Sitting of 8 April 2003

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Tuesday 29 April.

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

    Scotland Act
    Pete Wishart: When she intends to propose amendments to the Scotland Act 1998 in order to reduce the number of Scottish hon. Members. [106713]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Section 86 of the Scotland Act sets out the procedures. I have no intention of changing that.
    Pete Wishart: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. I know that the issue presents a problem for her and for many Labour Back Benchers, but I am trying to be helpful. Has she considered using the league table of parliamentary contributions to determine which of her colleagues should stay, given that so many of them languish at the bottom of the table? Does she believe that those who will eventually face the chop will be in good company, because so many Labour MSPs will face the chop at the hands of the Scottish National party on 1 May?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am delighted to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) would receive the wooden spoon for his attendance record. The question is a bit rich, given that the leader of the SNP has said that Scotland will be independent by 2007. That would mean that prior to 2006 and the completion of the boundary commission's review, we would have to introduce legislation for an independent Scotland without any consideration of the costs and consequences of that. At the same time, the
    112
    consequences of an SNP vote on 1 May would be cuts to public services, with all the disruption that that would entail.
    John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will probably not be surprised to find out that the Scottish nationalists yet again did not up for a major debate—this time a Westminster Hall debate on health and safety. They never seem to turn up for Scotland these days. One of the consequences of the Scotland Act is the list system, and the deplorable way in which nationalist list Members do their work. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we do away with the nationalist-type list Member and that we have list Members who do their work properly?
    Mrs. Liddell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He and other Labour Members know that when we considered the Proceeds of Crime Bill—one of the most significant post-devolution measures in this House that was introduced to get rid of drug dealers in our communities—the SNP could not even be bothered to participate in Committee.
    My hon. Friend makes a point about the list system. I am sure that the electors of Scotland will vote Labour, Labour, Labour on 1 May to ensure that there will be precious few SNP list Members in the new Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: I commend the Secretary of State for making sense of the question asked by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). As the hon. Gentleman may or may not know, no amendment is required to the Scotland Act to reduce the number of Scotland Members. It seems that the SNP's questions are just as confused as its policies.
    Ordinary Scots want fewer Members of Parliament, fewer Ministers and fewer MSPs, but still the Secretary of State refuses to move quickly. Is she worried about her own seat? Does she accept that an abstention rate higher than 50 per cent. on 1 May will be a damning indictment of those who seek ever more Scots politicians and big government? Scotland needs fewer MPs and smaller, much better government.
    Mrs. Liddell: I was being kind to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) when I answered his question because, after all, he has been in the House for only about two years, and one must be understanding. It is rather rich for a Conservative Member to talk about fewer MPs and MSPs given that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) is the "Westminster one". He should look at his party in Scotland, because the number of defections from the Scottish Tories is increasing by the day. I believe that the Scottish Parliament elections will be well represented because the people of Scotland are now absolutely clear that devolution works, that partnership between the United Kingdom Government and a Labour-led Scottish Executive works, and that the stability of our economy and the prudence of its running is so significant that more people in Scotland are now in employment than in 1997.

    Airport Infrastructure
    Mr. David Marshall: What estimate she has made of the capacity of Scotland's airport infrastructure to keep up with projected growth in passenger numbers. [106714]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are currently involved in a consultation exercise on the development of air transport in the United Kingdom. The closing date for representations is 30 June.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I give a warm welcome to the Scottish Executive's plans to build rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports and to the BAA's announcement of a £200 million investment plan to double the capacity of Glasgow airport over the next 10 to 12 years. However, does she agree that, in the longer term—20 to 30 years from now—the interests of Scotland as a whole would be best served by one major hub airport that would provide more jobs and services than would otherwise be the case?
    Mrs. Liddell: I commend my hon. Friend's question and recognise his considerable interest in transport matters, not least when he was a member of the Transport Committee. He is one of the experts on transport policy in the House.
    I recall that many years ago, when I was the economist for the Scottish TUC and my hon. Friend was a trade union official, there was a significant debate on a central Scotland airport. At the time, it was found to be unviable. The current consultation exercise offers the opportunity to explore that further, but it seems that the viability of a central Scotland airport has not yet been proved.
    I know that my hon. Friend is proud of the success of Glasgow airport and that he has contributed to that. It is going from strength to strength in terms of passenger numbers. The Scottish Executive are committing considerable resources to a rail link not just to Glasgow airport but to Edinburgh airport as well. I am delighted that there has been a 40 per cent. increase in passenger numbers over the past five years and that the number of direct flights from Scotland has grown from 18 to 25. A large part of that success can be put down to the campaigning undertaken by my hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Is the right hon. Lady aware that when I was at the Scottish Office in the '70s we ruled out the central airport because of fog, and that nothing has changed since then? Does she agree that Scotland needs many budget airlines that operate from all airports, including Prestwick and Inverness? What action is she taking, in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Executive, to attract such services to Scotland?
    Mrs. Liddell: A considerable number of budget airlines operate out of Scotland. We only have to look to the success of Prestwick airport in attracting Ryanair, greatly assisted by my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Sandra Osborne), for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe)
    114
    and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), to know that. Indeed, there are more and more every week.
    I am delighted by the success of the easyJet flights from Inverness to Gatwick. I am also delighted by the improved services to charter destinations from Inverness. I met representatives of British Airways last autumn to get their commitment to continue services from Inverness to London. It is a success story, which the hon. Lady would know if she visited Scotland more often.
    Sandra Osborne: I thank the Secretary of State for her unstinting support for Glasgow Prestwick international airport. Will she acknowledge, however, that in spite of its great success as Scotland's fastest growing passenger airport, it has a great deal of spare capacity? Does she agree that that should be utilised before we talk about expansion elsewhere?
    Mrs. Liddell: There is scope to expand all Scotland's airports and we want more international airlinks as our economy continues to prosper. It is encouraging to note that there are proposals for even more direct airlinks from Glasgow international airport at Prestwick. Much of that is down to my hon. Friend's campaigning. I know that my constituents greatly appreciate the opportunity to take their holidays and to pursue their business interests from an airport that is so close to home.

    Broadband
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: What percentage of Scottish residents have access to broadband services. [106715]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): Almost all of Scotland's population can access broadband services, either through a terrestrial link or by means of satellite connection, if they choose to do so. The need to bring affordable services to businesses and individuals across Scotland is what underpins the Government and the Scottish Executive's work on broadband.
    Mr. Rosindell: I thank the Minister for her reply. How soon can rural communities and small towns expect to have the same access to broadband technology as the rest of Scotland? Does she agree that it is important to look after not just the central belt but the whole of Scotland?
    Mrs. McGuire: I am delighted to advise the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) that that is exactly what is happening in Scotland. Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Executive are rolling out a broadband expansion programme and are considering ways to solve some of the very difficult geographical challenges that we have in parts of Scotland. He will be delighted to know that that project

    115
    will eventually roll out to the 250 communities across the highlands and islands, including some communities that are as small as 20 inhabitants.
    Anne Picking: Does the Minister agree that the £4.4 million earmarked to introduce broadband in Scotland is not quite enough, and will she use her good offices to try to get more money for broadband? Access to broadband for people with businesses is crucial. For example, my constituent, Mr. Glenn Watson, who has four veterinary surgeries, must pay £24,000 per annum to link up his computer services, whereas other businesses that have access to broadband can do that at a much cheaper rate.
    Mrs. McGuire: I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise, however, that the £4.4 million allocation to Scotland comes out of a £30 million UK broadband fund managed by the Department of Trade and Industry. She will also be delighted to have heard the news from BT late last week that it is looking to slash its broadband rates to encourage the take-up of broadband in Scotland.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Would the Minister like to reconsider her first complacent reply suggesting that everyone can have access if they have access to satellite technology? Is not the reality that, of the 1,000 exchanges in Scotland, only 68 are asymmetric digital subscriber line-enabled? That is unsatisfactory: it is a lower level than in England, and lower than in just about any other European country. When will the Government snap out of their complacency and allow rural Scotland to have the same access to this technology as just about every other country in Europe?
    Mrs. McGuire: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman took my factual comment as complacent. I said that access can be made available. Cost is an issue, which is why I would have thought that he would support the Scottish Executive, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise projects to roll out broadband, recognising that we have major geographical difficulties. I suspect, however, that the question that he and his colleagues must answer, given that they would slash our enterprise budgets, is how on earth broadband would be rolled out and the necessary investment be made.
    Mr. George Foulkes: Would my hon. Friend mind if I were untypically nice to the Liberal Democrats, and particularly to their Scottish spokesman, for his excellent research published yesterday in The Press and Journal? It showed that, merely by accessing broadband in the House of Commons Library, SNP Members would have got all the answers to their questions, which cost the taxpayer £258,000.
    Mrs. McGuire: As usual, my right hon. Friend crystallises the issue succinctly. I would encourage more Members of this House to use our excellent facilities, including access to broadband, to elicit information without having to table parliamentary questions, if that route is available.

    Family Tax Credit
    Rosemary McKenna: How many Scots will benefit from the family tax credit. [106716]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The estimated number of families in Scotland expected to benefit from the child tax credit in 2003–04 is 430,000. The number of families in Scotland expected to receive the working tax credit in 2003–04 is 90,000.
    Rosemary McKenna: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the staff of the Inland Revenue accounts office in Cumbernauld on working so hard to implement that, and in welcoming the 200 additional jobs in my constituency in that regard? Is she aware that nine out of 10 families in Scotland are eligible for tax credits? What will she do to encourage all of them to claim their entitlement?
    Mrs. Liddell: I share my hon. Friend's pleasure at the number of jobs created in her constituency and at her constituents' efficiency in processing applications for tax credits. Last weekend, like a number of Members—certainly Labour Members—I was out in my constituency encouraging people to take up the working tax credit and the child tax credit. People were astonished to discover that they would benefit even if they had an income of up to £50,000 a year, and that those with a child under one year old would be eligible for tax credits even if their income was £66,000. That is a significant move forward, not only in terms of taking people out of poverty but in terms of making sure that children throughout Scotland get the best possible start in life and families are given a huge boost to allow them to operate in a way that gives them pleasure as well as sustenance.
    John Thurso: Can the Secretary of State confirm that, of a possible 5 million recipients of the new child tax credit, only 3 million have so far responded, so some 135,000 families in Scotland could lose out? I put it to her that a credit or benefit that has an application form 12 pages long with 47 pages of notes is bound to be a deterrent. I ask her to seek to have that simplified with her colleagues.
    Mrs. Liddell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) was very kind to the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that we now have to play good cop, bad cop. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that his party opposed this system of tax credits, but I take the point about the complexity of claiming. None of us likes filling in tax forms—they are always difficult, which is very painful—but hon. Members have a role, and my parliamentary colleagues have been taking up that role in ensuring that people are aware of the tax credit system and that they receive assistance to ensure that they can claim the tax credits. I commend that activity to all hon. Members.
    Mr. John MacDougall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the method of paying the child tax credit directly to the main carer, who is usually the

    117
    mother, is indeed a more effective and efficient way to ensure that those resources are best spent in the right direction?
    Mrs. Liddell: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I was in his constituency yesterday, where a number of people referred to the tax credit system, and I was very encouraged by the extent to which men, in particular, said that they feel that it is right that the money should move from the wallet to the purse because, by and large, the mother is the main carer. Indeed, that fact is replicated throughout the country, where more than two thirds of men acknowledge that the money should go directly to the main carer. That is a real way to move children out of poverty.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Many Members have tried to elicit from the right hon. Lady what percentage of families in Scotland are eligible to claim tax credits. I understand that such figures are not published regionally. What work is she doing with the Treasury and the Office for National Statistics to persuade them to publish regional eligibility figures?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am surprised at the hon. Lady's question—the figures are actually quite clear. More than 90 per cent. of families with children in Scotland are eligible to claim the tax credits. She is not in a position to be around and about in Scotland, but if she were, she would find that there is considerable take-up and interest, and my hon. Friends are trying to ensure that there is even greater take-up. Of course, that is very different from the position of the Conservative party; it wants to cut public expenditure by 20 per cent., which would lead to a cut in the money available to families as well.
    David Hamilton: May I give a piece of advice to the Minister? One thing that does not happen—I do not understand why—is using the facilities available to us. Local authorities administer nurseries and primary and secondary schools. Surely a way can be found to use the education system to let people know about their entitlements?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Many Members have accessed their own databases to ensure that schools, community groups, the Churches, and so on, are aware of the tax credits, but it would be very useful if all local authorities in Scotland were to take that on board to ensure that everyone knows—I make the point again—that families are entitled to the tax credits even if they have an income of up to £50,000 a year, or £66,000 if there is a child under one in the family.
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State investigate suggestions north of the border that people who are being passported from income support to the new working tax credit are losing out on free schools meals as a result of a deficiency in some secondary legislation that the Scottish Executive
    118
    have not yet got round to implementing? Will she make it her business to ensure that that defect is remedied as soon as possible on the grounds that free school meals have a significant budgetary effect on weekly incomes, particularly for low-income families with many children?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and I will certainly look into the issue as soon as possible and try to ensure that the necessary action is taken.

    Poverty
    Mr. Michael Weir: When she will next meet representatives of poverty support groups to discuss poverty in Scotland. [106717]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): I met the Poverty Alliance in September 2002. I have no current plans to meet representatives of poverty support groups, but am happy to discuss at any time the Government's record in combating poverty.
    Mr. Weir: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does she agree that guaranteeing child care for all children aged two and under, day-care provision for three and four-year-olds and setting up additional after-school and breakfast clubs throughout Scotland would be a huge step towards combating the scourge of poverty throughout our country? Does she accept that setting up such things in areas of greatest need should be a priority for the Government and the new Scottish Executive?
    Mrs. McGuire: I might be prepared to accept some of that if the hon. Gentleman were prepared to accept that the cost of independence would undermine all of it. Significant measures have been taken on poverty in Scotland, covering children, pensioners and low-income families. Dare I remind the House that when the national minimum wage was being enacted, the one party that failed to send a representative on lifting people out of poverty was the very party that the hon. Gentleman supports?
    Mr. Ernie Ross: When my hon. Friend meets members of the Poverty Alliance in Scotland, will she ask them what effect they think that the increase in the national minimum wage to £4.50 this year and the further increase to £4.85 will have on poverty in Scotland?
    Mrs. McGuire: I will indeed. Members on both sides of the House know that the national minimum wage is one of the most significant measures introduced by the Government to lift people out of poverty wages. Every Member should realise, from the experience of their constituents, that the national minimum wage was a centrepiece of the last Parliament. In this Parliament, it will continue to be a centrepiece of our policies to tackle poverty.

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    Devolution
    Mr. Alan Reid: What devolution issues she has dealt with since 11 March. [106707]
    Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised in the last month under the Scotland Act 1998. [106708]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Since 11 March, 31 devolution issue minutes were intimated to me. They concerned a variety of matters, including delay in court proceedings; challenges to confiscation orders; the requirement on the defence to lodge notice of intention to lead sexual history evidence in trials; and the fixing of punishment-part life licence hearings. In the civil sphere there was only one case, which concerned a challenge to the decision of a planning reporter.
    Mr. Reid: If the Office of Fair Trading report into pharmacies were to be implemented, we should see the closure of many high street chemists and their replacement by pharmacies in supermarkets. I was therefore delighted when the Scottish Executive rejected the report. However, there is widespread concern that supermarkets may be able to use UK competition law to overrule the Scottish Executive's decision. I hope that will definitely not be the case and I should be grateful if the Advocate-General advised the House on the legal position.
    The Advocate-General: As I have said time and again, I cannot advise on such matters in the abstract. If proposals are made by the Scottish Executive, and intimated to me in due course if they are to take the form of legislation, I shall do my usual job and look into them. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that such matters are difficult; they must be seen in the context of the complicated structure of the Scotland Act. He cannot make wide, sweeping assertions about any of them. In general terms, competition policy is, of course, reserved, while health matters are devolved, but the situation can be extremely complex when those matters meet and intersect. That is why the Executive have a Law Officer to deal with them.
    Annabelle Ewing: Perhaps we could try again!
    Was the Advocate-General consulted by the Scottish Executive before their announcement in March of their rejection of the OFT report on pharmacies? Does she agree that the Scottish Parliament has the power to take such a decision, irrespective of what the Department of Trade and Industry may do south of the border, or was that just another meaningless statement from new Labour during the election to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the Scottish electorate?
    The Advocate-General: I am surprised that the hon. Lady still does not understand the devolution structures. The Scottish Executive do not consult me as a Law Officer. I am not the Law Officer to the Scottish Executive; I am the Law Officer to the UK Government. The Scottish Executive can, if they wish, consult their own Law Officers—the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General. Those are the devolution processes. I shall deal with any proceedings that are proposed in due course.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What thought is being given to the all too real but complex problem of delay in court proceedings to which the Advocate-General referred?
    The Advocate-General: My hon. Friend raises an interesting issue. As I have told the House, some hundreds of cases of delay have been intimated to me as devolution issues. Some quite complex legal problems have surrounded some of these issues, and we have taken a number of test cases. The most important of these was the case of R, which was dealt with in the Privy Council, and in which I appeared personally. That helped to clarify the law in respect of delay. The main point was that where there is a breach of the convention on human rights in relation to delay in proceedings under article 6, the Lord Advocate is not entitled, because of the operation of the Scotland Act, to proceed with such a prosecution.

    Devolution
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues have been raised since 11 March. [106709]
    The Advocate-General: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid).
    Miss McIntosh: May I refer the hon. and learned Lady to my question and her answer on 11 March at column 151 of Hansard, in which she said that she would have four weeks in which to give her opinion on the Agriculture Holdings (Scotland) Bill? Will she share with the House whether she has reached an opinion within that time, and the content of her opinion?
    The Advocate-General: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this interesting issue, which came up in debate on an amendment. As I explained, it came before me as part of the Bill, which has now been passed. The four-week period expires tomorrow. It is not my practice to advise on this, but I will write to the hon. Lady tomorrow, once the four-week period expires, to explain to her whether I have decided to make any referral.

  LORD CHANCELLOR
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR

    Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Paul Burstow: If she will make a statement on the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority consultation on court closures. [107456]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): The GLMCA is the magistrates court committee responsible for the running of magistrates courts in London and for the opening and closing of court buildings in the capital. Ministers are involved only where there are appeals from local authorities. I can today announce that I have accepted the appeal against the closure of Kingston magistrates court.
    Mr. Burstow: I thank the Minister on behalf of others for her decision. I look forward to the possibility of further appeals in the process of court closure reviews by the GLMCA. I ask her to consider the accountability arrangements for the GLMCA, not least the fact that it is not clear how it is held to account for decisions that it takes in private, it refuses to release information to Members about the basis for its decisions, and it thus makes the consultation process a mockery. Will she explain how I, as a Member, can gain access to this organisation, can hold it to account and can ensure that the public can be confident that its decisions are based on sound grounds?
    Yvette Cooper: I am happy to look into the hon. Gentleman's specific concerns if he wants to write to me. It is right that the GLMCA should take a strategic view in respect of court buildings throughout London. He will know that because appeals come to Ministers it would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases before the appeals are heard. I agree that we need to improve the accountability of local decision making. That is one of the reasons why we want, as part of the unified administration, the courts' administration councils not simply to have local magistrates on them but a wider range of members from the local community.
    Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the Minister most warmly for her statement, especially the excellent news that Kingston magistrates court is not to close. The hon. Lady knows the strength of feeling on this matter in my constituency, not least because of our correspondence and our meetings. I am delighted that she listened to the strong arguments that were so skilfully marshalled by the chairman of the bench, Ian Rathjen. Will she accept our thanks for this welcome decision and accept my open invitation to her to visit the local courthouse whenever she has the opportunity to do so? Will she say a little more about the future options for building on Kingston's growing reputation as a regional centre of excellence for the bench?
    Yvette Cooper: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. He has made representations to me, as have
    122
    some of my hon. Friends. We had serious concerns that Wimbledon court would not have the capacity to take all the additional cases if Kingston court closed. We also took into account the convenient location of Kingston court, which is so close to the Crown court and the police station, as well as the convenience for local people. Of course, every individual decision must be taken on its merits. I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's invitation to visit Kingston.

    Sheriffs Courts
    Angela Watkinson: If she will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's review of under-high sheriffs', under-sheriffs' and sheriffs' High Court enforcement functions. [107457]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): The Courts Bill, which is currently progressing through the other place, includes proposals to relieve sheriffs of their legal obligations in connection with High Court writs for the enforcement of judgment debts by the seizure and sale of debtors' goods and High Court writs for the possession of land. The Bill also introduces a new regime under which individuals will be authorised by the Lord Chancellor to act as enforcement officers for the purpose of executing those writs.
    Angela Watkinson: The Lord Chancellor's review of under-high sheriffs, under-sheriffs and sheriffs proposes that a writ may be addressed only to a member of the Sheriffs Officers Association. If, for any reason, an under-sheriff is unwilling or unable to become a member of that body and is therefore disqualified from receiving a writ, will there be compensation for that individual?
    Ms Winterton: In the system that we are adopting, under-sheriffs and sheriff officers will be authorised by the Lord Chancellor or the person to whom he delegates responsibility for that authorisation, to carry out creditors' wishes to have a debt enforced. I therefore think that the problem that the hon. Lady has highlighted will not arise, because there will be an authorisation process, so sheriffs officers or enforcement officers, as they will now be called, will be able to carry out the process.
    Mr. William Cash: The removal of high sheriffs from any rolling High Court enforcement will, as the Minister said, break the link between the high sheriff and the under-sheriff. In the past, the under-sheriff has offered the incoming high sheriff an indemnity against any litigation that might be brought by aggrieved debtors. Will the Lord Chancellor's Department indemnify high sheriffs in any outstanding period between Royal Assent and the point when the statutory limitation becomes legally effective?
    Ms Winterton: The issue that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted is one of the reasons for the change, because it was felt that it was unfair for a volunteer to be under certain legal obligations and carry such a responsibility. As for the time between Royal Assent and the continuation of the indemnity, that is certainly something that we shall look at and consult on.

    Magistrates Courts
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent representations she has received on the distances witnesses have to travel to reach magistrates courts in north Yorkshire. [107458]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): None recently, but I know that North Yorkshire county council has lodged an appeal against recent decisions by the North Yorkshire magistrates courts committee. I have not yet received all the representations and have not yet considered the appeal.
    Miss McIntosh: Is the hon. Lady aware that since her Government have been in power more than 200 magistrates courts have closed, which has led, particularly in north Yorkshire, to witnesses having to travel long distances in a sparsely populated area with limited public transport between villages and the places where magistrates courts meet? Could members of her Department turn their attention to facilitating travel arrangements for witnesses, enabling them to get to court, and to do so on time?
    Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady's figures are incorrect. It is certainly the case that there were magistrates courts closures under the previous Administration as well as this one. Those closures vary from year to year—last year, there were seven magistrates courts closures, but in 1996, the last year of the Conservative Government, there were 21 court closures, including rural court closures in Hornsea, Howden, Market Weighton, Cheadle, Biddulph, Kidsgrove, Bedale, Easingwold, Leyburn, Ingleton, Thursk, Colwyn Bay, Llangollen, another Welsh place that I cannot pronounce, East Dereham and elsewhere. I could go on—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"]
    The hon. Lady ought to check her facts before making such points. However, she is right that there is a serious issue about ensuring that victims and witnesses can travel to court. Magistrates courts committees need to take account both of other facilities for victims and witnesses, including facilities available in the courthouse, and resources. This year, north Yorkshire will get 23 per cent. more in cash terms for magistrates courts committees compared with last year. Under Conservative plans, they would receive a 20 per cent. cut.
    Mr. John Grogan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the private finance initiative bid by the North Yorkshire magistrates courts committee to build six new courts to serve the people of the York and Selby area? In view of the large travelling distances between parts of Selby and York, will she take due account of the strong local feeling that, if the bid is approved, at least one of the courts should be based in Selby?
    Yvette Cooper: I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on that issue, which he has raised with me before. He will be aware that it is the responsibility of the North Yorkshire magistrates courts committee to determine the location of the proposed new court houses. Clearly,
    124
    if any appeal is made to Ministers, I will certainly meet my hon. Friend and consider all the issues that he wants to raise.

    Fathers' Rights
    Alistair Burt: What recent representations the Lord Chancellor has received concerning the rights of fathers in family law cases. [107459]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): My officials and I have regular meetings with groups representing the interests of fathers. As part of the Department's work to ensure safe contact for children and their families after relationship breakdowns, members of fathers and mothers organisations contribute to policy development.
    Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but would she consider reviewing the law in this area? An increasing number of articles and reports demonstrate that fathers are concerned about what they view as an inequality in the decisions made. They are also concerned about anomalies in the law, such as the differing treatment of older children in further and higher education, in respect of maintenance and the common law. In view of the sensitivity surrounding such cases, might it not be worth reviewing the law on the respective rights of fathers and mothers, to establish whether the complaints are fair and accurate and to settle the concerns that have been expressed so publicly?
    Ms Rosie Winterton: We are well aware that emotions run deep in such cases. It is almost impossible to please every party. Inevitably, the cases that come before the courts are high conflict cases. I believe that we should examine other methods of reducing the conflict. We must remember that the courts will always take a decision that it is in the best interests of the child: that is at the heart of the process of decision-making. However, we could develop parenting plans, in-court conciliation and mediation. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but many children are in a difficult position and it is important to take the best decisions for them rather than focus on the point of view of one parent.
    Keith Vaz: Will the Minister reflect carefully on the evidence provided this morning by the president of the family division of the High Court to the Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, which is chaired by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? Concern is widespread that fathers are not being treated fairly in family law cases, particularly in respect of the operation of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, because social worker reports do not put forward a balanced view between fathers and mothers. Does my hon. Friend know about those concerns, and will she seek to deal with them when she looks at the problem carefully?
    Ms Winterton: I will not only look at, but listen to, the evidence. When the problem was raised this morning, the judges before the Committee on the Lord

    125
    Chancellor's Department acknowledged the perception, but felt that it did not conform to reality. As to the role of CAFCASS, it can provide alternative means of help. The judges also said this morning that the CAFCASS reports were of high quality and that they did provide fair assessments of the position. The other ways in which it could help include in-court conciliation, and a greater role in mediation and support for contact centres, which can help to ease the difficult problems that families face.

    Court Administration
    Mr. Gary Streeter: If she will make a statement on the role of the Department in court administration. [107460]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): The Court Service, an executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department, runs county courts, Crown courts and higher courts other than the House of Lords. Magistrates courts are run by 42 independent magistrates courts committees.
    Mr. Streeter: I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she agree that despite recent reforms, access to the civil courts in this country can still be very slow and prohibitively expensive for many of our citizens? Does she agree that that process could be immensely speeded up if it were overseen not by the arcane Lord Chancellor's Department, but by a modern Ministry of Justice that is fully accountable to the House of Commons?
    Yvette Cooper: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Ministers from the Lord Chancellor's Department are here in the House of Commons answering questions on the business of the Court Service and the work of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
    There have been significant improvements in waiting times for civil trials. Fast-track trials have seen waiting times fall by 20 per cent. in two years and by 12 per cent. in respect of small claims. There have been improvements in civil cases, but it is clearly important to tackle delays throughout the justice system in respect of both civil and criminal cases.
    Simon Hughes: Under the plans of the Lord Chancellor's Department, will the Government be able to guarantee that the courts of this country will be separate from the police service, so that people can clearly see and know the difference? Will the Minister and her colleagues be answerable in future, under the new plans, for court openings and closures—answerable to Members of Parliament, local councillors and members of the public?
    Yvette Cooper: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the proposals for the unified administration, which would keep the courts very much separate from the police, because the latter are accountable through the Home Office, while the courts would remain accountable through the Lord Chancellor's Department. The unified administration will set up local courts administration councils and will be an executive agency that is accountable to Parliament. We envisage that the courts administration councils will take
    126
    decisions or views on local court estate use, while the appeals process would be very similar to the current arrangements in respect of magistrates courts closures. Certainly, Ministers will ultimately be accountable to Parliament for decisions.

  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Laptops
    Mr. Michael Jack: If he will ask the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to consider the use of laptop computers by hon. Members in the House. [107446]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I hope that the Modernisation Committee will look at the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion as part of its work on how Parliament can be made more accessible and the work of MPs more effective.
    Mr. Jack: I am most grateful to the Minister once again for his very positive response. He will recall that, towards the end of last year, we exchanged correspondence on this subject, and I am anxious now, some four months later, to find out what has happened. He will also be aware that technology has moved on and that some forms of computer, even without keyboards, have already been successfully pioneered to assist in the work of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I hope that he can assure me that it will not be too long before the Modernisation Committee can consider all those matters further to aid the work of the House.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Shocking!
    Mr. Bradshaw: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, by contrast with some of his hon. Friends, who have just shouted from a sedentary position the word "shocking", on the leading role that he has taken in his Select Committee in encouraging the use of laptop computers in open session for the first time. We look forward very much to the report of his right hon. Friend the Member for 'Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the Chairman of that Committee, which I believe we are expecting by Easter and which will deal with how that experiment has gone. I am sure that the Modernisation Committee will take notice of that report.
    Kevin Brennan: Given that hon. Members are already positively festooned with electronic devices in this place and that I have seen the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) twitch in the same way as other hon. Members when their pagers go off—
    Mr. John Bercow: I never twitch!
    Kevin Brennan: Perhaps it is a natural twitch.

    127
    Does it not make sense that in Committee in this day and age, hon. Members should, as in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, have the opportunity to access information through a laptop computer?
    Mr. Bradshaw: It never ceases to amaze me that many hon. Members who purport to have Neanderthal attitudes to modern and electronic devices are the first to resort to them for their political use.

    Programming of Bills
    Mr. Gary Streeter: What proposals he will bring forward to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on programming Bills. [107447]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): My right hon. Friend has no plans to bring forward proposals on programming Bills. He notes that the Modernisation Committee has said that it will keep the operation of programming under continuing consideration.
    Mr. Streeter: As someone who does not oppose timetabling Bills in principle, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and the new Leader of the House, whom I know to be a reasonable man—[Laughter.] I may have got that wrong. I ask them to examine the process of tabling amendments in another place which revert to the House of Commons on Report. There is often insufficient time to scrutinise them in the elected Chamber. That cannot be right. What will the Parliamentary Secretary and the new Leader of House do to deal with that serious difficulty?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome in principle for programming. I am glad that he agrees that it is a good step forward from the position under the previous Government. I am happy to consider any specific case that he wants to raise to ascertain whether programming can be improved in future.
    Mr. Peter Pike: I am a member of the Modernisation Committee and I also serve on the Chairmen's Panel. There are sometimes difficulties when a knife falls and guillotines are also operating on the Floor of the House. Will my hon. Friend undertake to examine that and perhaps invite all the members of the Chairmen's Panel to submit their views on flaws in the timetabling system, which I currently strongly support?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am well aware of the specific difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers. We would be happy to consider them. As a supporter of programming in principle, he knows that it has worked extremely well when there has been good co-operation between the parties.
    Sir George Young: Will the deputy Leader encourage the new Leader of the House to apply his no-nonsense approach to the Government's legislative programme? It is seriously over-congested
    128
    and the guillotining regime is far too aggressive. Cannot we use the opportunity to have a less frenetic approach to legislation?
    Mr. Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman is right that we have a heavy legislative programme. The Government want to introduce many important laws for the benefit of our country. He is wrong to use the term "guillotining". That system was used under the Conservative Government, often a long way into consideration of a Bill. It allowed no debate on some of the important aspects of a measure. The difference between that and programming is that if the Opposition co-operate properly, the latter should be a method of sensibly scrutinising Government Bills, especially their most controversial aspects.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Parliamentary Secretary convey our congratulations to his right hon. Friend the new Leader of the House on his promotion? In his discussions with his right hon. Friend, will he emphasise the importance of achieving all-party agreement? Will he discuss with his right hon. Friend whether he believes it appropriate for someone who may not be committed to the modernisation of Parliament to chair the Modernisation Committee?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to rush to judge the way in which my right hon. Friend will act if he becomes Chairman of the Modernisation Committee. In last April's report from the Chairman of Ways and Means, he stated that he acknowledged that
    "the Opposition has to share a degree of responsibility for this disappointing outcome. The stated refusal of many Opposition Members to support almost any aspect of the modernisation agenda or even to engage in constructive discussion about them was a discouraging background to the Committee's inquiry in 2000."

    New Sitting Hours
    Bob Spink: If he will make a statement on the operation of the new sitting hours of the House. [107448]
    Mr. Ben Chapman: Whether he plans to review the sitting hours of the House at the end of the Session. [107449]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Dr. John Reid)rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
    Dr. Reid: This could be almost as enjoyable as being chair of the Labour party.
    The House voted last October for new sitting hours until the end of the Parliament. As you might expect, Mr. Speaker, I have come to this job with a reasonable, no-nonsense approach and an open mind. I have no plans for a sudden reversal of the decision to change the sitting hours. However, it will take time for the effects to be realised and to decide whether some modifications may be necessary. The House will have ample

    129
    opportunity to discuss all those matters in the coming months, and to decide whether to recommend a review before this Parliament ends.
    Bob Spink: May I welcome the President of the Council and congratulate him on his new post? We all look forward to his contributions. Does he realise that the mood of the House has changed significantly since the vote on this matter was taken? Will he now accept that we should not wait until the end of this Parliament, and that we should bring forward the review to the end of this Session, particularly so that we can review the operation of Tuesdays?
    Dr. Reid: Sorry about the delay—I was in reflective mode there, Mr. Speaker. First, it would be only fitting, as this is my first time at the Dispatch Box since my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) left his post, to put on record my appreciation of the work that he put into the modernisation and many other aspects of the House. I am well aware of how highly he was regarded in all quarters and on both sides of the House.
    Furthermore, so far as I can see from reading Hansard, I have to say that my deputy, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, also put on a superb performance following that of my right hon. Friend. I could only hope to emulate them, certainly not in all spheres, but perhaps in one. You will be pleased to know, Mr. Speaker, that on Saturday, I had £10 each way on Monty's Pass, so perhaps there are ways in which I can emulate the former Leader of the House.
    With reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), it is true that a fairly large number of right hon. and hon. Members have registered their objections in the form of an early-day motion. I think that that motion was tabled within 14 days of the original vote being taken, however, so it is perhaps not to be taken as a judgment made after reflection. Nevertheless, as I said, while I do not commend any agenda to reverse in any sudden way the modernisation of the hours of the House, this is up to the House itself. We all note that the intention of the House was to wait until the end of this Parliament, but the House being sovereign, it can decide, if it so wishes, to take a decision earlier.
    Mr. Chapman: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his present position. For me, after due reflection, the difficulties of the new hours include the potential for the increased departmentalisation of Ministers, the collapse of the informal workings of the House in the evenings owing to our shutting up shop at that time, the operating difficulties for Committees, the inability of my constituents to follow Line of Route visits except on Mondays, and the limited ability to hold meetings with outside organisations during the daytime. I could go on—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"]—but I will not. Suffice it to say that I encourage my right hon. Friend in his flexibility, and I repeat the hope expressed by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) that our review should take place sooner rather than later.
    Dr. Reid: I hear what my hon. Friend says. Indeed, the first item that he mentioned—the social and political intercourse of the House, involving morale and bonding, and Ministers relating to Back Benchers—was a very important issue in my mind. That is why I partly voted against these changes in the first place. Nevertheless, whatever my individual views may have been, a decision has been taken by the House and we have to allow a reasonable time to see how the experiment has worked before we take a decision. If modifications arise from specific issues—including, perhaps, issues raised by the Procedure Committee—it will of course be possible to make those modifications earlier than we anticipated when the House decided to have a review at the end of the full term of this Parliament.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome the Leader of the House to his position. We on this side of the House hope that he will have a longer tenure in it than he has in his previous jobs. He is the most travelled Minister in the Government, having been at Defence, Transport, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as having been party chairman. We hope that he will be Leader of the House for a little longer than he was party chairman.
    As the President of the Council has realised today, a number of people would now welcome a review of the sitting hours before the end of the current Parliament—which is what the motion originally said. May I draw his attention to early-day motion 607, supported by a number of Members who originally supported the changes and now want a review? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind and give us a review. Although he says it is for the House to decide, it is of course for the Government to decide to find the time for us to discuss the matter.
    Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his gracious welcome and his congratulations. It is true that during this Parliament I have accumulated—I sometimes think—more titles than Idi Amin. That has, in fact, a number of advantages: a moving target is always easier to hit, I suppose.
    I will be here at the behest of my Prime Minister, my Government and the House to serve as best I can.
    I do not think I can usefully add much to the answers I have given, other than to say that I note that the large number of Members who signed the early-day motion include some who have changed their minds pretty quickly. Nevertheless I think that all of us, whatever position we took, would accept that we should allow a reasonable amount of time for the experiment. I am sure that we will pay attention to any issues, problems and modifications that may arise, whether or not they concern private Members' Bills—particularly if they emanate from the Procedure Committee—and will be willing to adopt measures where appropriate, even before the expiry of the deadline set by Parliament.

  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    PDVN
    David Taylor: What representations he has received on the stability of the PDVN for remote users; and if he will make a statement. [107450]
    Sir Archy Kirkwood (representing the House of Commons Commission): Although the Citrix service has coped well with increasing levels of demand, it is clear that it has not kept pace with the changing needs of Members and their staff. The Parliamentary Communications Directorate has been working on a new faster service built around a virtual private network. Work on the project is now well advanced, and the virtual private network will be available to Members later this year.
    David Taylor: Over the last six years the power and performance of the PDVN on the parliamentary estate have become reasonably acceptable, but in the third year of the third millennium the speed and stability of information technology systems for non-metropolitan Members have become wholly unacceptable. I am pleased to learn that the IT strategy is not, for those of
    132
    us who live beyond the M25, out of sight, out of mind. Is the hon. Gentleman confident that the new timetables will be deliverable?
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: I am confident that the technical trial of the private virtual network that we started last July has been a success. We are about to begin a user pilot, and I hope that if the results are acceptable and can be analysed, the new network will be available to Members before the summer recess.
    The one qualification that I would make—one that is of interest to all Members—is that the network will be available only to compliant machines provided by the PCD. Those with non-compliant machines will have to stick with the old Citrix service, which will continue to he provided. Those wishing to take advantage of the new service in the new year, however, would be well advised to obtain new compliant machines from the PCD if they do not already have them.

  BILL PRESENTED
    COMMUNITY PROSECUTION LAWYERS
    Mr. Frank Field presented a Bill to establish the post of Community Prosecution Lawyer for each parliamentary constituency in England and Wales; to provide for the direct election of such Lawyers; to make arrangements for the role of such Lawyers in the prosecution of offences relating to anti-social behaviour; to establish the relationship between such Lawyers and the Crown Prosecution Service; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 June, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

Points of Order
12.34 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following yesterday's exchanges in the House and the six questions on the use of cluster bombs, have you received a request from a Minister to make a statement on the guidelines issued to the forces on the use of such bombs and of multi-rocket launchers?
Mr. Speaker: No, I have not.
Richard Ottaway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 28 November, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that it was necessary to use public funds to underwrite the debts of British Energy in order for that company to keep going. The Department gave as its grounds two needs: security of supply and the safety of nuclear power stations. Two weeks ago, I tabled written questions asking for the assumptions on which that assertion was made. Last week, in written answers to me, the Department was unable to give me the evidence on which the assertion was made, as it was commercial in confidence.
Public money is being used to underwrite a private company and it is impossible for Parliament to probe the basis of that policy because the Government are hiding behind the shield of commercial in confidence. Is there any way in which we can probe the basis on which the Government are using public funds to keep a company going in that way?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. As he knows, the Speaker's responsibilities relate to questions, not to answers. I have no responsibility for the content of ministerial answers. He may wish to consult the Table Office to see whether there is any other way of pursuing the information that he is seeking.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is now nearly a fortnight since the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office suggested that the Prime Minister would make a statement following his meeting with President Bush. He is now involved in a second meeting with the United States gangster President, yet there is no statement. In the past fortnight, thousands of innocent men, women and children have lost their lives in Iraq, many of them bombed by American planes. Sometimes they have been killed, unfortunately, by British forces. Surely there should be a statement in the House, or has there been a change in the constitutional convention, with the Prime Minister being more accountable to the television media than to Parliament?
Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding that the Prime Minister will make a statement before the Easter recess, and tomorrow is Prime Minister's questions.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), Mr. Speaker. May I ask again for a statement by a Minister regarding the use of cluster bombs? Over past years, there have been many such
134
requests, and we have signed up to the Ottawa agreement. The unexploded bombs that emanate from cluster bombs take on the characteristics of anti-personnel land mines and we should not be using them.
Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of State for Defence has been a regular visitor to the House; he has made statements on several occasions. I clearly recall that he has been questioned on that matter. If he makes another statement, no doubt questions can be put on that matter again.
Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friends and I tabled a motion that the Anti-social Behaviour Bill that we are about to debate should be committed to a Special Standing Committee. As it has been published only recently, and as there was no draft Bill and only two weeks of consultation, we felt that there was a need to take evidence. We are told by the Clerks, whose advice I take and respect, that it is not possible for that motion to be selected because the motion in the name of the right hon. Member whose Bill it is, the Home Secretary, takes precedent.
When I asked whether it would be possible to table an amendment to the programme motion to allow us to send the Bill to a Special Standing Committee instead of to a Standing Committee, I was told that we could table it but it could not be selected, debated or voted on because the programme motion had to be voted on forthwith. If the Government want a programme motion, how can hon. Members decide whether to have a Special Standing Committee to take evidence? Such a decision appears to be blocked. Surely that cannot be right.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to reply, perhaps he will not have a further point of order. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) asks about what will happen from now on. My concern is today's business—tomorrow's is a worry for another day. I understand that his motion can be decided on only if the programme motion is defeated. It is not for me to give him advice, but if I were in his shoes I would vote against the programme motion; then we could decide on his motion.
Mr. Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for that guidance, but may I make it clear to you that in the Modernisation Committee and when we debated the new arrangements for programme motions in the House, there was no indication at all from any source—neither from the Government nor from anyone else—that this new system would preclude the passage of a motion to commit a Bill to a Special Standing Committee? I believe that we have been led up the garden path on this matter, and I hope that we will have some clarity on how we can prevent this situation from arising in future.
Mr. Speaker: This is a matter that the hon. Gentleman can take up with the Leader of the House. If

135
the hon. Gentleman feels that there is a flaw in the rules of the House, I should point out that, obviously, they are subject to change.
Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Defence has regularly visited the House to advise Members on the progress of the conflict with Iraq. However, each passing day reveals humanitarian issues of a growing size and number, and I wonder whether you have had any indication that the Secretary of State for International Development will be making a statement to the House, perhaps before the Easter recess, on this very important subject.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that there is a strong possibility that the Secretary of State will come to the House concerning this very important matter, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising it.

Orders of the Day

  Anti-social Behaviour Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In doing so, I am mindful of the number of Members who will endeavour to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and of the time limit on speeches. I shall therefore try to ensure that as many Members as possible can contribute to the debate on what I consider to be very important legislation, which will empower people across the country once and for all to get a grip on the scourge that bedevils their communities: the antisocial behaviour that makes other people's lives a misery.
  I need to make it clear at the outset that this legislative vehicle is just one part of the broader story laid out in the White Paper "Respect and Responsibility", which was published a few weeks ago. The interdepartmental approach means that other legislation and measures will be picked up by the relevant proposals laid out in provisions such as the draft Housing Bill, which was published last week. I am very gratified that ministerial colleagues from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Education and Skills, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have joined the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), and me today on the Front Bench. This is truly a cross-government endeavour to tackle a cross-government challenge.
  The Bill is of course a symbol of the need for a cultural change, not simply for legislative change. It is about putting alongside prevention and remedial action the key enforcement measures that send that signal to those involved in antisocial behaviour. Prevention will of course be crucial, as will offering people a chance to remedy their behaviour. However, if they do not believe that the measures currently available are sufficient—if their understanding is that there will be no consequences for their actions—it is not surprising that they continue to cock a snook at the police, at housing departments, and at their neighbours and the wider community. The Bill is an endeavour to send the signal that we are no longer prepared to tolerate such behaviour.
  I wish to reiterate my thanks to my colleagues and to my officials and advisers. I want to demonstrate that the establishment of the new antisocial behaviour unit—which again will have a cross-departmental remit—is an indication that we mean business, not merely by facilitating what will happen at local level but by driving the measures forward. In that way, there will be a foot constantly on the accelerator. We want to make sure that we check what is happening at local level, and that we encourage and support people at local level. We also want to ensure that there is cross-referencing with legislation that is before the House, or which has already gone through. That includes legislation being carried forward by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although it is excellent

  137
  that work on the Bill has taken place across Departments and across Whitehall, this excellent Bill would have been even stronger if there had been full pre-legislative scrutiny? That would have allowed electors, people who work in housing offices, serving police officers and others to submit their views and to exchange ideas with Members of Parliament over a long period. As a result, this good Bill would have been made even better.
  Mr. Blunkett: I always think it desirable to have the maximum possible prior scrutiny of legislation. We have endeavoured to secure that and, over the next two years, my Department will work to ensure that, wherever possible, all Bills appearing in our legislative programme will be published in draft form. However, we were faced with two problems. First, we asked whether there had been sufficient debate about the scourge of antisocial behaviour, and which measures already on the statute book work, and which do not. Secondly, we wanted to take account of what extra powers constituents and those who represent them at local government level believe to be necessary.
  We knew, when we published the White Paper, that we would have to act swiftly. We therefore had to balance further scrutiny with the speed of implementation that would allow the people whom the Bill will empower to get on and do the job. In the end, we had to decide whether the people whom we represent would thank us if we promised them that we might do something in a year's time to bring in legislation that would be implemented in two or three years, or whether they would prefer us to get on with it now and implement the measures laid out in the Bill. On balance, we decided that the latter would be the better course.
  Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary is committed to this Bill, which the Government announced in the Queen's Speech of 13 November. Why have the Government broken the Cabinet Office guidelines that specify that every Government Bill should have a minimum of 12 weeks' consultation? The Government could have introduced this Bill earlier. Many of the Home Secretary's colleagues in local government oppose many of the measures in the Bill, and many of the professionals involved in other parts of the Bill think that it is inappropriate, badly timed or unnecessary.
  Mr. Blunkett: The real difficulty with the Liberal Democrats is that they always want it both ways. They want to show the public that they are in favour of measures to enable people to protect themselves against antisocial behaviour, and then they want to use technical devices to slow the Bill down and avoid having to do anything about the problem. Local authorities will be responsible for implementing much of the Bill. I shall be very pleased indeed to contrast the effectiveness of those councils that are not controlled or influenced by the Liberal Democrats with the effectiveness of those
  138
  that are. That will be a measure of the sort of commitment to dealing with the problem that we are looking for.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Chris Grayling rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: Before I give way again—we shall not get very far if we carry on at this rate—I want to tell the House that I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) is in the Chamber today. He spent the past two years going around the country, listening and responding to people, and finding out what the police and housing department staff thought about antisocial behaviour. Those people did not ask for longer consultation periods; they said, "For God's sake, get on with the job."
  I am bewildered by the numbers of people who seem to think that slowing down what politics and politicians are about is what the public want. The same idea is also evident in some of the public debate on this matter. What people say to me is that they are sick and tired of the gridlock that prevents Parliament and politicians from doing precisely the things that they have wanted for years. "When do we want it? Now!" is the usual slogan of flag-wavers in Parliament square. Well, we are giving it them now, and I am very pleased to do so.
  Mr. Banks: My right hon. Friend mentioned the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Some of the worst antisocial behaviour is perpetrated by English football fans travelling abroad. That is covered by the Bill, but will my right hon. Friend have any discussions with Ministers and the Football Association about the possibility of preventing English fans from travelling to the return match against Turkey?
  Mr. Blunkett: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen did a first-class job on the measures that we have included in the Bill, and I am happy to consider how we might build on that. I will talk to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East, about the way in which we might respond. Of course, legislation has already prevented 1,500 people from travelling abroad.
  Helen Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall, because my hon. Friend will never forgive me if I do not, and I live next door to her.
  Helen Jackson: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that one of the commonest complaints about antisocial behaviour concerns the misuse of fireworks? Will he ensure that urgent action is taken, either through this Bill or the Fireworks Bill, a private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), to control that misuse, which terrorises old people, youngsters and animals alike?
  Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely. I was pleased to be able to come in for the Second Reading of that Bill promoted

  139
  by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), and we shall facilitate it in every way we can to ensure that it arrives on the statute book as quickly as possible.
  Chris Grayling: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way once more, then make progress.
  Chris Grayling: The Home Secretary rightly talks about the need for action. May I ask him to consider the fact that measures to deal with one aspect of antisocial behaviour—namely, traveller incursions, which are a particular problem in my constituency—are already on the statute book, but Home Office guidance to the police tells them not to use those measures? Will he ensure that that changes and that guidance does not dilute the impact of the work that he is trying to do?
  Mr. Blunkett: Let me be helpful. If guidance notes have gone out from my Department—not only on this issue, but on any others—that the police, local authorities or hon. Members on both sides of the House believe to be unhelpful, I will be happy to review them with Ministers immediately. We are in the business of breaking down barriers to implementation and preventing advice that may have gone out in the past, albeit with the best intentions, from disabling people in relation to carrying out their duties.
  This afternoon, we are reflecting on action that is required in the future, as well as measures that have already been implemented, and on how it can best and most effectively be facilitated. That picks up well on the point made by the hon. Gentleman. When we found out that antisocial behaviour orders were too bureaucratic and too difficult to implement, we slimmed them down through the Police Reform Act 2002, but the Bill contains measures that will help still further. We discovered that police could not easily take action in relation to abandoned vehicles and/or vehicles being used off-road. The 2002 Act helped with that, but in drafting future measures we will have to review what needs to be done. Those measures must be clear and helpful to those who have to struggle with bureaucracy, and they must ensure that people understand that they have to help themselves. The message is: "We will help you if you will help yourself, but if helping yourself entails making the lives of others a misery, we will make your life a misery instead." What is so despairing is the philosophy that we so often hear: "If that hasn't worked, nothing will." I do not believe that. If a measure has not worked, it wants to be set aside or revised, but we believe that our measures will work.
  That runs contrary to the myth that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has been a failure. I want to put it on record that my predecessor, who is now Foreign Secretary, and his team did not get the full measure of accord for that Act, which has been a substantial success. It established the Youth Justice Board and, from that, the youth offending teams. It had tremendous success in putting in place the measures successfully to implement the youth justice pledge on the speed with which we deal with young offenders. It established community safety partnerships, which can work better, but are a substantial success. Its key measures—the
  140
  orders—have been a success. Those orders have been disparaged by Opposition Members, but let me reflect for a moment on just how successful some of them have been. So far, there have been 11,600 drug treatment and testing orders; 3,879 intensive supervision and surveillance orders; more than 18,000 reparation orders; just under 3,500 parenting orders; and more than 1,800 acceptable behaviour contracts. Through to November, before the interim orders were introduced, there were nearly 800 antisocial behaviour orders, even with all their difficulties. By the end of March, 3,000 fixed penalty notices had been issued in just four pilot areas. Those are successes, not failures.
  Judy Mallaber: It is difficult to tackle antisocial behaviour effectively when it is so commonly seen in the home. For example, one in four women experience domestic violence at some point in their lives. To complement the Bill, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that legislation on domestic violence will be included in the next parliamentary Session, and press for that; and will he let us know when we can expect the promised consultation document on that issue?
  Mr. Blunkett: I intend, with parliamentary colleagues across Departments, to publish a consultation paper in the next few weeks. I also intend to publish a Bill in draft to enable people to scrutinise and comment on it, and over the next few months we shall bring forward other draft measures. I hope that that will take us forward in introducing what my hon. Friend rightly describes as a key complementary measure. So much of the tragedy of violence takes place in the home, and hon. Members on both sides of the House will want that to be addressed as quickly as possible.
  The key question in relation to such measures is, "Are they used and, if not, why not?" That has two key elements. First, can we slim down bureaucracy still further? The answer has to be yes, and I challenge anyone who feels that some measures are too bureaucratic to come forward with ideas about how we might achieve that. I am intent on building on the O'Dowd report in relation to the police—I will have more to say about that in the weeks ahead—and, at the same time, on slimming down bureaucracy in the criminal justice system. Both measures require urgent and focused attention, but they also require those who are implementing them to be positive about doing so, rather than simply saying, "I wish somebody would do something about it." The people who can help us to do something about it are often those who are implementing the bureaucratic measures, and I challenge them to help and assist us.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the Home Secretary accept that the biggest problem of all for the policeman on the job is the length of time that it takes to process suspects when they are arrested? Until that ridiculous length of time and vast volume of bureaucracy is tackled, policemen will remain extremely reluctant to use the powers that they already have.
  Mr. Blunkett: We are all concerned about that. The street charging measures that were thrown up by the O'Dowd report, fixed penalty notices, and the ability to use new technology to communicate directly back to the

  141
  police station and the computer are all crucial in being able to do the job. We will have to examine not only the technology, but the way in which it is used.
  The second question is whether we can persuade people at local level to adopt particular measures. I am not talking simply about the better working of the police but about the way in which housing or environmental health officers respond. The best local staff do not want to pick up a telephone and say, "I really would like to help you but I don't have the power." What they would really like to say is, "I really would like to help you and, thank goodness, I now have the power. It is difficult, and I will have to come out and work antisocial hours, but I will now be able to assist you." Some people in professional organisations may have distanced themselves by promotion from the front line, but saying, "We don't want to implement these measures because they're inconvenient and make life difficult," is not the way to persuade the public to pay more council tax, income tax or VAT in order to fund those professionals' jobs.
  Mrs. Joan Humble: Will my right hon. Friend add social services departments to his list of those who should be contacted? Those departments are often already working with families, trying to support them in looking after young people who are behaving antisocially in their communities. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the important role of social services staff? Joint working between social services and the police must be enhanced.
  Mr. Blunkett: I agree with my hon. Friend, who spent time as a chair of social services in Lancashire. She is aware of these issues. Joint working is important.
  I can never resist hitting a ball over the net, so I have to say that there is a two-way street here. Social services have a key role in early intervention, and enforcement agencies should be positive at the stage when action and orders because of criminality are not yet necessary. It is important that the police and social services work together. However, it is also important that social services and youth offending teams know the moment when it is necessary to get tough—in other words, when to threaten enforcement. I was brought up on the estates that I have the privilege of representing, and my experience is that people rapidly get the message. If they get the message that they can get away with what they are doing, they will get away with it; if they get the message that someone will clamp down, it is amazing how quickly their behaviour can change.
  We need more staff to implement our proposals. I hope that fixed penalties will be able to fund the work of environmental health officers and others; and I hope that achieving better behaviour will assist housing officers to do a positive job rather than spending all their lives fruitlessly trying to deal with antisocial neighbours and tenants when they do not have the power to do so. Dealing with such people when they do have that power will save them time and energy. The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), is here and would agree with that.
  142
  We also need more police and more of the police family. That is why, just a week or two ago, we were pleased to announce that in the 12 months up to September last year we had an increase of 4,337 police in England and Wales. That is the largest increase since 1976—which, of course, was under a previous Labour Government.
  Liz Blackman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I cannot resist giving way because I know that my hon. Friend will want to say something positive about Wales. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Wales?"]
  Liz Blackman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essence of the Bill is a partnership approach to challenging antisocial behaviour? Does he agree that protocols on information sharing have to be updated alongside all the other measures in the Bill to ensure that partners can work together effectively to challenge this scourge?
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I do agree—and I was thinking of the Wales that is just south of Sheffield rather than the Wales that is west of the Severn. [Laughter.]
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman). The additional resources and policing available—and we are at a record total of 131,548, just to put that on the record, which is 1,500 more than we pledged for the end of March—will assist us to undertake the co-ordination about which my hon. Friend is asking.
  Let me turn to particular elements of the Bill.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: About time—23 minutes in.
  Mr. Blunkett: Well, I have taken a great many interventions. I would be happy not to do so the next time I am on my feet, if that is what hon. Members want.
  Clauses 1 to 11 in part 1 deal with action against class A drugs and, in particular, crack houses, commercial or domestic. I am sure that the measures will be widely welcomed; they will be vigorously implemented because such places are a scourge of our time.
  Mr. George Stevenson: Will my hon. Friend clarify a concern of mine about part 1? Why will the police have the power to close down premises that they believe are being used for the supply and use of class A drugs, but at the same time have to show that there has been nuisance or disorder? Why can they not close premises down simply if they are satisfied that class A drugs are being supplied or used?
  Mr. Blunkett: We wanted to be as clear as possible about the evidence base and the ability to get that evidence swiftly. The more complicated the situation, if we open up all sorts of vistas of challenge, the more likely it will be that people who have—let me choose my words carefully—legal expertise at their disposal will make a monkey of the measures and therefore make things more difficult.
  Mr. James Clappison: Is not the Home Secretary's hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-

  143
  Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) making a very important point? The additional requirement on the police to prove that there has been disorder is something else for lawyers to get their hands on to prevent an order being made. With crack houses and the like, is it not inevitable that they bring in their trail misery, crime and social disorder?
  Mr. Blunkett: We are talking about the police being satisfied that dealing is taking place and that nuisance is being caused. On the issue of immediate action in closing and sealing, it is pretty important—even for those of us who want vigorous steps to be taken—to ensure that people cannot cause mischief in the process. We have consulted the police on this, and they are satisfied that they will have the power to take the necessary swift and effective action.
  Part 2 of the—
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend give way? I really do apologise.
  Mr. Blunkett: If I did not give way to my right hon. Friend, I would be bedevilled either by a series of his letters or, even worse, one of his questions.
  Mr. Kaufman: This is a question, and it relates to premises being used for drug trading. I take it that the Deputy Prime Minister's licensing measures will deal with the houses of private landlords where drug trading takes place, but will the definitions in the Bill be wide enough to take account of, for example, the Texaco filling station on Chapman street in my constituency, which has been used for drug trading, and telephone boxes, which, through incoming calls, can be used for drug trading as well?
  Mr. Blunkett: My right hon. Friend is correct: the draft housing Bill will implement some of the White Paper's key proposals—which were widely supported—on licensing and the designation of particular areas. I am very pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Ministers in his Department have agreed to implement those measures vigorously. I will drop a line to my right hon. Friend, speedily, about the abuse of telephone boxes and other public areas in relation to drugs. Clauses in the Bill extend powers in relation to social landlords and the contracts that have to be drawn up. There will be published and enforceable policy statements so that tenants and landlords clearly know their rights and responsibilities. That is not the case at the moment. Speeding up injunctions will be a key element. Demoted tenancies are other aspects of part 2, as are ways in which we will speed up the process of dealing with antisocial behaviour on the housing front.
  Mr. Stevenson: I am enormously grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. I have a worry about housing and I hope that he will be able to clarify the situation. Part 2 relates to local authorities, housing corporations and registered social landlords. Antisocial behaviour in my constituency has unfortunately been tracked to private landlords, but I can detect no mention of such people in the Bill.
  Mr. Blunkett: Issues relating to private landlords will be addressed in the housing Bill. I have indicated, as did
  144
  the White Paper, that we are keen for the measure to be implemented and targeted carefully. It will provide for entirely new powers and will address the related issue of the withdrawal of automatic and direct payment of housing benefit. That measure has gained enormous support and I am grateful to my ministerial colleagues for their help to ensure that it has cross-departmental support.
  Ms Joan Walley: We are concerned that cross-cutting measures that relate to housing and the Home Office should come into operation before the Bill reaches the statute book by starting a pilot project. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that discussions are being held with his colleagues so that we may have a pilot scheme in Stoke-on-Trent?
  Mr. Blunkett: I congratulate my hon. Friend because in all the years that she has been in the House, I have never known her to miss a trick on pilot programmes. I am happy that discussions are taking place, and I know that the importance of the measures is acknowledged in the Potteries, which was reflected by her contribution and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson). The provisions are especially important for areas in which traditional industries have been historically run down and very cheap properties are available. Necessary steps must be taken in such areas to stop exploitation.
  Part 3 relates to truancy, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education is here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is she?"] She will not receive a fixed penalty notice because she has only just left the Chamber. I am sure that she wants to spend time supporting the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in his endeavours today on higher education.
  Part 3 will strengthen the ability to issue parenting contracts and to develop them as a prerequisite to the expanded parenting orders that address parents' actions. The orders will address not only parents who fail to take necessary action to support their children in going to school, but their behaviour on school premises. We want to strengthen the hand of head teachers and teachers who deal with the few parents whose behaviour is not only a terrible example to their children and others, but a disruption to the life and work of schools.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the success of parenting orders thus far is due in no small part to the alacrity with which they have been taken up by parents themselves? Surely that shows that many parents throughout the country are desperate for the support that parenting orders offer and that could be provided by programmes of positive parenting that were directed more universally.
  Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Those who have run into difficulty, and those who fear that they might, have a deep desire to take parenting classes. We must ensure that parenting orders do not become a stigma for people who attend such classes. Every one of us who has been a parent will have despaired at least once, looked at the ceiling and wished that someone

  145
  would give us a hand. Children no longer live in close proximity to their grandparents, aunts and uncles and so their relatives' good—and sometimes bad—ways cannot always be passed on. We need the scheme to be more readily available and to spread it more quickly so that it is an attractive proposition, and not only an enforcement measure for when things go drastically wrong.
  Part 4 addresses a matter of considerable interest that must be handled with great delicacy. The police know of small neighbourhoods or communities in which there is much antisocial behaviour and residents are bedevilled by gangs of youths, people who are out of hand and people against whom they know that the police would like to take action. Such people cock a snook at, and have total disrespect for, authority. We intend to give the police power, after consultation with the local authority, to designate such an area for six months to allow groups that are believed to be intimidating or to be causing a nuisance to be dispersed. That will send a signal that we are no longer prepared to put up with such intimidation, which can be deeply frightening and worrying, especially for elderly people. We do not intend the measure to be used to disperse young people who go about their lawful business or to deal with situations when two or more people are somehow perceived to form an intimidating group. However, we require more draconian action against people who deal in drugs and who are drunk and disorderly, often after binge drinking.
  Peter Bradley: My right hon. Friend has anticipated much of my question. May I seek further reassurance about the implications of clause 29? It will give the police powers to disperse if
  "members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed as a result of the presence or behaviour of groups of two or more persons in public places".
  Will he assure me that the Bill will not make it unlawful for two, three or more people to gather on a street corner for social purposes?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am pleased to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The measure will be used when people refuse a police request to disperse and move on. The police will have the power to enforce the request and take immediate action. Problems do not exist in most places, but it is right to address severe difficulties that are experienced when lawlessness overwhelms a local community. If areas are designated, there will be an automatic power to lay down a curfew for an interim period to get a grip on the locality so that people feel safe to walk the streets again.
  No one in any part of the country should be unable to walk down their street to catch a bus or train, or to buy a newspaper or milk, because they fear that they might he attacked or abused. We must restore the culture in which they were not fearful, although that will take time. People who phone the police should be told that something will be done, rather than, "Don't trouble us with this because we've got more important things to do." People who phone an environmental health department should not be told, "We'd like to help but we can't", but instead, "We'd love to help, and we will."
  146
  Housing officers should not say, "We're very upset about what is happening, but the situation is difficult", but instead say, "Yes, this is difficult but we are going to get together people in the locality and we will help you, with our new powers, to get a grip on the situation." If there is intent for that to happen, we can change the world together. That cannot be achieved, however, by us, the police, or housing or environmental health officers working alone, but by people joining together and being prepared to work together.
  Matthew Green rose—
  Simon Hughes: Can the Home Secretary explain why young people will not think that the Government are picking on them? Why should people be more afraid of a group of 15-year-olds hanging around on a street corner than of a group of 21 or 25-year-olds? If he thinks that it is a real issue, why not give the police the power to disperse adults behaving badly as well as young people who are just standing around?
  Mr. Blunkett: If I read the hon. Gentleman right, anyone hanging about should be dealt with and dispersed.
  Matthew Green: We are simply asking the question.
  Mr. Blunkett: And I am putting the question back to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) to discover what he believes.
  Simon Hughes: We do not advocate that.
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman does not believe that anyone should be dispersed. He thinks that the powers to do that already exist, but if they were working satisfactorily, there would be no need to strengthen them, as I said. We must remember that the previous powers were done away with. The police on the beat tell me—I do listen to them because they are the best people to listen to—that they used to have those powers but that they were swept away when a wider range of unacceptable powers were removed. Older Members will remember those as the "sus" laws.
  Simon Hughes: Why concentrate on a particular age group?
  Mr. Blunkett: Because respect is learned at that age and young people understand whether they can get away with things. However, the hon. Gentleman misses the point: such powers of dispersal do not exist. That is why we are introducing them.
  To facilitate unity within the Liberal Democrat ranks, I will give way to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who was originally trying to intervene.
  Matthew Green: Will the Home Secretary confirm that if a policeman wants to disperse a group of youths, half a dozen of whom are 17 and half a dozen are 15, he can use the power to send the 15-year-olds home, but the 17-year-olds remain on the street corner?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am sure that the policeman would disperse all of them, having carefully analysed each person's date of birth. To quote my 20-year-old son, the hon. Gentleman should "get real." That is what he says to me. We are providing a power that is to be used sensitively and sensibly. If there is a serious concern about that in Committee, we will of course listen to it.
  Vernon Coaker: My right hon. Friend should not be deflected from his course of action. The vast majority of people in my constituency, and I am sure across the country, will be delighted by the new powers to disperse groups of young people who are causing problems. The key to all the new powers will be their enforcement and use, and the cultural change that will ensue. Will my right hon. Friend outline again how he intends to encourage people to use the powers, including the power to disperse groups who are causing problems on street corners?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall, but I think that we are going up a gum tree. Although curfews apply to younger people of 16 and below and allow for their removal to their homes, the powers of dispersal apply to everyone. I want to ensure that we are not misled by the misreading of the Bill by the Liberal Democrats.
  There are two issues to consider. The first is that the measures can be handled more speedily and therefore implemented quickly. The second is the reduction of bureaucracy. Above all, we must ensure that people at a local level are prepared to use the power. As I said, if people are not prepared to use it, we cannot make them, but local people can demand that the powers of enforcement are used. Part 5, which deals with sanctions, speeds up the issuing of antisocial behaviour orders further. It also relates to the enforcement powers for fixed penalty notices, in particular the ability to use those in the way in which they have been applied in the pilot areas. That will make a difference. I hope that the power that we are giving to chief constables to designate licensed agencies to use some of the more limited powers will enable us to spread the immediate implementation of the enforcement of such powers.
  Angela Watkinson: I thank the Home Secretary for being so patient and giving way so often. Does he agree that the success of the dispersal powers depends on a policemen being available to do the dispersing? In my constituency, where we have the problem of youths congregating and intimidating local residents, no police officers are available to do that.
  Mr. Blunkett: It certainly does depend on that, which is why the 4,337 extra police, the 1,300 community support officers and, with the help of my hon. Friends in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the neighbourhood and street wardens that are being introduced across the country will all help to achieve that. That is also why the new power for chief constables
  148
  to designate others in particular circumstances to use fixed penalty notices will make such a difference, as I hope it does in the hon. Lady's constituency.
  Mr. Bill Tynan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I will, but I appeal to hon. Members to let me finish because it is important to move on to Members who have waited patiently to speak.
  Mr. Tynan: I thank my right hon. Friend for attending the Second Reading of the Fireworks Bill on 28 February. That was much appreciated.
  The point about the curfew, or the child safety initiative as it was called in my constituency, is that children as young as five and six were being left to wander the streets with older children. It was necessary for the police to pay attention to that to ensure that they were returned to their homes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the curfew has the additional effect of safeguarding younger children who are left to roam the streets at night?
  Mr. Blunkett: It is an important protective order for younger children, especially after 9 pm. Many people despair when children as young as five, six and seven are out on the streets at such a late hour. They are picked up and led by those who engage them in drug running and other activities that destroy their lives as well as the lives of those around them. I must again congratulate my hon. Friend on the Fireworks Bill and hope that it makes speedy progress.
  Part 6 of this Bill deals with firearms. We have spelt out what we intend to do about people who carry duplicate and converted weapons in a public place. We are clamping down on converted weaponry. We will introduce licensing measures and will ban the import and sale of such weapons. The new regulations on air weapons and the age group that can own them will also help. All those measures will have an important role to play in sending those critical and necessary signals.
  Mr. Martin Salter: Notwithstanding the wide support that my right hon. Friend will deservedly receive for his attempts in part 6 to curb the antisocial menace arising from the irresponsible use of air weapons, does he accept that in banning the use of air weapons on private land for those aged between 14 and 17, the Bill will have the perverse effect of stopping a farmer's son shooting rats in his father's barn? I know that that is not the Government's intention. Will he assure the House that he will accept helpful amendments in Committee once he has received the necessary legal advice?
  Mr. Blunkett: On a previous occasion—the Criminal Justice Bill, I think—I made the mistake of saying that I am always in favour of helpful amendments, and there were hundreds of them. So I shall say cautiously that there is a real issue, and we are prepared to discuss it in Committee, as we should be, given that debates in Committee are intended to try to find solutions that do not lead to other difficulties. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that assurance.
  Kate Hoey: I welcome the change that will ensure that people have to cover their guns and not carry

