000

  10.084

  759

  2000–01

  11.123

  1,749

  2001–02

  11.202

  1,692

  2002–03

  11.322

  1,710

  source:

  Departmental published estimates.

  Information on administrative costs is not currently available in the format requested. In accordance with the requirements of Resource Accounting and Budgeting the Department now accounts for its administration and benefit expenditure by Strategic Objective, as set out in its Public Service Agreements (PSA), and by individual Requests for Resources (RfRs), as set out in the Departmental Estimates and Accounts.

  Persons sentenced to community service and the proportion of all persons found guilty, England and Wales, 1992 to 2001

  Persons sentenced to combination orders1 service orders2

  Persons sentenced to combination orders1

  Persons sentenced to community orders service orders and combination orders

  Number

  Percentage of all convicted

  Number

  Percentage of all convicted

  Number

  Percentage of all convicted

  1992

  44,107

  2.9

  2,166

  0.1

  46,273

  3.1

  1993

  47,961

  3.4

  8,940

  0.6

  56,901

  4.0

  1994

  49,469

  3.5

  12,399

  0.9

  61,868

  4.4

  916W
  If Winter Fuel Payments were restricted to entitled recipients of Pension Credit, we estimate the cost to be £750 million per year.

  Workstep Programme
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on recent developments in the Workstep programme, with particular reference to(a) achievement of targets for progression to open employment; (b) local authority contribution to capitation payments and (c> the financial health of providers. [104790]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In April 2001, the former Supported Employment Programme was modernised and renamed Workstep to place greater emphasis on developing disabled people and helping them move into mainstream employment where possible.

  Because of the varying potential of participants to make the transition to open employment, formal targets would not be appropriate. However, providers are encouraged to work towards achieving progression for up to 30 per cent. of all new entrants and 10 per cent. of those recruited under the former supported employment programme. Since April 2001, nearly 3,300 individuals have progressed into open employment.

  Payments under Workstep are made to providers when participants achieve specific stages within the programme, and a monthly payment is made to providers for all those they support in work. Depending on the nature of the employment within which support is provided, local authorities and other providers may additionally contribute to the costs of the workplace. The amounts paid vary considerably across Workstep providers and across workplaces.

  The financial health of providers is considered as part of the ongoing monitoring undertaken by Jobcentre Plus of its contractual relationship with providers. The recent extension to Workstep, carried out through a competitive procurement, included a rigorous assessment of financial health for all providers who expressed an interest in the competition.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Community Service
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been sentenced to community service in each of the last 10 years; and what proportion these represented of the number of people convicted of criminal offences.[106585]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 1 April 2003]The information requested for 1992 to 2001 is contained in the table. Statistics for 2002 will be published in the autumn.
  917W

  Persons sentenced to community service and the proportion of all persons found guilty, England and Wales, 1992 to 2001

  Persons sentenced to combination orders1 service orders2

  Persons sentenced to combination orders2

  Persons sentenced to community orders service orders and combination orders

  Number

  Percentage of all convicted

  Number

  Percentage of all convicted

  Number

  Percentage of all convicted

  1995

  48,337

  3.6

  14,559

  1.1

  62,896

  4.7

  1996

  45,895

  3.2

  17,300

  1.2

  63,195

  4.4

  1997

  47,123

  3.4

  19,460

  1.4

  66,583

  4.8

  1998

  48,566

  3.3

  21,183

  1.5

  69,749

  4.8

  1999

  49,597

  3.5

  20,733

  1.5

  70,330

  5.0

  2000

  49,983

  3.5

  19,241

  1.4

  69,224

  4.9

  2001

  49,764

  3.7

  14,662

  1.1

  64,426

  4.8

  1 Community punishment and rehabilitation orders from April 2000.

  2 Community punishment orders from April 2000.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter dated 16 January from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding his constituent Mr. S. Chemlakh of Fraserburgh.[105142]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 March 2003]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 3 April 2003.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 17 February from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. R. Myers. [106182]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 28 March 2003.

  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 18 February to the Department for Transport, which was transferred to the Home Department. [107208]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 3 April 2003,

  Domestic Violence (Police)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many policemen found to have committed acts of domestic violence have been(a) suspended and (b) dismissed in England and Wales in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [105045]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 28 March 2003]: When an accusation is made against a police officer an investigation is conducted by a police force's Criminal and Professional Standards Unit. If the police officer is convicted there is a presumption that he or she would be dismissed from the police force, but this is a matter for consideration by the police force.

  There is currently no national policy regarding police perpetrators of domestic violence. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is actively consulting with all police forces regarding this subject and are endeavouring to develop nationwide guidance which it hopes to deliver in September 2003.

  Emigration
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of the number of UK citizens who departed the UK unidentified by the international passenger survey, in each of the last five years, broken down by(a) race and (b) gender.[104897]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Andrew Turner, dated 4 April 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of UK citizens who departed from the UK but were not identified by the International Passenger Survey (IPS). (104897)
  The International Passenger Survey (IPS) is a continuous voluntary sample survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). It covers the principal air, sea and Channel Tunnel routes between the UK and countries outside the British Isles and currently samples approximately 0.2 per cent. of all travellers. The IPS excludes all movements of diplomats and armed forces personnel.
  The IPS is used as the basis for estimating migration between the UK and the rest of the world. A migrant is defined as someone whose length of stay in the destination country will be for a year or more, but this is based upon the intentions of the traveller and it is possible that these might change.
  For the purposes of estimating Total International Migration, estimates of emigrants from the IPS have previously been supplemented with (i) information on people migrating to the Republic of Ireland from the Quarterly Household Survey conducted by the Irish Central Statistics Office, and (ii) an estimate of the number of people who initially leave the UK for less than 12 months but subsequently decide to stay away longer. I cannot currently supply the figures you have requested because the ONS is in the process of revising estimates of Total International Migration for the past decade in the light of the results of the 2001 Census. This work includes investigation of groups of migrants not identified by the IPS and will result in revisions to the previously published series. The revisions are due for publication in late Spring 2003.

  Fixed Penalties
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the offenders who defaulted on paying their fixed penalty notices for disorder offences during the recent pilot scheme have since made the payment in full. [103950]
  919W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Recipients of penalty notices for disorder offences have 21 days in which to pay the penalty or request a court hearing. If neither action has been taken the penalty will be recorded as not paid and registered as a fine of one and a half times the amount of the penalty. Responsibility for collection of the fine and any enforcement action will fall to the magistrates courts as for any other fine. The evaluation of the pilots will include an assessment of the payment rate of fines registered as a result of non-payment of penalties.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of fixed penalty notices for disorder offences were paid 21 days after their issue during the recent pilot scheme. [103951]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  For penalty notices which had been issued up to 5 January 2003, a total of 53 per cent. were paid within the 21 day period allowed for payment.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many fixed penalty notices for disorder offences in the pilot scheme were withdrawn; and for what reasons; [103952]

  (2) under what circumstances, when payment is not forthcoming after 21 days, a fixed penalty notice for disorder offences may be withdrawn. [103949]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  As at 5 January 2003, 18 penalty notices for disorder had been withdrawn from a total of 1,835 issued. Penalty notices are withdrawn usually at the request of the issuing officer as a result of an error arising from their issue. It is also possible, under the legislation contained in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, for the police to withdraw the penalty notice and seek a prosecution if the recipient fails, within the 21 day suspended enforcement period, to pay the penalty or request a court hearing.

  Home Security
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been awarded to provide home security improvements for low income pensioners in each year since 1997. [106384]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The total cost of measures funded by the Home Office under the scheme to provide home security improvements for low income pensioners living in high crime areas in England, was £5.79 million, including the budgeted provision for 2002–03—final outturn figures for 2002–03 are not yet available. This is split as follows:

  £ million

  2000–01

  0.927

  2001–02

  3.286

  2002–031

  1.575

  1 Budgeted provision

  The scheme ran from July 2000 to June 2002. These figures cover only the purchase and installation of the security hardware; they do not include administrative or other overhead costs.

  The scheme in Wales has been run under separate arrangements. £44,000 was spent on security measures in 2000–01 and £106,000 in 2001–02. On cessation of the scheme in June 2002, the Welsh Assembly decided to
  920W
  maintain the provision of security equipment as an eligible measure under its Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, but chose not to set any targets, nor earmark dedicated funding in relation to this work.

  Other projects funded under the Crime Reduction Programme have provided home security improvements, including for the elderly, but a breakdown of the age profile of recipients is not available centrally.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes there have been in police officers numbers in the Tendring Division in Essex since 1997. [107690]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Information has not been collected on a regular basis about the number of officers deployed to Basic Command Units within force areas. I would, however, refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) on 2 December 2002 to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes),Official Report column 589W, setting out police strength for each Basic Command Unit for each force in England and Wales as at 31 March 2002.

  For Essex Police as a whole, between March 1997 and September 2002 police strength increased from 2,961 to 2,988, a record strength for the force. Between March 1997 and March 2002 (the latest available figures), the force's civilian support staff strength rose from 1,199 to 1,571.

  The deployment of resources between the 10 territorial divisions and other specialist operational and support units of the Essex Police is an operational matter for the Chief Constable (Mr. David Stevens QPM).

  Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults have taken place against prison officer staff at prisons in England and Wales during the last 12 months. [105266]

  Hilary Benn
  During the last 12 months there have been 3,365 proven prisoner adjudications for assaults against staff and others. This includes adjudications for assaults on visitors, private contractor employees and non Prison Service staff. The Prison Service does not collect separately, specific data on assault on prison officers. From April 2003, serious assaults on staff and prisoners will be calculated and reported separately.

  The Prison Service is committed to reducing all forms of violence in prison whether affecting prisoners or staff. Future plans will include the development and implementation of a violence reduction strategy, which will bring together existing approaches and seek to develop a safer environment for prisoners and staff.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners are sharing(a) two to a cell designed for one and (b) three to a cell designed for two. [105401]

  Hilary Benn
  At the end of February 2003, 20.2 per cent. of the prisoner population were sharing two to a cell designed for one (doubled).
  921W
  The Prison Service does not collect specific data on the number of prisoners sharing three to a cell designed for two. However, at the same date, 23.8 per cent. of the total population were held in overcrowded conditions. This includes prisoners doubled, those held three to a cell designed for two and any prisoners overcrowded in dormitories and larger cells.

  All data are provisional and subject to validation by prisons.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 11 March 2003,Official Report, column 211–12W, on prisons, what assessment he has made of the effect of reform to the criminal justice system on the reduction of (a) crime and (b) the prison population; and what estimate he has made of the number of prison service prisoners who will be held in police cells in 2004. [105236]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government is undertaking a programme of reform and modernisation in the Criminal Justice System in pursuit of its Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets to reduce crime, narrow the justice gap and increase public confidence in criminal justice. Central to this programme is the Criminal Justice Bill currently going through the House. The Bill provides for a range of significant reforms to the criminal justice system, including criminal procedures and evidence. In particular, it creates a new range of sentences designed to improve public protection and rehabilitate offenders so as to reduce re-offending. The reforms draw upon the review of sentencing policy conducted by John Halliday (Making Punishments Work, published in July 2001). The review made clear that sentencing can reduce crime in a number of ways—through deterrence, incapacitation, reform, rehabilitation, and reparation. It concluded that changes to the present sentencing framework should be capable of reducing crime through reductions in re-offending. The cost-benefit model underpinning the review attempted to quantify these benefits. It is summarised in Appendix 7 of the report.

  Current projections indicate that the sentencing provisions in the Bill will result in a small increase of about 1,000 in the prison population in the long term.

  It is not possible to predict how many prisoners will be held in police cells in 2004. The use of police cells is dependent on the population pressures at the time and the number used can vary on a daily basis. Their use is carefully monitored by the Prison Service and every effort is made to locate Prison Service prisoners held in police cells to a prison as soon as possible. There are currently no prisoners held in Police Cells.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether(a) future annual cost of living pay increases and (b) cost of living increases covering the last two years are to be withheld from instructional officers in Her Majesty's prisons and youth offender institutions who have not signed the new contract; and if he will make a statement. [105379]
  922W
  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 April 2003]: To enable more effective use of Prison Service Instructional Officers, it has been necessary to make changes to their terms, conditions and working practices. Prison Service operational managers are firmly of the view that such changes are needed if effective regimes are to be delivered and if instructional officers are to continue to he employed alongside the much more flexible—and no more expensive—prison officer instructors. This is an important step in the modernisation of the Prison Service.

  Instructional officers have received the same pay increases as other administrative, secretarial, specialist and support staff in the Prison Service up until the 2002 award. An offer effective from 1 July 2002 was made in December 2002 to their trade union, the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), incorporating the changes to terms and conditions and working practices. This was rejected following a ballot of their members. An offer was then made to instructional officers on an individual basis, also incorporating the changes to terms and conditions and working practices. This offer included a £500 non-consolidated payment by way of compensation and an inducement to accept. No instructional officer has been compelled to opt for the new terms and conditions, but around 90 per cent. of instructional officers have now accepted the offer to change.

  It is not sensible to maintain the pay scale under the old terms and conditions by giving cost of living increases, otherwise there would have been little incentive for staff to move to the modernised grade. From 1 July 2002, therefore, the 10 per cent. of instructional officers who have opted out will not receive a cost of living increase. However, those staff below the maximum of the old pay range will continue to receive a fixed amount of pay progression, with the amount dependent on their annual performance appraisal.

  Under-age Drinking
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people under the age of 18 years were charged with buying, or attempting to buy, intoxicating liquor in a licensed premises under section 169C of the Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000 in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002: and how many have been prosecuted successfully; [106896]

  (2) how many people were charged with selling intoxicating liquor in a licensed premises to a person under the age of 18 years under the section 169A of the Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000 in (a) 2001 and (b) 2002 and how many have been successfully prosecuted. [106897]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 3 April 2003]: The available information, relating to persons proceeded against and those found guilty of these offences in England and Wales for the year 2001, is shown in the table. Statistics on the numbers of persons charged are not collected centrally.

  Statistics for 2002 will be available in the autumn.
  923W

  Persons proceeded against and those found guilty at all courts for offences relating to the sale of alcohol to underage persons: England and Wales 20011

  Offence description

  Statute

  Year

  Persons proceeded against

  Persons found guilty

  Person under 18 buying or attempting to buy or consuming intoxicating liquor in licensed premises

  Licensing Act, 1964, Sections 169C(1) and 169E(1), Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983, Schedule (Sec. 3) para. 4(2).

  2001

  21

  14

  Selling etc., intoxicating liquor to persons under 18 for consumption on the premises

  Licensing Act, 1964, Sections 169A and 169B; Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983, Schedule (Sec. 3) para. 4(1).

  2001

  155

  53

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Crime
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what studies his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated of the fear of crime amongst (i) women, (ii) men, (iii) older people and (iv) young people. [106819]

  Worry about crime and personal safety by sex and age 2001–02

  Percentage feeling very worried about

  Percentges

  Burglary

  Mugging

  Physical attack

  Rape

  Insulted or Percentages

  Theft of a car1

  Theft from a car

  BCS Percentage feeling very unsafe walking alone in area after dark

  Men

  13

  9

  7

  5

  5

  16

  15

  5

  16–29

  13

  10

  9

  8

  4

  19

  17

  3

  30–59

  13

  8

  7

  5

  5

  16

  15

  3

  60 or older

  12

  10

  6

  2

  4

  13

  11

  10

  Women

  18

  20

  23

  25

  12

  18

  15

  20

  16–29

  18

  22

  30

  34

  14

  23

  18

  14

  30–59

  18

  19

  23

  25

  12

  17

  14

  16

  60 or older

  17

  22

  19

  18

  11

  17

  12

  34

  1 Based on car-owners only

  Source:

  BCS 2001/2.

  Home Office Statistical Bulletin 07/02, Table 9.04

  Results for the year ending March 2003 will be available in July 2003.

  In addition to the annual British Crime Survey, the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate commissions a wide range of other social research, development, statistical economics and modelling work, all of which build up the evidence base, deliver key National statistics and support practical delivery of key Home Office targets for all seven Home Office aims. This includes research to establish 'what works' in reducing fear of crime as part of the Crime Reduction Programme evaluation. Copies of the Research Development and Statistics Directorate's annual work programme since 1998–99 are in the Library.

  Crime and Disorder Act
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) discussions and (b) guidance has been issued to local council authorities regarding the implementation of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in evicting council and housing association residents who have been involved in criminal activities. [106574]
  924W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The annual British Crime Survey (BCS) provides trend information on levels of fear of crime among adults aged 16 and over. The most recent information available is for 2001–02. This was published in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 07/02 (Chapter 9), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. McNulty
  There is no specific guidance on evicting tenants of social landlords who have been involved in criminal activity. While there has been consultation on how to tackle anti-social behaviour in the social rented sector this did not look at criminal activity that is unrelated to the tenants occupation of their tenancy.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister issued guidance "Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour in Mixed Tenure Areas" for Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships members on 27 March 2003. A copy of the guidance has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mobile Telephone Masts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many letters his Department has received from residents of the Buckinghamshire constituency(a) in favour of and (b) opposed to the erection of mobile phone masts in 2002. [105700]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister receives many representations about mobile phone masts, but does not keep records about the number of letters from particular constituencies. The
  925W
  Government Office for the South East have received no letters about this subject from residents of the Buckinghamshire constituency during 2002.

  Neighbourhood Warden Schemes (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which councils in Lancashire have (i) applied for funding for a Neighbourhood Warden Scheme and (ii) been unsuccessful in obtaining this funding. [107143]

  Mrs. Roche
  The following councils applied for Neighbourhood, Street and Street Crime Warden funding: West Lancashire DC (two), Bolton MBC (two), Burnley BC, Wyre BC, Bury MBC (three), Lancashire City, Preston BC (two), Blackpool BC (two), Blackburn BC and South Ribble BC.

  There were also two other organisations that applied for funding that were not councils. These were Hyndburn FIRST, which is a Crime and Disorder Partnership and Initiative Burnley which is a Town Centre Partnership. Both of these were successful.

  There were seven unsuccessful bids. These were in Bolton, Bury, Preston, West Lancashire, Blackpool, Blackburn and South Ribble.

  New Housing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment has been made of the effect of his policy on building density on the quality of housing. [107148]

  Mr. McNulty
  There is no direct link between quality and density. There are some excellent examples of high quality housing built at high density, and the converse. The key is good design.

  The Communities Plan announced additional funding for the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) to drive up design standards and share best practice.

  Planning Delivery Grant
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Planning Delivery Grant. [106667]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written statement of 10 February 2003, Official Report, columns 35–42WS. A special grant report made under section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 relating to the allocations of the grant to local planning authorities and the Greater London Authority in 2003–04 is currently before the House (Report No. 177, HC537).

  Tuberculosis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions his Department has had with(a) the Department of Health and (b) local authorities regarding (i) overcrowding and (ii) poor housing in connection with tackling the rise in incidences of tuberculosis. [106572]
  926W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Department of Health is in the lead on a Government-wide delivery plan to tackle health inequalities. This will look at a range of factors contributing to inequalities in health. To be published shortly, the delivery plan will set out how Government programmes can be effectively targeted at health inequalities. Tackling poor housing is key to this process and this Office will continue to be involved in ensuring that these problems are addressed.

  Measures in the draft Housing Bill, published on 31 March, introduce the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to replace the current fitness standard. HHSRS will enable local authorities to assess overcrowding as a health and safety hazard and to take proportionate action. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister welcomes responses from local authorities to this.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received on heroin production in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban regime; and what steps her Department is taking to tackle heroin production in Afghanistan. [106115]

  Clare Short
  I receive regular Parliamentary Questions and letters from Members of Parliament and others on opium production in Afghanistan.

  The UK is the lead partner nation to the Afghanistan Transitional Administration on counter-narcotics. The Government as a whole is working with the Afghans to support a comprehensive strategy to eliminate opium production in Afghanistan within ten years. My Department is contributing to this effort by supporting the creation of sustainable, alternative, licit livelihoods for people in Afghanistan, including those involved in poppy production.

  In addition to support for broad based rural economic development, we have provided £2.8 million to quick impact reconstruction projects, including in drug producing areas and is providing £1 million to an Aga Khan Foundation alternative livelihoods programme in and around poppy-growing areas in Badakshan, in north-eastern Afghanistan.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her estimate is of the expenditure of her Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [106300]

  Clare Short
  The Department no longer purchases newspapers, magazines and periodicals from a central budget, but full details of decentralised expenditure could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The central expenditure is shown in the table for the financial year 2002–03. These figures are provisional and subject to final audit.
  927W

  £

  Magazines and periodicals

  99,775

  Newspapers

  3,790

  Total cost

  103,565

  International Aid
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what change there has been annually in overall levels of international aid since 1995; and what proportion of this aid has been directed to countries qualifying or seeking to qualify as a Heavily Indebted Poor Country during this period. [106188]

  Clare Short
  Overall levels of net official development assistance (oda) from all bilateral donors have fallen from $59.1 billion in 1995 to $52.3 billion in 2001—the latest year for which data are available. During that period, net oda to the 42 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) has also fallen from $19.0 billion to $15.9 billion, meaning that the proportion going to HIPC has remained relatively stable at just under one-third of all oda. The table shows the figures and percentages for each year.

  Total net oda to $ billion

  Total not oda to HIPC countries $ billion

  Preprotion of total oda given to HIPC countries Percentage

  1995

  59.1

  19.0

  32

  1996

  55.8

  17.0

  30

  1997

  47.9

  14.9

  31

  1998

  50.1

  15.0

  30

  1999

  52.1

  15.0

  29

  2000

  53.7

  14.7

  27

  2001

  52.3

  15.9

  30

  Source:

  OECD-DAC.
  928W
  The list of HIPC countries is available in Statistics On International Development 1997–98–2001–02 page 145, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department gives to each NGO with main headquarters located in the(a) US and (b) UK. [106925]

  Clare Short
  Details of the amounts granted to CSOs are available in Statistics on International Development 1997–98 to 2001–02, Table 14 page 140—a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Serbia and Montenegro
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what level of aid the UK is providing to the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. [106136]

  Clare Short
  Our bilateral programme for the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro (SAM), including Kosovo, will amount to £7.4 million in 2003–2004. Thiswill focus on supporting the economic and social reform and poverty reduction agendas of the governments of SAM. £2 million has also been committed from the Whitehall-pooled Global Conflict Prevention Fund to support policing, community safety and justice sector reform in Serbia. In addition DFID will contribute £39 million to the £201 million allocated by the EC for its 2003 programme in SAM (including Kosovo)

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff are employed by her Department. [106285]

  Clare Short
  I refer to the central answer being provided by the Cabinet Office on behalf of Government Departments.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rate Collection Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  The ministerial targets for the Rate Collection Agency, Northern Ireland, for the period 1 April 2003–31 March 2004 are as follows:to collect 98 per cent. (or the 2002–03 outturn if higher) of a forecast £758 million Gross Collectable Rate (excluding Late Assessments) by 31 March 2004;
  to deliver an efficiency saving of 2 per cent.;
  to accurately calculate and advise District Councils of the Actual Penny Product outturn for 2002–03, and to forecast the Estimated Penny Product for 2004–05 by 1 November 2003;
  to process 98 per cent. of Housing Benefit applications free from error;
  to achieve an average turnaround time for processing regular, non-annual Housing Benefit applications of 25 working days;
  to issue all eligible rate refunds within 14 working days of being identified as a rate refund;
  to achieve, by 31 March 2004, an overall rating for service provision of 'satisfied' or above, from at least 95 per cent. of respondents;
  to live within budget allocations for 2003–04.