  149
  loaded guns. However, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the guidance notes make it clear that the Bill will not prevent legitimate young shooters going to legitimate places to shoot? Will those people be covered by the reasonable exemptions, and will that be clearly stated?
  Mr. Blunkett: We are seeking good and lawful reasons for carrying weapons, and we need to ensure that the guidance is positive and helpful in that way. I am grateful to my hon. Friend enabling me to clarify that.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: In respect of part 6, does my right hon. Friend recognise the fact that there is another type of lethal weapon: the unauthorised, unlicensed use of scambler and off-road motorbikes? A fortnight ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) had a fatality in her constituency—a two-year-old was killed. There is frequent nuisance behaviour when such motorbikes are used on cycle paths and rights of way. They are a danger and a menace. Will he consider including powers in the Bill or elsewhere that will tackle that menace?
  Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend makes an essential point, which highlights a very real difficulty. Under the Police Reform Act 2002, we have provided the police with powers in relation to the off-road use of vehicles. The difficulty is, first, to ensure that they know the law and, secondly, that they are prepared to use it. I am not critical of them in that regard; we need to find better ways to communicate with the police than we have at the moment. We rely heavily on asking the Association of Chief Police Officers to do the communicating, which is perfectly reasonable because it is a management role, but it does not go far enough. We need very simple and easy to understand communication about what is on the statute book and how best to use it, and that is critical in dealing with off-road vehicles. I have the same problem in the locality in which I live, and it causes a menace to people, animals and the environment, which is often damaged as well.
  That brings me to part 7, which touches on the environment. First, there are new powers for environmental health officers, both commercial and domestic, to deal with noise nuisance. Noise nuisance—antisocial neighbour nuisance—is one of the scourges of our time and one of the things that upsets people most of all. It damages their health, and we need to deal with it. The clauses in part 7 also deal with things such as graffiti, fly posting, unauthorised tipping and the like. I hope that those proposals will be followed through by my good friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life, who is driving things forward, with his ministerial colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to ensure that we have a cleaner, safer and quieter environment.
  While I am here, I wish to say in passing that, although this is not in the Bill, I hope that, at some point, we will persuade manufacturers not to produce those wretched devices that lock and unlock people's car doors, making the most enormous noise at 6 am for no good purpose and making other people's lives a misery. I just wanted to get that off my chest. Finally, spray paints are just a damn nuisance.
  150
  All this is designed to provide the enforcement measures, to send the right signals, to give people the right powers and, above all, to tell agencies and local people that we are making the legislative provisions and putting in place the direction, but, in the end, it is down to them to use them. If we want a better place to live—a safer, cleaner and better Britain—we have got to do it together.
  1.34 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: The fact that so many Labour Members have attended the Chamber and, we understand, are seeking to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, is remarkable testimony to the extent to which they recognise the problem of disorder from which the British public are suffering after six years of Labour Government. They are right to be concerned about that, and the Home Secretary is right to be concerned about it, and the motives behind the Bill are good motives and ones that we share. I hope that Labour Members felt a rosy glow as they heard the Home Secretary go through the wonderful measures that he is going to introduce.
  I should say at the start that the Conservative party will certainly not oppose the Bill, but it suffers none the less from a few disadvantages when used for the purpose of propaganda by the Labour party at the local elections and thereafter. A few minor disadvantages, then: first, a large part of the Bill will do no more than make minor enlargements and refinements to existing powers; secondly, most of the changes are to the Government's own previous legislation, some of which has not yet been implemented; thirdly, a large part of the Bill will have absolutely no effect in practice; fourthly, other parts of it are unworkable; fifthly, some of it is entirely meaningless; and, finally, another part is of questionable good sense. It is therefore out of the Opposition's magnanimity that we choose to try to make it a better Bill in Committee, rather than to disrupt it at this stage.
  I have made a number of allegations, which deserve to be substantiated. The Home Secretary has given us a magnum opus, which I cannot replicate, not least—I apologise to the House for this—because I will be speaking about quite another matter in Westminster Hall at 2 o'clock, but I will seek to substantiate those remarks. I said first that a large part of the Bill represents only minor enlargement and refinements to existing powers. For example, the antisocial behaviour injunctions in part 2 tinker with the antisocial behaviour injunctions—our old friends—in the Housing Act 1996. I cannot see any significant improvement.
  The parenting contracts, which the Home Secretary mentioned in dealing with part 3, broadly replicate the home-school agreements under sections 110 and 111 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. In fact, they so closely replicate those measures that they replicate the fact that they are not compulsory and do not establish civil liabilities. The civil servants have obviously gone to great trouble to ensure that there is no advance on the previous legislation.
  The group dispersal powers—they were much discussed—in part 4 almost entirely replicate section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. In case the House does not believe me, I will read the relevant subsection of clause 29. [Interruption.] Oh, all right—Labour Members

  151
  wish to spare me the trouble and to take it on trust. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on, read it out."] No, no, I resist the blandishments of my hon. Friends. I do not want to bore the House. Let me assure the House that the words are virtually identical.
  I turn to the fact that many of the changes are to the Government's own previous legislation, some of which has not yet even been implemented. Let us take the closure of crack houses in part 1. The previous Home Secretary introduced the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which amended section 8 of Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Home Secretary has not yet implemented the 2001 Act. I take it that he has not yet done so because he has decided to change it. Part 1 represents a change to the 2001 Act, which was introduced by his predecessor, but it has not yet been implemented.
  The parenting orders in part 3 represent a revision of section 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, by which the previous Home Secretary introduced parenting orders. The revisions are not very substantial, but I take it that the present Home Secretary wants to make sure that he is the person who has the parenting orders under his name rather than his predecessor.
  Then we come to those parts that will have no effect in practice. The Home Secretary mentioned the closure orders for noisy premises in part 7. This is most interesting, and I draw it to the attention of Labour Members because I hope that they will go out to their constituencies and local authorities and explain exactly what this part of the Bill actually does. It is presumably designed to make it more difficult to hold a rave. How does it do that? It does that by ensuring that premises that have a premises licence or a temporary event notice can be closed for 24 hours.
  Several hon. Members rose ߞ
  Mr. Letwin: If hon. Members will forgive me, I will not give way at this stage.
  I am not an expert on raves—I have never attended a rave—but I rather have the impression that there are few holders of raves who seek temporary event notices under the licensing laws, and still fewer who seek premises licences. The Licensing Bill provides for premises licences but the process is lengthy and I doubt whether the average rave organiser would know how to fulfil it. If the rave does not possess a premises licence or have a temporary event notice attached to it, this Bill confers no power whatever to close it down. I admit that I am flabbergasted by that omission and we shall try to do something about it in Committee.
  My favourite example—it is positively majestic—occurs in clause 42. What is the effect of that clause? It is that a person under 17 who is carrying an unloaded airgun in a case—a locked gun case—in a public place, who has a reasonable explanation for doing so and was previously legal will be illegal. That will dramatically affect the level of gun crime in this country. In fact, it will particularly affect any 16-year-old who knows how to fire an unloaded airgun without removing it from its case in a public place. That is a majestic provision.
  Mr. Blunkett: Very funny.
  Mr. Letwin: It would be funny were it not true.
  152
  I said that some of the Bill would be unworkable in rural areas—a point to which I hesitate to draw the attention of Labour Ministers, very few of whom have anything to do with rural areas. However, those of us who are local yokels with straw in our teeth are aware that it is the practice in rural areas for 16-year-olds to go around farmyards dispersing chickens—not raves or groups of young men—with airguns. However, under clause 43, subsection (4)(a), that will be illegal. I take it that the one policeman to be found in the length and breadth of rural England will be sent to prevent that 16-year-old from walking around his own farm dispersing chickens.
  That will, of course, never happen, but much more serious is the issuing of fixed penalty notices in schools. That is an extremely important indication of the type of problem that we shall have to deal with in Committee. Clause 22 states that an authorised officer can give a penalty notice for truancy. That does not sound too bad, until one studies the definitions of "authorised officer" on page 19 where there is a lengthy process of successive approximation that I take it has been concocted to try to ensure that anyone not reading the Bill closely will not notice what is going on.
  An "authorised officer" includes an "authorised staff member" and an "authorised staff member" is subsequently defined as including
  "a member of the staff".
  For the first time in British history and, as far as I can discover, with no international precedent, we have the mind-numbing idea that teachers could hand out fixed penalty notices to the parents of children at their school. I cannot imagine how the Home Secretary imagines that such a provision would be workable and I hope that we can change it in Committee.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: The parenting orders in clause 25 are all very well, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the real problem arises when children are excluded from school, often for appalling behaviour, and the decision is reversed on appeal, often with the result that the credibility of the school, its governors and its head suffers enormously?
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is right. That is why our hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, has rightly proposed that head teachers should be given sole power to order exclusions and that there should be no provision for them to be overruled. That would be a serious piece of legislation. Perhaps, within the long title of the Bill, we could introduce it as an amendment.
  I asserted that some of the Bill is meaningless. In clause 12, we are told something that will dizzy and appal every neighbour from hell in Britain. When they read the provisions they will be absolutely terrified. We are told that the social landlord
  "must prepare…a policy in relation to anti-social behaviour…must publish a statement of the policy"—and
  "from time to time keep the policy…under review".
  There is nothing wrong with that. Why should there not be policies on dealing with antisocial behaviour? Every registered social landlord whom I have been able to ring in the last 24 hours has told me that they already have such policies. The Bill will make it a legal requirement

  153
  for them to have such policies. Fine. Excellent. However, if anyone imagines that anything will change as a result of landlords adopting, publishing and reviewing such policies, they are dreaming.
  Finally, I asserted that some of the Bill is questionable—although not much of it. If there were so much as to be worrying, or if much of the Bill was positively counterproductive, we should have to vote against it, but that is not the case. I hope that the Home Secretary will pause to reflect on at least one aspect of the Bill, however, as it would move us in a strange direction. It relates to the widening of the powers of community support officers in parts 4, 5 and 7. CSOs are to have the powers to disperse groups, to stop cycles—I admit that is not a great matter—and finally, under clause 51, to issue fixed penalty notices for graffiti and fly posting.
  In principle, there is nothing objectionable in CSOs having such powers. However, they were given one set of powers initially, yet now, not many months after the measure that established CSOs, another Bill would add to those powers. I have no material doubt that it will not be long before the Home Secretary comes along with another new Bill—indeed, many new Bills. He is a serial offender as regards the production of legislation, or perhaps I should say that he is the most energetic Home Secretary since the war—something that horrifies those of us who have to shadow him. I fear, however, that it will be worse than just more legislation; there will be more legislation that gives more powers to CSOs. What will that do? Very gradually, it will recreate something that we already know: it is called a police force. It is time for the Home Secretary to ask himself whether he really needs CSOs. Should he not admit that he is moving towards making them police officers and actually do so? We could then stop quarrelling about whether the use of CSOs is right or wrong and whether they are policing on the cheap because we would have turned them into police officers.
  The Bill is a crabwise assault on that proposition and that is misleading.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: Despite the right hon. Gentleman's reservations, does he agree with Henry Ward Beecher who, 147 years ago noted that laws tend to gravitate downwards? He said:
  "Like clocks, they must be cleansed, and wound up, and set to true time".
  That is the purpose of the Bill.
  Mr. Letwin: Yes, but the problem is that, in many respects, the Bill is like a clock that is stuck at five to one and is right only once every 24 hours—[HON. MEMBERS: "Twice!"] I am so sorry; it is right twice in every 24 hours. Labour Members are awake—I am grateful for that.
  Alas, the problem is that in order to make the Bill useful, it would need to include something really useful: people to enforce it. If there were 40,000 additional police officers, which the Conservatives are committed to providing, it would be worth paying attention to brushing up the legislation. The record of all parties over 50 years is inadequate. I do not deny that. It is time that
  154
  the Home Secretary and the Government admitted that for 50 years we have failed to notice what Civitas revealed last weekend: just after the war, there were three crimes per police officer; nowadays, there are more than 40. We have been systematically underpoliced. There should be consensus on both sides of the House that we should not be fiddling while Rome burns; what we need is not tinkering or amelioration, with little bits of legislation here and there, but a step change in the policing of this country.
  Mr. Stevenson: The right hon. Gentleman is beginning to give the impression that he is enthusiastically negative about the Bill. I am listening carefully to his speech and am astounded to hear that the Opposition do not intend to vote against Second Reading. Surely he has the good grace to acknowledge that the Government have more than met their target for more police officers. During the past 12 months, we have appointed 4,500 additional police officers, which puts the Conservative record into the distant past.
  Mr. Letwin: That is a charming rewriting of history. When a Government inherit a police force, diminish it, raise its numbers to just above where the previous Government left them and claim that as a world record, they are, in a literal sense, telling the truth. However, everyone in the country knows that we have been systematically underpoliced. To reply to the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, we are not voting against the Bill because it is not worth doing so. It is not a Bill that deserves to be voted against; it deserves to be slightly improved in Committee and permanently forgotten. A year from now, few people will even be able to remember that it existed.
  The important point to arise from this debate—20 minutes of which was taken up by the Home Secretary before he even mentioned the Bill—and the thing that deserves to be remembered about it is the fact that the Bill is a prolonged form of legislative press release. This is a Bill designed to show that the Government are doing something about antisocial behaviour. I know it is difficult to do something real—I know it is difficult to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to liberate the funds for the policing that we need; I know it is difficult to get young people off the conveyor belt to crime—but the fact is that tinkering with their own laws, passed not many months ago, or with other laws that are perfectly adequate, is no substitute for really tackling the problem. I would call the Bill a half measure but in fact it is a quarter measure, and I wish the Home Secretary luck of it.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed an eight-minute limit on all Back-Bench Members' speeches.
  1.50 pm
  Simon Hughes: As I pointed out to the Home Secretary earlier and to Mr. Speaker on a point of order, the Bill has come to us after an extremely short consultation process. Liberal Democrat Members find it an unsatisfactory muddle of

  155
  a Bill because there has been no proper preparation for the legislative process that is before us. There has been no draft Bill. Mini-consultation has taken place on certain aspects of the Bill, but that was too short to enable real members of the real public to respond.
  Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Simon Hughes: No, not yet.
  There has been no chance for the Home Affairs Select Committee to consider the Bill and to produce a report on it. There has been no chance for the Joint Committee on Human Rights of both Houses, which is meant to advise us on legislation, to take evidence and report on the Bill. There is a series of checks and balances that are meant to be built in before we legislate to ensure that we get legislation right. None of these procedures has been followed. I understand that on the Conservative Opposition Benches and certainly on the Liberal Democrat Benches—if people are honest, I hope that this applies on the Labour Benches—Members feel that there is much in the Bill that should not have legislative effect. That is not surprising. It is—[Interruption.] I shall set out exactly the things to which I am referring. Many provisions in the Bill are also clearly afterthoughts. They could have been dealt with in legislation that has been introduced in the past year or so, but the Government refused to do that, or did not want to. There are other provisions that are dangerous and should not be in proposed legislation.
  That is why we have sought to use the procedure that the House arranged that it could have to commit the Bill to a place where we could take evidence, where we could hear from those who have views about the Bill and where—
  Helen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Simon Hughes: No. In a second, I will give way.
  We could have heard from the Local Government Association, which is meant to be involved in implementing many of the things that are before us. It has spoken strongly against large parts of the Bill.
  Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Simon Hughes: No. I have said that to the hon. Lady already.
  The LGA, which is dominated by the Labour party, is clear that some parts of the Bill are unnecessary and that other parts are badly intentioned. Those are examples of why a proper legislative process should have taken place. In answer to the Home Secretary's suggestion that we should legislate every time the people in Parliament square shout, "What do we want, we want it now?", that is sometimes the problem of his Department's response. It listens to the initial voice and does not think through the implications. That is why his Department legislates so much. That is why it has to regularly revisit legislation that it put on to the statute book only the previous year.
  The great Home Secretary of the last half of the previous century was a then Labour Home Secretary not famous for much more legislation. The great, late
  156
  Roy Jenkins is famous for decriminalising and repealing legislation—getting rid of legislation—not for adding more and more legislation.
  Mr. Blunkett: I want to put on record how much I admire the work of the late Roy Jenkins as Home Secretary. I admired in particular the way in which he embraced private Members' Bills as his own in order not to legislate through the normal process.
  Simon Hughes: That may show a respect for Back-Bench Members and an ability to involve them in the parliamentary process. To be fair, I have just heard the Home Secretary say to one of his colleagues that having listened to a debate on a piece of legislation from Back-Bench Members of the Labour party on fireworks, that is a measure that he proposes to support.
  Mr. Clappison: Given the hon. Gentleman's wish to tackle antisocial behaviour and his respect for private Members' Bills, does he regret the opposition that the Liberal party showed to the Bill that was introduced by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) to tackle antisocial tenants, by scuppering that Bill and using every possible means within the private Members' Bill system to bring it to a halt?
  Simon Hughes: Not in the slightest. That is because parliamentary processes are equal for us all to use. My party has argued for greater rights for Back Benchers. However, when a Back Bencher comes up with a misguided proposal, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) did, we will strongly oppose it. We did so at the time and we would do so again. We know that it was also strongly opposed in parts of government. We know about the rows that took place in government. That is why housing benefit removal and child benefit removal are not in the Bill, thank God. We hope that they will not later be included in the Bill either. We respect—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get back to the content of the bill.
  Simon Hughes: The matter arose because—
  Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman knows that in the Housing Bill that we shall gain the Government may seek powers to consult local communities on whether they think that the Bill, on which he and his colleagues spoke out, should be given legislative effect. Would he like that consultation to take place in his constituency so that we could hear the views of his voters rather than his own bias against the measure?
  Simon Hughes: I am happy that people are consulted in all constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman should read the evidence of the Local Government Association and that of the Mayor of London in response to these issues. The arguments for taking money away from people, including penalising the poor and the disadvantaged, as an immediate response to antisocial behaviour lead to more marginalising, more alienating and making it more difficult for people who are already at the bottom end of the social scale. I am surprised at

  157
  the right hon. Gentleman, who has fallen for the populist trap rather than the principled trap, and is appealing to the populists in his constituency and not properly looking after those who are often the most socially disadvantaged and who need help rather than punishment.
  Mr. Stevenson: Given the hon. Gentleman's scathing criticism of the Bill so far and his criticism of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for bringing forward the measure, will he give the House the benefit of his thoughts about whether his party will be voting for or against the Bill on Second Reading?
  Simon Hughes: I can give the hon. Gentleman the answer now. The Bill is a muddle; it is a mixture. There are some good provisions and some unnecessary provisions. We will not fall into the Labour party's trap. The Bill is being presented this month only because there are local elections next month. We know the truth. That is the reality. It is a political ploy of a Bill. It is a shop window of a Bill. It is a window dressing of a Bill. If the Committee is sensible, if the House is sensible, and certainly if the House of Lords is sensible, large parts of the Bill will be removed before it reaches the statute book. Other large parts of the Bill will be amended. We shall then have a Bill that is left with a few decent bits that we want to see enacted. That is why we shall not vote against its Second Reading. However, if the Bill is not improved and if the rubbish is not taken out of it, we shall vote against its Third Reading. We shall then seek to amend it in the Lords in the hope that we shall get a Bill that is worthy of Parliament, not a Bill that was pulled off the shelves in the Home Office and cobbled together as a pre-election gimmick. Such a Bill would not befit the concentration of the Departments in question, many of which have their own Bills. They should be introducing education measures and housing measures, for example.
  Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that representations have not been made to me as a Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency? There are 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland, but the Bill does not extend to them. Quite frankly, the people of North Down are as entitled to protection from antisocial behaviour as the people of north Devon and north Wales.
  Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady knows that I always argue for legislation that treats the people of Northern Ireland equally. Had there been proper consultation about a properly thought-through Bill, we could have considered whether more powers should be devolved to Wales, and whether Northern Ireland wanted its own legislation, which it could amend, or wanted to be part of this legislation. None of that, however has been possible—it is an England and Wales Bill with a bit of a Wales opt-out, an occasional Scottish add-on and no Northern Ireland component at all.
  Lady Hermon: Actually, the people of Northern Ireland have no choice. Responsibility for criminal
  158
  justice and policing remains with Westminster, as it has for 30 years, even—and I hope that talks with my colleagues at Hillsborough are successful—if the Assembly is restored. Criminal justice was not devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly before suspension, and is not likely to be, so responsibility rests squarely with Westminster. It is disgraceful that we fall far short in Northern Ireland of the protection that we rightly deserve.
  Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady argues assiduously, as she did throughout the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill, that Northern Ireland electors and Members of Parliament should be treated equally in deciding what criminal justice legislation they want. I hope that Ministers will pass that on to the new Leader of the House, who has been Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who understands the issue, and may be sympathetic to the hon. Lady's representations.
  Because the Bill is an antisocial behaviour measure, we look in it for a definition of antisocial behaviour but, of course, there is none. There is no consistent terminology in the Bill. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), appeared before the Select Committee on Home Affairs and was honest in saying that he had literally picked up the brief the previous week, so was less prepared than the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) would have been had he remained in office. That is not a criticism—as the hon. Gentleman knows, I am very supportive of him. However, when he was asked how he defined antisocial behaviour, he did not have such a definition because the Government have not provided one.
  The danger is that the Bill confuses things. In the past, people knew where they stood. For example, if you committed a crime you went through the court process. The police and courts were involved and you were punished and sent to prison. There was a formal process and appeal, and proof beyond reasonable doubt was required. We are now putting other things into the pot. Annoyance may attract a criminal penalty, as may nuisance, but the civil process has less protection, and there is a risk that the Government may be muddling the old criminal law with new processes which they think are necessary but which entail certain dangers.
  Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Simon Hughes: No.
  Can I tell the Home Secretary that while there are some things in the Bill that clearly need to be dealt with by criminal law such as the misuse of crack cocaine and firearms, other things may not be such obvious candidates for the use of criminal law? Dropping litter is not in the same league as misuse of a firearm.
  I hope that the Government will accept my next point in their cooler and more rational moments. It is important that we do not judge people so harshly that we build a society where all sorts of relatively minor antisocial behaviour becomes a serious handicap for them later in their adult life. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), when we were debating the Criminal Justice Bill the other day on Report,

  159
  pointed out that under that measure someone's previous record of behaviour could be used in evidence against them in the criminal courts. There was a danger, he pointed out, that people's opinions about someone's behaviour would mark them, making it more likely that they would be convicted of a crime. Down that road lies the big brother state. Sometimes I think that the Home Secretary is in favour of that state—[Interruption.] That seems especially so, as has just been said, when he is the big brother. I resist that move, and I hope that he will make it clear that we should have much more devolution of power, not centralised power. We should try, not to criminalise more people and lock them up, but to make sure that they behave without being criminalised, without a criminal record and without ending up in prison.
  Mr. Blunkett: I just want to put on record the fact that I am not in favour of the big brother or big sister state. I am in favour of introducing measures that provide for a civilised, acceptable level of behaviour in a civilised world where people can live in peace and quiet. That would avoid a situation in which some people's response to an ever-increasing dysfunctionality in communities, disrespect and the likelihood of disorder is such that a big brother state is appealing precisely because it would do the things that the hon. Gentleman spoke about. Those people are so sick and tired of things disintegrating around them that they would turn to extremes. That is my philosophy.
  Simon Hughes: I share that objective with the Home Secretary, which is why we must be careful—I am sure that he understands this—not to legislate where we do not need to. We must always look first at prevention, rather than punishment, and must always look for things like mediation—tried and tested alternatives which work on the ground—and things that, as he has rightly said, build on the excellent work of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the partnerships that have been developed and many of the pilot schemes and initiatives that he, his Government, the Youth Justice Board and local government around the country have initiated.
  There is much good news out there—so much, in fact, that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, was on the radio and television the other day working hard to persuade the nation that crime figures were going down again. I agree, and have said so. However, the Bill does not appear to be a response to the fact that those figures are going down—it appears to be a response to the fact that fear of crime is still high. Legislating because people are afraid of crime, as opposed to legislating because of things that people actually do, is a dangerous road to go down.
  May I make a couple of practical suggestions to Ministers? They have contemplated in linked legislation amending the laws on begging. Begging has been a crime since 1824, but beggars have not disappeared because it is illegal. Ticket touting has been illegal for years, but ticket touts have not disappeared because it is illegal. Busking has not been permitted for years, but buskers have not vanished because it is illegal. The Home Office appears to believe that if you legislate against people they disappear. If you legislate against activity, it stops.
  160
  May I tell Ministers that that does not usually happen? It is much better to take alternative positive action on the ground.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Will the hon. Gentleman do himself a favour and not misrepresent the facts? Begging is already illegal, as he knows, and we fine beggars. We do not register them or check up on their behaviour or the reasons for it. We do not use that begging to get them the drug treatment that it is estimated 86 per cent. of them need. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is what we are proposing to do—why does he seek to misrepresent it?
  Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I said that begging has been illegal since 1824. He is right that the issue is often that those people have mental illnesses, drug addiction problems and alcohol addiction problems, and are homeless. The remedy is not to make them more criminal. The remedy is both to provide treatment for drug abuse, which the Under-Secretary is working on, but which is not yet available throughout the country, and to provide the resources for housing departments that local authorities ask for so that the homeless can be housed more quickly and effectively. Local authorities are not responding to the Bill by saying, "Yes, we want all those laws," they are saying, "Give us the resources to do the things that we know we have to do." Just blaming people and giving out more criminal records is a dangerous way to go. That is the way that America has gone. In Britain, 30 per cent of adults under 30 have a criminal record. If we take up the opportunity of giving out penalty tickets and fines to 13-year-olds, what sort of future will we condemn them to? If we begin to treat young people's experiences as a problem, not as an opportunity, which is what the Bill hints at, what sort of a message are we sending them?
  Helen Jones rose—
  Simon Hughes: I want to make two more substantive remarks and conclude, so that other colleagues can get in.
  There are many things that we can do. We can make sure that housing allocation policies work better, so that families and communities are kept together and not separated. We can make sure that schools are given more power to run their own show, rather than passing more laws enforcing measures from above. We can design and build housing estates that make it less easy, rather than easier, for people to commit crime.
  Of course some things are difficult. We have a world where young people sit in front of computers, where they communicate less and where parents talk to them less. I was at a gun crime memorial service the other day in Peckham, and the call to families was, "Speak to your children more." The Mums against Guns were saying, "We must speak to our children more. The dads must speak to their children more. We must have more communication." We do not want young people punished, marginalised and criminalised at a young age.
  The Government are going down the wrong road. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was a good thing. The youth

  161
  Justice Board is a good thing. They have all done good work, and we should build on them. We should see the evidence of what works. In my borough, there are many successful schemes. The Karrot scheme and incentives for young people work. Southwark Mediation works. Neighbourhood wardens work. Kickstart works. Splash works. More police work.
  I was in Watford on Sunday. The new Liberal Democrat mayor of Watford has just provided space for a skateboard park by the pyramid in the middle of town. I met some young people who said that they wanted that, to stop them getting up the nose of people in the town centre. They want to be able to do their own thing in a way that does not get them into trouble. Such schemes work.
  Curfews do not work; they have never been used. Giving an 11-year-old a penalty notice will not work. Making teachers, local education authorities and education welfare officers behave like police officers will not work. It should be the police, not the teacher, the designated member of staff or the local education authority, who decide whether somebody has committed an offence. We must make sure we separate those responsible for supporting and developing young people, and those responsible for criminalising them. Unless we change the Bill significantly, there is a danger that we will yet again legislate in haste and repent at leisure.
  It is sad that the Bill does not mention social services. [Interruption.] If it does it barely mentions them; there is certainly not a section on social services. There is a section on education, a section on housing, a section on firearms and a section on drugs, but the effective agency for picking up the youngsters in dysfunctional families who are liable to commit crimes are the social services departments, which are overstretched and burdened and asking for more resources.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) recently went on an official visit to Sweden, where children are normally not regarded as being capable of being put in the criminal justice system until they are over 16. They are seen as people who need help, support and educational backup. Sweden has a much higher success rate than we do and its approach is much more effective. We must look around us and learn the lessons of other countries. [Interruption.]
  The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who has tried to intervene about 16 times, asks what we would say. We say: nationalise the mediation process across every local authority. [Interruption.] I mean spread it across the country. I would not be against it being nationalised. We should make sure that social services and education departments have the resources that they need to do what they know works. We should make sure that community punishment is visible in the community. We should make sure we have many more youth and community workers, who can be positive role models for young people. We should make sure that we have restorative justice and schemes such as the Dundee family project, which helps families who are not very good at bringing up their children.
  162
  As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), we should not spend time legislating for landlords to have policies and procedures to deal with antisocial tenants, when they do not need legislation to do that. Most of them do it anyway. We do not need to legislate for parenting contracts, which are voluntary and so, by definition, do not need legislation. We certainly do not need parenting orders to be issued at the instigation of teachers and the LEAs. If disciplinary sanctions are needed, those should be exercised by the forces responsible for discipline.
  Ms Dari Taylor: That is the second time this afternoon that it has been stated in the Chamber that landlords do not need orders that define good policies and the way in which good or bad tenants are treated by them. The hon. Gentleman is well wrong. In my constituency we have faceless landlords, who are buying up streets and renting out the properties. Those are often giro drops. We need some control over that if we are to assert that criminality is not acceptable in my community.
  Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady and I are not at cross-purposes. She is arguing that we need to regulate the private sector; I agree. That is being done in the housing Bill, which is out for consultation. That is where the parts of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill that deal with housing should be. We should not be debating demoted tenancies, which I happen to support, probationary tenancies and such conditional tenancies in the context of a Bill about law and order. Those should be dealt with in a housing Bill.
  We should also consider how we deal with the private, the local authority and the housing association sectors. I am fed up with the fact that in my community there are powers that can be imposed on local authority tenants and their kids, and on housing association tenants and their kids in Rotherhithe, but not on the private sector tenants and their kids who live in the houses next door. Those powers should not be considered in the context of this Bill. The same applies to education. We have had six education Bills in the past seven years. If we want to change the powers that apply to education, that should be done in the context of legislation on education, not in the present Bill.
  I end with two points, one of which relates to fixed penalty notices. I urge Ministers to hear what was said from the Conservative Front Bench earlier, what has been said before, and what we say. Fixed penalty notices should not be handed out by people who are not police officers or employees of the police service, with one or two exceptions such as environmental health officers, who have had a traditional role. The Bill tries to do again what Parliament last year said it did not want. Parliament said last year that it did not want the private security officer to be able to hand out fixed penalty notices. We say that today, as we said last year. The Government should have heard that last year and taken it to heart, and should not try again to push at a door that Parliament has already closed.
  Shona McIsaac rose—
  Mr. Stevenson rose—
  Simon Hughes: No. I also hope the Government are not serious about fixed penalty notices being given to

  163
  under-16s. There may be an argument for new penalties for over-16s. There may be an argument for legislating in relation to over-16s in certain respects. I am willing to accept that there is an argument for banning the sale of spray paint to under-16s, though why on earth its sale to over-16s should be banned I fail to understand. If they are adults who can work, pay taxes and serve the country, I do not understand why they cannot go shopping and buy what they want. If the Government think it reasonable to issue fixed penalty notices—fines—directly to 11, 12 and 13-year-olds, which is the power that the Bill permits the Home Secretary to introduce, I ask them to think again.
  The Bill contains important proposals for dealing with drugs and firearms. If the Government left it at that, it would have support from the Opposition parties and more widely. The Government have chosen to throw all sorts of other measures into the Bill. It is a muddled Bill, in some parts, unfortunately, it is misconceived, and in many respects it is unnecessary. We will do all we can in Committee to make it a much better Bill, but I sincerely hope that the Government hear the voices in the Chamber and outside, and take out all the provisions that are wrong or which should not have been in the Bill in the first place.
  2.19 pm
  Ms Karen Buck: I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
  Again and again in 13 years as a Member of Parliament and as a councillor, I have sat down with groups of residents who are angry and frustrated about the persistent problems of crime, drug abuse and antisocial behaviour on their estates. Although it is probably not stated often enough, it is an article of faith that the more deprived a community is, the more damaging the impact of such behaviour will be, as neighbourhoods spiral further out of control and desirability and can end up exclusively as ghettos of the poor and deprived.
  It is often not realised that young people are the victims of crime as least as much as they are its perpetrators. A recent survey conducted among young people by the youth parliament in my constituency drew out the fact that fear of crime, bullying, harassment and intimidation are among the principal concerns of young people living in the inner city. It is extremely important that we recognise that it is for the sake of future generations and as well as of pensioners and other residents, who also live in fear of crime, that we take some of the measures set out in the Bill.
  The Bill contains much that is very welcome and that I support wholeheartedly, although I have one or two concerns that I want to flag up. Antisocial behaviour lies at the heart of the increase in fear of crime. It has already been mentioned that, despite the fall in crime figures across the board in recent years, the latest British crime survey shows a sharp increase in the number of people reporting fear of crime. I hate to describe some types of criminal behaviour as "lower level", but it is the range of behaviour that we understand to be antisocial that is part of the problem.
  Mention has also been made of the fact that there is a lot of good news that we can talk about in most of our local areas. I am very pleased with the progress that has
  164
  been made on so many fronts in my constituency as a consequence of actions put in place since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Some projects have been funded in my constituency by sources such as the neighbourhood renewal fund, and the neighbourhood warden schemes have been positively triumphant in raising community awareness in terms of being eyes and ears on the street, building good connections with the local community and being part of the wider crime-reduction family.
  On one of my estates, which has been plagued for years with persistent antisocial behaviour, we recently launched Britain's first mobile police station, which was in situ offering local residents a visible demonstration of police presence and a commitment to action. Last summer saw Operation Puma, a police crackdown on crime and antisocial behaviour that occurred during the summer holidays. The operation had a very beneficial effect across our estates. Police have also been working with secondary schools, some of which have had very serious crime and antisocial behaviour problems in the past.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has expressed to me his recognition of the very important contribution made by the rapid reaction crack protocol drawn up in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. It is now received wisdom among crack addicts in north London that the one place where they do not want to be is Notting Hill, where the authorities come down on them like a ton of bricks. Unfortunately, one of the perverse consequences of the success of the rapid reaction crack protocol is that crack addiction and crack houses now tend not to open up in north Kensington and are being displaced to Brent and Paddington. I am delighted to say that Westminster police have now adopted the protocol, but other boroughs have not done so. While I welcome the additional powers in the Bill to enable a swift response to crack houses, may I therefore commend to Ministers' consideration the fact that we want every area, and every partnership between police and social landlords or other local agencies, to sign up to that model of excellent practice? In north Kensington, it has resulted in the closure of crack houses within a few days and sometimes within 48 hours. That has been a very successful example of good practice.
  The other excellent example of good practice is the youth inclusion project, which has been working for a couple of years in an area with serious problems of crime and antisocial behaviour—the Dalgarno estates in north Kensington. I understand that such projects have managed nationally to achieve a 30 per cent. reduction in arrests. Locally, eight out of 10 young people with previous convictions among the top 50 who are known to be at risk of offending in north Kensington are linked to the youth inclusion project—an example of long-term, in-depth work that diverts young people away from crime and has a proven track record.
  Some of my concerns about the Bill and about other ways in which we are responding to antisocial behaviour relate to resource constraints. In my area, policing is a particular concern. Unfortunately, Westminster still has 500 fewer police than 10 years ago. Due to problems with the census count, we have been unable to benefit from any additional police officers through the resource allocation formula in London. Although London is seeing a significant and welcome increase in the number of police officers, in areas of central London such as

  165
  mine, we are still under-policed, so the very welcome additional resources provided in respect of neighbourhood wardens and community support officers are still offset to some extent by the fact that too few police are available to work with our local communities.
  The other worry is that the neighbourhood renewal fund and similar Government resources directed to deprived areas to help us tackle crime are sometimes offset by reductions in local authority discretionary expenditure. Ministers should be extremely aware of that issue. Cuts in important services such as the youth service and children's play facilities mean that young people who would otherwise benefit from such facilities are out on the street and at risk of offending.
  Finally, I should like to say a couple of words about the provisions relating to the role of social landlords and evictions. One of my worries is that we may be in danger of not using the powers that already exist to enable landlords to clamp down on antisocial behaviour among tenants. As I hope my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will accept, social landlords have very strong powers available to them, including injunctions, possession orders, antisocial behaviour orders, acceptable behaviour contracts and introductory and starter tenancy regimes. The Homelessness Act 2002 gives local authorities new powers to refuse to offer accommodation or to reduce the preference given to applicants for housing where antisocial behaviour is an issue. Powers are available to social landlords and we must ensure that they are using them in the most effective way and working in partnership. In my experience, we are still in the early stages of securing effective partnership arrangements.
  2.27 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: During the Christmas recess, I sat for a couple of days as a district judge in a very busy south London court. The afternoon list one day consisted of a series of parents who had been brought before the court by way of summons to face an allegation that they had permitted their children not to attend school. Such examples of misbehaviour or lack of control by parents frequently arise in south London, so when I looked at the Bill and considered the issue of parental contracts with a school, thought that I would tell the House about my experience.
  Seven mothers were due in court that afternoon. Two did not turn up, after having received a court summons. Two turned up roaring drunk and incapable of understanding what was going on. Another couple turned up and, albeit sober, were utterly inadequate and incapable of comprehending even what they were doing there. The seventh turned up and used the sort of language that we in the House would never use to each other, even on a rugby pitch. Those seven cases arose in one afternoon.
  Where does that get us? It gets us to a clause saying that, although there is an existing criminal offence of not sending one's child to school, the Bill thinks that all may be cured by a parenting contract. There was not a mother in court that afternoon who would have had the
  166
  slightest idea what a parenting contract would mean. One or two could not write their names. Others might have torn up the contract and thrown it in my face.
  Mr. Banks: What did m'learned judge do? We all want to know.
  Mr. Malins: I was powerless. Fines were a waste of time; there is no point in imposing a £50 fine on such people. Eventually representatives of the education authority said that they were doing their best with the mothers. I adjourned the cases.
  I am worried about clause 18 because contracts will not work. Such concepts are not a good idea because we have to realise that we are dealing with people who are effectively from the—I hesitate to use the word—underclass. They are desperately underprivileged and outside mainstream society.
  Ms Dari Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Malins: It will cut my eight minutes, but that is probably no bad thing.
  Ms Taylor: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's comments. My police force and local authority say that acceptable behaviour contracts between parents, the local authority and the police have been very effective so far. They say that the contracts are so valuable that they will avoid more drastic action later when the child is out of control. Why are the hon. Gentleman's local authority and police so different from mine?
  Mr. Malins: If everything works so well, why is the Bill necessary? If the hon. Lady steps into the London courts, she will witness some of the problems that I encountered.
  The Home Secretary's motives for introducing the Bill are good, but I wonder whether it will make a difference. In the past seven years of the Labour Government, 15 crime Bills have been introduced and the Home Secretary has produced more than 100 initiatives. They have not made a great difference: crime has increased.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said earlier, in 1971, 17 crimes were reported for every police officer. Today, there are more than 40 crimes for every police officer. When we consider our approach to crime, why do we never focus on detection rates? Many young people who commit the sort of low-level crime that falls into the antisocial behaviour category do it because they know that they will not see a policeman and that they will not get caught and dealt with.
  Let us consider previous legislation on antisocial behaviour that the Government introduced. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was not such a great success. I warned that the antisocial behaviour orders would be bureaucratic and ineffective. Instead of the 5,000 that we were promised, only a few hundred have been issued. The Home Secretary tells us that 11,000 drug treatment and testing orders have been made, and that parenting orders have been issued. However, we never know how many have been breached. Yet day after day in the courts, one comes across breaches of orders that have not been effective at all.

  167
  Graffiti, drunkenness, criminal damage and noise form the sort of low level crime and antisocial behaviour that affects our communities. Plenty of existing law would be effective if a fully staffed police force administered it properly. Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 cover much of the sort of behaviour that the Bill describes, such as hanging around on corners and apparently posing a threat to passers-by. Further measures are unnecessary. The Criminal Damage Act 1971 already deals with graffiti; people who are responsible for graffiti and are caught are always prosecuted under that Act. What is the need for more measures?
  The common factor in most antisocial behaviour is drink. Our teenagers are the heaviest binge drinkers in Europe. Eighty-eight per cent. of criminal damage offences are committed while the offender is under the influence of drink; 15 per cent. of 12 to 17-year-olds have been involved in some form of antisocial behaviour as a direct result of drinking alcohol. Our neighbourhoods and communities have to face the need to get a grip on under-age drinking. We must focus much more on the supply of alcohol.
  In my constituency of Woking, antisocial behaviour is perceived as being closely connected to the sale of alcohol to under-age drinkers. One Saturday evening, 83 per cent. of off-licences sold cans of lager or alcopops to a 15-year-old schoolboy who volunteered to help trading standards officers. It is a curse in our communities that young people drink far too much. It leads them to antisocial behaviour and crime. We should examine that problem and put more police on the beat in our communities. That is the way forward, not a Bill that is barely worth voting for or against.
  2.35 pm
  Mr. Michael Clapham: I listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). They missed the point of the Bill, which can be used in the context of crime prevention partnerships. It will be effective because it will allow for short-term interventions alongside longer-term preventive measures.
  I am surprised at the condemnation by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The partnerships that were set up under the Act work successfully. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he came to Barnsley, he could see a crime prevention partnership that I chair, which has existed for almost eight years and works extremely well. The provisions in the Bill will be used to benefit the community.
  I support the Bill, but recognise some of the anxieties that hon. Members have mentioned. Nevertheless, it will be successful in the context of the crime prevention partnerships. The explanatory notes do not mention the partnerships, but anyone who is active in a community knows that the provisions will be used for that purpose.
  There is a need to strike a balance between enforcement and prevention. I shall give some examples from my constituency. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred to the difficulty of being able to tackle some problems. We
  168
  have set up the heads of agency group, which brings together people who can make immediate decisions locally and participate in longer-term decision making. That group includes the directors of housing, education and social services. They sit to consider specific cases, but they do not only examine each case on its merits, they make decisions in the context of longer-term action. For example, Barnsley operates a safer communities project in the village of Worsborough. It was initially funded by the Joseph Rowntree trust and helps to identify the risk factors that young people face. We hope that the study will result in an opportunity to roll out the project across the community. That will provide a longer-term approach to dealing with prevention, but it will run alongside the shorter term interventions provided by the Bill.
  Clauses 1 to 11, in part 1 of the Bill, deal with drugs. I believe that the closure orders will be effective, although I have to say to the Minister that, in my constituency, drugs tend to be a problem on the estates and can therefore also involve tenant issues that will be dealt with later in the Housing Bill. We have, however, been able to move against tenants when we have had evidence of their using their houses to distribute drugs. We have evicted such people. Only a couple of years ago, in an old mining village called Ward Green, we were able to evict tenants who were involved in distributing drugs, which was leading to antisocial behaviour.
  Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clapham: I am sorry, but I have only a few minutes.
  We were able to evict those tenants. The difficulty was, however, that they then gravitated to an area of Barnsley in which there were already problems and it became doubly difficult to deal with the matter at that stage. I know that the Minister is aware of such issues. Perhaps some of the measures in the Housing Bill will allow us to tackle that particular difficulty.
  In regard to what the hon. Member for Woking had to say earlier, I can tell him that, in Barnsley, we have established a beat team. The local authority pays for the seven officers, who work together with three enforcement officers and a legal adviser from the authority to tackle environmental issues such as graffiti and vandalism. That is working well. Their work is complemented by the tenancy enforcement wardens, and we are having some success. I believe that the measures in the Bill will be helpful to those teams.
  To return to the drugs issue, we reckon that the problem drives 70 per cent. of the crime in Barnsley. We have a big heroin problem, as do lots of other mining communities, and we need to be able to deal with it in the context of the Government's drugs policy. That will involve providing much more treatment, but, at the same time, it will be helpful to be able to deal with houses or premises from which drugs are being distributed by issuing closure notices.
  Clauses 54 and 55 deal with waste and litter. These measures will be helpful, because once a vicinity starts to look shabby because of litter, it becomes conducive to antisocial behaviour. Being able to deal with such issues directly, again through the crime prevention partnership, by enforcing the measures in the Bill will be

  169
  very helpful. I want to draw to the Minister's attention to an initiative that I witnessed in west Wales. As co-Chair of the all-party group on ire prevention, I was asked to visit west Wales to see some of the initiatives—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  2.44 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: I draw to the attention of the House the entry that appears in my name in the Register of Members' Interests.
  I am the first person to welcome any initiative to tackle antisocial behaviour, which is a problem for my constituents and those of other hon. Members. I share the objectives that the Home Secretary set out—indeed, I warmed to many, if not all, of the sentiments that he expressed today. The issue for me, however, is that of how well the proposals will work in practice and how much difference they will make. I want to see proposals that will make a substantial difference to what is a very substantial problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) was right to draw attention to the Bill being one of 15 different pieces of legislation on these matters, some of which make only marginal changes to existing legislation.
  My attitude towards these issues is coloured by the fact that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I served on the Committee of one of the first—if not the first—pieces of criminal justice legislation introduced by this Government, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I well remember the claims that were made on behalf of that legislation, both inside the House and outside it, before it came in. Anyone who took those claims at face value would be surprised to find the House now considering not only another piece of antisocial behaviour legislation, but one that puts right some of the problems in the Crime and Disorder Act. Furthermore, it is not the first Bill that has been needed to put right some of those problems.
  I remind Labour Members that the flagship provision of the Crime and Disorder Act was the antisocial behaviour order, which the Home Secretary mentioned only briefly when talking about the various orders available under the Act. The antisocial behaviour order was, however, the brave new idea of the Act, and anyone who had the temerity, in 1998, to question its practicability had their concerns dismissed out of hand by Ministers. Well, how much use have the antisocial behaviour orders been? My hon. Friend the Member for Woking is right to say that we can learn from experience. My constituents are still waiting to find out whether an antisocial behaviour order can be effective in changing behaviour because, in the almost three and a half years since they have been available, not a single one appears to have been taken out in my constituency. Only about nine have been taken out in the whole of Hertfordshire, and just a few hundred in the whole of the country.
  I have put this concern to Ministers in the past, and they have sometimes argued that this was proof of the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders. I remember, on one occasion, a Minister argued that the fact that the orders were not being made was evidence that potential miscreants were so frightened by them
  170
  that they had stopped committing antisocial behaviour. It might be the case that there is greater legal knowledge in some quarters than we had thought, and that there are some budding legal careers in unlikely places, but the Minister's argument would tend to suggest that the problem of antisocial behaviour had got better rather than worse since 1998. My constituents could tell a different story, however.
  The antisocial behaviour orders that have been made have quite simply not been up to the scale of the problem of antisocial behaviour, and nor have many of the other provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act. When we consider the parenting orders, which have more to be said for them than antisocial behaviour orders, the Home Secretary said that only some 3,000 had been made over three years. That works out at about five for each of the more than 600 constituencies in this country over three years, and I think that we all know that the problem relating to antisocial behaviour orders is even bigger than that.
  Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the Home Secretary saying in December that he was surprised when he went round the country to find that people did not know about the powers that already existed?
  Mr. James Paice: Including in his own constituency.
  Simon Hughes: Indeed. Is not that an argument for trying to work with measures that already exist first, rather than trying other things that have not been piloted and for which we can see no results?
  Mr. Clappison: We need to ask how workable the provisions will be, which brings me to the reservations that I have about the Bill. I have already mentioned one of them in an intervention, which is the provision regarding crack houses. I welcome the idea of closure orders, but I wonder how many will be made in practice. I note, for example, that before granting an application for a closure order, a magistrates court will have to be satisfied not only that the premises in question have been used
  "in connection with the unlawful use or supply of a Class A controlled drug"
  but that
  "the use of the premises is associated with the occurrence of disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public";
  and that
  "the making of the order is necessary to prevent the occurrence of such disorder or serious nuisance for the period specified in the order."
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) was right about this, and I am sure that the police will be concerned. How many of these orders are going to be made in practice if all this has to be proved to the satisfaction of the courts?
  An even worse example of potential legal overload in the Bill involves the power for the police to direct groups of youths to disperse. I know from my constituency caseload just how much of a problem some groups of youths can be.

  171
  In general I support that power for the police—indeed, I thought that in practice they had it already, and if they need more powers, I am in favour of that as well—but we should note what needs to happen before an officer can use the powers in the Bill. There must have been an authorisation for their use, and such an authorisation can be given only by an officer of the rank of superintendent or above. Authorisation can be given by that senior officer only if he has reasonable grounds for believing, first, that any members of the public have been
  "intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed"
  as a result of the presence or behaviour of groups of two or more persons in any locality in his police area, and secondly, that antisocial behaviour is a significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality.
  Before any authorisation, consultation must take place with any local authority whose area includes all or part of the relevant locality. Authorisation must be given publicity through an authorisation notice contained in a newspaper circulating in the relevant locality or posted in a conspicuous place in the relevant locality. The authorisation notice must comply with all the formalities set out in clause 30(4)(a) to (c), and the authorisation from the senior officer must comply with those in subsection (1)(a) to (c).
  All that sounds a bit like applying for planning permission. Only when a police officer has jumped through all those hoops is he authorised to direct a group to disperse, or "move on" as we used to say—and before he can exercise that authority he must, when he wishes to use it, have
  "reasonable grounds for believing that the presence or behaviour of a group of two or more persons in any public place in the relevant locality has resulted, or is likely to result, in any members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed".
  It surprises me that the police do not already have the power to move people on if their behaviour has had or is likely to have such results. At the very least, someone behaving in that way would be committing an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. In such circumstances police officers would properly enforce the law not by dispersing the youths but by arresting them, so that they could be brought before a court and charged with an offence. I wonder how much use those provisions will be in practice.
  Moreover, the power in question relates only to youths under 16. Unfortunately, groups of youths do not always divide themselves neatly into groups of under-16s and over-16s. Whatever the Home Secretary says, that is a problem for the police in practice. It brings to mind our debates during the Committee stage of the Crime and Disorder Bill on child curfew orders, which the Home Secretary had the good sense not to mention when referring to that Act because not one has been made throughout the country—not least, I suspect, because of the problem of mixed-age groups. I hope for the sake of our constituents that the new powers turn out to be more useful to the law-abiding public than those orders.
  I look forward to the introduction of measures that will make a real difference to people. I think that the provisions on antisocial tenants will need careful
  172
  consideration in Committee. I was very sympathetic to the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
  2.53 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I support the Bill without reservation, because I am happy to reflect the views of my constituents. I have represented the same part of Birkenhead—practically—since 1979, and during that time the nature of politics in the area has changed. In those early years, when I held surgeries or meetings or read letters, my constituents raised the issues that I expected them to raise: social security matters, the possibility of obtaining housing transfers, employment problems. Of course they still raise such issues, but the new politics that they raise are politics relating to behaviour. The Government are attempting to deal with that massive change.
  Why do we keep returning to the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)? I call him my hon. Friend because he supported a measure to which I shall return shortly. One reason for the number of measures to deal with antisocial behaviour is the fact that it forms the basis of the new politics. It is difficult to grapple with an issue for the first time, and I do not believe that the number of different antisocial behaviour measures represents failure; I rejoice in the fact that when a measure does not work, the Government are prepared to come back, to make suggestions, and sometimes even to listen to our proposals for change.
  I support the Bill because it reflects the current overriding concern of my constituents. They also want us to ask what the reasons are for the breakdown of common decencies in our society, and we should think about those in the long term. They do not, however, want us to be so academic in debating the causes of that breakdown that we do not try to enact measures aimed at preventing common decencies from collapsing still further. To what extent will the Bill help us to hold the line?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, as I call him, strongly supported a Bill I introduced earlier in this Parliament to deal with "neighbours from hell". There was widespread support from Members, apart from Liberal Democrats. I want to nail the untruth, peddled by the Liberal Democrats again today, that being tough on antisocial behaviour constitutes an attack on the poor. It is the poor themselves who are most damaged by such behaviour. Unlike me they have no bank balance. They cannot move away from the neighbours from hell, but must put up with them and see their children and their own lives destroyed.
  I hope that the Government will consult widely on measures allowing action against private landlords who give succour, comfort and help to neighbours from hell. I hope that, if that does happen, they will go into the heart of constituencies that return Liberal Democrats, and ask ordinary voters how representative those Members are of the views trotted out in this Chamber by those who want to prevent us from taking such action. I look forward to going to the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) myself, and introducing him to some of his constituents and their views on these measures.

  173
  My hon. Friend, as I still call him, asked why we returned to all this with a sense of disappointment. It is true—we must admit it—that we had hoped to see the curfew measures used more effectively. We also wanted more antisocial orders to be used, not because we wanted to punish for the sake of it, but because we wanted to draw a line while looking in much more detail at the root causes of the breakdown of common decencies in our communities.
  That is why, before this debate, I presented the Community Prosecution Lawyers Bill to ensure that in each of our constituencies the Crown Prosecution Service must establish an office, and a senior lawyer must be elected by our voters whose primary task will be to implement the Government's antisocial behaviour legislation. The CPS's role will be to ensure that that person has adequate legal training, but our constituents will decide who gains the highly paid position. My guess is that once the position has been gained, the thought of losing it as a result of failure to deliver on the Government's programme of trying to counter antisocial behaviour will serve as a way of ensuring that many more of our measures come into effect. Therefore, I hope that, when that measure comes forward, perhaps as an amendment at the Report stage of this Bill, we will gain Liberal Democrat support as well as support from those on the Treasury Bench.
  In the moments that I have left, I reiterate the importance of the measures that the Government are trying to bring forward. I congratulate them when they are big enough to stand up and say that a measure has not worked as they want it to and that they are going to try to refine it. Antisocial behaviour is an evil that stalks the country. It destroys a common culture that the Labour movement was important in building. Why do we take the issue so seriously? We do it because we reflect our constituents' views and because antisocial behaviour is an attack on the common decency culture that the Labour movement had an important part in building in bringing about a significant change in the way people behaved to one another over the past 100 years.
  There are now real threats to our constituents' safety and well-being. Many of my constituents, who have always put more into society than they have ever taken out, will be giving a roar. There will be a roar across the whole of the constituency, except among those few neighbours from hell who gain comfort from the Liberal Democrats.
  Several hon. Members rose—

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
  Health (Wales) Act 2003
  Community Care (Delayed Discharges Etc.) Act 2003
  Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003.
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

  Anti-social Behaviour Bill.
  3.1 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: It is always a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I cannot understand why, instead of struggling with writing these Bills themselves, the Government do not ask him to write them. He would have produced a far better Bill than the Home Office has done. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's views.
  It is right that the Government should be forgiven for getting something wrong the first time and trying a second or third time, but, as my hon. Friends have said, they have tried 15 times since 1997 and three times since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, so Opposition Members' patience is rightly wearing thin. The Government have had many shots at this and it is about time they got it right. The Home Secretary and other Labour Members will forgive Conservative Members if we appear to be cynical about the Bill. One of the things about Bills that crop up for the second, third, fourth or fifth time is that they always seem to do so when an election is approaching. Is it not curious that this Bill has come up just before the local government elections?
  The Bill has been introduced with indecent haste. The fact that the ink has hardly dried on the White Paper "Respect and Responsibility" and that hardly anyone has read the White Paper when out of the woodwork has come the Bill makes us smell an election gimmick. As my hon. Friends have said, we doubt whether the measures will work. Similar measures have not worked in the past and I doubt whether they will work in future.
  One of the reasons why the provisions will not work is that the people whose job it is to implement them have no confidence or faith in them. It is interesting to look at the briefing material produced by organisations that work in the sector. Here is the Children's Society's view on giving police powers to disperse groups of two or more young children any time of the day or night—I emphasise day or night:
  "We believe that these measures represent a potential breach of children's civil liberties and rights and we are concerned about the impact that this will have on children living in their communities."
  How can the Bill be made to work if the people who have to implement it believe that gangs of youths in black hoods gathering in shopping centres intimidating elderly people should not be moved on because their civil liberties and rights may be affected? Those are the sort of people with whom we are dealing: they, and people in local authorities, will have to implement the Bill.
  I have a similar quote from Barnardo's, once a well respected organisation called Dr. Barnardo's Homes, which now takes on the completely different aura of a campaigning group. Again, it is against the
  "power for police to move on two or more young people from a locality or to return under 16's home after 9 pm".
  It says that that "is of great concern." It continues:
  "Again we are concerned about the accountability of the 'relevant officer' and the omission of any requirement to consult with local people including the children and young people themselves."

  175
  What nonsense, coming from an organisation that is meant to be responsible and involved in the welfare of children! If those are the people who will have to implement the Bill, there is no chance of its working.
  Mr. Brazier: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his courage in making the points that he has just made, which highlight the wider point that, as Government money becomes a larger feature of voluntary organisations, more and more of them are turning from being providers of excellent services to being noisy campaign groups.
  Mr. Atkinson: I agree. That is one of the reasons why the Bill cannot be effective. If the publicity is correct, teachers in the north-east of England have made it clear that they will not dish out fixed penalty tickets to parents. They say they do not want to take on that role and it is wrong that they should.
  That is not to say that Conservative Members are not concerned about antisocial behaviour. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead that it is an evil in our society and destroys communities. It is a problem even in the constituency I represent, which is a country constituency with market towns. On council estates in my constituency, there are in most cases just two or three families who with their children and various offspring cause complete mayhem. They threaten people who complain about their behaviour and slowly instil a spiral of decay on the estate: only people who have no option but to move there do so and the whole place slowly goes down hill. We could take firm action with those people. Evict two or three families and we would very quickly bring back up the quality of the estate. In the old days, we had sin bins. When people were evicted from nice estates, they were put into a poor estate, but given a chance, if they behaved themselves, to come back. Although I have no doubt that that was extremely unpopular with Labour Members, it used to work.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, we believe that the real answer is to have a proper police force. In my constituency, we have had regular problems with gangs of youths gathering together in one particular location, curiously one of the most affluent parts of the north-east. Some of those gathering together were from some of the more affluent families in the area. It was the police who dispersed them. They went away and peace was restored to that area. Such an approach will work if one has enough police officers and if the police are given the right powers.
  For goodness' sake, one of the ways to make policing more effective is to remove the ghastly aura of political correctness with which the police daily have to deal. They have too much bureaucracy to contend with, and more attention is paid to their being politically correct than to their getting on with the job of policing.
  Laura Moffatt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Atkinson: I do not have much time. Forgive me.
  A police officer told me the other day that a new recruit had arrived in the police force who had been known as Paddy all his life. That was his Christian
  176
  name. He was told by senior officers that he had to be called Patrick and that calling him Paddy was an offence. That story came directly from police officers themselves. If we want to outlaw antisocial behaviour, we need a properly motivated police force. That is what Conservative Members will campaign for.
  I mention two further points. The first has already been mentioned and here I declare an interest: I refer hon. Members to the Register of Members' Interests. It is to do with the new firearms provisions in the Bill. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) made the point earlier. The proposals to restrict the use of air weapons by those aged between 14 and 17 will have a serious and unnecessary effect on law-abiding young people who wish to use air rifles properly. Many people who take part in shooting sports during their lives start with air weapons. The younger they start using an air weapon and are taught proper safety and responsibility—perhaps at the age of 14—the safer and more responsible they will be later in life. I hope that in Committee the Minister will consider amendments to allow responsible use of air weapons by those under the age of 17 and above the age of 14.
  My final point concerns the issue of litter, which is dealt with in what is in effect a compendium Bill. The Bill gives local authorities additional powers to enter land and to remove litter, but the problem is that it is local authorities that a re responsible for the state of our streets and roads. If one drives down the A1, say, between Newcastle and London, or along the A1 western bypass near Newcastle, one sees that the main culprits for the littering of such roads, which are the worst in Europe, are the highways authorities and the local authorities. Giving them greater powers to enter private land is an absolute waste of time, because it is they who should be doing more to keep the countryside clean.
  3.10 pm
  Liz Blackman: I contacted my local police and the housing director of the registered social landlord and ran the Bill's provisions past them. By and large, their response was extremely positive, although they did flag up one or two concerns.
  Because this is such a broad Bill, I want to concentrate on just a few issues that I am particularly concerned about as an MP and a former teacher, such as the provisions on truancy and poor behaviour, and particularly those resulting in exclusion. Such behaviour constitutes one of the first opportunities that children have to flaunt conventions, the needs of their peers, the law and wider society. We know that there are well-established links between under-achievement and crime when children behave badly, truant or both. If such behaviour goes unchecked, it is difficult to prevent it from becoming entrenched and being displayed in adult life.
  There are some reasons for truanting that I can understand, such as bullying and family trauma—things that require a slightly different approach—but much truancy and bad behaviour in schools is condoned by parents, or, as the chief inspector of schools has identified, responsibility for it is ignored. In many cases, that was my experience as a teacher in dealing with truants and their parents. The underlying problem was

  177
  that the parents themselves had lost control at home by failing to set the boundaries. They were condoning or ignoring such behaviour by implementing what I can only call an appeasement policy, or, at the very least, by taking the line of least resistance at home.
  However, another recurring theme was that later on, those parents would return to seek support because their children were running amok at home, ruling the roost, affecting younger siblings and sometimes using violence. The parenting contracts with which clause 18 deals have the potential to get such parents to recognise their responsibilities and, above all, to seek support.
  Chris Grayling: As a former teacher, the hon. Lady has experience to bring to bear on this aspect of the debate. However, does she believe that an ability in her professional life to issue a fixed penalty notice to a parent at a parent's evening would have helped or hindered her relationship with that parent? Would it have improved the situation that she describes?
  Liz Blackman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; if he will be patient I shall deal with that precise point in a minute.
  Parenting contracts and the levering-in of support builds on the experience of parenting orders and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Youth Justice Board parenting programme ran 42 parenting projects in partnership with other local agencies. The feedback from the evaluation was extremely positive, and Members will doubtless agree that what matters is what works. The effectiveness of the support to be provided to parents who sign these contracts voluntarily will be key, and should be based on best practice learned from these parenting projects.
  Parenting orders are already granted to parents for convictions for truancy, and this measure has been extended to include exclusion. That is a positive development, but unlike contracts, such orders oblige parents to meet certain conditions, and offer support. Of course, youth offending teams can also apply for such orders because of antisocial behaviour, and it would be helpful if data-sharing protocols were evolved for police youth offending teams, local education authorities and schools.
  On fixed penalty notices—the issue mentioned by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)—in principle I am very much in favour of firing a shot across the bow of a parent who is condoning truancy. I have no problem with that, but I have grave concerns about who issues those fixed penalty notices, as do many other Members. I believe and hope that putting the onus on teachers to issue such notices will be examined in greater detail in Committee. I am prepared to accept reasoned arguments in Committee that justify that initiative. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked all Members to flag up areas in which bureaucracy might, interfere with implementation, and I do think that that initiative will lead to some bureaucratic nightmares.
  Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Lady also agree that all the teachers' unions have registered their unhappiness
  178
  with that proposal, saying that it would turn teachers into police officers, which is the last thing that they are asking to happen?
  Liz Blackman: Given the implication of what I have just said to my right hon. Friend, yes, I understand that there are major concerns about this issue. I am therefore sure that it will be examined very carefully in Committee.
  My local registered social landlord is extremely positive about the provisions in the Bill dealing with housing. So am I, because like many Members, I get regular complaints about antisocial behaviour in the context of housing. Transparency is a good thing not just for tenants, but for the broader public. It is important that such policies be clearly understood, so that appropriate demands can be made of the authorities to do something about the problem. The requirement for landlords to have regard to relevant guidance issued under the Secretary of State or the relevant authority should help to establish best practice across the sector. Barnardo's, to which the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) referred, believes that a requirement should be included in the policy to map out steps to be taken to resolve disputes, where they arise. That suggestion is worthy of consideration. Mapping out steps in order to resolve such problems is a good idea, given the principle of "a stitch in time", which I believe in.
  The provision relating to injunctions is very welcome. I agree that we need a measure to catch those situations in which antisocial behaviour is known about but neighbours are too frightened to make a formal complaint. I am thinking of cases involving domestic violence, and racial and other forms of harassment. My local housing authority also regards as positive injunctions to assist landlords in dealing with antisocial behaviour occurring outside the vicinity. However, it points out that clarity is again needed in the sharing of information with the police, and the police themselves have suggested that these protocols need further development. I deliberately flagged up this issue with the Home Secretary, because information sharing and the development of protocols creates some of the infrastructure necessary to improving partnership working.
  I am certainly in favour of the provision concerning demoted assured short-term tenancies. However, I am mindful that between 80 and 90 per cent. of problematic tenants have rent arrears. That is why the clause, suggested by Barnado's, that deals with intended support should be written into antisocial behaviour policy. Where appropriate, agencies should make early interventions and work with such tenants.
  I recognise that there is great concern about children being caught by the poor behaviour of parents. However, parents cannot use their children as an excuse for carrying on behaving badly. Longer-term work with parents has to be undertaken; otherwise, the cycle will simply repeat itself. There does, however, come a point when removing a family is right and fair for the surrounding neighbours.
  I have other issues that I should like to air, but I am sure that I will get an opportunity to do so later during the Bill's passage through the House. Let me finish my

  179
  contribution by saying that in general I very much welcome the provisions in the Bill, which will serve Erewash extremely well.
  3.20 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Antisocial behaviour is the social disease of our era. It feeds fear among victims, and it destroys communities. If it is left untreated, it allows the perpetrators to slide naturally into even more serious crimes.
  At surgery after surgery in my constituency, I hear the most pitiful tales. A couple of months ago, two separate delegations—each unknown to the other—came to see me to talk about the absolutely hideous behaviour of one family. There is a child at risk involved in the case, so I cannot be too specific about it lest the child might be identified. However, such cases involve children bullying other children, and people threatening their neighbours and urinating through letter boxes. In more than one case, such incidents have built up to people firebombing their neighbours—a very serious crime that started from relatively small, but repetitive and ugly, beginnings. Other cases involve families unable to sleep at night because of the noise from next door.
  The House should be in no doubt that I strongly support any measure seriously designed to tackle the problems of antisocial behaviour. I listened to the Home Secretary when he originally announced the Bill. My heart leaped: the Bill seemed to be full of good ideas but, once I came to examine the small print, I could not believe how little substance there was.
  In the next four or five minutes, I want to look at a couple of the principles behind the Bill's aims that seem to me to be right, then at some examples that show how the Bill will not deliver anything. Finally, I shall make a suggestion of my own.
  Two underlying principles ran through the Home Secretary's speech. If they were implemented they would be absolutely sound, and they have been enunciated repeatedly, at one time or another, by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). One principle is that we have to shift from a criminal approach to a civil approach in connection with behavioural patterns of the sort that have been described. The other is that we must adopt a multi-agency approach, and not simply leave the matter to the police, although my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, is right to say that we need more policemen.
  Those two principles are sound, and they are fine. However, what is the Bill trying to achieve? One example is perhaps the most dramatic. People have pointed out already the flaw in the proposal regarding the closure of crack houses. I have several crack houses in my constituency, and they are known habitats of drug dealers. I thought that I was really going to be able to welcome the proposal to close crack houses. It struck me as an excellent way forward, using magistrates courts rather than Crown courts, the balance of probability, and the civil law. I believed that the police would be able to go and take action, and that the provision would make a big difference. However, several hon. Members have pointed out already that the problem is that the police do not merely have to establish, on the balance of probability, that illegal drugs are being handled on the
  180
  premises. They also have to establish that there is a public nuisance, which completely torpedoes the measure, as I shall spell out.
  What makes dealing with such activity so difficult is that witnesses are frightened to come forward. The Bill would be a good measure if it were properly drafted and did not require witnesses. Police on their own can provide evidence of a physical nature that should be enough to support other evidence to the effect that, on the balance of probabilities, a property is being used for such purposes.
  The Bill shifts the requirement on the police. Instead of merely having to prove that a property is being used for drugs, the Bill will require them to prove as well that it is causing a public nuisance. In that way, the Home Secretary is virtually guaranteeing that it will be necessary to produce witnesses. Proving a substantial public nuisance inevitably requires victims who are willing to speak out. The additional requirement therefore ensures that the Bill is almost completely torpedoed, and I suspect that very few closures will take place.
  Several similar examples could be offered. There is not enough time to go into them all, but I want to talk about demotion of tenancies. No one supports more strongly than I the proposition that antisocial tenants must be got rid of. I have introduced two, or even three, ten-minute Bills that have looked at different elements of the problem, such as the eviction of violent husbands and partners. I strongly support such a measure, but what is the concept of demotion of tenancy trying to achieve? Surely, the same evidence will be required to achieve a demotion of tenancy as would be required to secure an eviction?
  The evidence would have to be brought before the Crown court, as is the case at the moment. A demotion of tenancy is the stage that comes before an eviction, but a real change would involve more than simply changing the name and then having the same debate. A much better way would be to let magistrates courts handle such cases, as they involve local people who are aware of local conditions. Alternatively, the eviction decision could be taken away from the courts, and provision could be made to ensure that conviction for certain categories of crime would end a secure tenancy automatically. The tenant would automatically be served with a notice to the effect that he or she was in the hands of the local authority, which would then he able to make the decision itself. The matter could be handled in a variety of ways, but it is certain that the approach adopted by the Bill will make very little difference.
  As I listened to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, I was struck again by the fact that the Government have failed—yet again—to act on a measure that he proposed. I and other Opposition Members welcomed it and, had it not been for the pathetic behaviour of the Liberal Democrats, it would have been accepted by the House. However, the Government have chosen not to take this opportunity to adopt the right hon. Gentleman's proposals.
  In the final minute or so of my speech, I should like to offer one last thought to the House. It is something that would make a real difference. Why do we not cut down on the paperwork involved in arrests? That is what discourages the police from dealing with the smaller

  181
  offences that can do so much harm in society. The best way to do that would be to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 so as to give back to police the traditional habeas corpus power that they had until 19 years ago. The American police still have it, and holding people overnight is often the best way to deal with antisocial behaviour.
  3.28 pm
  Shona McIsaac: I want the House to picture the following scene: a person walks out of her front door and sees, tossed over the garden wall, half-eaten kebabs, and chip wrappers.and bottles and cans. There is some graffiti on the wall and on the gate, and there is litter on the pavement where she has to swerve past the messages left by the neighbourhood dogs. When she walks across the street, she hears loud music blaring, and there are more bottles underfoot. That is what I had to put up with on a Saturday morning a few weeks back as I walked from my house five minutes down the street to do my advice surgery. It was unusual in that I do not always get graffiti on a Friday night. However, it happens not only to me, but to many of my constituents. I am sure that many hon. Members would echo that.
  At the time, I was consulting my constituents about their attitudes to crime and antisocial behaviour, and trying to get to the root of their fear of crime. I do not know why the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) cannot go out and consult his local residents rather than just whinge in this House. I had plenty of time after the Queen's Speech to go out and find out exactly what my constituents thought about the matter. When I did so, they made the same comments regardless of whether they lived in the densely packed terraced streets of north Cleethorpes, the port of Immingham, the market town of Barton or the village of Waltham. Here are some of their comments: "gangs of youths"; "young ruffians, sometimes in groups at the shopping centre late at night—there ought to be curfews for young children and they should carry ID cards"; "drunken youths"; "gangs of antisocial youths"; "loutish behaviour"; "parents have to be shown that they cannot put the blame for their children on others—bad parenting needs to be addressed"; "why are youngsters allowed to have airguns anyway?"; "the misuse of fireworks is a year-round occurrence"; "it takes too long to take away dumped and burned-out cars". That is just a selection of the many comments that I received from my constituents about the antisocial behaviour that they felt was plaguing their lives.
  One of my local authorities, North Lincolnshire council, also consulted people about the matter, and it revealed that 39 per cent. of people thought that teenagers hanging around on the streets was a fairly big
  182
  or a very big problem in their neighbourhood. We cannot overestimate the seriousness of what we are dealing with.
  Mrs. Brooke: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Shona Mclsaac: Should I give way to a Liberal Democrat? I am much nicer than the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, so I shall.
  Mrs. Brooke: Will the hon. Lady clarify whether what was disturbed in the examples that she gave was the behaviour of the young people or people's perception of the young people?
  Shona Mclsaac: If the hon. Lady will pay attention I shall go on to say what was concerning my constituents.
  In my survey, 80 per cent. of respondents stated that although they were aware that crime figures had gone down, their fear of crime had gone up. That is a result of antisocial behaviour. The intimidatory factor that creates their fear is the destruction of the environment that results from graffiti, rubbish or young people hanging around on street corners. They do not lack faith in the police and what we are doing to try to tackle the problem of antisocial behaviour.
  Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady mentioned crime figures. Does she accept that if, for example, a gang of troublemakers vandalises eight front gates in a street on a Friday night, eight different people feel that they are a victim of crime, but it almost certainly does not show up as eight different crimes in the crime figures?
  Shona McIsaac: That depends on where the crime figures are being recorded. In some areas they are based on the number of incidents and in others they are based on the number of perpetrators. In my area, it is the latter. That gives more accurate figures than those produced in an area where the police take the view that if 25 cars are smashed up in one night by a lout, it is only one crime because only one lout has done it. It is not—it is 25 different crimes.
  I took up my findings from my constituents with David Westwood, the chief constable of Humberside. In his reply, he wrote:
  "In north-east Lincolnshire, levels of crime have fallen and there has been a constant increase in the numbers crimes solved each month."
  However, he continued:
  "Another problem arising from questionnaires such as yours is what the public considers to be a crime is not necessarily a crime in law. For example, a group of youths congregating on a street may make people feel intimidated and uneasy and therefore their behaviour is construed to be criminal, when in fact they are not committing an offence in law."
  That gets to the heart of the debate. People perceive that such acts are wrong and think that we should be doing something about it. They do not want us to wait any longer—they have been putting up with it for years and want us to act now.
  When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced his proposals for the Bill, I went back to the people I had consulted and said, "These are some of the things that we are proposing to do." Those people were

  183
  virtually 100 per cent. supportive of what the Government are trying to do. Time is short, but I will read a couple of responses that I received. Some of those responses were interesting because the opinions that they express differ from some of the opinions that we have heard today. For example, one Cleethorpes resident said:
  "I don't think there is any need for begging at all and a penalty would help."
  However, she continued:
  "You can't stop gangs of youths gathering in groups as they are not all troublemakers. I find if you are nice to them, they are nice to you."
  However, somebody from the same street wrote to say that he hates seeing gangs of youths on the street corner and that, every time he tells them to get a haircut or a decent job, they have a go at him. That made me feel rather sorry for that gang of youths.
  An Immingham resident wrote to say:
  "Thank you for your letter. I am delighted to read its content and about the proposed crackdown on antisocial behaviour. This should have a great impact on the lives of decent hard-working people."
  As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, this is not just about enforcement, it is about attitude. The responsibility is not simply that of the Government, the police or the local authorities—although everybody says that the local authorities ought to be cleaning up after people. People have to take responsibility themselves. There should be zero tolerance of antisocial behaviour and I have no trouble saying that. There should be zero tolerance of fly tipping, graffiti, noise nuisance, nuisance neighbours, firework misuse, airguns or whatever. That will require a change of attitude in society—and clearly a change of attitude on the part of the Liberal Democrats, who do not know where they are on this issue. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is good at saying things from a sedentary position. He would not take my intervention so he is too scared to intervene on me.
  One Waltham resident said:
  "We must work together as decent honest citizens to make our streets a safer place to be."
  Everybody will have to work together. This Bill goes some way towards ensuring that that will happen and I will give it my wholehearted support.
  3.37 pm
  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: This Saturday afternoon, I was approached by an elderly gentleman who told me how his life was being made a misery by antisocial behaviour. He said that he was disturbed late at night, every Friday, by very unpleasant behaviour from young people, possibly on their way home from a local youth club. I am sure that people such as that constituent, on hearing of the existence of this Bill, will have very high expectations of it. The behaviour described by my constituent needs tackling—as, indeed, do any activities that result in criminal damage to property by people who are perhaps not so young. However, I do not think that this Bill provides any appropriate solutions for such incidents. In my constituency, we need more bobbies on the beat, and I hope that the Minister might consider funding
  184
  some neighbourhood wardens. We have none at all in Poole. A more visible, uniformed presence would be the greatest deterrent that we could have.
  In many instances, it is appropriate to use a problem-solving approach at a local level and on a multi-agency basis. If young people are seen as part of the problem, they should be involved in finding solutions. The crime and disorder partnerships make such an approach possible. Some excellent work is being done, but there simply are not enough resources across a range of services to fund and implement enough suitable strategies. We should be funding the existing excellent initiatives.
  My simple example highlighted just one type of antisocial behaviour; hut we all know that, in reality, the term is used to cover a wide variety of activities and issues, from minor nuisance to behaviour that can almost destroy people's lives. My example also highlighted the common perception that antisocial behaviour is entirely down to young people. We have to be very careful about that perception. As was made clear by an hon. Member earlier, we must remember that young people are also the victims of crime.
  I support many aspects of the Bill, including its main aims, and it contains some helpful proposals, but it is also unhelpful in places, especially part 4, which almost demonises young people. Clause 29 allows for groups of two or more children to be dispersed if, by their mere presence, they are tin ought to be causing distress to others. I am concerned that children and young people will be judged not on their behaviour, but on the reaction of others to their behaviour. That is a dangerous path.
  For many years I have been directly involved with groups of young people and sometimes extra policing has been necessary, but the problems have been solved by using existing powers. We need a well resourced multi-agency approach, which includes ensuring that young children are provided with the facilities that they want—shelters, skate parks, safe play areas or whatever—and that can only be sorted out at locally. The emphasis in part 4 risks alienating young people still further without involving them in the solutions.
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: That is a great aspiration. Unfortunately, it is not happening under Somerset county council, which is cutting funding and—guess what?—it is Liberal Democrat controlled. Does the hon. Lady realise that what she advocates is fine in Mid-Dorset and North Poole, but it is certainly not what her party is doing in Somerset—or Devon for that matter?
  Mrs. Brooke: That enables me to highlight the fact that councils across the south-west have had an appalling funding settlement from the Government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been part of a delegation to a Minister fighting on behalf of his residents. We are aware that because of the funding situation in the south-west, there are cuts in much needed services. My argument is that we need resources for good initiatives.
  Let me illustrate how a strong-armed approach can be counterproductive. Wooden benches in my constituency were grouped together in an open space.

  185
  Young people congregated there and were perceived to be a nuisance. It is not clear that there was any real problem and no damage was caused. However, the local authority was persuaded to move the benches. They were then spaced out and put in a long line along a path. Since then, every bench has been vandalised. It is clear that we need the right solution for a specific problem.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Brooke: No, I want to continue.
  It must surely be an aim to ensure that children and young people do not get into the criminal justice system, yet across the country we have a serious problem, especially in Somerset, with the underfunding of social services. Eligibility criteria have continually been tightened across social services provision for children, which prevents children from being identified and assisted at an earlier stage. If that were done, it would save police time, cost less and provide the child with a better chance of avoiding an antisocial behaviour order.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, I recently visited Sweden and was fascinated to note the lead role that social services play in dealing with behaviour that would have been judged criminal in this country. I was also picked up on using the word "preventive". It was suggested that I should use "encouragement" instead.
  Shona Mclsaac: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Brooke: No, I want to make progress.
  The idea of intensive fostering could be useful, especially if it reduces the number of young people in custody, but ideally work needs to be done with the child and the family together. There is also the issue of where additional well-trained foster carers will come from. Part 3 proposes to extend the use of parent contracts and parent orders. I am well aware that parent orders have been successful, but in the context of truancy and exclusions it would be desirable to proceed by voluntary agreement wherever possible. Although there will be some instances when such orders will be the right tool, there are sometimes complex reasons behind truancy and a child's behaviour at school and that problem will need to be treated differently. Those orders are not a panacea. They are one measure that will be appropriate in some circumstances. Although parents can be made to attend parenting classes, they cannot be made to participate. It is incredibly undesirable for head teachers and teachers to impose fines for truancy: a separation is needed between enforcers and those who are trying to work with children and their families.
  The main problem with the Bill is that it is a hotchpotch: it contains a whole range of measures, and it is full of enforcement measures. It is the end of the line, yet the Government have so many good initiatives, such as sure start and the many youth initiatives. Why do they not concentrate on evaluating existing schemes and rolling out successful programmes more widely?
  Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Brooke: I have only one minute left.
  186
  My hon. Friends and I will not be voting against the Bill tonight. We support large sections of it, and we would like the opportunity to improve other sections. What we are really concerned about, however, is that no real consultation has taken place. I am waiting for an answer from the Home Secretary as to whether young people were consulted on the Bill, which would have been a good starting point. We will therefore vote against the programme motion tonight, as the Bill deserves detailed scrutiny and real consultation so that we can get a piece of worthwhile legislation.
  3.46 pm
  Ms Ann Coffey: The range of measures that the Government have introduced are making a real difference in terms of preventing and tackling antisocial behaviour.
  When I was first elected in 1992, in response to complaints from residents about youths causing nuisance, I used to hold meetings with angry residents, to which I invited the police. The police would point out how limited their powers were, that they did not have enough officers to deal with the problem, and that, anyway, it was not a priority for policing. Residents complained, however, that their lives were being made a misery, it was a priority as far as they were concerned, and if the police were unwilling to act, that would only confirm to the young people involved that they were beyond the law. In practice, the meeting would result in the police paying particular attention to the area concerned, but, inevitably, when the police went away, the problem came back. Alternatively, I would find myself calling a similar meeting in another area in my constituency to which the youths causing nuisance had moved.
  Now, when I have complaints from residents and hold meetings, I have not only the police present but also a representative from the youth offending team. That partnership approach enables young people causing nuisance to be identified and dealt with by the appropriate agency. I welcome the provision in the Bill for dispersal of groups and removal of persons under 16 to their place of residence, which will help with the more persistent and serious problems of groups of young people involved in antisocial behaviour. That would have helped, for example, with a particular situation that occurred recently on one of the council estates in my constituency, in which a group of young people systematically intimidated and harassed residents. If that power had been available to the police, that group of young people could have been disbanded more quickly while the individuals were dealt with. In the event, it was the residents who fled the estate.
  The introduction of crime and disorder partnerships has made a real difference to the way that disorderly and antisocial behaviour can be dealt with. It means that agencies must work together to meet targets for community safety, and recognises that that is not solely the responsibility of the police. The introduction of antisocial behaviour orders has been very effective in Stockport in dealing with those young people who have histories of offending, burglary, taking and driving, combined with behaviour designed to terrify and intimidate anybody who might give witness to their behaviour. I would, however, like more attention to be given to making exclusion orders from shopping centres

  187
  part of the conditions of an ASBO when the offender has a history of shoplifting and intimidation of shop staff. Shoplifting is not a victimless crime, as countless shop workers will testify. The increasing level of intimidation, abuse and assault on shop workers is alarming and should not be tolerated.
  I would like, however, to bring a problem to the Minister's attention and to that of the Lord Chancellor: the length of time that it takes to apply for and be granted an ASBO. In Stockport, an application is always based on previous offending history, relying on previous convictions. Those offences have already been proven to a higher standard than required by an ASBO, so it seems perverse that they can be the subject of a legal aid application to defend them a second time. What happens, of course, is that the case is strung out for months while defence solicitors extract large amounts of public funds, particularly in the case of appeals for which no grounds have to be given.
  For an ASBO to be granted, the applicant has to show two things: first, that the defendant behaved in any antisocial manner and, secondly, that an order is necessary to protect the public. If an application relies on previous convictions and the court accepts that such behaviour is antisocial as well as criminal, legally aided argument should be reduced to whether an order is necessary to protect the public. I wonder whether the Minister will look at that point.
  The measure of a crime and disorder partnership's success is not just the number of ASBOs applied for and granted, but the systematic application of the range of measures at its disposal to improve community safety. Critical is how well the agencies work together locally, and I wonder whether the Minister has any plan to publish the outcomes for crime and disorder partnerships, so that we can see the progress being made.
  In Stockport, acceptable behaviour contracts are an effective mechanism for defining to young people the behaviour that needs improvement, while enabling the involvement of the necessary agencies. So a young person may be forbidden to leave his home after 8 o'clock at night, but he will also receive help for alcohol abuse problems and his parents will be asked to attend parenting classes.
  The parenting contracts introduced by the Bill will be equally effective. Like ABCs, they will not be legal contracts, but, when I inquired last year, I was informed that only 3 out of 28 such contracts had been broken. Of course, those who break the contract know that the next step will be an ASBO. Similarly, the next step for those who break a parenting contract will be a parenting order, so those contracts will be viewed as having authority.
  However, some of those young people's backgrounds include chaotic families, often known to a number of agencies, with histories of drug and alcohol problems, and their parents have poor parenting skills because they themselves were badly parented. When those children started primary school, they were unable to learn because of underdeveloped language and social skills, and they almost immediately began to fail. School can only do so much. The earlier we start to break that terrible cycle, the better.
  188
  Although ASBOs are very welcome in dealing with serious antisocial and persistent criminal behaviour, the problem is very deep-seated in young people by the time that they become subject to them, and changing that behaviour is all the m ore difficult to achieve. That is why the investment in the early years is very welcome. Using money from the standards fund, language development teams are going into nursery classes and making a real difference to language development. Sure start schemes are helping to improve parenting in the crucial early years, enabling children to take advantage of the education that they are offered and helping them to succeed in the education system. It is right that that kind of support is backed up with pressure on parents, particularly to send their children to school—a child who is not there cannot be educated.
  When children are born into such chaotic families, agencies should intervene effectively to support that those children, as they are clearly at risk of developing into antisocial adults. Such investment would have a worthwhile return if it were to keep those children from failing at school, turning to criminality and costing the state thousands in secure accommodation, youth custody and years in and out of jail, not to mention the cost to victims and the wider community.
  Prevention versus enforcement is an old argument. Of course, there must be both, but that combination is more likely if the resources of councils and other agencies are used, rather than simply asking social services departments to take responsibility for such families. Resources involve not simply cash, but innovative ways of looking at delivering services. One of the values of the sure start initiative is that it changes the way that existing services are delivered.
  Part of the Bill is about dealing with graffiti, litter and dog fouling. Recently the children of Tame valley, as part of their citizenship curriculum, wrote to me about such problems near their school. When I visited them, they showed me, among other things, the bus stop that had been vandalised, the litter and the dog fouling. The council has responded very positively to their concerns. I am sure that the whole House would like to congratulate the children of Tame valley and their teachers on their successful efforts to improve their environment. I am sure that those children will welcome the increased powers in the Bill to deal with those problems. Through the citizenship curriculum, schools are teaching children 1.0 care for their community and to understand how to achieve what they want appropriately. That makes an important contribution to the wider agenda of preventing antisocial behaviour by encouraging children to be good citizens from an early age.
  In conclusion, I very much welcome the Bill as a positive step towards enabling agencies to take effective action in combating antisocial behaviour.
  3.54 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I welcome much of what the Bill proposes, as will my constituents.
  Bournemouth, as an urban conurbation that includes Poole, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), includes residential areas that experience many of the problems that the Bill is designed to tackle. Those areas include

  189
  housing estates where it takes only a few unruly ringleaders of gangs of young people to make the lives of everyone else a misery. They cock a snook at the entire neighbourhood, as the Home Secretary rightly pointed out in his opening speech.
  Such behaviour can be discouraged by regular police patrols. The appointment of a community beat officer represents a valuable contribution in any such neighbourhood. However, the police cannot be everywhere. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 established community safety executives, under local authorities, which allowed elected members to highlight local experiences of antisocial behaviour and to respond by agreeing a strategy with the police and the local authority.
  Under local government reorganisation, that procedure was replaced by local partnerships that have no direct accountability to the council. I look forward to assurances from the Minister who winds up the debate that the effectiveness of the Bill's new provisions to deliver safer communities will not be undermined by the new and remote partnerships that have replaced the local community safety executives.
  I welcome the measures to tackle the misuse of air weapons. They include some of the proposals in the 10-minute rule Bill that I introduced last year—the Firearms (Replica Weapons) Bill—which would have banned the acquisition and use of airsoft weapons by anyone under the age of 17 unless supervised by an adult. I was extremely grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), for meeting me to discuss my Bill.
  I introduced the Bill after the traumatic experience of two of my young constituents—sisters—who were targeted in a public place by a ball bearing gun. Such incidents involving BB guns occur regularly throughout the country, but that will no longer be the case if the Bill is effective. We must all welcome that.
  My local Dorset police—like all forces—will welcome measures to tackle the availability of replica weapons. All too frequently, we read reports about the police reacting to the brandishing of guns in public, only to find that they are replicas. Apart from that being a costly waste of police resources, it can lead to tragic consequences. However, the Bill does not appear to respond to police requests for tougher controls on the sale of toy guns.
  Last week, the Bournemouth Daily Echo reported that the cab window of a passenger train passing through Poole town centre had been fired at by a paintball gun, which could have obliterated the view of the driver. One can imagine the consequences for a car driver if his windscreen was sprayed with paint in that way. Like the use of airsoft guns, the use of paint guns without supervision should also be banned.
  Finally, I am disappointed that the Bill does not strengthen police powers to deal with the antisocial behaviour of large groups of travellers who occupy public parks and open spaces with unauthorised encampments. When I introduced my Traveller Law Reform Bill on 10 July last year, I described the horrific experience in Bournemouth in Christmas 2001 and in
  190
  the new year of 2002, when 300 caravans and vehicles and 800 people occupied Kings park in my constituency. My Bill would define the rights and responsibilities of travellers.
  As the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill does not refer to the antisocial problems posed by travellers, I look forward to proposing my own constructive solutions when I reintroduce my private Member's Bill on Wednesday 7 May. I look forward to the support of the Government for that measure.
  3.58 pm
  Alan Howarth: For me, too, it would be an unusual constituency surgery if no one came to me with a story about the distress that their household was experiencing due to antisocial behaviour. It is to the Government's credit that they have fully recognised the problem and have already responded in a range of ways, notably in the 1998 legislation that set up crime and disorder reduction partnerships. That was enthusiastically welcomed by the police and the local authority in Newport, who have themselves addressed the challenges to increasingly good effect.
  The new White Paper and the Bill will add valuably to the panoply of interventions available to public authorities. In Newport, we especially welcome the powers to disperse intimidating groups in designated areas and to close down premises used for drug dealing; the powers on air guns, replicas and graffiti; and the scope to accredit neighbourhood wardens. Newport's estate rangers, now renamed the community safety warden service, have won the respect and confidence of local people.
  Of course, there will be differences of view. I have found different reactions to fixed penalty notices for 16 and 17-year-olds and to the provision for faster eviction as between the police in Newport and the youth offending team. There are greater doubts still about the appropriateness of the proposals concerning housing benefit. However, the important point is that the added powers will be provided for use at the discretion of local agencies and partnerships. It is positively valuable that the merits and demerits of using them should be debated thoughtfully at local level. I shall make three points.
  My first point is that prevention is better than cure. Indeed, that is the title of an excellent document on policy for young people produced by the Welsh Assembly Government.
  Risk factors for children and young people are more likely to occur in low-income households where unemployment is endemic, where there are housing problems and where there is a culture of substance misuse. So, to resurrect a phrase, we must be tough on the causes of antisocial behaviour. The Government's commitment against poverty and in support of good public services is central to that strategy.
  In 1997 and 1998, in the Department for Education and Employment, I had the privilege of working with my right hon. Friend who is now the Home Secretary on the new deal, the national child care strategy and sure start, all of which were early and essential building blocks in the strategy.
  My observation of children and young people is that they need two things: love and success. Where they have both, they will thrive. Where one is missing, they may

  191
  get by. Where there is neither, they will almost certainly be in real difficulty. Love is not for the state to provide, but it can help. The Government are right to focus on parenting through Parenting Plus and support for home start, which does a wonderful job in Newport, as well as to introduce the new powers on parenting contracts and parenting orders. That so many parents who have been subject to parenting orders express enthusiasm and recommend them to others shows us, if we are in doubt, that inadequate parents do not want to be inadequate. Intensive fostering and intensive support schemes will enable children to receive care and attention that may make all the difference to them emotionally.
  Without compromising standards, schools can find opportunities for all their pupils to achieve success in some area and the respect of their peers.
  Andrew Selous: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that where the love and support of parents is not available to children, the constant attention of a mentor throughout a child's development can be a crucial factor in developing that life in a positive direction?
  Mr. Howarth: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is difficult to find mentors and mentoring is a difficult role to play, but I do not doubt that he is right that where they can be brought into play, they will play a valuable part.
  We are doing much more to provide sufficient sporting facilities, but we must do still more to ensure that there are enough recreational facilities that are affordable and available for people in deprived communities. Those who are working on the ground in the more disadvantaged wards of Newport, East tell me that, while more funding is available for intervening when things have already gone wrong, not enough funding is available for preventive work. It is a struggle even to obtain a few thousand pounds to refurbish a youth club or to fund young people to make a video. Early intervention and preventive investment should have consistently higher priority.
  That takes me to my next main point, which is about prioritisation and integration of effort. Antisocial behaviour covers a multitude of sins, from unkempt gardens to systematic persecution. Holistic approaches are needed, but vaporous terms such as "holistic" and "partnership" do not get us very far.
  The partner agencies have other pressing duties. The police must deal with serious crime. The health service must deal with cancer and heart disease. On what basis are they and other partners to commit resources to antisocial behaviour? How then are they to prioritise between different varieties of antisocial behaviour?
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in the White Paper and the Bill, is giving a clear lead. Government, whether in Whitehall or Cardiff, needs consistently across all Departments to follow that lead. The police now know, with the national policing strategy that was published in November, that antisocial behaviour is to be a higher priority than in the past. I trust that the resources and the performance indicators emanating from across government will reflect that. However, if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. The Government need to make it clear where in the plethora of priorities antisocial behaviour ranks.
  192
  We need consistent approaches between levels of government, between Departments, between different areas and over time. To ensure delivery, we need more than just identification of where lead responsibility lies among Departments and individuals, important though that has been. We need to overcome the problem of agencies and Departments operating as separate fiefdoms. All must be equally committed, because if we fail to deal with one part of a complex pathology, we will undermine the rest of what we do. Hitherto, in Newport, we have not, for example, had the commitment that we needed from the health service to our crime and disorder reduction partnership. Too little effort and resource have gone into the child and adolescent mental health service. Public service agreements, business plans, targets and performance indicators must all reiterate the same story. We need to pool budgets for antisocial behaviour to a greater extent. Multi-agency training must be developed further. Partnership must become integration.
  We also need to improve our base of evidence. We need systematic recording of antisocial behaviour, the number and severity of instances, the profile of perpetrators, and the damage that is done, as well as progress on objectives. Cost-benefit analysis in this complex inter-agency arena is not easy, as the Newport community safety partnership has noted in a thoughtful and candid strategy document. We must disseminate what has been found to work to good effect—perhaps that will be a role for the Government's new antisocial behaviour unit.
  My final point is about community confidence and resilience. Antisocial behaviour damages vulnerable communities the most, and hurts the most vulnerable people in them the worst. There are things, however, that can be done quickly to help to build confidence.
  Neighbourhood agreements, as recommended in the social exclusion unit report of 2000, can establish ground rules whereby communities agree standards of acceptable behaviour and service providers set out the service that the community can expect. If people who have been frightened, confused and disillusioned know what they have a right to expect and what behaviour is within the pale and what is beyond, they will be better able to regroup and stand up for themselves.
  Chris Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned something that is surely as important as any other factor. Would not it be a good idea if those who transgressed were simply punished, so that then they might not do it again?
  Alan Howarth: Of course—I shall come to that. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman.
  There has been one consistent call from the public over the past 20 years which, until now, has been consistently rejected by the police—it has been for the return of the bobby on the beat. Experienced police officers in Newport regard it as highly desirable. The local policeman, known by all and knowing them, was a symbol of authority and the community's insistence on law and order, and was a very effective deterrent for young people minded to misbehave. I am pleased that in areas of Newport the local policeman, now called the crime and disorder reduction officer, is once again a

  193
  familiar figure, and a greatly appreciated one. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is increasing police numbers and introducing community support officers, but if he can provide further resources to fund regular uniformed foot patrols in the areas worst affected by antisocial behaviour, it would do much to create a sense of security and improve community morale.
  When antisocial behaviour orders were introduced, they seemed to be just what was needed to deal directly and firmly with the troublemakers. They were so beset, however, with procedural restrictions and complications that they proved disappointing. Improvements were made in the 2002 legislation, and the Government's new proposals will improve ASBOs further. Newport welcomes the provision that local authorities will be able to prosecute for breaches of ASBOs, although the problem with prosecutions is to provide evidence that will hold good in court. We have had very few ASBOs in Newport. In one case, it is clear that the young person has routinely breached the ASBO and threatens in the most terrifying way people who might give evidence against him. They are certain that he would deliver on his promise. His only certainty seems to be that he will continue to get away with it. As the Government say in the White Paper, "effective enforcement is key". I therefore welcome their proposals to improve the protection of witnesses and the training of magistrates and judges, and to establish community justice centres where justice should be accessible and speedy.
  We can further build community confidence if the rotten apples are taken out of the barrel quickly and decisively. When warnings and other less draconian interventions have failed, action is justified to remove individuals or families who are poisoning their neighbourhoods. Eviction must clearly be a last resort, but the Government are right to provide more powers for use when necessary.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had his eight minutes.
  4.9 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have observed, the Bill includes worthwhile measures to address the phenomena of drugs, firearms, litter, noise and graffiti. I salute Ministers for advancing those policies, but there are weaknesses in the Bill, and it is my responsibility in this debate to highlight some of them.
  Reference has been made on both sides of the House to the provisions for the reduction of security of tenure. It is possible, as the Government intend, to demote tenancies in certain instances. However, we must be careful to reflect not only on the motive behind the policy, but on its probable consequences. I readily concede that some people who are thoroughly antisocial and pestilential nuisances can cause their neighbours and local authorities to reach the end of their tether. In some circumstances, there may be no alternative but to evict a tenant—though the Bill does not readily provide for such an outcome—from a home owned by a local authority or where the person is a tenant of a housing action trust or a registered social landlord.
  194
  It behoves us to reflect, however, on the policy implications elsewhere of enforcing such a decision, which might prove necessary. What are we to do in respect of the provision of bed-and breakfast-accommodation? Have we factored in its likely cost? How many people will be affected by it? If it is judged that the circumstances justify breaking up the family, are we prepared to contemplate the reality of the consequences of that for which we are legislating—that some children will be forced into the alternative hell of serial fostering arrangements or of institutionalised care?
  I am not saying categorically that it would be rash to do so and that no such outcome could ever be justified. It might be the lesser of two evils or the least worst outcome. However, simply to congratulate ourselves and give the impression of complacency to the outside world would be foolhardy in the extreme. If we legislate as the Government propose—without amendment, adequate back-up or safeguards—other policy implications will arise. If we act as clauses 14 and 15 provide, we will not necessarily deal with the problem, but simply move it on to another destination.
  If the Under-Secretary were willing to acknowledge the point—I am not making it in a partisan sense, but in a constructive spirit—I would appreciate it. It would also be helpful if he could tell us more about the other aspects of Government policy between Departments that would require additional funding, integration and co-ordination. That would contribute towards the practical outcome of joined-up government, to which we all sign up in principle.
  I have a second concern, shared by hon. Members in all parts of the House, which is about the provision in clause 22 for the imposition of fixed penalty notices on parents whose children have played truant. It is easy to provide for that, to wield the big stick, to seem tough and to indulge in a self-gratifying display of machismo by saying, "We are dealing with the matter", but are we really doing so? I salute the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) who, on the strength of her professional experience, expressed real concerns about empowering a head teacher or teacher to impose that penalty. I entirely agree with her.
  Let us reflect on what that could mean for relations between the teacher and the parent; between the teacher and the pupil; and—last but by no means least—between the parent and the pupil. There is an argument for applying fixed penalties, which I readily concede. It avoids a more time-consuming and long-winded method of addressing the problem. However, I implore the Under-Secretary to reflect in sober and constructive fashion in Committee on whether there is a more effective way of dealing with the problem. I sometimes think that if a clause is very long, as clause 22 is—it consumes or absorbs three pages of the Bill—there is probably something wrong with it. I say to hon. Members that proposed new section 444B to the Education Act 1996 contains no fewer than 10 subsections, the first of which, appertaining to the provision for regulation or secondary legislation, itself contains no fewer than 11 paragraphs. There is something wrong here; the provision is vague, ill-defined and imprecise. The meat needs to be put on to the bone. That is not an application to be included in the Standing

  195
  Committee, although I shall obviously have to put up with the judgments that my hon. Friends in the Whips Office make on these important matters.
  My third concern is the consideration of fixed penalties in relation to 16 and 17-year-olds. I am anxious about that as well. Of course, people who are undermining the quality of life of others have to be confronted, punished and shown a better way forward. However, if some of those people have next to nothing by way of financial resources, is it an intelligent policy option for this House to say "We shall fine you"? Even Ministers seem to recognise the potential lacuna in their provisions, as clause 38, which deals with this matter, refers to the capacity of the Secretary of State to specify different amounts for persons of different ages. That conjures up extraordinary ideas of a 13-year-old being subjected to one penalty while a 16-year-old is subjected to another and a 17-year-old to yet another. That seems extraordinary. I am not sure that there is a rationale behind that approach or whether it has been thought through.
  The problem is that there is too much focus in the Bill on inputs and not enough attention directed to outputs. I do not want breast-beating from the Home Secretary and I do not want him to legislate simply to feel better or to appeal to the Daily Mail or other tabloid newspapers. I want him to legislate to improve the quality of life for people in my constituency and among the citizenry of this country. The Bill needs to be scrutinised rigorously, thoroughly and remorselessly, and that is what my hon. Friends will do.
  4.17 pm
  Laura Moffatt: I am very interested to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), particularly in the light of his comments about fixed penalty fines. I should like to develop an argument firmly in favour of fixed penalties and I hope that that will complement his contribution.
  It is obvious from the number of hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate that we completely understand the corrosive and severely damaging psychological impacts of antisocial behaviour in our communities. Good people need to know that Members of this House are on their side. That is what I firmly believe the Bill is about—supporting people who for too long have had to put up with the sort of behaviour that we all know we are discussing.
  All of us have been visited by people with such concerns. I live in a community in which we suffer from many of the problems that have been raised on the Floor of the House. It is interesting to note that some members of our community think that it is all right to throw out an old mattress into the street and that it is okay to have a party all night so that the children cannot get up for school in the morning. Such people cannot quite understand why others find their behaviour offensive. It is about time that we made a difference through partnership work with our local authorities and police.
  Last week, I held an advice surgery in Crawley. I was pleased that when a family and other neighbours came to complain about severe disruption caused by another neighbour, the police came too. They held the surgery with me and were bigger advocates of Home Office policies under this Government than anybody I have
  196
  ever met. The police shared with residents the fact that new powers are in place, and extra powers are coming. I felt extremely heartened about that.
  No doubt we will all choose to deal with particular aspects of the Bill, as we do not have time to mention everything on which we would like to comment. I pledge my support to most aspects of the Bill, which is a positive contribution to making our communities safer and, frankly, nicer to live in. The issue I want to consider in particular is fly tipping, which affects many people not only in towns but in the countryside. I recently attended an excellent seminar organised by Environmental Campaigns Ltd—ENCAMS—formerly the Tidy Britain Group. Those attending included representatives of local authorities, rail authorities and others who attempt to deal with the hideous problem of fly tipping. Not only do people who perpetrate fly tipping use large vehicles and believe that it is acceptable to dump tonnes of rubble outside somebody's gate or in a small area where children should play, but they take money for doing it. That goes beyond antisocial behaviour. It shows complete disrespect for our communities. The Bill should provide for extremely tough action to be taken against those who believe that they can charge money for that. Their vehicles should be confiscated so that they can no longer do their job and then take extra money for fly tipping. I hope that we can strengthen the provision on that.
  I support the imposition of a statutory duty on authorities to work together. Fly tipping happens in all our constituencies and counties. We need co-operation to ensure that local authorities understand the way in which they work and how to reach out to each other to prevent it. The Bill gives them the ability to do that but I should like it to provide for a statutory duty on them to consult each other on creating partnerships in counties.
  I chaired my local authority's environment committee for nine years, and I am pleased that my son recently qualified as an environmental health officer. He now lives and works in London and would argue that noise is one of the most difficult problems for neighbours, especially noise that happens through the night. It is often caused by people who do not work during the day and do not have the discipline to think, "It's midnight, perhaps I'd better go to bed." They play music and disrupt their neighbours' lives. I should like environmental health officers to be properly supported, and I want to consider fixed penalty notices in that context. Some people simply do not think about others, and it would be right to apply a fixed penalty notice to them. I also believe that the equipment should be taken away in cases of constant abuse. I am glad that my local authority has used that power effectively.
  My authority and Sussex police were desperate to be chosen to pilot fixed penalty notices and were disappointed when they were not. They support their introduction because they have conducted a programme in Crawley called Operation Marble, which has reduced town centre disorder and crime by more than 35 per cent. through in-your-face policing. The police have a presence in the town centre and a video camera. They tell people, "If you don't go home now, you'll end up in court with us." Taking money from disruptive people and spoiling their night is perfect because it does not mean a criminal record. Young people who behave badly often regret it bitterly later. I hope that we can

  197
  make the maximum use of fixed term penalties to ensure that we tackle antisocial behaviour in our communities properly.
  Mr. Bercow:: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Laura Moffatt: I shall not give way because many more people want to speak.
  I fully support the aspects of the Bill that will improve life in our communities, and I sincerely hope that we can say in the near future that the Government have truly tackled antisocial behaviour.
  4.24 pm
  Andrew Selous: Like all the hon. Members who have spoken so far today, I very much welcome the focus of the Government's attention on the whole issue of antisocial behaviour. I have no doubt that this is the most serious issue facing our country today, and I do not say that lightly, given the other issues that we are tackling in all our public services. I believe that to be the case, and I base that statement on the experiences of the constituents I meet as I go round my constituency and of those who come to my advice surgeries, and on the findings of the surveys and questionnaires that I have undertaken since I was elected to Parliament. Time and again, antisocial behaviour and crime are put ahead of people's other concerns about health, education or transport.
  The Government are absolutely right to focus on this issue. It is a huge issue; indeed, it is probably so big that we need something comparable, in our own time, to the reformation of manners that Wilberforce wanted to launch in his day. The scale of the problem before us really is of that nature. When we look at antisocial behaviour, we have to look at the long-term causes that have brought about the state of affairs today as well as at the short-term remedies that we are going to bring to bear on the problem. Looking at the long-term causes, I find myself in complete agreement with the White Paper. On page 21, it states:
  "Healthy communities are built on strong families."
  It goes on to say that
  "Parents…have to ensure their children understand the difference between right and wrong."
  How true those words are. If the people engaging in antisocial behaviour today had had the good fortune to be in homes in which right and wrong were clearly portrayed to them from an early age, the scale of the problem would be very much less today.
  I welcome the Government's focus on trying to support family life. I welcome the measures in the Bill and the expenditure in the Lord Chancellor's Department and elsewhere to try to do something about the scale of the problem involved in putting family life back together in this country. I would say, however, that the amounts being so spent are minuscule compared with the cost to the Government of picking up the pieces. I wonder whether it is time for us all to have an honest debate in the House about whether we need to shift the balance a little more between prevention and cure in this area.
  198
  I will judge the success or failure of the Bill on whether it makes a real difference in cases such as those that have arisen in my constituency recently. To preserve the privacy of those concerned, I shall not go into them in detail. The first case concerned a young mother who was desperate to move from her council flat because of the behaviour of the tenants above her. The second involved a young man whose door had been kicked down twice and had paint spattered all over it. The third involved a mother whose daughter had received death threats from people further down the street. In the fourth case, a young couple suffered such continual noise and disruption in their first home that their only option was to move out of the area. Perhaps the most harrowing case of all, however, involved a gentleman who came to see me two weeks ago. He and his partner had been forced to put their two young children into voluntary care to get them out of the street and the immediate neighbourhood in which they lived.
  These are unacceptable circumstances for any of our constituents to find themselves in, and the real test of the Bill will be whether it will make a meaningful difference to such people, and whether it will help us to move forward and to solve problems such as the five in my constituency that I have outlined.
  To solve such problems, we need more police on the streets. There is no other way round the problem. To enforce the measures in the Bill, we need more police constables patrolling our constituencies. That is why I welcome unreservedly the measures proposed by my own Opposition Front Bench to put 40,000 more police on to our streets over the next eight years. The Government have talked about increased police numbers, and I welcome that, but there is a difference between the establishment that the Government figures describe and the number of officers on the ground. In one of my police stations the other day, there were supposed to be six officers and a sergeant out on patrol. The reality was that there were only two constables. All the others were either elsewhere doing training courses or attending magistrates courts. They were not there to do the job that they had been called to do.
  We also need courts that will process cases much faster. One of my constituents had his front door kicked down in January and again in February. He tells me that the court case will be delayed until June by forensic laboratory tests. The spattering of his door with paint, also in February, is still being investigated. That gentleman will have had to suffer the results of extreme antisocial behaviour for five months—150 days—because of the slowness of our courts.
  We must ensure that guidelines and regulations, as well as the laws passed here, are intelligible. I learned recently that a local authority felt that it must inform people who had been complained about of the intention to install noise-monitoring equipment. That impression was corrected only by a letter to me from the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life, citing the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I wonder how many local authorities and housing authorities are not using powers available to them because the guidance and regulations are not clear.
  Finally, let me say something about litter, graffiti and fly tipping. I feel passionately about the problem of litter, which, as many Members have said, represents the first step in the descent into antisocial behaviour. We

  199
  cannot rely entirely on local authorities and others to clear up litter; we need to realise that we are all responsible for the litter outside our houses, outside shops and outside businesses. Until we understand that we are all involved, not just our local authority litter-pickers, we will not make things better. Schools can play a vital role in teaching children and young people about the importance of picking up litter and not dropping it themselves.
  When I go for a walk with my family nowadays, we take plastic bags with us so that we can pick up litter. Such action can lead to a staggering change in attitude—a sense of ownership of the street or road in which one lives.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his eight minutes.
  4.32 pm
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: I welcome the Bill. I am glad that a Labour Government are finally getting tough on the menaces who plague decent, upstanding citizens. The Bill is about decency, and about tackling what I call the yob culture out there.
  I want to comment on parts 3, 4, 5 and 6, and to link them with my constituency and with what my local authorities are doing. Clauses 29 and 38 will be warmly welcomed by my constituents in the Hemlington ward of south Middlesbrough, because they finally give the police and other authorities power to challenge antisocial youths and other groups on our streets. Their behaviour has been a particular problem in Hemlington, on estates and in the shopping precinct. Local shopkeepers tell me that the excessive numbers of youths congregating in the precinct frighten away their customers, many of whom are elderly. Not just the profitability but the very survival of many of those shopkeepers is threatened as a result, and ordinary men and women are forced to change their normal routines because of the behaviour patterns of a small minority.
  I also welcome clause 32, which gives powers to community support officers, thus freeing police resources and enabling them to be targeted more efficiently. It also establishes a more flexible and consistent framework of crime prevention, as opposed to reaction to crime. Both the local authorities in my area, Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland borough councils, operate warden schemes. Thanks to mayor Ray Mallon's lead, Middlesbrough now has one of the biggest schemes in the country, tied to a comprehensive database that logs the shifting patterns of antisocial behaviour and can quickly identify emerging hotspots. The Redcar and Cleveland borough council scheme is similarly spread over a large area. The authority deserves praise for being the first in the country to achieve a warden presence in every community. Those measures in the Bill will provide support for the good work already being achieved by local authorities in my constituency. The task now is to align the work of those wardens with the new powers and duties that will be open to them under the Bill.
  Cleveland police have reported that there are 2,110 fewer victims of crime on a year-on-year basis. In January to March this year, compared to January to March last year, individual incidents of crime fell by
  200
  2,470. With a record number of 1,600 officers and 40 police community support officers, that provides a good base on which to build the new legislation.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman referred with enthusiasm to clause 38. What merit is there in imposing a financial penalty on 16 and 17-year-olds who have no money, who will get into debt in paying the penalty or who will simply fail to comply? Would it not be better to punish them in a more constructive way?
  Dr. Kumar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment, but he has not seen the study from the four pilot areas, which has demonstrated that most offenders are generally happy to pay within 21 days, so his case does not hold up.
  Matthew Green: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the pilot areas that he cites penalty notices were not applied to 16 and 17-year-olds? They were applied to those aged 18 or over, so he is quoting something that does not meet the point that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made.
  Dr. Kumar: There is no evidence to suggest, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) claimed, that those people would not be able to pay. They are paying. In answer to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), we have no way of knowing that they will not pay.
  Middlesbrough council told me that previous legislation has enabled it to become more proactive in relation to crime and antisocial behaviour. Legislation such as the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Local Government Act 2000 has given local authorities the ability to tackle antisocial behaviour head on and they are using those powers to help to win court orders excluding particular named individuals from areas where those people have terrorised whole communities of decent people.
  I strongly welcome part 6, clauses 42 to 44. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), is on the Front Bench. North-east MPs made strong representations to him on that aspect of the Bill, which deals with the possession of air weapons, especially by youngsters under the age of 17, and the potential outlawing of air weapons capable of being "re-engineered" so as to fire conventional ammunition.
  The misuse of air weapons has been a big issue in my constituency and across Teesside and the north-east. It led to my local paper, the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette, running the brilliant "ban the young guns" campaign, and a petition carrying many thousands of signatures collected across Teesside being presented to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on a visit to that paper's offices.
  There has been case after case of youngsters using air guns and rifles in open space around some of the more isolated villages in the east Cleveland area. It has escalated into people becoming the victims of air rifle sniping. A number of families in my constituency have been lucky not to lose a son or daughter, or at least see

  201
  them blinded. The banning of the sale of air weapons to children under 17 will remove at a stroke the conduit through which this behaviour occurs.
  Similarly, I welcome the provision in clause 42 that bans the carrying of imitation firearms in a public place. As we know, such imitation weapons are not the cap-guns of our youth; they are carefully engineered replicas of real weapons such as those made by Smith and Wesson, Uzi and Heckler and Koch. We all know that these weapons have been used in robberies. A few months ago, a shop in the Tees Valley ran a quarter-page advert in a regional paper advertising such weapons. One possible amendment to clause 42 could involve banning any advertising of such weapons, except at the point of sale. I ask the Minister to consider such a provision. After all, we already ban the advertising of tobacco goods, and it could be argued that a similar case can be made in this regard.
  I strongly welcome the Bill, and I wish it a happy passage through this House and elsewhere.
  4.41 pm
  Chris Grayling: I, too, welcome the Government's attempts in this area, although I have to say that this is a bits and pieces Bill. Some of it is good, some of it bad, and frankly, other bits of it are pointless. However, it is a step on the road, and I commend Ministers for that. There is an awful lot more to do in an area that undoubtedly affects every one of our constituents to some degree. Society as a whole has got to get to grips with this problem; otherwise, the decline in standards will lead to an increasing number of people feeling oppressed and under siege. Indeed, those of our elderly population who come into contact with antisocial behaviour will feel downright scared, and their entire quality of life could be affected. It is therefore extremely important that we get to grips with this issue.
  I want to begin by confronting the Minister head-on with the Home Secretary's comments in his opening address about police numbers. My constituency is on the fringes of London, and like many other Members with such constituencies, I see the real problems that are caused by the way in which the Government are handling police funding and rewards, and by their entire approach to policing. I want to take the Minister to task on the problems that we face, and to encourage him to look more closely at them.
  The truth immediately outside London is that, far from having more police, we have too few police and the numbers are reducing. We suffer from an overspill factor: a Metropolitan police area that has undoubtedly gained more officers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who is not in her place, said, even certain London areas do not have enough police on the streets. However, it is counties such as Surrey, Buckinghamshire, Kent and Essex that are suffering in particular from the drive to recruit officers into the Metropolitan police. We as a nation are rightly facing the huge challenges that have to be met, and the Government are right to attempt to bring more officers into the Met. We see them on the streets protecting the London Eye and this place against terrorism.
  202
  However, the reality is that a combination of the Met's aggressive outward recruitment policy in the past year or two and huge pay disparities across the London boundary—an officer in the Metropolitan police area earns £6,000 a year more than an officer in a station just two or three miles away, and receives free travel as well—has led to a huge flow of officers from just outside London into the Metropolitan police area. I see that happening day in, day out, week in, week out in my constituency. A few months ago, I stood talking to an officer in the yard of Epsom police station. He said, "I look around here and I see officers who I know are going to the Metropolitan police." The beat constable in Ashtead, the village where I live, has joined the Met. Senior officers from Epsom and Ewell have left to join the Met. I also recently visited some special constables at the local police station. The specials do excellent work in our area, across Surrey and throughout the country. They are a very under-praised resource.
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth: In his tirade against the Metropolitan police, will not the hon. Gentleman accept that that force is training record numbers of recruits, and that it loses officers to other forces as well as gaining them from other forces? It is a two-way process, as the figures show.
  Chris Grayling: I take issue with the Minister over that. When, as the local Member of Parliament, I visited my local police station, I discovered that the special constables are the longest serving officers in the area. They are the ones who retain knowledge of the area's particular problems, and who know who the troublemakers are. Part of the challenge of tackling antisocial behaviour is knowing who the troublemakers are, where to find them and where to watch over them. When the experience in a police area resides mostly with the volunteers, and when the regular officers are mainly raw recruits who stay around for a year or two before they cross the border for £6,000 a year more, the Minister must understand that that has an impact on policing, and on the force's ability to tackle antisocial behaviour.
  Andrew Selous: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and my force in Bedfordshire suffers from exactly the problems that he has described. Does he agree that there is something unethical about offering officers London allowances for housing and so on—and free travel—when they live outside London? It is simply not fair on forces outside London, which suffer a terrible problem of retention. Many young people do not consider joining their local county forces, but instead go straight to the Met.
  Chris Grayling: I very much echo the points made by my hon. Friend. We will be able to tackle antisocial behaviour in the areas outside London only if we move away from the present arbitrary allowance structure. We need an allowance structure that gradually dips as one moves further away from London, not one that simply falls off a cliff.
  Moreover, the resourcing levels received by forces outside London following changes to the grant structure mean that it is impossible for neighbourhood officers to tackle antisocial behaviour in the way we want them to.

  203
  I have another example for the Minister. One of my local police stations is just across the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), but it also serves parts of my constituency. A couple of weeks ago we discovered that its four neighbourhood officers did not have access to a police car. I hope that the lack is being rectified, but the example shows the problems that we face in the south-east, where the structure of police funding has moved resources away from the fringe forces. The resources have either gone into the Metropolitan police area, or to forces elsewhere in the country. Ministers need to understand that.
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong that outer London areas such as my constituency and his own—which is on London's outer rim, although not part of greater London—should be so badly affected by the fact that the Metropolitan police's resources are centred on inner London? As a result, we are disadvantaged, as all the resources are spent in the inner London areas. Does he also agree that we need to restore community beat officers? They understand communities and know their areas like the backs of their hands, and they know too who are the people who cause the antisocial behaviour that we want to tackle.
  Chris Grayling: I agree totally with my hon. Friend. That is why it is so frustrating in constituencies such as mine to see an experienced neighbourhood beat officer—who knows the troublemakers and who has worked for months to tackle the problem—being tempted away to go and work a few miles up the road for £6,000 a year more. The Minister must understand the problems that that causes. I hope that the Home Office will be able to provide some solution in the months ahead.
  I have a couple of final points to make. The first is in relation to graffiti. I welcome the proposals in the Bill to outlaw the sale of cans of spray paint to people under 18 years of age, but will the Minister look at the issue of internet sales? It appears that a number of suppliers of specialist spray paints specifically designed for graffiti make their products available via the internet. The methods outlined in the Bill to tackle graffiti may very well fail to deal with that problem. When he discusses the detail of the Bill in Standing Committee, will the Minister, with his officials and members of the Committee, give full consideration to the matter? I hope that he will be able to find ways to tighten the Bill to ensure that the trafficking that I have described cannot take place.
  Finally, I want to turn to the principle that parents can be fined, and that teaching staff will carry out the process. That is nonsense. Teachers are already exposed to dealing with the practical difficulties of antisocial behaviour—in the classroom, and from parents who challenge their authority. Teaching is an extremely difficult job. All too often, our teachers find themselves up before the police or the courts facing spurious allegations from young people. That is not an isolated event: it happens all the time. Simply expecting our teachers to stand up in the face of troublesome parents and issue a fixed penalty notice is unrealistic and absurd, and the Government need to think again, because there
  204
  has to be a better way. The principle of tackling parents whose children cause trouble is a good one, but this is not the right way to do it.
  I welcome the overall strategy of the Bill, but it goes only a fraction of the way towards dealing with the problem, and some of the ideas in it are frankly wrong. I hope that in Committee it can turn from an inadequate Bill into a much more effective Bill that will achieve the goals that hon. Members on both sides of the House want it to achieve.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. Marsha Singh: I rise to support the Bill. We should regard it not as a stand-alone Bill, but as part of a package of measures that the Government are taking, which includes the Criminal Justice Bill, the Fireworks Bill and the forthcoming housing Bill. When that package is in place, we will be in a very good position to tackle crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour on the streets in our towns and cities.
  We all know that antisocial behaviour, even at low levels, is a major problem on our streets—it certainly is in my constituency. It can and does damage our communities, our quality of life and our environment. There is an even more important reason to tackle antisocial behaviour: if we do not, we are in danger of allowing young people or, indeed, older people who engage in such behaviour to drift into more serious crime. It is of paramount importance to draw the line and to say, "Stop now, before you transgress further and possibly end up in prison."
  I strongly welcome part 1 of the Bill, which gives the police powers to close down premises that are being used for the supply or use of class A drugs or are associated with disorder or nuisance to the public. Some hon. Members suggested that that part of the Bill should not be there. However, every time constituents have raised the issue with me it has been clear that nuisance and disorder are created just by the comings and goings, noise and so forth, and the police will not find it difficult to deal with. I very much welcome the speed with which action can be taken. When a closure notice is served, a court hearing will be held within 48 hours. I commend that, and I wish that other parts of our criminal justice system responded as quickly.
  My attention has been drawn to clause 10, which deals with compensation. I was surprised by that, and I ask the Minister to clarify the circumstances in which compensation might be paid to an owner of closed premises. I cannot imagine that such an owner would not know what had been going on in his or her premises and must have gone on with his or her consent.
  I generally welcome part 2, which deals with housing issues and associated antisocial behaviour. Clause 12 requires social landlords to publish antisocial behaviour policies and procedures. The Local Government Association contends that that is unnecessary and will lead to duplication, as those duties already exist under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that criticism.
  I support clause 14 and the power to allow a secure tenancy to be brought to an end by a demotion order. That clearly says to tenants who are engaged in antisocial behaviour that the writing is on the wall. If

  205
  they do not then change their behaviour, they have had their final public warning and must accept the consequences of continuing with it. I am happy that there is also a carrot: if the antisocial behaviour ceases, after a year the secure tenancy will be reinstated. That is perfectly right and fair.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I want to pick up on that point about a cooling-off period. The hon. Gentleman comes from an area that probably has more problems than my rural area, but does he feel that one year is long enough? Where antisocial behaviour is concerned, offenders tend to be repeat offenders.
  Mr. Singh: I am not sure; we will have to suck it and see. Given my Government's willingness to see how legislation works in practice, I am confident that, if there is a problem, it will be dealt with.
  I welcome part 4 of the Bill, which is headed "Dispersal of groups etc.". Groups of youths who congregate at various sites can cause tremendous distress and intimidation. Shopkeepers suffer, and elderly citizens in elderly people's homes suffer tremendously, from that kind of behaviour. However, I echo some concerns that hon. Members have raised. The procedure seems quite bureaucratic, and the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who is not in his place at the moment, went through them. In brief, there has to be consultation with the local authority and the publication of a notice. If I were in a gang of young people, as soon as that notice was published, I would move my gang's activities to another site. Would that mean that the whole procedure would have to be gone through again for the new site? I ask the Minister to reconsider the workings of these measures. It may be easier to give the police a direct power, if there is a problem in a particular area, to go and deal with it.
  I welcome part 6 of the Bill, which deals with air weapons and imitation firearms. Part 6 will be widely welcomed—indeed, it has already been welcomed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and like-minded organisations. Last year, the RSPCA recorded 903 incidents of injury to animals by airguns. If this Bill can help to eradicate or reduce that cruel and wanton infliction of suffering on animals, it will have been worth while.
  The Bill proposes to extend the use of fixed penalty notices. I have an open mind on this issue. I understand that pilot projects have proved successful, but will the Minister clarify what will happen if somebody riding a bike on a pavement or doing something else that warrants an FPN refuses to give his or her name and address? I presume that a police officer would have the power of arrest, but what power would a community support officer or a neighbourhood warden have?
  It is hard to discuss antisocial behaviour without referring to the disgraceful scenes at England's international football fixture just a few days ago. That was the most awful antisocial behaviour of all. The Government should revisit their policies on this. It seems to me that the current sanctions have not had the desired effect. Is it not possible—in this Bill or in the Criminal Justice Bill—to introduce an offence of being
  206
  involved in, or causing, violence that takes place at, or is associated with, a sporting event at home or abroad; and can that offence not carry a minimum two-year sentence and a maximum five-year sentence?
  Mr. Banks: Will my hon. Friend join me in suggesting that the English Football Association should not make any tickets available for the return match when England play Turkey in Istanbul?
  Mr. Singh: That is an excellent suggestion. It is obvious that the trouble will be repeated in Istanbul. The FA can and should impose that sanction. I hope that the Minister will consider the points that I have raised in this regard.
  When I listen to the Liberals on crime and disorder and the justice system, I despair. If ever they were in power—God forbid—we would have social workers enforcing our laws, not police officers. Conservative Members can smile, but when they say that they will fund a further 40,000 police officers, will they please tell us where the money will come from? The officers will be funded by tax rises or deep cuts. Will such deep cuts be made to spending on health and hospitals or education?
  Mr. Mark Francois: The funding to provide those extra police officers will come from savings that will result from our new asylum policy, which will use quotas.
  Mr. Singh: The laughter throughout the Chamber shows how ridiculous that comment was.
  I welcome the Bill and I wish it
  well.
  5 pm
  Matthew Green: I want to focus on the Bill's desperately negative overall view of young people. It contains nothing to suggest that the Government value young people. They have done many good things for young people such as setting up the splash initiative and the children and young people's unit, but there is nothing in the Bill for young people except draconian measures. It sends the message that young people are the problem—full stop. Centrepoint says that the Bill has a "prevailing negativity". The Bill is all about enforcement; there is nothing about prevention or rehabilitation.
  There is confusion about the age at which provisions apply throughout the Bill. Part 4 addresses the removal of young people to their houses by police, and it will apply to people under 16. Part 5 of the Bill relates to penalty notices and if the Secretary of State were to pass a statutory instrument, the provisions could apply to children as young as 10. Part 6—"Firearms"—will set an age limit of 17, and provisions in part 7 will set an age limit for buying spray paint at 18. The Government are confused about the age at which young people are defined under the Bill. Will they make up their mind whether the age is 16, 10, 17 or 18, because it would be easier to find support for the Bill if they reached a satisfactory view?
  There is a real oddity about the provisions on spray paint. People aged 17 may hold a driving licence and buy a car, but if their car gets scratched, they will not be allowed to buy spray paint to cover the scratch. If the

  207
  Government reduced the age limit from 18 to 16, many of us would find it easier to support the provision, but they insist on a limit at 18.
  Mr. Wayne David: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the age limit should be 16?
  Matthew Green: I am suggesting that the Bill should adopt a more coherent approach on the ages of young people to which its provisions apply. If we are to have an age limit, I would prefer it to be 16. After all, I introduced a ten-minute Bill to reduce the voting age to 16, so I am being consistent.
  Curfew orders, which were never used, will be abolished and part 4 will instead allow a police officer to exercise the power to take young people back to their homes. The curfews were a matter for a local authority, so the provisions effectively take the power to make decisions from a community's elected local politicians and put it into one person's hands.
  Helen Jones: What would the hon. Gentleman say to residents in the Grasmere area of my constituency who are consistently plagued by gangs of young people? The residents do not care who takes the decision as long as the young people are moved off the streets.
  Matthew Green: If those young people are committing an offence, they should be brought to book. However, let me give the hon. Lady an example. Four or five pensioners go to collect their pensions at the post office—if they still have a post office—and gather outside to discuss something. Obviously, they will not be dispersed and sent home, although technically they could be. However, if a group of four or five young people gather outside the local shop to talk about things, that could be seen as intimidation.
  Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Matthew Green: No, I have given way several times and we have an eight-minute limit on speeches. [Interruption.] Go on, then.
  Shona McIsaac: Third time lucky in my attempts to intervene on a Liberal Democrat.
  On consulting my residents, I discovered that it is not just elderly people who are terrorised by gangs of youths, but younger people themselves. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that? We are only talking about the young people who cause trouble, not those who do nothing wrong.
  Matthew Green: I agree. I did not say that only elderly people were worried. However, article 11 of the convention on human rights, incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998, grants a freedom of association. The Bill goes against that.
  There are two ways to read clause 29(3). I do not think that anyone would have a problem if we took it to mean that a constable can use the power to disperse people when he has reasonable grounds for believing that the behaviour of a group of people has caused members of the public to be intimidated and harassed. However, it also states that that power may be used when
  208
  "a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that the presence…of a group…is likely to result, in any members of the public being…alarmed".
  A few young people standing on a street corner might alarm someone even though they are doing nothing wrong. If the policeman thinks that they are likely to cause alarm, he can disperse them. That clause is odd and it needs to be tightened up considerably in Committee.
  On clause 29, the National Children's Bureau said:
  "This measure will simply increase local tensions among the police and young people, and the community and its young people. The power to disperse a 'group' of 2 or more young people is based on a subjective perception that they are behaving inappropriately, and contravenes their right to free assembly (Article 15 of the UNCRC)"—
  the United Nations convention on the rights of the child—
  "to engage in recreational activities (Article 31 of the UNCRC), and to freedom of association (Article 11 of the Human Rights Act).
  Additionally, there is a general recognition within Government that there is a shortage of suitable places for young people to socialise, and some evidence that both they and their parents prefer that they remain with a group of friends in order to feel—and be—safe."
  Huw Irranca-Davies: I appreciate that the National Children's Bureau and others have a voice that should be heard, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is our responsibility to have a balanced approach so that we provide opportunities for youngsters while coming down like a ton of bricks on the few extreme ones who do not accord with the rules?
  Matthew Green: I do, but the key word is "balanced", and my point is that parts of the Bill are far from balanced. I hope that we will rectify that in Committee.
  On spray paints, I cannot understand how anyone in their right mind can say that someone, aged 17, who wants to fix the car that he owns is not allowed to buy the paint for it. All we will do is stop the shopkeeper selling the paint to the young person. There is nothing to stop that young person walking around with it, asking an 18-year-old to buy it or buying it over the internet. There are huge loopholes that any young person who is determined to use spray paints for graffiti will discover. The Government again doing something that sounds good in headline terms—it gets them an extra line on their leaflets for the local elections—but, if we are to tackle the problem of graffiti, it is not a properly thought-out approach.
  We need a more positive approach. The most successful examples of tackling antisocial behaviour by young people have come as a result of engaging those young people in finding the solutions themselves. There is nothing in the Bill about involving young people in doing that, but that is the way to achieve real progress, and that is what ought to be supported.
  The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), who is not present at the moment, spoke about a group of children who have been involved in helping to tackle problems of antisocial behaviour in their area. I am delighted that they have done so: that is exactly what ought to be happening. When those young people discuss the results of their activity, however, they had