  Copies of the Rate Collection Agency's Corporate and Business Plan for 2003–06, which includes these targets, were deposited in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 1 April 2003. Copies will also be placed in the House of Commons Library and the House of Lords Library.

DEFENCE

  Defence Analytical Services Agency
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  Key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) for Financial Year 2003–04. The targets build on the Business Review of the Agency conducted last year and are as follows:

  Delivering Services to Meet Customer Needs
  To meet at least 95 per cent. of the timeliness and quality targets in the 36 Service Level Agreements with customers for continuing work, and Project Agreements for surveys, modelling and other one-off projects.
  To meet at least 95 per cent. of the timeliness and quality targets for defence National Statistics publications.
  To have at least 90 per cent. of customers saying, in the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey, that they are satisfied with the overall service they receive from DASA.
  74WS
  Investing in Quality
  To conduct a quality review of DASA's National Statistics on defence logistics, and recommend improvements in their quality and scope.
  To implement the key recommendations from the National Statistics review of Armed Forces medical statistics conducted in 2001–02.

  Developing People
  To have at least 85 per cent. of staff saying, in the annual Staff Opinion Survey, that they are satisfied with working in DASA.

  Building a Better Business
  To maintain a system of corporate governance within DASA which has no significant weaknesses.
  To make efficiency gains of £200,000.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Secondary Schools (Curriculum and Staffing Survey)
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband)
  In November 2002, my Department conducted a Secondary Schools Curriculum and Staffing Survey. The last was held in November 1996. This survey is a periodic voluntary sample survey of maintained secondary schools in England intended to provide data on the breadth of curriculum offered by schools to different year groups, and the post A-level qualifications held by teachers at these schools and how these relate to the subjects that they teach. Provisional results from this survey have been scheduled for publication as national statistics on 16 April 2003, with final results due to be published in September.

  Over 800 schools were invited to take part in the Survey and, to date, 174 positive responses have been received. Professional advice from officials of the Government Statistical Service is that, while this response provides sufficient data to allow representative results on curriculum coverage to be obtained, there are insufficient data to allow representative results on teachers' qualifications to be obtained at this point. This advice has been given to me in accordance with the national statistics code of practice, which also means that no results from any part of the survey have yet been disclosed to Ministers or policy officials of my Department.

  Despite the survey form being designed to impose minimum burdens on participating schools, the response rate has been lower than anticipated. This is due to the voluntary nature of the survey. Government statisticians have made intensive efforts to support and encourage respondents and these efforts are meeting with some success. The Department will continue to make these efforts and to take all possible action to increase positive responses from schools in order to yield sufficient data on teachers' qualifications.

  In view of these facts, I am advised that provisional results on curriculum coverage only will be included in the publication scheduled for 16 April 2003. It is now my Department's intention to include results on teachers' qualifications in the release of final data scheduled for September 2003, when sufficient data have been secured.

HEALTH

  Children in Care
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith)
  I regret that the written ministerial statement on children in care I gave on 31 March at columns 39–40WS was incorrect. It should have read as follows:

  My Department's Public Service Agreement (PSA), published July 2002, included a commitment to review the target on the education of children in care, in light of the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) project on that subject. Work on the SEU project is nearing completion, and I am now in a position to announce the new target, which is to:

  Improve life chances for children, including by:
  Substantially narrowing the gap between the educational attainment and participation of children in care and that of their peers by 2006.

  This target will have been achieved if, by 2006:
  outcomes for 11 year olds in English and maths are at least 60 per cent. as good as those of their peers;
  the proportion who become disengaged from education is reduced, so that no more than 10 per cent reach school leaving age without having sat a General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) equivalent exam; and
  the proportion of those aged 16 who get qualifications equivalent to five GCSEs graded A,*-C has risen on average by 4 percentage points each year since 2002; and in all authorities at least 15 per cent of young people in care achieve this level of qualifications.

  The elements of the PSA target relating to the level of education, training and employment outcomes for care leavers aged 19, the proportion of children in care who are cautioned or convicted, and the under-18 conception rate, remain unchanged.

  In developing the target I have been keen to encourage action to support attainment by all children in care. This includes younger children, those who are able and have the potential to achieve at a high level, and those with difficulties who need support to remain engaged with education at all.

  I therefore welcome the SEU's proposal that as part of the existing planning process, individual education targets should be set for all children in care and local authorities should monitor both the appropriateness and the achievement of these targets. We will be consulting stakeholders on how best to achieve this.

  In order that the target reflects the influence of the care system on attainment, it will apply only to children who have been in care for one year or more. Nonetheless, I believe that promoting the attainment of children who spend a shorter time in care is important. I have therefore agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills that he will
  76WS
  put in place arrangements to analyse data from the Pupil Level Annual School Census, in order to improve our understanding of outcomes for those young people who have spent any time in care. The results of this analysis will be used to inform the development of future policy.

  Copies of the technical note accompanying the new PSA target have been placed in the Library.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
  The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche)
  As part of the Spending Review 2002, the Government announced that they would be making available an additional £975 million for the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) in 2004–05 and 2005–06 as part of their strategy to revitalise England's poorest neighbourhoods and create places where people want to live, not leave.

  We have already provided £900 million of NRF to the 88 most deprived local authority areas for the period 2001–02 to 2003–04. Already, good progress has been made by local authorities in collaboration with Local Strategic Partnerships in using NRF to help address some of the most serious problems in our most deprived neighbourhoods.

  However, more needs to be done, particularly to support better tailoring and targeting of mainstream services to make sure they are reaching the people and places which need them most. To achieve this, we are committed to ensuring that these areas continue to receive both the resources and other forms of support needed to tackle postcode poverty and create thriving, sustainable communities.

  That is why we are announcing today that we intend to use most of these additional NRF resources to continue funding the current 88 eligible local authority areas in 2004–05 and 2005–06 at the 2003–04 level. This will mean an additional £800 million over the two-year period. We will confirm detailed figures of the allocations to individual local authorities shortly.

  Engaging the community in the process of neighbourhood renewal is central to the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. We are therefore also announcing today that we intend to provide an additional £86 million over the same period to support Community Participation programmes in the current 88 eligible areas for NRF.

  There remains £175 million of additional NRF resources still to be allocated. I will be making a further statement to the House shortly on how we intend to distribute these.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Code of Guidance on Sites of Special Scientific Interest: Encouraging positive partnerships
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft code of guidance laid before the House on 5th February be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government have a long-standing commitment to protecting biodiversity. A coherent network of designated sites remains vital to nature conservation and a core element of our wider biodiversity strategy. Sites of special scientific interest are at the heart of the system of designated conservation areas and safeguard the best of England's wildlife and geology.
There are over 4,000 sites of special scientific interest in England, covering more than 1 million hectares of land. This is about 7.5 per cent of England's total land area. Over three-quarters of the area is of international importance. The key features of the modern regime for managing and protecting these areas were put in place under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Far-reaching changes to this regime were introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 for England and Wales. I am sure many of your Lordships will remember the debates we had in the Chamber during the passage of that legislation. It contained significant new provisions concerning notification, protection and management of SSSIs. The changes were made to secure positive management of sites of special scientific interest and to ensure robust protection responsive to today's threats.
The 1981 Act sets out a requirement under Section 33 for a code to be prepared from time to time containing advice, recommendations and information to guide those exercising functions relating to SSSIs and those who are affected by those functions. The revised draft code before your Lordships today seeks to meet this requirement. It reflects the legislative changes and represents a significant enhancement over the previous code, issued in 1982. Although there is a statutory requirement for the code itself, its content is advisory only and does not provide any additional basis for enforcement proceedings or prosecution, or have any bearing upon them.
The code applies to England only; it is aimed at English Nature, local authorities, land agents, public bodies, all those exercising functions that could impact on SSSIs and corporate and individual owners and occupiers of SSSI land. A separate code is being prepared for Wales.
The draft code summarises and explains the regime now protecting SSSIs, taking into account the effect of the new legislation. It explains in more accessible terms than the legislation how the provisions for site notification, management and protection should operate. It sets out the Government's expectations of English Nature and explains to interested parties their rights and what they can expect of their dealings with English Nature. It also highlights the obligations on owners and occupiers as well as public bodies. The new positive statutory duty that local authorities have to protect and enhance SSSIs when they exercise their functions is highlighted along with the consultative obligations this requires.
We consulted widely on the draft code in August 2000 and again with key bodies in 2001. The code does not introduce any new burdens in respect of SSSIs but provides guidance within the context of the existing legislation. The Government have set a public service agreement target that 95 per cent of SSSIs should be in favourable condition by 2010. I believe the code will help to make a contribution towards that target by raising awareness among public bodies, landowners and other groups and by explaining in a clear way the powers and procedures associated with them. Of course, achievement of the target will require a sustained level of commitment and action from many people and organisations within government and beyond. Nevertheless, the setting of the target shows we are serious in our commitment to biodiversity. The code will significantly help in establishing a clear understanding of the basic legislative regime for protecting and enhancing our SSSIs.
The code has received a broad welcome from the various groups that have seen it, such as landowners and occupiers, NGOs, and statutory agencies and bodies. It sets out very clearly the partnership approach that is essential in managing SSSIs to get the maximum benefit from them, and our commitment to working with all interested players in this area. I am sure that everyone here today shares the objectives of protecting our valuable sites and enhancing the biodiversity of our country. I commend the code to the House.
Moved, That the draft code of guidance laid before the House on 5th February be approved.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for putting this code before us. The noble Baroness said, slightly wryly, that many of us would remember the hours we spent on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. Indeed, I think it is imprinted on our hearts. There were many agonising times, and before return to the code, I should like to reflect on the difficulty we had in trying to balance the protection of wildlife with the proper management of land, because sometimes they are in conflict.
I accept that the code is advisory and sets out very clearly the expectations that the Government and all of us have of English Nature and the way in which the

1583
rights and dealings will take place between landowners and those who work the land. I have one or two specific questions.
The code is for guidance only. It refers to the 1981 Act to emphasise the importance of positive management of SSSIs, something we all welcome. It recognises the need to develop further the constructive relationship between landowners, managers, officers of conservation agencies, English Nature and, in regard to Wales—although the code does not refer to Wales—the Countryside Council for Wales.
The code is to assist English Nature in exercising its powers and to give guidance to public bodies and utilities. By January 2006, every owner or occupier should have had a clear statement of the proposed management requirements for the SSSI. A formal appeal system will be in place. Would the Minister clarify for me that if there is an impasse between the owner and English Nature, it is the Secretary of State who will give the final decision?
English Nature will also be required regularly to report to the Secretary of State on the progress of improving the conditions of the SSSIs. Will the Minister define "regularly" for us?
As the Minister said, the Government have set a target of 95 per cent of SSSIs to be in a favourable or unfavourable but recovering condition by 2010. However, when the original White Paper was published, it set a different goal. It stated that the Government had set themselves,
"an ambitious target of ensuring that 95 per cent of the nationally important sites in England are in a favourable condition by March 2010".
Why has the wording been altered? Did the Government feel at that time, or subsequent to their discussions, that they could not achieve their original goal for favourable conditions? The wording has been changed and one might say, in interpretation, that the target has been watered down.
I turn to one section of people who work on SSSIs and to the question of commoners' grazing rights. Having considered the draft code, I do not believe that they are included in it. Many commoners do not have ownership of the land; they have only grazing rights upon it. Will the Minister comment on that?
Finally, I turn to a letter that I was sent only this week, which expresses some of the concerns that are being felt now that the new Act and the codes are coming into being. It is from a Mr Pope from down in Dorset, who has about 1,500 acres of Dorset countryside. He says:
"So we have an SSSI (plus potentially another) and most is ESA. We work with the RSPB, and with Butterfly Conservation, and we have an extraordinary concentration of flora and fauna from spawning salmon, water voles and egrets, to barn owls and rare orchids"—
all the things that we would love to be out there seeing today, rather than debating in this House. Mr Pope goes on to say that,
"it is precisely this level of care which has exposed us to the full brunt of the right to roam, with no hope of defence. Because the Right will not give access to 'improved grassland', other land I
1584
know well where environmental crime has been committed in the past, is safe from this intrusion. Because investors in the land pay a premium for privacy, one can expect to see values suffer, but so will the wildlife we have protected, and the businesses we try to run".
He goes on to say that he has an internationally famous shoot, and that,
"we take the greatest care that it is positive to wildlife; it pays for the maintenance of woodland to be flora and fauna friendly, crops which encourage songbirds, and generally it enriches the food chain; it makes a most significant financial contribution to the local rural economy. At worst, our right to roam areas will make it impossible to run it profitably, whilst our 'improved grassland' areas, which are closer to populations but irrelevant to the shoot, remain undisturbed".
There is more, but I shall not waste your Lordships' time. However, that letter is relevant to our discussions. Here is somebody—and I suspect that there are many others—who is doing his best to preserve and protect wildlife and to look after the countryside as the Government would desire. Unfortunately, some of the implications of the Act make it difficult for those people to do so. I pose only those few questions for the Minister, but I thank her for presenting the code to us this morning.
11.15 a.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we, too, welcome the code and the implementation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. I also have fond memories of sitting with other noble Lords through long hours of night to debate that Bill.
Page 7 of the code gives January 2006 as the date when English Nature must have given every owner,
"a short but clear statement".
Is the Minister confident that English Nature has the resources to implement a policy that will require an additional amount of resource?
On page 8, public bodies that carry out work must,
"minimise and make good any damage caused, where practicable".
The guidance is weakened considerably by the words "where practicable". Does the Minister have it in mind to strengthen that guidance? Many public bodies may claim that it is not practicable.
Also on page 8, under "Offences", the code says that English Nature must be both friend and enforcer. That is a difficult dual role, and the Government may want to keep an eye on that, for English Nature and for the Environment Agency, in some other contexts. The Government might like to monitor whether being the landowner's friend and enforcer makes life very much more difficult for English Nature.
On page 9, the code raises a small point, but one to which your Lordships often return. English Nature must give notification in local newspapers, but we are still failing to put websites into requirements, although that is the medium that many people use. I recognise that the issue of identifying new SSSIs, which is addressed on page 13, is developing. However, it does not seem to have been given much weight in the code, no doubt because there is still a great deal of work to be done on existing SSSIs. Perhaps the Minister can

1585
tell us whether the Government would consider reviving the code, at which point the identification of new SSSIs could be given a little more weight.
I recognise that the target for 2010—on page 17— has been watered down so that it now includes sites which are in an "unfavourable but recovering condition". Would it not be more helpful if the two targets were split? I see no reason why we cannot have sites designated "favourable" and a second batch of sites designated "unfavourable but recovering". Such definition would be very helpful.
Page 25 of the code offers owners and occupiers the choice of submitting a planning application to the local planning authority or, alternatively, to appeal to the Secretary of State when English Nature refused consent for an operation. Who will offer guidance to the owner or occupier on the best route? The code offers none.
I turn to issues affecting public bodies and I must declare an interest as a Somerset county councillor. I welcome the statement as set out in PPG 9 that local authorities should include policies for the protection and enhancement of SSSIs in their area and their local plans. That is quite right. However, local authorities are driven by the Audit Commission's indicators as outlined in its comprehensive performance assessments. Although the indicators are meaningful, as the Government rightly intended them to be, they are also very rigid. They offer no means of taking account of the sort of requirement which the Government are laying down in the code. Sustainability itself is barely mentioned, and litter seems to be the only environmental consideration. I encourage the Minister to talk to the Audit Commission about how the indicators might better reflect the good work that local authorities are doing in this area.
When the code was considered in the Commons, the Minister's reply on the duties of public bodies was not entirely clear. Perhaps the Minister could clear up two points. Elliot Morley said:
"Under Section 281, any public body is required to take account of advice provided by English Nature. Under current legislation, English Nature can issue a so-called second notice that will include a statement of how the advice has been taken into account, if it is concerned".
It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that public bodies must take account of advice provided by English Nature. It is also unclear whether the Minister in another place was referring to a second notice. I realise that it is a technical point, but I think that I should quote from my brief which states:
Under section 28H(5)(b) and 28I(6)(a), a public body which wishes to proceed with an activity against the wishes of English Nature must notify English Nature of how (if at all) the advice has been taken account of".
Can the Minister confirm that that is the procedure to which reference was made?
The Minister, Mr Morley, went on to say:
In the end, where there is disagreement between English Nature and a public or private developer, English Nature has the power to apply a stop notice to am development to allow it time to present its case and possibly to negotiate with the developer
1586
about, for example, a management agreement".—[Official Report, Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 26/2/03; cols. 18–22.]
It is not clear which section of the Act gives English Nature the power to prevent a public body carrying out a damaging activity in pursuit of the public body's statutory functions or duties. I would welcome the Minister's comments on whether English Nature as a government agency has powers over other public bodies.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I must first declare an interest. The whole of the River Usk and its tributaries are about to be designated as an SSSI and ESA, and my home is on the banks of one of those tributaries which flows past my garden. However, that is not the point that I wish to address today. The example which I want to give of one concern is taken from Wales. Therefore, I am dealing with correspondence involving the Countryside Council for Wales rather than English Nature. However, the same principles apply.
A number of noble Lords have received correspondence about the Montgomery Canal. I have already discussed the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who has a close interest in it. In recent years, very large sums of public money and private money—many millions of pounds—have been spent on the Montgomery Canal in order to reopen it for use. Previously, large sections were closed or were impassable in one way or another. It is in that connection that I wish to draw attention to paragraph 105 of the document before us, which states:
"SSSIs are capable of accommodating many activities that do not conflict with the special features on them … English Nature should liaise with owners, managers and representative bodies to ensure that a range of recreational and other activities can continue in ways that are compatible with the conservation interest. It will be encouraged to pursue Memoranda of Understanding with representative bodies, and to develop individual management plans, particularly for heavily used sites. It should ensure that the importance of sites, for example as a recreational resource and as part of the nation's wildlife or geological heritage, is properly recognised, and that appropriate management is in place.
That seems to emphasise the need not for positive management of SSSIs but for sensible and in some cases flexible management.
When a part of the Montgomery Canal was closed, a great deal of what ignorant people call weed life—but which the Countryside Council for Wales calls "important aquatic plants"—started to grow. The banks became heavily overgrown so that the passage of boats was impossible. Now, the Countryside Council for Wales is taking such a protectionist view of the weeds—or the important aquatic plants—that use of the canal for its original purpose, by boats, is proving almost impossible.
I am sorry to say that I do not have the letter from the Countryside Council for Wales with me—I apologise to the House for that. I should have liked to quote a most remarkable paragraph which indicates that boating on the canal is very much a secondary use and that it should perhaps be restricted to parts of the

1587
year when it will not damage the weeds. The letter indicates that boats could be quite useful if they came at the right time of year, because aquatic plants need stirring up from time to time, and that canal boats—which travel everywhere else under their own power—may require special motor power, possibly electric or horse power, in that section. In other words, the emphasis is almost entirely on the aquatic plants and the overgrowth and not at all on the recreational use of a canal that was built for boats.
I am not expert on the exact legal requirements of the European directives and the law in this respect. However, it is a most extraordinary position. A canal was closed for a time and something grew in it; it was then made an SSSI and could not be used for boating. The rules have to be interpreted with sensitivity and flexibility.
I give one other example. I live in a home in Wales which was a watermill. I and some friends, while still at Cambridge, reroofed it. I doubt whether I would be allowed to do that today. I confess that there were a few bats in the roof which no longer live there. I am almost certain that today I would be prevented from converting that building and it would now be a pile of stones—a ruin. No doubt the bats would be happy but I doubt whether that would really be the right decision. I know of other old buildings where bats are present and where perfectly sensible restoration work is prevented because the bats are considered more important than other uses.
So my plea is that in interpreting the legislation and the code of guidance there is a sensitive and sensible approach to these issues, a proper balancing of all the requirements and not an over-concentration on just one of them.
11.30 a.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness for having introduced the guidelines. Clearly, the main thrust behind them is one of co-operation between English Nature and owners and occupiers. That is absolutely essential. As time has evolved, a greater confidence has developed between both sides which I welcome. Indeed, paragraph 4 states:
"As recent experience shows, good management and a fruitful partnership between English Nature and the land manager needs to be maintained".
I am sure that all of us would concur with that.
But as a general point—I declare an interest as an owner of part of a very substantial upland SSSI—there is sometimes a tendency for English Nature to jump to conclusions about certain established management practices without perhaps having the relevant scientific evidence to substantiate such claims. For full co-operation to be effective on both sides we cannot rely on vague assumptions that a certain practice might be damaging. Any allegations that that is the case must be substantiated by proper research.
My main point relates to paragraphs 59 and 103 of the code of guidance. I refer here to English Nature's power to make by-laws under Section 20 of the 1949
1588
Act in relation to nature reserves, which has now been extended to include sites of special scientific interest. In essence I have no problems with that; it is a step in the right direction. The by-laws are designed for dealing with situations that could undermine the reasons for designation of the SSSI by,
"controlling activities and modifying behaviour".
In bold print paragraph 59 further states:
"The Secretary of State considers that powers to make byelaws are an important and valuable tool, which English Nature can use … to address problems arising from damaging activities".
Paragraph 103—I attach a great deal of importance to this—states:
"Increasing public interest in sustaining these important sites has led to requests for more information to be made available".
That is logical because the public will naturally pay greater heed to the by-laws if they are accompanied by some degree of explanation.
I suspect that the Minister will not be surprised when I draw her attention once again to the fact that under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 there is no statutory obligation on anyone entering an access area to do so via an access point. That being the case, it is inevitable that some visitors will be totally ignorant of any by-laws that English Nature decides are appropriate for a particular SSSI which is subject to open access.
Furthermore, the opportunity for providing more information—to which the Government devote so much attention and as prescribed in the guidelines—will also be lost. That will apply also to any closure orders that may be in place at the time.
I should add that concern is not restricted just to landowners and farmers. I quote from the minutes of the Moorland Access Advisory Group, which consists of representatives from all sides, including English Nature and the Countryside Agency:
"It is still not clear how access points or access information points will be shown … Land that is subject to regular and predictable exclusions and restrictions will not be distinguished from that with unrestricted access on OS maps".
That is a serious problem and one, quite frankly, that the Government have to come to terms with. I have no doubt that the Minister will be aware of the recently published predictions—we discussed the matter in a Starred Question yesterday—by the Countryside Agency on the likely state of the countryside in the year 2020. I shall not quote from that report but one suggestion was that there is likely to be a significant exodus from urban areas to rural areas with all the corresponding pressure that will ensue. Quite frankly, if we are incapable of imposing proper sustainable management structures for designated land now, I suggest that the Government are making a rod for their own back in the future. But, of course, it is not the Government who have to deal with the difficulties. It is the people on the ground, the landowners and the farmers, and, indeed, those representing English Nature and the Countryside Agency.