  209
  better not do it in a group standing on the street corner, as they will not be allowed to do so. They better not go down to the shop to buy spray paints—
  Dr. Kumar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Matthew Green: I will not.
  What is more, those young people had better not walk to their friend's house after 9 o'clock at night, if they are under 16, to discuss their success. The Home Office's schizophrenic attitude towards young people has caused severe problems, which it needs to address—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
  5.11 pm
  David Wright: I know that Labour Members will be reassured to know that I have been polishing up my new Labour credentials: I have been reading the coffee table book of the No. 10 policy unit, "Leadership", by Rudolph Giuliani. It is an excellent read, and includes the phrase,
  "Everyone's accountable, all of the tune".
  Of course, he is right. Everyone is accountable all of the time: we are all accountable for our actions. In my view, that applies from the police force chief constable down to every agency dealing with crime and antisocial behaviour, right down to individual citizens. We are all responsible to each other for our behaviour and accountable to each other for our actions.
  One of the criticisms that I have heard this afternoon from many Opposition Members is that the Bill is just another set of proposals adding to what the Government have already done in relation to antisocial behaviour. Is that a bad thing? I do not think so. It strengthens and builds on our work and on the Government's good track record since 1997.
  We need to place the Bill in the context of wider Government policy. We have already heard this afternoon how important the partnership agenda is in terms of delivering our policy approach in relation to reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. We have an excellent community safety partnership in Telford and Wrekin:it is one of the first that came into place. We also have an excellent police force that uses intelligence-led policing to tackle those who perpetrate crime and antisocial behaviour. I have been to the police station at Malinsgate, and have had a look at the way that that system operates, and it is having a tremendous impact on picking out those individuals who are making peoples' lives a misery across our estates and in our communities. It is working extremely well.
  The Bill must be considered in the light of a raft of other Government policies, particularly those relating to neighbourhood renewal. It is incredibly important that we promote sustainable communities across our country, and that we address particular urban areas where crime and urban design are key issues, and where strategies pick up economic regeneration as part of a holistic approach to building sustainable communities. I have a number of wards in my constituency, such as
  210
  Brookside and Stirchley, where the local authority and other agencies are coming together in effective partnership to deal with crime and antisocial behaviour. Two councillors in that area, Councillor Jim Hicks and Councillor Dave Morgan, are doing an excellent job. What they are trying to do is close off underpasses, deal with graffiti and pick up on many of the issues that could be considered as low-level crime and disorder but that affect and impact on people living in those communities.
  The Government's education agenda is also incredibly important. We have already heard this afternoon how important citizenship is. I am very proud of the Government's work to bring citizenship into the heart of the curriculum in this country. We need to promote parenting skills: there has been consensus across the House this afternoon that those skills are extremely important. We also need to build on excellent policy initiatives such as sure start. I have two superb sure start schemes in my constituency, which make a real impact in relation to improving parenting skills and ensuring that we lift the quality of what I would call the social infrastructure of our communities.
  The Government have put a lot of effort into tackling social exclusion—the Bill sits alongside that effort—and looking at tax credits, the minimum wage and the poverty issues that underlie crime and antisocial behaviour in our communities. Contrary to what the Opposition have said, there has been a dramatic increase in police numbers. I was very concerned, however, that those in the local Conservative group on Telford and Wrekin council are not willing to back the neighbourhood warden scheme that the Labour council is proposing, if it gets re-elected in May. [Interruption]. That unwillingness is a symbol of the Conservatives' lack of commitment to such an approach towards dealing with antisocial behaviour.
  We have also heard that alcohol abuse is a key issue, and I welcome the publication of the Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy.
  Peter Bradley: My hon. Friend may not have heard one of only two Conservative Members now in the Chamber say, "We want proper coppers." Does my hon. Friend welcome the 42 extra proper coppers that we have in Telford and Wrekin and the 300 additional police officers that the West Mercia force is recruiting during this year?
  David Wright: I absolutely support and endorse that; it is testament to what we have done as a Government in trying to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour in Telford and Wrekin. I find it amazing that Conservative Members—the Conservative Benches are almost empty—are unable to back some of the quality schemes that a Labour council is trying to put together.
  Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman's constituency neighbours mine, and I am pleased to support the fact that there will be 300 extra police officers in West Mercia. However, that recruitment is the result of a 33 per cent. council tax rise that West Mercia police authority introduced because it has given up waiting for extra funds from central Government. It took the decision into its

  211
  own hands and raised its proportion of the council tax by 33 per cent. last year—a move that I support, and I am sure other hon. Members support it, too.
  David Wright: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports that move. but I cannot see what point he is making. I welcome new police officers in Telford and Wrekin, as does my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley).
  I should like to turn now to some of the specifics in the Bill. The environmental powers in part 7 are particularly welcome, as they are linked with the need to ensure that we improve the urban environment for key communities. Dispersing groups of young people is very important, and we need to strengthen those powers. I know that people in Telford will welcome that because I receive a lot of letters from people complaining about groups of young people hanging around and causing extreme problems in my community.
  The reforms on airguns are also particularly important. I hope that the Minister will take up earlier suggestions about a possible ban on advertising some of the more extreme airgun products. I saw some adverts in a recent Sunday newspaper in which airguns were designed to look like Uzi sub-machine-guns. That marketing was targeted largely at young people. We need to consider the advertising regime for airguns, as well as the need to strengthen the powers in relation to age limits.
  Again, the housing powers, coupled with the new Housing Bill that will be introduced, are welcome. Tenancy demotion is a very good strategy in warning people that their behaviour as social housing tenants may not be acceptable, but it is important that we do not stigmatise social housing tenants, most of whom are extremely good tenants, and we should say that often. Social housing should not be the tenure of last resort in this country; it should be a positive choice for people, and we need to ensure that we do not tar all those who live in social housing with the same brush.
  Most of the antisocial behaviour problems in my constituency often relate to owner-occupiers who act unreasonably, and we need to ensure that the powers in the Bill effectively deal with them. It is very frustrating when people come to see me about the antisocial behaviour of an owner-occupier, because there is little that I can do to support my constituents, except advise them to take legal advice about the terms on which their neighbours purchased their property.
  Antisocial behaviour orders have been mentioned. We have used ASBOs in Telford and Wrekin, but one of the key measurements that we have considered is the fact that in 70 or 80 per cent. of cases where the ASBO process has begun, the ASBO has not had to be used. The initial process necessary to issue an ASBO has resolved the crime and antisocial behaviour. That is a triumph for the system. So we cannot look at the figures and criticise local agencies by saying that ASBOs have not been used effectively. However, local authorities can spray out ASBOs as much as they like, but without backing from other services and agencies they are worthless.
  Much antisocial behaviour could be described as low level, but it is none the less draining of people's morale. It fosters the feeling that an area or an estate is out of
  212
  control and can trigger a spiral of decline. The Bill adds positively to the range of powers available to the police and other local agencies. It deserves the full support of every Member of the House. The Opposition, especially the Liberal Democrats, should remember the words of Rudolph Giuliani:
  "Everyone's accountable, all of the time".
  5.20 pm
  Helen Jones: Like many of my colleagues, I heartily welcome the Bill, which reflects the real concerns of my constituents—decent people who are fed up with having their lives made a misery by a few yobs. My constituents merely want to feel secure going about their daily business and to live unmolested in their own homes. That is not much to ask; in fact, it is the minimum that they should expect us to provide for them.
  There are serious questions to be asked about the type of society that we have created, where antisocial behaviour takes place and people feel powerless to confront it. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that we cannot wait for answers to those philosophical questions; we must do something immediately to protect our constituents. I make no apologies to anyone for coming down heavy on yobs who terrorise a whole neighbourhood and prevent people from living peacefully in their own homes.
  That is why I especially welcome the provisions to deal with premises used for the sale and consumption of drugs. It will not be a problem to prove disorder associated with such premises. Every Member has heard the stories of people who live next door to such places. We have heard about people turning up at all hours of the night looking for their fix. We have heard about the fights that break out, about people knocking on the wrong door and about the drugs paraphernalia left scattered about the area, often where children play. Whether those premises are commercial or residential, the nightmare for their neighbours is the same.
  The Bill's specific provisions, as well as clause 13, which allows social landlords to apply for injunctions when their premises are being used for immoral or illegal purposes, will help to tackle those problems. My constituents do not want a long debate on the subject. They want those dealers off their estates. It is as simple as that.
  It is important that we encourage the courts to attach powers of arrest or exclusion to injunctions; otherwise they will be worthless. We must also encourage social landlords to be proactive in using such powers. Far too many of them still expect their tenants to provide the evidence, and are reluctant to go to court. Too many housing officers expect tenants to put up with conditions that they would not tolerate in a million years. They must tackle the antisocial behaviour, whether from drug dealers or anyone else, on our streets.
  We have all seen such behaviour. In my constituency, there are flats and houses in the middle of decent, well-planned estates where people have moved in and turned the place into a midden. Their friends arrive at all hours of the day or night, blasting out loud music from car stereos and intimidating people who try to intervene. I have seen the neighbours of such people in my

  213
  constituency surgery, almost in tears due to fear and to lack of sleep. They are in despair because nobody is doing anything to help them. We have to tackle such problems, whether through injunctions or possession orders, so I am pleased that the Bill includes provisions to require courts, when considering possession on the grounds of nuisance, to look in to the actual or likely effect of the antisocial behaviour on other people in the neighbourhood.
  We must also ask how we got into this state. I recall the area where I grew up. People were not well off, but the occasional problem family—and we all had them—was well contained. I am forced to the conclusion that that was because communities were more cohesive then. People knew one another. There was a sense that young people were a communal responsibility. We could go in and out of our neighbours' houses. Equally, if children were misbehaving, a passing adult would feel free to stop them. As adults usually knew our mum, our dad, our granny and everybody else, we usually stopped what we were doing fairly quickly.
  We cannot recreate those communities. Society is not the same now. However, we can take the best out of those societies. We can learn the lesson of putting people into work, because work provides the discipline that goes with it. We can learn lessons about breaking down the barriers between generations, about encouraging people to take up voluntary and community services and also about encouraging people to take responsibility for their communities.
  We can also start reclaiming our public spaces so that people feel safe. That is why I welcome the provisions about graffiti and fly posting. Of course, we can all read about crime. If people go out and find that the lights are out and the walls are covered in graffiti—perhaps a group of young people are gathered at the end of the street and are not doing any harm, but because of the way they are dressed they look intimidating, especially to an elderly person—they are fearful. We must reclaim public spaces by improving the environment and through far more community policing.
  I have seen the effects of community policing in part of my constituency. We now have a community action team, which has set up bases in a school and a shopping precinct. The officers patrol on bikes and they get to know the community and the young people within it. We need to encourage more of that, but we also need to give those involved in community policing the powers to tackle real disorder when it occurs.
  In several parts of my constituency we have seen the intimidation and fear that is caused by gangs of youths gathering. These are not ordinary young people who are out for a chat in the evening; they are setting out to intimidate an entire area. I welcome the powers that will be given to the police to designate an area and to disperse groups of young people. Residents in my constituency are not prepared to put up with that sort of behaviour anymore.
  We need to tackle the manifestations of antisocial behaviour. In the long term, we need to examine its root causes. However, we must not tar all young people with the same brush. We must distinguish between real antisocial behaviour and the normal noise that young
  214
  people make. It is not a crime to be 14 and playing football with your mates. Our decent young people should not be denied the use of their own streets and mixing with their own age group because of our intolerance. We can make streets safer for them by tackling the bad apples, and I hope that we shall do so.
  5.28 pm
  Kate Hoey: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who has encapsulated what I think all of us feel about the horror of antisocial behaviour in our constituencies, which blights all our surgeries and everything that we do.
  There is much that I agree with in the Bill. We need to consider it along with the raft of other measures that the Home Office has already introduced and will introduce. On that basis, there is much to support. My constituents, and most other constituents, if they were listening to the debate, would want to ask whether the measures set out in the Bill will speed up the way in which local authorities, the police and all the various services can act when there are particular problems. Those problems do not relate only to graffiti and noisy neighbours. There are many problems, particularly in inner city areas, that can make life miserable for many people, especially for elderly people.
  Our constituents would also want to ask how the provisions of the Bill can be enforced. We have done well with policing numbers and I thank the Home Office—particularly my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—for taking seriously the need for extra police officers. However, I still think that we need more officers. In my constituency, for example, if we are to do some of the things that are set out in the Bill, and do them properly, we will not be able to manage with the present police resources, despite having 30 extra community police officers, most of whom are always dedicated to the northern part of my constituency where the most high-profile buildings are. I very much support the proposals on designated areas, but I could give the Minister at least half a dozen areas right now that should be designated, and the police would probably agree with me. However, there is no point doing so if police do not then come in, enforce the provisions, and deal with the problem. I want to make another plea for the increasing use of community police officers—the old bobby on the beat—as there is no doubt that seeing the same police officer time after time makes a huge difference to people. We can all put pressure on our own police commanders to make sure that they know that that is our priority.
  I agree with Members who have talked about the raiding of drugs premises. There is no reason for needing that extra little bit in the Bill about having to show antisocial behaviour or causing a nuisance—that is nonsense. If hard drug dealing is going on, it has to be tackled immediately. On the question of noise, recently a group of people went to a rave party on a weekend at a huge squat in my constituency. Everybody in the neighbourhood got on to the police and local environment health officers. The police came along quickly and had a look, but they said, "Too many people are involved—we do not want to cause a problem." I said that if that building had been in Whitehall, they would have gone in to take those peoples

  215
  out and stop the noise. We cannot have double standards—if things are good enough for one part of the country, they are good enough elsewhere.
  The Minister probably realises that I have concerns about one aspect of the Bill. I have no problem with clause 42, as long as the Home Secretary abides by his commitment, made when I intervened earlier, that law-abiding people taking their airgun, air pistol or air rifle to a place where they can shoot legally, are entitled not to be harassed or treated as if they are about to commit a crime. However, I have concerns about the changed age limit on the possession of airguns. Most participants in our incredibly successful shooting sports, whether clay pigeon shooting, pistol shooting or any other discipline, began by using air rifles or air pistols. At the moment, it is not legal to buy an airgun until the age of 17, which I accept, but people can own an airgun. Individuals who are shooting seriously in competitive shooting will probably be given a gun—they can even get a grant from Sport England to get an airgun. How are those people, if they are serious about competing, going to meet the requirement to train under the supervision of an adult over 21? In some scout groups and other youth clubs where shooting takes place legally, the instructors are not 21, so there is a genuine problem. I hope that the Minister will look at that, as we cannot afford to discriminate against law-abiding shooters. Many junior members of our Great Britain teams travel abroad, but they will not be able to get a permit to travel to some countries unless they own their own gun. However, as they will not be able to do so, they cannot travel. The handgun ban utterly destroyed the opportunity for legitimate shooters to shoot in this country, leading them to have to travel abroad, and we could do similar damage to other gun sports.
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I would be more than happy to look at that if it is a problem, but I cannot see how travel abroad will be affected by the fact that a parent must own the gun rather than the person participating in the sport. We are not trying to prevent people from learning about and getting involved in gun sports under properly organised and supervised conditions. We are seeking to clamp down on the abuse and misuse that take place in my hon. Friend's constituency and many other places the length and breadth of the country.
  Kate Hoey: I accept that, but the Minister needs to look carefully at the provisions on travel abroad. If he talks to various sporting organisations, they will point out those anomalies. I am merely asking that in Committee the issue be treated carefully. The people who most dislike the misuse of guns are the legitimate shooters in the clubs, who do a great deal to educate young people. More education would make a big difference.
  I wonder why the Home Office has changed its mind since the Home Affairs Committee said two years ago:
  "We believe that a proportion of air weapons abuse committed by juveniles may derive from wider social problems which will not be properly addressed simply by tightening firearms controls".
  The Government accepted that view at the time and it was reflected in their own evidence to the Select Committee. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will explain the sudden change of mind.
  216
  I should like to conclude by referring to the 15-year-old twins, Jennifer and Shian Corrish, who live in Shropshire. They first competed in the European air rifle championships at the age of 14 and they recently competed in the world championships. They are truly talented and have a great chance of making it to the Olympics. Like all athletes, they train a lot, but if the Bill is passed, one of their parents will have to sit with them all the time, as they do much of their training at home. That is nonsensical and it will be a disincentive to many other potential young shooters.
  I know that the provision seems to be an easy solution to the problem of the misuse of air guns, but let us not always go for the legitimate people in order to catch bad, antisocial behaviour. Let us do something about the yobbish behaviour in football, for example, rather than use the Bill to prevent legitimate shooters from operating. I urge the Minister to look again at the problem, and to meet a delegation from the National Rifle Association, the National Small-Bore Rifle Association and the British Olympic Association. Those bodies want to work with the Government and do not oppose many of their proposals, but they want to avoid a knee-jerk response that is not properly thought through. I hope that the Minister will listen to them. I have some minor difficulties with parts of the Bill, but they can be dealt with in Committee. I hope that the Committee will be given plenty of time to do its job.
  5.37 pm
  Siobhain McDonagh: I apologise for not being present throughout the debate. Unfortunately, I was called away to do some Select Committee business. realise that many of my hon. Friends want to speak, so I shall concentrate on the provisions on graffiti and suggest some helpful additional measures to deal with it.
  I believe that the Bill has much to do with future participation in our democracy. Many people who speak to in my constituency—I am sure this applies to every constituency—cannot believe that politicians at local or national level are unable to remove the low-level antisocial behaviour that they experience. Why can we not resolve the problem of graffiti, stop fly tippers and prevent gangs of young children from being out late at night? To the average person, it is incomprehensible that groups of 10 and 11-year-olds can be out on a school night, or any other night, as late as 9, 10 or 11 pm.
  We can try to pigeonhole the problem by viewing it as something that happens only on the harder social housing estates, but in fact it occurs in every part of our constituencies—certainly in my own—from the hardest estates to the most suburban areas. I am concerned that, unless we sort those problems out, fewer people will vote because they will feel that we—and this applies to politicians of all parties—cannot resolve their most fundamental problems. Another danger is that people may drift to parties of the extreme right, which produce simplified solutions to problems that we have been unable to address. I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill.
  Mr. John Horam: I agree strongly with what the hon. Lady is saying about antisocial behaviour being just as much a problem in the leafy suburbs as in

  217
  the inner city and the tougher estates. She is a London MP, as am I, as was the previous speaker. The problem has spread around all areas rather than just the inner cities, and that is the issue today.
  Siobhain McDonagh: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the problem affects everyone in most parts of our constituencies, although it affects the poor and badly housed most. If people who are committed to their area can move away, they will do so in order to get away from those problems. That is how areas enter a cycle of decline.
  I welcome the Government's intention to ban the sale of spray paints to under-18s. All the voluntary schemes that we tried in my constituency have been undone by one supplier's refusal to take part, and I should like to suggest some other measures. On the storage of spray paints, I would suggest—although I cannot prove it—that most graffiti is created with spray paint that has been stolen from stores. There is some question about the responsibility of those stores to ensure that the cans are not vulnerable to thieves. I suggest that the rules that apply to fireworks, requiring them to be stored in glass cabinets, should be extended to spray paints.
  I also suggest that the Minister might consider giving local authorities power to remove graffiti from street furniture owned by the privatised utilities, such as electricity, gas and water. However much the local authority does in relation to its furniture or in helping residents, it still has a problem with other street equipment. In my constituency, the cable company Telewest is one of the worst offenders in doing next to nothing to remove graffiti and in blighting a local area. Clearly, London Transport and the Strategic Rail Authority also have a responsibility in these matters.
  More controversially, has the Minister considered the measure currently being considered in the Lords suggesting that where shopkeepers refuse over a period to remove graffiti from their shutters at night, the local authority should have power to remove that graffiti and charge the owner of the shop in the last instance?
  Finally, I wish to raise an issue that I know is difficult. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) was a Minister of State at the Home Office, I spoke to him about the possibility of extending the PACE—Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—regulations to cover weapons of graffiti. Clearly, graffiti is a relatively recent problem and when that legislation was introduced, hon. Members were not mindful of spray paints, glass cutters and the other things that do so much damage to people's environment and cost so much I would welcome the Minister's comments on whether consideration has been given to introducing stop-and-search powers in relation to the weapons of graffiti.
  Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a strong case for a complete ban on the sale of spray cans to anybody, given that the removal of spray paint costs £1 million in Croydon alone and that people can use brushes or proper sprays to paint their cars?
  Siobhain McDonagh: That is a radical suggestion, but I would be sympathetic to it. Nobody wants to
  218
  introduce any of these measures, but in response to our constituents and their concerns, we have to take action to ensure that we all have the peaceful enjoyment of our homes and make an impact on the problems that some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies experience.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am sorry that I have had to come in and out of the Chamber during this debate. Unfortunately, the new hours mean that we all have to attend other meetings.
  Without detaining the House, I want to speak about rural areas. I represent a very large rural area—Exmoor. If we have a problem with antisocial behaviour in a village, our difficulties may be minute in comparison with those faced in urban areas, but we still face problems, because we do not have enough police. If one rings for a policeman in a rural area, the chances are that, by the time he arrives, the problem has either gone away or things have deteriorated to such an extent that he needs back-up. Whatever happens, by the time he reaches Exmoor, his radio will not be working, because police radios do not work in most of my constituency.
  If we continue as we are, more and more people will come into areas such as ours. There are cases in some of our more deprived areas—I acknowledge that they are nothing compared with some urban areas—of people being brought in from Manchester and Birmingham. They have caused severe problems and the police cannot cope.
  Our police force is lumped together with that of Bristol, in the Avon and Somerset force. A rural conurbation in Somerset bears no relation to Bristol. The chief constable has to put resources into Bristol to achieve public service agreement targets. Whatever the increase in his budget or police numbers, the resources go to Bristol to fight urban crime. The Under-Secretary claimed that there were more police, but my area is to get half a policeman. I await his arrival with bated breath. In my area, half a policeman is useless—[Interruption.] I appreciate that that applies everywhere.
  How do we put half a policeman into areas where we cannot get police now? That is a fascinating example of a formula that does not work. Things get worse. The largest Butlins in the United Kingdom is based in my constituency. It has 2,500 employees and 9,000 people a week visit it. It does a tremendous job and the police are rarely called in to sort out a problem. However, the position outside Butlins is different. People who visit Butlins tend eventually to leave and they cause trouble and behave antisocially in Minehead, a small rural town with a population of only 10,000, which is doubled when Butlins is fully operational.
  On a bad Butlins night, the local police have no chance of coping. Taunton is more than 20 miles away and Bridgwater is slightly further. If the police want reinforcements, they do not get them. They have to sort the problem out. Things have reached the stage where it is inconceivable to local people that they can get help from the police. Antisocial behaviour happens not only in urban conurbations but in rural areas.
  If a problem cannot be tackled, it is simply moved down the road. People from all over the United Kingdom come to enjoy themselves in my constituency.

  219
  If things go wrong and an antisocial behaviour order is served on them, they return to their homes. The order goes with them, but that does not help us. Butlins can ban them but we cannot stop them returning later. We have experienced that problem for years.
  One of our courts has now shut and the second is under threat. If it closed, my constituency, which is nearly 60 miles long, would have no court representation. We have a probation officer at one end of the constituency and half a probation officer—I keep speaking about halves—at the other. The latter does two and a half days a week. Someone in west Somerset who has to go to court because of an antisocial behaviour order must go to Taunton, to which there is no bus service. What do people who have no cars do—steal them? The police spend much time on rearresting and issuing warrants to get people to court. We do not have the infrastructure because the court has gone. Surely a Bill on antisocial behaviour should provide for local justice for local people.
  Our court in Bridgwater, which covers 30,000 people, is under threat. If it closes, again, people will have to go to Taunton. Somerset could end up with only three courts. The problem of antisocial behaviour in most of our large towns cannot be solved. Yet the sums do not add up.
  Let us consider firearms. In Exmoor and Somerset there are apparently 22,000 registered firearms holders—12,000 shotgun holders and 10,000 rifle holders. Most people in Somerset know how to shoot. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) made a poignant point and she was right to say that people start with air rifles. People learn to shoot with them. I accept that 17 is the right age, but most people in my area can shoot well before they are 17 because dad has a gun. Few people on Exmoor and in the levels have no idea how to use a weapon. That does not mean that they are dangerous or unsafe but they have the ability to use it with supervision.
  Measures that are too draconian mean that people will go down the pub to buy a weapon. A policeman in my area said that it is cheaper to buy a gun in a pub than in a shop. I do not know whether that is true, but even if it is partly true, it is frightening. We must be very careful about putting firearms out of people's reach, because, in my area, they will use traps or poison or whatever they have to use to deal with vermin—animals that they have dealt with for generations—and there are many more unpleasant ways of doing that than using a rifle or an air rifle.
  Another problem that we have in rural areas is the dumping of cars. A lot of people come out from Bristol and other places to dump cars because it is very easy to do so. We have the smallest district council in the United Kingdom. Its total budget is only just over £4 million; it does not have the resources to remove dumped cars. I agree that dumping cars is antisocial behaviour, but if someone dumps a car on the top of Exmoor, how on earth do we get it off? We do not have the time or resources. The cost to the council is ridiculous. Of course, by the time someone gets there to remove it, it is still the same car as it was when it was dumped there. It still has its tyres and windscreens, because people do not tend to vandalise cars there. It is almost driveable, but, of course, we cannot do that.
  220
  There is undoubtedly a lot to commend the Bill, but will the Minister please remember the rural areas? They are part of a very large hinterland, and they do not have the resources of the conurbations. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House represent large towns. We have Bristol near us, and we know the problems that we face as a result. We get all its drugs and a lot of its problems, and we do not like it. An antisocial behaviour Bill should be inclusive, not exclusive. If this Bill were drafted properly, it could be a very good Bill in terms of exclusion orders. If not, places such as west Somerset and Bridgwater will suffer out of all proportion because we do not have the resources to put into the problem in the first place.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I apologise to the House for having been absent for a good deal of the debate, but I have been chairing the Culture, Media and Sport Committee over at Portcullis House.
  The Bill can be of great assistance to my constituents, particularly in relation to dealing with premises from which drugs are sold. As I said in an intervention on the Home Secretary earlier, we have a whole area around Chapman street in Gorton that has been blighted by the sale and trading of drugs at a local Texaco filling station. After great pressure, Texaco has taken action to stop that happening, but we never know when it will come back again. I therefore hope that the definition of "premises" in the Bill will include such premises as filling stations, so that they can be closed down in such circumstances if need be. A local wine store is also alleged, by my constituents who watch and monitor it, to be used for the sale of drugs as well as alcohol to underage people. Again, I hope that the definitions in the Bill will enable the police to close that place down, if need be.
  These problems do not only affect commercial premises, however. They affect private premises, too. The Bill rightly deals with issues relating to social housing, but the problem does not only affect social housing. There are areas in my constituency in which private landlord accommodation is used for the very purposes referred to in the Bill in relation to social housing, namely for drug trading and as brothels. It is utterly intolerable that housing benefit should be used to fund those activities, which ruin the environment for the large numbers of people who live around those private landlords' houses.
  The Bill introduces a power for social housing providers to demote tenancies. Fine; we welcome that in the Gorton constituency of Manchester. I very much hope, however, that when we come to discuss the housing Bill—a Bill parallel to this one—the powers of demotion will be extended to private tenancies and that provision will be made for action to be taken against private landlords who make money, often by collusion with tenants, not only out of drugs trading or brothels, but out of the housing benefit scams that go with such activities.
  I hope that the Government will bring in the housing Bill as quickly as possible so that we can be one of the areas in which licensing takes place, and these appalling landlords—who never reply to representations from Members of Parliament—can have their properties removed. Private landlord abuse of that kind did not

  221
  take place for a long time, but we are now back to a version of Rachmanism: reverse Rachmanism. I hope that the Government will move speedily. My constituents look to the Government, because they have observed the positive impact of much of what has been done under the crime and disorder legislation—legislation that I supported.
  In a sense, my constituency pioneered antisocial behaviour orders. Some of the most powerful have been imposed there, and my constituents welcomed them. What they do not welcome is the weakness of the courts when orders are violated. I have already told the House about a 14-year-old girl on whom an order was imposed. The police circulated leaflets so that everyone would know about it. The girl violated the order 10 times, and was arrested 10 times. The courts did absolutely nothing about it. Only after I raised the case in the House was the girl taken into custody after violating the order again. It was very good for her to be taken into an ordered environment for a number of months, because a parenting order concerning her was also violated.
  In my constituency, we do not just seek powerful legislation of this kind, although we welcome it. We want that legislation not to be sabotaged by weak courts that do not enforce the will of Parliament.
  Mr. Dawson: Surely a child of that age, apparently with a huge number of problems, should be dealt with in the care system rather than the justice system.
  Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend may be right, but the fact remains that the child was not dealt with. We had a way of dealing with her, but it took prolonged violations and havoc in the area where she marauded for that to happen. She will probably lead a much more constructive and happy life than she would have if action had not been taken.
  Relations with the police are extremely good in my constituency, and the police are very active. I thank Superintendent John Brinnand, who deals with a large part of my constituency, for his continuing responsiveness to the problems brought to him. The White Paper mentions the work of Manchester city council and its neighbourhood nuisance teams. I thank the council for the work it is doing, but both the council and the police will say that they need a framework.
  I wish that people would speak about these matters with an honest, open and clear voice. Liberal Democrat councillors turned up at the opening of a neighbourhood wardens project in one part of my constituency, which I attended, and participated. They said, however, that a neighbourhood wardens scheme in another part of the constituency was useless and a waste of time. Let us have a bit of consistency when it comes to streets, as well as entire wards and constituencies.
  I thank the Government for the Bill. It is a good Bill. But, as I said when the Crime and Disorder Bill was introduced, the test will lie not in the excellent words but in the enactment, and it is my constituents to whose verdict I will listen.
  5.59 pm
  Vernon Coaker: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He listed some of the difficulties he had encountered in his constituency, and throughout the debate others have described the problems they have encountered in theirs. I could do the same, but what my constituents are asking is how we reached this point. Why have the horrific episodes encountered by Members occurred, and what are we going to do about the situation?
  All of us welcome the Bill because it is a further attempt by the Government to tackle the problems that we have heard about. It is important that we give voice to what our constituents are saying to us. That underpins the reasons for the Bill and for tackling the problems.
  We need to draw a line in the sand. We need to make a stand on these issues. My constituents are saying to me that the tail is wagging the dog and that the rights of the individual are riding roughshod over the rights of the community. We cannot have a situation where people are saying that to us, because it brings Members of Parliament and the Government into disrepute and it undermines the authority of the police, the community support officers and those whose job it is to assert legitimate authority in our constituencies. It is important for the House to reflect the concerns that our constituents have, because they are sick of it. Many lives are blighted by the problem and they want something done about it.
  Many of my constituents have moved on from anger almost to despair in some respects—almost to a feeling of helplessness and frustration. As the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) said, it is not just an urban problem or a rural problem. It may be worse in some areas than others but it is a problem in every area of the country. If we do not tackle it and give a voice in this Parliament and this Chamber to the people who are telling us that, others who try to give them a voice will take our place. A tremendously serious issue confronts us. I think that all of us welcome many of the proposals in the Bill, which will help us to tackle it.
  Many hon. Members have said that the Bill will be law but law needs to be enacted and enforced. That presents us with some problems. We need to ensure that the measures are enforced. I give one example from my constituency. I take the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton and others have made, that private landlords need to be included in the housing Bill or other measures. We have a situation in my constituency, both with the housing association and the local authority, where single families are causing mayhem in a community or in a street. They are warned. People work with them. The police visit them God knows how many times. Everyone talks to them. Everything happens but nothing changes and they continue to cause mayhem in that community.
  People just turn round and say, "Why doesn't anyone do anything? Why can't we do anything?" I turn to the local authority, which says that it does not have the power but I think that it does. I think that the Bill extends the power that it has, but what we cannot have in three or six months' time when the Bill becomes law is those families in my constituency or other constituencies

  223
  saying exactly the same thing—that they have got individual families whose children are playing out until God knows what time, that they are attracting drug dealers, prostitutes and goodness knows what else and nothing happens. That is the way the law is brought into disrepute. That is what our communities are having to put up with.
  This cannot go on. I do not understand why nothing can be done. If it comes to eviction, we have to evict those families, whether they have children or not. To protect communities. we need to consider what we are to do with the problem families that we evict. At the moment, we are imposing problem families on communities that are already struggling to cope, because we cannot come up with a social policy to deal with the consequences of eviction. Be it through supported housing or some other measure, we need to ensure that housing associations and local authorities can evict problem families in such a way that communities are protected and sustained in a decent way, and that we can properly protect the interests of the children of such families. If we do not do so, we will simply abandon those families and those communities.
  We all know of examples of an area being completely transformed as a result of one or two families being moved out. I should tell the Minister that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). I am pleased that we have got more police and that we have record numbers in Nottinghamshire, but we need more. If we do not deal with problems in our communities such as individual problem families, we will never have enough police. The police are being asked to deal with social problems and issues that it must be very difficult to for them to deal with.
  It is time for me to finish, but I am glad that I have raised the issue of individual problem families, because it has caused particular difficulties in parts of my constituency. There are many other measures in the Bill that I welcome. In general it is a good Bill, although the Committee will undoubtedly improve it. The fundamental point is that we have to use it as the opportunity to draw a line in the sand and say to our communities that we have had enough as well, and that the full force of Parliament will be used to protect their rights.
  6.7 pm
  Huw Irranca-Davies: I am very pleased to speak in this debate, and I should like to begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright), who painted a very rounded picture of how the Bill fits into the overall scheme not only of tackling antisocial behaviour, but of providing the opportunities for youngsters that the Liberal Democrats have talked about so much.
  This Bill does not stand on its own—if it did, it would be very unstable, like a one-legged stool. What we need to do is to provide opportunities for youngsters through partnerships with voluntary sector groups, and to recognise that the vast majority of youngsters want to contribute to society and to behave according to the old Greek ideal of good citizens. My warning to Liberal Democrat Members in the light of their contributions is that they fail to recognise that to make that stool perfectly balanced, we must have the power to tackle
  224
  those who choose to put themselves outside the norms of behaviour. Community safety partnerships, the extension of the policing family to include community support officers and neighbourhood wardens, and the involvement of the voluntary sector, form part of that approach. We should also recognise the role of community councils—it has not been dealt with properly today—in conjunction with local authorities in improving the environment and bringing local people on board through community initiatives. Parents, children and grandparents have a role to play, but for those in our most deprived communities who are not in that fortunate situation, schemes such as sure start should be provided.
  The Liberal Democrats have tended to paint Labour into a corner as the party of Herod—the party that is trying to do away with youngsters and children—but it is not. Policies to deliver the extension of opportunities and the provision of family-centred values are already in place. The Bill is one more aspect of that; it does not stand alone.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) pointed out, we are trying to reverse a situation that has got out of hand in terms of low-level nuisance behaviour. It is not necessarily a question of a lack of policing. Although we should try to increase police numbers, as the Government have successfully done, and to extend the police family, the more fundamental need is to challenge the very acceptance of such behaviour in our communities. That is not a question simply of giving the police more resources. We must tell communities to take ownership of the problem themselves, and to challenge what is happening on people's own doorsteps.
  That would turn around the approach that we have adopted for a generation. People have said, "We will sit back and wait for something to be done, for us and to us." The community safety partnerships challenge that approach. People are now saying, "We will put in place the laws and resources. Now we must get up and act together."
  I shall not speak for too long, to make up for my earlier interventions and to ensure that other hon. Members have enough time. I turn to the importance of enforcing the measures in the Bill. Community support officers are very important. I have long been a strong advocate, in debates on what became the Police Reform Act 2000 and elsewhere, of extending the police family, and of the use of CSOs. I remain so today, especially after my experience of going out early with Metropolitan police officers in the pilot study areas. I am very pleased that the South Wales police force, after failing to apply in the first tranche of funding for CSOs, has seen how those officers work very effectively elsewhere. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is listening, as that force has applied for resources in the second tranche of funding. I hope that my hon. Friend will smile favourably on that application.
  Six of the most deprived areas in Wales are in my constituency. The first money to be allocated there went to the crime reduction partnership, which is now the community safety partnership. It is now recognised that that money may now be used for additional CSOs, because that would extend the eyes and ears of the police family. Many hon. Members have spoken today about the old-style bobby who knows people locally, who can

  225
  walk up the street and deal with low-level nuisances as and when they happen. That is exactly what my divisional commander is now talking about using CSOs for. South Wales police officers are highly trained and effective, but we need more eyes and ears on the ground.
  The powers of CSOs have caused comment, especially their powers to disperse groups, and to remove to home people aged under 16. That is exactly what my constituents talk about. They want to know about the police presence on the ground, which can get involved when there is a real problem. Discretion and common sense are required, but Opposition Members have spoken about localism, and the presence of CSOs is an example of just the sort of localism that we need. Local people who know the problems on their streets also know who the youngsters and troublemakers are. They can see when there is a problem, and they can say to a young person, "I'm taking you back. I'm getting you out of here, because the neighbours are worried and annoyed by your presence. They will not go out of doors because of your activities."
  I should welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's comments about fixed-penalty notices and CSOs' ability to use them. When such notices are used, is it possible that the resources arising could be recycled back into communities? That would be a winner with communities, as it would convince people that being effective in implementing the law would tackle nuisance behaviour and also put money back into the pot. That money could then be used for the further tackling of antisocial behaviour in a community's streets.
  I shall digress slightly to talk about a hobbyhorse of mine. I want to deal with a matter that I have encountered in my family and in my neighbourhood, and which I brought to the House's attention two or three weeks ago, after an incident in Cynon valley. A two-year old youngster was killed in a tragic accident when an off-road motorbike was ridden down a pavement.
  I hope that powers can be included in this Bill, or somewhere else, to fine petrol retailers who knowingly sell to off-road bikers who are unlicensed, untaxed and under age. Those riders come off the public highway to fill their tanks on petrol retailers' forecourts, and then scoot off down cycle paths, causing mayhem and worry. Could such powers be included in this Bill, or would another vehicle for them be more appropriate?
  Furthermore, powers to confiscate vehicles are required. There are many responsible and well-behaved off-road motorbikers in south Wales, including those in the club organisation, but there is a big illicit market that enables people to pick up bikes from free ads one day, then use them next day without any training and experience—not only that, but drive them on public highways. That is worrying. Where are the powers to confiscate those vehicles when they are abused in that way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Tony Banks.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) mentioned yet another example of antisocial behaviour that he
  226
  would like banned. Hon. Members on the Benches next to me have been coming up with a whole host of such examples this afternoon. The best one that emerged was mine—that one needs a permit to come out of one's house. In the end, I thought, "Why not ban everything?" I make that point because, without wanting to sound too much like a killjoy, part of the function of our being here is to ban things. That is precisely what people want us to do. They say, "Why can't you stop it?
  Why can't you ban it?"
  Listening to the debate, it is fascinating to discover that, although hon. Members have quibbles about the Bill, there is enormous agreement across the Floor of the House about the need to deal with antisocial behaviour. I do not want to acid a discordant note to an otherwise constructive and friendly debate, but I have to say that if I asked my constituents what concerned them most, antisocial behaviour in the east end or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I know what they would say, because they are under more threat from the violence of thugs and hoodlums in my part of the east end than they are from the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein is alleged to possess.
  There is no doubt that the Bill is absolutely to be welcomed. That unites all hon. Members, because every one of us can point to examples in our constituencies of people coming to us to complain about antisocial behaviour, and we share our constituents' anger and frustration, and fear for them. Perhaps we should call this a "letting off steam" Bill as far as Members of Parliament are concerned. Many hon. Members have given examples from their constituencies. Yesterday, during one of my advice sessions a constituent, whose name I will not mention, came to see me. She is a respectable, decent, hardworking woman who has lived in her council property for 30 years and has brought up two daughters to the same standards that she has tried to follow. For two years, her life has been made a complete misery by a gang of youths. Incidentally—owing to the ethnic nature of my constituency, the problem crosses all classes, all areas and all ethnic groups—she is Afro-Caribbean and the gang is largely Asian. They have been destroying her nice garden and ripping the covers off the various containers in it, and incessantly kicking a ball up against her bedroom wall. She was crying and saying, "No one should be forced to live like this." I shared her frustration. To be perfectly honest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is why I wanted to speak today. I told her, "Every one of us is aware of how you feel, and we share that anger and desire for something to be done." I hope that the Bill will begin to address her problems.
  I accept that some aspects of the Bill need re-examination and tidying up—the age aspect is certainly one of them. However, if we do not get it right first time we will have to return to it. There is nothing wrong with saying that we will carry on responding as situations change. That is the right way to do it. There is no such thing as perfect legislation, so we should not feel worried, ashamed or embarrassed if we have to return to the matter, and I hope that if the Government have to introduce further legislation they will not hesitate to do so.
  I have my own long list of antisocial acts that I would like dealt with. I am particularly concerned about the use of airguns because of evidence that we hear from the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports. Who are

  227
  these sick perverts who actually fire air pellets at animals? I heard of one case in which a cat was held up and persistently shot at. Who are the people who could do that?
  I understand that we have to deal with the causes of the social breakdown in a number of our communities. That breakdown is caused by a minority of people, but, as we have heard, one family can ruin things for everybody else in their street. We have to examine the causes but we also have to deal with the symptoms. It is no good saying to people, "Come the socialist millennium, everyone will live in peace and harmony." That is not good enough. People want to know what we are going to do now—today. We should be prepared to do things now and, of course, then be prepared to examine the causes of antisocial behaviour in greater detail in an effort to eliminate it.
  In this place, we talk a lot about our community. However, the spirit of community in this country seems to have been breaking down over many years. That cannot be put down to one particular Government or another; it has been happening over a long period. People used to say in the east end of London that they would sit out in the streets and leave their doors open. They would be mad to sit out in the streets and leave their doors open now, if they thought that their property would be left intact. We can never recreate that wonderful spirit that the older Members among us in the House may remember. I grew up in Brixton in the 1950s and I do not remember having to worry about street crime or the sort of antisocial behaviour problems that now infest this country.
  We have to make a greater effort to instil in our young people a sense of community, because it is as much in their interests as it is in ours. Obviously, we have to start at the youngest possible age in the schools. I am fearful that we are losing generations of our young people. One can see the despair that the activities of some individuals and groups cause in our areas.
  I have a proposal to make. It is perhaps one of my more extreme proposals—and I have made a few in this House. It is that we should have compulsory national community service for all people between the ages of 16 and 17. We have to consider something along those lines and I intend to make the proposal in a ten-minute rule Bill later this month.
  I hope that we will toughen this Bill up. For example, people who go round spraying paint should be forced to clean it up, and people who dump litter should be forced to clear it and other people's litter up, rather than just receiving a penalty notice. However, I welcome this Bill, hope that it will be amended, and commend the Government for introducing it.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: I too commend the Government for the concern that they have rightly shown about antisocial behaviour. There is nothing more corrosive to people's quality of life, to the confidence of communities or to the well-being and happiness of individuals than some of the scenes that we all witness daily. This afternoon, we have heard about many examples of rude, ill-mannered and inconsiderate behaviour—public drunkenness; foul language; graffiti that is often obscene and invariably ugly; litter and
  228
  rubbish that no one takes responsibility for cleaning up; the unsightly and hazardous mess of abandoned and burned-out cars; noise; the sheer lack of thought and respect for others; and filthy needles dropped where children can pick them up.
  I am delighted with the new investment that the Government have made and with the thousands of extra police officers and community support officers. The establishment of crime reduction partnerships is of great significance. Like others, I am pleased with some measures in this Bill. I am pleased with the closure orders although, like others, I feel that they could go further; and I am pleased with the fixed penalty notices for graffiti. There are measures to control noisy premises and a strategic role for local authorities in relation to fly tipping.
  I am concerned about the sense of despair throughout the Chamber. We could do a great deal more and take a more radical approach to these issues. I am not simply saying that the Bill leaves out a series of measures that I should like the Government to address—although, for example, a small proportion of people in the travelling community cause many problems in my constituency. We frankly need a massive cultural change in this country if we are to get to grips with the issues that face us.
  We need not throw up our hands in despair or cast around for immediate solutions, although some of the solutions are in our hands. We have heard comments about social workers, and the Government are missing the potential of social workers and the long-standing provisions in the Children Act 1989. The Government and much of our society have lost confidence in social services and social workers, and that must be regained.
  The Green Paper on children at risk that is promised in the summer will give us an enormous opportunity. It will be significant and I hope that it will bring together universal and specific measures to utilise the strengths of the community, the voluntary, public and private sectors and the family. I hope that it will allow us to break down institutionalised barriers among organisations and professions and to train people in a new pedagogy for the joined-up, wrapped-around future of dedicated children's services in this country. We should not start to deal with problems through schools, but by promoting positive parenting. We must use the Green Paper to take the opportunity to bridge the historic destructive divide between welfare and justice, and troubled children and children in trouble.
  My great difficulty with what has been said and with some of the Bill's provisions is that we are in danger of reproducing the authoritarianism and punishment mentality that have failed to deal with serious problems and have caused us to have the highest figures for young people in custody of any country in western Europe. Custody does not help to reform people, but replicates problems by creating an appallingly destructive circle in which people leave prison and reoffend. Fifteen children have died in prison since 1997, so we must try to address the issues. No matter how difficult the situations caused by young people in our communities, we must try to get away from putting them in custody.
  I have several concerns about some of the Bill's provisions, such as those to give education officials the power to issue fixed penalty notices. That is not a role

  229
  for any body other than an enforcement agency. Local education officers should not go to a court to secure a parenting order before the court has the chance to examine information about a pupil's family circumstances. We need a more holistic approach than that. We need a new approach to the Children Act 1989. In considering the massive problems caused by tenants, we need to utilise the resources pioneered by NCH in its Dundee project. We need, again, to have confidence in what social workers can do. I have real qualms about the new foster parent requirement, which is apparently intended to be an alternative to custody, unless those concerned are aged under 12 when it could be used anyway. That new foster parent requirement is equivalent to a time-limited care order, without the need to pursue care proceedings, and it means a spell in foster care without the representation implied in the Children Act 1989, and without access to the benefits of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. It replicates problems that we experienced in the past with the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.
  My biggest problem, however, is with clause—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman's biggest problem is that his time is up.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. James Paice: I am almost sorry to interrupt, as the hon. Gentleman was making a remarkably rebellious speech, to which I enjoyed listening. I agreed with much that he said, if I may spoil his reputation completely.
  The debate has featured a large number of speeches from Members on both sides of the House. To listen to many Labour Members, however, one would think that this was the first crime Bill of a new Labour Government, instead of being something like the 16th in six years. I suspect that many of them have not read much of the Bill or studied what came previously. All Members have rightly emphasised the importance and seriousness of antisocial behaviour, and the way in which it starts a spiral of decline, which can—although not always—lead to more serious criminal lifestyles. The Home Secretary was right when he said that the issue cannot be resolved overnight, and I want to make it clear that there is no difference between us in terms of the objective: we all want to feel able to walk around and to live our lives without fear of abuse, harassment, intimidation or attack. Regardless of our race, age or gender, that is a basic entitlement that all should expect.
  The debate is not about the issue, however, but about the Government's repeated attempts to address it. Many Members have said that the Bill addresses the real problems of constituents. The long title of the Bill and the headings of some of the clauses certainly address the real problems of constituents, but a study of the contents of the Bill shows that a great deal is lacking.
  A few months ago, just before the state opening of Parliament, the Prime Minister stated his belief in the importance of dealing with crime and antisocial behaviour:
  230
  "Low-level aggression, vandalism, fights in town centres on Friday and Saturday nights, anti-social neighbours, fly tipping, abandoned cars, graffiti, truancy. They are crimes that don't hit the headlines every day, but they do hit the daily quality of life of many in our communities, often the elderly and the most vulnerable"—
  and so say all of us. Having said those wise words, however, the Prime Minister, as is so often the case, had to fly around and about finding something to do to justify what he had said. That effort has ended up with the Government promoting this Bill, which merely gives the illusion that it will impact seriously on antisocial behaviour. Those few parts of it that are sensible—of course, there are a few—would be better in their own specific departmental Bills, but they have clearly been excised and extracted, bit by bit, from a multitude of other Departments, to be included in this Bill to justify the Government's claim to be doing something about antisocial behaviour.
  Most cynically, despite the high importance given to the Bill in the Queen's Speech as one of the centrepieces of this year's legislative Session, we find that it has been delayed until the outset of the local government elections. So the Bill appears as a glorified press release. It is all very well for the Minister to laugh, but we have seen Labour's campaign documents and we know that that is the strategy that the Labour Government have been following.
  As so many of my hon. Friends have rightly said, the real need is for more police officers—a number of Labour Members said that, too—because there is ample evidence that an enhanced police presence significantly decreases antisocial behaviour, even without any of the measures proposed in the Bill. Despite what the Home Secretary would have us believe, the Government's record so far on police numbers is not so good as he would wish.
  The reality is that, during each of the past six years, the average increase in this country's police forces has been at a much lower rate than was achieved on average during all the previous Government's 18 years. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but those are Government figures. We often laugh at Government figures, but they should not seek to ridicule their own Government.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) all referred to the importance of police numbers and, indeed, to the reduction of police paperwork. As I have said before in the House, I have a file of what is required for a single arrest and 26 different forms have to be filled in by a police officer. Nothing that the Government have done has reduced that burden.
  Yes, we need an extra 40,000 police officers, and we will pay for them by reforming the asylum system, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has said. [Interruption.] I purposely pause to allow the Home Secretary to laugh, because the Government could make that change themselves. The Chancellor could announce that tomorrow, because the Prime Minister has said already that he will halve the number of asylum seekers by September. If he does so, he will have the saving, using the Government's own

  231
  figures, to make a very significant step towards our own targets. That is the reality using the Government's own figures.
  Let me turn now to one or two issues in the Bill. In 1998, the Government pledged to cut truancy by a third. In 2002, they cut the pledge because they had achieved nothing. They then pledged to reduce truancy by just 10 per cent. between 2002 and 2004. There have been parenting orders for nearly three years, but only 538 of the 3,000-odd orders that have been issued already have related to truancy; the rest were issued for other reasons and were nothing whatsoever to do with truancy.
  As many hon. Members, including the Government's supporters, have said, a very worrying precedent would be set if teachers were to hand out fixed penalties. The Government will almost certainly be forced to withdraw that idea—if not by us, then by their own supporters and teachers' organisations.
  Clearly, all Opposition Members support closing crack houses, as proposed in the clauses on housing. There may be marginal differences about whether antisocial behaviour must be proved, but I return to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset: the Government passed legislation to enable that to happen two years ago, in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, but they have never implemented it. Even if they can persuade us that this method is better, they still cannot justify having done nothing whatsoever about closing crack houses for two years.
  Much has been said about antisocial tenants of registered social housing owners. None of what is proposed is fundamentally wrong. There are big questions about whether the proposal will make the difference that the Government believe that it will make, but, again, it is a clear example of the Government hiving something off to get it into the Bill. As a number of hon. Members have said, the proposal leaves untouched the privately owned rented sector and, indeed, as has been said, the owner-occupied sector. We are told that at least some of those issues will be addressed in the Housing Bill. Why split them? Why not deal with them all in the Housing Bill, as ought to be the case?
  As my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech, community support officers have been deployed only for a few months, so even the most enthusiastic among us must admit that the jury is still out. Although there cannot yet be any possibility of an objective assessment of their effectiveness, the Government are proposing a huge increase in their powers. Surely, the Home Secretary must realise that the more powers he gives CSOs, the more they will begin to look like substitute police.
  In addition, the Bill gives many powers to accredited community safety officers that currently attach only to community support officers. Such proposals were rejected by Parliament only nine months ago, yet the Government want to renege on that decision. The current proposals include the fascinating possibility that an accredited community safety officer could charge someone with wasting police time. As such an officer would be neither a policeman nor a police employee, that provision is astonishing. It will be interesting to see how that works.
  232
  My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and others referred to penalties. The measure would extend fixed penalties to 16-year-olds and, more seriously, the Home Secretary would be empowered to reduce that age to as low as 10 merely by affirmative order. That is a major step and it will need to be examined in Committee. The Home Secretary should not take to himself the power to impose fixed penalties on someone as young as 10 without full primary legislation that has been debated on the Floor of the House.
  Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Paice: I am sorry, I cannot give way.
  Graffiti is already a crime, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said. It is criminal damage and, as the Government themselves point out, it is always prosecuted as such—although of course the offenders have to be caught. The explanatory notes make it clear that the imposition of fixed penalties could lead to an overall relaxation of penalties for such offences. According to the notes, the Government intend to use fixed penalties for less serious graffiti and fly posting offences.
  A report published by the Greater London Authority noted that the majority of graffiti writers are over 18, yet the Bill includes proposals to ban the sales of aerosol paint to those aged under 18. That is taking a ridiculously large hammer to crack the nut. A 14-year-old can have a drink with a meal and at 15 they can have a shotgun. At 16, they can get married; they can join the Army and decide their sexual orientation. At 17, they can buy a car but they cannot buy a tin of spray paint until they are 18. A 17-year-old can buy an old banger but not the aerosol to spray the wing that they have just tapped out after denting it. That is madness.
  Several hon. Members have spoken about the provisions on firearms. We shall challenge the Government on that in Committee. As we would expect of her, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), whom we all respect, set out the reasons why the Government's proposals will do more harm than good. They will hit the law-abiding airgun user more than they will affect the criminal use of airguns. Some hon. Members failed to understand the existing legislation as they referred to the need to ban the sale of airguns to young people, something that has been illegal for the past 35 years. There are severe penalties for doing so.
  The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) referred to fostering. I think that he was the only Member to raise that issue. He is right to do so, as it will need much consideration. As well as the difficulties of foster families, there is also the problem of dealing with young people when they leave young offenders institutions and secure training centres. For many of them, accommodation is the greatest problem. When talking to youth workers, I find that over and over again they say that if those young people go back to their old, familiar haunts, they will rapidly fall back into their old, familiar and criminal ways.
  A remarkable feature of the debate has been the utter contempt with which most Labour Members seem to view Liberal Democrat Members. They have made critical statements over and over again. Far be it for me

  233
  to suggest that they may be wrong in their contempt of the Liberal Democrat party, but their criticism clearly represents a final rupturing of any semblance of unity between the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. It is a pity that that contempt does not extend to Scotland and Wales, where they joined together in government.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, we shall not oppose the Bill. There are parts of the detail with which we agree, but there are many parts with which we disagree, and we shall return to them in Committee. To oppose the Bill would be like voting against a ghost. The Bill gives an apparition of activity—an apparition floating through parliamentary history—and it will leave only press releases as evidence of its passage. All those who forecast that the appearance of this ghostly Bill would make a dramatic change to society are mistaken. Those who witness it this evening and in the coming months will he in this place afterwards. Then they will know that, as with all ghosts, it will be a Bill without substance.
  6.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): It is clear that the importance of the measures proposed in the Bill is well understood by my right hon. and hon. Friends. There have been 19 Labour Back-Bench speeches. I am aware that some of my hon. Friends were not able to participate in the debate because we ran out of time. By contrast, we have had a token presence of Liberal Democrat Members throughout our proceedings. They have made it clear that they do not consider the Bill to be of any importance. They do not plan to vote against it, but they intend to use their friends in another place to sabotage various provisions within it. [Interruption.] That is exactly what was said. Issues that are important to many people in constituencies throughout the country are not, it seems, of great importance to Liberal Democrat Members.
  The Back Benches of the official Opposition have been empty for large parts of the debate, which shows a lack of concern about the issues that are raised by the Bill. The contributions that we have heard from Conservative Members have tended to fall between two stools. First, there has been the counsel of despair. That has come through again and again from those on the Opposition Front Bench and from Conservative Back Benchers. In effect, they have been saying, "There is not a lot that we can do about this." Secondly, there has been the idea that we can solve the problem by creating huge numbers of police officers. How will we pay for those officers? We have been presented with the apparition of some magic pot of money that can be made available to pay for substantial numbers of new police officers. Where were the police officers—
  Mr. Letwin: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Ainsworth: No, not yet.
  Where were the police officers when the Conservative, Government were in power? We do not need to gaze into the crystal ball to see what the Conservatives would do, when we can examine the record. We have record
  234
  numbers of police officers now. Since the last Labour Government, in 1976, we have recruited, over the 12 months up to September 2002, 4,300 additional police officers. That is in addition to the more than 1,200 community support officers who are now in the force, who are disparaged by Opposition Members. I accept that those community support officers are new and have not been deployed for long, but before the Opposition continue with their policy, they ought to get out into the areas where those officers are being deployed, and talk to the police officers who are working alongside them, as well as the individuals who are doing the job and the commanders who are tasking them. When they do so, they will see the level of support in the police force for that facility.
  It is not be possible for me to refer to every single speech that was made this afternoon as there were far too many. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) talked about problems in her constituency regarding drugs and crack houses, as well as current good practice in the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) talked about the same subject. They are quite right—good policing has been effective in shutting crack houses—but they know, as I do, that current measures take too long in many circumstances. Problems that can arise during the period in which effective action is being put together can be extremely disturbing for people who live in or next door to the premises where dealing is taking place. Measures in the Bill are additional to the measures that police officers can take now, and will provide a quick, clear solution where nuisance is created by the peddling, selling and use of class A drugs. It will not be necessary to get witnesses to give evidence in those circumstances—evidence can be presented to the court by police officers and local authority officers to achieve the quick closure of the premises and relief for people living nearby.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) expressed concern about the use of fixed penalty notices by the education service. Concern was also expressed by Members of both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. It is not as if the use of fixed penalty notices by anyone other than police officers is anything new. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said that fixed penalty notices must only be issued by police officers, but they are issued by traffic wardens and local authority employees. If we have to use the court system and get a constable involved every time we try to deal with the truancy problem that exists in some schools, we will not have effective measures—
  Chris Grayling rose—
  Andrew Selous rose—
  Mr. Ainsworth: I shall give way in a moment.
  If we have to use those means, we will not have the effective measures against truancy that we badly need.
  I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash that we do not intend to give every teacher the ability to use fixed penalty notices, but what on earth is the matter with education welfare officers being able to issue fixed penalty notices? What is the matter with

  235
  organising truancy sweeps to get people back into school where they belong, and education welfare services providing those sweeps? What is the matter, in some circumstances, with head teachers and governing bodies approving specific members of staff to issue fixed penalty notices to deal with the problem of truancy? We will deal with the detail in Committee, and are prepared to deal with Members' concerns, but the measure will cut bureaucracy and enable us to take effective action.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) wanted us to deal with the problem of antisocial behaviour orders so that they are more easily obtained. She also wanted us to remove the costs involved in their application so that they are used far more often. We have made a number of changes that ought to streamline the ASBO system and make the orders more usable, as they can be attached to other court proceedings. We continue to look at the costs involved, and will keep the relevant measure under review to ensure that ASBOs are used as widely as they should be, so that we can deal with a problem that is of concern in our communities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) asked that there be powers to seize vehicles that are used and are likely to continue to be used for fly tipping. That is the intention in the Bill. Under its provisions, if the case can be made that vehicles are being used for fly tipping and are likely to continue to be used for that purpose, they can be seized.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) said that the Bill was about decency and tackling yobbish behaviour. We heard from the Liberal Democrats that there needs to be balance in that regard. Yes, there does need to be balance. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said when he opened the debate, we should see the measures in the Bill not in isolation, but as part of a broad range of measures. If Liberal Democrat Members do not realise that victims have rights and communities have rights, and that those rights ought to be equally as important as the rights of perpetrators, and possibly of greater importance, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) may be representing the lobby, but he is not representing his constituency as he ought to.
  Simon Hughes: In that case, why have the Government not introduced the promised victims and witnesses Bill, for which we have been pressing?
  Mr. Ainsworth: It is noticeable that the hon. Gentleman is ready to speak about anything other than the issues that he raised about this Bill. Does he not recognise that the problems of communities and of victims of antisocial behaviour, and not just the rights of perpetrators, are important?
  The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) echoed those of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he said that the measure should not be seen as a stand-alone Bill. He had some concerns about paying compensation to the owners of properties that we propose to close down as part of the measures to deal with crack houses. We will have to examine the compensation issue carefully. It is not our intention that compensation be paid to people who have been part of the problem and who have failed
  236
  to deal with it in their communities, but sometimes innocent people are caught by those measures, and we need to be prepared to consider compensation in those circumstances.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) argued so well that we should not expect others to live with conditions and behaviour that would not be tolerated by some in society who set the priorities and who are responsible for enforcing the law. That exposes the myth about antisocial behaviour. Dealing with it is not a matter of measures that will disproportionately affect the poor. The poor are disproportionately affected by antisocial behaviour. The rest of us can move away. We can buy the means to protect ourselves. There are many communities in all our constituencies that cannot do so. We must be prepared to make sure that they enjoy the kind of protection and the life that we so often take for granted.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) had some concerns about the gun measures. I believe that we will be able to satisfy those during the passage of the Bill.
  The Bill contains practical solutions that relate to real problems faced by many people. Those solutions arise from discussions with frontline service providers, such as the police. We will give them the tools that they need to do the job that they want to do. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  accordingly read a Second time.

  ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill:

  ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR BILL (PROGRAMME)
    Committal
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

    Proceedings in Standing Committee
    2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 22nd May 2003.
    The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
    Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
    Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

    Other proceedings
    Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Kemp.]
    The House proceeded to a Division.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
    The House having divided: Ayes 338, Noes 147.

    Division No. 161]

    [6:59 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cox, Tom (Tooting)

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Cranston, Ross

    Ainger, Nick

    Crausby, David

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Alexander, Douglas

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Allen, Graham

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Bailey, Adrian

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Banks, Tony

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Barren, rh Kevin

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Battle, John

    David, Wayne

    Bayley, Hugh

    Davidson, Ian

    Beard, Nigel

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Bell, Stuart

    Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Benn, Hilary

    Dawson, Hilton

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Berry, Roger

    Denham, rh John

    Best, Harold

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Betts, Clive

    Dismore, Andrew

    Blackman, Liz

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Blizzard, Bob

    Doran, Frank

    Blunkett, rh David

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Borrow, David

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Brennan, Kevin

    Edwards, Huw

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Bryant, Chris

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Farrelly, Paul

    Burden, Richard

    Fisher, Mark

    Burgon, Colin

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Burnham, Andy

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Flint, Caroline

    Caborn, rh Richard

    Follett, Barbara

    Cairns, David

    Foster, rh Derek

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Foulkes, rh George

    Casale, Roger

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Caton, Martin

    Gapes, Mike (llford S)

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Challen, Colin

    Gerrard, Neil

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Chaytor, David

    Gilroy, Linda

    Clapham, Michael

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Goggins, Paul

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chyston)

    Grogan, John

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clelland, David

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hanson, David

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Cohen, Harry

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Coleman, Iain

    Colman, Tony

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Connarty, Michael

    Hendrick, Mark

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Cooper, Yvette

    Heppell, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hesford, Stephen

    Corston, Jean

    Heyes, David

    238

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    McWalter, Tony

    Hinchliffe, David

    McWilliam, John

    Hodge, Margaret

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Martlew, Eric

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

    Hutton, rh John

    Michael, rh Alun

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Miliband, David

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Miller, Andrew

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Jamieson, David

    Morgan, Julie

    Jenkins, Brian

    Mountford, Kali

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Mudie, George

    Jones, Helen (Warnigton N)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    O'Hara, Edward

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Organ, Diana

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Pearson, Ian

    Kemp, Fraser

    Perham, Linda

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Plcking, Anne

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Pickthall, Colin

    Kidney, David

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    plaskltt, James

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Lammy, David

    Purnell, James

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Lepper, David

    Rammell, Bill

    Leslie, Christopher

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

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

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Linton, Martin

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Love, Andrew

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Rooney, Terry

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McCafferty, Chris

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Salmond, Alex

    MacDonald, Calum

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McDonnell, John

    Savidge, Malcolm

    MacDougall, John

    Sawford, Phil

    McFall, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McIsaac, Shona

    Sheerman, Barry

    McKechin, Ann

    Sheridan, Jim

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Short, rh Clare

    McNamara, Kevin

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McNulty, Tony

    Singh, Marsha

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    239

    Simith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Simith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Soley, Clive

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Southworth, Helen

    Ward, Claire

    Spellar, rh John

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Squire, Rachel

    Watts, David

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Weir, Michael

    Steinberg, Gerry

    White, Brian

    Stevenson, George

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Wills, Michael

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Winnick, David

    Straw, rh Jack

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Wishart, Pete

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Woolas, Phil

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Worthington, Tony

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Timms, Stephen

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Trickett, Jon

    Wyatt, Derek

    Truswell, Paul

    Tellers for the Ayes: Dan Norris and Gillian Merron

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Amess, David

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Bacon, Richard

    Doughty, Sue

    Baker, Norman

    Duncan Smith, rh lain

    Baldry, Tony

    Evans, Nigel

    Barker, Gregory

    Fabricant, Michael

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Flight, Howard

    Barrett, John

    Flook, Adrian

    Berth, rh A. J.

    Forth, rh Eric

    Bercow, John

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Blunt, Crispin

    Francois, Mark

    Brady, Graham

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Brazier, Julian

    Garnier, Edward

    Breed, Colin

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Gidley, Sandra

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Goodman, Paul

    Burnett, John

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Burns, Simon

    Grayling, Chris

    Burnside, David

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Burstow, Paul

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Burt, Alistair

    Grieve, Dominic

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Hague, rh William

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Hammond, Philip

    Cash, William

    Hancock, Mike

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Harvey, Nick

    Hawkins, Nick

    Chope, Christopher

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Clappison, James

    Hendry, Charles

    Collins, Tim

    Hermon, Lady

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Cotter, Brian

    Holmes, Paul

    Cran, James (Beverley)

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    240

    Howard, rh Michael

    Rendel, David

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Hunter, Andrew

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Jack, rh Michael

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Keetch, Paul

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Selous, Andrew

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shepherd, Richard

    Lamb, Norman

    Simmonds, Mark

    Lansley Andrew

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

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Spink, Bob (Castle point)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Steen, Anthony

    Luff, Peter (M- Worcs)

    Stunell, Andrew

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Swayne, Desmond

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Malins, Humfrey

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Maples John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Thurso, John

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Viggers, Peter

    Moore Michael

    Watkinson, Angela

    Moss, Malcolm

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Whittingdale, John

    Norman, Archie

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Wiggin, Bill

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Willetts, David

    Öpik, Lembit

    Willis, phil

    Page, Richard

    Wilshire, David

    Paice, James

    Young, rh Sir George

    Paterson, Owen

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Pickles, Eric

    Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Mark Hoban and Mr. Robert Syms

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Redwood, rh John

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1) (a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
  (a) amounts ordered to be paid in respect of loss incurred in consequence of prohibition of access to, or the closure of, premises;
  any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Joan Ryan.]
  Question agreed to.

  DEFERRED DIVISIONS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
  That, at this day's sitting, the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 29th October 2002 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply to the Question on the Motion relating to Northern Ireland.—[Joan Ryan.]
  Question agreed to.

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

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 27th March, be approved.—[Joan Ryan.]
    Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That the Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (Amendment) Order 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 498), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Joan Ryan.]
  Ordered,
  That the Care Homes (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 534), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Joan Ryan.]

  PETITIONS

    Pharmacies
    7.16 pm
    Mr. David Kidney: A number of Members have recently presented petitions on the subject of the Office of Fair Trading report on pharmacies. I am now presenting a petition on the same subject, on behalf of residents of my constituents. Four hundred and sixty-one signatures have been collected.
    The petition
    Declares that the proposals made by the Office of Fair Trading allowing the unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions will have a detrimental impact on local pharmacies and their continued services to local communities.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reject the proposals made by the OFT for the unrestricted opening of pharmacies,
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.
    7.17 pm
    Jim Dobbin: My petition is similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). This issue has caught the public's imagination. My constituents fear that proposals in the OFT's report on pharmaceutical services will adversely affect community pharmacists' ability to deliver a comprehensive service. The petition, signed by approximately 2,000 of my constituents, asks for the protection of opening hours of pharmacies serving local communities.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to keep the present framework by rejecting proposals which could lead to the closure of community pharmacies.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Information Technology (DEFRA)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
  7.18 pm
  David Taylor: I am delighted to have secured this debate, at the fifth or sixth time of asking.
  Before coming to the House in 1997, I worked for three decades in the world of information technology. I worked in a range of jobs, from software development through systems analysis and lecturing to project and team management. All that experience was in local government, so it is not surprising that I have taken a keen interest in the use of IT in national Government—and especially in the sad Gadarene rush of Departments towards the expensive abandonment of control called "outsourcing".
  When I joined the new Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs after the 2001 election, one of our reports was on the performance of the new Department. I think I am right in saying that we were all disappointed at the weak, perhaps even woeful, approach to IT.
  My public sector experience has been that outsourcing can often be the last desperate act of an IT-illiterate top management who are drowning in a whirlpool of technology they do not understand and who are seduced by private sector IT sharks into buying solutions claimed to be a panacea For all ills, including their organisational incompetence.
  The new DEFRA, top management were said to be the finest available in what was always likely to be a Department with numerous challenges. As an MP representing a rural constituency, with a personal focus on environmental issues, I was and am convinced that the new Department has the ability to boost the quality of life for millions, especially with the Ministers it now has, so I regretted the lack of an IT strategy, other than to sell off IT and throw DEFRA to the mercies of the private sector.
  Under the previous Government, IT services went through a market-testing programme that brought flexibility in terms of numbers and skills while the Department retained control and the ability swiftly to reposition staff if necessary without incurring penalties, financial or otherwise. Years later, the better quality service programme suggested better utilisation of the private sector arid better investment within the Department but not the transfer of the in-house capability. Following the end of the foot and mouth outbreak, internal management decided that the BQS recommendations were no longer viable and that a new review to include looking at outsourcing the service should take place.
  The Department rushed to finalise its IT strategy by the end of March 2003 in response o criticisms from the Select Committee and to meet its timetable for procurement. As that strategy did not exist before the decision to privatise the IT services, it has been heavily influenced by the privatisation proposals. It is therefore a strategy to support the programme rather than reflect the true business needs of DEFRA.

  243
  The Office of Government Commerce gateway one report stated:
  "There remains a strong resistance from the trade unions and the majority of Defra staff. There is a serious risk of disruption to business through poor morale, loss of staff, or industrial action. Delays in decision making and consequent uncertainty amongst Defra staff and management as to which individuals are in scope and how services will be provided is leading to reduced support for the privatisation option".
  Its recommendation was that within the programme greater leadership needed to be demonstrated by committing to take bold and early decisions in order to remove uncertainty and de-risk delivery, for example, through staff retention strategies. That report was written on 11 December 2002 and DEFRA has still not produced any staff retention measures, other than token concessions at Guildford, where fewer than 50 per cent. of the Department's total IT staff work; there are no current measures to help the rest.
  Sue Doughty: I am concerned about the staff retention issue. There are considerable skills in that sector. IT in this area is complex and needs the skills that are at Guildford. What are the hon. Gentleman's comments about how DEFRA can retain those skills within the plans that it has?
  David Taylor: I think that that is possible given imagination and knowledge, which are not necessarily always present in the right places—although that is one of the questions that I shall put to the Minister at the end of my speech.
  A notice placed in the Official Journal of the European Union includes the following statement:
  "For guidance, the current spend"
  for DEFRA IT
  "is approximately 85 million GBP per annum."
  It further states:
  "The contract will be for an initial term of 7 to 10 years with the ability to extend up to a maximum contract term of 17 years subject to mutually agreeable terms."
  The Department is, therefore, considering tying itself into a contract worth £1 billion. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and DEFRA has never committed that sort of expenditure to IT before. It is difficult to know what may have to be cut down the line to ensure that those future bills are met.
  DEFRA is a new organisation and still coming to terms with its remit. It is going through major changes. Lord Haskins is reviewing the links of all the countryside agencies, for example. There are over 30 current reviews of the work and infrastructure of the Department and those can hardly allow a clear picture of the potential IT work load. This is a time for flexibility, not for rigid contracting out of services. It is not the time to try to privatise IT service delivery, which nowadays, if not core to, is at least the lifeblood of any business.
  An IT strategy has at last been produced, and the management board has insisted on the corporate governance of IT. Both were sorely needed, and although required for the outsourcing, they will also allow internal staff to be more efficient and cost-effective. However, it is difficult to understand why the Department's own staff are not being allowed the
  244
  opportunity to show their worth under this new regime, especially given the extra funding being made available to improve the infrastructure, rather than wasting taxpayers' money on privatisation—unless, of course, this is a purely political decision.
  The Department is also rightly trying to improve the infrastructure before privatisation takes place. The maxim is: never outsource a problem, and I agree with that. However, it is not as if this action and the investment have not been sought before by in-house staff, who are now asking why they were denied this opportunity to work efficiently, and why it is being granted to an external supplier.
  While the privatisation programme has been meandering along, staff have been providing an excellent service. There has been a preference exercise, and details of which posts will be TUPE-ed to the external supplier are about to be issued. If a sufficient number of unhappy staff take their careers elsewhere, DEFRA business continuity will be seriously compromised. But the Department is not offering staff any incentives to remain. During the foot and mouth crisis, in-house IT staff worked long hours in remote locations for many weeks away from home, setting up emergency IT networks to improve communication. At the height of the crisis, the Department tried to get additional support from the private sector, but—surprise, surprise—it was found to be inflexible and extortionately expensive. How will DEFRA cope with future emergencies without the flexibility of its in-house capability? No modern business can divorce IT from its day-to-day business requirement skills. To do so is restrictive, backward-looking, not cost-effective and very unlikely to attract able young people into the work force.
  The list of recent Government IT failures linked to private finance initiatives, public-private partnerships or outsourcing grows ever longer. The consequent cost to the public purse has become truly astonishing. I shall briefly touch on two examples, as they provide important lessons for DEFRA. As a justice of the peace, I had close experience of computerisation within magistrates courts. The Libra system, which linked courts, was an abysmal failure and needed total re-designing last year at a cost of some £134 million. The coruscating National Audit Office report into that debacle points to serious mistakes, which could be replicated by DEFRA. The Inland Revenue, with which I had many contacts as an accountant, is now trying to re-tender contracts worth £5 billion over 10 years. However, EDS and Accenture are so embedded after a 12-year contract that other companies cannot really take part in the tender process. So the Inland Revenue—and the taxpayer—will enjoy astonishingly poor value in the marketplace.
  Whitehall has never learned the IT lessons of the 1992 Wessex disaster. The audit report into that health authority found a management style that discouraged criticism and open debate, led to too close a relationship between the authority and suppliers, and imposed systems on resistant IT specialists. This has a good deal of resonance for DEFRA.
  So what are the main reasons for the two frequent failures in Government IT contracts? At the edge of what void do I feel DEFRA is perilously teetering? The size of contracts means that competition is rare, because

  245
  only a handful of companies is able to provide services on such a large scale. There is also an attitude in Whitehall of never taking risks with the unknown. Almost all IT contracts in government go to five companies: EDS, Accenture, ICL/Fujitsu, BT and IBM.
  The private sector cancels more quickly if it has financial or time problems with a company. The Government tend to carry on topping up the costs and extending the deadlines. The IT industry knows that there is little IT expertise in senior positions within Government Departments, so control is effectively handed over to the contractors. Private companies build in expensive clauses for change. The Government constantly change requirements in Departments such as DEFRA—which is still, as I said, an emerging structure—and at the whim of EU legislation. This can make long-term contracts hugely expensive.
  Government Departments are also rarely able to pin liability on private companies, which are much smarter at writing contracts. So taxpayers end up carrying the extra costs of delay and poor specification. The Minister should not just take my word for the bottomless bear-traps that lie down the outsourcing route. He should listen to how key advisers slam Whitehall IT suppliers. They say:
  "Strategic IT partnerships between the public and private sector have no future unless suppliers get their act together, stop making exorbitant claims and deliver true value for the whole life of contracts."
  That blunt message was delivered at the recent conference of the Institute of Economic Affairs by no less a personage than Peter Gershon, chief executive of the Office of Government Commerce, which is responsible for Government procurement policy. He said that only a miserable one in three of UK public sector IT projects were at all successful. He warned IT suppliers that the Public Accounts Committee saw partnering as a mechanism for suppliers to take "nave public sector clients" for a ride.
  I absolutely agree with every word. IT suppliers often regard Government as a cash cow. If the Government really want to emulate the private sector, in which they have such touching and abiding faith, they should look at the sector's present attitude to outsourcing. Companies are going for shorter-term contracts, and for rebuilding internal IT provision to increase flexibility and competition. In today's market, there is no sense in the long-term contracts that DEFRA is pursuing.
  Many outsourcing contracts entered into during the 1990s are coming up for renewal, and the hard-earned experience from those contracts too frequently reveals that services failed to deliver the anticipated benefits, that the exact scope of the outsourced services was unclear, and that there were insufficient contractual remedies to ensure proper supplier performance. We need no crystal ball: the stack of critical reports casts a shadow right down Whitehall.
  In addition to the points raised in my speech, there are four key questions that I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will address, either now or in writing.
  How much money has DEFRA spent on employing consultants on the IT privatisation project in the past year? What is the average daily rate paid to those consultants?
  246
  Given that the Office of Government Commerce made strong recommendations last year to DEFRA to introduce a staff retention strategy because of the risk of skills loss to the privatisation project, what measures has DEFRA introduced to ensure skilled staff are not lost to the Department?
  Will the Minister explain what is meant by the statement by the permanent secretary that IT was not part of the "core business" of DEFRA? Is it not true that any modern organisation must have an effective and reactive IT service embedded in its core business if it is to provide efficient delivery?
  Finally, the recent Official Journal of the European Union advertisement seeking expressions of interest from IT suppliers contains the statement that the current spend for DEFRA IT is approximately £85 million a year. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister provide a breakdown to show how that figure was arrived at? Will they also provide a similar breakdown for IT spending in MAFF or DEFRA over the previous three years?
  Finally, I am relieved that DEFRA has adopted a more sensible approach to corporate governance and corporate data, and that it is, albeit slowly, feeling its way towards a higher profile for IT and a coherent strategy for its utilisation. I say sincerely that all of that is most welcome. IT is common ground for top civil servants, and lowly Back Benchers, but the chosen route of privatisation is as astonishing as it is unnecessary. It could well prove to be a most costly folly, which will doubtless be criticised by future MPs and Ministers, but defended by that impervious layer of top civil servants who forget nothing and learn nothing, and who are paid for by poor, long-suffering taxpayers and citizens.
  7.33 pm
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend on obtaining a debate on what I agree is a most important issue. I regret to say that he is well out of date, and that some of his criticisms relate to the past and not to the present. However, he ended on a positive note. I warmed to that, and suggest that, if my hon. Friend wishes, I could discuss some of the issues raised in the debate with him in the future.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), my experience before entering the House was in local government, where I was chair of finance. More recently, as a member of the Government, I have seen both good and bad in IT procurement. For that reason, when I took on my present responsibilities, I very strongly questioned the recommendations of officials, and challenged their presumptions. I can tell my hon. Friend that I would have been happy to discuss with him the way in which we have approached the Department's IT strategy over recent months, and I hope that we will be able to discuss the matter in the future. In addition, the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), who intervened in my hon. Friend's speech earlier, has spoken to me on a couple of occasions about her concerns on this matter. I think that she well knows the amount of time that I have put in as I have attempted to ensure that the Department gets this matter right. One of the most important issues is indeed that of staff retention. We have demonstrated

  247
  a commitment to IT staff working at Guildford until at least April 2007. We have also made a commitment to follow high standards of transfer and a commitment to the training and development of all staff—not only the staff who might be outsourced or retained, but all staff, treating them as individuals. As far as loyalty payments to staff are concerned, there is no business justification for that at the moment because loss rates are low. Incentives include wider career opportunities for many staff working for specialist IT organisations, as well as those retained in the Department.
  I turn to the four questions that my hon. Friend asked. On the cost of consultants and the question of spend, it would be best if I write to him. I shall touch on his question about core business in a moment. The point of tackling the whole way in which we manage IT in DEFRA is that the Department exists to manage a programme of radical and far-reaching change. My hon. Friend rightly mentioned some of the changes that we are trying to bring about, which include: the concept of sustainable development; balancing economic, social, environmental and conservation issues across a range of aspects of public policy; for the first time, effectively addressing rural economies and communities as part of the mainstream activities of the Department; waste management issues; major shifts in rural land use; and many other issues within the Department's wide portfolio. Delivery of those changes needs to be fully supported by a very broad capability in terms of information technology. There are two strands—first, to get the IT strategy right and, secondly, to get our supply and delivery arrangements right.
  The DEFRA IT strategy document sets out how IT will best support DEFRA over the coming years. It is a pragmatic document, not some IT flight of fancy, and it is strongly supported by those delivering services to external and internal customers within the Department. It has been reviewed by one of the most experienced consultants at the Office of Government Commerce, who described it as credible, as having a good level of buy-in and as reflecting a great deal of progress, and who stated that all those factors contribute to a positive sense that the task that DEFRA has set itself is achievable.
  The strategy has two key aspects, the first of which is that it involves the delivery of a wide range of new systems. First, we have the big development—worth more than £50 million—of the England rural development programme, and we have the Rural Payments Agency, which deals with EU subsidy payments to 70,000 farmers. Secondly, we have technical developments such as radiological monitoring and the surveillance of animal disease outbreaks. Thirdly, we have the customer livestock and land use registers to provide consistent information. The second key aspect of the strategy is that it involves pragmatic implementation—first, a phased approach and, secondly, extensive use of best practice for IT projects such as using Office of Government Commerce gateway reviews.
  That is the context in which the outsourcing programme must be understood. So, why are we doing it? I would say exactly the same as the Permanent Secretary—providing IT is not our core business. As far as DEFRA is concerned, IT is a big business in itself. An immense range of new supply and delivery
  248
  arrangements are needed to support the IT strategy. That involves not just small changes to existing services, but the need to establish a new technical infrastructure—not only in IT, but terms of changes to the way in which DEFRA undertakes its business. There are issues of customer relationships, geographical information, science, disease monitoring, payments and management information. Is it wise to run such an ambitious range of work outside one's core business? It is not possible for the Department to be technically expert in everything.
  David Taylor: Which came first—the decision to privatise or the IT strategy? If it was the former, that flies in the face of all the potentially successful approaches to IT that I have encountered over decades.
  Alun Michael: As far as I am concerned, we have had to grapple with the immense programme of change and the need to get IT that was appropriate to the demands on the Department in relation to its policy objectives. The question then was how best to develop and deliver an IT strategy. That was the order of things. As in all such things, the question of the chicken and the egg arises, because people are looking at how to deliver the policy. However, as far as I am concerned, the first task with officials has been to tease out what the Department needs to do and how we could best ensure that what we did was served by the right IT strategy. Over the period in which we have worked our way through this and into the processes of the gateway strategy, the chickens and eggs have got themselves into order. I believe that we are getting things right.
  Outsourcing IT best supports the necessary specialisations that are required in DEFRA. I did not come to that view easily. As I have said, I had many questions about the way in which the Department was approaching its new challenge. People should remember that we addressed these questions immediately after a new Department had come into being through the bringing together of two large sections of previous Government Departments with a set of major new responsibilities. We considered internal restructuring, but that would not give us what we needed because of the complexity of the changes required. We need access to a large pool of experience and talent at the cutting edge of IT.
  Our challenge has been to make our strategy a success. Having taken care not to rush the early stages, we are now moving ahead, ensuring that we are building on the needs of the departmental change programme and the IT strategy. Since being given ministerial responsibility, I have taken a personal interest in this. I took the initiative and discussed our options and possible approaches with Peter Gershon, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire said, is the head of the Office of Government Commerce. I did that to ensure that we learned from what had happened elsewhere. My hon. Friend rightly referred to some of Peter Gershon's comments on the way in which experience elsewhere in Whitehall should be learned from. I ensured that we had a gateway zero review before setting out; I visited Guildford and met trade union representatives; I offered opportunities for training; and I upgraded the human resources input to the programme in discussion with our officials. That is

  249
  why I am now certain that we are on the right track—as has been confirmed following the Office of Government Commerce gateway three review in March, to which I have already referred.
  We are now ready to go. We are launching procurement in the Official Journal of the European Union and we expect to award the contract by summer 2004. We are aiming for success through learning lessons, through consulting widely, through drawing on consultancy experience and through managing the risks. We have recently appointed an IT director from the private sector who has led previous outsourcing projects. We are recruiting more key people to the management team. We are looking to use people who have done this before and done it well.
  In the light of comments made by my hon. Friend, I want to make it clear that we are not handing over our destiny. The Department is not handing over the direction of IT or selling off the family silver, as my hon. Friend rather suggested that we were. Outsourcing is only a part of what we are doing. We are developing internal skills in the business management of IT; we are developing clearer governance; and we are developing more long-term planning, as in the IT strategy. We are retaining the capability to manage the supplier, and the arrangements for that are being planned now. We are working with all in DEFRA to ensure that we are ready for a new service and that the new service gives the users of IT in the Department what they need.
  I must stress that we are not neglecting our staff. We have published our human resources strategy, which defines the values and principles that will ensure that staff are supported and treated fairly. I have made this clear to the staff and I am happy to state it here now: I want us to value every member of staff in DEFRA, whether they are members of staff whose future will be as part of the internal operations—the intelligent customer function—or they are members of staff who will move to a private sector supplier or find themselves elsewhere. That is why we have put such emphasis on the human resources strategy.
  Those DEFRA staff who transfer to the new supplier will do so under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Senior officials managing the programme have regularly and
  250
  frequently consulted departmental trade union representatives, in particular on issues of concern to staff. Again, the increased emphasis on human resources has allowed us to improve and intensify that work.
  An extensive and varied training and development programme is under way for staff who are affected by the programme, including a one-to-one counselling programme. That programme is a big undertaking. We have not taken it on lightly and would not be doing this if we did not believe that it was the right way forward for the Department.
  David Taylor: I am grateful for the Minister's comments. Before he concludes his remarks, however, will he briefly answer my questions? Why was not at least a fraction of the hugely increased resources that are to be spent on IT in DEFRA made available to existing staff who could have demonstrated what they were worth and drawn deeply on the skills that they have developed in the years that they have given to MAFF and DEFRA?
  Alun Michael: We are increasing resources for IT because we have initiated a more ambitious IT programme for a vastly increased Department. We are in a different ballgame. As I said, we have tried to support staff as a part of that programme. We have not intended to leave staff behind and to look outside DEFRA. We have tried to carry staff with us and have put a programme in place to increase and improve their skills so that they can be part of the new arrangements. That reflects our ambition. We very much want the staff to be part of the future of DEFRA.
  The basic point is that DEFRA has a major programme to deliver. We are ambitious to do that in the most modern way possible and to use IT to the best. That is why our programme of change in the Department is underpinned by a well developed and linked IT strategy, and by plans for IT outsourcing that is capable of meeting the Department's wide-ranging needs. Providing that service is in the best interests of the public and all those whom we serve on the range of matters for which we are responsible. It is also the best way to ensure that our staff have the tools to do the job.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. EDWARD O'HARA in the Chair]

Health and Safety at Work
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
9.30 am
Mr. John Lyons: I begin by declaring an interest in health and safety at work. I am a member of Unison and have a long interest in the subject as a former health and safety representative in engineering and public services.
When the Adjournment debate was suggested, I was keen that we should raise the issue of health and safety at work, not only to allow us an hour and a half to discuss this important subject in Westminster Hall, but to create an awareness of it beyond the debate today. It has not been given high enough priority in the work of the House of Commons or elsewhere. It should have the No. 1 spot on any organisation's agenda. We need to push it up the industrial relations agenda, so that it is seen as more important and is discussed more. We need to make health and safety a No. 1 issue in the voluntary sector as well as in public services and the private sector. The issue is relevant to the whole of the British economy and needs to be treated as such.
I compliment the work of the all-party group on occupational safety and health, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). It has done, and continues to do, admirable work across the piece, which I welcome. We should salute the work of the group, and that of my hon. Friend in particular.
I welcome the Government's decision to move the responsibility for the Health and Safety Commission to the Department for Work and Pensions. It is a good move, and one that we should welcome as it allows for a more co-ordinated, all-round approach to health and safety through the Department. I hope that that is what happens. We must examine not only statistics, but the whole question of illness and health in the workplace, which has not been treated properly in the past.
I think that we would all agree that we hear about health and safety when there is a major problem, which can be international as well as national. Among the international incidents were Chernobyl, Bhopal and Mexico City—to name just three. Nationally, we have had Piper Alpha, Herald of Free Enterprise, King's Cross, Hatfield and, unfortunately, too many others to mention. It is only when such disasters occur that we all, for a short period, deal with health and safety issues, and awareness of the problems sometimes disappears far too quickly—perhaps a day or two later. We must focus on these incidents and try to ensure that they do not happen again.
I do not want to use the debate to describe the health and safety situation in the United Kingdom as desperate and deplorable, because it is far from that. In fact, it is very good in some areas. The commission, the Health
2WH
and Safety Executive, employers, employees, the TUC and the Scottish TUC work daily to improve health and safety in this country. As I said, it would be wrong to argue that there has been no improvement in recent years, because that is not the case.
In the past 10 years, significant European Union directives have made a qualitative difference to the health and safety agenda in this country, including: the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994; the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994; the consumer protection legislation; and related general product safety regulations in 1994. Health and safety representatives throughout the country, irrespective of which sector they work in, have welcomed the health and safety six-pack of regulations, which included the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992, the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992, the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992. Steady progress has been made throughout the 1990s with legislation that has helped to build a framework for employers and employees, and for managers and health and safety representatives, who have to implement it at local level.
Having said that, there has still been no major UK legislation since the 1974 Act. That Act has been very successful and has played an important pivotal role in developing all the health and safety regulations I mentioned, but things have moved on significantly in those 30 years. We need to upgrade the legislation and bring in a new Act. The legislation needs to be taken forward, consolidated and built on for the future, because of the differing situations that people now face in the workplace.
As I said, it is not a dreary picture: it is a positive one. Much good work is taking place, such as that of the Health and Safety Executive. The inspectors, the Health and Safety Commission, the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress are all trying to work in partnership, locally and nationally, to develop a better health and safety framework for industry and the British economy.
Health and safety continues to play a major role for people at work and for trade unions where they are organised and recognised in the workplace. The revitalising health and safety strategy, which has been sponsored by the Government, the Health and Safety Commission and the TUC, has been engaged in campaigns to strengthen the health and safety system. It has promoted and supported the work of the workplace safety representatives, fostered rehabilitation and retention systems as well as dealt with a wide range of workplace hazards. In particular, it has raised the profile of health and safety nationally and internationally. All those partners are to be complimented on that. The TUC needs to continue to engage the CBI as well as other organisations to ensure that people work collectively on this problem. If they do that, we have a chance of securing major gains in health and safety.
It might be as well to mention some of the statistics, which can sometimes be very dry. We should not take that attitude in this case, as we are talking about people being injured and killed. That is the daily reality in British industry. The figures are quite stunning. It is not true to say that there have been no improvements,

3WH
because there have been and we should record that. According to the HSE's provisional figures for 2001–02, 249 workers were killed—43 fewer than the previous year—4,000 people were killed by asbestos-related diseases and 6,000 from other occupational illnesses.
The HSE says that at least 70 per cent. of incidents causing death or serious injury are due to health and safety management failures and should—not could—have been prevented. That highlights the major problem that we face in trying to ensure that good structures and framework agreements are implemented, and are applied locally to protect the work force. We must ensure that fewer people are killed. One would be too many for me. Realistically, we must aim to reduce the number of people killed and injured at work.
Some more figures should be added to those official statistics. About 30 people are killed at sea on British registered ships and on British waters. About 1,000 people die in work-related road traffic accidents and another 1,000 are killed by asbestos. The TUC estimates that around 5,000 people a year die from asbestos-related diseases. It should be a matter of deep concern that that problem continues. About 9,000 people are killed by other occupational diseases such as cancer, asthma and cardio-vascular illnesses.
Jim Sheridan: Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of asbestos-related diseases, will he join me in putting on record our appreciation for the work of voluntary organisations such as Clydeside Action on Asbestos? If such organisations did not exist, people with this terrible disease, and their families, would have been left to suffer alone.
Mr. Lyons: My hon. Friend is right. Clydeside Action on Asbestos has for some years worked almost single-handedly to raise awareness and understanding of asbestos-related issues. In the west of Scotland, because of shipbuilding and heavy engineering, there is a long history of problems related to asbestos. It is crucial that relatives have someone to link up with and to get support from, and Clydeside Action on Asbestos is a serious, well-organised organisation.
The Health and Safety Executive report 2001–02 records 27,000 major injuries, which is only 47 fewer than in the previous year, which shows the task that faces parliamentarians and local health and safety representatives in trying to improve the situation. The consequences of illness and accidents are a serious problem for the families involved, but they also have a shocking effect on the British economy, as it is estimated that 40 million days off are due to illness and injury.
The figures are surprising. Some sectors would be considered safe places to work, but the figures show that that is not so. One would think that there should not be accidents or deaths in agriculture—hunting, forestry and fishing—but there are. One would expect major problems in construction, and many of the deaths in British industry occur in that sector. There were 79 in the current year, but 113 in the previous year. Those are worrying statistics.
Every week, five people in Britain are killed in their place of work, and 200 die as a result of occupational illness—I have already mentioned some of the illnesses.
4WH
We need to underscore the importance of health and safety not just because of the deaths and illnesses, but because it is a person's right to be protected and to work in a healthy environment.
Dr. Ian Gibson: My hon. Friend used the word "protection". Does he agree that a new health and safety problem has arisen in work places, which is the threat to the work force from bullying and physical violence? Indeed, a member of the staff of an hon. Member, who was pursuing his activities as an MP, was subjected to physical violence. Such incidents occur in banks, supermarkets and so on, and cause stress and illness. Does my hon. Friend accept that that new phenomenon has developed in the past 10 years?
Mr. Lyons: Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point. I know only too well the recent evidence from the shopworkers' trade union on the number of assaults that its members suffer. In the health service, nursing and portering staff in hospitals have to face such threats daily. There have been major campaigns in London Transport to try to reduce the number of assaults on staff. It is a great problem for everyone, and is perhaps a subject for debate in its own right.
The statistics show a major impact on families and on the economy. Tomorrow, the Chancellor will tackle British productivity. It is not a party issue; every Chancellor will say that we need to improve productivity in the economy. It would be a good starting point to say that if the days lost through accidents could be substantially reduced it would be a major contribution to improving productivity. We must take health and safety issues in the workplace seriously.
Mr. Tom Cox: My hon. Friend quoted the statistics. Does he accept that, even if people have been killed or seriously injured, when employers who flagrantly ignore health and safety regulations are taken to court, they often receive the most pathetically low fines for abusing legislation to protect their work force?
Mr. Lyons: Yes, I accept that point. I welcome the campaigning work of the TUC and other organisations to highlight the issue of corporate manslaughter. If that could be included in legislation, it would be a significant step forward and it would be welcomed all across the country, not just by trade unions and employers, but by relatives and friends of people who have been involved in some of the major incidents.
We need to drive health and safety up the industrial and political agenda. I referred earlier to the health service. There is an attempt in the House, through a private Member's Bill, to deal with needle stick injuries. That matter is straightforward. Thousands of people per year are injured at work. We are losing tens of thousands of days in the health service because people are receiving needle stick injuries. Whether in Scotland, England or Wales, there needs to be a determined effort to eradicate needle stick injuries. Such injuries are unnecessary. If we were to work on that alone, there would be a major benefit, not only for people who are likely to be injured, but for the health service and for

5WH
patients and staff. People would not be injured in that way, and would be at work rather than off work because of a needle stick injury.
Mr. Michael Clapham: I refer my hon. Friend to the needle stick injuries policy of Barnsley district general hospital. That policy has been brought to the attention of the Minister, who is to invite my hospital to a conference this June to promote its policy. Does my hon. Friend feel that there is a need for the Department of Health to drive best practice on the issue through the entire national health service?
Mr. Lyons: Yes, I do, and I welcome that point from my hon. Friend. When we have successes in the health service on health and safety issues, it is important to show them to other trusts up and down the country as examples of best practice. There is no point allowing every trust to try to find a way forward. If we find something that is successful, it can be used as an example of best practice and can be developed quickly.
Anne Picking: There might be the odd accident, but almost 100 per cent. of needle stick injuries could be wiped out by good practice.
Mr. Lyons: I accept that point. My hon. Friend has years of experience of the health service. Nurses know how such injuries can be avoided, and how we can ensure that people are able to go to work and not be involved in such incidents.
Unison and other trade unions have been campaigning for some time on this issues, because it is important to their members, who are on the front line of the health service. A needle stick injury is not just a physical problem: it also causes psychological worry. People who are in that situation start to worry about what the needle was used for and what effect the jab will have. That is a dreadful burden. It is not just about the days off. Staff should be protected and should be able to work safely in the health service, without fear. I welcome the campaign by Unison and others. More strength to their elbow. I hope that they will be successful in ensuring that we eradicate needle stick injuries from the health service in the UK.
All too often we speak about health and safety in relation to the British economy and the voluntary, private and public sectors. We also need to consider the people who work in the Palace. Are they being protected properly? Whether they are in kitchens or other locations such as workshops, are they being treated properly and afforded the proper protection?
Mr. David Marshall: I compliment my hon. Friend on securing this worthwhile and important debate. Before he goes deeper into the question of location, will he clarify the definition of workplace? Although it is easy to define factories, offices and shops as places of work, does the definition include buses, trains and aeroplanes? People who work on them often face health and safety hazards. I am aware that other legislation, such as that on construction and use, can apply in certain cases, but if legislation does not specifically apply to such situations, does my hon. Friend agree with me that it should?
Mr. Lyons: Yes, I accept that point. I mentioned that a new Act was necessary. Such an Act should examine
6WH
the definitions in the 1974 Act, because they can change so quickly. Home working is another issue. Whether we like it or not, people work from their homes. They should be afforded the protection of health and safety legislation. Some people work at home with toxic substances or even fireworks. There is no legislation on that. We need to review everything that we are doing on this subject.
Mr. James Wray: We all know how long it took to detect the fact that diseases were caused by asbestos. Those diseases went for many years—I think that it was 30 or 50—without being reported by the Government. I am concerned about MDF board, which is a new material that is banned in America. It is creating the same situation as asbestos caused.
Mr. Lyons: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter, which I was unaware of, and I am sure that he and others will ensure that it is put on the political agenda. If that material contains the same dangers as asbestos, we must act quickly.
We will commemorate workers memorial day in April, and I think that that is an appropriate time to redefine the health and safety campaign. We need new legislation. We need to recommit ourselves to doing everything that we car to reduce the number of deaths and injuries at work—that goes without saying. Workers memorial day gives us the chance to do that, but we must seize the opportunity to ensure that health and safety remains on the political agenda. It is not good enough that we see health and safety as an issue just for employers, trade unions and employees. It is an issue for all of us and we must take it seriously.
MPs must have a keen interest in health and safety matters. Our constituents have to ensure that they are in a healthy, safe and secure workplace every day of the week, and we must support them in that. Those working day to day need our full support, including employers, employees and the health and safety reps who slog away at the front line trying to ensure that improvements are consolidated, so that working people have a better working life.
9.52 am
Angela Watkinson: I should like to raise the issue of health and safety at work in care homes for elderly people. There are, obviously, multiple risks and opportunities for accidents in care homes for staff and residents. Where budgets are being squeezed, there are implications for staffing levels, staff training and, therefore, health and safety at work.
Heavy responsibilities rest on care home registered managers, many of whom, due to staffing difficulties arising from budgetary pressures, are now having to take on additional duties that they previously only supervised. I am full of admiration for many of the care homes in my constituency—for the level of care that they are giving while they are coping with those difficulties.
By 2025, the number of people trying to survive on ever-dwindling pension funds will be 2 million more than the number of children under 15. Currently, less than 18 per cent. of the United Kingdom population is

7WH
under 15. Some of the next generation are already 30-something. That begs the question of who will look after those people if they live beyond the current life expectancy of 80. It is more than likely that they will have to live in care homes; at current rates, that can cost £20,000 a year. Recent statistics from the Health and Safety Executive and the local authorities enforcement liaison committee on residential care home injuries show that most injuries occur to people over the retirement age of 60, and the vast majority of those to people aged 80 and over.
In my constituency, the council has told me that the number of people aged over 80 will increase over the next five years, and that an additional 20 placements will be needed in residential or nursing care. Currently, the council pays £480 a week for a person to stay in a council-run home, but only £340 towards someone living in a privately run home. That has obvious implications for the viability of private homes, and care bids are being lost at an alarming rate.
There is a health and safety issue here. What happens to an elderly person living in a private home when the funds with which they are topping up the amount given by the council run out? In several instances in my constituency, when residents' funds have run out, and they have been in a private home for a long time and are looked upon as family rather than clients, the owners of the homes have chosen to absorb that expense themselves rather than take the risk of moving elderly people into another, cheaper home. There have been instances in which people have died after being moved out of the home that has been their familiar surroundings, and away from the people that they have known for so very long.
One problem has centred on the question of who should enforce health and safety standards in care homes when the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974 and the Care Standards Act 2000 both apply. Elderly people have a large range of special needs so care homes have to deal with clinical waste, drugs and medicines, all of which have to be controlled and administered properly. There is a significant risk of scalding in baths and showers. Four out of 10 accidents in the health care sector are due to manual handling problems and proper manual handling risk assessments are essential. Independence and the maintenance of dignity are particularly important when devising methods of lifting dependent people into beds or baths and there are health and safety implications for staff—they must be trained in proper techniques; otherwise, they can sustain back injuries.
A range of equipment and circumstances is required in care homes to ensure safety, such as good lighting, non-slip floors, handrails and so on. Temperatures may need to be higher than are comfortable for the people who are working there. They need to be provided with proper clothing so that they can work comfortably. An increasing number of electrically assisted pieces of equipment are used to care for older people, such as seating, hoists, chair lifts and other mobility equipment, which all have to be maintained properly, even if they are the private property of the resident, to ensure that they are safe and for reasons of fire prevention.
8WH
Violence to staff and other service users is not uncommon and must be properly managed to avoid ugly situations and give staff a safe means of withdrawal from dangerous situations.
The number of older people is rising rapidly in Europe. We are living longer—I hope that I do, too, and I hope that we all do—but we are having fewer children. There will continue to be a need for an increase in the supply of care homes and the employment of carers. We need to have not only patience and dedication to care for older people but sufficient knowledge and understanding to carry out tasks safely without risks to staff or those being cared for. There is an inescapable link between funding via local authorities and health and safety training in local care homes. There is a growing need because of the increase in the numbers of dependent elderly people, and we need to stem the flow of the loss of care beds. I hope that the Minister will address the implications that local council funding has for health and safety issues in care homes for elderly people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may help hon. Members to gauge their contributions if I point out that the first of the three Front-Bench spokespersons should be called not later than 10.30.
9.59 am
Ross Cranston: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) on securing the debate. The presence of such a large number of hon. Members in the Chamber this morning demonstrates the importance with which the issue should be treated.
In the past five years, more than 1,500 employees and 500 members of the public have died as a result of work-related disasters. Let me give just three recent examples from my region, the west midlands. In May 2001, Orangzeb Khan was killed when he fell two floors down a lift shaft at a factory. In September 2002, 39-year-old Troy Tattam, a construction worker, was killed when he was hit by a vehicle on a construction site. In February this year, 19-year-old Kyle Newell was killed when he was struck by a concrete load that fell off an excavator at a construction site.
That is the reality of death at work. However, we are concerned with not just death but injuries, occupational illnesses and psychological injury, which may be caused by excessive stress or bullying. The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) rightly reminded us that we are dealing not only with factories and construction sites but with other workplaces such as care homes. I shall try to confine my remarks to five minutes so that my hon. Friends can also contribute to the debate.
I wish briefly to address the issue of the law. It is only part of the solution. We must also bring about cultural change, embed good practice in businesses and raise the profile of health and safety. However, the law has an important role. As my hon. Friend said, we have not had major legislation on the issue since 1974.
The law must be changed in three main areas, the first being corporate killing. The Labour party has a manifesto commitment to introduce such a change, and

9WH
it is about time that we did. The problem is one of identification. Although it may be possible to identify a particular person in an organisation as having been guilty, say, of gross negligence, it is not possible to identify the company with the act. The Law Commission's proposal, which has been endorsed by the Government, of an offence of corporate killing would overcome that problem.
Secondly, the question of penalties was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). If it is possible to imprison people for breaches of trading or food standards law, why is that penalty not available for breaches of health and safety law? It is time that we dealt with that inconsistency.
Thirdly, there is the matter of directors' obligations, which was the point of a ten-minute Bill that I introduced a fortnight ago. I refer hon. Members to an excellent briefing paper on my Bill that was prepared by Brenda Brevitt of the science and environmental section of the Library. She explains the background to the Bill with greater clarity than I did when I introduced it in the House. She pointed out that in 2002 the British Safety Council revealed that many company directors believed that profits were more important than safety. Such concern with profits rather than safety must be addressed.
In my Bill, I tried to incorporate through amendments to the Companies Act the elements of good practice that have been developed, for example, by the Centre for Corporate Accountability and by the Health and Safety Commission, which issued guidance in 2001.
There are two aspects to my Bill. First, it would require companies to identify a particular director as having responsibility for health and safety. That is not scapegoating. The duties that would be imposed by my Bill on the health and safety director would not be subject to any criminal penalties, but the director would be required to monitor health and safety in the company and report on it regularly to the board.
Secondly, the Bill would impose an obligation on all directors of a company to take health and safety into account. Under current company law, directors have a responsibility, for example, not to act in a way that is contrary to the company's interests. There should be no conflicts of interest. Directors cannot, for example, appropriate, or misappropriate, corporate opportunities, and there are statutory responsibilities relating to financial matters. My Bill says that there is an additional area—health and safety—in which directors should have a duty under company law.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Would the Bill not make it easier to prosecute a director for manslaughter?
Ross Cranston: There would possibly be that indirect effect, but that is not in the Bill. The intention is to mirror, in relation to health and safety, directors' responsibilities in other areas. Someone may ask, "Well, why not impose duties on directors in relation to, say, environmental matters?" However, I would reply that health and safety is so central, given that it relates to the physical integrity of employees and others, that it should be a priority among directors' duties.
10WH
Reaction to the Bill has been positive, in the sense that the TUC has endorsed it. The Institute of Directors has written to me saying that it is unhappy because it fears that identifying a particular director as the health and safety director would lead to scapegoating. I have addressed that in the Bill by limiting the health and safety director's responsibilities. The chairman of the Black Country chamber of commerce, Mike Holder, has endorsed the Bill, although he has pointed out to me that, in our area of the black country, many health and safety difficulties arise in relation to unincorporated bodies, rather than companies. My Bill is the first step. Other legislation would have to cover the public sector, and unincorporated companies would also have to be addressed.
I promised that I would speak for only five minutes, but I just want to mention, as I mentioned informally to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am serving on a Select Committee and I beg the indulgence of hon. Members if I leave the Chamber shortly to return to it.
10.7 am
Mr. Tom Cox: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) on obtaining the debate. It is vital to working men and women that such debates take place in the House, and that their concerns about health and safety at their workplaces are discussed. We all know the figures—my hon. Friend quoted them—showing that, despite existing legislation, there are far too many deaths and injuries at workplaces in this day and age.
I am the first to say—as I am sure my hon. Friend would—that there are good employers who are concerned about the health and safety of their work force. Those employers work with their work force, trade union representatives and trade unions, but there are also employers who do not. There are still today employers who clearly put profit before safety, and safety rules are not always followed, which puts at risk the health and safety of the work force.
In Wandsworth, for which I am one of the Members of Parliament, the Battersea and Wandsworth Trades Union Council has been at the forefront of dealing with two cases of men who were killed at work because safety rules were not followed. One of the men, Olatunji Owolabi, was a night security guard on watch at a vacant London Underground building in Balham, which is in my constituency. That man died after being overcome by carbon monoxide fumes. All the rules that his employers were supposed to follow, such as telephoning him every hour to see that he was all right, were not followed. Mr. Owolabi was telephoned only once. He was supposed to be visited once during his shift duty, but that did not happen. The man died because his employers were not following the rules.
The other case concerns Michael Mungovan, who was struck by a moving train just outside Vauxhall station in south London where he was working on rail maintenance. He had not received proper training, and proper supervision had not been implemented for workers working on rail maintenance while trains were still running. Both those men would still be alive today if their employers had followed the rules.
It causes deep concern that when those responsible for such tragedies are charged and found guilty in the courts, they are fined appallingly low sums of money. In

11WH
the case of Mr. Owolabi, the fine was £35,000 plus costs. No one who caused his death—his death was caused through sheer negligence by the people who employed him—was sent to prison. I must say to my hon. Friend the Minister that existing legislation is not tough enough. Why should people who neglect the safety of their work force walk away with pathetic fines that mean nothing to them? My hon. Friend who opened the debate made it clear that men and women are killed every year by the failure of employers to follow safety rules.
The other issue, which concerns many trade unions and their health and safety representatives, is the lack of action against employers who allow safety rules to be broken because the Crown Prosecution Service does not take action against them. In the case of Mr. Owolabi, although there was clear evidence that the cause of his death was neglect by his employers, the CPS claimed that the evidence did not warrant further action. Just what message does that send out to working people and to trade unions? I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is an urgent need to introduce much tighter legislation to protect working people.
We all know that the issue is not political. The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) raised an important point, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden on securing the debate, which has given my hon. Friend the Minister the opportunity to tell the Chamber and working people up and down the country what action the Government will take to protect them while they are at work.
10.13 pm
John Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons), who represents a neighbouring constituency, on securing the debate. He and other hon. Members have presented a compelling case for further health and safety legislation in the workplace, to which I should like to add my support. Only a minority of such cases result in a prosecution. In the past 50 years, there have been only three successful convictions for corporate manslaughter, and there is growing frustration that nobody can readily be held to account.
Shipbuilding is an important industry in my constituency. In the tragic case of Simon Jones, it took three years of campaigning to bring the general manager of Euromin, the Dutch owners of the dockyard where he died, to court on a charge of corporate manslaughter. When the trial finally went ahead in November 2001, the company and its general manager, James Martell, were cleared of manslaughter. The company was found guilty of two lesser charges of breaching health and safety regulations and was fined a measly £50,000. I must say to the Minister that that is not good enough. It is time for the Government to take action and improve workplace health and safety, increase law enforcement and promote corporate accountability. We need to introduce legally binding safety duties on company directors, so that they are obliged to take measures that will ensure that their companies comply with health and safety law. We also need to change the law on corporate
12WH
manslaughter, so that companies can be more easily held to account if management negligence causes death or serious injury.
It is also important, particularly to the people of Scotland, that the Scottish Executive introduce proposals to ensure that a similar regime applies in Scotland. Is it not sad that once again no one from the Scottish National party could be bothered to turn up for the debate?
On average, workplaces can expect a visit from the health and safety inspector once every five years. In the absence of more external inspectors, trained safety representatives should be given greater legal power to stop unsafe working practices.
I draw the Minister's attention to what is called a provision improvement notice, which is used in Australia. The serving of a PIN puts an employer on formal notice that the safety representative thinks that the employer is breaking health and safety law. Work can continue, but the representative has given notice that he considers that work to be unsafe and that it must therefore be examined. It is then the employer's responsibility to consider what the safety representative has said and to ascertain whether he is correct.
Mr. Wray: Does my hon. Friend agree that public liability premiums, which have increased tenfold since the advent of terrorism, make it difficult for small businesses, some of which are not insured at all?
John Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If a company is not insured, how will the work force be looked after in the event of an accident? That is all the more reason for representatives to be given the power to act when they see that an error is being committed.
I do not want to repeat too much of what other hon. Members have said, but I will mention bullying in the workplace, which is one of the newer aspects of working life. The law on harassment must be examined and brought into line with health and safety legislation. Bullying at work has increased, and in Europe it is seen as a more important issue than it is in the United Kingdom.
As mentioned in a debate a few weeks ago, Scandinavian countries in particular have recognised that bullying is a health and safety issue, and have introduced methods to prevent it. Norway recently improved its legislation on the work environment to protect employees against bullying at work. In Sweden, an ordinance on measures against victimisation at work came into force in March 1994. That defines victimisation as
"recurrent reprehensible or distinctly negative actions which are directed against individual employees in an offensive manner and result in those employees being placed outside the workplace community."
Another issue that is dear to my heart is the effect of smoking in the workplace on health and safety. There is abundant evidence that breathing other people's tobacco smoke carries serious health risks, even for the children of those who are chronically exposed. Recent estimates suggest that, each year, several hundred people in the UK die from lung cancer caused by passive smoking. Those people have rights: I am an asthmatic, and I have rights.

13WH
A study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, published in June 2002, analysed all the significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer across 12 European countries. It identified passive smoking as a cause of lung cancer, and classified second-hand smoking as carcinogenic to humans. It estimated that non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke were 20 to 30 per cent. more likely to develop lung cancer.
The code of practice on smoking in the workplace should clarify the steps that all employers should take to comply with the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which requires
"every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of all his employees."
Such measures should start with a complete ban on smoking in every workplace where reasonably practicable. Even employers such as pub landlords and restaurant owners who might not want to ban smoking altogether should have to take reasonable and practical steps to reduce employees' exposure to smoking by, for example, improving ventilation or creating separate areas for smokers, as some public houses now do.
The Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974 was introduced 30 years ago. It is lacking for today's workplace, especially given new research, the vast technological changes that have transformed the modern workplace and medical studies since the 1970s. It is time to introduce new legislation in a 2004 health and safety at work Act to do justice to today's employees.
10.20 am
Mr. John MacDougall: I echo the compliments made to my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) on securing this important debate.
I want to refer to one or two matters relating to work that has already been done in the House. First, I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the revitalisation of health and safety strategy, led by the First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), has been valuable in tackling an Act that was effective in improving industrial practices in that day and age, but is not relevant to the wider range of work opportunities now. It is necessary and important to revitalise legislation on health and safety at work.
I also want to draw attention to the work of the campaign for new safety legislation, led by the Centre for Corporate Accountability. It is a true partnership and the trade unions support its work and the principles behind it. It also involves representatives of bereaved families and gets to the heart of the matter touched on by my colleagues this morning: the need for the Government to introduce legal reforms to impose legally binding safety duties on company directors. The campaign also examines the need to reform sentencing law and procedures and law enforcement, and recommends various proposals that I am sure, without going into detail, would be worthy of consideration. I lend my support to the campaign's work.
I agree that the issue is not political. We have all probably had bad experiences of a colleague in the workplace being seriously injured or, tragically, losing their life through incompetence. I have been involved in
14WH
work force collections and, as a representative of the work force, have handed over a cheque to help a grieving widow through a tragic and difficult time, although she might feel that no money can compensate for such a tragedy. There is a great need to introduce legislation to encourage employers to take on board their responsibilities.
Mention has been made of good employers, and there are many of them. However, no mention has been made of the responsibility on work forces to ensure that working practices are adhered to. On many occasions, and despite best efforts in workplaces, I have seen short cuts taken by the work force to achieve bonus levels and so on. That incentive has sometimes led to corners being cut, with tragic results, often for someone other than the person who cut the corners.
There are many issues in a fast-changing working environment, and none should be excluded. We should consider the fact that people work from home, and my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden referred to this. For example, there are also bus drivers trying to do their jobs late at night whose work is interfered with by rowdy members of the public, possibly leading to threats to other people's safety. Nurses and doctors in hospitals are also affected.
There are many examples, and good legislation should work as a deterrent in every situation, whether for shopkeepers, bus drivers or whoever. We should ensure that the maximum incentive and deterrent comes from legislation to ensure that the best practices prevail. People should be allowed to go about their day-to-day work. They should know their responsibilities, and that should the employer not introduce the protective measures clearly required by law, there is no way out for that employer and the punishment will fit the crime.
Mention was made about competitiveness and the size of companies. The biggest lack of incentive is the variation of penalty. If each company knows its responsibilities in legislation, there will be a level playing surface; everyone will face the same penalty, which will be proportionately of benefit. There is nothing worse than for employers not to have proper working practices in place and then to discover the cost of court cases, legal battles and penalties. It is better for companies to cover themselves at the early stages of employment to protect against such events, and encouragement in legislation should ensure that that happens.
I will not say much more because much of what I would have said has already been said. I echo the sentiments of hon. Members who have spoken, and I want to note again the large turnout. I am sure that we all want to see safer working practices. We must be tough at home as well as tough abroad, and we must be tough to ensure that people, not only in the workplace but in their day-to-day lives, are protected by legislation and have the comfort of knowing that it will be implemented. They must know that there will be no mercy for those who breach the legislation.
12.27 am
Jim Sheridan: I am conscious of the time, and I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) on securing the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall)

15WH
for leaving me three minutes to speak about my experience of working as a health and safety representative.
I was fortunate enough during my working life to work for a company that took health and safety extremely seriously from the senior director down. Indeed, my biggest problem was trying to encourage employees to take health and safety seriously. My experience of working for a progressive employer contrasts with that of those working in the construction industry, which is an absolute disgrace. I cannot emphasise enough to the Minister that we need to examine that industry and see how best we can improve its record.
We spoke earlier about the problem of asbestos, and I am proud of my own union, the Transport and General Workers Union, and its work to secure a change in the law in Scotland. The law now allows for relatives to pursue a claim for those who were killed by asbestos or asbestos-related diseases, when previously it said that when people died, their claim died with them. However, the TGWU—through the work of the TUC and the Scottish TUC—managed to change the law, which has proved extremely beneficial to the relatives of the people who have died of such a horrible disease. If people need a reason to join a trade union, I can see no better one than to secure their health and safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) mentioned bus drivers, and I have anecdotal experience of bus drivers being attacked in their workplace. That resulted in communities losing a bus service but, more importantly, bus drivers being supported in their workplace.
Corporate responsibility has been mentioned, and I will finish on this point. Corporate responsibility is worldwide, and corporate bodies should not be allowed to export their bad practices from this country to third world countries or exploit vulnerable people to secure profits and the loss of jobs in this country. I hope that the Minister will take that on board in examining legislation on corporate responsibility.
10.30 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons). As he rightly said in his introductory remarks, this is an enormously important subject that we do not consider often enough. I believe that it was last debated in the Chamber just over a year ago. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the very effective support that he has received from his colleagues, which, in many cases, comes from a wealth of experience of health and safety problems.
I want to concentrate on enforcement, as there is no point in having elaborate regulation and new laws if they are not enforced. The subject is often raised by businesses, many of which approach it responsibly, some of which do not. I often hear from business people whom I meet that we have an incredibly elaborate health and safety enforcement system in this country, with thousands of inspectors crawling all over their premises morning, noon and night investigating petty breaches. However, the facts and figures suggest the opposite; in many ways, we have a very loose, skeletal enforcement system.
16WH
The figures produced by the Centre for Corporate Accountability surprised me, although I have examined this area before. Currently—or at least when the last research was done—we have some 840 inspectors in the field who examine health and safety regulation enforcement issues. They cover some 730,000 premises; in other words, there is one inspector for roughly 1,000 workplaces. This team of inspectors covers 37,000 major injuries every year; an inspector therefore covers a major injury roughly every five days, carrying out investigations and bringing prosecutions in addition to their other work. That seems to be a very thin enforcement system, and I should be grateful for the Minister's reaction.
John Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 37,000 injuries and accidents are the tip of the iceberg, and that the real number of unreported injuries and accidents is probably at least double that?
Dr. Cable: Yes. The Health and Safety Executive recognises a category of workers who are off work for more than three days because of injuries at work, whose numbers are vastly greater than those of workers who incur so-called major injuries. As the hon. Gentleman says, many major injuries are never reported. It is not just a question of small numbers of people enforcing a regime that covers large numbers of injuries. What also struck me about the figures was the sharp decline in the number of inspections in recent years. In construction, agriculture and mining, which are particularly dangerous industries, the number of inspections since 1996 has declined by about 50 per cent. That may represent greater efficiency and better targeting—I do not know the explanation—but it is very striking that the amount of inspection is going down, not up.
It is inevitable that there is a good deal of under-investigation of accidents that occur at work. I saw from the same source that the HSE investigates only 20 per cent. of major injuries. That figure has improved in recent years, which suggests better prioritisation. The figure has roughly doubled since 1996, but it is still a small number. Only 5 per cent. of smaller injuries, where people are off work for three days or more, are investigated. Only 30 per cent. of dangerous events, such as explosions and collapsing premises, are ever investigated. Large numbers of injuries and accidents occur that are never investigated because the resources are not there to pursue them.
An alarmingly small number of injuries and accidents that are investigated ever result in prosecution; only 33 per cent. in the cases of deaths and work, and 10 per cent. in the cases of major injuries. We should reflect on that fact: of the major injuries that are ever investigated, only 10 per cent. ever lead to prosecution. It is also striking that when prosecutions are initiated, they are almost always successful. The Crown Prosecution Service and HSE system has a brilliant success record when it brings cases to court. In cases of major injuries, there have been only three failures out of 300, and in cases of deaths, there has been only one failure out of 83. That suggests to me that a far higher standard of proof is sought in industrial accident prosecutions than would be the case with normal criminal investigations, let alone civil cases.

17WH
In other words, the authorities are looking for a 90 per cent. plus standard of proof. If the CPS adopted a somewhat more relaxed standard, as we would normally expect, far more cases could be brought successfully before the courts. Will the Minister give his reaction to those figures, and the Government's assessment of what resources and manpower are required in the HSE system to produce a satisfactory level of investigation and prosecution?
I want to respond to a couple of points that have emerged during the debate. One is about the legal changes and the other is about legal liability. The hon and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) is one of several Members pursuing private Member's legislation to cover different deficiencies in the law. His Bill relates to the legal duties of directors, and I am a co-sponsor of it. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) is introducing a Bill on tougher fines, and the figures are extraordinary to me, as someone relatively uninitiated in this field. Some 87 per cent. of major accident cases go before magistrates rather than Crown courts, and the average fine is £9,000. Even in cases of deaths, 40 per cent. go before magistrates, and the average fine is £15,000. We are often dealing with ludicrous levels of fines, and the hon. Gentleman's proposed legislation is designed to address that.
There is also the issue of Crown immunity, such as in the case of the Royal Mint, which simply walked away from its obligation to an employee when it had been grossly negligent. We also have to address the issue of corporate killing, and I am supporting the amendments of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) to the Criminal Justice Bill. I am not a lawyer and do not know whether that is the best way of dealing with the problem, but at least it is now being addressed. How do the Government see the different pieces of legislation being interwoven? Do they favour a piecemeal approach, or would it make more sense to have one large health and safety Bill to incorporate the different elements?
My final question to the Minister relates to legal liability, as I know that he has taken responsibility for the inquiry currently taking place in the Department for Work and Pensions. Last Friday, I visited a local roofing contractor, a long-established Twickenham company that is highly regarded, totally above board and observes very high standards. However, it has faced insurance cost increases of about 500 per cent. during the past five years and is losing business left, right and centre to cowboys who do not insure or observe proper standards. I was asked about the progress of the Government's inquiry, so will the Minister explain that this morning? I understood that it was due to finish at the end of March, and I do not doubt that it is imminent.
In particular, will the Minister tell us about the possibility of changing the system of insurance to bring it closer to that for car insurance? In other words, employers with a good record should receive the equivalent of a no-claims bonus as an incentive to improve their practices. That does not happen at the moment, as all the risks are pooled within a given sector, so good and bad employers pay the same charges. Is it possible, through regulation or some other way, to bring us closer to a model in which insurance charges reflect performance as well as the average in the industry?
18WH
To conclude, I should be grateful if the Minister gave his assessment of the optimum level of staff for enforcement through the executive, an indication of how the Government see the best route to new legislation and a progress report on their inquiry into employers' liability insurance.
10.39 am
Mr. Oliver Heald: I join in the welcome for this important debate on health and safety. From his experience as a mechanical engineer and later as a trade union official with Unison, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) knows a great deal about this subject. I agree with the hon. Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) that the issue is not party political, and that it is in the interests of everyone employers, workers and the country as a whole to have high standards of health and safety. That should be a "No. 1 issue", to use the expression of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said that we must address employers' liability insurance by matching the risk to the premium much more closely, particularly with small and medium-sized enterprises. I agree that the idea of a no-claims bonus has merit, but that should be tied to good health and safety practice in the industry. If a trade body were prepared to have a good-quality health and safety scheme for the industry, membership of that scheme and its implementation, plus good practice over a long period, would lead to lower premiums. A double trigger is required.
We heard that accidents cause injury and death to workers, but it is worth remembering that accidents also damage productivity for business, result in lost work days—a point made in the debate—and open up employers to the possibility of legal action in the criminal and civil courts. There should be every incentive to have a partnership that enables good practice to be built on.
It is important for the Minister to answer the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) about care homes, and the points made more widely about bullying. It cannot be a coincidence that incapacity benefit claims for mental illness have increased by 25 per cent. That means that many people are leaving work because they are suffering from clinical depression and stress. I am interested to know what the Minister thinks can be done to improve circumstances in the work setting so that that is no longer the case. The points about bus drivers and nurses must also be addressed.
The hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) talked about his experience of working for a good company and said that a good partnership could be achieved. It is worth repeating a remark made by a former Minister who dealt with this issue previously, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead):
"Effective health and safety is about getting duty holders to fulfil their obligations as a matter of course, not just in response to an inspector's visit, and that means working in partnership with stakeholders to achieve long lasting improvements in voluntary compliance."—[Official Report, 19 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 284–5.]
That is the test. Good health and safety in the workplace should be commonplace.

19WH
I shall raise one other issue; the fire strike. Last autumn, the Health and Safety Executive issued a paper entitled "Application of Health and Safety Legislation to the Police in the Context of the Firefighters' Dispute". However, we do not seem to have heard much in response. The document states:
"The police role means that police officers will be first on the scene of many possible fires during the dispute, many more than during ordinary duties. The potential risks to officers are … greater than normal, and may be increased further by the lack of support from fully trained civilian firefighters, as well as lesser availability of military assets … Considering how to address these risks will also have to take account of complicating factors such as the limited time in which to give further instruction to police officers, and the absence of personal protective equipment for officers normally required for fire rescue, or training to use it."
I have three questions for the Minister about that. Have the Government been able to make any agreement with, or representations to, the Fire Brigades Union that would protect the police in such difficult circumstances? What is to be done to make life a little easier for them during the dispute? Are the Government able to make any estimate of the total cost to UK business of the impact of the fire strike in relation to more general health and safety issues?
One of the issues discussed today is whether there should be legislation on work and safety. The hon. Member for Twickenham asked the Minister whether there should be a wider new framework through the primary legislative route. As long ago as 2000, the Government promised in the Gracious Speech that a Bill would be drafted to provide for, among other things, the revitalisation of health and safety at work. The hon. Member for Central Fife recalled that. We have had one of the Bills that was promised—on railways and transport safety—but the engineering employers have said in their briefing for this debate that the commitment to have a new legislative framework
"appears not to have been carried forward … If there is to be new legislation introduced by way of modernising the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 we urge that this is done not in a piecemeal fashion but as a Government Bill which will then allow the full participation of all stakeholders."
What is the Government's position? Are we to have a new health and safety at work Bill?
On corporate manslaughter, the same considerations apply. There should be a well thought through proposal that has the support of the Government after proper consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) makes that point quite regularly. In July 2001, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) talked about the end of the consultation period on corporate manslaughter. He said:
"The consultation period ended in September 2000. During that time, we received more than 160 responses. Almost all were of high quality and required careful consideration[elipsis] We have yet to make final decisions … It is important that we consider those issues in detail".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 10 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 237WH.]
On 24 July last year, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn) said:
20WH
"an interdepartmental group has examined the issues raised by the consultation and other unresolved areas. The group has now completed its work. We will be publishing a digest of responses to the consultation paper shortly."—[Official Report, 24 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 1505W.]
I have looked, and my researcher has looked, and we cannot find any evidence of such a digest being published. If it has been, I would like the Minister to reassure me about that.
It is not good enough that it is all taking so long. When I was shadowing the then police Minister—now the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)—two years ago, I was pursuing him about the matter. On 29 January 2001, he said:
"in our view, and overhaul of the offences against the person legislation is best handled in the context of a law reform Bill, which will also include changes to the law on involuntary manslaughter and corporate killing."—[Official Report, 29 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 120.]
In other words, there should be a new offences against the person Act. Is that still the Government's position? What is the current state of play, two years on?
I do not want to rehearse all the past arguments about white asbestos, but I should be grateful if the Minister told us whether there was any further scientific thought on white asbestos. He will know that regulations were introduced last autumn, after vigorous debate, on whether white asbestos should be classified in the same way as brown and blue. I should be grateful to know if he has any plans to consider that again.
On employers' liability insurance, the Minister must be aware that, last year, there were examples of 100 and 1,000 per cent. increases in the premiums for employers' liability insurance. Some employers who gave evidence to the all-party group on small business—I know that the hon. Member for Twickenham was there—said that it was almost impossible to get cover.
Obviously the matter is urgent. This year's increases could be 20 per cent. or more, and many employers are being put in a difficult position. Will the Minister come forward with detailed proposals to help small businesses? Does he accept the logic of the point, which has been made by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, that good practice by small and medium-sized firms, which should not be rated across their industries, must be recognised? Will action be taken soon?
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): This has been an important debate. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons), not only on his powerful contribution, but on stimulating important contributions from across the Floor. I want briefly to outline the Government's overall strategy on this vital issue, and then do my best to respond to the numerous points that have been raised in this interesting debate.
As has been acknowledged, we already have one of the best health and safety records in Europe. There has been a dramatic reduction in accidents since the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The rate of fatal accidents in the United Kingdom is

21WH
now less than a quarter of that in the early 1970s. That is down to the hard work of decent employers, the Health and Safety Executive and the trade union movement, whose representatives have played a leading role.
My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan), who drew on his experience, emphasised the importance of good trade union work, which we should acknowledge. There is more such work to be done in the future. There are, however, no grounds for complacency, which has been a theme in the debate. Although the record is good, it is certainly not good enough.
There is no doubting the role of health and safety in improving people's quality of life and in stopping their work reducing their quality of life. Everybody has the right to carry out their job in safety. Today, we have heard about the misery that health and safety failures, which have caused some terrible accidents, can cause to workers and their families, and hon. Members have rightly talked about tragedies in their constituencies.
It is not only workers who benefit from good standards in health and safety, although that is crucial, but employers and our economy. We are losing up to 40 million working days a year because of work-related injuries and ill health. It is worth emphasising at the outset that proper health and safety management systems are not a financial burden on businesses but should be viewed, as they are, as vital investment. Let us be clear; good health and safety is good business for us all.
In conjunction with the Health and Safety Commission, the Health and Safety Executive and other stakeholders, the Government have achieved a lot in the past five years towards improving health and safety. Nevertheless, too many people are dying or are absent from work as a result of injuries and ill health. Although provisional figures for 2001–02 indicate a welcome 15 per cent. decrease in fatalities among British workers, figures for work-related, non-fatal injuries sadly show an increase. Again, there are no grounds for complacency.
Furthermore, in 2001–02 some 2.3 million people in Great Britain were suffering from what they believed to be work-related ill health. That translates into an estimated 33 million working days lost, the vast majority of which were due to musculo-skeletal disorders and, increasingly, stress-related illnesses. It is therefore vital that we continue to keep the issue firmly on the Government's agenda to ensure that health and safety retains a high profile and is at the heart of daily working lives. I share the view of those hon. Members who argue that we need to lift the issue up the key agendas in our economy.
In particular, we need to raise the profile of occupational health, which is sometimes seen as the poor relation of health and safety management. We were pleased when the HSC and the HSE came into the Department for Work and Pensions, which makes sense in terms of making links with our benefits relating to incapacity and with the growing number of people on incapacity benefit.
In brief, our goal is a health and safety culture that emphasises prevention and that leads to the reduction of workplace accidents, absences and health inequalities
22WH
and, thereby, reduces the pressures on our national health service, incapacity benefits and so on. We want to put more emphasis on rehabilitation and advice, and we want to provide better access to occupational health support. Increasingly, we must work with our partners on building on good practice. I recognise the point of the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall), who discussed good and bad practice in the workplace.
We should remember that the economic burden of health and safety failures is estimated to be a whacking £18 billion, so the matter is of economic as well as social and health importance. In the document "Revitalising Health and Safety", the Government set targets and discussed eight priorities that hon. Members have highlighted today.
Let me turn to the detailed issues that have been raised. There seems to be an inverse correlation in these debates between the range of questions and the time allowed to the Minister to try to sum up and answer them. I suspect that I shall not be able to deal with all the questions. As usual, I shall reply in writing if necessary and send copies to hon. Members.
Needle stick injury is an important issue. We do not know the precise number of such injuries. The Royal College of Nursing is doing a study that we shall review very carefully. The Government's position is that proper legislation is in place in the form of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking), who emphasised the importance of good practice and the need for Government inspectors to work very closely with those who oversee the practices in health care institutions and, in particular, hospitals.
Much concern has been expressed about the terrible deaths that still occur, about the failure of some employers to comply with the law and about prosecutions. Every year, the Health and Safety Executive undertakes some 200,000 visits, which result in approximately 1,000 prosecutions. In addition, some 11,000 notices are served. Last year, fines increased by about 33 per cent. to an average of £12,000, and the Government are supporting a private Member's Bill to increase fines and penalties, which is important. Following a Select Committee inquiry, the HSE now investigates a higher percentage of accidents than before, but we must find the right balance between that work and prevention, which is never very easy.
A theme of the debate was violence in the workplace. My figures suggest that some 1.3 million incidents of violence from fellow workers or customers occur in the workplace every year. I know from my own visits to the accident and emergency department of Mayday hospital in Croydon about the abuse and, at times, violence that our wonderful front-line staff—the doctors and nurses—have to tolerate from patients fuelled by drugs and drink. One could find similar evidence in many other sectors such as the fire and police services. That matter certainly must be given high priority.
The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) discussed care homes and the way in which demography places an emphasis on the health, safety and welfare of the very frail people who are cared for in care homes and of the staff. It was right to emphasise that. Alongside issues such as stress, we must ensure that

23WH
work on health and safety is not concerned only with the traditional industries—although such work is important and must continue—but with the problems in the modern economy, such as lifting and the fear of abuse that may arise in care homes. The hon. Lady's contribution was important.
On corporate manslaughter, which is essentially a matter for the Home Office, the Government remain committed to reforming the law in order to provide a strong deterrent to the few employers who are inclined to disregard in extreme ways the health and safety of their employees. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) said that legislation on corporate manslaughter was not strong enough. I hope that my assurance that we are committed to the matter will help.
There has been a rigorous and full review of employer's liability insurance and we are committed to reporting on that as soon as possible. There has been proper consultation. I shall deal with the points made about the fire strike by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) in writing. Our employment policy has to be about making work possible, but also about making work safe.