1589
I simply say to the Minister and her department that they really must come forward with realistic proposals to deal with a major difficulty that was ducked in the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.
Finally, I ask the Minister a question that does not relate directly to the guidelines. However, it saves my putting down a Written Question and the Minister having to give me an Answer. When will the regulations relating to Sections 21 and 22 of the CROW Act be published? They were promised last November but, to the best of my knowledge, are still not available. I refer to the implications of the 20-day restriction orders.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, having listened carefully to the contributions, I no longer feel somewhat guilty in asking a question which only touches upon this particular code. Within about 15 miles of where I live there is a beautiful SSSI called Hatfield Forest. It has been unchanged for over a thousand years. It is one of the very few remaining unchanged forests of its type in Europe and the only one remaining in England.
If Her Majesty's Government decide to expand Stansted airport, this ancient forest will be totally demolished. What would future generations think if they learnt that an area of such importance was sacrificed for the commercial reasons of those who travel by aircraft? I simply ask my noble friend how robust these notes of guidance and existing legislation are in protecting areas of such importance which are irreplaceable.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I have to admit that when I first saw the measure we are discussing I thought, "Here is some more bumf that I forgot to refer to in my speech on environmental regulation and agriculture. Here is more bumf for the poor land managers and farmers, such as my wife, to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest". I had forgotten that she owned a tiny SSSI when I spoke in the House that Friday and when I listed a few of the papers that she had to absorb in the line of duty.
The guidance does not come on its own, of course. It refers to three other documents, the main one of which will come in the future, as English Nature is said to be,
"also providing further, more detailed, information on the arrangements",
but we do not see that yet.
I have three or four worries and then some positive points. My first worry is that good old legal disclaimer in the preface, which makes me wonder how the farmers and land managers will get things right if the Civil Service cannot. Publicity of the SSSIs and why they have been given that status is referred to. I know of an ex-SSSI that used to have lily of the valley. Once the wood was publicised as having lily of the valley, the flowers were promptly picked by various marauding people. They do not exist any more, and the site is no longer an SSSI. Publicity could be disadvantageous and counterproductive sometimes, so that should be looked at carefully.
1590
Paragraphs 63 and 67 intrigue me. Paragraph 63 states that a management agreement should enable the person to meet the costs of whatever works are required. Paragraph 67 states that, if English Nature has to carry out the work, it will recover the excess costs. I suspect that that highlights the original problem—that the amount agreed was insufficient to cover the costs, or the original agreement was for the incorrect amount—so paragraph 67 should not be necessary.
I felt the titles were excellent. The title of the explanatory memorandum uses the words "Building positive partnerships", and the title of the code uses the words "Encouraging positive partnerships". Both are admirable objectives. With the right attitude, such partnerships could be made to work. If English Nature has the right officials with the right ability to handle people and their concerns, and if they really give help and advice, that will work to the benefit of everyone. It is only if they come in as little Hitlers and start telling people what to do that everything will break down.
On that point, there can sometimes be a very difficult conflict of interests. I heard recently of someone who had to dig out their drains in order to maintain the hydrological balance of the area, as has to be done. However, they were promptly penalised for disturbing vole habitats—heads I lose, tails I lose. Such matters must be handled carefully, and we need officials who know how to handle them properly. The legal obligation should not end up on the poor old farmer, but on the person who gives the advice.
As usual, because of the new structures, the implementation is carried out by an agency. I have never really thought that very sensible. It means that Parliament cannot ask questions about the actions carried out in the name of the Government. That has always concerned me. We now have a sort of split. Suddenly English Nature will be making by-laws and its agents taking actions, and we will be able to do nothing about it.
I shall end on a positive note by saying that partnerships can work very well. My wife had an incredible amount of help and support from FWAG when she was working on Countryside Stewardship schemes. If English Nature gives the same level of support and advice on the matters under discussion, everything will certainly work. The key is collaboration, not confrontation.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, how right the noble Earl is that much of what is important is a matter of attitude rather than legislation. I declare an involvement rather than an interest as the Minister who guided the 1981 Act through Parliament. I subsequently spent nine years as a member of the Nature Conservancy Council, and was then the Minister in charge of SNH. I feel that I shall have "SSSI" on my gravestone.
In passing, relative to SNH and Scotland, I should say that I was one of those who was very enthusiastic in the 1980s and 1990s to convert NCC Scotland into

1591
having its own responsibility as Scottish National Heritage, and that happened. The principal reason was that Peterborough was a very long way from the highlands of Scotland, where many of the SSSIs were and much of the involvement in nature conservancy was. Last week, the First Minister in Scotland announced that the headquarters of SNH was to be moved from Edinburgh to Inverness. The whole thing will be moved far north, which is most inconvenient and to which the staff object totally. It cannot in any way help conservation in Scotland.
I want the Minister to say whether Scotland will produce a similar code of guidance. So often, in agricultural terms, I have heard Ministers say that Scotland will follow suit, but it never does. Relative to all the legislation and discussion on foot and mouth, Scotland was to produce its own papers, but I am still waiting for them. What relationship and co-operation are we having with SNH, because the borderline does not impact on livestock and nature conservation? We want arrangements to be the same both sides of the Border if at all possible.
The 1981 Act succeeded a Bill introduced by the previous government that fell at the 1979 election after the Porchester report. We felt that that Bill was far too full of compulsion, and wanted to move forward wherever possible by voluntary agreements, backed up by law if required. That was the basis for the Act. The Committee that considered the then Bill was very constructive. The clause that we are debating was put in on Report in July 1981, and called for guidelines to interpret the legislation. Impartially, I would be quite interested if the Minister were to tell me the differences between the guidelines with which we are dealing and the recommendations relative to cattle welfare.
The guidelines are definitely required, as they were in 1981 because the NCC's relationships with farmers and landowners were pretty tense. As has already been mentioned, it failed to be flexible and there was little co-operation. It often led to intimidation and court proceedings. I welcome that we now have commonsense guidelines to procedures, which bring in the social and economic impact of SSSIs on rural areas. The NCC had a reputation for being somewhat heavy-handed, and the guidelines show a positive and more friendly way forward, particularly relative to notification of new SSSIs.
Most owners of SSSIs are proud to have them and want to go along with English Nature, with the appropriate management agreements. One major problem was potentially damaging operations or, in the awful jargon of that world, PDOs. Sometimes simple agricultural operations were banned for, in the views of the farmers or landowners, no good reason. Matters could of course have been resolved amicably, which is what I hope the guidelines set out to do. They are about sympathetic management between English Nature, its area officers and the landowners and farmers.
Much of the success of the code will depend on English Nature and its staff, DEFRA and its staff, and the Ministers responsible. They have to set the tone
1592
and bring harmony rather than strife to the countryside. They must use their influence with NGOs such as the RSPB, the RSPCA and so on, whose large memberships sometimes seem to dictate final decisions. English Nature and DEFRA must keep a fair balance with the guidelines. Some organisations, such as the National Farmers Union, the Game Conservancy Trust and BASC have a wealth of knowledge at least equal to that of English Nature. Sometimes, built-in opposition to country sports by English Nature has brought most unfortunate repercussions. It tends to forget that those interested in country sports perhaps spend more time improving habitats and conservation than anyone else.
For the beautification of the landscape, the prominence of SSSIs is very important. But to have SSSIs and a lovely landscape, we need profitable farming, and the Government seem to be doing their level best to have the reverse.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. Perhaps I may underline the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, about the need to co-operate and to work together to protect that which we all agree should be protected.
I begin by referring to the noble Lord, Lord Monro, who sought to draw me into commenting on matters that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that it was done in all innocence. We are not aware of any immediate plans for a code to be produced in Scotland. We work closely with other conservation agencies across Border sites on issues that are common. There are common monitoring requirements across England, Scotland and Wales. If the noble Lord is not happy with some of the decisions, I am afraid that he must take them up with his representative from the Scottish Parliament. I compliment the noble Lord on the role that he played in introducing the 1981 Act.
As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, co-operation must be the watchword. In usual circumstances, it should be possible to reach a voluntary agreement—referred to by several noble Lords—and the use of English Nature's power to issue a management scheme will not be necessary. But, where it is, English Nature is required to consult owners and occupiers on the scheme and to allow them three months to make representations. The code makes clear that English Nature will be expected to consider carefully any comments, suggestions and representations that owners or occupiers may make during the course of developing the scheme, and the scheme must be confirmed within nine months. But where English Nature issues a management notice to secure the implementation of the scheme, owners and occupiers have the right to appeal against the terms of the notice to the Secretary of State, and they must be informed of that right by English Nature.
Perhaps I may cross the other Border for a moment in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I am aware of the beauties of the Montgomery Canal. I am also aware of the role played by the late Lady

1593
White in the development and reopening of that canal. I am afraid that the noble Lord seeks to draw me into commenting on the role of the Countryside Council for Wales. While I fear that it is not within my power to do so, I should be grateful if he would send me a copy of the letter that he has received and I shall seek to ensure that it goes through the appropriate route in order to obtain answers to the questions.
I am aware that other people have been up against the problem that the noble Lord avoided by taking very early action in relation to the presence of bats. There will always be conflict—
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that invitation. But I was also making a general point because, although I use the Montgomery Canal, I was emphasising the need to get this balance right in other cases as well.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, l was about to go on to say that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made the important point that in particular areas there must be sensitive and careful handling of conflicts of interest and conflicts of use. But it is impossible for me to respond to the specific example that he gave.
My noble friend Lord Simon asked a question about possible Stansted airport expansions affecting the Hatfield Forest SSSI. Under the overarching Section 28G duty, it is important to recognise that there is a duty to conserve and enhance SSSIs. If consent for any proposal is to be considered, it will need first to go through the consultation process to which I have just referred. English Nature would be required to provide advice on the impact of the proposal and the public body would have to show how it had taken account of that advice. Ultimately, if English Nature felt that its advice had not been given due weight, it could request that the matter be called in by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to changes under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act which include provisions that English Nature exercises greater control over activities that may affect SSSIs by refusing, modifying or applying conditions to consents as appropriate. An important duty is to be taken into account within that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Dourer, asked whether further revision of the code was to take place. We believe that new legislation needs to bed in, but we take heed of the point that she raised.
The allegation of watering down PSA targets is incorrect. Favourable conditions include "favourable maintained", "favourable recovered" and "unfavourable recovering" as three scientific categories in the common standards monitoring system, as technical notes on this target made clear from the start in 2000.
Whether or not owners or occupiers choose to apply for planning consent or to appeal to the Secretary of State is, of course, at the discretion of the owner or occupier. But the code promotes a climate in which we
1594
hope that such disagreement will not arise very often. With regard to enforcement of the statutory duties on public bodies, it is an offence for public bodies to fail to comply with the legislation when carrying out functions that are likely to harm SSSIs.
The noble Baroness also asked whether there was sufficient funding. The code does not place any significant new burdens on English Nature. It advises on the way that English Nature should behave in carrying out its functions required under the legislation. English Nature's funding needs to carry out its duties are considered very fully in the context of annual spending rounds.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised the issue of the statement of views on management. The statement is advisory and is meant to provide a brief and helpful summary for owners and occupiers. Where specific measures are necessary to manage the land, English Nature can enter into agreements or use more robust powers. The right to roam issues are covered in the code. If noble Lords wish to raise more detailed questions, they may of course write to me.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also raised the issue of commoners. We recognise that matters concerning common land are particularly complex. In July last year, following a lengthy review, we published our common land policy statement. It outlines our proposals for changes to the legislation governing common land, including development and better land management agreements and arrangements. At present, there are no plans to issue specific SSSI guidance concerning commoners. However, we shall give this matter further consideration in the light of experience in applying the current regime and the emerging proposals for the future management of commons.
Several noble Lords referred to the progress being made towards meeting the targets set. English Nature publishes annual reports and it has always been clear that those sites classified as in good condition and meeting the target include those sites which are recovering. The target establishes the baseline for the target at the time it was set at 60 per cent. If any of those sites classified as favourably maintained or favourably recovered had been included, that figure would have been much lower.
Noon
Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. One of the questions asked was why the wording was changed from "favourable condition" to "unfavourable condition". It would he helpful to noble Lords if the Minister could tell the House the reason for that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton:: My Lords, my understanding is that it was changed in order to be more sensitive to the different categories. The point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who asked whether it would be possible to distinguish between sites which were unfavourable but improving

1595
and those which were not. I believe that that answers the question. If not, I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness.
A question was raised as to the role of the Audit Commission. I shall look into the question of whether the Audit Commission should be made aware of the importance of good work in this field. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, raised the issues of by-laws and the importance of publishing them. DEFRA is due to produce model by-laws to inform English Nature. Public consultation over models, which will include how those should be published, will take place as part of that. English Nature will have to consider how to publicise any by-laws it makes. It could use its regular Sitelines magazine or its Internet site. The department would also consider whether it could publicise any bylaws, for example on the DEFRA website, which was a point raised.
I am conscious that—
Earl Peel: My Lords, publishing the by-laws on a website is all very well, but clearly they will reach only a relatively small number of people. The concern I raised is how on earth the Government will equate the introduction of by-laws on to SSSIs through English Nature. Great attention is paid to the importance of such by-laws and the fact that many of the public who enter access lands simply will not be aware of them because there is no statutory obligation on the public to enter access land via an access point. That is the problem, and it is one with which, frankly, the Government are failing to deal.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I recall, perhaps not with quite the same degree of pleasure as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the long debates we had on this subject when the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill passed through your Lordships' House. I take on board the fact that the noble Earl is concerned about this issue. I hope that he will respond to the consultation by raising these points with regard to how publicity can best be given to protect these sites.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up the point raised by the noble Earl. I was giving the noble Baroness the opportunity to reach the noble Earl's second and, I believe, most important point. That concerns not just people's welfare but the welfare of wildlife. One of the long debates we had in this House concerned the whole question of access points, which my noble friend has raised again. I really must request the Minister—it would not be fair to expect her to respond now—to take this matter away and consider it with a degree of urgency. It is now nearly two years since we took the Bill through this House. Fairly soon these issues will raise their head. So far as I am aware the Government have not addressed the matter. My noble friend is right to say that people will have no idea. There is no one point of information. It is two years down the line and we are no further forward. I shall not press the point further at this stage.
1596
I do not think that that would be fair to the noble Baroness, who perhaps cannot give an answer today. However, it is one of the most crucial points.
Ironically, when we took the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill through this House I was lobbied heavily by a wildlife group, which stated, "You don't want this. You don't understand. We need to have greater protection". Yet, one of the first groups to write to me when it realised the implications of the Bill was one such group. The point has been raised, not just by us but by the groups which realise there will be difficulties. I suggest that the noble Baroness takes the matter away and comes back later with a reply.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am aware that the concern was raised. I was present in your Lordships' House and there was a conflict of interest. It was debated at some length as to whether there should be strictly and narrowly defined access points or whether they should be less strictly controlled. Decisions were taken in the passage of that legislation. My response to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, was that where by-laws are being produced to protect SSSI sites, among other places, the issue of how to publicise them in order to protect and inform the public is one that I think should be taken into account. We are consulting on that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Cattle
12.6 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft code of recommendations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on 6th February we considered this code in some detail alongside the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 and the code of recommendations for the welfare of pigs. We withdrew the cattle code because it contained two drafting errors.
The errors in paragraphs 23 and 40 of the code, where the word "pigs" needed to be replaced with "cattle", have now been rectified. In addition to some minor punctuation and formatting alterations, the only other substantive change is an amendment to paragraph 137. Following an exchange in the other place on 4th February an undertaking was given that the paragraph would be amended to make it clearer. The wording now used in the first sentence makes it clear that dairy cows should be given more forage than they would be expected to eat each day. That is to ensure that there is always sufficient forage available to satisfy the needs of all the cows in the herd and to minimise competition. The advice in the second sentence of the paragraph that farmers should remove surplus food every day has now been deleted on

1597
practical grounds. But, to ensure good food hygiene, we still stress that old or stale food should not be offered to cows.
Welfare codes are a positive force for improving the welfare of farmed animals and thus are an important part of the Government's animal welfare strategy. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft code of recommendations laid before the House on 26th February be approved. [12th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the code before the House today. Indeed, we had an opportunity to consider this matter but did not go into it in great detail because there was a fault with the code at the time.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. My recollection is that it was agreed in debate whether it was proper to agree a code with wrong wording. From memory, I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who pointed out that we had had a full debate on the issues but that it would he improper to press the code for acceptance.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I hear the Minister's comments, but the code is now before the House today and we are debating it. The Minister will know that we support the code. As I said previously, UK farmers have set and observe high standards of animal welfare, which I think the noble Baroness would be happy to support. It is in their own interests that cattle are well looked after. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having corrected the feeding issue which was raised in debate.
We all believe in the five freedoms. They are freedom from hunger and thirst; from discomfort; from pain, injury or disease; an ability to express normal behaviour; and freedom from fears and distress. We all totally accept those. Stock skillmanship is the key to ensuring the well-being of farm animals. Having been in the poultry industry myself—rearing day-old chicks through to parent stock, producing their own chicks for Thornbers—I sometimes question why nowadays we need so many rules and regulations. I suspect that that is a sign of the times.
Biosecurity is also mentioned in the code. It is of huge importance. It is helpful in order to reduce the spread of disease. Paragraph 28 of section 1 of the code refers to,
"farm units being more secure from the introduction of new infectious disease".
That is a matter about which we have spoken in the House. The Minister will therefore not be surprised that I again urge the Government—indeed, I was glad to receive a copy of their recent suggestions on import controls—about the need to tighten up and dramatically reduce the illegal imports of meats into this country.
1598
Page 14 of the code refers to the disposal of fallen stock. The noble Baroness may say that I am perhaps out of order, but I would refer her to paragraph 48 because today we shall he approving a code which states that—if she looks to the fourth point down—
"in certain circumstances, burial in such a way that carnivorous animals cannot gain access to carcass, or burning",
will actually be ruled out of order totally in four weeks' time. It is under those circumstances that I raise the very difficult issue of fallen stock. We have fewer than four weeks to get the matter put right.
I believe that we have a problem. From 1st May 2003 farmers will not be permitted to bury fallen stock. The regulation has been known about for a long time. The NFU first met the Government on the issue back on 7th December 2001. What disturbs me— I think it would also disturb the Minister—is that there seems to be an impasse and only four weeks to put mattters right. The industry does not have the freedom that we have, as Members of your Lordships' House, to raise these issues directly with the Government. It can do so only by going to the department. So I find the comments made by Ministers "unfortunate"—if I may put the matter that way—when they suggest that the industry is dragging its feet.
The list supplied by the National Farmers Union shows that 17 meetings have been held since that first meeting on 7th December 2001. There was also one on 17th December. The following year there were meetings on 3rd April, 14th May, 8th and 17th July, 22nd and 28th August, 18th September and 3rd and 19th December. I move to this year. This year meetings have been held on 20th January, 19th, 26th and 28th February, and 7th, 17th and 27th March.
I shall not repeat what the meetings were about and who attended which, but they all concerned the question of fallen stock and how we are going to move forward on the matter. My real concern is that we have only four weeks in which to put things right. For the Government to be blaming the industry is very unhelpful, to put it mildly.
I hope that by having the opportunity formally to raise the issue today within the code—because the code refers in particular to the burial—it might encourage the Government to move forward with the industry in order to address the situation as it stands.
I have also asked what happens with regard to fallen stock in member states. The Government say that there is no way they will bear the full costs. I do not think that the industry is asking for that. I gather that in Austria, for example, the Länder pays the collection costs; in Belgium the Flemish Government covers costs for small farms but larger farms have a subscription service; in Finland farmers contribute 25 per cent of the costs; and in Ireland fallen stock may be collected by licensed collectors or buried under licence. Disposal costs are shared between state and farmer, but the cost of the disposal for the carcass is met by the Exchequer. In Germany, fallen stock must be rendered. Local authorities are responsible for enforcing that. Their costs and responsibility vary from Land to Land. In most Länder the cost is shared