Housing (East Lancashire)
11 am
Mr. Peter Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the issue of funding for the housing renewal area in east Lancashire. I have raised the subject of housing many times over the years, but I do not apologise for raising it again. Indeed, I have been trying to secure an Adjournment debate on the subject for several weeks. The issue is of great importance in my constituency; it is the biggest single issue facing Burnley and a major problem throughout the whole of east Lancashire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) will want to have a short word before the Minister responds to the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) have indicated that they regret that they cannot be present today because they are away from Westminster on parliamentary business, but they fully support the case that will make. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs also supports me. We all know that he is currently involved in discussions of important events in Belfast with the Prime Minister and the President of the United States.
The issue is important. I have heard of the plight of so many of my constituents when I meet them at my advice bureau, on the streets and as I canvass in the local elections, and I get letters about such problems every single day from various people. People are living in houses in terraces that are almost completely empty. They live in fear of crime, squatters, fire and all sorts of other things. I share their fears and concerns; I know what it must be like to live in such conditions.
Other people have lost all their money because they cannot sell their houses. They have seen the price of their houses nosedive. We all believe that, in this country, someone invests in a house and the value goes up. At the end of the day, people hope to make money. In Burnley, exactly the opposite occurs. In many cases, people find that, when they have to move, the amount that they owe on their mortgage is more than the amount that they receive for their house. That is a great tragedy and I am very concerned about those very real problems.
I want to comment briefly on the history of the problem. How have we got into this situation? Much of the blame lies with the Tory Governments that were in power between 1979 and 1997. There is no doubt at all about that. I raised such issues time after time in the House, in questions and debates, and I met various Ministers and had them come to Burnley. There was never any response at all. The last time I spoke on the subject, I referred to a speech that I made in 1984. This time, I want to refer briefly to one that I made in 1986. On that occasion, I said:
"In Burnley the cost of improving an old terraced house is more than the sum that the house will sell for … the house may well become derelict, causing the entire terrace subsequently to become derelict."—[Official Report, 15 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 924.]
That is the type of problem that we face. That was the situation in 1986 and that is what we are seeing today.
In May 1987, a dossier—I will not go into it in detail—was prepared by the then chief executive of Burnley borough council, Brian Whittle, who went into

25WH
great detail. We put it to the relevant Minister, but to no avail. We got no response. In the 1990s, the then Bishop of Burnley became so concerned about the position in east Lancashire that he set up an independent inquiry, with housing experts and others interested in the issue, to consider the situation. The Lancashire housing inquiry was published in 1993 but, again, it was to no avail.
Since the election of the Labour Government in 1997, we have seen housing gradually move up the agenda. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, in a friendly way, that we want to see it continue to do so because it is an issue of great importance. We recognise that the south has very different problems from east Lancashire. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has paid two visits to my constituency, and we have had several visits from Lord Falconer. On one visit, when Lord Falconer met the Members of Parliament and the chief executives and council leaders in Accrington, we realised that we were beginning to get an answer to the case that we had made. Lord Falconer asked us to prepare a bid based on a 10-year programme for tackling the problem, showing what response we needed from the Government to enable us to do that. We in east Lancashire work together—I chose to have a debate on not just Burnley but on east Lancashire—and we chose to put forward a case together.
I welcomed the announcement last April of nine pathfinder housing renewal projects, one of which covers east Lancashire, including Burnley. I welcomed the announcement a few months later of funding of £2.66 million for each of those projects to allow early preparations and for the schemes to get underway. That was very important. We all welcomed the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister on 5 February 2003, in which he said that £500 million would be made available over the next three years for the nine pathfinder projects.
When the Deputy Prime Minister made that statement in the House, I said:
"In Burnley empty homes are no longer a problem; they are a living nightmare…Will more money be made available, and does my right hon. Friend recognise that all the problems in those nine areas cannot possibly be solved in three years?"
The Deputy Prime Minister replied:
"I agree with my hon. Friend. Having visited his constituency, I was left with a powerful impression of the way in which such problem areas scar the whole community and give rise to economic and political problems."
He continued, in response to my question on the programme:
"We hope to learn a great deal from it and to expand it, but it certainly will not be limited to three years."—[Official Report, 5 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 287.]
That was a very important point, which we very much welcomed.
Elevate, the group formed in east Lancashire to promote the scheme, with David Taylor in charge, was launched on 17 February. Each council had a little piece in the document produced for that. Burnley borough council said, among other things:
"Land registry data shows that the prices of terraced houses in Burnley fall well below those achieved both regionally and nationally. Burnley has a crude surplus of housing, with large proportions of vacant dwellings in all sectors."
26WH
We have 4,500 empty houses, 10 per cent. of our housing stock. It is that which makes Burnley, in percentage terms, the area with the biggest single problem in the whole of the country. I accept that many other areas in the north-east—in Manchester, Merseyside and east Lancashire itself—have problems; but in percentage terms, ours is the most acute at the present time.
Burnley council goes on to say:
"The problems that this brings with it, boarded up houses, vandalism etc. have so far been concentrated in a small number of areas of the town but it is recognised that the problem is growing worse rather than improving."
On the positive side, Burnley council says:
"The Market Restructuring Scheme means that East Lancashire will be able to tap into resources amounting to £500 Million nationally over three years. This is seen as the first phase of a 15 to 20 year programme to revitalise the housing market within East Lancashire. For the first time, this gives Burnley Borough Council the opportunity to make a real difference in improving living and environmental conditions for its citizens."
My concern in raising this debate is the need to ensure that the people of Burnley and East Lancashire see an end to the decline and downward spiral that we have seen continue for so long. MPs, councillors and council officials well understand announcements, but the public do not understand the need for plans and preparations in the same way as those of us who are involved. The public want action, as do I, Burnley borough council and other local councils in our area. That is why I continue to press the case. I shall be retiring at the next general election, whether it is in two or three years time. By that time, I want to see a positive improvement in the problem and the removal of the blight on the area that I represent in Parliament.
I was pleased to hear last week's important announcement of another £4 million for the east Lancashire renewal project. The Minister for Housing and Planning, Lord Rooker, wrote to me on 3 April stating:
"I have always stressed that it is important to see some action on the ground as soon as possible. This will help build confidence in the pathfinder areas and send a clear message to communities that we are committed to turning around these areas.
Today's announcement, while underlining the importance we attach to strategic schemes. will enable all pathfinders to deliver innovative action demonstrating our joint commitment to tackling low demand and abandonment"
We are discussing not just demolition, although some is necessary, but the importance of regenerating such areas.
The points that I want to put to the Minister are as follows. The east Lancashire market restructuring organisation, Elevate, welcomed the Government's announcement on 3 April of resources for 2003–04. Its chair, David Taylor, said:
"This is an exciting opportunity. We are already beginning to deliver a £1m programme of action, and this new money is a welcome boost to our efforts. It is the start of a long-term plan to revitalise the area's housing markets and neighbourhood over the next ten to fifteen years. We realise that our various communities need to see action on the ground now, and in the next few weeks we will be announcing specific projects to use this money."
I agree with those sentiments and I am particularly pleased that in allocating £4 million to Elevate Ministers have made significant improvements in comparison with earlier indications of funding levels. Having said that, even £4 million is low in view of the scale of the

27WH
challenges to be dealt with. The communities of Burnley and east Lancashire are impatient for action now and the political implications could be serious if we are not seen to respond.
In the longer term, Elevate is well aware of the need to prepare a comprehensive, strategic plan to release future resources. That work is well under way. Consultants have been appointed to help and a dedicated team of staff is being recruited. Local authorities and their partners are working well together and the Minister acknowledged that when he met them in January.
I trust that the Government will respond positively in the coming year's allocations, including, crucially, the period beyond the three-year comprehensive spending review. I hope that the Minister will indicate the Government's intentions on that because we must be able to plan ahead. My hope today is that the Minister will emphasise that long-term commitment to Burnley and east Lancashire and that he will say that the Government will respond positively if we can show that local government, the private sector and the people of east Lancashire can work together to deliver an accelerated programme to end the decay and make those areas vibrant and worth living in.
11.13 am
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for allowing me a few moments to emphasise his points and to speak about my constituency of Pendle, which lies within the east Lancashire pathfinder. We want significant sums of money for east Lancashire—enough to make a difference. That is the acid test. People must see evidence of change on the ground. Huge swathes of crumbling and rotten terraced housing should have been pulled down a generation ago. My constituency has the highest percentage of pre-1919 terraced housing in the country—over 60 per cent., which compares with an English average of about 20 per cent. Some of it is in a dire state. Furthermore, 25 per cent. of the housing in east Lancashire is unfit, compared with the English average of about 7 per cent.
The scale of the problem is enormous. My local authority estimates that it would cost £150 million to bring private housing stock up to standard in my constituency. Last year 4,290 houses in Pendle were unfit. Next door in Burnley the figure was 9,336. Last year there were more than 2,000 empty or abandoned houses in Pendle and 4,500 empty properties in Burnley, which have spread out like a contagion on street after street. We have lived with the problem for decades.
My hon. Friend mentioned the inquiry by the then Bishop of Burnley in 1993. It repays rereading. If anything, the situation in some parts of Pendle and Burnley has got worse, not better. The Bishop's inquiry told us that poor quality terraced housing in need of renovation could be purchased in the inner town areas for as little as £12,000 to £15,000. I can point to areas in Pendle where properties can be bought for £6,000 or £7,000. When Lord Falconer visited my constituency, his jaw dropped when I pointed out a house on the market for £1,000, which still had a roof on and windows. It is staggering.
28WH
No one expects a new Jerusalem tomorrow, but people expect evidence of change. Strategies, plans and inquiries are, as my hon. Friend said, necessary, but they cannot be an excuse for delay. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can reassure people in Pendle, Burnley and elsewhere in east Lancashire that the Government are determined to do something about the deplorable housing conditions in our area.
11.17 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on securing this debate on this important issue and on his unstinting work in voicing his constituents' concerns. He has certainly put Burnley on the map and his constituents are well served. I also recognise the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). The saddest comment I have to make following both contributions is that this is not new. If something had been done by the Conservative Government when the first inklings of the problems arose in the 1980s and before, east Lancashire would not be facing the severity of the problem that it faces today. That is a matter of profound regret.
I also understand the impatience of people in Burnley and east Lancashire and how they seek and crave a sense of real commitment. I also pay tribute to my other right hon. and hon. Friends who represent constituencies in east Lancashire who have worked equally tirelessly to ensure that the issues we are debating today are not forgotten. I recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley said about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson). The people of east Lancashire will be grateful to them for all their efforts because today we can reflect on what the Government have already done and the promise of more investment to come. I know that the people of Burnley and east Lancashire want action quickly.
My hon. Friend alluded to much of the background and the position of Elevate now, so I will not dwell on those aspects unduly. The east Lancashire partnership has already begun to address the challenges and it has a vision for east Lancashire. Its existing strategy is to achieve that vision based on a foundation of what it will do in the coming months and years. I accept what my hon. Friends have said in the debate about visions, plans and strategies when people want real action, but sustainability underpins all that we are going to do in the market pathfinder renewal areas. The last thing that the people of Burnley and Pendle or anywhere else in east Lancashire want is another gimmick or quick fix; they want lasting, sustainable action that will change their areas and arrest the decline.
East Lancashire has a new opportunity: a promise of new Government investment in the next 10 to 15 years to help to tackle its housing problems. That is a real commitment. My hon. Friends would not expect me to dictate to the Treasury what should be in the next comprehensive spending review, but there is a clear commitment from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley said—these problems will be addressed in a

29WH
sustainable and lasting way over 10 to 15 years. Of course, we understand that people are impatient for results and action now, and in the coming months and years, but long-term problems require long-term solutions. I assure my hon. Friends that the Government, too, are in it for the long-term.
Mr. Pike: If the three fast-track schemes, which are further along the road, cannot use all the resources that are allocated to them, and east Lancashire shows that it can accelerate its plans, can funding be moved over and used for housing rather than it being lost?
Mr. McNulty: There will certainly not be any loss of funding between the nine pathfinders. We have said clearly to all nine that it is not a race, but neither is it a matter of £500 million divided by nine, and that is their lot; the allocation needs to be rooted in their strategy and plans. Although, as my hon. Friend said, three of the nine are fast-tracked, the others, including east Lancashire, are coming up on the rails and may overtake them.
As I said last week when I announced the allocation of £4 million, my message to all the people who are involved in low-demand pathfinders is, "Take your time, but get on with it." We understand people's impatience, but we want them to take a step back and ensure that the plans, as they unfold, are long-term and sustainable. As my hon. Friend said, any fool can bulldoze a row of houses, but if that does nothing to contribute to the long-term, sustainable vision and direction of communities such as Burnley and Pendle it will do no one any favours. We must consider where those towns and communities will go in the next 10, 15 or 20 years. The schemes may be called housing market renewal pathfinders but they are about far more than housing: they are about the future of towns and communities, which is the key to the whole project.
I shall not dwell on the launch of Elevate East Lancashire at Turf Moor, as my hon. Friend has covered the subject. To spare his blushes, I shall not mention Watford and the 7–4 result, which would be churlish of me given that Watford abuts my constituency. At least Burnley has the integrity and imagination to play in appropriate colours—claret and blue—although my affiliations are in a London, rather than a Lancashire, context.
Nine months is a short period for action to turn around the decades of under-investment to which my hon. Friend alluded. However, much of the groundwork has been done in east Lancashire. The board, drawn from local and regional organisations, has been established; in December, David Taylor, a leading regeneration practitioner, was appointed as independent chair, and the pathfinder has completed the action necessary to draw down the initial £2.6 million from the Government's capital modernisation fund to begin the task of replacing unpopular and obsolete housing.
As my hon. Friend said, I recently met the board, which I am convinced has the integrity, skills, expertise and dynamism to deliver for Burnley and east Lancashire. The local authority is well represented on the board and some of the big decisions necessary for
30WH
east Lancashire in the next couple of years are being discussed and assessed, and will be taken forward. There are signs that the board, and local government, accept that the proposals are of major importance for the future of the communities in east Lancashire, and they are taking the job extremely seriously. The pathfinder has already moved to convert money into tangible outcomes that residents will recognise as making a difference to the housing market. I accept what was said about the need for early action.
Elevate East Lancashire recently announced several measures to boost the regeneration of neighbourhoods in Burnley and the east Lancashire area. The strategy is about regeneration, refocusing and restructuring the communities in those areas—it is not simply about housing. Some £300,000 is to be invested immediately to improve the quality of life and environment across the borough of Burnley, and I welcome that important demonstration of commitment to the people of Burnley and east Lancashire.
The programme includes some simple, but important initiatives that will make big differences in the short term. Additional funding will be provided for the Council's alley-gating programme, which will improve safety and security in the vulnerable back streets of terraced houses. The area caretaker scheme will be expanded, with two new caretaker posts for the Burnley Wood and Fulledge areas. Community wardens will be enabled to tackle "grot spots", involving young people and other residents. A strategy will be developed to deal with vacant properties, with the aim of reducing the number that stand empty for long periods. Those are all small actions, but are as important as the wider actions and the wider vision. Contributions will also be made to demolition programmes in Burnley Wood and south-west Burnley. The proposals are small scale, but are none the less important. I know that the people of Burnley will welcome the improvements that they will make to their town.
Last Thursday I announced that we will make an initial allocation of market renewal funding of up to £4 million for east Lancashire in advance of completing their market restructuring scheme, to carry on the good work begun over the past year. That allocation means that, alongside drawing up the scheme, action can be taken in the areas that need it most: action that will underpin the future schemes. The range of initiatives that I have just outlined will be expanded and the people of Burnley, and east Lancashire as a whole, will see the benefits in the coming months.
We do not start from the perspective that £500 million is sufficient to deal with every problem in each of the nine pathfinder areas I am encouraged that in many areas, not least in east Lancashire, the boards are beginning to examine how they can use some of that money to attract further money to deal with the size of some of the problems.
Mr. Pike: In that particular case, is it not important that English Partnerships and the regional development agencies should be involved?
Mr. McNulty: Very much so. If we are considering the regeneration of entire areas, communities and towns, English Partnerships, the regional development agencies and the private sector in the areas should be involved.

31WH
We are seeking to introduce other measures. In the Housing (Overcrowding) Bill that has just been published, we are examining ways to legislate for selective licensing of private landlords, who are part of the problem, and for licensing of houses in multiple occupation, which also cause some difficulty. Moreover, today the Anti-social Behaviour Bill will receive its Second Reading: that Bill also contains some housing elements.
Making the most of all these opportunities is crucial. We are at a crossroads, and offer a once in a lifetime opportunity for these communities, working with local and central Government, to take over and determine their own future. As I said at the start, it is a matter of regret that these situations were highlighted time and again by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley and others under the previous Government, but to no avail.
The challenge now is to bring forward an innovative and sustainable vision for the future of east Lancashire. All involved in local leadership must therefore work together positively, breaking down traditional boundaries and barriers, in pursuit of that vision. Burnley borough council, with its partner local authorities, must play its part. It will require new ways of working in partnership, in which the overall vision is the goal. It will require the development of credible strategies, in which all stakeholders, including the private sector, can have confidence.
The Government have provided the opportunity and resources for the area's rejuvenation, and it is time for local leaders to take things forward. The people of Burnley and east Lancashire deserve nothing less. It will take 10 to 15 years, but I assure my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley and for Pendle that this time the Government are listening, and will not let Burnley and east Lancashire down. We are here for the long term; the time for waiting is over. Action is needed now and I will do all that I can to fulfil my hon. Friend's desire to see real change and action for Burnley, before he stands down at the next election. I should say that when he steps down, the vacancy that that will create will be a matter of profound regret.
Burnley and east Lancashire will thank my hon. Friend for raising these issues today. It will be a long haul, but the Government are committed for the long term.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Sub-Post Offices
2pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: It is a great charm to discover that I face the Minister, who is a former Financial Secretary with whom I spent many happy hundreds of hours considering Finance Bills.
I begin by putting on record something that I think every Member present already knows, but which particularly affects my constituents in West Dorset and, I suspect, others in rural areas throughout the country: there is no such thing as "the village institution". Villages in their full-blown incarnation have pubs, village halls, shops, post offices and schools. No one of those is critical to the survival of the village as a rural community, but the matter is a question of Sorites' paradox. Members will recall that Sorites raised the paradox that when one takes a pile of stones and removes one, one still has a pile of stones. That continues to be true as one removes stone after stone until, at last, there is only one. Then, alas, it is no longer a pile, but just a stone.
So it is with village institutions: one can lose the shop, the post office, the village hall or the school. Eventually, one loses everything that makes the village a living community and brings the people in it together to create the neighbourly society that we should welcome and treasure, and which still exists in West Dorset villages, by and large. We know the intense and aggravated social problems of inner cities. We know of the heroic efforts of Government after Government of different persuasions to resolve some of those problems, and the costs and difficulties entailed. To fail to reinforce social success, where it exists, in relation to societies that function properly, where they exist, is a tragic waste of resources quite apart from the effect on my constituents.
We ought to take steps to ensure that each part of the village community is sustained. With that in mind, I have sought to add my own voice, and those of my hon. Friends and other Members, to the chorus that has been raised during the past several years about the threat to the rural post office network.
I should declare a semi-interest: for some years, I have been the secretary of the all-party group on sub-post offices. Through its auspices, and some years ago, we worked with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters to inaugurate and stage in Methodist central hall a large manifestation of feeling among sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. On that day, there was a large lobby of Parliament. I think that the ministerial mind was somewhat affected by all that, and it is to the Government's credit that they began to think more seriously about the effect of their actions on the rural post office network, but I fear that the signs are that the steps that have been taken are not yet sufficient to do the trick.
Let me briefly rehearse what Members will already be well aware of: the strange history that has led us to the position in which we now find ourselves. For many years, under the Conservative Administration, officials in the Department of Health and Social Security, later the Department of Social Security, proposed to Ministers a major efficiency saving—that was how they described it. They suggested replacing the old-fashioned system of collecting benefits with automated credit transfers through the banks.

33WH
Time after time—last but by no means least when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was Secretary of State for Social Security—when officials came forward with such proposals to save taxpayers' money, Conservative Ministers, perhaps because they had an instinctive understanding of the points that I have made on the importance of the rural post office network, said, "No, we will not make that saving. Although we would save money, we would ultimately have to subsidise a rural network to keep it in existence, which would be at least as costly. Otherwise, we would lose an invaluable social resource."
Not until the advent of this Government was that same paper presented—brushed down and word processed, with a few commas and full stops changed—and, perhaps because they lacked that instinctive feeling for rural areas, they said, "Whoopee! If we save money here, we can spend more on useful things such as the health and education services." Because of that decision., the all-party group came into being, sub-postmasters began meeting and lobbying the Government, and the Government had to work out how to solve the problem that their officials had persuaded them to create. The problem is that without the old-fashioned system of benefits collection, post offices in rural locations were bound to suffer appallingly from a reduction not only in the amount of money that they received in direct commission for giving out benefits and pensions, but—indeed, mainly—in footfall.
Estimates of the loss of direct payments to the rural network vary widely, as do estimates across the whole network, rural and urban. The Minister may contradict me if my figures are outdated or wrong, but I believe that the direct losses are some £400 million a year for the 17,500 post offices, of which only some are rural. However, the footfall loss is far more difficult to quantify and, undoubtedly, the larger problem in the long run.
It would be wrong to suggest that the Government have not attempted to resolve the problem that they were persuaded to create, because they have. They started with the concept of a universal bank and engaged in prolonged and intensive negotiations with the banking fraternity.
Brian Cotter: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on to what the Government may or may not be doing, is it correct that there was a lot of confusion and delay when the Conservative Government were in power because they could not agree on whether to privatise the Post Office? Perhaps that is a reason for us having the debate today.
Mr. Letwin: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and I profoundly disagree about the privatisation of the Post Office, but, whether he is generally right about that or I am, what is certainly true is that it has nothing at all to do with a debate on the sub-post office network, which is, of course, intrinsically privatised. It is entirely composed of private operators. Indeed, in terms that he may find more attractive than I do, that is the problem. We would not be having this discussion if that network were part of the nationalised service, as it would simply be invisibly subsidised as part of the nationalised arrangements. I do not accept his point.
34WH
While we are at it, and before the hon. Gentleman springs to his feet in further and righteous indignation, I entirely accept that, alas, under the Conservative Government there was already a severe financial problem for rural sub-post offices. I do not seek to disguise that and it would be dishonest to do so. There were significant closures—they were running at rather under 200 per year, if I remember correctly, which is a serious rate of decline. Indeed, the closure rate was so alarming that groups and inter-ministerial committees were considering how to staunch the flow. That was without the measure that the Government have now decided to take in relation to automated credit transfer.
It should be said that, the Government having caused an increase in the outflow to, if I remember correctly, rather over 400 closures per year at its peak, they have brought down the figure somewhat through the measures that I will describe. My angst is related to the fact that, for reasons that I shall enumerate, by the time the Government's measures have been fully implemented, we shall probably see the closure rate rise again.
Mr. Mark Francois: Before my right hon. Friend moves on to his next point, may I inform him that the sub-post office in the village of Rettendon in my constituency closed over a year ago? Despite attempts to find an alternative sub-postmaster to reopen it, Chelmsford borough council, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, has made that almost impossible by being inflexible in planning terms. Does he agree that the Liberal Democrats should be careful to practise what they preach?
Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend is a remarkable and dextrous pugilist, but I am inclined, if possible, to turn this into a most consensual effort to save sub-post offices, so I shall refrain from commenting on what I do not know about—the case in his constituency—and say only that during my efforts to save the tiny post office in Toller Porcorum, which is not one of the great metropolises in our kingdom, but which is in my constituency of West Dorset, I discovered that it is necessary to have just the flexibility in planning that he describes.
We eventually managed to establish a part-time post office in what can best be described as a room on the bottom floor of what can best be described as a tiny cottage on the basis of persuading flexible planners that we were not doing much injustice to the fact that the cottage was a residential establishment. Flexibility is of great importance.
If I may diverge for a moment into that important element of saving sub-post offices, it has to be said that flexibility will also be required in other respects if we are to save the network. I am sure that there will be cases in which sub-post offices need to be located, perhaps with their shops, in village halls and pubs. We all have to be enormously flexible if we are to save such valuable resources.
Lembit Öpik: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Welsh Assembly has tried to learn lessons from the processes that he has described? It has introduced rural community action plans, which can be directed towards any rural community issue,

35WH
including post offices. They are designed, if used in an integrated way, to create viability in circumstances where it might not otherwise be present.
Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I know less about Wales than he does, but I welcome all efforts to bring people together and to find funding to sustain the network.
In the long run, savings will be made. There will be financial savings, as a supportive and vibrant community provides enormous intangible support to its members that otherwise has to be funded through elaborate bureaucratic programmes. There will also be direct savings, in the sense of saving the human misery that can all too frequently occur in quite unmelodramatic ways when people who are relatively housebound, or are in relatively rural locations with young children, do not have a means of talking to one another or to their neighbours.
I return to the history of the matter and to its present and immediate future. The Government have taken steps to try to resolve the problem that they created. The universal bank was intended to be such a solution and there were detailed discussions with the banking fraternity on it. Some of us with experience of the banking fraternity were sceptical about whether the Government could persuade the banks to behave in the way that they had first imagined. As it transpired, our scepticism was well founded. The banks participated in a discussion and have come forward with useful devices, but the system is not the universal bank that was originally conceived, nor is it as cost free as was originally intended.
That is not the main cause of my angst at present, because it has to be said that the banks and the Government have between them come up with a system, and there is much to be grateful for in that. There is, however, a terrible problem. I do not know of exactly whose making it is and I am not going to accuse any particular party of being its instigator. I shall say, however, that the Minister and his colleagues need to solve it, and quickly.
The problem is well illustrated by an admirable leaflet that has been widely distributed, which says:
"From April 2003 the Government will begin paying state pensions directly into accounts. But you can still collect your state pension at the Post Office."
Mr. Richard Page: Ho, ho.
Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend says, "Ho, ho" and to an extent that is exactly what I am going to describe—the "Ho, ho" of the matter.
The leaflet's front cover says that it will describe three items: a current account, a basic bank account and a Post Office card account. So far, so good. What is the current account? It is the current account that we all know and love. We did not need a leaflet to learn about current accounts, because we can walk into any bank and get one, but the leaflet describes them—first, I note—and explains that one can withdraw cash from a post office free of charge using a cheque book.
36WH
That is exactly the proposal for automated credit transfer that would have occurred in the first place without any discussions on the universal bank. There is nothing wrong with that, but from the point of view of the rural sub-post office network, there is nothing right with it either. People who choose option 1, the current account, may or may not ever go into a post office to collect their money. There is no particular reason why they should ever do so.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I have never done this, but I think that one can already go into any post office with a cheque book and card to withdraw money from one's current account, although it may not have had benefits paid into it. Is that right?
Mr. Letwin: Yes, I can testify to that. I do it frequently. Sub-post offices in rural Dorset are immensely helpful in cashing my cheques, and I doubt whether that is because they know who I am. It is because I have an account with a card, and I observe many people coming in and doing the same. However, most people with current accounts who want to get cash or make payments do not go to sub-post offices. They go elsewhere, primarily when they go shopping. Almost always these days, people engage in major shopping in places where there are dispensers to obtain money from cards, or tills and other places where they can cash cheques.
I fear that the current account, which is likely to become the norm over time if the Government, the banks and the Post Office continue in their present mode, will not encourage footfall. I am in no position—perhaps the Minister can give us his estimates—to say what the footfall through the sub-post office network will be if the current account does indeed become the norm. I suspect that the Minister will find it difficult to deny that, if some 80 or 90 per cent. of those receiving pensions and benefits collect them through a normal current account, the effect on footfall will be serious.
Mr. Andrew Turner: The performance and innovation unit, no less, published a report entitled "Counter Revolution", which the Government accepted, including conclusion 18, which said that the Post Office should develop a role for post offices as Government general practitioners, and that would improve footfall. However, when I asked the Minister what he had done about that he said that there had been a "Your Guide" pilot that
"highlighted a number of areas in which Government Departments might deliver services through post offices in the future and we are exploring these".—[Official Report, 27 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 323W.]
Does my right hon. Friend think that that is a vague answer on an issue as important as increasing footfall through the rural post office network?
Mr. Letwin: I fear that I shall have to confirm my hon. Friend's worst fears and go further. I have experience of this Minister: I have asked him many complicated questions in the course of Finance Bills. I hate to tell my hon. Friend that I always received extremely lucid and detailed replies. I do not say that about every member of the Government, but this Minister was noted in the proceedings on Finance Bills for giving us genuine

37WH
answers to genuine questions, although I hope that I am not ruining his career by saying that. It was an alarming tendency, and we sometimes saw officials in Committee registering shock and horror at the nature of the Minister's responses. If this Minister answered my hon. Friend in those terms, it confirms my suspicions that the Government have not the foggiest idea about how to make the Government general practitioner service system work, about which, as my hon. Friend said, much was said in the original reports.
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I am enjoying this part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he agree with the group of sub-postmasters that I met in Inverness last week that it would be a tremendous opportunity to be able to access at every local post office the current accounts to which he refers? In many areas, not least in the villages in his constituency, there is no bank, so it would be a great boon for the post office network if one could sort out one's business at the post office.
Mr. Letwin: The Minister is right that that would be an improvement for people whose benefits are paid through their current accounts and who cannot access a post office. If such people could access their account at the post office, more of them would be likely to go to the post office than if they had no such option. We are in agreement on that. However, that is not how the question ought to be posed. The question is how many of the people who currently go into sub-post offices will continue to do so if the method in question becomes the norm for receiving benefits and pensions, and if very few people receive them by other means. I think that that is the direction in which we are heading and in which somebody or other wants us to head. I do not know the answer to that question; indeed, nobody could know it. However, I hope that someone from the Department of Trade and Industry or someone else has studied the question quite closely. If they have done so seriously, they will have been forced to conclude that the number of people using sub-post offices will seriously decline.
Mr. Timms: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and shall not keep on intervening. Does he agree that it is much better for the future of the post office network if people go into post offices because they choose to do so, rather than because they have no other alternative? That has been the position in the past.
Mr. Letwin: First, let me say that I hope that the Minister will not apologise for intervening. Almost the only purpose of such debates in Westminster Hall—if indeed there is any purpose to them—is to engage the ministerial mind. We puny individuals in Opposition parties and on the Back Benches have no effect on such matters whatever. It is Ministers who make an impact, and it is much to be wished that an intelligent Minister will pay attention to the issues. I therefore welcome the Minister's intervention.
However, I do not agree with the Minister. He has exposed precisely the nature of the subliminal disagreement that has been going on for five or six years. I understand the theory that he expounds, and in general terms I am a proponent of it. It is generally better that consumers have choice. The Minister's party is a recent
38WH
convert to the truth on that point, whereas my party has been converted to it for hundreds of years. Those of us who are long-term adherents to the principle of consumer choice recognise—once in the Labour party's great tradition it specialised in recognising this—the need under certain circumstances to create a basis for social solidarity where it might otherwise be threatened. The surprising thing about the character of British politics, as it manifests itself in this particular example, is that the Labour Government appear to have forgotten that very point.
It is not better to arrange the delivery of benefits so that institutions fall away. In some villages, such institutions sustain communal enterprise, bring people together and create a centre where there is somebody who knows them. Such a person can spot that Mrs. Jones has not come in today and can begin to investigate why. It is not better if those institutions fall away because people have more choice about where they go to collect their money. In the end, we will all suffer: those living in the villages will suffer, and the nation as a whole will suffer, because it will not be oblivious to the social difficulties engendered by such a circumstance. In that case, the Government will respond with bureaucratic measures, and will seek to enlarge social services departments to solve the problem.
It is counter-productive to replace a working dynamic, which involves an age-old procedure whereby people go into a sub-post office, talk to the sub-postmaster or the sub-postmistress and hence have neighbourly, wholly unbureaucratic relations that work well, with a bureaucratic system because one has unwittingly destroyed the nexus that used to exist by celebrating a form of customer choice that is not terribly important to people. That is the fundamental nature of the argument between us, and my purpose this afternoon is to persuade Ministers to think again.
Having exposed that difference, the Minister will almost concede the rest of my remarks. For the record, however, I shall explain what is happening, because the Government have never announced this and people would resist it if it were more widely known. The current account does not bring people into the post office of necessity, and in most cases they will not go there. Why not? Given that the basic account is sandwiched between the current account and the post office card account, I do not think that many people will take one out. A few people may do so, but I would be surprised if the Minister were to tell us that the take-up of the basic account has been or is expected to be large.
That brings us to the post office card account. Those of us who want the rural network to be preserved had placed much faith in the post office card account. Many of us thought that it would turn out to be the saviour of the network, because it is the electronic equivalent of the old system of collecting benefits. It was with dismay that I discovered that the Department for Work and Pensions has recently admitted that just 100,000 of the 1.3 million initial targeted claimants have actually chosen to apply for it. I hope that that figure will turn out to be wrong but, given how it has been presented, I would not be surprised if it were correct.
It is presented third in the list, which is not critical but is important. It is presented as something that people can do, but its write-up suggests that it is not a

39WH
particularly good thing to do. Although the pamphlet describes the virtues of the other accounts, on page 5 it refers to the post office card account and states:
"No other payments, such as wages, can be paid into this account."
The leaflet specifically draws attention to something that cannot be done. It continues:
"The Post Office card account may be suitable for you if you want a simple account that won't let you go overdrawn or incur any charges."
The terms are calculated to ensure that most readers will think twice before opening such an account. However, it is difficult to write such leaflets, and it does not say that post office card accounts are dangerous or that smoking post office card accounts kill.
If there were an easy method of opening a post office card account that most people who now use post offices to collect their pensions could use, we could ignore the leaflet, but that is not so. It seems to be impossible to obtain a post office card account in any of the 18,000 sub-post offices. I say that with some diffidence because it is astonishing, but I believe it to be true, although I stand to be corrected by the Minister. As far as I can make out, such an account cannot be opened by going into a post office. What could be more calculated to ensure minimal take-up of the provision? There can be no possible explanation for refusing to allow people to open such an account when they collect their pensions and benefits each week, unless someone in Government wants to ensure minimal take-up of the post office card account.
People can open a bank account by going to a bank, and I do not suppose that anyone in Britain is under any illusion about that. The people who can open a bank account can do so by walking into a high street branch and opening it there and then. However, people who cannot open a bank account or do not want a basic bank account but want a post office card account cannot walk into a post office and open one. That is extraordinary and has surely been done with intent.
A system seems to have been created with the intention, or at least the effect, of minimising the number of people who, as a matter of normal practice, go each week into a post office to collect their money. The Minister may defend that—perhaps he will—by saying that it is better for people to have a choice of where they go and to have an ordinary bank account if they want, so let us not worry. My point is precisely that we should worry, because the tendency will be to decrease footfall and the rural network. Before we know where we are, there will be social problems that we did not anticipate.
Those problems could be overcome by subsidy. I know that the Government, subject to state aid clearance, have produced a package of £450 million—£150 million a year over three years. The extent to which that may be new money is not clear and is an interesting question. However, it need not detain us, because the scale of the subsidies that would be required if the whole of the sub-post office network were to be retained even though footfall diminished significantly would dwarf £150 million a year. I fear that there are only two possible outcomes.
40WH
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is chairman of the all-party group on sub-post offices and is concerned, for obvious reasons, about the urban network of sub-post offices. If he were here, he could make a much more eloquent speech than I could about that.
Mr. Robathan: Impossible.
Mr. Letwin: No, I am not jesting. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead is passionate about the matter, and has lived with it as a committed constituency MP in an urban area for many years. I fear that either he and his constituents or I and mine will be disadvantaged, because the Minister will be unable to find the money from an increasingly hard-pressed Chancellor with an increasing problem of fiscal arithmetic to subsidise both an urban and a rural sub-post office network in circumstances in which the intrinsic dynamics, because of the failure of the Post Office card account system and the fact that the ordinary bank account has become the norm, has led to decreasing footfall.
My biggest fear for my constituents is that I foresee the day when the pressure from Labour Back Benchers and Members as committed as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead to the preservation of the urban sub-post office network becomes intolerable. As a result, the subsidies will be moved back into the urban network and the closure rate of rural sub-post offices will rise again in areas such as West Dorset. As with the pig industry that used to exist in my constituency and the many pubs, primary schools and village halls that have gone from villages or fallen into disuse, this situation may reach a point at which another critical element in the survival of the British village, in a part of the country that still has a working social community, is disadvantaged and gradually falls into disrepair. If I can, I am determined to persuade Ministers to prevent that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. It may help those who are called to speak to gauge their contributions if I indicate that the first of the three Front-Bench speakers should be called no later than 3 o'clock.
2.36 pm
Mr. Alan Reid: I thank the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for applying for this important debate, because it is vital that we debate a subject that is of widespread concern throughout the rural parts of Britain.
Last Friday, I was speaking to a sub-postmaster in my constituency, who said that 70 per cent. of his business involved pensions and benefits. He was extremely concerned about what would happen to that when automated credit transfer was introduced. As the right hon. Member for West Dorset pointed out, the loss is not only of the money from processing the pensions but from the sales of other products within the sub-post office. There is great concern that if customers migrate to bank accounts, sub-post offices throughout rural areas will be forced to close. We should bear it in mind

41WH
that in many villages the only shop is a combined sub-post office, grocery and newsagent. If the loss of the post office business forces the shop to close, the village is left without a shop.
The Government should be promoting the Post Office card account and advocating it as a solution. I have the same leaflet as the right hon. Gentleman, and I drew exactly the same conclusion as him—that the leaflet tries to downplay the Post Office card account as much as possible. It promotes the current account and basic bank account, but makes no effort to promote the card account, listing it as option 3. That is not only in the leaflet about collecting the state pension; exactly the same is stated in the leaflet about collecting benefit at a post office and in a Department for Work and Pensions leaflet on direct payment entitled "Giving It To You Straight".
I am grateful to the Department for Work and Pensions for putting in the House of Commons Library the script that employees of the customer conversion centre—a rather sinister name for the helpline—will use when pensioners or benefit recipients phone up to open a Post Office card account. We should note that the only people who will phone the helpline will have decided from the Government literature that they want to open a Post Office card account. Having phoned up, the first thing that the person in the customer conversion centre will say to them is:
"I know that you have asked for a Post Office card account, but I would like to make sure you know about all of the options. Can I tell you about the other types of accounts that are available?"
The script continues, "If yes", and tells the person what to do, followed by, "If not sure", and again tells the person what to do. There is no box that says, "If no", so the caller is not allowed to say no, only yes or "I'm not sure". If the answer is yes to hearing the other options, the person in the call centre will go through the pluses of the current accounts and basic bank accounts, and give a cursory description of the Post Office card account. If the "not sure" option is taken—I suspect that the "no" option will be included in the "not sure" option—the person says:
"If Post Office access is important to you there are other accounts that let you get your money at the Post Office. Can I tell you about them?"
If the answer is yes, the current accounts and the basic bank accounts are again promoted, although it should be noted that, according to the script, only a handful of banks allow people to take money out of the Post Office, while the vast majority of banks do not.
If the person says no yet again, the call centre outlines the features of the Post Office card account. The outlines, which are given over the phone, run into a page. It is very difficult to take in this information over the phone. It needs to be laid out in front of someone. Having gone through 10 points, and the caller having said about three times that they want to open a Post Office card account, we come to No. 11, which states:
"If any of these features could pose a problem for you, the Post Office card account may not be for you—you could look into getting a current account or basic bank account",
thus steering people that way yet again. The script continues:
"Is this the type of account you would like?"
It is very confusing at this point. Having said that the caller could look into getting a current account or a basic bank account, the person at the call centre asks
42WH
whether that is the type of account that they would like, whereas the question refers to the Post Office card account. The script must be reconsidered, as it is very confusing.
If, having been told that the Post Office card account could pose a problem, the caller asks for one of the other accounts, the call centre again goes through all the benefits of the other accounts. After the pensioner or benefit recipient has said no about five times to the other accounts and insisted that they want a Post Office card account, they still do not get one. All that happens is that a personal invitation document is sent through the post, which they must take to the Post Office where they have to ask for an application form. Apparently, one can get an application form at the Post Office, but only after having phoned the call centre, said no about five times to the other options, and waited for a personal invitation document to arrive. The person can, eventually, open a Post Office card account, but we have to wonder how many people will be determined enough to go through all the options and negativity.
The Government should take a good, hard look at this matter. Very few people will open a Post Office card account, given all the difficulties. The benefits should be promoted, not criticised, as otherwise there will be severe doubts about the future of our rural post office network.
There is another concern. If an elderly person receives the invitation to phone the call centre, but does not do so and takes no other action, will they suddenly find that they no longer receive their pension? I hope that the Minister lets us know what will happen to people who do not respond to any of the invitations. Will a pension book still arrive, or will pensioners suddenly find that they cannot collect their pension?
ACT is the main threat that rural post offices face, but there are also plenty of other worries. For example, I was concerned to read in Friday's The Herald what the head of the Royal Mail had said at a conference—I believe that it was the same conference in Inverness to which the Minister referred. The newspaper reported:
"The head of the Royal Mail has warned Highlands and Islands customers that their full postal service may be scrapped. Allan Leighton … said a final decision will be taken within the next 12 months to determine whether it will be able to continue filling the same role at the same price as everywhere else in the country."
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to rebut what Allan Leighton is saying, bring him into line and make it clear to him that the universal service obligation means exactly that. We should have the same postal service throughout the country.
Another area in which rural sub-post offices do vital business is that of parcels. Again, there is discrimination against the highlands and islands, as Parcelforce charges more than double for deliveries there as for deliveries to the rest of the country. I know that a review has started, but it will take about a year. I hope that the Minister will try to influence that review and tell Parcelforce that there should be a universal price for the whole country.
At Prime Minister's Question Time last week, the Prime Minister said that families would be able to send packets to their loved ones serving in the Gulf entirely free of charge, when the operational situation allowed. As of this morning, the Post Office is still charging £6.89 to send parcels to family members in the Gulf. I hope

43WH
that the Minister will be able to tell us today when he thinks that the operational situation will allow such parcels to be sent free of charge.
The most important message is that the Government must promote the Post Office card account.
2.46 pm
Mr. Richard Page: I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on his skill in securing the debate, and on the wisdom of choosing this particular subject.
I followed his philosophical introduction with interest. I agreed with him about the pile of stones, but I am not so sure that he had the right analogy in removing them from the top one by one. Stones in a pile have a relationship with each other, just as a pub has a relationship with a post office, a village store, the church and the village hall. I am reminded of an incident in a store several years ago. The storekeeper had very lovingly piled up tin on tin of baked beans in a conical shape, and it was most attractive. It had a symmetry. A young lad whipping round the corner caught the bottom tin, and suddenly it was reduced to its component parts, which were rolling all over the floor with no shape or symmetry. My worry is that if we lose the village store or post office, we lose the village. That is one of the reasons why I think that the subject is so important.
I shall make only one short statement, and then ask a question of the Minister. The Minister knows that I do not blame him for the shambles that is occurring at the moment. His two predecessors are to blame, and they have moved on. In fact, they have been promoted for their skill and wisdom, and the poor Minister has to come here and make the best of a bad job. The statement I want to make is self-evident, but needs repeating. Unless a sub-post office is profitable, the game is over. Its revenue comes from the commission it makes from distributing benefits, and also from the profit it makes in retailing goods, such as tins of baked beans, loaves of bread, milk, newspapers and so on—in fact, the footfall. With the reduction in the payments of benefit, the footfall is reduced.
I am trying to work out why the system is making it so difficult to get post office card accounts, when that further reduces the footfall and profits, and means that more and more subsidy is needed to keep rural post offices going. It would have seemed logical to encourage people to have post office card accounts so that they would go into rural post offices, increase the footfall, increase the profit to the sub-postmaster and sub-postmistress, and reduce the subsidy that needs to come from the centre. One is a virtuous circle and the other a negative circle. I hope that the Minister will not look surprised and bemused, as he did at the last Department of Trade and Industry questions, at anyone who suggests that it has been made extremely difficult for people to get a post office card account.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) mentioned the hurdles that people have to clear to get a post office card account. I can produce many constituents who have told me how difficult it is, and most of them have given up trying. A killer question that
44WH
hits people straight away is, "Have you got a bank account?" If the answer is yes, they are told that they do not need a post office card account. That is game, set and match against them, and they go away. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, there are 100,000 people with post office card accounts, compared with the original 1.3 million who were targeted. I am surprised at the tenacity of the 100,000 who managed to get through the system to get a card account in order to be able to go into the post office, increase the footfall and help to keep the sub-post office in business.
Why is it being made so difficult to get a post office card account? What finances are so secret that they cannot be released? Why are we trying to drive the post offices out of businesses when we should be trying to keep them going?
2.51 pm
Brian Cotter: I thank the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for securing this timely debate as we reach D-day. After perhaps four years of debating the matter in the House, we have finally reached the point when the concerns of many hon. Members may prove to be correct.
My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) graphically described the great difficulty in proceeding with a card account. The opposition that people encounter on the telephone when they try to open such an account would do credit to the Inquisition. It would be difficult for people as robust as my fellow MPs to deal with such an onslaught, let alone those of advanced years who need encouragement and a clear expression of what to do. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) added his constituents' experiences to the list of difficulties encountered in getting a card account.
We seem to be in a bit of a mess, because things that we were assured would happen have not happened. The right hon. Member for West Dorset referred to the importance of sub-post offices to communities throughout the country. Local communities are facing the cumulative effect of the closure of sub-post offices and corner shops, and now there are concerns about local pharmacies, which is another ingredient of the community. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised our concerns about local pharmacies with the Government. We have had to be robust in putting to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and other Ministers our concern that one more building block of the local community may be taken away. There has been a lack of response from this Government in the past. For instance, I went to the appropriate Minister at the time for help with business rates for small village pubs, but the Minister was less than helpful.
My argument about sub-post offices is that it is just one more attack on local communities. Indeed, the recent Licensing Bill was another example. The right hon. Member for West Dorset spoke about village halls. We could also mention churches. The measure will make difficult and restrict the possibility of holding various public events in churches and village halls.
Sub-post offices and many other facilities are absolutely vital to communities. I hope that the Chancellor in his wisdom will tomorrow address an issue that is relevant to sub-post offices. Business rates

45WH
are a big burden on local shops and small businesses. At present, the business rate system is weighted against smaller businesses and does nothing at all to help them survive. I hope that today the Minister will respond positively to the debate, but also that tomorrow the Chancellor will indicate what he will do to help sub-post offices and other community organisations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked me to raise a particular issue. Earlier, there was talk about siting sub-post offices in various places. such as residential buildings and pubs, to keep them going. My right hon. Friend pointed out to me that rural areas are especially badly hit when the Post Office decides to close an office to carry out an investigation. An example is Lowick, where pensioners had to travel six to 10 miles to the nearest post office. Why not use temporary or even mobile facilities for two or three days of the week to deal with the problem while the investigation is carried out?
Of major concern is the take-up of the card account. As has been said, only some 100,000 cards have been taken up so far, although more than 1 million people are eligible for them. Reference has also been made to footfall. It could be increased by several different measures. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us—we have had answers about this before—exactly what happened with the "Your Guide" experiment. As the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire said, this poor Minister has been left holding the baby after many Ministers have gone on to, presumably, greater and better things. He has been left to face the fact that various initiatives, "Your Guide" being one of them, have been abandoned. I wonder why it was abandoned. I come from a small-business background. When I had problems with the business and something did not immediately take off, I found other ways to encourage things to happen. It was not good to abandon that particular scheme.
Another issue with regard to sub-post offices is subsidy. It has been a great mantra of the Government that sub-post offices and the system as a whole will receive support—£450 million in three different elements. That has rightly been seen as a help. However, I wonder whether the Government plan to proceed with their announcement, which was made back in December and which was introduced as a fresh announcement. I have a newspaper account from 1 April that states:
"The future of nearly 6,800 rural post offices was thrown into doubt"
by the decision of the European Commission to delay support for the £450 million aid package. The account continues that it seems that
"it needs Commission approval before the cash can be paid."
The account in the paper could be totally incorrect, but if it is correct, and the £450 million is an integral part of keeping post offices going, I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about ensuring that the money is made available.
Members will hear increasingly from their constituents about the problems that will be created if sub-post offices are lost and people have great difficulty getting over the various hurdles put in their way when they try to find other means of getting their pensions paid, such as the card account. For example, people in the sub-post office in Hutton say that the information is
46WH
very difficult to understand. Constituents in Weston-super-Mare have written to me in the same terms about understanding the various options available.
The Post Office in its wisdom—I think otherwise—discouraged a useful leaflet about the card that Age Concern wanted to place in sub-post offices and post offices. It said that the leaflets had to be withdrawn. I wonder if the Minister knows about that. What we are exposing in this debate is the great need for footfalls through sub-post offices, for the subsidy and for everything to be clear and to the point. In that respect, the Government have failed dismally, despite having had such a long time in which to prepare.
Concern exists throughout the country. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), I collected a petition with 100,000 signatures from all sorts of communities in England, Scotland and Wales, which was presented to 10 Downing Street as recently as last Friday. That petition shows that there is concern about the issue in communities all over the country.
I hope that the Minister will be able to allay some of our concerns, that we can have more clarity, that it will be easier for people to understand the system, and that we will get support for the sub-post office network through subsidy. I hope that he will also announce some other schemes, similar to the "Your Guide" scheme, which will persuade people to keep on using the sub-post office network.
3.3 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: May I just say to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) that I am delighted to hear that the Liberal Democrat campaign has fulfilled its task? The Minister will remember that the last time we discussed post offices, I read from the Liberal Democrat campaign literature that said that signatures were to go to Downing Street. I am glad to hear that they have done so.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on his good fortune in securing the debate and on his measured and comprehensive speech that outlined what is the matter with policy for rural post offices. I might be a little less measured. I have to tell the Minister—he already knows that I think this—that the Government's policy for rural post offices is in tatters. That has been revealed in every speech that we have heard today.
I should like briefly to address three issues: first, the expected increase in the price of stamps; secondly, universal banking, about which we have heard much; and thirdly, the rural post office subsidy. As we have quite a lot of time for this debate, I should also like the Minister to answer the questions that I and other hon. Members put to him.
This is a very small point, and I would never accuse the Minister of being cynical—he knows that I have said before that he basically gives straight answers—but I was rather surprised to discover that the stamp price increases will come in on 8 May. It is an unusual date to choose. I hope that he will tell us that it has nothing to do with the fact that 1 May is witnessing local elections the length and breadth of the country. It would be

47WH
unfortunate if the date chosen had something to do with the elections, but I am sure that he will be able to reassure me on that point.
My second, and much more substantive, point concerns the universal bank and its effects. It has already started and will continue to be introduced in the next two years. I thank the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) for giving us an interesting and illuminating script from the customer conversion centre. It is as bad as we expected. When universal banking has converted all its customers in the next two years, can the Minister tell us what will happen to the people who have not converted? Some do not have a current account, a base account or a card account. What will happen to them? The answer needs to be given now and not, perhaps, at the beginning of April 2005. Universal banking will reduce the income of postmasters, rural and urban, by approximately 35 to 40 per cent.
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset discussed the card account very lucidly and sensibly. I shall read from a document written last year by Mr. Kuczys of the universal banking policy department of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, which is extremely illuminating. It discusses proposed consultation, and says that
"we should be clear that neither body"—
the British Bankers Association and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters—
"will much like what they see. The emphasis of the letters"
letters to be sent to customers—
"is very much on encouraging people to use existing accounts where possible—in line with Ministers' decision to go for 'actively managed choice'. Both the banks and the subpostmasters would really like a completely free choice."
I should have thought that that was not unreasonable, but the document continues:
"We will have to make it clear that this is not on offer…In discussion with the BBA and the NFSP we might want to concede giving a bit more prominence to the Card Account at Post Offices, once it is available."
Referring to leaflets going out this summer, the document continues that
"the Card Account will not initially be included in the leaflet".
It was entirely clear a year ago that the card account was being put right at the bottom of the list for whatever reason. I think that we all understand the reasons—they are about saving money.
I should like to contrast that with the National Consumer Council document, "Everyday Essentials", which I have here and which, I think, every Member of Parliament has been sent. It says:
"The object of addressing the financial exclusion of some low-income consumers is submerged in a wider agenda to reduce government expenditure."
I have no problem with reducing Government expenditure, but I should like that point to be addressed. Referring to market research on Post Office customers, the document says:
"When asked about their preferred account options, responses were split but the most favoured option was the card account (33 per cent.)"
48WH
Recommendation 3 of the document is that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Post Office should ensure that all benefit recipients, including those with current accounts, have easy access to the card account. We know that they do not. Can I ask the Minister what happened to joined-up government and to the holistic approach to the financially excluded? They are being deprived here.
As the Minister will know, a sub-postmaster receives some 13p for paying out a pension in a post office. The average pension payment is £89. Transactions of all benefits make up 40 per cent. of the income of a sub-postmaster. It costs the Department for Work and Pensions£430 million a year.
Sub-postmasters who have spoken to me are concerned that, in communications and discussion with the Post Office, they were offered a take-it-or-leave-it agreement. They would get 14p for dispensing £100 of benefit money—not 14p per transaction or per unit of time taken, but per amount. Each pension averages less than £100, so they would have to carry out two transactions before they received the 14p. Moreover, although I support post office card accounts, they will generate an understandable temptation for people not to take out all their cash at one time, but to take it in dribs and drabs. The average pensioner may therefore make three or four transactions for the £89 of pension that they receive through their post office, but the sub-postmaster will still receive only 14p for the £100 of benefit that he pays.
Will the Minister tell me whether the Post Office threatened to impose that arrangement on the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters? Such an arrangement takes no account of the time that is spent. What assessment has he made of the impact that it may have on sub-postmasters' income?
My next point is specifically about rural post offices, whereas my earlier points applied across the board. A subsidy of £450 million has been allocated as a subsidy for rural post offices over the next three years. My first point, to which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare alluded, is that the European Commission, which has to give state aid approval, has deferred its decision by another month, until May. When, if ever, will that much trumpeted £450 million receive permission, and what will happen if the European Commission denies state aid approval? The uncertainty affects every rural post office. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset referred to post offices not closing, but part of the reason for that is that people are waiting to see what the policy will be. The deferral of the decision throws further uncertainty into the pot.
The £450 million will be disbursed at £150 million a year for three years. The announcement was made in November 2002, in a written answer to me, I believe, and the funding was meant to run for three years to the end of 2005. What will happen then? There may be an election in 2005. I do not believe the Minister to be a cynical person, but some might conclude that that amount of subsidy was purely to take us up to the next general election and not beyond. What is the strategy beyond 2005?

49WH
I would also like to probe the Minister—I hope that he will answer—on what that money is for. He told me that £66 million a year would go to fund sub-postmasters and staff wages. That is clear, but I understand that, in fact, the money will go to the Post Office, which will then pay sub-postmasters the same amount that it currently pays in a signed office payment, and whatever else it pays for wages. It is not, therefore, extra money for the sub-postmasters.
Those 8,000-plus rural businesses—the sub-post offices across the country—will lose a large part of their income, but will receive no further income from the £450 million. That is what sub-postmasters are telling me and I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether that is correct. Small businesses—rural sub-post offices—are losing their income and have nothing with which to replace it. To what possible alternative income can a rural post office turn? I am all for innovations in rural businesses and in any business, but the Government have a responsibility here that they are failing to address.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset elucidated, rural post offices provide a great service for communities. They are a part of the rural community. They are essential in many areas for social reasons. I am not a great one for subsidies but, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) said, if everything in rural Britain closes down one is left with very little. The post office is often the last port of call. We do not want to see them closed. We want to hear what the Government have to say: sub-postmasters across the country will want the Minister to tell them whether they have a future.
3.15 pm
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I congratulate the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on securing the debate. I share his nostalgia for our Finance Bill debates. It is a pleasure to be debating with him and other hon. Members this important subject. I want to start by giving him and the House the assurance that the Government regard it as most important that all communities have good access to postal and government services. We are committed to doing all that we can to ensure a viable post office network across the UK in both rural and urban areas. That is why we are investing such large sums in supporting the transformation of the Royal Mail and the post office network, totalling some £2 billion over the next five years.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to the dramatic reduction in the number of rural post office closures. As I have told the House on previous occasions, in the quarter for which we have the most recent data—the last quarter of the last calendar year—the net reduction in the number of rural post offices was zero. It is the first time that that has been the case that anyone can remember. The commitment that the Government have made to sustaining and investing in the rural network is leading to a dramatic reduction in rural post office closures. That is quite a dramatic break— which the right hon. Gentleman, to his credit, recognised—with the long period of decline in the number of post offices that was presided over by the previous Government and continued into the early part
50WH
of the term of this Government. We have taken action to address that decline and we have seen a dramatic turnabout as a result, not least in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency.
West Dorset has 51 post offices in total; most are rural and a few are urban. I was not quite sure whether this was the office to which he referred, but Owermoigne post office was closed for a period and has now been reopened. The Ansty sub-post office in Ansty lane is another post office that was closed for a period but has now reopened. Both benefited from the £2 million capital start-up fund that we have established specifically to support innovative arrangements to reopen sub-post offices or to open up new ones. A network of rural transfer advisers has been set up and we have made a commitment that there should be no avoidable post office closures. We have backed up that commitment with funding. That is why we have seen this dramatic fall in the reduction in the number of rural post offices. The whole House will welcome the success of the steps that we have taken.
The right hon. Gentleman is an accomplished and skilful debater, and I enjoyed listening to the case that he advanced. It is often difficult to spot the flaws in his arguments, but there was a clear flaw in his argument today. In recent years, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of people going into post offices to do the kinds of things that they have always done. There are still a lot of people, but nothing like as many as there were, who just want to go into the post office to cash a giro. That is the flaw.
The figures for 1996 show that some 42 per cent. of benefit recipients went to the post office to cash a giro in order to obtain their cash. That fraction is now down to about one quarter and is falling steeply. So simply leaving things as they were is not the answer for the post office network. Indeed, that is the road to continued decline, which we want to stop.
I shall quote one further statistic. The number of retirement pensions and widows benefits paid by order books and giros through the Post Office has dropped by more than 1 million from just over 6 million to less than 5 million since 1996, although the total number of recipients has increased by more than 1 million. The background to this discussion is that people are changing the way in which they receive their pensions and other benefits. That is not a surprise, but it is an important part of the background to our changes.
Hywel Williams: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Timms: I do not remember seeing the hon. Gentleman in the debate, but I shall nevertheless give way to him.
Hywel Williams: I apologise to hon. Members for not being here for most of the debate because I was detained elsewhere, but I am glad to be here for the winding-up speeches. Does the Minister accept that, despite the change in the pattern, in some rural communities, some of which are in my Caernarfon constituency, there is no alternative to the post office? Despite the fact that the

51WH
overall figure for closures is decreasing, the effect on small communities is the same regardless of whether the number of closures is large or small.
Mr. Timms: The important point is, of course, that rural communities depend on their local post offices. That is why we have been investing in post offices, which have a better future as a result.
When we looked at the network, we had a choice. We could continue to force the dwindling number of people who want only to go and cash giros at their local post offices to carry on doing so or—this is our choice—we could invest to allow the Post Office to attract a new generation of customers into rural post offices, and urban post offices as well. That is why we have committed £500 million, which is entirely unprecedented, to equip every post office in the country for the universal banking services, which became available last week. Every post office in the country has the technology platform to offer a host of new services and to win a new generation of customers for the Post Office.
The network of post offices and sub-post offices has been heavily dependent on people coming in each week to cash their giros. That business is, however, dwindling. Increasingly, people who retire had their wages paid into a bank account. As the rate of employment has increased, more and more people have had their wages paid into bank accounts, and when they retire they choose to have their pensions paid the same way. The services that today's retired people want are different from the services demanded by pensioners a generation ago. That is why it has been necessary for the Post Office to make this change.
Mr. Robathan: The Minister is soundly illustrating what we already know. We know that people such as he and I are unlikely to draw our pensions from a post office. Indeed, my wife takes her child benefit into her bank account rather than through the post office in cash. We want the Minister to tell us about the strategy—if there is one—for maintaining the post office network.
Mr. Timms: I am trying to make it clear to the House that it is important for the commercial well-being of the post office network that customers such as the hon. Gentleman and his wife should have a reason to go into the local post office, even if they do not have to cash a giro. By using the technology in which we have invested £500 million, the Post Office will be in a position to offer banking services, which will create an attractive opportunity for post offices.
Mr. Page: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Timms: Not at the moment, as I want to make some headway. As I said, I was pleased recently to have a discussion with a group of sub-postmasters in Inverness at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart). They hit the nail on the head; they told me that the best opportunity for the Post Office is to offer access to bank accounts, because everyone in the country will use that service. That will allow the Post Office to
52WH
expand its customer base, rather than being locked into a dwindling group of customers, as it has been in the past few years.
With the basic bank accounts, every high street bank in the country, plus the Nationwide building society, will be able to offer an account that is fully accessible at every local post office. The Post Office has the biggest retail network in Europe; that is what we mean by universal banking. The right hon. Member for West Dorset suggested that we had not implemented universal banking, but that is not so; it has been implemented thanks to the co-operation of every high street bank and the Nationwide building society. That is what our investment of £500 million has achieved.
People who live in the countryside where there is no bank branch for miles will in future be able to do their banking at the village post office. A raft of customers who previously did not need to go into the village post office will have good reason to do so. That service is available in respect of a number of banks, although not all of them, for basic bank accounts and for ordinary current accounts, too. The Post Office is aiming to reach similar agreements with other high street banks.
The post office can take on a new role as the convenient place to do banking, which will be a particularly good opportunity in the rural villages on which the debate has focused. It will also help to solve the problem of financial exclusion. A postmaster to whom I spoke last week said that many people on the substantial council estate in her area did not have a bank account, which made life difficult for them. An arrangement for people to open basic bank accounts at their local bank and to have full access to them at their local post office will help to tackle the problem of financial exclusion.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) made a point that he has made before—that there will be a 40 per cent. drop in the income of the post office network. That statement is based on the view that all the people who at present go into the post office to cash their giros will no longer go there to obtain their benefit income and thus will not go there at all. That is clearly not the case; people with a card account will certainly go into the post office to obtain their cash, which will offset in full the 40 per cent. figure that the hon. Gentleman quoted.
However, the key opportunity for the Post Office is to attract a new generation of customers by offering services that many more people than those who currently use post offices will want to use, and that is the basis on which a successful commercial future for the Post Office can be built.
Mr. Robathan: Of course the Minister is right to say that part of the 40 per cent. will be replaced by whatever comes along as a reward for obtaining cash through the post office card account. However, he said that the 40 per cent. would be offset in full. Did he mean that?
Mr. Timms: My point is that all the income that the Post Office earns from servicing post office card accounts will offset the 40 per cent. figure. The hon. Gentleman has said repeatedly that there will be a 40 per cent. fall in income, but that assumes that the Post Office will get no income at all from people receiving benefits. That is not the case, because post offices will get all the

53WH
income from the post office card accounts; they will also derive an income from payments made at post offices on basic bank accounts.
The opportunity to bring many new customers into rural and urban post offices will provide the Post Office, including all rural post offices, with a big opportunity to build for themselves a much more attractive future than has been open to them for some time. I was particularly pleased in Inverness by the sense that the penny had dropped. Postmasters will have a much more positive perspective as they realise the opportunities made available to them by universal banking services.

Fallen Stock Regulations
3.30 pm
Sandra Gidley: I welcome the opportunity to have this debate, which I requested following a meeting with local farmers. That took place a couple of months ago, but sadly the issues and concerns raised then are just as pertinent today, as there appears to have been little Government action on fallen stock in that time. Farmers are still in the dark about some of the finer detail of the proposals, and even the broader detail of some aspects of them. They are still frustrated that there appears to be no sign of a workable nationwide scheme, and they are at the mercy of legislation for which, quite simply, there is no proven scientific basis.
The basic problem is that the ban on on-farm burial comes into force in the United Kingdom on 30 April. Farmers and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have known that for some time, and there have been consultations between relevant bodies, such as the National Farmers Union and DEFRA, but what use is that consultation if no decisions are made and the information given to farmers is too little, too late?
To ensure that I was bang up to date, I checked the DEFRA website this morning, but it had not been changed since 17 March. Even worse, the page said that it was currently being updated. Clearly, DEFRA has a long way to go to meet the e-government agenda, but perhaps that is a reason for another debate.
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): I do not want to pre-empt the hon. Lady's remarks or provide my response until she has asked all her questions, but it is only fair to tell her that a great deal has been going on as regards this issue, and a great deal has been on the table for farming representatives, if they wish to take that up. I can be as up to date as saying that discussions continue today in an attempt to secure a workable outcome. I only hope that the industry will take it up.
Sandra Gidley: Discussions may still be going on, but with barely three weeks to go before the ban, some decisions should have been made some time ago.
In January, I felt that there was still time for the information to be disseminated, but farmers are still no wiser. That position was confirmed on 25 March by the NFU, which sent a briefing to Members of Parliament stating:
"So far farmers have received no clear guidance from DEFRA. We are concerned that many farmers will be unable to ensure compliance at what is now such short notice. With only a few weeks to go this is most unsatisfactory, given that Government has been aware of the impending legislation for well over two years."
I remind the Minister of a similar situation that resulted from a similar bout of incompetence by his Department. I am referring to fridge mountains. We are all aware of the knock-on effects of the Government's failure to act rapidly on that legislation. Will we face a replacement mountain of dead animals? It is simply not good enough for the Government to pass the buck and blame farmers—as the Minister appeared to do a moment ago—for reasons that I shall explain later.

55WH
I thought that it would be useful to contact my local farmers to find out how they saw the situation. Geoff Butler of Bossington farms told me:
"Funny you should ask about that because we had decided to buy an incinerator. I rang the Reading office"
of DEFRA—
"last week but was told that they were 'all away on a course'. They still haven't returned the call."
My first question is about when the guidance will be available to farmers. Is it fair to give them such short notice of the detail that many will be in danger of contravening the legislation through no fault of their own?
Given that DEFRA has been backward in its duties, will the Minister confirm the situation as regards compliance with the new rules? Given the lack of information, it is clearly unfair and unreasonable to expect every farmer in Britain to comply fully from day one. Does DEFRA intend to apply to the EU for transitional measures to allow farmers time to comply? Guidance on that would be useful for all those who have the will to comply, but are shackled by the lack of clear guidance.
Local farmers also raised funding implications. There is considerable anger that there is no new Government money—I stress the word "new"—to help to establish and run a national collection and disposal scheme. The Government appear to think that farmers are neglecting their duties, without paying any regard to the fact that many farmers have no extra money available because of a sustained period of difficulty in making ends meet, let alone any profit from which they can fund the scheme. They told me that the Government have not found any new money for the scheme.
I am aware that there was an announcement on 3 December that the Government would be prepared to put almost £30 million towards such a scheme. However, further research revealed that this money is the same money that currently funds other schemes, including the BSE monitoring scheme, the over-30 months scheme, the casualty collection service and the fallen stock transmissible spongiform encephalopathies surveillance scheme. DEFRA suggests that combining these schemes will produce monetary savings that can be used to part-finance the collection and disposal of animals currently being buried. Many people say that that is unworkable, but they might be more convinced if the Government provided a financial breakdown showing how the scheme will work in practice, and whether there will be any additional funds for animals that are not currently covered by the schemes. Perhaps the Minister could further enlighten us about that today?
It is also a fact that the majority of the EU member state Governments have provided funding to help set up and run national fallen stock collection schemes. For example, France has paid for all fallen stock collections since 1999. It has a different attitude to the problem, which it regards as a public health matter. If the regulations are so important, will the Minister explain what conversations he has had with the Minister for Public Health, and why we in Britain do not regard this as a public health matter?
56WH
What will the costs be? I shall return to the local picture for a moment. Bossington farms have decided that incineration is the answer for them. Initially, they considered an incinerator large enough to take a sow because of the nature of their operation. The knacker man used to take the cows away, but there is a reluctance to take pigs, so an alternative had to be found. An incinerator large enough to take a sow costs £9,000. They decided that that was not sustainable, and plumped instead for a model large enough to take stillborn pigs and afterbirth material. That will cost between £2,000 to £3,000, but the farm manager cannot make a purchase because he does not know what the regulations will be or whether an afterburner, at an extra cost of approximately £1,000, will be required. He had heard that DEFRA was considering making them compulsory but, as I said, he is still none the wiser. He can only guess the running costs after the initial outlay, but thought that the annual running costs would be between £1,000 and £1,500.
Another farmer, Peter Redshaw, who specialises in pigs, told me that he had not buried his pigs for some time because of the standard of pigs that he produced and the regulations that relate to them. Five years ago, the knacker man paid him for collecting his dead pigs. Since then, unfortunately for him, the situation gradually changed, and he now has to pay for his dead animals to be taken away. The price rose considerably after the problems with foot and mouth disease and BSE, and he now estimates that the annual cost to him is approximately £3,600.
Both farmers also raised the concern that the existing network of knacker men and the rendering industry would not be able to cope with the increased demand. Indeed, the industry, instead of gleefully rubbing its hands at the prospect of more work, has pointed out that there are problems ahead if the scheme is not nationally funded.
I previously alluded to the fact that times are difficult for farmers, but the bald facts are that a third of farmers currently default on their payments to knacker men. Peter Redshaw told me, "It is the one bill that I make sure is paid on the dot, because if I don't, I know they won't necessarily be back next week." The Minister should be well aware of the current financial plight of many of Britain's farmers. The NFU has provided the Department with farm income data to show that fallen stock charges will increase existing losses for small farmers and further reduce the very small incomes that larger livestock producers manage to secure. What assessment has the Minister and his Department made of the impact on farmers and whether the regulations might be the final straw for some of them?
There is another aspect to the benefits of a nationwide scheme that should not be overlooked. The UK Government must be able to demonstrate to the European Commission that they are complying with the new regulation. That will be easier with a national scheme, but as there are no plans for such a scheme, will the Minister outline how the Government will be able to achieve compliance? How will they obtain an accurate picture of the numbers of animals involved and how they are being disposed of? Will that be an additional bureaucratic burden, and how will the figures be audited?

57WH
I want to end by mentioning the potential of other systems such as biodigestion, which is an environmentally friendly and biosecure form of anaerobic digestion. In last week's DEFRA questions, the Secretary of State mentioned that the method was currently illegal but that representations had been made to the EU scientific authorities. Will the Minister elaborate on that? When were the details of the biodigestion system referred to the relevant EU scientific committee? Has there been a response or any indication of a response? If not, when is a response likely? What discussions has the Minster had with other member states, and is any likely to offer support?
Those are important questions because evidence shows that, as well as being environmentally friendly, if biodigestion is combined with alkaline hydrolysis, it is highly likely that TSE agents are fully destroyed. That is not the case with incineration, which is likely to be the method of choice for many farmers. Evidence shows that incineration has several disadvantages, including not being able to ensure that high enough temperatures are reached in all the material for a sufficient period of time. If the high temperatures are not reached, we cannot ensure that all the agents are killed off, which means that some TSE agents remain infective after the incineration process is ostensibly complete. Combined with the problems of dioxins and toxic ash, that gives us a potential environmental problem on our hands that should not be overlooked. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) will pick up on those points in a couple of minutes.
Farmers have been burying carcases on land for hundreds of years. We can guess at some of the disadvantages of the process, particularly if the water table is high, but no overwhelming body of scientific knowledge suggests we have a major health hazard on our hands if we continue as we are doing. However, we are willing to replace it with a dual system of transporting dead animals around the country, which could spread disease if not carried out properly, and of an increase of incineration despite its known health hazards.
I have taken slightly less time than I originally planned because two of my hon. Friends have asked for a couple of minutes each to speak. However, in conclusion, I would say to the Minister that somewhere we lost the plot. The Government have lost momentum, and it will be the farmers who have to pick up the pieces.
3.42 pm
Andrew George: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on securing this important debate and on the diligence with which she is representing her constituents.
I want simply to raise two points, of which I have given the Minister advance notice. The first relates to the justification for the current application of the regulation. We understand that, in parts of the European Union, there are serious problems of buried livestock that result in the infection of watercourses, but I am not sure that we need the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut approach. I would appreciate the Minister's advice on that. We should consider fallen wildlife in the countryside as an example. We are applying the regulation to farm animals, but what will happen to
58WH
deer, badgers and rabbits that die in the countryside? I assume that no arrangements exist for collection services, incinerations or biodigesters for that wildlife, even though they carry infectivity.
Secondly, why do the derogations available for the remote rural areas of Scotland not apply to remote parts of England and Wales, which may be distant from collection centres? Why has Scotland, as a result of the consultation period that started recently, been able to delay the enforcement of the regulation? Bearing in mind the concern about the current lack of information for farmers, would the Minister recommend to his Department that the enforcement of the measures be delayed in this country?
Lembit Öpik rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. Apart from the originator of the debate, no one is allowed to speak in the debate except with the prior permission of the originator and the Minister. I have indication only of two.
Lembit Öpik: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did write to the Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister and originator are now agreeing and so, exceptionally, I shall allow Mr. Öpik to speak.
3.45 pm
Lembit Öpik: I must be at fault. I had written to the Speaker and, perhaps, informed the wrong Minister. I shall learn from that and keep my comments extra short, with no trick questions for the Minister.
I shall speak about the issue of biodigesters. Would the Government be willing to continue a dialogue on the benefits of biodigestion as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) until a conclusive determination has been made of its relative economic, environmental and health benefits compared with on-farm collection? In my constituency, I saw a responsible action using biodigesters. A farmer called Tom Tudor said:
"It's convenient and ensures there are no dead stock lying around the farm. The last thing farmers want is to leave their stock hanging around awaiting collection".
That case has already been made by my hon. Friend.
I am concerned that we might be missing a trick. Biodigestion is a superbly effective way of handling the issue on farm without the danger of extra transportation that could cross-contaminate between one farm and another. Some costs can be avoided if the natural processes of decomposition are managed through biodigestion. Biodigesters provide an on-farm solution without transport costs, environmental damage or the risk of cross-contamination through serial collection from farm to farm.
I simply ask the Minister one thing: will he not close the lid on biodigesters, but continue a dialogue with the British farming community to find the relative merits of that solution? It is a matter not of beating the

59WH
Government, but of finding the right solution to a serious issue. I have been persuaded by the NFU and others that biodigestion offers that solution.
3.47 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): The Department has gone to great lengths to help the farming industry and to provide additional money to assist in the creation of a national scheme. I can say that somewhat objectively, given that the hard work on it has been done by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is in Luxembourg today representing our interests, as always. He has been generous with his time and in trying to tease out a solution. He has also been open-minded, which leads me to respond to the last point.
The fact is that biodigestion, and composting, are not permitted disposal routes. The composting or biodigestion of fallen stock is illegal and the new EU rules will not change that position. However, under those new rules, the industry can submit a proposal for novel disposal methods. Any such proposal is subject to a scientific opinion and agreement by the European Commission. The relevant scientific committee meets next week and it will be considering novel disposal methods. Those formalities must be gone through. It is a question not of the Government closing doors, but of proposals from the industry being considered through the appropriate mechanisms.
Many farmers have buried stock on their farms for years and do not want to change that practice, but the new rules in the animal by-products regulation are based on several scientific opinions. Those take into account factors such as the potential for polluting water courses and the lack of scientific information on how persistent the prions that cause diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy and scrapie are in soil. The decisions taken were based on a report of the EU's scientific committee. Given our history of BSE and foot and mouth disease, the EU is clearly justified in taking a precautionary approach.
However, there is nothing new in disposal by rendering and incineration. The industry exists and the capacity exists. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) suggested that doubts have been cast and questions asked, but we have been assured time and again by the industry that it has the capacity to deliver what is necessary. We could reasonably leave the farming industry to get on with it—there is no requirement on the Government to set up a national collection system—but we believe that that is the best way to reduce the burden of costs on the industry. By utilising the infrastructure of knackers, renderers and incineration already in place and by building on the administrative arrangements established for collecting fallen stock for transmissible spongiform encephalopathy testing purposes, we can offer a scheme that could be up to 40 per cent. cheaper for a farmer than if he had to make his own ad hoc arrangements. The Government are prepared to set up such a scheme and contribute to the funding during the first few years. Indeed, we are offering to contribute directly and to use
60WH
the muscle of our own contracting requirements to help farmers. That will lead to an industry-run scheme rather than a Government one.
The Government have tried to get to help to create a new system well in advance of the implementation date for the new regulation. As the hon. Member for Romsey said, that has not come up against us in the past few weeks, which is why we have been in discussion with the livestock and disposal industries for a full year. There was delay in progressing matters rapidly because the farming unions felt unable to agree on how to fund the scheme.
Industry representatives have consistently asked the Government to pay the full costs of the scheme, but we cannot do so. All industries are responsible for disposing of their own waste, and farming is no exception. Even more to the point, state aid rules forbid us from paying all the costs of such a scheme. The only way round that would be to arrange a scheme through a levy, as happens in Spain, or through a tax on meat, as happens in France. Neither option found favour with our farming unions.
Officials have, therefore, developed proposals for a low-cost voluntary subscription scheme, which will be offered to all livestock farmers in the next few weeks. If interest is sufficiently high, we shall have the basis of the national collection scheme that is being called for. As I speak, our latest proposals are being explained to the farming unions and I understand that today's discussions have continued to be fruitful. I hope that when they see the benefits for their members they will give their full backing to our plans and enter into the Government-industry partnership that we are offering.
There has been an unusually high level of misinformation on the subject. It has been stated that the Government must pay for the collection and disposal of fallen stock for BSE testing. In fact, although the testing of all fallen cattle aged over 24 months for BSE is required by the EU transmissible spongiform encephalopathy regulation, it does not require member states to pay for the collection or disposal of those carcases. That costs the Government about £30 million, if all aspects are taken into account. We took the decision to provide Exchequer funding to ensure that all required carcases would be tested and we shall, for now, continue to pay for the collection of cattle for testing purposes. However, cattle farmers can still benefit from the proposed scheme by having cattle under 24 months and calves picked up free at the point of collection.
A further myth is that all other member states fund national fallen stock collection and disposal schemes. The position in other member states varies. In some, the Government or local authority provide support; in others, farmers pay the full cost of disposal. There is also a variety of funding mechanisms, including levies and the tax approach to which I referred earlier.
Some people would like the Government to postpone the ban on on-farm burial until the national scheme is in place, but that is unnecessary. An infrastructure of knackers' yards and renderers is already in place. Farmers can comply with the new rules now. The EU animal by-products regulation is directly applicable to all member states from 1 May. Although the enforcement statutory instrument in England, Wales and Scotland may be delayed by a short period, I

61WH
nevertheless urge farmers to do all that they practically can to comply with the new rules from 1 May. If there is sufficient interest to make a national collection scheme viable, we will introduce it as quickly as possible.
Sandra Gidley: Will the Minister give way?
Alun Michael: Yes, but that will reduce the time available for the rest of the response.
Sandra Gidley: The voluntary subscription scheme is being introduced in the next few weeks, but it seems that some farmers will receive details after the date on which they are supposed to have implemented that scheme. I have raised the problem of the farmer who cannot easily get rid of sows to a knackers' yard and wants to buy an incinerator, but who has received no instructions from the Government. Will the Minister explain what is to happen in such cases?
Alun Michael: If the national scheme is introduced, which depends on the agreement of sufficient farmers to make it worth while, it will save money for farmers. It is not a necessary requirement that the scheme has to be in place for them to use the facilities that already exist. Any scheme would be voluntary. Some farmers may want to incinerate fallen stock on their farms, and the regulation will permit that. We will include guidance on the controls that are to apply in a letter to be sent to all livestock farmers shortly. Having long discussions in an effort to reach agreement with the industry and to do things co-operatively delays sending out letters and reaching a conclusion. It is a matter of considerable regret that it has taken so long to reach this point, but we are encouraged that there seems to be movement. DEFRA is offering not only the muscle and co-operation, but additional finance. I hope that things happen in quick time.
I am conscious that a couple of additional questions were asked in relation to biosecurity and fallen livestock. The new rules apply to wild animal carcasses only when they are suspected of being infected with disease or when all or part of them is being used to produce game trophies. They apply specifically to
62WH
domestic animals. In some parts of the country, it could be assumed that badgers may be infected with tuberculosis and would therefore require disposal according to the regulation—for example, by incineration. However, in most cases it would be assumed that wildlife would be deemed healthy when killed, whether through shooting or road accidents. In relation to the regulation, I am not sure that there is a complication along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George).
The regulation will be directly enforceable and applicable in the UK and national legislation will not repeat its provisions, but will give effect to the regulation by providing for offences in relation to power of entry and so on. Until the various statutory instruments are in place, the enforcement provisions in the Animal By-Products Order 1999 will remain in force. That is to say, burial will be permitted only when no alternative disposal route is available. We envisage that the statutory instrument for England will be introduced shortly and ahead of those for the devolved Administrations.
I hope that, as a result of the discussions today, we will see an agreement that enables all farmers to be told that, with the full co-operation of the farming unions, a national scheme is in place that will save money for farmers and the farming industry. I realise that there has been concern in rural communities about the new rules. The fairest way to describe the matter is to say that we wanted to continue the discussions with farming representatives to try to get an outcome that was achieved by agreement, which is in everyone's interests, rather than argue or disagree about the issues.
The Government are prepared to contribute financially to setting up the scheme. The voluntary scheme that we propose is fair and it can be made to work if there is a genuine partnership approach between the Government, the farming unions and the livestock disposal industry to enable it to be set up. That is why I believe very strongly that the time for complaining and disagreement is over. We need to make the scheme a reality, and the Government are going beyond the minimum that they need to do to help the farming industry to develop a solution that will be workable on the ground.

Employment Relations Act 1999 (Clergy)
4 pm
Mr. Ben Chapman: I am very grateful to have secured the chance to debate this important subject. In one way or another, I have been campaigning on employment rights for the clergy since 1997. Although during that time there have been potentially important developments, progress towards a successful resolution of the issue has been at times painfully slow, notwithstanding the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who represents the Church Commissioners in this House and who is present today.
As the Department of Trade and Industry consultation on section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 ended in December last year, I hope that rapid progress can now be made and that ministers of religion will be able to acquire rights which are long overdue. We are still awaiting the Government's response on the submissions that they received, but I hope that we will see it in the not-too-distant future. I hope that the Minister will say something about the consultation and enlighten us on the progress that has been made. It is essential that the Government recapture the initiative on the issue as soon as possible in the light of perceptions in some quarters that the Church has attempted to stymie the process. I shall say more about that later.
The complaints of the clergy about their conditions of service derive from the unusual categorisation of members of the clergy. There are two relevant categories. An employee is defined by the Employment Rights Act 1996 as
"an individual who has entered into or works under…a contract of employment".
On the other hand, a worker is an individual who does not have a contract of employment but who has some other contract to perform work or services for another person. Most of the rights conferred under the 1996 Act are for employees. They include the right to claim unfair dismissal, redundancy pay and maternity leave. Other rights such as the national minimum wage, four weeks' paid leave and limits on working hours are conferred on workers.
However, the clergy do not fall into either category. They are classified by case law and the Church as "office holders" because, owing to the nature of their position, a direct contract between the clergy and their employer cannot be identified. Generally, the courts have established that the relationship between Church authorities and ministers of religion is not a contractual one, apparently on the basis that ministers of religion owe their allegiance to God, rather than to a terrestrial authority. The relationship is seen as spiritual, not temporal.
It has also been said that the role of the priest or minister involves such a degree of independent judgment and discretion that his or her relationship with the Church authorities cannot be governed by a contract of service. I shall return to that later.
The issue has been pushed to the foreground in recent years by the gradual move by the Church of England from the use of freehold of benefice to the use of bishop's licence. Traditionally, almost all clergy held the
64WH
freehold. To all intents and purposes, they had tenure for life once they were appointed; in other words, they had absolute security of employment and neither the congregation nor the diocesan bishop could easily interfere with it. However, nowadays some 3,500 clergy, constituting some 40 per cent. of the work force, operate under a bishop's licence, which must be renewed by the diocesan bishop every seven years. Naturally, that has led to a diminution in job security, and the arrangement is, surely, quintessentially temporal.
The assertion of the Archbishops Council in its response to the consultation was that there had been
"a very small number of contentious and well publicised cases"
that had
"highlighted certain weaknesses in the Church's present arrangements".
However, this is more than mere understatement. Indeed, high-profile incidents have exposed the urgent need for clergy to receive the same rights as other people.
The case of Ray Owen is well documented and is a cause celebre for those who advocate the extension of employment rights to the clergy. On reaching the end of his seven-year term under the bishop's licence, the Reverend Owen applied for an extension, but the diocese and bishop refused to accede to it, apparently on the basis of a recommendation by a panel that met without giving the Reverend Owen the opportunity to answer the criticisms levelled against him. His next action was to appeal to the bishop, without success.
Ultimately, the case was taken to the European Parliament, which voted by a majority of 308 to 10 that the treatment accorded to him had clearly breached natural justice and basic human rights. That, of course, had no impact on British legislation or, it appears, on the Church, as he was reinstated, with some reluctance, only as a pastoral auxiliary to the Bishop of Stafford as part of a deal to end a lengthy and costly court case. I believe, although I stand to be corrected, that he received no back pay for the time that he was out of employment in the Church.
Unfortunately, such cases are the tip of the iceberg. According to a survey that Amicus commissioned, which, according to its general secretary, contains some of the worst industrial relations practices and horror stories that he had ever heard, 82 per cent. of the clergy surveyed knew of a fellow minister whom the Church had treated unacceptably, and 81 per cent. recorded fears about how their Church authority would handle a conflict between a priest and the Church. In many ways, the most telling statistic in the study is that 71.6 per cent. believe that employment rights would not change the relationship with their parishioners or members of the public. Those figures are not small; they represent a sizeable majority. The last of them in particular indicates that, at least in the eyes of the clergy, little is incompatible between their being granted the rights that are rightfully theirs and the fulfilment of their mission as spiritual leaders of their communities.
I was relieved to read in the response of the Archbishops Council to the consultation that
"there is no fundamental theological incompatibility between being a minister of religion and having a contract".
In truth, I see no reason why the clergy should not be given a contract. The only argument that I have heard which gives any credibility to the notion that clergy

65WH
should remain "office holders" is that they require a rare level of independence and free thought in their interpretation of scripture to allow them to administer their ministry effectively. That said, I cannot accept that it is impossible to devise a contract that takes account of that freedom. Is it not, in effect, a form of academic thought? Are scholars not equally contracted? This should not be a barrier to improved employment rights.
The response of the Archbishops Council to the DTI's consultation is an example of the attitude that the Church seems to take to the prospect of granting clergy their dues as rights. After sending in its statement on the last day of the consultation exercise, it made several contestable and controversial points and announced its intention to set up a review, which, it appears to argue, should make the Government's initiative secondary to it and put it on the back burner in relation to section 23.
In the many years since the Employment Relations Act 1999 became law, the Church has had ample opportunity to engage a wider constituency in a debate on the issue, including on the practicalities. It decided to ask for such a debate only as the consultation closed. Furthermore, not only did it fail to inform clergy that a review was one of its proposals, but it did not share with them any of the contents that were delivered. I emphasise again that that was on the final day of the consultation. It appears to be its avowed intention to be
"in close consultation with clergy who are involved at every level of synodical government and with all others who have an active interest, including Amicus".
Although I shall resist the urge to point out that it has barely made an effort to make headway on this for the past four years, it is worth mentioning that representatives of the Archbishops Council met Amicus representatives in the week before the closure of the consultation and refused to divulge so much as a single word of their proposals. So much for close consultation. It would appear that they are more concerned with advancing their agenda to move the issue back into the fold of the Church. That was without taking account of the fact that the council's response covered only clergy in England, when representatives of other denominations and Churches of the Union are also not covered by employment legislation.
The Church gives the impression that the McClean committee, now established, is a means of delay rather than a vehicle for progress. It has been suggested that the review would be used to reopen the issue of the freehold, and that is a difficult point. I have no doubt that any attempt to discuss it would create a number of divisions within the Church, as laity, clergy of different levels and patrons all expressed their views on what is genuinely a contentious issue.
Many see the freehold argument as indicative of the obfuscation of which the Archbishops Council seems sometimes to be fond. However, that issue should not prove too much of a barrier to full employment rights for the clergy. The one should not be traded off against the other. One should not lose employment rights if one has the freehold, and one certainly needs them if that freehold is lost.
66WH
By taking care of the rights issue, it could be argued that the problem of the freehold will ultimately take care of itself. Once an adequate contract mechanism is put in place, which would also inextricably tie a ministry to the relevant accommodation and property, would any hypothetical loss of security not be sufficiently tempered by the concomitant coverage of the new rights?
I have no doubt that such an arrangement would be of mutual benefit to the Church and the clergy. Sad to say, there is such a thing as an incompetent minister, and were he or she holding the freehold it would be difficult for the Church to rectify the problem, as long as the minister had the rights of appeal that were due to him or her.
It is not as if the Churches are always generous in other respects. Stipends and pensions are not princely—one of my constituents receives a niggardly pension from the Baptist Union. The issue is clear—the clergy need greater coverage by employment legislation, owing to the evolving basis of their employment, and they need that coverage soon.
The days of all clergy being covered by the freehold are long gone and, as a result of that and other factors, many have felt the need to resort to joining a union. The Church should acknowledge the need for access to employment tribunals in the case of a claim for unfair dismissal. It should also acknowledge that people's situations and circumstances change and that it must be able to cater for those changes. It should acknowledge that bullying and—although it is outwith the scope of the debate—discrimination exist in the Church, even at the highest levels, and that victims often feel that they have no recourse to their employer.
The Churches should acknowledge that God in all his wisdom gave us individual personalities and that those personalities sometimes clash. Above all, perhaps, they need to acknowledge that, regardless of the perceived practicalities, the clergy need rights now and not at some time in the future. A Christian church should act with Christian principles, generosity and fairness.
4.13 pm
Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): This is my maiden speech in Westminster Hall, although it will be a very short one. I have not had the honour and privilege of speaking here before. It is also an honour and privilege, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make that speech with you presiding.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on securing this debate. He has raised the issue on the Floor of the House on several occasions since 1997, and has been a consistent advocate of employment rights for the clergy, a role in which I have consistently encouraged him.
Of course, the Church Commissioners and the Church of England have a view on the matter, and that view must be described and defined through various organs and channels, such as the synod, the Archbishops Council and the Church Commissioners, but the Church of England has welcomed the opportunity to respond to the discussion document that the Department of Trade and Industry issued last July. We have no difficulty with or objection to that document, and, as I said, we welcome the intervention of my hon. Friend.

67WH
Stipendiary clergy fall into one of three categories. The majority—some 5,500—have the freehold, more than 1,000 clergy have contracts of employment and the remaining 3,500 have neither the freehold nor a contract but operate under a bishop's licence. The Church of England firmly believes that the clergy and all others who work for it are entitled to terms and conditions of service that adequately protect their rights, recognise their responsibilities and provide proper accountability arrangements. That has been the motivation behind a series of measures that the Church has undertaken in recent years. It spent six years examining the aspects of clergy discipline and introduced a new clergy discipline measure that has been agreed by the Ecclesiastical Committee and is now awaiting parliamentary approval.
Historically, the clergy of the Church of England have, for the most part, enjoyed a measure of independence and security of tenure that far exceeds that of those in almost any other walk of life. That remains the case for the majority who possess the freehold. As my hon. Friend said in his cohesive and coherent speech, there is no mutual exclusivity—if I may use a legal term—between being a minister of religion and having a contract with access to employment tribunals in case of dispute. There is clearly a need to explore how additional protection can be provided for those clergy whose position is not adequately safeguarded by the present arrangements.
The Church of England is committed to good practice and protection for its clergy and is taking seriously the need to put additional safeguards in place. Points raised in this short debate will be brought to the attention of the Church, which will be willing to consider them through the working group that was set up by the Archbishops Council.
I thank my hon. Friend and the Minister for allowing me to intervene under your chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this short debate. We will listen to what the Minister has to say. It will be relayed back to the Church, and we are confident that, at the end of the day, some satisfaction will be achieved for the clergy, the Government and my hon. Friend.
4.17 pm
The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on securing the debate. He has a long record of interest in the subject, and I am pleased also to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), particularly as he fulfils the role of a Church Commissioner. What we have lacked in quantity in the Chamber we have made up in quality, because the complex issues that we are dealing with in the Department of Trade and Industry have been reflected in the two contributions.
I welcome the opportunity to talk about the Government's approach to such a highly complex topic. As was said, we are currently reviewing the issue of employment status in relation to statutory employment rights and, as part of the review, the Government published the discussion document on 11 July last year.
68WH
That sought views on the potential effects of and Justification for extending the current framework of statutory employment rights to certain people who do not have access to those rights at the moment. It also asked for views on whether there might be alternative approaches, and we intend to publish a response to the consultation later this year.
The review has raised a variety of issues, and my officials have been in discussion with a wide range of organisations and individuals. Some of the points raised are specific to one group of workers or sector of industry, while others affect the whole labour market. Applying the principles of better regulation, the consultation has involved a number of sector-focused round table discussions, covering construction, the public sector, hospitality, retail and tourism, agency workers, small businesses and, of course, the clergy.
No one should doubt that the Government recognise the importance of all workers having appropriate employment protection. For that reason, we were keen to have open consultation and we have undertaken a thorough analysis of the large volume of detailed evidence received. We have been considering numerous options to achieve the right balance between employer flexibility and fairness for workers and it is vital to get that balance right.
The clergy are one group of workers who currently lack the protection of employment rights provided by employment law because employment tribunals have consistently been unwilling to accept that their relationship with the Church is one of employment. That relationship is seen to be spiritual, rather than contractual. The Government are sympathetic to the clergy's position and want to ensure that they are treated fairly. The question is what is the most appropriate way forward to deliver an acceptable outcome. We are looking at the current framework of protection in different religious organisations and we are considering whether employment protection for the clergy could be addressed adequately through non-regulatory means, or whether regulation might be necessary to provide that protection. Churches, faith-based organisations, trade unions and the clergy have all contributed their views on whether the position of the clergy needs to be improved and, if so, how best to do that. We have been very pleased by the level of response to the consultation. This is clearly an area in which there is a lot of interest and our discussion document attracted more than 300 responses just from members of the clergy.
When I hosted a round table meeting in the Department of Trade and Industry last November, the debate was lively and the views expressed were diverse. There were representatives from a number of different faiths, including Hindus and Muslims, and a wide range of Christian denominations from the Roman Catholic Church to the free Church tradition. Subsequent contacts have been made with a number of other faiths and denominations. Some have identified employment protection as being mainly a concern for the Church of England and its clergy, but it is clear that the issue is not limited to the established Church.
It has become clear that the clergy are not a homogenous group. They exist within different faiths and different organisations with different concerns. The framework of employment protection and the nature of

69WH
employment relationships between clergy and faith organisations varies considerably. I shall try to set out in the broadest terms the picture that has emerged from the consultation.
Developed regulatory frameworks exist within many long established western Churches and perhaps that is most evident in the Roman Catholic Church, which has extensive canon law. The Church of England, the Methodist Church, the Church of Scotland and others also have developed regulatory frameworks, which give members of the clergy certain employment benefits, such as leave and parental rights that in some cases are equivalent to, or even surpass the statutory minimum. They also cover disciplinary matters. It has been argued that that implies less need for intervention by the Government, but some clergy in those Churches, and the unions, believe that the mechanisms are inadequate. They argue that, in any case, they need recourse to an external mechanism, such as a tribunal.
Eastern Churches and some of the free Churches are typically less hierarchical, with responsibility for the clergy usually devolved to the local Church. Usually, the rules and regulations that guide Churches in their relationship with the clergy are less explicit. It has been argued on one hand that that makes the position of the clergy vulnerable and, on the other, that Government intervention would undermine the bond between the clergy and the congregation. It was also argued that for some small evangelical Churches a successful unfair dismissal claim could have a devastating effect and, indeed, that it could threaten their very existence.
In weighing our options, we must take on board the concerns expressed by the clergy, Churches and faith-based organisations. I am all too aware of the practical difficulties inherent in a one-size-fits-all approach and we need to consider carefully how to achieve our goal of securing protection for the clergy, whether through regulatory or non-regulatory means.
A very positive aspect of the review has been the commitment expressed by so many Churches and faith-based organisations to employment protection for their clergy. Many are constantly reviewing the relationship. I understand that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough said, the Church of England has embarked on a review to consider the balance of rights and responsibilities for the clergy, including issues such as freehold. It will seek to identify options for addressing unsatisfactory features in the current arrangements, including the possibility of extending the use of contracts. In that case, it would need to be determined against whom a contract should be enforceable.
70WH
Our understanding is that that review is being conducted in consultation with clergy and other interested parties including the Amicus trade union, although I take on board the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South on that review. Such initiatives are important and to be welcomed, but there must be true and meaningful dialogue between Churches and their clergy. My main concern is that if we were to go down the path of self-regulation, such initiatives would have to deliver the kind of employment protection that we have introduced for so many other workers since we came into government in 1997.
The Government have the power, under section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, to extend employment rights to the clergy. We would wish to keep that under review if a non-regulatory approach were tried. Although we would encourage a non-regulatory approach, that section is available, giving us the facility to introduce regulation where we deem that to be necessary.
So, to summarise, we have listened to a wide variety of views and concerns that have been raised with us. As my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and for Wirral, South have recognised, this is not just a Church of England issue. Discussions are profound and slightly beyond some of the other discussions that I have had with, for example, agency workers and office holders such as registrars. This matter is far more complex because it goes to the heart of something far more spiritual than the normal tenets of industrial relations law. We recognise that this issue has attracted a great deal of interest and speculation. It requires much sensitivity from Government Ministers and our officials. As I have tried to illustrate, this is a complex area and we need carefully to consider what is an appropriate response.
I shall not pre-empt the outcome of the Department of Trade and Industry review in this debate, but the remarks made today, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South, will be taken into account in the consultation and in our deliberations. I hope that I have illuminated the process and addressed the concerns highlighted. We intend to publish our response to the consultation document. If that has taken a little longer than usual, I hope that I have explained some of the reasons why and the need for us to be very careful, especially in relation to the effects of the review on the clergy.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Four o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Websites
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the total expenditure across Government on websites has been in each of the last six years. [107248]

  Mr. Alexander
  Information on expenditure on websites across government is not held centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Historic costs of the Cabinet Office website (www.cabinet-Office.gov.uk) could be produced only at disproportionate cost. However, expenditure (excluding staff costs) on the Cabinet Office website for the year ending 31 March 2003 was £23,218.80 including VAT.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Devolution
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Advocate-General what devolution issues have been raised in the last month under the Scotland Act 1998. [106710]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid),Official Report, 8 April 2003, column 119.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate-General what human rights issues have been raised with her since 11 March. [106712]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid),Official Report, 8 April 2003, column 119.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Advocate-General what discussions she has had with Scottish Ministers regarding the proposed establishment of a Scottish Human Rights Commission. [106711]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I have had no discussions with the Scottish Ministers regarding the proposed establishment of a Scottish Human Rights Commission.

SCOTLAND

  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the prospects for the North Sea oil and gas sector.[106719]
  120W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the prospects for the Scottish economy related to the North Sea oil and gas sector. [106720]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government are committed to maintaining an active and successful oil and gas industry in the UK, and to promoting future development of the nation-1/2s oil and gas reserves. The sector is, and will remain, important to the wider UK economy in terms of jobs, investment and its contribution to national income. The Government are working with the industry—notably through the PILOT initiative—to encourage investment in both existing and new fields.

  Iraq Conflict
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the First Minister and the Ministry of Defence about providing support to the families of Scottish troops presently in Iraq. [106721]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government recognise the important contribution service families make to defence. The First Minister said in his statement to the Scottish Parliament on 19 March they will have our care and support. The Ministry of Defence-1/2s aim is to manage with care the issues of dependent family members recognising the special circumstances of service families, particularly at this time.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the prospects for small businesses in Scotland.[106722]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Government have put in place a solid macro-economic framework for business to prosper in. Small businesses make a crucial contribution to the Scottish economy and I am confident that in Scotland they are well placed to take advantage of this.

  National Minimum Wage
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to give information to Scottish workers who are concerned that they may not be being paid the National Minimum Wage. [106723]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Government have taken a number of steps to ensure that awareness of the National Minimum Wage is high in Scotland. These include a dedicated Scottish National Minimum Wage helpline, launched on 24 February; access to help and advice through the network of Citizens Advice Bureaux across Scotland; an interactive website www.tiger.gov.uk giving advice on employment rights and information events arranged by the joint DTI and Inland Revenue Customer Responsive Outreach Work (CROW) teams.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she has received from Scottish(a) employers and (b) employees on the increases in National Insurance contributions. [106724]
  121W
  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with business organisations and trades unions about a range of matters including economic policy and taxation matters. I concur with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's view that the additional revenue from the increase in National Insurance contributions is required to fund essential increases in investment in public services.

  Scotch Whisky Industry
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are employed in the Scotch whisky industry in Scotland. [106725]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A recent study commissioned by the Scotch Whisky Association indicated that 9,500 people are employed in Scotland in the production of Scotch whisky and that the industry supports an estimated 41,000 jobs in total in Scotland.

  Compulsory Liability Insurance
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with Treasury Ministers about difficulties Scottish businesses are having in getting Employer's Compulsory Liability Insurance. [106726]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department is in close touch with the Department for Work and Pensions, who are carrying out a review of Employer's Liability Compulsory Insurance. This review is due to report to Ministers in the spring.

  Manufacturing
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the prospects for manufacturing industry in Scotland. [106727]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The manufacturing sector continues to be of vital importance to the Scottish economy and remains a substantial employer with significant linkages to the rest of the economy. Despite the impact of difficult global conditions the sector has an excellent export record and is well placed to benefit from the wide range of supporting measures in the Government's manufacturing strategy.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Pre-legislative Scrutiny
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council what discussions he will have with Chairmen of select committees on pre-legislative scrutiny in the next Session of Parliament. [107451]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government are committed to increase the publication of Bills in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny. My right hon. Friend wishes to establish close dialogue with the Chairman of the Liaison Committee on pre-legislative scrutiny and other matters.

  Legislative Scrutiny
  Norman Baker
  To ask the President of the Council what plans the Government have to make proposals to improve scrutiny of European legislation. [107452]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the Government's positive responses to the report of the European Scrutiny Committee on European Scrutiny in the Commons (Second Special Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2001–02, HC 1256) and to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union entitled "Review of Scrutiny of European Legislation" (available on the Parliament website).

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals he has to improve scrutiny of legislation throughout the Parliamentary Session. [107453]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The proposals agreed by the House last October for more routine publication of Bills in draft, for consultation with opposition parties on the broad shape of the legislative year and more flexibility in programming, and for carry-over of Bills, should contribute to improved scrutiny of legislation.

  Legislative Updates
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Council if he will arrange for the regular publication of(a) commencement dates of all new legislation and (b) the repeal date of all repealed legislation. [107454]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The commencement date of new legislation and the repeal dates of repealed legislation are all set out either in primary legislation or in secondary legislation, and are therefore already published in that form by the Queen's Printer (and accessible via: www.hmso.gov.uk). To make things easier for users, commencement instruments are numbered as a separate sub-series of the statutory instruments. These are identified within the SI issue list, published daily by The Stationery Office Ltd., on behalf of the Queen's Printer.

  There are a variety of commercial publications which distil and re-present the information published by the Queen's Printer, and there seems to be no need to supplement them.

  Privy Council Meetings
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the President of the Council how many times the Privy Council met in March 2003. [107455]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Once, on 20 March 2003. Full details of the business transacted at the meeting are given on the Privy Council Office website. These details are posted on the site after every meeting of the Privy Council.

  Divisions
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list those hon. Members who since May 2001 have voted both aye and no in the same division; and if he will identify the number of times each hon. Member has done this. [106590]
  123W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Records are not kept of the occasions on which hon. Members vote both aye and no in the same division. The information is available from the division lists published in Hansard, but could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the Department's policy on location of magistrates' courts. [107461]

  Yvette Cooper
  By statute, the Magistrates' Courts Service is locally managed. It is for local Magistrates' Courts Committees to decide on the provision of courthouses at a local level.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent discussions she has had about the future of Harrow magistrates court. [107462]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have had no discussions on the future of Harrow magistrates court. The Greater London Magistrates Court Authority concluded its consultation exercise to close the magistrates court in Harrow on 14 March 2003. No formal determination has yet been made to close the courthouse.

  Ministry of Justice
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will bring forward proposals to restructure his Department into a Ministry of Justice; and if she will make a statement. [107463]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Ministry of Justice would be responsible for the whole of the law, both civil and criminal, whereas at present, the Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for the former and the Home Office for the latter. The distribution of responsibilities between Whitehall Departments is a matter for the Prime Minister. The present distribution of business between the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and the Crown Prosecution Service supports the effective and efficient discharge of public business and delivery of public services.

  Electoral Reform
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent assessment her Department has made of electoral practices in other EU states in considering electoral reform in the UK. [107464]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are always ready to consider whether electoral practices in other countries could usefully be adopted for UK elections. The responsibility for researching and assessing such matters now rests with the Electoral Commission. I understand that practice elsewhere has helped inform the Commission's current review programme covering various aspects of our electoral arrangements, the results of which they hope to present to the Government shortly.

  Computer Projects
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement about the management of computer projects for the Lord Chancellors Department. [107465]

  Yvette Cooper
  All IT projects are managed using the Prince 2 project management methodology. The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) process for Gateway Reviews is used to quality assure these projects.

  Adoption and Children Act
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what programme has been agreed for the implementation of the provisions of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 for which he carries ministerial responsibility; and if he will make a statement on that programme [107016]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Adoption and Children Act 2002 received Royal Assent on 7 November 2002. Ministers in the Department of Health and my Department are considering plans for implementation of the Act. Full implementation is expected by the end of 2004. However, some elements such as the definition of 'harm' in relation to domestic violence are expected sooner. We have begun to consult on amendments to the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (Domestic Violence).

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when all the provisions of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 will be brought into force, with particular reference to section 122(1)(b) and section 122(2). [107017]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Adoption and Children Act received Royal Assent on 7 November 2002. Ministers of the Department of Health and the Lord Chancellor's Department are considering plans for implementation of the Act. Full implementation is anticipated by the end of 2004.

  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor intends to publish the framework for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [107013]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Framework Document for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service was published in April 2001 and copies were placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Court of Protection
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department pursuant to her answer of 20 March 2003,Official Report, column 908W, on portfolio holdings held by the Court of Protection for minors, what measures are in place to ensure that depreciation in the value of funds held by the Public Guardianship Office is kept to a minimum. [105967]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Any equity investment in respect of Public Guardianship Office's (PGO) clients is undertaken by external fund managers either by a panel
  125W
  fund manager appointed by the PGO or by a manager chosen by the receiver on behalf of the child and approved by the Court of Protection. Equities are held in a diversified portfolio, comprising holdings in individual shares or in unitised funds, so as to spread the risk. The performance of the fund managers is regularly monitored and any underperformance investigated.

  In giving its directions for the investment of funds, the Court of Protection recommends investment strategies that are deemed suitable for the individual requirements of each case. These will provide for some, and sometimes all, of the award to be held as a cash deposit in the Special Account operated by the Court Funds Office, which currently pays a favourable rate of interest of 6 per cent. This is to ensure that commitments over the shorter term can be met without there being any obligation to sell securities at a time when they may have fallen in value, and also to modify risk in the overall portfolio.

  Equities have suffered badly over the past three years, but they are still recommended as the best means of achieving a return that matches or exceeds the rate of inflation over the longer term.

  There are no specific measures in place to ensure that there is no depreciation in the value of such funds. The only way to do that would be to hold all the funds in the form of cash, but that would run the risk of failing to match future rates of inflation and mean that clients' funds would perform less well relative to equity markets when they were rising.

  Criminal Justice and Court Services Act
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how the Lord Chancellor has exercised his powers under paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 to direct the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service on(a) the performance of its functions and powers and (b) the functions of officers of the Service; what the instructions were; and if she will make a statement. [107015]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My right hon. and Learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has not exercised his powers under paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. CAFCASS's Board has responsibility for establishing the Service's strategic direction within the policy framework, and the key objectives he sets for the Service and the resources he allocates to it. The Chief Executive of CAFCASS is responsible for the Services day-to-day operation within the strategic direction set by the Board.

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made with the pay review in the Lord Chancellor's Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible, with particular reference to the gender pay gap; and if she will make a statement. [106748]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In common with other Government Departments and agencies, and in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, the Lord 126W
  Chancellor's Department and the agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible, are required to undertake gender equality audits of pay and related systems. In most cases these audits have either been completed or are nearing completion. The Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) proposes to conduct an equality audit later in the year, once terms and conditions of its staff have been harmonised. Audits which have been completed indicate that there are no significant gender imbalances, and action plans drawn up from the audits will indicate how any imbalances will be addressed.

  Street Crime Initiative
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Lord Chancellor's Department has for monitoring the effectiveness of courts in the Street Crime Initiative. [107146]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Crown Court Case Management System, CREST, is able to provide the Department with data on the progress of all cases including Street Crime Initiative cases through the courts. The Persistent Young Offender Tracker system has been amended to enable the magistrates courts to monitor the progress of Street Crime Initiative cases. Data are collated at each designated Crown and magistrates court and provided to my Department on a monthly basis.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the sunset clauses included in legislation from her Department since 1997. [106950]

  Yvette Cooper
  No Bill introduced by this Department since 1997 has included a sunset clause and there are no plans for the future use of such clauses.

PRIME MINISTER

  Chequers
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the people entertained on official business at Chequers since January 2002. [108031]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous administrations, it is not the Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings under exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  My family and I have used Chequers in a variety of ways, both official and private, consistent with the wishes of the donor, Lord Lee, and the Chequers Estate Acts 1917 and 1958. The use of Chequers is governed by the Acts, and all meetings held at Chequers comply with the requirements of the Act.

  Meetings (President Bush)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates he has held meetings with President Bush since 1 January 2001; and where each of these meetings took place. [107544]
  127W
  The Prime Minister
  I have met President Bush on the following occasions since 1 January 2001:

  Date

  Location/Event

  2001

  23 to 24 February

  Meetings at Camp David

  13 June

  NATO summit, Brussels

  14 June

  EU/US summit, Gothenburg

  19 July

  Talks at Chequers

  20 to 22 July

  G8 summit, Genoa, Italy

  20 September

  Meeting at White House, Washington

  7 November

  Meeting at White House, Washington

  2002

  5 to 7 April

  Talks at President's ranch, Texas

  25 to 27 June

  G8 summit, Calgary

  7 September

  Bilateral, Camp David

  21 November

  NATO summit, Prague

  2003

  31 January

  Meeting at White House, Washington

  16 March

  Azores summit

  26 to 27 March

  Meeting at Camp David

  7 to 8 April

  Northern Ireland summit

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Accreditation Awareness Campaign
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the United Kingdom Accreditation Service will be used by her Department for the accreditation of certification bodies acting in the organic food sector. [105492]

  Alun Michael
  The Department will use UKAS for the accreditation or assessment of certifications bodies acting in the organic food sector.

  Mr. Mark Field,
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what support her Department has given to the Accreditation Awareness Campaign run by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. [105493]

  Alun Michael
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 1 March 2001,Official Report, column 731W, by the Minister of Sate for Trade and Industry (Mr. Johnson), UKAS is the sole body recognised by the Government for the accreditation of conformity assessment bodies in the United Kingdom. Defra uses UKAS accreditation and assessment services whenever it is appropriate to do so Defra has drawn attention to the role of UKAS and its contribution to increasing confidence in the food supply chain by providing assurance of the competence of inspection bodies operating in the food sector. Defra has commissioned work from UKAS in the areas of organic farming, global atmosphere and research and development.

  Agricultural Shows
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has carried out to establish the effects of the six-day movement rule for cattle on agricultural shows; and if she will make a statement. [106533]
  128W
  Margaret Beckett
  We announced in a written statement on 23 January 2003 that the standstill would be reduced from 20 to six days for cattle, sheep and goats with effect from 4 March 2003, but with far fewer exemptions. The removal of most of the exemptions—including the exemption for shows—is a counterbalance to the increased risk created by the reduction in the standstill period.

  These changes took account of the emerging findings from the risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis of animal movement standstills. A report of those findings, and a supporting document explaining our decision to reduce the standstill, have been placed in the Library and published on the Defra website. The second phase of the analysis is now under way and is due to report at the end of May 2003. We will take account of the final reports—and any other new evidence—when deciding what rules should apply from 1 August 2003 and beyond.

  Animal By-products
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she plans to give guidance on the suitability of biodigestion in respect of meeting the requirements of the EU Annual By-Products Regulation. [107216]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 April 2003]: The biodigestion of animal by-products is not a permitted disposal route. However, the EU Animal By-Products Regulation may allow for novel disposal methods, such as biodigestion, to be permitted, after consultation of the appropriate scientific committee.

  I understand that the EU Commission is considering for approval a number of alternative processes that have already been submitted by the industry.

  The Commission requires any submitted data to be structured in accordance with the five key components of the Framework prepared by the Commission's Scientific Steering Committee to assist the assessment of the risk from different options for the safe disposal or use of animal products. The key components cover:
  the identification and characterisation of the risk materials;
  the TSE risk reduction by the particular process;
  the degree of risk containment:
  the identification of interdependent processes; and the intended end-use of the product.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost to public funds in 2003–04 will be of the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations. [107794]

  Mr. Morley
  None. Enforcement of the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 will be by the State Veterinary Service at no additional cost.

  CAP
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the spending plans are from 2003 to 2008 for(a) England,

  129W
  (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland under pillar two of the Common Agricultural Policy. [106202]

  Mr. Morley
  Rural Development Programmes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are a matter for the relevant Administrations.

  Plans for CAP pillar 2 spending up to 2006 are set out in the published rural development programmes and are summarised as follows. These figures relate to the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund accounting years (to 16 October) and consist of both EU and national funds included in Rural Development Programmes. They do not include spending financed by the European Structural Funds.

  £ million (21£0.63)

  2003

  2004

  2005

  2006

  England

  242.2

  269.1

  284

  320

  Northern Ireland

  39.9

  41.7

  41.7

  43.8

  Scotland

  154.4

  131.1

  136.5

  144.6

  Wales

  79.6

  74.6

  78.7

  72.4

  The figures do not include the additional funding that was made available as a result of the 2002 Spending Review to match an increase in modulation to 10 per cent.; that funding was conditional on future ministerial decisions and (in England) on the success of the pilots for the Entry Level Agri-Environment Scheme.

  Spending in 2007 and 2008 will depend on future decisions on the allocation of EU rural development resources.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the impact on British agriculture of the European Commission"s proposals of January 2003 to reform the Common Agriculture Policy; and if she will publish the results. [106504]

  Margaret Beckett
  We have just this week published our assessment of the economic impact of the Commission"s Long Term Perspective for Sustainable Agriculture, based on both commissioned and in-house analysis. I have placed copies of the assessment in the Libraries of the House. It is also available on the Defra website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/economics/capreform.pdf

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what role she plans for micro combined heat and power in achieving carbon savings up to 2010; [106800]

  (2) what role she plans for micro combined heat and power in the achievement of Government objectives in (a) the Climate Change strategy, (b) the fuel poverty strategy and (c) the Energy White Paper, in so far as they relate to her Department; and if she will make a statement; [106857]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the Performance and Innovation Unit"s assessment contained in Table 6.1 of its report on Energy Policy that micro combined heat and power is the most efficient method of carbon saving; [106802]
  130W
  (4) what assessment she has made of the possible CO2 savings that could be secured by the installation of micro combined heat and power in (a) residential properties, (b) small businesses and (c) commercial properties; [106801]

  (5) what role she plans for micro combined heat and power in (a) CO2 reduction policies and (b) policies to end fuel poverty. [106799]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government is keen to encourage the development and deployment of low carbon technologies including micro CHP. As the Performance and Innovation Unit Report on energy policy noted, micro CHP has the potential to deliver carbon savings towards the targets in both the Climate Change Programme and the Energy White Paper. It might also be able to deliver lower fuel bills for consumers which in turn could contribute to meeting the Government"s targets in its Fuel Poverty Strategy.

  However, the technology is not yet commercially available in the UK. It is therefore not yet possible to assess the level of carbon or fuel bill savings which might be achieved in normal use of this technology. I understand that The Carbon Trust, working with the Energy Saving Trust and others, including Defra, will be commissioning a pilot field trial for micro CHP starting later this year. I understand the trial is expected to feature a range of technologies and end use applications across the residential and commercial sectors, in order to provide an objective assessment of the benefits that micro CHP can offer.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Department will reply to the letters of 21 October 2002 and 23 January from the hon. Member for Billericay regarding Pitsea Tip. [107236]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 4 April 2003.]: I hope to respond to the hon. Member shortly.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff were employed by her Department in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [106973]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 4 April 2003,Official Report, column 891–92W.

  Departmental Vets
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many vets are employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time by the Department. [107328]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of veterinary surgeons employed by the Department is as follows:Full time veterinary surgeons as at 1 April 2003–432
  Part time veterinary surgeons as at 1 April 2003–61
  131W
  The above numbers are calculated on a head count basis and include permanent, casual and fixed term appointments. The figures reflect the number of Veterinary staff employed by the State Veterinary Service (SVS), Veterinary Policy Directorate (VPD), Science Directorate (SD) and the Executive Agencies of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) and Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD).

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the discussions her Department has had with the Department of Trade and Industry with regard to reforming the Export Credit Guarantee scheme. [106521]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has, since its creation, engaged continually in detailed discussions with the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD)—the Department responsible for export credits—with a view to ensuring that the provision of export credits takes full account of sustainability considerations. Discussions take place at both official and Ministerial levels.

  The outcome of ECGD"s Mission and Status Review in 2000 provided the basis for this dialogue. Defra was then closely involved in the subsequent formulation of ECGD"s Business Principles and was actively supportive of ECGD"s efforts to finalise the OECD agreement on Common Approaches on the Environment and Officially Supported Export Credits. More recently, Defra has liaised closely with ECGD over revisions to that Department's Case Impact Analysis Process. Defra is consulted in detail on all cases which are dealt with under the Sensitive Cases procedure. Discussions are also taking place on how best to encourage export credit applications by UK renewables exporters.

  The most recent Ministerial discussion, between the Minister of State for the Environment and the Minister of State for International Trade and Investment, confirmed agreement on the following issues:

  That Defra and ECGD Ministers should meet whenever necessary to discuss both individual export credit cases and also broader issues of policy; That, in future, ECGD would normally expect to disclose details of High Potential Impact cases at least sixty days prior to making a decision on whether to provide support.

  Defra will continue to work closely with ECGD to ensure that the principles of sustainable development are reflected fully in the policies and operations of that Department.

  Food Chain (Terrorist Threat)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the current threat to the food chain from terrorism. [104905]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 25 March 2003]: The terrorist threat to the UK, including the threat to the food chain, is monitored very closely by the Government and we and the industry remain vigilant. Advice on any terrorist threat to the UK is the
  132W
  responsibility of the Security Service. The Director General of the Security Service is responsible to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for this advice, which is provided on a continual basis. Strategic assessments about terrorist threats to the UK are provided to the Government by the Joint Intelligence Committee.

  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent steps her Department has taken in conjunction with(a) other EU member states and (b) local authorities to prevent terrorist action against (i) agriculture and (ii) food supplies; [105088]

  (2) what recent steps her Department has taken in conjunction with other EU member states to prevent terrorist action against European (i) agriculture and (ii) food supplies. [105087]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA is heavily engaged in the central government programme to improve civil contingency planning, especially in areas relating to our departmental responsibilities. Planning is developed and agreed with stakeholders, both in government and industry, including food and agriculture interests, to ensure that the UK's resilience to emergencies of all kinds, including possible terrorist action against the UK food chain, is improved.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she and her officials have(a) telephoned and (b) written to the Royal Society during 2003 concerning publication of "The Farm Scale Evaluations with GM Crops"; and what was discussed. [107237]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 7 April 2003]: Officials from the Department have corresponded with the editor (one letter in August 2002), and subsequently with the commissioning editor (three emails and a phone call in 2002 and one email and a phone call in 2003) of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (Biological Sciences).

  Philosophical Transactions is a peer reviewed scientific journal devoted to themed issues on particular topics. Officials contacted the journal, on behalf of the Scientific Steering Committee, to inquire as to the procedure for proposing a themed issue devoted to papers reporting the results of the GM crop farm-scale evaluations. The appropriate number and structure of papers for such an issue was discussed. Officials also sought an indication of the timescale that the journal would anticipate between submission of the papers and publication, assuming the papers reached the required standard.

  On 27 February 2003 the Vice-President of the Royal Society wrote to the Secretary of State acknowledging that the farm-scale evaluation papers had been received from the research consortium and giving an indication of the likely timing of publication should the papers be accepted. The Secretary of State responded on 4 March 2003 thanking him for this information.

  Halal and Shechita Slaughter
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to bring forward proposed reform of regulations governing halal and shechita slaughter; and if she will make a statement. [108118]

  Mr. Morley
  The Farm Animal Welfare Council (the Government's independent advisory body on farm animal welfare matters) is currently producing a report on the welfare of red meat animals at slaughter. We will consider the recommendations in their report after it has been published later this year.

  Pay Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made with the pay review in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible, with particular reference to the gender pay gap; and if she will make a statement. [106750]

  Alun Michael
  In its response to the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) Task Force report, "Just Pay", the Government committed all Departments and agencies to review their pay systems by April 2003 and prepare action plans to close any equal pay gaps.

  The position in Defra and its agencies is as follows:

  Defra

  Defra has undertaken an equal pay review in line with the guidance from the Cabinet Office. This has included the Pesticides Safety Directorate and Veterinary Medicines Directorate, for which the core department has pay remit and negotiating responsibility.

  The review, which has now been completed, looked at not only gender issues, but also those of ethnicity and disability. The review"s conclusions are shortly to be considered by senior management. Defra will report back to the Cabinet Office with an action plan by the end of April.

  Agencies

  Central Science Laboratory

  The Central Science Laboratory began an equal pay audit in Autumn 2002. An action plan has been prepared and is under discussion. The Central Science Laboratory aims to able to submit the action plan to the Cabinet Office by the end of April 2003.

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

  An equal pay review has been carried out in the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, and a draft report is being considered by senior management.

  Rural Payments Agency

  The Rural Payments Agency has carried out an equal pay review in accordance with the Cabinet Office guidance and an interim report has been prepared. The full report is expected this month and will then be considered.
  134W
  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  The Veterinary Laboratory Agency pay equality audit has been completed and an Action Plan sent to the Cabinet Office. Any action necessary will be considered within the pay negotiations for 2003.

  Non-departmental public bodies

  Non-departmental public bodies are not required to undertake an equal pay review by April 2003, although several have done so.

  Poultry Industry
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the practice of debeaking in the poultry industry; and if she will make a statement. [106531]

  Margaret Beckett
  Generally beak trimming should only be carried out as a last resort when it is clear that more suffering would be caused in the flock if it were not done.

  There are, however, specific requirements for laying hens in Council Directive 99/74/EC. The Directive prohibits all mutilations, but permits member states to allow the beak trimming of birds that are less than 10 days old in order to prevent feather pecking and cannibalism. We intend to take up this authorisation only until 31 December 2010, and have met interested parties, including the egg industry and breeders, to agree an action plan to achieve this aim.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mortality rates were of poultry kept in(a) battery units, (b) enriched units and (c) alternative units in the last year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [106532]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 require poultry keepers to record mortality rates and have the records available for inspection. The State Veterinary Service uses the rates as an indicator of management practice on-farm. However, the figures are not recorded on a central database.

  Pub is the Hub Schemes
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many "Pub is the Hub" schemes have been sponsored by the Countryside Agency in(a) England, (b) the eastern region, (c) Suffolk and (d) the Bury St. Edmunds constituency. [104828]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency does not administer a specific 'Pub is the Hub' grant. A good practice guide of that title was published in December 2001 to inspire rural pubs to diversify their services. However, the Vital Villages Community Services Grant, administered by the Countryside Agency for Defra, can be used to fund Pub is the Hub" style projects. Since April 2001, there have been 24 funded pub schemes in England, of which four are in the eastern region, one in Suffolk and none in the constituency of Bury St. Edmunds.

  Sea Fishing Strategy
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she expects to make public the first draft of the long term UK sea fishing strategy; [105918]

  (2) what recent progress her Department has made in the production of a long-term strategy for the future of the UK sea fishing industry. [105925]

  Mr. Morley
  The fishing industry took on the task of developing a strategy through the Fish Industry Forum and in liaison with Government. A presentation on the state of play on that industry initiative was made to Fisheries Ministers in July 2002.

  As announced on 26 March, the Strategy Unit has been requested by the Prime Minister to develop a long-term strategy for a sustainable sea fishing industry in the UK: the final report is intended to be completed by the end of 2003.

  Sea Levels (Bristol Bay)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has conducted on sea levels in the Bristol Bay area for the next 20 years. [107339]

  Mr. Morley
  Sea levels have been and will continue to be monitored in the Bristol Channel as a part of the National Tide Gauge Network, operated by Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory (POL) and funded by Defra.

  Tide gauges are monitoring sea levels constantly at the following sites, Mumbles, Newport, Avonmouth, Hinkley Point arid Ilfracombe. The Environment Agency also monitor levels at West Quay Bridgwater for local operational reasons. This information is used to provide tidal predictions and for monitoring long term sea levels and relative land levels.

  Through analysis of the Tide Gauge data and information from global climate change modelling POL have made predictions of future trends in sea levels all round the UK. These have informed the recommended Defra allowance of 5 mm rise per year for this area of the coast that takes account of both sea and major land level movements. It is also compatible with a range of future scenarios published by Defra last year as part of the UK Climate Impacts Programme in "Climate Change Scenarios of the United Kingdom", copies of which can be found in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Sheep
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the present system of sheep identification. [107719]

  Mr. Morley
  The present system of sheep identification was enhanced on 1 February 2003 in England and Wales. From that date, all sheep born after 1 February or still on the holding on which they were born and not yet marked, need to be individually identified with a tag or tattoo before they move or within one year of birth.
  136W
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what representations she has received concerning sheep identification; [107720]

  (2) what plans she has to implement in full the tagging system required by the EU for sheep identification. [107718]

  Mr. Morley
  We have received a number of representations expressing concern over the European Commission proposals on sheep and goat identification. We have raised these concerns with the Commission and said that any proposal to enhance the current EU rules should be workable, enforceable and proportionate to the disease risk. We shall continue to negotiate on that basis.

  Shellfish
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what obstacles are delaying the introduction of a shellfish licensing scheme; and if she will make a statement. [106758]

  Mr. Morley
  I am delighted to be able to refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement I made announcing such a scheme on 3 April 2003,Official Report, column 69WS.

  Slaughter Scheme
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether all Slaughter Premium Scheme claims for 2002 have now been(a) settled and (b) paid. [108036]

  Alun Michael
  For the 2002 English Adult Animal Slaughter Premium Scheme, 57 per cent. of claims have been authorised for payment to date. 50 per cent. of claims have had advance payments made. No balance payments have been made.

  There is no EC deadline for advance payments, but balance payments have to be made by 30 June following the end of the scheme year.

  Those claims that are outstanding include ones that have either failed administrative checks or are subject to on-farm inspections. Agency staff are striving to complete work for 30 June in order to pay premium on eligible animals.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff are employed by her Department. [106277]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 4 April 2003,Official Report, columns 891–892W.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the sunset clauses included in legislation from her Department since 1997. [106942]
  137W
  Alun Michael
  Since June 2001 when Defra was formed, there has been no legislation containing sunset clauses.

  Travel Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the costs was of travel by train by staff in her Department in 2002. [106335]

  Alun Michael
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It is this Department"s policy that official travel should be undertaken only if it is essential to the Department"s business and cannot reasonably be met in any other way (e.g. correspondence, e-mail, telephone or video conference). Where it is considered that official travel is justified then staff are expected to take account of business and financial needs as well as environmental considerations.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list for Buckinghamshire by(a) tonnage and (b) percentage the amount of waste disposal by (i) landfill, (ii) recycling and (iii) incineration in 2002. [106933]

  Mr. Meacher
  The latest available data for municipal waste are taken from the 2000–01 Municipal Waste Management Survey. The data for Buckinghamshire are shown as follows.

  Tonnages and percentages of municipal waste for Buckinghamshire for 2000–01 are:
  Landfilled—193.6 thousand tonnes (76.5 per cent.)
  Recycled and composted—59.5 thousand tonnes (23.5 per cent.)
  Incinerated—0.2 thousand tonnes (<0.5 per cent.)

  Survey data for 2002 are not yet available.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) waste incineration plants and (b) landfill sites there were in Buckinghamshire in 2002. [106988]

  Mr. Meacher
  (a) There were no waste incineration plants in Buckinghamshire in 2002.

  (b) There were 14 landfill sites in Buckinghamshire in 2002.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effects of municipal mass burn incineration of waste upon levels of waste recycling; and if she will make a statement. [105383]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Regulatory Impact Assessment of Waste Strategy 2000 (published in Annex C of part 2 of the strategy) assessed a variety of waste management scenarios and considered variables including different projections for waste growth, different mixes of waste management facilities, and differing levels of participation in recycling schemes. A similar exercise was carried out by the Strategy Unit and published in their "Waste Not, Want Not" report.
  138W
  Our policy on municipal waste incinerators or other energy from waste facilities is that they should be considered only where it can be shown that they are appropriately sized so that they would not "crowd out" recycling. Guidance issued by the Government for Private Finance Initiative includes the criterion:
  "proposals including incineration must demonstrate that all opportunities for recycling have been considered first and that there is no barrier to the future development of recycling. Schemes should include proposals for combined heat and power where possible."

  Water Services
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the impact on low income families of the(a) pricing and (b) regulatory regime for water services. [106922]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has reviewed the needs of low income families for concessions on their water bills as part of its review of the Vulnerable Groups Regulations. The proposals of this review are detailed in the consultation paper Reductions for Vulnerable Groups which was published in February 2003. Data from the DSS Family Resources Survey in the table shows the percentage of household income spent on water and sewerage services in England 1997–98 by income decile.

  Guidance to the Director General of Water Services, following the Water Industry Act 1999, confirmed that the Secretary of State was keen to encourage the development of innovative tariffs that can assist customers who may face difficulty paying their bills and stated that the Secretary of State expects flexible payment options to be offered to customers to assist with payment problems. The Water Bill, which is currently in the House of Lords, proposes that the new Water Services Regulation Authority and Consumer Council for Water should have regard to individuals with low incomes, when considering consumer interests.

DEFENCE

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's total spending 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. [106439]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, the Ministry of Defence"s advertising and publicity costs are published in the annual Departmental Performance Report, broken down into categories of Royal Navy, Army, Royal Air Force and civilian recruitment, PR, marketing and business support services, Chief of PR, sales promotion, scholarships and National Employers" Liaison Committee. Copies of these documents are placed in the Library of the House. The 2002–03
  Departmental

  139W
  Performance Report is due to be published in the autumn and will include information on advertising and publicity costs although this may be in a different format due to the introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting.

  Anthrax
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of UK armed forces in the Gulf who were offered the anthrax inoculation refused it. [107141]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 4 Apri12003]: According to centrally held records, as at 12 March 2003, some 56 per cent. of Service personnel offered vaccination against anthrax had accepted it. Information on immunisation against anthrax among Service personnel deployed to the Gulf is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which international conventions apply to the use of depleted uranium shells; and whether the UK is a signatory. [107913]

  Mr. Ingram
  No conventions apply specifically to the use of depleted uranium shells. Their use is covered by the same provisions of international law that apply to all weapons.

  Iraq
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with the shipping industry on the ownership and operation of the deep water container port at Umm Qasr, Iraq. [105874]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether(a) British and (b) coalition forces have used (i) depleted uranium and (ii) cluster bombs in the war in. Iraq; and in what circumstances. [107195]

  Mr. Ingram
  With regard to the use of depleted uranium munitions, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 2 April 2003,Official Report, column 737W to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith).

  On the use of cluster bombs, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) during his statement to the House on 3 April 2003, Official Report, column 1075. Cluster bombs have been used against targets for which they were the most appropriate available weapon and where they could be used in accordance with international law, including with the principles of proportionality and discrimination.

  I am unable to comment on the use of DU munitions and cluster bombs by other coalition forces.
  140W
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the purpose was of the United Kingdom troops attack on an electricity switching station in Basra on 23 March 2003; what was achieved; and if he will make a statement; [107252]

  (2) what the purpose was of the military action by allied forces on 23 March 2003 upon electricity installations in Basra; what was achieved; and if he will make a statement. [107251]

  Mr. Ingram
  No such event occurred.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance has been given to UK forces operating in the no fly zone in southern Iraq on the holy places of the Shi'a in Nayjab and Kerbala. [103735]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]: We are fully aware of the significance of the holy sites in Najaf and Karbala. The coalition is taking every precaution to respect and avoid damage to them.

  By contrast, we know from intelligence that Saddam Hussein has plans to damage the sites and to blame the coalition. There are precedents: in 1991, Iraq troops attacked and desecrated Imam Ali's shrine and destroyed religious libraries in Najaf; they shelled and desecrated Imam Hussein's shrine in Karbala; and the shrine of Imam Abbas was also reported damaged.

  The United Kingdom is fully committed to the protection of cultural property in times of armed conflict. The Government take very seriously its obligations to act in conformity with international law, the UN Charter and international humanitarian law. In all our military planning, very careful attention is applied to ensure that we minimise the risk of damage to all civilian sites.

  The targeting process during current operations is conducted in accordance with all obligations under international law, including Additional Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions, and the Targeting Directive to United Kingdom forces stationed in the Gulf contains explicit guidance on their obligations under international and domestic law. For reasons of force protection, I cannot comment on the specifics of our targeting policy, and I am therefore withholding that information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Defence, security and international relations).

  In view of the continuing air operations against Iraq, No Fly Zone patrols have been rendered 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.

  Military Activities (Animals)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many animals, by species, are employed by British services in the Gulf; and how many have been(a) injured and (b) killed as a result of military and other action to date. [107243]
  141W
  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently 25 dogs employed by United Kingdom forces in the Gulf. None has been injured or killed. A further seven dogs are to be deployed to the Gulf in the coming days.

  Parcels (Weight Limits)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the weight limit is on parcels sent to British forces in the Gulf; what the weight limit was for(a) exercises and (b) operations in (i) Sierra Leone, (ii) Kosovo and (iii) the first Gulf War; and if he will make a statement. [105833]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 1 April 2003]: There is no parcel service to the Gulf. As part of the Operational Welfare Package approved for this Operation, there is an airmail letter and packet service, subsidised so that it costs the same as United Kingdom inland first class post. The maximum weight of an airmail packet is 2 kg. In addition, Forces Free Air Letters ("Blueys"), e-blueys and an internet bulletin board are available, free of charge.

  I also 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).

  Exercises typically attract both a surface parcel service, up to a maximum weight of 30 kg, and an airmail letter and packet service with a maximum weight of 2 kg.

  The priorities to meet operational requirements differ from those to support exercises, with the result that there is much greater pressure on available transport capacity, as urgent equipment and stores have to be moved into theatre. The situation in theatre dictates that fewer airlines are willing to fly to local airports. As a result, there is normally no parcel service until pressure on transport capacity eases.

  Pensions
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on interest payable on tax incorrectly deducted from armed forces pensions; and if he will make a statement. [107744]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has received representations from two ex-Service organisations, the Forces Pension Society and the Royal British Legion, and a small number of individuals affected. Those pensioners who have been found to have paid tax incorrectly have received from the Inland Revenue a refund of tax, and, in appropriate cases, the statutory repayment supplement. Officials are currently considering whether there is a case for any further payment to be made to compensate for the consequences of the error, and I would expect this work to be completed by the summer.

  RAF Bases
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what powers can be exercised by, and what rules of engagement apply to, the US National Guard 142W
  in the event of unauthorised persons being found within RAF bases where the US National Guard is present. [107231]

  Mr. Ingram
  Where American National Guards have been deployed on RAF bases made available to the United States Visiting Forces, they can exercise the same range of powers as all (United Kingdom and United States) Service personnel in dealing with unauthorised persons found within that base. For instance, although they do not have the powers of arrest, they may detain and hold such persons using the minimum force necessary, until a police officer, who has powers of arrest, arrives.