1599
between government and the farmer. That is carried out by an animal disease fund, a compulsory fixed levy that meets expenses for each livestock species.
In Spain, two-thirds of the costs for removal and disposal of fallen stock are subsidised by public funds. The rest is paid for by the farmer. In the Netherlands, from 2002 the farmer will pay full cost. In Luxembourg, stock is destroyed and incinerated. There is a national collection service which is subsidised by the government. In Portugal, proposals are being put to Ministers with regard to a national collection service. Currently, there are no controls whatever and most fallen stock is buried.
Your Lordships will realise from that list that a multiplicity of systems are used in other national states. My real concern is that we need to move the matter forward. We have a problem, which I do not think has been addressed sufficiently. When the issue was discussed in the Commons on 17th March, Mr Morley said that it is not unreasonable that the industry should contribute to dealing with one of its by-products. The Government are prepared to make a contribution. They currently contribute about £30 million to the over 30-month scheme collections and to fallen stock collections to monitor bovine BSE in animals over 20 months.
I have a question for the Minister. I understand that the cost of implementing this new animal by-product regulation will be £50 million. It is not included in the £30 million. So there is £20 million that must be found. Perhaps the Minister can clarify where the impasse arises between what the Government have offered or what the industry has agreed to. At the moment it is not clear.
I have also received briefing from the National Pig Association. The noble Baroness may say that we are considering cattle, but I hope that this is a helpful suggestion. In its discussions with DEFRA on the same topic it said that,
"Defra add that, 'the basic principle is that burial and burning should only be permitted where the carcass is more than 100 km away from the collection centre and the stocking density is very low'. The Regulation allows Member States to permit the burial of pet animals. Defra has not responded to NPA pressure that small-scale producers should also be exempt".
If there is a suggestion that a derogation can be made in respect of pigs, my question is: has one been made as regards cattle? As we are so close to the imposition of this new regulation, has any derogation been asked for in order to give us longer to try and sort out this very great problem with which we shall have to cope in four weeks' time?
I should like to raise many other issues, but I do not want to take any more time. In outlining my concerns, I have been trying to be helpful by suggesting that the Government need urgently to address that impasse and by putting on record that the industry is trying to meet the Government's concerns. As I said, Mr Morley has had various meetings at which those issues have been raised.
1600
I should like to touch on two other issues. I understand that the knackering—what a dreadful expression to use in your Lordships' House—and rendering industry has suggested that it has capacity to cope with the need once fallen stock cannot be buried. But is there a comprehensive geographical spread? That is obviously hugely important. Secondly, will any transitional measures be made in the form of a derogation to allow the new regulations to be coped with? If not, what will happen in the meantime? Will farmers still be allowed to bury? We need greater clarification of the position.
I apologise to the House for taking 15 minutes, but this is a huge, complex and important situation in which we are running out of time.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we are under the impression that we debated the code the last time it was raised in the House. For that reason, I shall not repeat the remarks that I made then. If I do not comment on the issue of fallen stock, that is not because we on these Benches do not believe that it is extremely important. Indeed, my honourable friends Andrew George and Roger Williams have pursued it with great vigour in another place, but I shall not take up the House's time with that now.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I intervene not to deal with the matter of fallen stock—with which my noble friend Lady Byford dealt well, and about which I have a great deal of sympathy as a countryman—but to thank the Minister for introducing the code and express a full appreciation of it.
A long time ago, in another place, I was chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture. In that capacity, I presided over a full inquiry into intensive methods of food production. That is not a pleasant memory. I still remember certain parts of that inquiry with dismay. Some of my noble friends have today suggested that some of the interim legislation may have been unnecessary. I disagree. We have come a long way since that distressing experience. I warmly welcome the code of recommendations.
I shall comment on only two aspects. The code includes suggestions on handling of cattle—on tolerance, patience, pressure and noise. I can fully recall the terror of animals born and reared in the peace of the countryside suddenly knowing the turmoil of a cattle market.
A long time ago, as an officer of a National Farmers Union county branch, I was partly responsible for an attempt to introduce a fatstock marketing board. That would have meant animals for slaughter going straight from farm to slaughter point. Unfortunately, commercial arguments defeated that idea, but I welcome paragraph 14 on page seven, on handling. I also welcome recommendations on accommodation made on pages 17 to 19.
Having felt deeply about animal welfare ever since I presided over that inquiry years ago, I hope that the recommendations in the code will be fully appreciated by the industry. I hope that they will also be fully noted and implemented. I warmly welcome the code.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I fully support the comments of my noble friend Lady Byford and the questions that she posed. She need make no apology for taking 15 minutes to pose those questions and make those points, because they are all extremely relevant to the situation as seen by stock owners throughout the country.
As your Lordships may know, I have spent a major part of my life concerned with the welfare of farmers and farming families. I was born into a family of stock keepers—dairymen, beef keepers, pig keepers and keepers of sheep and poultry. I was therefore brought up fully accepting the five freedoms listed in the preface to the code of recommendations, but no stock man in this country worth his or her salt needs telling in 150 paragraphs that without good management and appropriate welfare, stock will suffer and so will the business.
Stock owners could add a sixth freedom to the five listed: freedom from inspectors who may arrive at feeding or milking time, causing mental suffering to both stock and stock men. I have experience of such occasions and of appalling ignorance by some inspectors who call at certain times, interfering with the general management of the stock.
I am of course aware that, as my noble friend said, consultation on the code has taken place over a considerable time—certainly for more than a year. It is difficult to believe that anyone feels that he must necessarily approve all the recommendations or to understand why we are being asked to rubber-stamp them now, when change takes place at all times. Their enforcement is inconceivable and reprehensible.
However, in parts, the report is so elementary that, frankly, a 10 year-old could have written it. It does not bring us up to date with modern techniques and modern farming. It repeats some codes to which we have become accustomed. I am sure that other noble Lords will mention the issue of fallen stock. I make no apology for raising it or returning to various points.
What scientific basis is there for accepting a change in the rules for disposing of fallen stock? The way in which fallen stock is disposed of has been in place since time immemorial. In the 1960s I served on the foot and mouth inquiry. We made it absolutely clear from scientific evidence that we had then—I see no reason to change—that burial was far safer than burning. Therefore, in practical terms, why change? If there is some science behind that recommendation, can we be assured that it has been reviewed by other scientists with knowledge equal to or better than some of the scientists involved in recommending such drastic and costly change—change, incidentally that is bound to impinge on the cost of living for every man, woman and child who is a consumer?
Assuming that there is some scientific support for the recommendations, has a full risk assessment been made of the potential of the present system to spread disease, either directly from the disposal chamber or
1602
from the associated ground water? If there were reported problems from that route, were any steps taken to correct the matter? If so, what were they?
In the unfortunate event of the proposed rules being enacted, what steps will be taken to prevent fluid, possibly from diseased carcasses that are already in a collection vehicle, contaminating country lanes and main highways? More particularly, what steps will be taken to prevent disease from carcasses contaminating farm premises when a collection vehicle has arrived and is parked on the farmyard or must cross land, perhaps SSSI land, to collect a carcass? Milk collection has been a factor in the possible spread of disease. Yet lorries picking up fallen stock will have to pass to collect carcasses. I remind the Government that we supported them when they talked of the need for vigilance and heightened awareness of bio-security.
As I understand it, it is proposed that all fallen stock on the farm will be subject to the change, and a consequence of that law is that it will include even sheep. We are dealing with cattle now, but let us not forget that any sick animal will crawl away as far as it can across the holding, common or wherever it is to die. That is one of the problems affecting the collection of animals.
Mercifully, BSE did not reach anything like the epidemic proportions that some forecast. There was concern that it might even spread to sheep. The level of BSE in the population is already declining to an extremely low figure, presumably as a consequence of action already taken. So, given the seriously flawed prediction and the sharply declining incidence, what logic is there in taking those wildly expensive and disruptive steps to further curtail a condition that by all available yardsticks already appears well under control?
Many of the recommendations, therefore, are contrary to the restriction of the spread of disease. Quite rightly, we still have rules in place for foot and mouth disease and many others. I am not opposed to recommendations that ensure stock are kept healthy and so on. But some proposals, particularly on fallen stock, are unworkable and contrary to the Animal Health Act.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I, too, wish to discuss the issue that my noble friends Lord Plumb and Lady Byford raised about fallen stock. I am grateful to her for putting forward the views and asking the questions that she did. I think it right to do so, because the matter is now of very urgent concern to farmers. So far as I can see, from farmers' point of view, there has been no progress since the code was last debated in this House. Norfolk farmers, including former constituents, have expressed to me concerns about the matter. I know that we are talking about cattle, but the issue was discussed at a very recent large meeting of pig farmers. There was great concern, not to say desperation, among farmers about what they could do in the next four weeks. The points that they raised are also relevant to other stock. I wish to raise three of them.

1603
The first relates to renderers and knackers. Margaret Beckett in another place and others repeated the point that there is sufficient national capacity, but that is not the issue for many farmers. What matters to them is the capacity available to them within a reasonable distance. In Norfolk, certainly, there is now very little capacity for renderers and knackers. The point that my noble friend Lord Plumb makes about bio-security is highly relevant. For example, pig farmers are very concerned that, unless they can be assured that vehicles coming on farm are absolutely OK as regards cleanliness and bio-security, there will be a resurgence of classical swine fever, which did such harm to the pig industry not long ago, foot and mouth disease and so on. Pig farmers have not been reassured about that concern.
Incineration is an available option. Farmers who had incineration facilities before December last year have until December 2004 to continue with that process. But the problem is that the many, many farmers who do not have it on their farms and who have buried do not know what to do about incineration. In another place, Elliott Morley promised detailed guidance within two weeks of the end of February. Yesterday, in another place, when Margaret Beckett was asked when the detailed guidance was coming, she replied:
"it was my impression that is going out—".
At that point, David Lidington intervened to ask whether that would happen within two weeks, and she replied:
"The hon. Gentleman says within two weeks, but it was certainly my impression that it is going out in the next few days or week".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/03; col. 1060.]
So Margaret Beckett was not clear when the guidance that had been promised for some time would reach farmers. They cannot make decisions about incineration unless they know what that detailed guidance says.
Worse still, earlier in another place yesterday, on information and guidance about on-farm incineration, she said:
"I believe that some information and guidance is already on the DEFRA website".
Well, not everyone has the Internet available, and, anyway, it is not the detailed guidance. She continued:
"We are certainly mindful of the fact that … there is substantial availability of such incineration capacity, but it has to meet the required standards"—
this is the relevant point,
"and we will work with the industry to ensure that that is the case during the next few months".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/4/ 03; col. 1059.]
Yet all farmers must take decisions by the end of this month. That seems entirely unreasonable.
The third point relates to funding. The Government said that some of the £30 million available under the BSE schemes and the TSE surveillance scheme would be made available to help with incineration. But, at present, farmers do not know what the implications of
1604
that will be. Certainly, farmers whose stock is not covered by the schemes are extremely unclear whether or not there is any funding.
I make those brief points because they seem to add up to a situation in which it is completely unreasonable to ask farmers to make decisions in the next three weeks without knowing on what basis they are making them. Farmers want to abide by the law; they certainly do not want to break it, and they are very concerned about the possibility of doing so at the end of this month. That is why I believe that the Government should be pressing within the Commission for a temporary suspension until those issues can be sorted out. I plead that, on practical grounds, the Government consider the matter very seriously.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, my colleagues have put the case so well that little need be added. I wish to raise a problem that was not discussed in great detail, bearing in mind my support for most of the recommendations in full—even if most are very obvious practices that we have been carrying out for generations, as my noble friend Lord Plumb said.
My concern relates to paragraph 18 on ear-tagging. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has had the opportunity to be on a farm when inspectors call and wish to see every ear tag—two per beast. To bring 500 cattle in from a hill, say, where they have not been confined for some time, is quite a performance, particularly given that farms now run on the absolute minimum of staff. The department is asking a great deal of farmers by expecting them to get all the beasts in to be looked at by inspectors before it will consider giving them any production grants. We must have endless contact with the BCMS at Workington, which looks after all ear tag numbers. It is an extremely complicated and time-consuming operation.
I want to support my noble friend Lady Byford on the issue of fallen stock, which was raised also by my noble friends Lord Plumb and Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market. Article 5 cannot be allowed to stand. It should not be allowed to go out to the general public. Burial, even in certain circumstances, will be out, and we are gravely concerned about the knacker's yards. Yesterday, I listened to the Secretary of State, and I read in Hansard what she said. She said that there was adequate capacity. Like the noble Lord. Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, I ask where that capacity is. I am sure that many farms are a hundred miles or more from a knacker. Could the noble Baroness publish a list of knackers, giving their location? That would be of some benefit to farmers, who are in a desperate position.
There are particular problems with incineration. There is great difficulty in knowing the exact legal position. Farmers may club together and buy an incinerator—at £10,000 or more, they are expensive— but they cannot take dead stock from one farm to another. The Minister should have produced some derogation that would make that possible. Farmers cannot share an incinerator, because the law says that they cannot take a dead animal from one farm to another. That is the sort of problem that we face.

1605
I must press DEFRA to go for a derogation for six months or more. It is all very well to say that there has been consultation, but, as my noble friend Lady Byford explained, there have been 17 or so meetings but no positive result. We can meet for ever, but, unless we get a solution, we will achieve no satisfactory result. There are only three weeks or so to go, and there is so much up in the air. The NFU is pressing as hard as it can on behalf of farmers. It is the Government's duty to go to Europe and get a derogation for at least six months to resolve a problem that the Government created for farmers by their failure to achieve proper negotiations in Europe. If they had done that, we would not be in the situation that we are in now.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I intervene briefly and with considerable diffidence. I apologise to the House for not being here right at the beginning of the debate.
I speak with some diffidence, as there is probably no Member of your Lordships' House less qualified than I to speak on agriculture and so on. I imagine that several former colleagues from another place will be surprised to see me rise on this occasion. That may be understandable, as my former constituency, Worthing, had no agriculture whatsoever. However, people there were passionately concerned about the export of live animals for slaughter. They were desperately concerned that the conditions for transport in this country were not the same as those in other European Union states.
At the time, we were told that, because of European Union rules, it was impossible to ban such exports. I cannot help noting that, the moment there were health problems such as BSE or foot and mouth disease, it was miraculously possible to impose such a ban. Given that the code includes reference to transport off farms, I would be grateful for some assurances from the Government with regard to whether the same conditions are likely to exist, once an animal is exported. It is a matter of considerable concern.
I will make a final point. I was shocked to discover recently that there is a considerable trade in horses exported for slaughter. I am not sure whether that comes into the category of cattle, in this context, but the horses are used for meat, once they have been exported and killed. That kind of export trade ought not to exist at all, but we should, at least, have some assurances about the conditions in which such animals are kept, once they are exported. We should be concerned at the prospect of aged horses being exported live into conditions in respect of which regulations may not be as tightly enforced as they are for cattle generally. I would be grateful if the Minister could give me some assurance on those points.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords who took part in the debate will have noted that there is a Question on this matter on the Order Paper for 8th April, so there will be an opportunity for a further discussion. I also refer to a letter to individual farmers that is due to be sent out. I
1606
will happily ensure that a copy of the letter goes to the Library and is sent to all noble Lords who spoke today.
The regulations have not come out of the blue. As the noble Baroness said, we have discussed them for over a year. The Government began with a stakeholder meeting on 18th September 2002, at which the industry presented a joint proposal for a national fallen stock disposal scheme. The farming unions also presented a paper on funding and argued for 100 per cent funding, at least for the first years. The Government cannot agree to that. The answer to the questions raised is that it would not be allowed.
The situation regarding government funding in other member states is complicated. On the basis of data provided by each member state, the European Commission issued a paper on 20th November 2001, showing that the level of government support varied throughout the Community, with farmers in some countries paying the full cost of disposal, while, in other countries, the government or the local authorities provided support. In some cases, government recoups the cost. In France, for example, a tax is levied on retail sales of meat. New Community guidelines for state aid allow member states to fund 100 per cent of collection and disposal costs only if the aid is fully recovered from the meat sector—for example, by a levy. Otherwise, member states may—I stress "may"—grant state aid of up to 100 per cent of the cost of collection and 75 per cent of the cost of destruction.
The industry estimated that, with full utilisation of its scheme, the collection costs could be 40 per cent lower than is currently the case for adult bovines and 60 per cent lower for ovines. We estimate that there are approximately 200,000 livestock holdings in the UK. A registration fee set at £100 per annum per holding would raise an additional £20 million. The current cost to individual farmers of disposing of sheep and cows is thought to range from £5 to £15 for sheep and from £50 to £80 a cow.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about statutory obligations. Although the testing of all fallen cattle aged over 24 months for BSE is required by the EU TSE regulation, the regulation does not require member states to pay for the collection or disposal of the carcasses. DEFRA decided to provide Exchequer funding to ensure that all the required carcasses would be tested.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, for his welcome for the measures on the welfare of animals. He was slightly out of kilter with the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, although I am sure that they both have experience of the best of farming practice and good husbandry. I think that neither would deny that just occasionally people fall below the required standards in any profession or industry.
I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, about ear-tagging. But, surely, of all counties, Cumbria will welcome anything that can be done to remove the lack of knowledge of, and

1607
movement around of, stock when that movement contributed to the rapid spread of the disastrous foot and mouth disease.
I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on the subject of exported animals. I am not prepared to comment on whether cattle can be read as including horses in this order. That subject has an awful feeling of déjà vu. The position is clear. We should prefer a trade in meat, but we cannot ban the transport of animals.
As I said, there have been detailed discussions for more than a year. The Government are writing to individual farmers. We accept that there are some regional variations in the provision of disposal facilities. We are aware that people are making applications to establish those facilities within regions. I commend the animal welfare code to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm Waste Grant (Nitrate Vulnerable Zones) (England) Scheme 2003
12.51 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 10th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House approves the extension of the Farm Waste Grant Scheme (Nitrate Vulnerable Zones) (England) Regulations 2003. Noble Lords will be aware of the Government's longstanding and ongoing commitment to farmers demonstrated in their Strategy for Agriculture: Action Plan for Farming in March 2000, which included the commitment that the Government would do,
"everything it can, consistent with its legal responsibilities, to minimise the extra burdens of new Nitrate Vulnerable Zone designations on farmers".
Extending the Farm Waste Grant Scheme beyond April 2003 is entirely consistent with this commitment. Under the EC Nitrates Directive, farmers in nitrate vulnerable zones are restricted in the type, amount and frequency at which manures and slurries can be applied to the land. This can cause difficulties for farmers who have little or no storage capacity for manures.
Extension of nitrate vulnerable zones following implementation of the Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Additional Designations) (England) Regulations 2002 to approximately 55 per cent of the land area in England will require many farmers to upgrade their existing manure storage facilities or install new ones. In recognition of this mandatory capital investment, the scheme focuses assistance on a range of storage and fixed handling facilities.
Since its introduction in 1996, uptake under the scheme has been relatively low. There were only 58 claims between 1996 and 2002. This has been due to a number of factors, including low farm incomes, the swine vesicular disease and foot and mouth outbreaks
1608
and the ability to "export" manure to farms outside of the NVZs. The extension of NVZs in England will make it more difficult for farmers to continue to export manure as the number of farmers subjected to the restrictions increases.
It is proposed that the Farm Waste Grant Scheme, which provides a grant of 40 per cent on eligible projects, should be extended in England until October 2005. As this is a demand-led grant scheme, it is not possible to forecast accurately the total number of annual claims. A sum of £3.8 million has been profiled for each of the next three years, commencing on 17th April 2003. Based on previous claims, it has been calculated that this will be sufficient to cover the newly designated NVZs and new claims from farms in the original zones that are no longer able to "export" their manures. However, the regulation contains a provision to close the scheme in the event of funds being exhausted before the closing date.
The scheme restricts grants to,
"fixed disposal facilities for slurry and silage effluent".
It has been suggested that the Government should extend the scheme to support the adoption of specialised application machinery—for example, band spreaders and shallow injectors. Storage is a specific action programme measure which stems directly from the directive. Improved application equipment would not provide a direct solution to the restrictions in the action programme.
Spreading is frequently undertaken by contractors rather than individual farmers. The Farm Practice Survey 2001 indicated that 38 per cent of farmers that had manure or slurry on their farms, including arable farms that had imported manures, used contractors. The need for more specialised machinery could increase this trend which suggests that extending the FWGS to cover individual purchasing of machinery by farmers is unnecessary. While there are environmental benefits, such equipment is more expensive than conventional tackle and cannot be accommodated within the budget.
This scheme represents real assistance to farmers in NVZs and demonstrates the Government's commitment to balancing the needs of an efficient agricultural industry with the need to protect water sources from pollution. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 10th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this order today. Obviously, in principle, we support this scheme. As the Minister rightly explained, the scheme will be available to more farmers than so far—until last year, there was an uptake of only 58. Certainly the problem of slurry storage is becoming acute with the new regulations coming in.
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that grants will be available—up to a total of £3 million. On reading yesterday's debate in another place, understand that the average likely grant would be about £7,000. That is what was anticipated. The issue

1609
has also been raised as to whether any additional funds would be made available in case more people applied than money available. Again, I understand that yesterday the clarity was that that would not be the case.
The Minister referred to the question of the new machinery available. Obviously, she and many Members here today have been dealing with the Water Bill this week. So, in fact, it is very dear to our hearts. I should have thought that the Government would welcome the development of new technology which it is to be hoped will reduce the risk of pollution into our rivers. But perhaps I may return that.
I understand from the order that the proposals are first come, first served. Presumably those who have already got their applications in will continue to be dealt with. New ones will be on a first-come first-served basis.
The Minister explained that 40 per cent of eligible costs will be permitted. Obviously, that means that the industry must find 60 per cent. Therefore, she will not be too surprised that I caution that for some farmers, who have been going through a very difficult time, even 60 per cent of these costs is quite an additional burden for them to carry. Farm incomes have been dire. The fact that the Government are willing to give 40 per cent towards the cost is helpful, but that still leaves 60 per cent outstanding.
The Minister referred to the use of contractors. Indeed, more contractors are being used. When she said that, I was reflecting on my days at agricultural college when so many farms were mixed farms— everything happened on one farm. Obviously, that is not so today. But we shall need to ensure that there are enough available contractors to do the work at the time that it needs to be done. It may be that certain farmers decide to invest in machinery of their own.
I hope that the Government will look to the new technology known as "trailing hose", "trailing shoe" and "shallow injection" as being of greater environmental benefit than the collection of slurry in slurry pits, and its spreading. That could be reduced if some of the new technology were used.
I welcome the order and thank the Minister for bringing it forward. I wish that we could be more successful in persuading the Government of the advantages as regards the eligible costs, the trailing shoe and shallow injection issues. Perhaps more farmers need to take up the grants—500 to 600 of them may do so. I think that the Minister will be thankful that the debate on this order has been shorter than that on the previous order.
1 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we welcome the order. It is no surprise that there has been such a low take-up; farmers' lack of income has meant that they cannot afford to invest. Therefore, I accept that the level the Government have set is probably adequate.
1610
I want to question two issues. First, the grant is available for facilities, other than roofing, for the separation of clean or dirty water. I wonder why that is. On any farm where slurry is being stored, the effect of heavy rain falling on it will produce a great deal more dirty water. As was said during debates on the Water Bill, that rain, if caught on a roof, can be recycled and used elsewhere on the farm. Therefore, the exclusion of roofing seems to be curious.
Secondly, machinery cannot be funded by the scheme. I can understand why the provisions of machinery to individual farmers may not be funded—perhaps that would take up too much of the scheme's money—but the Curry commission, whose findings are now being implemented, suggested that farmers would increase co-operation and establish machinery rings. I would have thought that in nitrate vulnerable zones, where this is an issue, machinery shared on a cooperative basis would be suitable for funding from the scheme. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses. In case I was not clear about the matter, perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that the sum is £3.8 million for three years.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Miller, raised issues relating to grant availability for machinery. It simply cannot be accommodated within the budget. The prime aim of the scheme is to assist farmers wishing to upgrade manure storage facilities in order to cope with restrictions on manure applications. Improved application equipment, while capable of providing environmental benefits, does not provide a solution to the restrictions in the action programme.
I note the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. We grant-aid new farmstead draining to separate clean roof water from dirty water. Roofing over yard areas is excluded. She may want to come back to me on that, but I am afraid that I cannot offer more information at present. It would be wise if I were to write to her with the details on that issue, because no doubt farming friends will ask her exactly what is available. At the same time, I could deal with the question of whether co-operative rings were available. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Electricity and Gas (Energy Efficiency Obligations) (Amendment) Order 2003
1.5 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order will amend the Electricity and Gas (Energy Efficiency Obligations) Order 2001, which placed an obligation

1611
on electricity and gas suppliers to achieve targets for the promotion of improvements in domestic energy efficiency.
The 2001 order requires each electricity and gas supplier to direct at least 50 per cent of energy savings to those in receipt of at least one of the benefits or tax credits described in Schedule 2 to the order—a priority group of low-income consumers. From 6th April 2003, we are introducing two new tax credits—child tax credit and working tax credit— which will replace working families' tax credit, disabled person's tax credit and children's tax credit. In October 2003, we are introducing pension credit, which will replace the minimum income guarantee. The draft order gives effect to these changes by adding child tax credit, working tax credit and pension credit to the list of benefits in the 2001 order.
In the case of child tax credit and working tax credit, there will be an income cut-off of £14,200. Families in receipt of those credits who earn less than £14,200 a year will be included in the priority group. We have chosen an income level of £14,200 because that is an uprating of the low-income cut-off used for tax credits now, of around £11,470. That level is generally recognised as being an indicator of low income.
In conclusion, this order reflects the forthcoming changes to the tax credits system and the introduction of pension credit. We have sought to do this in a way that will maintain the focus of the priority group on low-income consumers. With that in mind, I hope that the House will approve this necessary order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for presenting the order. We support it. I want to make a couple of comments.
First, the Explanatory Notes indicate that one requirement of the 2001 order is for each supplier to direct at least 50 per cent of energy savings to those in receipt of at least one of the benefits or tax credits described in Schedule 2 to the order—the priority group of low-income consumers. If the noble Baroness cannot answer my question, I am happy for her to write to me. Can she tell the House how many people that will affect and how the companies anticipate targeting them?
Secondly, I turn to the tax credits system. The Minister will not be surprised to know that there is widespread concern about the take-up of these new measures. The Conservative Party has highlighted that on many occasions, as have many other organisations such as Help the Aged, Age Concern and the Child Poverty Action Group. The success of the new measures depends on a decent take-up rate, but the omens so far have not been good. Take-up of existing tax credits is very low—just 17 per cent for the baby tax credit and 64 per cent for the working families' tax credit, including just 51 per cent of eligible couples.
1612
And the new tax credits are even more complicated than the existing ones, which is why the 12-page application form comes with 47 pages of instruction. That may be a good reason why there has not been much take-up of some of the good schemes that are being introduced.
When asked about using tax credits in the education formulae of the local government grant, the Minister, Nick Raynsford, recently admitted that:
"Ministers are aware of the difficulties caused by the different take-up rates and that, as a new scheme, working families tax credit might be particularly affected.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/03; col. 1082W.]
New figures published last week show that up to 6,700 eligible pensioners are losing out on £820 million per year because they do not receive the minimum income guarantee, the precursor to the pensions credit. Since 1998–99 take-up of all the main means-tested benefits—income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit and income-based jobseeker's allowance—has fallen.
These are real concerns. While I am sure that they are not the direct responsibility of the noble Baroness, she is in the Chamber to answer on behalf of the Government. I am happy for her not to respond in detail today, but I wish to put on the record the point that, while some of these new schemes—the energy efficiency order is a good example—are good ideas and could benefit many people, because the system is so complex, many people are not taking advantage of the opportunities being offered to them. Having said that, I support the order.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, so far as it goes, we certainly welcome the order. The Minister will know from the hard work of my noble friend Lady Maddock both in this House and in another place that there are much wider ways in which energy efficiency could be addressed, were the Government to choose to pursue them. We welcome the order as perhaps an interim measure before the Government choose to address the issue in the comprehensive way often suggested with great eloquence by my noble friend Lady Maddock.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am well aware of the advocacy in this area of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, the noble friend and colleague of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.
All noble Lords accept that, with every benefit, it is difficult to ensure a 100 per cent take-up. Equally, all recognise the particular difficulty in creating the detailed paperwork required to cover eligibility as simple as possible. From a sedentary position the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said the word "smaller", but as I grow older I hope that the print will become larger while the number of questions to be answered will become fewer.
Suppliers are expected to target eligible groups through, for example, partnership schemes with local authorities. Advertising by suppliers of their schemes under the energy efficiency commitment will

1613
be encouraged. The size of the priority group will be increased by the amendments contained in the order. Currently the group numbers around 7.7 million people. The figure of 8.8 million mentioned in the consultation document was based on earlier figures which have since been revised. The addition of those on pension credit and new tax credit is likely to increase the priority group by a little over a further 1 million people.
I welcome the support that has been expressed for the order and note the comments that have been made. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 2003
1.14 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to bring under the control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 eight previously uncontrolled substances. As is required by provisions set out in Section 1 of the Act, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has been consulted and agrees with these proposals.
The order is needed to enable the United Kingdom to comply with a decision by the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs to bring four of the substances under the control of the 1971 United Nations convention on psychotropic substances. The remaining four are anabolic steroids and are banned by the International Olympic Committee.
The order proposes that dihydroetorphine and remifentanil be added to the list of controlled drugs specified as Class A drugs in Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act: and that 4-hydroxy-n-butyric acid and Zolpidem be added to the list of substances specified as Class C drugs. 4-hydroxy-n-butyric acid is commonly known as GHB and is a widely recognised drug as a result of media reports about its possible use as a rape drug.
Four other substances are to be controlled, all of which are anabolic steroids: 4-androstene-3,17-dione, 19-nor-4-adrostene-3,17-dione, 5-androstene-3,17- diol and 19-nor-5-androstene-3,17. These are to be controlled as Class C drugs. All four have recently been added to the International Olympic Committee's list of prohibited substances.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has considered the misuse potential of all eight substances and has recommended that they should be brought under the controls of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and its associated regulations. If the order is approved, we shall lay before the House an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 which will bring all eight drugs within their scope. The amendment regulations will impose a regime of controls for the legitimate medical and research use of the drugs.
In accordance with usual practice, we have consulted the organisations which represent the medical professions and the pharmaceutical industry about the changes. No objections were raised to the proposals.
If the order is approved, we aim to bring it into effect, together with the relevant amendment regulations, on 1st July. The order, together with the amended regulations, will make it an offence to supply or possess these eight substances, except for legitimate medical or research purposes. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purposes of the order. Of course it is right that we should add to the list of banned substances in both Classes A and C those new chemicals that come on to the market so that we may prevent their misuse. As the Minister made clear, there would be no problem if the drugs were being used only for medical or research purposes.
The Minister mentioned GHB—I am glad that. I do not have to emulate his expert pronunciation of the full names of the chemicals—which has become a serious matter because it has been used as a date rape drug. In the past we have agreed to other substances such as Rohypnol being added to the list of prohibited drugs.
It is important for the Government to keep such legislation up to date and we fully support the order.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches believe this order to be entirely proper, but before it is approved, I have one or two questions to put to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. First, however, it is clear that the noble Lord has been practising his pronunciation of pharmaceutical terms. I have no intention of trying to compete with him on that.
It is clear that these are dangerous substances and we would not want to do anything other than vigorously to discourage their use. Furthermore, it is right that whenever the relevant advisory body makes a recommendation for legislative change, it ought to be considered seriously. As the old saying goes, do not have a dog and bark yourself.
Given the current state of our obligations under UN conventions, we would not argue against the order. However, I want to ask about the consultation process. I see that it went to 100 trade organisations as well as to professional medical bodies, the police, government departments and agencies. I wonder why it was not also sent to athletics and body building organisations in the case of the anabolic steroids, and drug advisory groups and those who run night clubs in the case of the drugs that are sometimes used for leisure purposes. Such consultation could have gathered information about the extent of the problem of the misuse of these drugs. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether such bodies were approached.

1615
I was interested to read Annex B of the consultation letter. Section 3 concerns options. It states:
Only one feasible option has been identified—the introduction of misuse of drugs controls on the substances".
It continues:
The UK is a party to the two Conventions and is obliged to control the substances under UK drugs law … Failure to implement the controls would result in the UK breaching its UN treaty obligations".
Section 4 identifies the benefits. It states:
The eight substances are currently subject to the provisions of the medicines legislation but are not currently subject to specific controls to combat their misuse. The misuse of drugs legislation will provide additional controls on the production, supply, possession, import and export of the eight substances in view of their potential for misuse. The measures should help to reduce the availability of these drugs on the illicit drugs market in the United Kingdom. This should in turn reduce the scope for their misuse. The consequent benefits are a reduction in the risks for individual misusers' health and also for public health".
I am tempted to say, "Oh really? A reduction in the same way as we have a reduction in the availability of heroin and cocaine on the streets, perhaps?" Everyone knows that simple prohibition is not working.
I am not suggesting for one moment that we break international law. However, we could go to the negotiations in Vienna, which are to be held later this month on the UN drugs conventions, with an open mind and a willingness to look at more than one option and to persuade others that the need for effective harm minimisation requires a change in the conventions.
Holland and Portugal have been forced to bend the rules almost to breaking point in their efforts to be much more creative and effective in reducing the use of illegal drugs. That is not the British way. But we are renowned for our diplomatic and negotiating skills. Why will the Government not learn from other countries that have opened their minds to alternatives to prohibition and work with them to amend the UN treaties so that they give countries more flexibility and options for working within their own communities to reduce the misuse of drugs?
If we are to succeed in cutting down drugs use we need to do much more than simply approve orders to add more to the banned list. For example, what education and information is to be made available to body-builders' organisations and club goers about the two groups of substances to which the order refers? Do the Government have any research information about how widely they are used?
The Government have said in another place that it is necessary to have a custodial sentence of 14 years available for possession of Class C drugs—not for individual users, but to catch the traffickers. What evidence is there that these eight drugs are trafficked?
I do not oppose the order but I do hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of the questions I have asked.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the support for the order given by both noble Baronesses. I stayed up all night to learn these
1616
technical terms and I am slightly critical of the fact that the noble Baronesses have not followed me in doing such important homework. I recognise, of course, that there are other demands upon their time. I am grateful that I do not have to refer to any drugs other than GHB in my response to the points that have been raised.
As to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about consultation, the document was put on the Home Office website. We are talking about drugs which have been banned by the International Olympic Committee, and no respectable sports organisation of the kind to which the noble Baroness referred will be unaware of the implications of using the additional restricted drugs. Any work such organisations undertook in preparing, training and helping their athletes would be null and void—and indeed, shameful—if drug tests were failed. We expect such organisations to act responsibly and to be aware of the prohibited list.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I accept what the Minister has said. But it would have been a useful exercise to gather information about the extent of the problem and for appropriate educational information to be passed down through such organisations once these substances are put on the banned list.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall deal with that point when I discuss the more general issues raised by the noble Baroness.
The point in regard to the International Olympic Committee is obvious; we do not need to carry out research on the uses to which substances are being put. If the International Olympic Committee is firmly of the view that these are performance-enhancing drugs which would give a competitor an unfair advantage and, perhaps even more important, threaten the long-term health of the competitor, that is good enough for us and we shall take steps to ensure that the drugs are probibited.
The noble Baroness raised a more general point of how we address the issue of drug use. This is a modest order on which to engage in such a debate—I am probably one of the least qualified members of the Government to participate in such a debate—but I recognise the point she makes.
Prohibition is not the only answer, but, when they have clear evidence in regard to these eight substances, the Government would be remiss if they did not take steps to make clear that they are to be prohibited and will be subject to the full force of the law.
I have considerable sympathy with the noble Baroness's point that we need to pay a great deal more attention to the need for education and information to make people aware of the consequences of using recreational and performance-enhancing drugs. That goes without saying. The noble Baroness indicated that one or two other countries—she referred directly to the Netherlands—have followed a different range of
drug strategies in recent years. We have watched the situation in such countries very carefully indeed. We

1617
are eager to learn from the developments in regard to the control of drug abuse in a number of countries. However, the messages from the Netherlands about the effectiveness of its strategies are not ones of unalloyed joy. But there are points to be noted. I agree with the noble Baroness that where international forums—such as those in the Netherlands and Portugal—put forward different perspectives, we should keep an open mind and support strategies where we see fit.
In a month's time or so we shall have an opportunity to discuss the Criminal Justice Bill when the significance of a reduction in the classification of cannabis can be debated within its framework. There will be many opportunities to discuss the issues raised by the noble Baroness, and a recognition by the Government of the validity of some of the points she has made. But mere prohibition and the imposition of the harsh nature and full rigour of the law does not always produce the desired effects in society.
As the noble Baroness said, these eight drugs, particularly GHB, have often been associated with highly illegal activity. However, the media often emphasise and dramatise small incidents associated with the use of a particular drug. I do not say that the issue revolves around a particular use of GHB but, nevertheless, these are substances which, both at international level and in terms of our judgement, need to come within the restrictions proposed in the order. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prevention of Driving under the Influence of Drugs Bill [H.L.]
1.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I should like to give my thanks to and acknowledge briefings from the Automobile Association, the British Medical Association and the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. I also caused an Internet search to be done which produced relevant information from so many sources that I think I had better not list them. I simply comment that some of my reading encouraged me in my decision to assist with this Bill before the House.
I should also say that I am very much a proxy for my noble friend Lord Attlee. He is serving somewhere in the Gulf but, I am quite sure, had he been available, he would have been doing this job. I am sure we all wish him good fortune and a speedy return. I say that because during the passage through this House of the Police Reform Act 2002, when I was on the Front Bench, my noble friend brought forward a specific amendment to create the offence of driving under the influence of drugs. At that time he was proposing the use of saliva testing. There were question marks over the technology, and, in the end, that amendment was not proceeded with. But it is indicative of his specific interest in all matters related to transport and in this subject.
1618
Since that time, right honourable and honourable friends in another place have continued to study the problem. The result is this Bill. It was introduced to another place and given an unopposed First Reading on 12th March by the honourable Member Mr Nick Hawkins. This Bill overcomes the problems of my noble friend's earlier attempt and merits most favourable consideration.
One might assume from a cursory examination of the situation vis-à-vis driving while under the influence of drugs that the problem was already covered. Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states:
"A person who, when driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence".
I simply note two things: first, one has to prove unfitness to drive. Secondly, it is generally not appreciated by most of the public that under that Act and in law, no distinction is made between alcohol and drugs. Neither is any distinction made between controlled drugs, which are banned, and prescribed drugs, which are, of course, approved. That is one of the reasons why, with the exception of alcohol, whose use is easily detected, that section has largely not been taken into account and implemented by the police in general, although of course there have been specific cases.
I hope we can agree that we should leave prescribed drugs out of this discussion. We certainly left it out of the Bill. That is not to say that there could not be a problem, but it is a separate issue. This little Bill affects only controlled drugs.
The reason we have brought the Bill forward is very simple: we live in an age of the increasing use of so-called recreational drugs among the younger generation. In recent surveys, almost half of all 16 to 24-year-olds had used cannabis at least once. While the Government's attitude to cannabis may be somewhat equivocal, to say the least, as long as it is on the controlled drugs list, it must be included. In any event, it has the capacity to incapacitate a driver to a greater or lesser degree. Some 39 per cent of people in that age group had tried hallucinogens. Other hard drugs were somewhat less of a problem. That is one measure indicating an increasing background problem.
There is some rather awkward anecdotal evidence that seems to indicate a general belief that recreational drugs do not cause loss of driving ability. Because they are not so easily detected, they are believed by some to be less risky to drivers than alcohol. That may be an attitude, but it is an attitude which is prevalent.
There is a worse attitude which I have picked up from one of my Internet reports. There is some evidence that serious drug users will use alcohol if they are going to drive so that if they get stopped they will be liable to be investigated and examined only for driving under the influence of alcohol. They will then be subject to the much less rigorous but, in some ways, more precise investigation that takes place where alcohol is concerned but not the sort that would take place if it was known that they were taking drugs.

1619
What, then, if we can measure it, is the precise scale of the problem? We are uncertain because there is no requirement for coroners to keep relevant statistics on drug use in post-mortem examinations for road fatalities. An important part of the Bill is to ensure that proper statistics are kept, so that we know precisely what is going on. We feel that the coroner should produce an annual report for his area on fatal accidents involving drivers who have tested positive for controlled drugs. We think that the police should do the same for injury accidents as well.
What do we know? The best indication of the scale of the problem comes from two surveys by the Transport Research Laboratory testing for alcohol and controlled drugs in people involved in fatal accidents in a specific part of the country. It took two periods—1985 to 1987 and 1996 to 1999. Over the two periods surveyed, the detection of cannabis went from 3 per cent to 12 per cent, while the detection of other controlled drugs went from 3 per cent to 18 per cent. That is now a historic examination, but it is a clear indication of trend, certainly the only one we have. If that trend has continued since that time, we should all be concerned.
We come now to the meat of the Bill. Clause 1(1) creates a new offence:
"A person is guilty of an aggravated offence if he drives a motor vehicle on a road while under the influence of any controlled drug in Class A, Class B or Class C of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971".
That removes the impediment in the Road Traffic Act 1988 that makes the Bill so difficult to enforce. Driving with drugs in the system will be an offence and impairment will not have to be proved.
Your Lordships will of course have noted that the Bill later calls for a field impairment test and blood sample. The recent field impairment test is not to prove that drugs are present or that the driver is unfit; it is to prove that the driver might be under the influence of drugs. The blood test is where the proof will come from. That is a valid system, which will mean that a driver under the influence of drugs who is stopped can be properly tested for the presence of drugs in his system. That will be the offence. These are rigorous, identifiable and enforceable criteria.
Last year's National Drugs Conference of the Association of Chief Police Officers recommended more research into the extent of the problem, drug recognition training for officers and a simple, cheap but effective roadside screening test. One benefit of my Internet search was that I discovered that that would be available in the reasonably near future. The conference also recommended a removal of the requirement to prove impairment and a zero limit for drug driving. The Bill goes a considerable way in meeting the recommendations. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Dixon-Smith.)
1.41 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for introducing this interesting and worthwhile Bill. I am grateful to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents for kindly providing me with some briefing on it. I should declare an unremunerated interest as RoSPA's current president. The noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, a previous president of RoSPA, asked me to say that he agrees with the support that I am giving to the Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said in his eloquent opening speech, the evidence suggests that the use of illegal drugs while driving is a growing problem. He referred to the tests carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory over two decades. Despite the clear increase in the use of cannabis and other controlled drugs that was shown by those tests, it remains unclear what proportion of accidents, deaths and injuries are caused, or partly caused, by drugs impairing the ability and judgment of the road users involved. Not least, that is because alcohol was also present in many of these cases, as the noble Lord said. That obviously has an even greater effect on people's ability to drive than does the drug itself.
Cannabis constitutes two thirds of the illegal drugs detected, and certainly affects driving behaviour for a period after its consumption, resulting in impaired coordination, visual perception, tracking and vigilance. Cannabis can stay in the body for up to 28 days, but obviously does not impair driver performance for anything like that amount of time. Roadside detection devices are being developed, although the diversity of the drugs being used makes it difficult to produce a single breathalyser-type test.
People generally accept that they should not drink and drive but probably are unaware of the effects of drugs, both illegal and prescribed, on their driving ability. Millions of people regularly take drugs such as anti-depressants, painkillers, antihistamines and cough mixtures, all of which can have a sedative effect, and yet most of those people probably believe that it is totally safe for them to drive after taking them.
A retired police officer, to whom I spoke earlier today about the noble Lord's Bill, told me that it was not uncommon early in the morning to see drivers nod off at the wheel while waiting for traffic lights to change. He told me that that was a consequence of perfectly legal drugs being taken the night before, such as a sleeping pill, or an antihistamine for a hayfever sufferer. Once drivers relax at the lights, when their concentration can be reduced, the drug's soporific effect kicks in. Clearly, people should be advised not to drive after taking drugs that cause drowsiness. However, that is not an easy message to communicate, especially not in the context of this Bill, which is aimed at people who drive after taking controlled drugs.
The new sentencing guidelines for causing death by dangerous driving, or by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, published by the Lord

1621
Chief Justice yesterday, are particularly relevant here. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is quoted as saying that,
"normally the only appropriate sentence for an offender found guilty of these offences is a custodial sentence".
Many police forces are training their officers in field impairment testing and drug recognition training to help them to recognise the physical signs of drugs use, which would provide sufficient evidence to arrest a suspected drug user and take them to the police station for further tests. These developments should be supported, and are contained in the noble Lord's Bill. The drivers most likely to be drug users are also those with the highest accident risk—young drivers who are inexperienced, who arc most likely to take risks and have poor driving attitudes. That is a particular worry.
As the noble Lord said, there is a need for much more research into the whole area of drugs and driving. We need to know much more about which drugs and medicines are being used by drivers and the effect of them on drivers' performance and accident risk. I, too, did some research on the Internet, and I discovered a Department of Transport paper, which states:
"Research in this area has been impeded by methodological, legal and ethical problems. Specifically, there is no standard experimental paradigm, no consistency in reporting format, dose administration or detection method. In short, the research strategy to evaluate the effect of cannabis has been piecemeal. Consequently, firm and reliable conclusions cannot be drawn".
The introduction of an education and publicity campaign to make people—especially groups who are most likely to use controlled drugs—more aware of the dangers of driving while under the influence of them, would also be most desirable. The truth is that the role of both legal and illegal drugs in road accidents is complex and, at the moment, largely unknown. If that ignorance is remedied and research is carried out as a result of the noble Lord introducing his Bill, it will have been worthwhile. I am happy to support it.
1.47 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has introduced this Bill. Hearing his introduction has made me much more convinced of its necessity.
I should, perhaps, declare, as I always do, that I am the holder of a police class 1 driving certificate; that I trained and tested advanced motorists in Australia; I am a member of the IAM; I am a council member of the Guild of Experienced Motorists; and I regularly go out on traffic patrol with various constabularies.
Both noble Lords who have spoken referred to the Transport Research Laboratory report 495, which is important and highly relevant to the future of this Bill and to future Bills. Legislation already exists to prevent drivers from driving under the influence of drink and drugs. Initial trials conducted by the six police forces that undertook special training concluded that the drug influence recognition training—DIRT—is useful, and the field impairment test—FIT—can be put in place to assess the impairment levels of drug users.
1622
At this stage, I should mention that the daughter of friends of mine, who was 16, was killed by a driver while she was walking along the pavement. The police wanted to test this 16-year-old for drugs. There she was—dead—and they wanted to test her for drugs. I hope that the Bill will rectify that anomaly, because the police said that they could not test the driver for drugs, as it could be construed as harassment. That is appalling.
Of course, some prescription drugs can enhance people's ability to drive in the short term but will, in time, reduce and adversely affect that ability. Notwithstanding this, we must not lose sight of the fact that there are many more drivers involved in collisions who are over the drink-drive limit.
Some police surgeons are frequently placed in a difficult position when called to see a prisoner. They have to determine whether that person has driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink or drugs. There can be a very fine line when conducting tests as to whether the word "influence" is appropriate or whether it should be substituted with the word "impaired". The majority of drivers who drink alcoholic refreshments—if I can put it that way—have been told that they may take a certain number of units before there is a likelihood of being over the limit. I suggest that that should be put the other way round: any alcohol impairs the ability to drive, and there is a finite limit which should not be exceeded.
Similarly, that has to be the primary course taken with drugs be they prescribed or illicit. More and more people are taking recreational drugs without taking into account the possible effect that those drugs might have on driving a motor vehicle. They should be warned of the consequences of drug driving. In reality, however, will they take any notice of such warnings? I very much doubt it.
Now that I have got that off my chest, I shall return, albeit briefly, to the Bill. The insertion after Section 40A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires a driver suspected of committing a moving traffic offence to take a field impairment test or have a blood sample for analysis or both in order to establish whether or not that driver's ability to drive is impaired due to taking a drug. However, without any sanction, should the suspected person refuse "without good cause", the provision would be fraught with problems—and therefore, at the moment, of little relevance.
It seems to me that, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, the purpose of the Bill is more concerned with the gathering of information and funding than anything else. However, if that leads to other, more specific legislation sometime in the future, it has my full support.
1.52 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on his initiative in bringing it before the House.
About a year ago, my party published its policy paper on drugs. I was the chairman of the working party that put the policy together. An important

1623
chapter in that paper laid down as our party policy pretty much what is in this short but important Bill. However, it also included, in a way that the Bill does not, reference to the impairment of driving after using legally prescribed drugs. It recommended that the police should undertake roadside tests to detect whether the driver has any impairment that prevents him or her from driving safely. It recommended also that further research should be done and evidence gathered. Most importantly, however, it recommended that the public should be made aware of the dangers of driving when their judgement could be impaired by any drugs, either prescribed by a doctor or used recreationally or even illegally.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I briefly repeat some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I do so only to underline how much I agree with him on many of the points that he made.
Unfortunately, there is such a wide range of drugs used in this country that, even if quick roadside test kits were available, they would fill up the whole boot of a police car and the officer would never know which one to use. So the sensible thing is to look at the effect rather than the cause. That is what the Bill describes as a field impairment test.
Despite the fact that more research needs to be done and more information gathered, it is pretty obvious that we have a major problem with drug-affected driving. A recent survey of club goers in Scotland found that 85 per cent of them had taken drugs and then got in a car to drive home. Almost one person in every five who dies in road accidents has some sort of drug in their system.
Knowingly or unknowingly, many people are driving under the influence of drugs which have very serious effects. Cannabis extends the perception of time and amphetamines shorten it. Both can affect response times. Amphetamines can make a person more confident and aggressive—an unfortunate attitude when you are behind a wheel. Prescribed sedatives such as Valium and Temazepam slow a person down, as does alcohol. Sleeping pills, some antihistamines, some flu cures and mental illness medications can affect the ability to drive safely. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, research by the Transport Research Laboratory has shown an increase in prescription and over the counter drugs in the bloodstream of accident victims. And yet the general level of awareness among the public about this danger is very low.
However, the field impairment tests can really work and the training for officers is very effective. Fifteen officers in the Thames Valley Police, for example, have been trained to do the tests, which include checking the eye pupil size, testing the perception of 30 seconds, ability to walk a straight line, stand on one leg and touch their nose with their fingertips with their eyes closed—but not all at once, I trust. Some of us might feel that we could not do that even when stone-cold sober. However, those simple tests are very effective as an indicator of impaired ability to drive safely. It is
1624
also important for officers to be able to detect whether a suspect has been using particular types of drugs. Some officers have undergone the drug influence recognition training and a study at the Transport Research Laboratory in Crowthorne has supported the value of that, saying that it has a very high success rate.
However, following the field impairment test, it is important that further tests are done to ensure that a driver has genuinely taken a drug that impairs his judgement. There are unfortunately, as has been mentioned, some problems with blood tests. Drugs such as GHB—the so-called date rape drug to which we referred in the earlier debate—disappear from the bloodstream in 12 hours, making it very difficult for the police to prove that it has been administered to a rape victim. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, said, cannabis can give a positive blood test many days after it was taken and can be detected long after its real effects on judgement have gone away. Those tests therefore need to be very carefully interpreted.
I welcome the part of the Bill that asks for the reporting of fatalities by coroners and police. However, it must be remembered that fatalities are only the tip of the iceberg, because cars are much safer these days, protecting the driver with airbags and anti-crumple body frames. Also, the better trained paramedics with good quality equipment can often save a life if they get there quickly, thank goodness. We need more information than just fatalities, which is why I welcome Clause 2(2)(b).
The Government are clearly aware of the problem, since one of the questions that drug action teams have to answer is,
"Please detail how you propose to address drug use by road users?"
However, in addition to the Bill, what is clearly needed is a big public education programme and clearer warnings on the labels of medicinal drugs about their potential to affect driving. Many organisations, such as the fire service and the British Standards Agency, have also shown their desire for more information and help to deal with this problem. I know that because they are two of the many agencies that have approached Councillor Diana Buckley Carpenter, from Wokingham, an enthusiastic and effective campaigner on this subject following a bad accident that her daughter suffered. I am grateful to her for the very helpful information she has provided to me over the past several years. Hard working though she is, however, we cannot just go on relying on the good will, commitment and knowledge of people like her to provide agencies with the information they need on this important subject.
Perhaps the Minister can tell us what resources the Government plan to make available for education programmes in this subject. I hope that he will give an encouraging welcome to the Bill and I look forward to his reply.
1.59 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith on introducing the Bill and on putting the case so convincingly. When my honourable friend Mr Nick Hawkins introduced it last month as a 10-minute rule Bill in another place, he made it clear that he had the run support of the Conservative Front Benches in both Houses. He also pointed out that the work he is doing is supported by the AA, the RAC Foundation and the BMA. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, that the work is supported also by RoSPA.
As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has made clear, we have had the benefit of debating these issues on a previous occasion, led by my noble friend Lord Attlee when he moved an amendment to the Police Reform Bill last year. The amendments he put forward then are as relevant today and have been elucidated carefully by other noble Lords.
After all, society now generally takes a dim view of drink-driving. There is no sympathy for a motorist convicted of drink-driving. However, as noble Lords pointed out, many motorists are very much unaware of the potential effects of drug-driving on their driving ability. They lack knowledge of the legal position in relation to drug-driving. Indeed, it is a serious offence. Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 covers drug-driving. It covers,
"A person who, when driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence".
Some may ask why we should go further—I noted a quizzical look on the face of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—as the law already covers this issue in relation to all drugs, irrespective of whether they are controlled drugs prescribed by doctors, that may have an impact upon a person's ability to drive. The law currently makes no distinction between illegal and prescribed drugs. It does not state a limit for drugs levels as it does for alcohol. That is partly understandable given that there are so many drugs around but only one chemical type of alcohol, although there are many flavours of it. However, I hope that no one would use that factor as an argument against making an extra effort with regard to diminishing drug-driving.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, rightly and very properly referred to the problems of people driving with prescribed drugs in their system. I take anti-histamines at certain times of the year on a fairly regular basis. Indeed, about 30 years ago when I started taking them I was told that one day I would grow out of the condition that requires me to take them. I am still waiting but I live in hope. I do not take as many as I did then but certainly when I started taking anti-histamines before the 1988 legislation was in place and before I learnt to drive, there is absolutely no doubt that I would have been unfit to drive. The drugs then had not been developed to the extent that they are now. I certainly would have had to change the drugs I took in order to be able to drive safely. But that level of awareness is simply not present in the public
1626
mind with regard to something as simple as antihistamines or something far more complex such as sleeping pills that may be prescribed.
Just because that problem exists does not mean to say that we cannot tackle the problem of those who take illegal drugs. My noble friend is right to bring forward the Bill to target—as a Private Member's Bill should—a specific issue that can be readily identified and in relation to which there is a gap in legislation.
Noble Lords referred in some detail to research and statistics and therefore it would be improper of me to repeat that. They made their point forcefully. The Bill provides a practical way of dealing with the consequences of drug-driving where controlled drugs are being taken. It makes using a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled drug an aggravated offence. It gives a policeman the power to carry out a field impairment test or require a blood test if he reasonably suspects that a driver is under the influence of controlled drugs. It makes provision for the keeping of records that would help us to track the seriousness of the problem. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, made the important point that that part of the Bill would give us the vital impetus to carry out further research which would be of value across the board in trying to reduce accidents on the road.
This is a valuable Private Member's Bill. I support it and I hope that the Minister will welcome it.
2.4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and to all who have taken part in the debate. They have drawn attention to a problem which is recognised. It is clear from research that it is increasing in the sense that misuse of controlled drugs is increasing. Clearly, these are issues with which we must be concerned in road safety terms.
I want to show, first, that the Government are very much seized of the problem which the Bill addresses; secondly, that we have done rather a lot about it; and, thirdly, that there are more things which we can, and should be, doing. The evidence that we are seized of the problem is clear from the Department for Transport's Road Safety Strategy. Without going into detail, the strategy recognises the need for further research, for support for the police in enforcing existing legislation, improved police powers and targeted publicity and education. I shall say more about all of those points.
There are three strands in this argument: first, the extent of the problem; secondly, the effects of drugs on driving; and, thirdly, enforcement issues. On the extent of the problem, noble Lords mentioned the research done by the Transport Research Laboratory. It is certainly the case that of victims of fatal road accidents and, indeed, driver victims—oddly enough, the statistics are about the same—research shows that 18 per cent show signs of illicit drugs, mainly cannabis—I shall come back to that—and 6 per cent show signs of medicinal drugs. I shall not use the term "prescribed drugs" as some of them are drugs that are available over the counter.

1627
Clearly, there is some evidence on that point. But the difficulty about the statistics that the Bill calls for is that there is no statutory limit which covers the whole range of drugs which can affect driving. It is not that we are unwilling to make a statutory limit or that there is a resource problem, but that there are scientific problems in defining a statutory limit. In other words, where the Bill states that there should be blood tests and uses the phrase "tested positive", which is what is used for alcohol, that simply does not work across the wide range of drugs, both controlled and medicinal. Both my noble friend Lord Faulkner and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, recognised that point. It is not that we are dragging our feet about statistics, but that there are genuine problems. Other than stopping people at random when they are driving and forcing them to take impairment tests and various kinds of physical tests, there would be very great difficulty in extending the research beyond what has been done so far.
The trouble with the research that we have, and any research that we could do, on the effect of drugs on driving is that it does not give evidence of causation. We have to look at impairment of driving rather than the presence of drugs that might or might not impair driving. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, gave the example of cannabis, which stays in the bloodstream for up to 28 days, long after there could be any impairment effect on driving. The area is hugely difficult, and I am afraid that it is not adequately addressed by the analogy in the Bill between alcohol and drugs in terms of testing and impairment.
As has been said, 26 police forces are already engaged in programmes of training on enforcement. They are difficult programmes that take a couple of days, and are of two kinds. The first is on drug recognition—the outward signs of the presence of drugs—and recognition of which kinds of drugs cause which behavioural or physical effects. The second is on the use of field impairment testing. I do not need to go into that as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, kindly did so for me, but there are seven alternative tests. We recognise the problem that, at the moment, there is no compulsion at the roadside on a driver to undergo impairment testing. We recognise that new legislation will be necessary to enhance the police powers for screening, so that we can screen suspect drivers for drugs.
There are hopeful signs. I am glad to say that the police have been able to issue a specification to manufacturers who could produce roadside testing devices. They would not necessarily take blood samples, but could use other intimate samples, of which the most obvious is saliva. The problem will always be that any testing device will test one drug or a range of drugs, but different testing devices will test different drugs and different ranges of drugs. It is really quite difficult to find something manageable, portable and useable at the roadside.
That leads us to have to rely on the judgment of the police as to whether it is appropriate to take a driver in for more elaborate testing for drugs, with the intention
1628
of prosecution in order to reduce road accidents. What is important is reaching a judgment. If the police have available field impairment tests and, as we can develop them, physical tests, they can increase their confidence in reaching a judgment on when a driver may be impaired, on when it might be due to drugs, and on being able to make arrests in the end. That is the scope of the problem.
There are problems with the Bill, all of which have been recognised in the debate. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, recognised some of them. The Bill states that there should be an offence of driving "under the influence" of a controlled drug. Section 4(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 contains the offence of being unfit to drive through drink or drugs. Section 4(5) defines what unfit means as,
"for the time being impaired".
We think that there is a better test and offence in that Act than in the Bill because "under the influence" is not really measurable.
I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, says about a Private Member's Bill being restricted, but there is no rational justification for the Bill's including controlled drugs but not medicinal ones that can impair driving.
A third problem is that, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner recognised, the Bill imposes lower penalties than those for offences under Schedule 4 to the Road Traffic Act. As we were reminded, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, spoke only yesterday in favour of heavier sentences for driving dangerously when impaired. Therefore, there are difficulties there.
I have problems with the implication in new Section 40C that there can be a level or statutory limit which would allow the phrase "tested positive" to be effective. That really is a difficulty in relation to the Bill. In addition, the Bill provides for more resources for research. We all entirely agree with that, but it is not resources that are restricting researching at present.
In conclusion, we believe that there is a need not to have a new offence, but to make the offence work. We believe that means that there will have to be powers to enforce roadside impairment testing and roadside drug screening, both of which are referred to in the Bill. I recognise and welcome that. I can never promise what will be in future legislation or when future legislation will be dealt with, but we intend to address both those issues in future legislation as soon as possible. Meanwhile, although I cannot offer support for the Bill, I welcome it as a serious contribution to debate on an important subject.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am most grateful to all who have taken part in this small debate at what is now becoming a somewhat late hour on a Friday afternoon. It has been an extremely good debate. I do not intend to try to answer every point raised in the names of individual Members, although I shall mention one or two. But common themes have run through the remarks.

1629
The first is the lack of research carried out in this field and the need to have more knowledge and information. The second theme is the general lack of public information or, indeed, of public concern about the issue of driving under the influence of drugs. There is the specific and huge problem of prescription drugs, which is specifically left out of this small Bill. We touched on the issue of police training, and it is very gratifying to hear what has been done.
I am particularly grateful for the response of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, because it has given us a very detailed picture of the work that the Government are doing. I certainly did not bring forward the Bill with any view that the Government were not doing as they should. That was certainly not my intention. The purpose of introducing the Bill was to give everything even greater impetus.
One or two questions were raised both by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, about the problems of enforceability of the requirement to test. It seems to me that we might perfectly well be able to deal with that during the passage of the Bill, assuming of course that it makes progress. We could deal with those matters, as perhaps we could with the question of sentencing, if that is not appropriate in a Private Member's Bill. But sentencing is already dealt with in the Bill and the scales could be adjusted to match what is required under the Road Traffic Acts.
The purpose of the Bill is serious: it is to deal with the issue of driving under the influence of controlled drugs. It makes driving an offence if a person has any of those drugs in his system. I have heard nothing that convinces me that we should not treat the Bill with a confident hope that it will make progress.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Equality Bill [H.L.]
2.19 p.m
Report received.
Schedule 2 [Protected areas of activity]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 89, line 27, at end insert—

"(ab) is so structured, and conducts its affairs in such manner, that members of the club do not constitute a section of the public; and"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 deals with a matter which needs to be put beyond doubt. It is really a technical amendment which should engage no controversy. Clubs are bodies that may he liable for discrimination in various guises. One way is where a club is not a properly run club, which screens members on the basis of personal selection but essentially allows any member of the public to become a member. It has always been clear under the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act that a club of that character, which does not have a proper screening process is a person concerned with providing
1630
goods, services and facilities for the public or a section of the public and is therefore liable if it discriminates in that capacity.
On looking again at the Bill it seemed that it was possible to argue that we had not maintained that distinction to ensure that there was liability in that kind of situation. Amendment No. 1 makes it clear on page 89, line 27, by adding words to the end of paragraph 41 that deal with that situation. As I say, it does not really raise any new point; it simply makes clear that which I think was already inherent in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 89, line 38. leave out paragraph 42 and insert—.
"Exclusion for members clubs limited to persons who are members of particular groups
42 (1) There is excluded from the protected area of activity specified in section 6(1)(f) the management of any members club that is carried on otherwise than for profit. if the principal purpose of the club is to enable the benefits of membership of the club to be enjoyed by persons who arc members of any one or more of the following groups—

(a) any group of persons identified by reference to a particular age group into which they fall;

(b) any group of persons identified by reference to their race, nationality or ethnic or national origins;

(c) any group of persons identified by reference to a particular disability they have or have had;

(d) any group of persons identified by reference to their family status;

(e) persons generally who have undergone a gender reassignment;

(f) any group of persons identified by reference to their marital status;

(g) pregnant women generally;

(h) any group of persons identified by reference to their religion or belief; and

(i) any group of persons identified by reference to their sexual orientation.

(2) But the exclusion in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply—

(a) in relation to any members club if its principal purpose is to enable the benefits of membership of the club to be enjoyed by persons who are members of any group defined by reference to colour; or

(b) to exclude anything done for a reason or reasons relating to any prohibited ground that falls outside the scope of such restrictions as are reasonably necessary to give effect to the principal purpose of the club.

(3) In determining the principal purpose of a members club, regard is to be had to—

(a) the extent to which the affairs of the club are conducted in such a way that the persons primarily enjoying the benefits of membership are persons of the particular group concerned;

(b) the essential character of the club; and

(c) any other relevant circumstances."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 deals with a matter which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in Committee. I am grateful to him for having raised this issue. Again, I do not think it is controversial, but it has been our approach in relation to this Bill whenever any defect or improvement has

1631
been raised by any Member of the House to seek to give effect to what has been suggested where possible. Noble Lords will know that we have done that, for example, with amendments to deal with disability discrimination in a more satisfactory way.
The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie— what he described as his first concern—in Committee, relates to paragraph 42 on page 89, which, in deference to respect for personal privacy and private life, excluded members' clubs from liability if they were clubs for racial and religious groups. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, asked why that should not apply also to other vulnerable groups, for example, the young, the elderly, gay and lesbian groups, and so forth. We thought that we had dealt with that, in a slightly indirect and complex way, elsewhere in the Bill. But, having thought about it, it seemed to us better to replace paragraph 42 with the words in the amendment which, as your Lordships will see, spell out each of the excluded clubs where the group of persons for whom they are providing benefits are defined by reference to age, race, family status, gender reassignment, marital status, pregnancy, religion or belief, or sexual orientation. We have still maintained, as in the Race Relations Act 1976, liability if a club imposes a colour bar. I very much hope that the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has been met in the way that I have described. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and I proposed an amendment to remove from the Bill all provisions relating to members' clubs. I was glad of the exemptions from anti-discrimination laws that the Bill, as originally drafted. provided for single-sex clubs, single ethnic and single religious group clubs. But I asked why the same should not apply to clubs confined to specific age groups or people of particular sexual orientation—for example, pensioners' lunch clubs, youth clubs or gay clubs.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has now provided exemptions for all those groups and the amendment before us seems to be appropriately comprehensive. I am glad of that because, as your Lordships' know, I have taken the view with regard to the Bill—and indeed the earlier Bill presented by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester—that it is wrong in law for the law to involve itself and to intervene in how people choose to associate with others in their private social lives.
I believe that it is quite natural for people—at any rate sometimes and on some occasions—to seek out the company of their own kind in terms of their own age group, sex or whatever. It is quite wrong for the law to intervene and prevent it.
I would still prefer the Bill to have no application at all to members' clubs because the definition used to provide exemption for certain clubs—now admittedly more extensive if the amendment is passed—which is dependent on locating the "principal purpose" of the club, may sometimes be difficult to apply.
1632
I continue to be concerned because the noble Lord's amendments do not cover another point I made in Committee: for example, if a male club allows women to take up any form of membership, such as associate membership, it must grant them precisely the same rights and facilities. In such circumstances the possibility of a men-only bar in a club will be prohibited unless at the very least there is an equivalent women-only bar. I am not sure whether that would be sufficient.
My advice to working men's clubs that have in recent years, perhaps tentatively, opened their doors to women on a basis other than full membership—and that applies apparently to the majority of them—is that they will need to consider shutting their doors once again to any form of female membership if the Bill becomes law. I have other continuing concerns. If the Bill becomes law, if any kind of club offers, for example, a lower subscription to those under 30 in order to attract less well-off, it is assumed, younger members, that may contravene the Bill because it discriminates on grounds of age against those over 30.
Of course today I shall not pursue the matter further, but I hope that the sponsors of the Bill will not boast about the unanimous and apparently unquestioning Front Bench support for the Bill. The Liberal Democrats are amazingly free of any Front Bench presence at this moment. However, as with any government Bill of comparable length and complexity to this, each of the Front Benches would have displayed their customary diligence and probing. I happen to have an interest in a Bill that is being considered in Grand Committee. It is the Water Bill. It attracts no more than perhaps a dozen interested persons. None the less, both Front Benches have done an incredibly probing job in examining the Bill word for word, clause for clause, as they normally do. A glance at the Marshalled List of amendments to the Water Bill will reveal that.
It is a shame that on this occasion the Front Benches have failed to subject the Bill to any real scrutiny. That may say something about the expectation of whether the Bill will make further progress. but just because we deal with the Bill on quiet Fridays, because few people are sufficiently interested to take part and few amendments have been tabled at any stage, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will not hereafter imply that he has mass support for his Bill.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I tiptoe carefully into this debate, following in the footsteps of my noble friend Lady Buscombe, who cannot be here today and sends her apologies to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. However, as the Front Benches have been mentioned, I thought that I should speak at least briefly to make one or two points.
First, perhaps I should declare an interest as a member of a variety of associations of 25 persons or more for various purposes that would fall into many of the relevant categories. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is making a valuable contribution in helping us all to

1633
struggle through the tangled legal undergrowth that is essential to a Bill of this character. Amendment No. 2 takes us all a stage further.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, started by describing the amendment as perfectly comprehensive, but then seemed to think that it was not as comprehensive in its coverage as he would want. I noticed that in new paragraph 42(1)(b), there is an exclusion for clubs the members of which are identified by reference to their race, nationality and so on.
I happen to be a vice-president of the Royal Society of St George. We exist to boost England, if I may put it that way—I do not want to set out all the objects of the society in full—but the society is not restricted to persons who are English. Anyone who supports the objects of the society may join. We would therefore not have the protection otherwise provided by new paragraph 42(1)(b). We do not need that protection because, as far as I am aware, there is nothing in the rules of the society that would fall under the Bill. However, that demonstrates one difficulty of trying to define membership in such a way and of being so precise.
New paragraph 42(1)(i) provides protection for a group of persons identified by reference to their sexual orientation. I understand from reading the debate in Committee, and so on, that that is intended to allow gay clubs, for example, to function. But it seems to me that that might also permit a club that would otherwise fall under the Bill to put up a notice saying, "No gays". That would be discrimination of a kind that might allow it through the terms of the Bill. As your Lordships well know, I am not a lawyer, but someone who knows more about the law than I should consider that.
My final point relates to new paragraph 42(2)(b). Its wording is extraordinarily complicated. If I can interpolate from the amendment, it states that:
"the exclusion in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply … to exclude anything done for a reason … outside the scope".
The number of negatives in that make it extremely difficult to understand. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that he try that sub-paragraph out on the Plain English Campaign to see whether it could assist in achieving clearer drafting. I think that I know what it is intended to do. As it comes from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I suppose that it will achieve its purpose in legal terms—I know of his legal distinction. But it is a little more difficult for ordinary mortals such as me to follow it through.
I hope that those slightly detailed points will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that Her Majesty's Opposition are willing to look at some of the detail sometimes. Clearly, if the Bill were to come back as a government Bill in this or a similar form, we would do our best to draw attention to some detailed points while agreeing in principle with the objective of this amendment, for example.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I had not intended to speak today and I refrained from doing so in Committee, because I am aware that my
1634
noble friend Lord Lester is more than capable of defending himself under any circumstance whatever. But since I was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to show Front-Bench support for my noble friend's Bill, I stand here to say just that: we support the Bill. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on women, I certainly feel no obligation to challenge the wording of my noble friend's Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I expressed the Government's view of this Bill in a rather lengthy speech at Second Reading and I do not propose to add anything. But the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, should not draw any conclusions, favourable or unfavourable, from my silence.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken. Briefly, I shall deal with some of the points. First, in defence of the Government, I fully understand the position that they have taken, as I am sure the House does. The position has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and by the other Minister who spoke at an earlier stage. I shall summarise it as follows: the Government take the Bill very seriously. They are not in favour, at this stage of their policy development, of having a single equality Bill. They are instead busily working on the regulations that will come before Parliament in May, as I understand it, to give effect to the EU equality directives that cover some of the ground dealt with more widely in this Bill. I am sure that the civil servants dealing with the matter will look at the Bill and think about some of the ways in which it approaches problems to see whether they believe those provisions to be sensible or otherwise.
So I am in no way discouraged by the fact that neither the Government nor the main Opposition have tabled a series of amendments. Indeed, in a previous debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was kind enough to indicate very clearly, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cope, today, that the Conservative Party is favourable to simplifying the law, producing coherence and greater accessibility, and therefore approves of the Bill's aims without necessarily subscribing to every part of it.
Secondly, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, believes that I have hit the target as regards his first concern—not about sex discrimination in clubs, which I shall come to in a moment. As I understand it, he is favourable to Amendment No. 2 as it stands.
I shall explain some matters that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised about the amendment. It applies only if the principal purpose of the club is to enable the benefits of membership to be enjoyed by persons who are members of any one or more of the groups listed. For example, it would apply to a gay club or a heterosexual club—a club of a particular sexual orientation—only if its principal purpose were to give benefits to straight members or gay members. If it did that, it might be offensive, but it could put up a notice excluding those of a different sexual orientation. That is how it works.

1635
There was also criticism of the un-plain English in paragraph 42(2)(b). I take full responsibility for that, even though it was drafted by a highly skilled former parliamentary counsel. The purpose of the subparagraph is plain enough. It is to stop discrimination leaking unnecessarily into places that it should not, as a result of an over-broad interpretation of the exception. I shall look again to see whether even plainer English could be used to deal with that.
The only other point is the familiar one raised repeatedly and always forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, about sex discrimination in clubs. As noble Lords know, paragraph 43 excludes from the scope of the Bill single-sex clubs, run for profit or otherwise, but keeps within the scope of this Bill what was in the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. That Bill was supported by the Government and by those of us on these Benches and the Conservative Benches. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will not mind my describing him as being a bit like Captain Ahab with Moby Dick in pursuing the issue again and again. We all understand well what his position really is.
What we are doing is not coercive; we are saying that, if a club, as a matter of the free choice of its members, allows women as well as men to become members or associate members, it must treat them equally. Its constitution and its workings must focus on the fact that that will be the principal object. If that is the principal object, the club will be liable. If the club's main object is to give benefit to women or to men, it will be beyond the scope of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, does not like the drafting of the purpose test in paragraph 43(3) and made that clear on the last occasion, although he has not tabled an amendment and nor have I. I have not tabled an amendment to introduce a different test because, during the debates on the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester—I read them after our previous debate in Committee—the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, commended the form of words in that Bill as being fit for the purpose. Having read the debate again, I decided, on reflection, that what was in this Bill and in the noble Lord's Bill represented the right approach.
Strictly speaking, I am out of order even to mention all that, as no amendment that deals with that subject has been tabled. However, I thought that, out of courtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I should explain why I have dealt with the first of his concerns but will never be able to deal with the second of his concerns. My position, like that of those on both Front Benches, is that a club that allows both halves of the human race to be members should treat those members equally—in the same bar, in two separate bars or whatever. That is not an invasion of personal privacy. In that situation, equality trumps personal privacy and personal choice.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

General and Specialist Medical Practice (Education, Training and Qualifications) Order 2003
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved.
The order has already been considered and passed by the Scottish Parliament, on 20th March. That was required because some of the matters covered are devolved. The devolved administrations are, for the first time, given the power to appoint members to the UK body that supervises postgraduate medical education. The order has also completed its stages in another place, and it now falls to this House to consider it. In my view the draft order is compatible with the convention rights.
I turn first to what the order will achieve. Noble Lords may not all be aware of just how complex postgraduate medical education actually is. Many organisations are involved at different stages. At present, there is a lot of potential for confusion. I hope to clear some of that confusion away.
Noble Lords may, however, be aware that the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice has formally supervised general practice training since 1981. Since 1995, the Specialist Training Authority of the medical Royal Colleges has been responsible for supervising specialist training. My noble friend Lord Turnberg and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, have served with great distinction as chairmen of the STA. Both bodies have made a significant contribution to the development of medical education and training. They have done as much as they could within the current limits of the regulatory system. I want to place on record my appreciation of their work over the years.
This order represents the fruit of three years hard work and close consultation at every stage between the Government and the medical profession. It establishes a new body which will reform the way in which we train and educate the doctors of the future so that they are better able to meet the needs of both patients and the NHS. This body will act independently of government. It will be a professional and authoritative body, fully in keeping with the principle of professional self-regulation. Government will have a limited role in the formative process. They will ensure that the board is set up and appointed, then step back to allow the board to get on with its work.
There are default provisions, but I stress that they can only be used should the board ever fail to perform a function. Default powers exist in the current legislation. They have never been used and we do not anticipate having to make use of them in any ordinary

1637
circumstances. We confidently hope and expect that this will be the case with the default powers in this order.
Perhaps I may also illustrate the limits to the Secretary of State's power. At various times it has been asked whether the Secretary of State for Health could compel the board to include or remove specific training requirements if he so wished. The Secretary of State would, and is required by ordinary administrative law principles, exercise his powers reasonably. Any decision that the board had failed to perform a function that it should have performed would have to satisfy this principle. It would not therefore be open to the Secretary of State to exercise his default powers where the board had considered and with good reasons decided on specific training requirements.
The reforms will introduce a more flexible system for regulating the education and training of doctors, in which the medical Royal Colleges will play a leading role. The new body will ensure that standards are maintained and developed for training doctors for independent medical practice in NHS primary and secondary care. However, a major change, in keeping with the changing public emphases, is that for the first time the NHS and the public will be well represented.
Other significant changes achieved by this order will be that arrangements for training general practitioners and specialists will be brought together in one organisation; that there will be a new GP register to sit alongside the specialist register; and that faster, fairer and more effective processes will be introduced, which will assess doctors on the practical demonstration of their competencies, in addition to their medical knowledge and their qualifications.
I emphasise what that last important change will mean. For the first time, these assessment processes will address properly the needs of specialist doctors who are not European Economic Area nationals and have qualified or trained outside the EEA. This will benefit thousands of doctors already working in the NHS—many of whom are in the staff and service grades—and are prevented front progressing in their careers because the current system does not allow their experience to be taken into account, together with their training and qualifications, in determining whether a particular doctor has met the required standard.
Doctors are very well aware already of the benefits that this new legislation will bring. As a recent national conference of staff and service grade doctors demonstrated, we have received many supportive responses to our consultations from individual doctors—the majority of whom have undertaken specialist training or have been awarded specialist qualifications outside the EEA. All are already working in the NHS in the staff and service grades. All are currently restricted in developing their careers because the current system does not allow their experience to be taken into account. This will change under the order.
We will have a fairer and a more transparent system. It will ensure that our already high standards in medical education are maintained and developed. And, finally, the order itself is a more flexible and adaptable piece of legislation which will make it easier to make any future improvement to the system of postgraduate medical education and training in the UK. Any such changes will of course be a matter for the board itself to determine.
Why do we need these changes? Let me briefly set out the background. Our medical training system is rightly admired across the world, but this order recognises that it is now right to develop it further to ensure that our future doctors are able to deliver quality services in the ways that they and their patients want. This must be done in partnership with other members of the healthcare team. Furthermore, the medical education and training system must be flexible and adaptable, and capable of responding quickly to changes in the NHS and to developments in education—for example, in improvements to methods of assessment and training.
I mentioned earlier that the system is already very complex. Let me try to pick out the key elements of the new system—one which will be less confusing. The new board will set standards and formally supervise the entire system—ensuring that the doctors it certifies have been trained to the standards it has set. But it will not be responsible for managing, funding or organising the training. That job is, and will continue to be, handled largely by the postgraduate deans in the NHS. Indeed, the system would not work without their invaluable contribution. But the board is the standard-setter, and it will rely heavily in this respect on the work of the Royal Colleges. It will be for the board, based on the advice received, to grant or withdraw approval from training programmes, and to award certificates to individual doctors. That will bring together both general practice training and specialist training. There will be one certificate for both types of doctor.
This is not change for change's sake. We recognise that we must not lose the many excellent features of our current training system. The order will ensure that this does not happen. For example, it clearly recognises the established role and expertise of the Royal Colleges. It ensures that the board and the GMC will co-operate closely with each other. But we should change those aspects of the present arrangements which do not work as well; for example, the current separation of general practice from the rest of medical training and the way that colleges sometimes work almost in isolation from each other.
Reforms of the magnitude in this order need to rest on the broadest possible support. We have had that support from the profession itself as well as the patients and the wider public. We have consulted twice on these reforms. It has been a three-year process. The issues raised in the responses received—there have been more than 300 in total—have helped to shape the details of our policy. As a result of these two consultation exercises, we have probably made well over 100 changes in total. Involving colleges and other

1639
stakeholders in our working groups has been designed to achieve this consensus and has informed those changes.
The response to consultation showed a clear consensus that change was needed. We have, I believe, met the concerns which were initially expressed by the medical Royal Colleges and others. This is clearly demonstrated in the recent memorandum of understanding agreed between the Department of Health and the Academy of the Medical Royal Colleges in January. It marks a significant step forward in this direction. The colleges agree that there is no need for each and every one of them, and their faculties, to be represented on the board itself. They know that they will be strongly represented on the committees and sub-committees which the board will set up to tackle the detailed work in relation to each medical specialty.
We are profoundly appreciative of the hard work and of the support of the professional and academic medical leaders. Professor Peter Hutton, chairman of the academy, is a firm supporter of these proposals. He recently said that,
"sensible negotiation has resulted in a very practical piece of legislation … the way in which this exercise has progressed forms a good model for future working between the Department of Health and the Colleges".
His view is backed by the other college presidents, six of whom are on departmental working groups helping to do some of the preliminary work to implement the order.
Let us look at what has been said by the colleges and the medical profession. The Academy of the Medical Royal Colleges, which represents all the colleges in the UK, states that it,
"strongly supports the philosophy",
behind these changes and confirms that,
"all the colleges, without dissent, are in agreement".
The colleges in Scotland have put on record,
"that the Order offers a framework for continued constructive collaboration to maintain, and improve, the standard of health care in the UK … there are now opportunities for us to develop Scottish initiatives contributing to an overall UK framework".
The GMC has said that:
"We support the Government's commitment to reform postgraduate medical education and training. The creation of PMETB offers an opportunity for significant progress towards ensuring that both the training and service needs are met".
The Royal College of General Practitioners has said:
"We believe that the PMETB offers real opportunities and benefits for the development of medical training".
The order is now clearly recognised and accepted as an important step forward in the system of medical education and training in the UK and will build on a great deal of developmental work which has already been taken forward by the profession—for example, on examinations and assessments—and on better ways of quality assuring training. It is in the wider public interest that this close working relationship is further developed and strengthened as the board is established. We will do all we can to ensure that this happens.
One of the key features of these reforms is that, in future, patients and the NHS will have a greater contribution in determining the standards of education and training for doctors. That wider representation will also be reflected in the board's committees where the detailed work will be done. This will ensure that the broader competencies required of modern doctors, such as team working and communication skills, are also included in training curricula alongside the detailed clinical knowledge which they clearly need. In this important respect, the order will help to support all our efforts to improve the quality of care in the National Health Service.
The provisions before your Lordships' House will contribute to the implementation of the major programme of reform we have announced to modernise medical careers, bringing more structure and coherence to the early stages of postgraduate training. We need to ensure that doctors in training grades and in service posts are well supported, and able to plan and develop their careers in the NHS. The board will be crucial to the success of these wider reforms to medical careers.
In addition to making improvements to the system, we are also making a number of other changes that are particularly important to career prospects within the profession itself.
I mentioned earlier how individual doctors in the NHS have welcomed the proposals because they will help them to develop their careers. Questions have been raised in another place about whether these proposals will actually help doctors who are already contributing to the NHS in the staff and service grades, but who want to advance further in their careers. I want to say very clearly today that we have set out to assist these doctors, and that is what the order does. In particular, the order will help many doctors currently working in the NHS with qualifications obtained outside the European Economic Area. They cannot progress to consultant positions in their careers because the current legislative system does not take all factors into account.
The fact that they may have completed additional training, or have years of senior experience in the United Kingdom, makes no difference. If the qualification is not determined to be equivalent to the UK specialist qualification, that is the end of the matter and the individual cannot have his or her name included in the specialist register. Many therefore have no chance of ever becoming a consultant and the NHS is deprived of the benefit that the full contribution of these doctors could make. This cannot he allowed to continue.
The order therefore provides for all training, experience and qualifications—wherever obtained—to be taken into account by the board when assessing the eligibility of applications to go on to the specialist register. If a doctor does not meet the required standard at the first application, that is no longer the end of the story. Doctors will be able to top up their training to meet the requirements. They cannot do this at present.
Training must no longer be seen as a one-off opportunity which ends at a certain point in a doctor's career. The whole point of medical education and professional development is that it needs to be a well-managed continuum throughout a doctor's professional life. That is why, in parallel with the regulatory reforms, we are modernising medical careers, taking forward the proposals set out in the Chief Medical Officer's consultation paper Unfinished Business to develop a more structured system of education early in a junior doctor's career, immediately following registration with the GMC.
Our proposals will deliver a new foundation programme, which will be followed by well-managed and structured programmes, supervised by the board, for all trainees, whether they become consultants or general practitioners. This will include programmes designed for doctors moving back into training from a staff or service grade post. We are taking an all-embracing approach which will include competency-based assessment and encourage that to thrive. This will see all doctors in training working against clear, agreed goals.
Both of these new developments demonstrate the importance of the current competence of a doctor to deliver quality services to NHS patients. The new system will ensure that all doctors will have a fair chance of demonstrating how they meet the high standards that we rightly require of our doctors. I should make one point very clear. This is not about lowering standards but about providing a fairer opportunity to doctors to show how they meet our existing standards.
Secondly, we are creating a new GP register. In future, all GPs will need to be on this register. General practice is strongly supportive of this initiative—it has been for some time—and it is supported by the medical profession as a whole. No one currently eligible to work in general practice in the NHS will be excluded; there is no threat to anyone's livelihood. We believe that the GP register will make a big difference to patients and employers. For example, they will easily be able to check a doctor's registration online. Doctors' standards will be visible and accessible to patients.
Finally, the new system is designed to work more efficiently. The board and the GMC will be required in future to give decisions about eligibility for registration of both GPs and specialists within three months of receiving a full application. At present, doctors—particularly those applying from outside the EEA—must often wait for considerable lengths of time for a decision.
Let me quickly go through the order itself. The order creates the board and two statutory committees—the training committee and the assessment committee (Article 3). The board will be responsible for supervising the system of postgraduate medical education and training in the UK, setting standards and ensuring that these standards are applied (Articles 4, 5 and 6). The statutory committees will report to the board and be accountable to it. The board will be able
1642
to set up sub-committees to deal with levels of detail. Royal Colleges will be appropriately represented on these committees and sub-committees.
Much of the detail of how the new education system will operate is intentionally not included in the legislation. Let me use this opportunity to again reinforce the independence of the board. The board will draw up its own rules and it will be able to change them to respond to changing training needs. While the board will be able to delegate work and decisions to its committees, it will not be permitted to delegate any of its rule-making powers. This is entirely consistent with the principles of independence and autonomy which have been the hallmarks of our system of postgraduate education and training. These principles are carried forward in the order.
There will be 25 board members, with a medical majority. The chair may be either medically qualified or a lay person. Appointments to the board will formally be made by the Secretary of State for Health and by Ministers in each of the devolved administrations. Each of the devolved administrations will make two appointments—one medical, one lay— and the Secretary of State will make the remainder.
At least six of the medical appointments will be drawn from a list supplied by a body representing the medical Royal Colleges in the UK. At present this is the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. At least one appointment—lay or medical—will be made from a list supplied by the GMC. This ensures the essential professional input as well as proper representation of patients and employers.
I have gone into some detail because it is a complicated order which has taken a long time to prepare and it is important to get the details right. It has taken us almost three years' hard work to reach this point. The order has been designed in consultation with stakeholders to be flexible and adaptable. It will permit improvements to be made to the system of postgraduate medical education and training.
We are very glad that our proposals have the support of medical organisations and of individual doctors. We believe that they will be of direct benefit to the NHS and to patients because they will help us to produce not only more doctors but better-trained doctors. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Andrews.)
3 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this important order and for the clear way in which she did so. I wish to be entirely constructive in my approach to these proposals. I am the first to acknowledge that the Government have not only consulted widely on them but have taken account of many of the concerns raised by those who responded, not least the medical Royal Colleges and the GMC. What we have here, nevertheless, is a piece of major reform, and it is right that we should spend a few minutes in examining its implications.

1643
I think we can probably all agree on several positive features. First, the order greatly simplifies what many would regard as a baffling array of regulations currently governing postgraduate medical training and, in so doing, it makes the underlying legal framework a lot less opaque. It also brings together under one statutory umbrella both specialist and GP training, a change which is, I believe, very welcome, as is the creation of a new GP register.
The other main change to be applauded is the way in which medical training is assessed. It is no longer a question of how long a person has trained in a particular discipline, but whether he or she is competent in that skill. Assessing someone's competency carries important implications for who will be able to apply to join the specialist register. As the Minister has just explained, Article 14 contains a provision which will allow for doctors who have gained qualifications outside the European economic area to be assessed here, on the basis of their competency and experience and, if found to meet the prescribed standards, admitted to the specialist register. I welcome that change. Quite a number of doctors practising in the UK cannot currently make this career progression. Both they and the NHS are the worse for that.
As I read it, we will ultimately have a much more flexible system than we do at the moment, but it will require appropriate mechanisms to be put in place to ensure that people's qualifications, training and experience can be properly assessed. The criteria used must be very clear and very tight. That task has to be put in hand. In fact, the practical aspects of these reforms have excited some comment and it would be helpful if the Minister could say something in her reply about a few of them. For example, there will be doctors in the SAS grades who are assessed but are then found to require further training. How exactly is it intended to provide this top-up training, and how will those doctors access the established training programmes? To what extent will an assessor be held responsible for the subsequent professional performance of the person who is assessed?
The other practical issue I want to raise relates to the interaction between the new board, the GMC and the medical Royal Colleges. In the report on the consultation published in February, there is a specific reference in paragraph 28 to the need for all three bodies to work together closely if the new system is to work effectively and well, particularly as regards processing applications for doctors' certification and registration. I agree with that, of course, but it is also self-evident that to have the highest and best standards of medicine in this country, the medical Royal Colleges have to be closely involved in determining the standards of postgraduate medical training.
Equally, doctors who qualify and are admitted to either of the registers will have to submit themselves to revalidation during the course of their career. Revalidating doctors is a responsibility of the GMC. If the standards of attainment in both training and revalidation are to correspond and cohere, clearly the
1644
GMC, alongside the Royal Colleges, has a locus in helping to oversee and shape the work of the new board. It is pleasing, therefore, to see that the board membership will include nominees of both the GMC and the medical Royal Colleges, and that this provision is now written into the order.
I have to ask the Minister, however, about paragraph 1(14) of Schedule 2. It says:
"On a proposal from the Board or otherwise, the Secretary of State may by order vary the size or composition of the Board".
The only provisos to the exercise of the power are that the medical majority on the board has to be preserved and the appointment rights of the three regional departments are safeguarded. In other words, the nomination rights of the GMC and medical Royal Colleges, to which both bodies attach great significance, are not set in stone.
The words "or otherwise" concern me, however. In what circumstances might the Secretary of State be minded to say that nominees of the professional bodies should no longer sit as members of the board? Even the theoretical prospect of that happening fills me with some alarm. I say that especially in the broader context of the Secretary of State's wider powers, which I shall talk about in a moment. Now that the Government have agreed to include the nomination rights in the order, why is that get-out provision there at all?
The Minister will know that the BMA is disappointed that it is not represented on the board. I have considerable sympathy with its view that practising doctors should sit as members to represent the key groups of hospital and general practice, as well as training and career grades. There is no guarantee that the nominees of the GMC or the medical Royal Colleges will be practising doctors with direct experience of workforce planning, assessment and appraisal and implementing working hours agreements. The BMA Junior Doctors Committee is particularly ideally placed to provide that sort of knowledge.
There is also a strong case for GP representation on the board, given the fact that an increasing quantity of service and education is undertaken in primary care settings. Alongside GPs, the BMA has emphasised to me the particular significance of the staff and associate specialist group of doctors, whose needs are very individual and will undoubtedly have to be taken into account by the board. There is a good argument that a doctor from that group should be included in the board membership.
The underlying issue is that doctors must be fit for purpose. That point has been recognised by the fact of enabling the Secretary of State to ensure that NHS interest is represented on the board. I, for one, do not have a problem with that idea. However, I have a problem with the extent to which politicians, especially the Secretary of State, have influence over the composition and actions of the board. We all recognise the importance of professional self-regulation, and I am the first to recognise that the medical majority on the board preserves the essence of that principle. Yet the fact is that the appointments process is largely in the hands of politicians.

1645
Why does the Minister believe that that is necessary? There should be some political appointees—yes; but should they all be? I am uncomfortable with that. Surely, politicians do not need to appoint all the members to achieve parliamentary accountability for the work of the board or for public money spent.
I have a similar concern in relation to the powers granted to the Secretary of State in paragraph 26 of the order. I understand completely that they are billed as "default powers", to be exercised only if the board has, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, failed to perform any of its functions. In that situation, the Secretary of State may issue directions to the board; if the board fails to comply, the Secretary of State may himself give effect to his direction. That means, in practice, that he will step into the board's shoes.
That is an extraordinary provision, and it is slightly difficult to imagine what the process would involve. We are all used to default powers in other contexts—usually in situations where it is essential for a matter to be expedited for the public good. I would not have thought that the work of a board responsible for postgraduate medical education and training fell into that category. If, by some awful contingency, the board were to fall seriously short in the performance of its functions, the remedy surely does not lie in the Secretary of State taking over in the form of direct rule. Surely, he should consult members of the profession—the GMC, the Royal Colleges, and other interested bodies—and propose arrangements that would serve to upgrade or replace the PMETB and remedy its failings. The role of the Secretary of State should be essentially as a facilitator, not as a protagonist. But that is not what the order provides for.
One then has to wonder what kind of circumstances might lead to the Secretary of State's default powers. That exercise depends, as I said, on his being satisfied that the board is failing to perform any of its functions. The board's functions are set out clearly in Article 3. However, paragraph (11) of that article allows the Secretary of State,
"On a proposal from the Board or otherwise"—
note "or otherwise"—to,
"create a new statutory committee and confer functions on it; or … vary the functions of the statutory committees".
I have to ask the Minister what exactly that entitles the Secretary of State to do. What we cannot have under any circumstances is the remit of the board, and therefore the standards governing postgraduate medical education, becoming the subject of a political agenda. I hope that she can reassure me that there is no means of that being permitted to happen via the backdoor with the order as it is worded.
I note what the Minister said about reasonableness. It might he thought reasonable for the Secretary of State in the interests of the NHS to influence, and indeed amend, the nature and scope of the board's functions and the bodies with which it is required to co-operate. However, such amendments might not necessarily advance the central objective of postgraduate medical education and training, which is
1646
to make doctors fit for purpose and to instil in them the highest standards of practice. I hope that she can reassure me on that.
I end with a question about the timetable for the establishment of the board. Should the House approve the order, I understand that it is likely to be made by the Privy Council at its meeting in mid-May. Advertising for the board members would take place in that event immediately afterwards. If so, the first board meeting is expected sometime in the autumn. However, there will have to be a transitional period during which the specialist training authority will continue its decision-making process about access to the specialist register. Can the Minister tell me when it is expected that the new decision-making process will formally pass to the PMETB?
Once again I thank the Minister for her explanation of the order, and I look forward to her reply.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in thanking the Minister for her very comprehensive introduction which I think answered in advance many of the questions that we on these Benches would have liked to ask. We also give a broad welcome to the new board which I think is eagerly anticipated by the medical profession generally. It is the result of some extremely comprehensive consultations which we also welcome. The consultation certainly gave rise to a large pile of documentation which many of us have been reading through in the past few days. The outcome, which I very much welcome, is a series of quite carefully constructed compromises. The board itself will be a competent authority for the purposes of the EU directive on the free movement of doctors. Consequently, we have no great desire to disturb any of the quite carefully constructed architecture in the order itself.
Several changes were made by Ministers as a result of the consultation. For example, initially the chairman was going to be appointed solely by the Secretary of State and not by the board. Now, at least after the initial period, the board will have the right to appoint. We welcome that, although we have some questions about whether five years is the right period.
There have obviously been changes as regards the use of default powers and the duty to co-operate with a body that appears,
"representative of the medical royal colleges".
That co-operation by the board with the medical colleges enshrined in the order is wholly positive.
Generally the move to competency-based assessments away from the time served basis is greatly to be welcomed. The medical profession and those in the SAS grades mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will welcome that. Medical experience will be recognised.
We welcome the new GP register alongside the specialist register and the more flexible admission to the specialist register. However, I refer to the

1647
question—the Minister went some way to answering it by way of an assurance, but chapter and verse is needed—of whether it is only academic or research knowledge and experience that make a doctor in the grades that we are discussing eligible for consideration. That point was raised by my honourable friend Dr Harris in Standing Committee in another place. I think that due to lack of time the Minister, Mr Hutton, said that he would write to my honourable friend. However, it would be useful to be given further clarification. On the face of it—perhaps I have not read every jot and tittle of the order—it seems that academic research rather than practical skills confers eligibility. It would be useful to hear more detail on that matter from the Minister.
We very much welcome—this has resulted from the way in which the board was set up—the apparent streamlining of the system of hospital visits by the Royal Colleges. It has long been a grouse of mine that over 28 bodies are now entitled to visit, inspect and audit acute hospitals. The more we can boil down the number of visits that are made, the better. It would be useful if the Minister could shed a little light on how that process will operate. Clearly, the board itself, as the regulator in these circumstances, will carry out that process on behalf of the Royal Colleges, but what residual responsibility will the Royal Colleges feel that they have in that regard? How will the process work out in practice? After all, the Royal Colleges will have some delegated responsibilities. They will have membership of some of the committees. Will they feel obliged to carry out inspections as well?
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, described the measure as a radical set of proposals. Perhaps my perspective is rather different. I believe that the setting up of the board is a significant step but I do not see it as a very radical move in many respects because the responsibilities of the NHS, the universities and the postgraduate deans for implementing training and performing to standards remain largely undisturbed. Accountabilities for different aspects of training seem, certainly to the uninformed onlooker, rather confusing.
The Minister told us that the funding and implementation of the training would be carried out by the postgraduate deans. There is the whole new "unfinished business" agenda announced by the health Minister which will be implemented not by the board, as that is the regulator, but essentially by the postgraduate deans and the NHS itself, as I understand it. Accountabilities will be extremely important in judging whether that extremely hefty agenda is successful and whether there is sufficient clarity of responsibility. Will the board have the ability to influence how "unfinished business" is put into practice? Certainly, the borders are unclear at the moment.
How do the responsibilities of the board fit in with workforce planning by the NHS? We have seen great improvements in that regard but it is crucial to delivery within the NHS. Also important is that perennial old chestnut, training numbers. The NHS has grappled
1648
with that over a number of years, and it is still a huge issue. In passing, I wonder whether the department is trying to do too much in the current circumstances. The agenda is massive, grappling not only with the implications of the working time directive, but changing the whole system of training junior doctors, instituting the board and so on. That is biting off a huge amount of reform in one go.
Having said all that, I have doubts on some individual areas, but the Minister can satisfy them in her reply. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised a large number of them and I certainly do not intend to repeat them all. The independence of the board is absolutely crucial, as is self-regulation, the principle that the Minister enunciated. I very much welcome the fact that there will be a majority of doctors on the board. The model of the GMC, which is responsible to the Privy Council, could however have been adopted in the case of the board, and I would very much like to hear the Minister explain why that model was not followed.
The noble Earl went into the use of the Secretary of State's default powers in great detail and very effectively. They are extremely important. The Minister more or less gave us the kind of judicial review test, saying that the Secretary of State will be reasonable in the actions that he takes in exercising his powers under article 26 and other default powers. Some examples of where in practice the Secretary of State would exercise his powers would be extremely useful, because they are very wide. The legislation states,
"has failed to perform any function".
That is fairly draconian. Some assurances on the record to the effect that they will not be used lightly would be very helpful.
The question of nomination of board members is very important. As we know, for "special health authority" in the order, one needs to read "NHS Appointments Commission". I assume that that is the regular way in which nominations will be made. The Minister's assurance on that point would be extremely welcome.
The noble Earl talked about GP representation on the board. We place great emphasis and importance on having practising doctors on the board, whether they are indeed official representatives of the BMA or not. We also believe that junior doctors should be represented. A range of practising doctors should be represented, to ensure that they can give a proper perspective to the type of training that they are responsible for regulating. We share the noble Earl's concerns on the timing of the establishment of the boards.
My final point is on the issue of delegation to the Royal Colleges. It would be useful for the Minister to explain what will happen in practice, as well as explaining the relationship with the GMC, which the noble Earl mentioned. I welcome the fact that the GMC and the board are joined at the hip, so to speak.

1649
A little clarification about how that relationship will work is extremely important, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, in welcoming the order, I have to express an interest as a past president of the Royal College of Physicians and past chairman of the Specialist Training Authority. May I also say how much I appreciate the way in which my noble friend and her officials have explained the detail of the order to me, and how the department and its officials have consulted all and sundry in reaching what I believe is a very satisfactory order.
I particularly welcome the bringing together of the Specialist Training Authority and the authority that regulates general practitioner training. I welcome the facility to take on board experience as part of the ability to assess individual doctors, and the encouragement to look at overseas doctors, who have sometimes had a difficult job getting into the system. Of course, the increase in lay and NHS representation is to the good. I believe all those things are very valuable.
As my noble friend said, concerns have been raised about the powers of the Secretary of State. I think that I am reassured by the suggestion that he or she will have to demonstrate reasonableness in bringing the board to order. I was particularly concerned at one point about medical Royal College representation on the board. I am moderately reassured and I believe that the colleges are moderately reassured.
I want to comment briefly on why it is important that the colleges are adequately represented. The colleges are, and have been for very many years, responsible for developing all the various curricula for all the various specialties, as well as general practitioner training. They set up the training programmes and have a number of specialist training courses.
One has only to visit the Royal College of Surgeons or the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and to see the special training methods they have adopted, which allow young surgeons to practise on inanimate models before being let loose on the public, to recognise how valuable all that is. They ensure that trainees go through all the programmes; they set the exams; they run the examination process; and they assess all the competences.
Incidentally, the colleges are already assessing competences. That will not be new for them; it will be a continuation overseen by the board. Therefore, it is not absolutely new. The colleges visit all the establishments concerned with training—all the hospitals and so on—and ensure that they are up to standard.
The colleges will also welcome the ability to assess experience. The Specialist Training Authority was very constrained by the European directive in its ability to assess experience. It seems that this new order will help to get round that problem. In all that, the colleges work very hard. My own old college, the
1650
Royal College of Physicians, ran 28 different specialty training programmes: cardiology, gastroenterology, neurology and all the "ologies" were involved.
All that vital experience should not he lost and should be used in the new board. It is helpful that six places will be available to the colleges. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure us that that is a minimum figure and that at least that number will be representatives.
I want to raise another point concerning the responsibilities of the board with regard to the supervision of training. It is hard to imagine how that responsibility will be fulfilled without the board being able to delegate it to colleges and to postgraduate deans. I make a similar point in relation to visiting. I cannot imagine that the board will visit establishments where training takes place. It will have to delegate that responsibility. Therefore, I would welcome a reassurance from the Minister about the ability to delegate responsibilities.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I, too, welcome the order that brings postgraduate medical education in general practice and specialties under one statutory organisation. Like my noble friend, in a true sense, Lord Turnberg, I also declare an interest. I am the immediate past chairman of the Specialist Training Authority—a body that will be replaced by the new board. I have also been president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and chairman of both the Scottish and United Kingdom Academies of Medical Royal Colleges and faculties. All those organisations are concerned primarily with promoting and establishing medical education.
The order creates an opportunity to bring some fresh thinking to the way doctors are trained to meet the needs of the health service and to change the way that medical care is delivered in this country from much of care today, particularly emergency care, being delivered by doctors in training to care being provided by doctors who are fully competent to provide it, and who have gone through a structured competency-based training and assessment.
To be able to bring about the changes proposed in the order, the board must be independent of government and organisations primarily concerned with devising and delivering programmes of medical education. At the same time, the board must work closely with and support organisations such as the Royal Colleges which are, in the main, as all noble Lords have said, responsible for postgraduate medical education.
While there have been anxieties about appropriate Royal College representation on the board—that has been mentioned several times—several of the college presidents who have spoken to me recently are content with the proposed arrangements and are looking forward to the establishment of the board. Yes, they have concerns that appropriate representation will also be maintained, and significantly so in the various committees. I, too, support the comments of the noble

1651
Lord, Lord Turnberg, that the colleges are important and we should ensure that they are well represented on the committee.
It is right that the board and its committees should have significant lay representation. That is lacking on the current board of the STA, which has representatives from all the medical Royal Colleges, two representatives from the GMC, two lay representatives and one postgraduate dean. On many occasions during my chairmanship of the STA, the dominance of the Royal College representation on the board slowed the progress towards reforming curricula, introducing competency-based curricula, competency-based assessments, further training of doctors in non-consultant career grades and reform of so-called hospital visiting. My hair has turned grey trying to bring uniformity to hospital visiting processes that could be adopted by all the colleges. I exclude here the Royal College of General Practitioners, which has a very good system.
I do not criticise colleges for that; I merely give an example of how the board, working in a co-ordinated way, could bring about changes that would benefit medical education and training. The independence of the board should help to strengthen its role in those areas. The board should also be independent of the Government. The Minister's assurance on that would be comforting to the colleges.
Having said that, I believe it to be right that the Secretary of State has reserve and default powers to be used if the board is not discharging its function. I hope that those powers could be used only following a comprehensive external review of the board's work. The board has to be accountable.
Two other areas need clarification and reassurance. I hope the Minister will be able to give that. The current arrangements for recognising training undertaken outside the United Kingdom and EEA countries are not satisfactory. That has also been mentioned by all noble Lords. Thousands of doctors working at staff grade and associate specialist grade providing excellent care fail to get on to the specialist register and are disheartened, demoralised and feel discriminated against. At the initiation of the STA, over 3,500 doctors applied for entry to try to have their training and qualifications recognised. Over 50 per cent failed to do so.
The proposals in the order that include recognition of medical experience along with qualification and training and considering doctors' eligibility to be put on specialist registers, together with the proposals relating to top up training in the United Kingdom, will allow for many of those excellent doctors to get on to a specialist register and obtain consultant positions. I do not think it is beyond the wit of man to find a way to provide this type of training in a proper institution where training is possible.
The board must make sure that that happens; otherwise it will fail in its duty. I hope that this will be one of several outputs by which the board will be judged in the review. While the order proposes that a
1652
review should be carried out after five years—and I agree with that—I hope that there will be some way to monitor the board's work on a more regular basis.
The recognition of qualification, training and experience should also make it possible for overseas doctors to come here and continue their training in order to get on to a specialist register. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that that should not just apply to those in academic and research positions but to others in service positions.
The final area on which I want to comment relates to the board's responsibility for setting up an appeals panel. During my chairmanship of the Specialist Training Authority, on occasions the independence of the present appeals system was challenged. While none of the formal appeals succeeded, I hope that the Minister can give a reassurance that the proposed appeals panel system will provide for the establishment of an open and independent appeals system which can also demonstrate a clear separation of the appeals panel from the board.
Perhaps I may also comment on the subject mentioned by the Minister about a proposed new careers structure being developed—Unfinished Business. I look forward to it eagerly. I hope that I shall have a lot to say about the matter. The career structure for doctors, in particular in training, needs to be revisited. I hope that that will be simplified and not made more complicated.
In conclusion, apart from those areas that I have mentioned which require some further work by the board, I support the order and look forward to the establishment of the Post-graduate Medical Education and Training Board. I shall follow its work with great interest.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will bear with me while I arrange my papers so that I can answer at least some of the questions raised this afternoon. First, perhaps I may say how grateful I am for the very warm welcome that the order has received. All credit should go to those who have worked so hard and with such great thought and conviction regarding the need for change in this respect.
Many detailed questions have been raised. I hope to answer as many as possible. Primarily, they appear to be grouped around issues. For example, there are issues regarding the independence of the board and the powers of the Secretary of State; and issues which deal with the representation of doctors and the needed assurances that there will be a medical majority with doctors being represented appropriately.
A number of issues were addressed by the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, including the range of experience regarding the notion of competence and the necessary mechanisms in relation to it. There are issues that deal with the workforce and how what we are trying to do in order to expand and change the workforce of the NHS will reflect, impact on and be, as it were, regulated by the board itself. That brings in

1653
issues regarding visiting panels and so on and the delegation that the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, talked about in relation to the power. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the issue of the timetable. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, raised the issue of the appeals mechanism.
I shall try my best to give assurances on most if not all of those matters. I start with the issue of the board's independence and the assurances that noble Lords seek on the powers of the Secretary of State. We can give with total conviction the assurance that it will be an independent board. The Secretary of State will have the power to nominate the chair in the first instance. The nomination of other members of the board will be as has been agreed and which has come forward in a variety of ways.
There will be at least six places—there may be more—from the medical Royal Colleges, and at least one place from the General Medical Council. There will be six places via the devolved administrations; 19 appointments will therefore notionally be made by the Secretary of State but, in fact, they will be generated by the expert and devolved bodies in the field.
The process of advertisement and selection will be delegated to the NHS Appointments Commission. The reason why the Secretary of State has that role in the first instance is the need to ensure that the first board has balance and authority and is robust and representative.
I was asked why the board does not approximate more closely to, say, the GMC. In fact, that is a slight misreading of the powers of the GMC, because the Department of Health is not as much an arm's length body as it would appear from the fact that powers are located in the Privy Council. The Department of Health has a close link with the GMC through the Privy Council, so the GMC does not provide an appropriate model in this case.
On the question of powers held by the Secretary of State, it is important to reflect that his default powers are not new. They have been held in another form under the STA, which could give direction about administration. The powers in the order approximate to those held under the Medical Acts. So essentially, we have not invented anything in the order. The default powers are important because, should there be such exceptional circumstances as a failure of function—we have no examples to offer noble Lords, because such powers have never been used—or systems failure, we need those powers to rescue the board. We fervently hope that they would never be needed.
The noble Earl asked why the Secretary of State had power under Article 3(11) to create a new statutory committee. That article entitles the Secretary of State to vary the functions of the training or assessment committee or to create a new statutory committee, simply because the power must be exercised by statutory instrument, which is obviously subject to the negative parliamentary procedure. During consultation, many respondents felt that the functions of the statutory committees needed to be capable of
1654
being altered. So that is a safeguarding mechanism to allow change to be made without having to go through more elaborate or Draconian measures. In fact, it was the doctors' representatives who asked us to include such a power to avoid arbitrary or artificial limits on the committees' functions. The power allows us flexibility for the evolution of function.
The noble Earl also asked why there is power to vary the size and composition of the board. Again, we need the flexibility to do so. As he said, there will always be a medical majority and a requirement that the devolved administrations appoint one medical and one lay member. But we want to build flexibility into the procedures, so that if the board concludes that change is needed we do not have to make amendments via a Section 60 order of the primary Act. That has been agreed with the Royal Colleges and others in negotiation.
I hope that those reassurances reinforce the board's intention to operate independently and the Government's intention to ensure that it does.
A related aspect of independence is the composition of the board—why, for example, the British Medical Association will not be on it and whether there will be sufficient GPs. Essentially, the board's composition will be driven by the applicants. At least six people will be nominated through the Royal College, and at least one through the GMC. We will be extremely interested to see the range of specialities and health service representation that comes forward when we advertise the posts. We are confident that we will get the representation of doctors and of many of the groups that we wish to see. But much will be in the hands of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the GMC in terms of nominations.
There is no reason why there could not be a specialist committee of the board simply for general practitioners. General practitioners and, indeed, many more members of the Royal Colleges will be represented on the sub-committees on training and assessment and any other committee that the board chooses to appoint.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the links between the GMC and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. The order provides that there is a duty on the board to co-operate with the GMC and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges as the representative body. There could not be a more explicit demonstration of the intention to work closely with the medical profession than including in the order that duty in what I hope are explicit and reassuring terms.
On the timetable, we hope that the Privy Council will pass the order at its next meeting. It will come into effect in October, when the board is set up. Advertisement and appointment will occupy the time between now and October. The board will run in parallel with the STA and the General Practitioners Training Committee for a year. We expect the full transfer of powers to take place some time at the end of next year. We know that the process is complex. We do not want it to be rushed or compromised, which is

1655
why additional resources have been put into making it as robust and effective as possible. The functions of the STA and the other training committee will continue in parallel, so there will be no discontinuity.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about workforce issues. As he said, it is a matter of agenda. Part of the order's function and significance is, not least, expanding the number of people who will be able to join the specialist register through an emphasis on competence. We will expand the number of people who can serve the health service in that way. But, as the noble Lord said, Unfinished Business on modernising medical careers looks to reforming the postgraduate medical curriculum in different ways, with a new foundation year, for example. But it also looks to building into it curriculum assessment and competencies. So we have two parallel processes in which the board will be closely involved as the regulator and the standard-setter. It will have a major job to do in regulating the process as it evolves over the next few years. That is a major, coherent change in medical education and training.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also asked about visiting panels. We are conscious of the great seriousness—I hesitate to use the word "burden"—of the process of visiting panels. But it is a very important process, which will continue and be reviewed. I am sure that the Royal Colleges and the board will discuss how best to manage that in future. A review is taking place at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, asked whether the board would supervise training. He also asked about its delegation powers. The board is legally responsible for training. It may delegate activities and decisions to its committees or sub-committees, which may be Royal College-based, as I suggested. However, the requirement for designated competent authorities to supervise training emanates from EC Directive 93/16/ EEC. The board is the competent authority under that requirement for specialist training. The directive requires that the competent authority supervise specialist training. It is identical to the wording of the requirement in the European Specialist Medical Qualifications Order 1995.
We envisage that the board will fulfil its duty to supervise training by virtue of its standard-setting functions, its approval functions and its ability to organise visiting panels in respect of postgraduate medical education and training. It has the power to appoint persons to visiting panels and to make rules as to the composition of visiting panels.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked a specific question about appeals. I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks. The appeals panel will have to be independent. Doctors need an independent panel to handle appeals, and they must have confidence in
1656
that independence. No member of the board or its committees or sub-committees will be able to sit on an appeal panel. That is the guarantee of independence that the noble Lord seeks.
A major issue was raised about the opportunities presented for training. We are convinced that the order will make a major difference. To the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I say that, by "training", we mean practical training, not just academic training. All experience, wherever obtained, can and will be taken into account, together with qualifications and training. We are creating a level playing field for doctors with different sorts of experience.
As I understand it, doctors who are, at the moment, excluded from the specialist register because they do not have additional training or experience will be able to apply to the board and demonstrate how they reach the standards set in the new ways. The board will be able to assess doctors in terms of the standards that they have reached. Assessing experience is a particular skill that must be developed over many years. We look to the board to develop its rules on the basis of common sense. If the doctor is assessed as needing top-up training, he will be able to apply through the postgraduate deaneries for a suitable training programme. Those programmes will be different from traditional programmes. They must be designed to respond to the needs of the doctors who will come through different routes with different qualifications and experiences. We will look to the deaneries and the board to manage the process.
If I have neglected to answer any questions, I will be happy to write to noble Lords. In conclusion, I must say that doctors already understand the advantages of the new system. We have had the first application to the new board, even before the legislation has been passed and the board set up. That application came from a specialist doctor from the Indian sub-continent seeking entry to the specialist register. In his country of origin, he is an associate professor in his speciality. He has previous NHS experience and holds a fellowship from a medical Royal College in the UK. That is precisely the sort of benefit and bonus that we want to see for the NHS. We cannot and should not pre-judge board assessments of individual doctors, but we believe that there are many more in a similar position.
We have had overwhelming endorsement. Because it is one of several initiatives in postgraduate medical training, the board will set the standard for all postgraduate medical education, as we have described it. In that way, we hope to give the NHS doctor of the future a clear career path, to the benefit of all the things that we are trying to do to modernise and improve the NHS and to the particular benefit of patients. I am grateful to noble Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at four o'clock.

  Secondary Schools Curriculum and Staffing Survey
  Secondary Schools Curriculum and Staffing Survey
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
  Human Diploid Cells
  Human Diploid Cells
  Transfusion-related Acute Lung Injury
  Transfusion-related Acute Lung Injury
  Hospitality Industry: Smoking Policy
  Hospitality Industry: Smoking Policy
  Cannabis: Effect on Unborn Children
  Cannabis: Effect on Unborn Children
  Passports
  Passports
  Hull: Cautions and Convictions
  Hull: Cautions and Convictions
  National Firearms Licensing Management System
  National Firearms Licensing Management System
  Firearms Amnesty: Forensic Examination
  Firearms Amnesty: Forensic Examination