  It is not our practice to comment on Rules of Engagement and that information is withheld under Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many prosecutions under the RAF Menwith Hill byelaws have been(a) initiated, (b) subsequently dropped, (c) pursued unsuccessfully and (d) pursued successfully in each year since 1996; and if he will make a statement. [107233]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 4 November 2002,Official Report, columns 67–68W, which provided details of the number of police reports produced from 1996 to November 2002. The total number of reports with a view to prosecution prepared by the Ministry of Defence Police at RAF Menwith Hill during financial year 2002–03 was seven. Prosecutions are a matter for my noble and Learned Friend the Attorney General.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the statutory instruments issued by his Department in the last 12 months, indicating(a) the purpose of each and (b) the cost of each to (i) public funds, (ii) businesses and (iii) individuals. [106332]

  Dr. Moonie
  The HMSO Statutory Instrument Registrar (siregistrar@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk) can provide a list of statutory instruments issued by individual Departments. Statutory instruments which have been originated by Departments but eventually made by the Privy Council Office, are only listed under the Privy Council Office. However, between 1 January 2002 and 31 March 2003, the Ministry of Defence issued the following eighteen statutory instruments:

  SI 2002/201—The Royal Marines Terms of Service Regulations 2002. This instrument amended Service regulations consequent to a previous Commencement Order.

  SIs 2002/229: 230 and 231—Three statutory instruments entitled Courts-Martial (Amendment) Rules. These instruments made amendments to court-martial rules in consequence of the Armed Forces Act 2001.
  143W
  SI 2002/345—Armed Force Act 2001 (Commencement No 2.) Order 2002 that commenced sections of the Armed Forces Act 2001.

  SI 2002/671—Pensions (Polish Forces) Scheme (Extension) Order. This instrument continued in effect the Polish Forces pension scheme.

  SI 2002/672—Personnel Injuries (Civilians) Amendment Scheme 2002 updated the rate of pension payable to recipients.

  SI 2002/792—The Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement & Death) Service Pensions (Amendment) Order 2002 updated the rate of pension payable to recipients.

  SI 2002/719—ABRO Trading Fund Order 2002. An Order to give trading fund status.

  SI 2002/1417—Tax Credit (New Category of Child Care Provider) Regulations 2002. This instrument made a scheme for establishing a new category of persons whose charges for providing child care outside of the UK are to be taken into account for the purpose of determining working families" or disabled person"s tax credit.

  SI 2002/1761—Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 (Designation of Vessels and Controlled Sites) Order 2002. This instrument provided protection to military remains in various vessels and sites.

  SI 2002/1820—The Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2002. An annual Order to continue in force the three Service Discipline Acts.

  SI 2002/3122—The Service Departments Registers (Amendment) Order 2002. This instrument updated the Service Departments Registers Order 1959.

  SI 2003/105—ABRO Trading Fund (Amendment) Order 2003. This Order made an amendment to SI 2002/719.

  SI 2003/405—Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 (Designation of Vessels and Controlled Sites) (Amendment) Order 2003. Needed to correct a geographical error in SI 2002/1761.

  SI 2003/434—The Naval. Military and Air Forces Etc (Disablement & Death) Service Pensions (Amendment) Order 2003 updated the rate of pension payable to recipients.

  SI 2003/637—Personnel Injuries (Civilians) Amendment Scheme 2002 updated the rate of pension payable to recipients.

  SI 2003/786—Air Force Act 1955 (Part 1) Regulations 2001 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 updated previous Service Regulations not required to be made by statutory instruments.

  Any costs to public funds arising from the above instruments are minimal. As the MOD is not a regulatory body there are few, if any, costs to businesses
  144W
  and individuals. Any cost relating to instruments made by MOD are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Travel Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of travel by train by staff in his Department in 2002. [106351]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is committed to ensuring that its staff should use the most efficient and economic means of travel commensurate with meeting the Department"s operational needs. To deliver this commitment, travel by rail is co-ordinated, managed and negotiated centrally within the MOD. Central negotiations are undertaken with the Association of Train Operating Companies and the MOD secures contracts for discounted travel. The resulting expenditure, after the MOD discount, for the financial year just ended April 2002 to March 2003, was £33,604,837. This figure is provisional and subject to final audit.

  War Graves
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to the French Government regarding the desecration of Commonwealth war graves. [107520]

  Dr. Moonie
  No war graves were desecrated in the incident which took place at Etaples Military Cemetery south of Boulogne on the night of 26 to 27 March 2003. However, anti-British and American graffiti were sprayed on the central memorial in the cemetery. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission, who are responsible for the cemetery which contains the graves of nearly 11,000 British and Commonwealth graves from the two World Wars, took immediate action to remove the paint.

  The Department made no representations to the French Government, but on 3 April 2003 the French President wrote an apology to The Queen, expressing France's regret and condemning the shameful desecration of the cemetery. Also on that day there was a simple wreath-laying ceremony at Etaples attended by the French Secretary of State for War Veterans, together with the British Consul General and the British Naval Attaché in Paris. The French Government and the people of Etaples were greatly embarrassed by this regrettable incident and acted with commendable speed to condemn those individuals who carried out this shameful deed.

  Water Abstraction Boreholes
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the Answer to the hon. Member for Salisbury on 7 February 2003,Official Report, column 466W, on water abstraction boreholes, what the daily abstraction rate is from (a) all 24 boreholes, (b) the emergency borehole when in use, (c) the largest volume borehole and (d) the smallest volume borehole. [98649]
  145W
  Dr. Moonie
  The abstraction rate from individual boreholes has security implications and I am therefore withholding it under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  For all the boreholes within the scope of Project Aquatrine in the Salisbury Plain area (either in use, inactive or emergency), the daily average total abstraction rate is approximately 10,169m3.

TREASURY

  Hospital Acquired Infections
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were recorded as having died from a hospital acquired or secondary infection in each year since 1997; and what percentage of recorded deaths this represented in each case [107729]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Liam Fox, dated 8 April 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many people were recorded as having died from a hospital acquired or secondary infection in each year since 1997: and what percentage of recorded deaths this represented in each case. (107729)

  It is not possible to give reliable figures on the number of deaths involving hospital-acquired infections from routinely collected mortality data, as information on where the infection was acquired may not be available to the doctor certifying the death.

  Solidarity Fund (Spain)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received on the impact on the UK"s gross contributions to the EU Budget of a successful application by Spain to the Solidarity Fund following the Prestige disaster; [107514]

  (2) what assessment he has made of Spain"s application to the Solidarity Fund to defray the costs of clean-up after the Prestige disaster. [107515]

  Ruth Kelly
  No representations on this matter have been received by HM Treasury. Applications for assistance from the EUSF are assessed by the commission in the first instance.

  Third-World Debt
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of third world debt owed to the UK is debt owed to the Export Credits Guarantee Department. [105062]

  John Healey
  Of the total debt currently owed to the UK Government by developing countries over 95 per cent. is owed to the Export Credits Guarantee Department. The key reason for this high percentage of commercial credits is that Official Development Assistance provided by the UK normally takes the form of grants as compared with concessional loans so there is little debt owed to the UK other than amounts owed to ECGD.
  146W
  The UK is at the forefront of the debate on international debt relief and participates fully in the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative agreed at Cologne in 1999 that makes provision for the cancellation of around US$100 billion of debt. Moreover, the UK goes beyond the terms agreed under the HIPC initiative and always provides 100 per cent. debt relief. So for the 26 countries that have reached Decision Point in the HIPC initiative the UK is providing 100 per cent debt relief.

  In addition, for those HIPCs yet to reach Decision Point the UK operates a unilateral "Hold-in-Trust" policy. For these countries yet to secure debt relief because of conflict, civil unrest or the absence of a poverty reduction programme, any debt payments made are held in trust until they can be returned to fund poverty reduction.

  UN Sanctions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has for(a) enforcing UN sanctions against Iraqi assets held in London and (b) confiscating the assets of the Rafidain Bank and its shareholdings in the British Arab Commercial Bank; [107570]

  (2) under what circumstances British companies would be prevented from making payments to Iraqi directors. [107541]

  Mr. Boateng
  The UK has strictly enforced the terms of UNSCR 661 since it was passed in August 1990. This has required all Iraqi assets held in the UK, including 1 hose of Rafidain Bank, to be frozen.

  Neither UNSCR 661 nor the domestic legislation that implements it allows for the confiscation of assets.

  Under the Iraq sanctions order, which implements UNSCR 661, all payments to residents of Iraq are prohibited, except under license from HM Treasury.

  Unemployment (Harwich)
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the unemployment figures were in the Harwich constituency in each year since 1996. [107711]

  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. Ivan Henderson, dated 8 April 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on what the unemployment figures were in the Harwich constituency in each year since 1996. (107711)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from surveys following the international standard International Labour Organisation definition. However the survey sample size is too small to provide estimates for the Harwich Parliamentary Constituency. ONS also compiles claimant count statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance.

  The attached table gives the annual average number of claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance in the Harwich Parliamentary Constituency for the years 1996 to 2002.
  147W

  Annual average level number of claimants in the Harwich Parliamentary Constituency for the year 1996 to 2002

  year

  Levels

  1996

  3,669

  1997

  2,654

  1998

  2,276

  1999

  1,987

  2000

  1,775

  2001

  1,493

  2002

  1,449

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have been made to the Barnett formula in the last five years. [107313]

  Mr. Boateng
  Details of the Barnett formula used in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review were published by the Treasury in the Statement of Funding Policy in 1999. This was subsequently updated in July 2000 and July 2002. The main changes have been that the population figures have been updated to reflect latest ONS estimates and the comparability factors (which measure the extent to which UK Departments" spending programmes are comparable in the devolved Administrations), have been updated where necessary.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was allocated to Scotland under the Barnett formula in each of the last three years. [107327]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Barnett formula is used to determine the Scottish Executive"s Departmental Expenditure Limit, which is £20.4 billion in 2003–04, £19 billion in 2002–03 and £17.6 billion in 2001–02, as set out in Table B15 of the Pre-Budget Report, November 2002 (Cm 5664).

  Burma
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which companies have imported garments from Burma in the past two financial years. [107507]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise is the Department responsible for collecting and recording statistics on the movement of goods between the UK and other countries. The specific information requested is not available. Exemption 13 (third party"s commercial confidences) of the Open Government Code applies.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of illegal narcotics intercepted on entry to the UK are believed to have originated in Burma, broken down by type of narcotic; [107510]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the percentage of illegal narcotics available in the UK believed to have originated from Burma. [107552]

  John Healey
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave her on 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 205W.

  Departmental Accommodation
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department owns(a) the Debt Management Office accommodation at Cheapside House, 138 Cheapside, London, and (b) the Office of Government Commerce accommodation at Fleetbank House, 2–6 Salisbury Square, London; what the market value of each property is; and if he will make a statement. [107442]

  Ruth Kelly
  The UK DMO has not occupied 138 Cheapside, London since July 2001. The accommodation at 138 Cheapside is not owned by any Government organisation. With reference to the UK DMO present office at Eastcheap Court, London, it is not owned, but the 3rd, 4th and 5th floors are leased by the UK DMO.

  The accommodation at Fleetbank House 2–6 Salisbury Square, London formerly occupied by the Office of Government Commerce, is not owned by the Department.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many local tax offices are owned by the Inland Revenue; what plans there are to sell them; and if he will make a statement. [107443]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are currently no local tax offices owned by the Inland Revenue.

  EDS
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of total payments to EDS(a) to date and (b) over the 10-year contract for services provided under its Strategic Partnership Contract; and if he will make a statement. [106793]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimate of total payments to EDS are:(a) To date
  Based on 2002 prices the total payments to date are £2.2 billion excluding capital and £2.5 billion including capital.
  (b) Over the 10-year contract for services
  The estimated total value of the 10-year contract in 2002 prices is £2.6 billion excluding capital and £2.9 billion including capital.

  Enterprise Areas
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list enterprise areas as announced in Enterprise Britain (November 2002) by(a) ward and (b) local authority area.[107673]

  John Healey
  Around 2,000 enterprise areas benefit from a package of measures, including exemptions from stamp duty, the Small Business Service Incubation Fund, the Community Investment Tax Credit, the Community Development Venture Fund and wider assistance from Inland Revenue Business Support Teams. These measures are targeted to support regeneration through enterprise in the most deprived areas of the UK. A full list of the areas, including the relevant local authority, is contained in the Stamp Duty (Disadvantaged Areas) Regulations 2001, which came into force on 30 November 2001. The Regulations are available in the House Library and are publicly available on the Inland Revenue website.

  HIPC
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals for strengthening the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative he will bring forward at the Spring Meetings of(a) the World Bank and (b) the International Monetary Fund. [105094]

  John Healey
  At the forthcoming Spring Meetings the UK will continue to promote a flexible approach to the additional debt relief or "topping-up" that may be provided at Completion Point to ensure that countries that have had to contend with exogenous shocks benefit from a lasting exit from unsustainable debt. The UK will be seeking agreement that the calculation of topping-up should exclude the additional bilateral voluntary debt relief, to ensure fairer burden sharing among creditors and provide truly additional relief to HIPCs.

  The UK will also be putting forward proposals to encourage greater creditor participation in the HIPC Initiative.

  However, even the provision of 100 per cent. debt relief to all low-income countries would still fall short of the resources needed to meet the Millennium Development Goals. This is why the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development have proposed an International Finance Facility (IFF) that would seek to double the amount of development aid from just over US$50 billion a year today to $100 billion per year in the years to 2015. The IFF could also be used to help fund further debt relief for existing debts, which for some poor and indebted countries is a valuable instrument to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he supports proposals for the lifting of the IMF"s structural requirements on heavily indebted poor countries. [105125]

  John Healey
  The UK believes that structural reforms should focus on poverty reduction and strongly promotes the streamlining of IMF conditionality. The IMF, with the creation of Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) has been further improving its support to low-income countries. Conditionality has been reduced and streamlined, focusing on key areas of IMF responsibility; further progress has been made in supporting poverty and social impact analysis of key reforms and improved public expenditure management. The IMF is also discussing further improvements in, and increasing alignment of, the PRGF and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP).

  To reach Completion Point in the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative countries must develop a full PRSP, and meet key conditions (or Completion Point triggers), these conditions may include structural reforms that support the country"s strategy for reducing poverty. The UK supports this internationally agreed policy which helps ensure that resources provided through debt relief are used to reduce poverty and create the conditions necessary for economic growth.

  The Government acknowledges that debt relief is not a panacea for broader economic development problems; even the provision of 100 per cent. debt relief to all low-income countries would still fall short of the resources
  150W
  needed to meet Millennium Development Goals. That is why the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development have proposed an International Finance Facility (IFF) that would seek to double the amount of development aid from just over US$50 billion a year today to $100 billion per year in the years to 2015.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conditions applying to poor countries seeking to benefit from the International Finance Facility will be included in the Facility. [105095]

  John Healey
  The proposed International Finance Facility would seek to double aid for the world's poorest countries from US$50 billion a year today to $100 billion a year up to 2015. It provides an opportunity to build on current improvements in the way aid is managed.

  The IFF would seek to disburse funds through existing effective bilateral and multilateral mechanisms, which set out their own conditions to ensure that aid is used effectively.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his policy to support an explicit link between debt relief for poor countries and the achievement of Millennium Development Goals. [105126]

  John Healey
  The UK Government is committed to helping achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015. The Government supports the conclusion of the United Nations Financing for Development Conference in Monterrey, Mexico that future reviews of debt sustainability should bear in mind the impact of debt relief on progress towards the achievement of the MDGs.

  Debt relief will provide vital finance to help achieve the MDGs, but if overall aid resources were unevenly allocated in favour of debt relief, fewer resources would be available to finance poverty reduction in other countries perhaps equally poor but not highly indebted. It is important to maintain equity between the two thirds of low-income countries that are highly indebted and the other third that are not.

  The Government acknowledges that debt relief is not a panacea for broader economic development problems; even the provision of 100 per cent. debt relief to all low-income countries would still fall short of the resources needed to meet the MDGs. That is why the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development have proposed an International Finance Facility (IFF) that would seek to double the amount of development aid from just over US$50 billion a year today to $100 billion per year in the years to 2015.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Inland Revenue staff administer the enterprise area stamp duty exemption; and what their total employment costs are in the current financial year. [107676]
  151W
  John Healey
  Claims for the relief from stamp duty in disadvantaged areas are processed by Inland Revenue staff alongside all other stamp duty cases, and inquiries are dealt with alongside all other queries by staff at the national Stamp Taxes Enquiry Line.

  Movie Star Cafe, Belfast
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the owner of the Movie Star Cafe, Belfast met his obligations as an employer with regard to(a) the Inland Revenue, (b) National Insurance and (c) the Minimum Wage, in relation to the female foreign nationals who were discovered by the Immigration Service in Belfast on 18 December 2002. [107445]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue"s responsibilities include collecting National Insurance and enforcing the National Minimum Wage obligations. Because of the Inland Revenue"s strict rules of confidentiality, details in respect of specific cases cannot be prodded.

  Opinion Polling
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was of the ICM polling reproduced in his Department"s press release 41/03 of 26 March; and if he will make a statement. [106794]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The ICM poll referred to was carried out between 8 and 12 January 2003. 1,000 adults were interviewed by telephone and the results included the finding that two-thirds of people interviewed believed that all support for children should be paid to the mother. The cost of the research is commercially confidential.

  Statutary Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the statutory instruments issued by his Department in the last 12 months, indicating(a) the purpose of each and (b) the cost of each to (i) public funds, (ii) businesses and (iii) individuals. [106318]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The HMSO SI Registrar (Siregistrar@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk) can provide a list of statutory instruments that have been issued by individual Government Departments. SIs which have been originated by Departments but eventually made by the Privy Council are only listed under the Privy Council Office. Many of the SIs introduced were of a routine nature, for example approving annual fee increases.

  The costs associated with regulatory proposals are considered at the policy development stage. A regulatory impact assessment is completed for regulatory proposals unless there are no or negligible costs. HM Treasury, HM Customs and HM Inland Revenue have produced twenty full/final regulatory impact assessments in this period. These RIAs listed below are available from the House Libraries and are available on departmental websites:

  Custom and Excise RIAs

  VAT Flat Rate Scheme and Changes to the Annual Accounting Scheme; Oils Fraud Strategy.
  152W
  HMT RIAs

  The money laundering regulations 2001; The protection of the euro against counterfeiting regulations 2001; Financial Services and Markets Act 2002 (administration orders relating to insurers) Order 2002; E-commerce directive; Fourth motor insurance directive; Electric communication for building societies; Amending the Credit Unions Act 1997.

  Inland Revenue RIAs

  ISAS—Simplified Voiding for Investor Error; Tax Law Rewrite Project—Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Bill; The New Tax Credits; National Insurance Contributions Bill; Fuel Scale Charge; Reform of the Taxation of Intangible Assets; Construction Industry Scheme Research and Development Tax Credits for Large Companies/Vaccines Research Relief; Exemptions for Gains and Losses on Substantial Shareholdings; Reform of the Corporate Debt, Financial Instruments and Foreign Exchange Gains and Losses Regimes; Community Amateur Sports Club.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families eligible for the full children"s tax credit during 2002–03 are expected to be(a) on the second withdrawal rate for the child tax credit and (b) ineligible for the child tax credit because their earnings are too high. [107407]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No reliable estimates exist.

  Travel Insurance
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) pursuant to his answer of 18 March 2003,Official Report, columns 677–78W, on insurance, if he will provide a breakdown of the numbers of complaints about travel insurance from customers sold their policies by (a) tour operators and (b) travel agents and insurance companies; [107525]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 18 March 2003, Official Report, columns 677–78W, on insurance, if he will provide an interim answer on representations he has received regarding regulation of the sale of travel insurance; [107524]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 18 March 2003, Official Report, columns 677–78W, on insurance, if he will include in his response to the report from the Financial Services Authority a requirement upon companies selling travel insurance to itemise charges made to the customer and the cover purchased at the time of purchase; [107523]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the benefits to consumers of having different systems of regulation for the sale of travel insurance by (a) tour operators and travel agents and (b) insurance companies; [107527]

  (5) what measures he intends to take to ensure that consumers are protected from the mis-selling of travel insurance by travel agents and tour operators; [107528]

  (6) what steps he will take to bring the sale of travel insurance by travel agents and tour operators within the scope of the Financial Services Authority regulations; [107529]
  153W
  (7) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the Association of British Tour Operators code certified by the Financial Services Authority will protect consumers from the mis-selling of travel insurance by travel agents and tour operators. [107526]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's consultation document "Regulating Insurance Mediation" sets out three options in respect of travel insurance sold as part of a package—Financial Services Authority (FSA) regulation; no regulation; and industry specific regulation where sellers of travel products would be required to be authorised by the FSA unless they are subject to an Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) code.

  In taking our decision, we have to strike the right balance between the perceived benefits of creating a level playing field for firms selling the same product, together with evidence of consumer detriment, for example in the number of complaints, against the perceived regulatory costs placed on travel agents for whom travel insurance forms a very small part of turnover, and the numbers of travel policies sold.

  I will announce my decision about the regulation of travel insurance sold as a package with a holiday, together with the other aspects of the consultation on insurance mediation, in the second quarter of the year. Information received in respect of complaints will be included in the summary of responses that will be placed in the Library at the time of the announcement.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Deaths in Custody
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Solicitor General when the Department expects to publish its findings following the examination of issues relating to deaths in custody; and if she will make a statement. [107241]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney General continues to be actively engaged in completing his review of the prosecution process in cases arising from a death in custody, and expects to be able to publish a statement in the next few weeks.

  Mrs. Sally Clark
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Solicitor General pursuant to her answer of 7 February 2003,Official Report. column 467W, on Mrs. Sally Clark, if she will make a statement on the implications for the Crown Prosecution Service of the case of Mrs. Sally Clark. [107256]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Court of Appeal has not yet given its detailed judgment in the case of Sally Clark. I will consider whether further investigation into the handling of the case by the Crown Prosecution Service is appropriate and assess the implications of the case for the CPS when I have had the opportunity to study the full Court of Appeal judgment. It would be premature to make such an assessment at this stage.

TRANSPORT

  Airline Industry
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the airline industry with regard to the potential impact on their business plans of the conflict in Iraq. [107368]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My officials are in regular contact with UK airlines over a range of issues including the effects on civil aviation of the conflict in Iraq.

  Bicycle Safety
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bicycle accidents were reported in the Greater London area in(a)2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [107404]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table shows the number of personal injury accidents in which a pedal cyclist was involved in London (2000–02).

  Year

  Accidents

  2000

  3,579

  2001

  3,377

  2002

  3,101

  Source:

  Transport for London

  Blackpool-Fleetwood Tram
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evaluation he has made of proposals for the redevelopment of the Blackpool-Fleetwood tram. [107537]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are still considering Blackpool council"s detailed proposals for the refurbishment of their tram system.

  Central Railway Project
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he last met representatives of the Strategic Rail Authority to discuss the Central Railway project; [107797]

  (2) what meetings have taken place this year between Ministers in his Department and representatives of Central Railway plc; what further meetings are planned; and if he will make a statement. [107796]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 7 April 2003]: Officials in the SRA and DfT have held a number of discussions with Central Railway. The Secretary of State has met representatives of Central Railway on one occasion.

  CO2 Emissions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his ministerial statement of 1 April 2003, on road improvements, what change in(a) road miles per year and (b) carbon dioxide emissions per year he estimates will result from the road-building proposals set out in the statement. [107376]
  155W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 4 April 2003]: Three new additions to the Highways Agency"s Targeted Programme of Improvements were announced by the Secretary of State on 1 April. These are A57/A628 Mottram in Longdendale, Hollingworth and Tintwhistle Bypass, A 14 Ellington—Fen Ditton Improvement and A45/A46 Tollbar End Improvement.

  The A57/A628 and A 14 schemes are expected to relieve the local road networks of traffic which is currently using those routes to avoid the trunk roads. This should result in a reduction of 9.125 million vehicle miles per year on local roads in the vicinity of the A57/A628 and 2.875 million vehicle miles per year on local roads around the A14. However an increase of up to 40 per cent. is expected in the traffic on the A628 corridor from induced traffic using the new bypass.

  There is no reason to suggest that there will be a significant increase in road miles at A45/A46 Tollbar End as this is a junction improvement.

  With regard to carbon dioxide emissions, there will be a reduction in noise and pollution in the villages near and along the A628 and those near the A 14, although an increase in emissions is predicted on all the improved roads because of induced traffic and normal traffic growth.

  There will be an increase of 14,068 tonnes per year of carbon dioxide emissions on A57/A628 Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwhistle Bypass, 4,835 tonnes per year on A14 Ellington—Fen Ditton and 5,604 tonnes per year at A45/A46 Tollbar End.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will bring forward the proposed DVLA proof of identity scheme. [107014]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We intend to make an announcement about the future of the vehicle registration and licensing system in due course.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the EU Directives and Regulations which have been implemented by his Department since 17 April 2002. [106838]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport plays a leading role in the UK"s EU policy on Transport. Since 17 April 2002, the Department for Transport has led on the implementation of 14 Directives:

  Commission Directive 2001/63/EC of 17 August 2001 adapting to technical progress Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery.

  Council Directive 1999/63/EC of 21 June 1999 concerning the Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers concluded by the European Community Shipowners" Association (ECSA) and the
  156W
  Federation of Transport Workers" Unions in the European Union (FST)—Annex: European Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers.

  Directive 1999/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 concerning the enforcement of provisions in respect of seafarers" hours of work on board ships calling at community ports.

  Directive 2001/100/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 December 2001 amending Council Directive 70/220/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the member states on measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles (1).

  Directive 2001/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 relating to heating systems for motor vehicles and their trailers, amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC and repealing Council Directive 78/548/EEC.

  Directive 2001/92/EC of 30 October 2001 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 92/22/EEC on safety glazing and glazing materials on motor vehicles and their trailers arid Council Directive 70/156/EEC relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers.

  Directive 2001/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 amending Council Directive 92/23/EEC relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting.

  Directive 2001/85/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2001 relating to special provisions for vehicles used for the carriage of passengers comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat, and amending Directives 70/156/EEC and 97/27/EC.

  Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in community.

  Commission Directive 2002/78/EC of 1 October 2002 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 71/320/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to the braking devices of certain categories of motor vehicles and their trailers.

  Commission Directive 2001/1 I/EC of 14 February 2001 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 96/96/EC on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers—functional testing of commercial vehicles" speed limitation device.

  Commission Directive 2002/25/EC of 5 March 2002 amending Council Directive 98/18/EC on safety rules and standards for passenger ships.

  Commission Directive 2001/9/EC of 12 February 2001 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 96/96/EC on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers.

  Directive 2002/75/EC of 2 September 2002 amending Council Directive 96/98/EC on marine equipment.
  157W
  EC Regulations are, in general, directly applicable in the member states, without the need for further incorporation into national law. However, some Regulations require UK measures to make them workable and enforceable. Some Regulations enact small or technical amendments. As far as we have been able to verify, there have been no Regulations implemented by the Department for Transport since 17 April 2002.

  HGV Drivers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of projected demand for additional HGV drivers in the UK; and what measures he will introduce to counter skill shortages in this area. [106409]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My officials are in contact with the industry to address the issue of demand for drivers. Under the Government's Road Haulage Modernisation Fund, over £7 million has been allocated for training initiatives to help the industry meet its future labour and skills needs. The measures aim to recruit more young people to the industry, develop a UK specification lorry driver training simulator and will look at ways of protecting employer investment in training. The Modernisation Fund is intended as a pump-priming initiative and the industry must achieve a self-sustaining position where operators recruit, train and retain staff in sufficient numbers and with the relevant skills to support their future needs.

  Pay Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made with the pay review in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible,

  Pension scheme/section

  Designated employer

  Last actuarial valuation

  Valuation result

  Funded

  Railways pension scheme (RPS) 1994 pensions section

  Secretary of State for Transport

  31 December 2001

  Assets £4,917 million—Deficit of £127 met from release of relevant amount from Special Reserve Fund in the section assets

  RPS—ex BR section

  Strategic Rail Authority

  31 December 2001

  Assets £57.3 million—Surplus of £4.7 million

  RPS—ex OPRAF section

  Strategic Rail Authority

  31 December 2001

  Assets £8.3 million—Deficit of £2.3 million

  British Transport Police Force superannuation fund

  Strategic Rail Authority

  31 December 1999 (valuation pending)

  Assets £562.6 million—Surplus of £80.7 million

  British Railways superannuation fund

  Strategic Rail Authority

  31 December 2001

  Assets £449 million—Surplus of £51 million

  Great Western Railway supplemental pension reserve fund

  Strategic Rail Authority

  31 December 2001

  Assets £56.4 million—Surplus of £6.5 million

  Great Western Railway Inspectors and foremen"s special pension fund

  Strategic Rail Authority

  31 December 2000

  Assets £0.224 million—Surplus of £0.117 million

  Great Northern Railway superannuation fund

  Strategic Rail Authority

  31 December 2000

  Assets £600—Deficit £4,300

  Great Western Railway salaried staff widows" and orphans" pension society

  Strategic Rail Authority

  31 December 2000

  Assets £11.2 million—No surplus/deficit

  London and North Western Provident society for providing pensions for widows and orphans of salaried staff

  Strategic Rail Authority

  31 December 1999 (valuation pending)

  Assets £1.3 million—Surplus of £0.1 million

  Civil Aviation Authority pension schemes (CAAPS)—Civil Aviation Authority section

  Civil Aviation Authority

  31 March 2001

  Assets £1,747 million—Surplus of £129 million

  LRT pension fund

  London Transport (TfL also participate)

  31 March 2000

  Assets £3,744 million—Surplus of £46 million

  National Ports Council pension scheme

  Secretary of State for Transport

  30 June 2002

  Assets £9.12—Surplus of £2.015 million

  158W
  with particular reference to the gender pay gap; and if he will make a statement. [106743]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following the Government"s response to the Equal Opportunity Commission Task Force "Just Pay" report, all Departments and agencies are committed to reviewing their pay systems by April 2003 and to prepare action plans to close any equal pay gaps. The Cabinet Office has issued guidance to assist in these reviews. The Department for Transport and its agencies are on course to complete the reviews by the end of April. NDPBs were not formally covered by the commitment, but they are undertaking reviews as a matter of good practice.

  Potters Bar Derailment
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive a further report from the Health and Safety Executive regarding the Potters Bar derailment; and if he will make a statement. [107226]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive have advised that the Potters Bar Investigation Board intends to publish its next progress report shortly.

  Public Sector Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) funded and (b) unfunded public sector pension schemes for which his Department, its agencies and its non-departmental public bodies are responsible; when the last actuarial valuation was of each scheme; what the value was of the assets at the last actuarial valuation of each scheme; what deficit is disclosed by the last actuarial valuation of each scheme; and if he will make a statement. [104927]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following lists the pension schemes, with other requested information, for which the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible.
  159W

  Pension scheme/section

  Designated employer

  Valuation of liabilities

  valuation result

  Unfunded

  BR (1974) fund [Customary Practices and BTC (Males Wages Grades) arrangements)

  Strategic Rail Authority

  31 December 1998 (valuation pending)

  Liabilities £3.9 million, met from Government support payment under Part. III, Transport Act 1980 (in respect of pre-1974 liabilities of BR) and contributions from former employers within the British Transport Commission

  Commissioners of Irish Lights pension scheme

  Commission of Irish Lights

  31 March 2002

  Liabilities of £63 million

  Northern Lighthouse pension scheme

  Northern Lighthouse Board

  31 March 2002

  Liabilities of £47.3 million

  Trinity House Lighthouse service pension scheme

  Trinity House

  3 March 2002

  Liabilities of £100.3 million

  Railways
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the short listing of railway operating companies for the Greater Anglia franchise; and if he will take action to reinstate First Great Eastern"s application. [107677]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 7 April 2003]: It is for the SRA to shortlist applications for franchises, subject to the Directions and Guidance issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he expects to make a decision on the level of rail freight grants to be provided to the industry in 2004–05; [107027]

  (2) what assessment he will make of the environmental impact of the Strategic Rail Authority"s decision to suspend new grant awards to the rail freight industry for 2003. [107028]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No assessment has been made of the environmental impact on the suspension of new grants awards under the Strategic Rail Authority's (SRA"s) Freight Facilities Grant Scheme. The SRA"s Strategic Plan provides an indicative budget of £20 million for freight Facilities Grants and £20 million for Track Access Grants for 2004–05.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funding arrangements have been made as a part of the Strategic Rail Authority"s Strategic Plan 2003 to provide for Edinburgh to London Euston rail services. [107029]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is consulting on its West Coast Main Line Strategy, which will be published later this year. One of the options which is being considered, and on which local stakeholders" views are being canvassed, is the possibility of operating direct services from Edinburgh to London Euston either via Glasgow or via Motherwell. If such services came into existence, they would be part of the West Coast franchise. Accordingly, they would be funded under the normal arrangements for that franchise.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what performance indicators are in place to ensure that personal security issues and measures for rail travel are tackled satisfactorily; and if he will make a statement. [106889]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secure Station and the Secured Car Park Schemes are the two benchmark schemes for reducing crime and the fear of crime in the railway 160W
  environment. The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has an obligation in its Directions and Guidance set by the Secretary of State to encourage accreditation under both award schemes.

  The SRA published its new franchising policy in November 2002. This includes the development of key-performance indicators relating to personal safety and security in the railway environment.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to require future editions of the annual report on Railway Safety to incorporate all known data and performance measures on the(a) personal security of passengers and (b) outcomes of action taken. [106895]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Annual Report on Railway Safety only covers data recorded under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrence Regulations, 1995 (RIDDOR). Information on the personal security of passengers and members of the public is not reportable under RIDDOR. However, the railway industry"s own safety body, the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) (formerly Railway Safety) publish data and performance information on the personal security of passengers and members of the public in their Annual Safety Performance Report. In addition, the British Transport Police publish an annual Statistical Bulletin that includes data on all reported crimes on the railways in accordance with Home Office instructions and standards.

  Road Improvements
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which bodies were consulted before he decided not to proceed with(a) the A556M and (b) the improvement to Junction 20 of the M6. [107249]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Environmental Statutory bodies and the North West Regional Assembly, together with a steering group of local stakeholders consisting of the local highway authority, the freight transport association; CPRE and the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities were consulted on the Highways Agency"s A556 Area Study, which considered both the A556 and Junction 20 of the M6.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department last met (i) the Association of Greater Manchester councils, (ii) the Council for the Protection of Rural England, (iii) the North West Regional Assembly,

  161W
  (iv) Cheshire county council and (v) Macclesfield borough council to discuss options for alleviating congestion on the A556. [107253]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Officers from the North West Regional Assembly (NWRA), Cheshire county council, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, and the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities were members of the steering group of local stakeholders on the A556 Area Study. They were kept fully informed of developments throughout the study period from February to September 2002. Macclesfield borough council was informed of the study outcome through a meeting with the NWRAfs Key Priorities Group in September 2002.

  Travel Concessions
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total annual cost of extending a national half-fare travel concession to all young people aged(a) 14 to 16, (b) 14 to 18 and (c) 14 to 21 would be. [107397]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is estimated that to cover the cost of extending half-fare travel concessions on local buses at all times to young people aged between 16 and 19 would be in excess of £180 million per year. Further information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) total annual cost and (b) annual cost to central Government is in 2003 of extending the national half-fare travel concession to men aged 60–65. [107398]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The total annual cost of extending existing concessionary travel schemes to cover men aged 60–64 is put at £50 million, including those schemes which are more generous than the statutory minimum half-fare requirement. That amount has been provided by central Government in the local government finance settlement 2003–04. It is estimated that extending the statutory minimum half-fare travel concession to men aged 60–64 would have cost about £30 million.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much is being provided by the Government to(a) the London borough of Redbridge, (b) the London borough of Waltham Forest and (c) all local authorities to help fund the travel concessions for men aged 60 to 65; and if he will make a statement. [107749]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have provided an extra £50 million in the local government finance settlement 2003–04 to cover the additional cost of concessionary travel for men aged 60—64 in England. This amount is distributed by Formula Spending Shares in the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block, which take into account various factors such as deprivation and population density and sparsity. Because the distribution of this £50 million was considered alongside other costs falling on local authorities in deriving the formulae, it is not possible to provide a meaningful FSS allocation for individual authorities.

  Websites
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the(a) cost of and (b) number of visitors to each website operated by his Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which his Department is responsible in each year since its establishment. [107604]

  Mr. Jamieson
  For details of the cost of my Department's main web site (www.dft.gov.uk), I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 25 March 2003,Official Report, column 119W.

  During the period 1 July (when individual statistics were first available for my Department"s web site) to 31 March 2003 the total number of page impressions was 13,881,841.

  Calculation of the cost of, and the number of page impressions for, every web site operated by my Department, each agency and non-departmental public body for which my Department is responsible could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what policy on(a) core hours and (b) flexible working hours is operated by his Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which his Department is responsible. [107650]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the Department and most of its agencies and NDPBs staff are required to work a 36 hour week in London and 37 hour week out of London. Core hours vary according to business need, but are usually between 10am and 4pm.

  Staff may agree with their line managers to operate flexible working hours. This system normally requires staff to be in the office between 10am and 12 noon and from 2pm to 4pm, although there are regional variations.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Employment Act
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to monitor and review section 47 of the Employment Act 2002 on flexible working arrangements for employees with family responsibilities. [107223]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government will start to review the impact of the new law relating to flexible working for eligible parents, three years after its introduction on 6 April 2003.

  To ensure that we have a sound evidence base for this review, we have recently carried out two extensive baseline surveys of employers and employees. The results are currently being analysed and the detailed findings will be published in the summer of 2003. Provisional executive summaries of the headline results are available on the DTI website www.dti.gov.uk/

  163W
  workingparents. We plan to repeat these surveys in 2006 so that we can directly assess the changes in the availability of flexible working provisions.

  In addition to this research, we intend to repeat the Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS), which was last carried out in 1998. We expect headline findings to be available in 2005 with full publication in 2006. This will provide a comprehensive overview of workplace practices before and after the new working parents legislation. We will also be involving our key stakeholders in the monitoring process, receiving ongoing feedback and building their experiences into our assessment of the new law.

  Liberian Timber
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 24 March 2003,Official Report, column 33W, if she will take steps to prevent Liberian timber being sold in the UK. [106669]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UN imposed sanctions on Liberia as a result of the Liberian Government"s complicity in fuelling the conflict in Sierra Leone. Liberia remains a serious threat to the stability of the sub-region. We believe sanctions should be maintained until Liberia stops its destabilising efforts in the region and meets in full the demands of the UN Security Council.

  We share the concern of the UN Panel of Experts that the revenues from timber sales are being used to fund arms purchases in breach of UN sanctions. In resolution 1408(2002) the UN Security Council called on the Government of Liberia to undertake the audit of shipping and timber revenues and to use the revenues from the timber trade for social, development and humanitarian purposes.

  We have played a leading role in trying to restrict the Government of Liberia's sanction-busting activities. We will be calling for the Council to examine all sources of revenue, including timber sales, used to make arms purchases, and to consider ways of addressing the problem in order to prevent the Liberian regime from making illicit arms purchases.

  The Government support the Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (AFLEG) process, which calls on all African governments and trading partners to take action to control illegal activities in the logging sector and associated trade. The UK will be represented at an AFLEG conference in April 2003 to push this process forward.

  Post Office Card Account
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what safeguards have been put in place to protect Post Office card account PIN numbers when an account holder has nominated a home care worker to collect benefits for them; [105258]

  (2) what milestones have been set for the procurement and implementation of the software and systems supporting the Post Office card account. [105259]
  164W
  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter which falls within the day-to-day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Adoption Regulations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received about the Statutory Paternity Pay (Adoption) and Statutory Adoption Pay (Adoption from Overseas) Regulations. [107789]

  Alan Johnson
  The Statutory Paternity Pay (Adoption) and Statutory Adoption Pay (Adoption from Overseas) Regulations set out how Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay will apply to those adopting a child from overseas. This scheme is broadly the same as that for domestic adopters but for practical reasons there are some technical changes.

  We held three formal public exercises on the scheme for domestic adopters—on the initial Work and Parents Green Paper, on subsequent detailed framework documents and finally on draft regulations—as well as holding numerous meetings at both ministerial and official level with the key interested parties.

  As part of our formal consultation on the domestic adoption provisions, we asked interested parties to give us any suggestions for the overseas adoption process. We have since been working closely with those who identified themselves—including adoption agencies and adoption support groups, employer groups, specialist lawyers, the Inland Revenue and the Department of Health to devise a suitable way to apply the legislation to those who adopt a child from overseas.

  Animal Welfare
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 20 March 2003,Official Report, columns 1068–69, on animal welfare, if she will ban the import of products containing dog or cat fur. [107687]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 7 April 2003]: No. My noble Friend, the Minister for Trade and Investment, is investigating possibilities for labelling any such products.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many arms licences have been revoked as a result of investigations into breaches of licences since the Export Control Act 2002 came into force; and how many such investigations have(a) opened and (b) been completed since the Act came into force. [106033]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Export Control Act 2002 is not yet in force.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reasons underlie the provisions in the draft Orders under the Export Control Act 2002 which provide for an extraterritorial
  165W
  element in certain circumstances, but not for the (a) sale and (b) brokering of sales in military or paramilitary equipment. [106078]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The draft secondary legislation does provide for controls on persons in the UK and UK persons, wherever they are located, who traffic or broker in military equipment to embargoed destinations, or in torture equipment or certain long-range missiles and their component parts to any destination.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will replace the flat-rate penalties in the draft Order under the Export Control Act 2002, for the deliberate flouting of controls on(a) arms exports, (b) technology transfer and (c) technical assistance, with fines that use an equation that ensures fines are commensurate with a company"s market capitalisation. [106080]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The penalties for deliberate breach of the transfer of technology and technical assistance controls are set out in the Draft Export of Goods, Transfer of Technology and Provision of Technical Assistance (Control) Order, on which consultation is currently under way. The penalties for deliberate breach of export controls are set out in the Customs and Excise Act 1979 (CEMA).

  Under the draft order, deliberately flouting the transfer of technology or technical assistance controls carries a penalty, upon conviction on indictment of an unlimited fine and/or a custodial sentence of up to ten years imprisonment. On summary conviction the offence carries a maximum of £5,000 fine and/or a custodial sentence of up to six months. Deliberate breach of export controls carries the same penalties under CEMA.

  It is a matter for the courts to determine the level of the fine.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the benefits of extending the Trade in Controlled Goods (Control) Order and the Embargoed Destination (Sanctions) Control Order to companies and individuals involved indirectly in the trading of arms, with particular reference to(a) transportation, (b) financial services and (c) promotion. [106086]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The draft Trade (Control) Order provides for controls on activities, such as transportation, financial services and general advertising and promotion services, which facilitate the supply of equipment used in torture and Long Range Missiles to any destination. Likewise, the draft [Embargoed Destination] (Sanctions) Order provides for control on these activities which facilitate the supply of military equipment to embargoed destinations.

  The Department of Trade and Industry is presently consulting on the proposed secondary legislation to be made under the Export Control Act 2002.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the end-use arms control system used by the US State Department; and what assessment she has made of the merits of adopting a similar system in the UK. [106097]
  166W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are aware of the US State Department's system of post-export checks on strategic goods. We believe that the current system of careful pre-licensing checks is the best suited for the UK. We are looking into the US system to help inform the Government's view of its merits, in comparison to the system which the Government already operate.

  Cuba
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on trade relations with Cuba. [106666]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The UK's trade relations with Cuba are good. UK exports to Cuba were worth £11.3 million in 2002, against imports of £8.1 million. The UK's principal exports were industrial machinery and manufactured goods, while the main imports were sugar, citrus, rum and cigars.

  European Regional Policy
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what responses she has received from other European countries to her paper on the future of European Regional Policy; [107491]

  (2) what steps the Government are taking to gather support among other European countries for their recently published paper on the future of EU regional policy. [107492]

  Alan Johnson
  "A modern regional policy for the United Kingdom" was published on 6 March and opened a UK-wide consultation on the future of EU regional policy after 2006. The consultation paper has been sent to representatives of both current member states and the accession countries, inviting their views.

  No formal responses to the paper have yet been received from other European countries. However, the Department and others will continue to meet with representatives of other member states during the consultation period to discuss the future of EU regional policy and beyond.

  Foreign Direct Investment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the amount of foreign direct investment in the south-east region in 2001–02. [107153]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Invest-UK recorded 139 inward investments decisions in the south-east region in 2001–02. This is based on information provided by companies at the time of announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. To avoid more bureaucracy, there is no requirement to notify Invest UK of such decisions, so these figures include only those projects where Invest UK and its regional partners were involved or, which have come to their notice. There is no requirement to notify Invest-UK of such decisions, so these figures include only those projects where Invest-UK and its regional partners were involved or, which have come to their notice.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [106258]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department does not centrally collect the information sought at the required level of detail, and to provide it would entail disproportionate cost. Where surveys are conducted which may be considered to contain an element relating to opinion polling, focus groups, or other forms of market research, it is not generally possible to identify separately the costs of that element.

  Letter from Graham Jenkins to Mr. John Bercow, dated 8 April 2003:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question 1955 tabled on 28 March 2003, about the expenditure incurred by the (a) the Secretary of State's department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research and to list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each survey.

  Opinion Polling, Focus Groups and other Market Research undertaken by SBS during 2002

  Type of work

  Purpose

  Cost £000

  Opinion Polls

  No opinion polls undertaken

  Focus Groups:

  Productivity

  How SMEs1 define and measure productivity

  15

  Regulation

  The impact of regulations (including minimum wage) on SMEs

  53

  Views of small businesses on the recommendations in the Patrick Carter Payroll Review report

  To find out the views of small businesses on the recommendations in the Patrick Carter Payroll Review report

  10

  Development of "No Nonsense Guide"

  To check that "No-Nonsense Guide" for people who set up in business meets their needs

  52

  Creative Development

  SME reaction to proposed advertising

  38

  Website Development

  To test concepts and content of businesslink.org and business.gov website developments

  190

  Other market research:

  SBS Omnibus Survey

  To gauge the needs of SMEs, their concerns and barriers to achieving their potential

  120

  Follow-up to SBS Household Survey of Entrepreneurship

  To re-contact respondents to the 2001 SBS Household Survey and find out how many of those planning to go into business had actually done so and their experiences over the year

  40

  National Client Survey 2002–03

  To measure the client experience across the Business Link Operator network, Business Link website2 and national services; to provide information on the factors which influence client satisfaction and dissatisfaction

  53

  Tracking Survey

  To check improved awareness of Business Link brand following advertising campaign

  41

  Advice dividend PR research work

  To identify the value to SMEs of business advice

  29

  Total

  641

  1 Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

  2www.businesslink.org

  Letter from Claire Clancy to Mr. John Bercow, dated 8 April 2003:

  I am responding to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on expenditure incurred on behalf of Companies House, an Executive Agency of the DTI.

  Companies House has commissioned one piece of market research in 2002 as part of our microfiche migration project. The
  168W
  In 2002, as an Agency, the Patent Office did not incur any expenditure on opinion polling, focus groups or other forms of market research. The Intellectual Property Advisory Committee (IPAC) which is a NDPB for which the Patent Office provides funds and secretarial support incurred expenditure of £3300 on market research.

  Surveys commissioned in 2002 were a telephone survey of customers using the Patent Office Central Enquiry Unit to determine grass-roots intelligence on customer needs, and a survey on enforcement run by the Intellectual Property Advisory Committee.

  Letter from Martin Wyn Griffith to Mr. John Bercow, dated 8 April 2003:

  Your Parliamentary Question to Mrs Hewitt asked 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. I am replying on behalf of the Small Business Service (SBS).

  Relevant expenditure by the SBS is set out in the Table attached.

  I should explain that the Table covers work commissioned by the SBS itself. Business Link Operators, who provide local advice to small businesses under contract to the SBS and other organisations, also carry out surveys of their small business customers to identify their customers' needs and to assess customer satisfaction. The attached Table does not cover work commissioned by Business Link Operators.

  research was conducted into our existing microfiche customers to establish the purchasing habits of those customers and to enable us to migrate them onto electronic delivery. The research was conducted by DVL Smith which is part of the Incepta Group at a cost of £40,825.

  There has been no expenditure on opinion polling or focus groups.
  169W
  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. John Bercow, dated 8 April 2003:

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply to your question requesting information on expenditure incurred in 2002 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and to list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each.

  The Insolvency Service maintains a National Consultative User Group and an Insolvency Practitioner User Group. Members of those groups give their time and travel costs at no expense to The Service. During 2002 we spent a total of £186 on light refreshments at user group meetings. No market research or survey's have been commissioned.

  Letter from lain MacGregor to Mr. John Bercow, dated 8 April 2003:

  The Secretary for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) to your question on 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.

  The National Weights and Measures Laboratory has not incurred any expenditure in the year 2002 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research.

  Name of Survey

  Purpose

  Cost/£000

  Survey of current radio-related research in UK and Europe

  Purpose: to identify organisations that have radio expertise in industry, academia and consultants

  39

  Demand study on Digital TV

  To help estimate the demand of radio spectrum caused by digital TV

  77

  Demand study on Cellular Mobile

  To help estimate the demand of radio spectrum by cellular mobile devices

  53

  Private Mobile Radio Survey

  To help estimate the demand of radio spectrum by private business radio users

  60

  Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the(a) funded and (b) unfunded public sector pension schemes for which her Department, its agencies and its non-departmental public bodies are responsible; when the last actuarial valuation was of each scheme; what the value was of the assets at the last actuarial valuation of each scheme; what deficit is disclosed by the last actuarial valuation of each scheme; and if she will make a statement. [104921]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department, its agencies, and most of its non-department public bodies (NDPBs) subscribe to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). There is no participation in the management of the scheme's assets and liabilities and the Department"s, its agencies" and NDPBs" contributions to the scheme are determined by the scheme.

  £ million

  As at 31 March 2002

  Name of pension scheme

  Date of last valuation

  Notional value of assets

  Liabilities

  Surplus (deficit)

  UKAEA pension schemes

  The Combined Pension Scheme

  31 March 2000

  4,570.8

  2,613.0

  1,957.8

  The Principal Non-Industrial Superannuation Scheme

  31 March 1998

  545.2

  320.0

  225.2

  The Protected Persons Superannuation Scheme

  31 March 1999

  75.5

  35.0

  40.5

  Research Council's pension scheme

  31 March 1997

  979.0

  842.0

  137.0

  170W
  Letter from Roger Heathcote to Mr. John Bercow, dated 8 April 2003:

  You tabled a question on 28 March 2003 to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, asking what expenditure has been incurred by her (a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental bodies in 2002 on (i) opinion poll, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if she will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Employment Tribunals Service which is an Executive Agency of the DTI.

  The Employment Tribunals Service has incurred no expenditure on opinion polls, focus groups or other forms of market research in 2002.

  Letter from Rolande Anderson to Mr. John Bercow, dated 8 April 2003:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to provide the following information in respect of the Radiocommunications Agency in response to your Parliamentary Question 2002/1955 asking her 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.

  The Radiocommunications Agency commissioned the following studies in 2002. They all fall under the category of 'other forms of market research':

  Some of the regional development agencies (RDAs), NDPBs sponsored by the Department, participate in the English Partnerships Pension Scheme. Again there is no participation in the management of the scheme's assets and liabilities, the RDAs contributions to the scheme are determined by the scheme.

  The Department and NDPBs also operate a number of unfunded pension schemes. There is no fund of investments for these schemes. However, the schemes are run and accounts prepared as though a fund does exist. There are notional portfolios of investments that are deemed to be similar to that of a sample of UK funded pension schemes and the notional investment return and market value are determined by reference to the average performance of such a portfolio. The schemes are subject to review by the Government Actuary's Department.

  The unfunded pension schemes are as follows:
  171W
  The Medical Research Council, an NDPB of the Department, operates a funded pension scheme: The Medical Research Council Pension Scheme. The scheme is subject to review by the Government Actuary's Department. The last actuarial valuation for the scheme was completed in respect of the scheme's position at 31 March 2001. At the date of the latest actuarial valuation, the market value of the assets was £596 million. There was a deficit of assets over liabilities of £12.5 million.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department is providing funds for the payment of bonuses to network development managers who achieve a target number of Post Office branch closures under the Urban Network Reinvention Programme; and what the value of each bonus is. [107377]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 4 April 2003]: The Department is providing funds only for compensation payments and investment grants under the Urban Network Reinvention Programme. Post Office Ltd. is funding its costs for administering the programme. Decisions relating to staff management and remuneration arrangements are operational matters for Post Office Ltd. (POL), and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to write direct to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the additional subsidy to the rural post office network announced in late 2002 will be paid to rural sub-postmasters as extra pay; and how much will be given to Post Office Ltd. to run the rural network. [107379]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 4 April 2003]: Rural post offices across the UK will benefit from the £450 million package of financial support for the rural post office network that I announced on 2 December 2002. £66 million per annum will be used to maintain income levels for sub-postmasters (through maintaining the "assigned office payment' (AOP), which is the fixed part of sub-postmaster pay). £79 million in year 1, and £74 million per annum in years 2 and 3 will be used to fund the front line services necessary for every rural post office to operate, including IT and cash handling and distribution. Additionally, there will be a flexible fund of £25 million—£5 million in the first year and £10 million per annum for years 2 and 3—to modernise service delivery and pilot innovative ways of delivering services.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations she has made to the European Commission regarding the delay in granting confirmation for the £450 million government support for rural post offices; [108133]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the progress made in securing European Commission confirmation
  172W
  for the £450 million government aid for rural post offices. [108134]

  Mr. Timms
  The £450 million of assistance for the rural post office network announced in December for the period beginning April 2003–06 is subject to State Aid approval. We submitted our notification to the Commission in December for clearance.

  The timetable for state aid clearance is a matter for the European Commission. DTI is working to ensure that the questions and issues raised by the Commission are responded to as quickly as possible. We are confident in our case and anticipate approval in due course.

  Staff Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in 2002. [106732]

  Ms Hewitt
  In my Department and its agencies in 2002, 178 people were allocated 795.5 days. Not all the allocations were taken up. The cost of paid leave was £37,000.

  Information for non-departmental public bodies is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Street Works
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have taken place with the Department of Transport with reference to proposed street works legislation. [107809]

  Mr. Timms
  There have been various discussions at ministerial and official level as to the scope of future street works legislation, including with interested parties.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what policy on(a) core hours and (b) flexible working hours is operated by her Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which her Department is responsible. [107608]

  Ms Hewitt
  In my Department and its agencies the standard working week is 41 hours gross (36 net of lunch breaks) in London and 42 hours gross (37 net) outside of London.

  It is left for individual management units to determine core hours on the basis of the business needs of the Unit. We actively encourage flexible working, both in terms of hours worked and in the way in which the work is done.

  Comparable information is not held centrally in respect of non-departmental public bodies and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  AIDS (Southern Africa)
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how the Government intend to contribute to the fight against the spread of the AIDS epidemic in southern Africa and the treatment of those who have contracted it. [107164]

  Clare Short
  HIV/AIDS is a major challenge in southern Africa, and is a priority for my Department's funding in the region. DFID's programmes include support for prevention, treatment, care and support, and mitigating the impact of HIV/AIDS. My Department has approved large new commitments to combat HIV/AIDS in Malawi, Mozambique and Zimbabwe; a new £30 million, four-year multisectoral HIV/AIDS programme for South Africa is awaiting approval. We also support a SADC HIV/AIDS programme (£7.5 million over four years) covering Lesotho, Swaziland, Namibia and Botswana, and have recently approved a further £6 million for work across Africa to support connections between on-going regional work and funding some new regional initiatives, such as working on orphans and vulnerable children. In addition to direct support for HIV/AIDS programmes, DFID is increasingly mainstreaming efforts to combat HIV/AIDS into all development programmes.

  We have also contributed significantly to the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria from which many of the countries of southern Africa will benefit.

  Child Prostitution (Cambodia)
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she plans to take to tackle the organised abuse, trafficking and prostitution of children in Cambodia as part of the child-sex tourism industry in the Far East. [107163]

  Clare Short
  We take the trafficking, abuse and exploitation of children in Cambodia, and the Far East, very seriously. Children from poor and uneducated families are most at risk. Our support for programmes to reduce poverty will have an impact in the longer term. In the meantime we are also supporting more direct action.

  DFID has been funding the International Labour Organisation's International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour to combat trafficking of children and women in the Greater Mekong Sub Region for three years and is now supporting it for another five—making a total contribution of over £7 million. The programme covers Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos and the Yunnan Province of China. It aims to work with governments, NGOs, the private sector and trade unions to promote awareness of the dangers of trafficking, to provide alternative livelihood options and to help governments reach agreements on how to tackle cross border issues.

  DFID is also funding a three-year £1.66 million Save the Children Fund-UK initiative that began in early 2003 to reduce the incidence and impact of trafficking of
  174W
  children. This programme includes all the above countries as well as Myanmar. Its focus is on promoting grass roots initiatives to bring families out of poverty.

  Through the British embassy in Phnom Penh the UK Government are working with Non Government Organisations to publicise the dangers to families and children at risk, including street children. There is work with the Cambodian police to detect and disrupt paedophile activity. And in the UK, courts now have powers to deal with British citizens who commit sex offences with children abroad.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the reoccupation of Bunia in the Democratic Republic of Congo by Ugandan troops; what talks her Department has had with the Rwandan Government in relation to the possibility that it may launch a new offensive in the DRC; and if she will make a statement. [107546]

  Clare Short
  We are deeply concerned about the Ugandan occupation of Bunia on 6 March and have told the Government of Uganda in the clearest terms that it should withdraw its army from Ituri immediately. We have also urged restraint on Rwanda in strong terms.

  European Commission Budgets
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the European Commission issued calls for proposals for budget line B7-6312; and if she will make a statement. [107575]

  Clare Short
  Budget line B7–6312 (Aid for Population and Reproductive Health in Developing Countries) is intended to support innovative approaches for the reduction of maternal mortality. The call for proposals under this budget line for 2002 was not issued in January 2003 as previously advised, due to unforeseen administrative difficulties. The call for proposals will now be made in early May 2003.

  Guinea and Liberia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial resources she has allocated to the refugee camps on the border between Guinea and Liberia. [108038]

  Clare Short
  Within the last month I have approved around £4 million for humanitarian assistance in the Mano River Union countries. This was in response to the UN Consolidated Appeals for countries of the region. Within this sum there is a strong emphasis on assistance to both refugees and internally displaced people located in the border areas between Guinea and Liberia. The funds have been channelled mainly through UN agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

  Haitian Immigrants
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what financial resources her Department has allocated to illegal Haitian immigrants with HIV/AIDS; [107278]
  175W
  (2) what financial resources her Department has allocated to Haitian refugees in the Turks and Caicos Islands for each year since 1997. [107286]

  Clare Short
  According to the Governor's Office in Turks and Caicos Islands, there currently are only two registered refugees in the islands, neither of whom is Haitian. My Department has allocated no financial resources for Haitian refugees in the Islands since 1997.

  Our development assistance is not allocated by specific population groups within the Turks and Caicos Islands. In consultation with the Islands" authorities, we are developing a programme of support to improve the quality and equity of access to health care for all. The Islands" Government already has an established National AIDS Control Programme, which is addressing the HIV/AIDS problem. This includes ongoing education and information work, which takes account of language differences, to ensure that key messages about HIV/AIDS risks reach the whole population. The Turks and Caicos Islands also benefit from our support to the Caribbean Epidemiology Centre for HIV/AIDS prevention, to which we have allocated £1.7 million for the period 2002 to 2005.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate her Department has made of the number of Haitian immigrants in the Turks and Caicos Islands who have HIV/AIDS. [107282]

  Clare Short
  There is no segregation of numbers of Haitian immigrants within the Turks and Caicos Islands population for the purposes of the national HIV/AIDS surveillance system. According to the data from the Caribbean Epidemiology Centre, the HIV prevalence in the Turks and Caicos Islands population as a whole was estimated in 2001 to be 5 per cent., as compared to the Caribbean average of 2 per cent. The estimated number of people infected with HIV/AIDS in the Turks and Caicos Islands by the end of 2001 was 972, comprising nine children, 459 women and 504 men.

  HIPC
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the Government will be issuing a response to the World Bank"s recent evaluation of the heavily indebted poor country initiative. [106186]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  The World Bank Operations Evaluation Department"s recent review of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) was prepared to inform donor and recipient countries of progress to date and make some key recommendations for strengthening the Initiative. It is not a report to the UK Government specifically and as such does not require a formal response. We are, nevertheless, considering the OED"s recommendations.

  The Government acknowledges that debt relief is not a panacea for broader economic development problems; even the provision of 100 per cent. debt relief to all low-income countries would still fall short of the resources needed to meet the Millennium Development Goals. That is why the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development have proposed an
  176W
  International Finance Facility (IFF) that would seek to double the amount of development aid from just over US$50 billion a year today to $100 billion per year in the years to 2015.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to ensure the additionality of heavily indebted poor country funding. [106187]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  Virtually all of the debts of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries to the UK Government are owed to the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD). The UK participates fully in the enhanced HIPC initiative under which bilateral creditors are typically required to offer 90 per cent. debt relief. These costs are borne entirely by ECGD and hence are additional to any aid spending by the UK.

  The UK goes further than is required under the HIPC initiative and always provides 100 per cent. debt relief. The Department for International Development (DfID) reimburses ECGD for the cost of this additional bilateral voluntary debt relief. To ensure that funding for the HIPC Initiative is additional these costs are carefully considered and agreed in each spending review.

  However, even the provision of 100 per cent. debt relief to all low-income countries would still fall short of the resources needed to meet the Millennium Development Goals. For this reason the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development have proposed an International Finance Facility (IFF) that would seek to double the amount of development aid from just over US$50 billion a year today to $100 billion per year in the years to 2015.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what resources are set aside in her Department's contingency reserve for 2003–04; what assessment she has made of the impact of allocating a significant proportion of the contingency reserve for the next financial year to humanitarian support for Iraq on her Department"s ability to respond effectively to other global emergencies; whether she expects her Department"s contingency reserve for 2003–04 to be replenished by the Treasury; what bids for additional funding for humanitarian activities in Iraq she has made to the Treasury; and if she will make a statement on how her Department spent its contingency reserve in 2002–03. [107581]

  Clare Short
  DFID"s contingency reserve for 2003–04 has been set at £100 million, of which £75 million has been earmarked for Iraq. We have allocated £15 million to Iraq from other DFID budgets and have been allocated an additional £120 million from the Treasury reserve for expenditure on Iraq.

  We have made clear that we will not redirect funds to Iraq from other emergencies like Southern Africa, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Afghanistan or the West Bank and Gaza; nor will we divert funds from programmes supporting development for poor people elsewhere.
  177W
  We started 2002–03 with a contingency reserve of £50 million. During the year allocations were made from the reserve to augment our response to the food shortages in Southern Africa, to provide humanitarian aid and initial rehabilitation assistance in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan and Ethiopia, and for emergency assistance in the Palestinian territories.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many internally displaced people there are in northern Iraq. [107942]

  Clare Short
  Recent reports from the UN Office for Project services (UNOPS) indicate that an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 people have been newly displaced in northern Iraq since the onset of the current crisis though some have returned to their homes. Approximately 90 per cent. of these are staying with families or friends. The needs of the remainder are being met by local authorities and humanitarian agencies. UNOPS is currently undertaking a comprehensive survey of internally displaced people in the north. Results will be noted in DFID's Iraq Updates as soon as they are available.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on(a) food shortages and (b) water shortages in northern Iraq. [107943]

  Clare Short
  The World Food Programme (WFP) reports that food stocks have been diminishing in northern Iraq. Recent reports indicate that WFP have delivered 850 tonnes of wheat flour to northern Iraq from Turkey. This is the first part of an initial 6,000 metric tonne consignment expected to be delivered in the coming days. 12 further UNICEF trucks are also en route to the north.

  We have received no reports of significant water shortages in the north. Water for internally displaced people camps is being provided by UN agencies, NGOs and local authorities.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether deliveries of emergency food and medical supplies to support internally displaced people in northern Iraq have been subjected to delays; and if she will make a statement. [107944]

  Clare Short
  The Turkish authorities acknowledge that delays have occurred with cross-border movements of supplies into northern Iraq. However, we understand that these have now eased. The World Food Programme, UNICEF, and NGOs have been able to cross the border into northern Iraq with supplies in recent days. We are monitoring the situation closely.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what advice her Department has given the Ministry of Defence regarding food distribution in southern Iraq. [107945]

  Clare Short
  DFID has seconded two humanitarian advisers to UK forces. They are advising the military on a range of issues, including appropriate food supplies and distribution mechanisms.
  178W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans are in place to restore electricity supplies in Basra in order that sewage treatment and water pumping can resume. [107946]

  Clare Short
  The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), in collaboration with local authorities, has succeeded in restoring much of the water supply in and around Basra, though significant problems remain. The main water pumping station is currently running on six back up generators as a temporary measure. Work is under way to restore the mains electricity supply. The UK has offered assistance.

  Organ Sales
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to deter the sale of organs in under-developed countries to visitors from developed countries. [106082]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Human Organ Transplant Act, 1989 prohibits, in the United Kingdom, commercial dealings in human organs, places restrictions upon transplants between living persons who are not genetically related and requires certain information to be supplied about transplant operations.

  Most countries with organ transplant programmes also have legislation banning payments for organ donation. There are formal arrangements in place between European transplant organisations to ensure that when an organ cannot be used in the originating country it is offered for use to patients in other European countries.

  Renewable Energy Programmes
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department will provide for capacity building programmes for implementation of(a) research and development and (b) installation of renewable energy and low carbon technologies in (i) developing and (ii) less developed countries; and how the United Kingdom plans to assist scientific and engineering development in sustainable energy technologies in these countries. [107585]

  Clare Short
  Much of my Department's work on renewable energy is undertaken through our Knowledge and Research (KaR) programme, which has, over recent years, included both technical and institutional issues to promote their use in developing countries. The technologies have included solar, wind, biomass and small hydropower. All such projects have a substantial capacity building approach, working as far as possible with organisations in developing countries. We have a public website listing and giving details of past and current renewable energy projects funded through the KaR programme—www.etsu.com/dfid-kar-energy/.

  Our overall approach to energy for development is to encourage consideration of the full menu of options to

  179W
  improve access to affordable energy services, not limiting this to renewable sources. This is reflected in an Issues Document, Energy for the Poor, which was released by this Department at the World Summit for Sustainable Development last September.

  In addition to our KaR programme, my Department also contributes and participates in the multi-donor Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme (ESMAP), which is a global technical assistance programme supported by the World bank and UNDP as well as other governments. The work being undertaken through ESMAP includes building local research and development capacity in developing countries in sustainable energy and renewable energy technologies. The work of ESMAP can be seen on their website www.worldbank.org/esmap.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her assessment is of the humanitarian situation in Rwanda. [107712]
  180W
  Clare Short
  Rwanda is a very poor country with a recent history of genocide and great humanitarian needs. Scores against basic humanitarian indicators place Rwanda in the bottom half of most rankings within sub-Saharan Africa. However, the country is recovering from the genocide, and substantial development resources are being deployed in an attempt to lift its people out of poverty.

  Earlier this year, unseasonably dry conditions over southern and eastern Rwanda in February and early March 2003 raised concerns about food security. However, an assessment in early March found that most household coping strategies (e.g. casual work and informal cross-border trade) were working well. Rains came in mid-March and food insecurity has since eased across the country.

  We believe that our long-term development partnerships with Rwanda is the best way of achieving a sustained reduction in poverty. The UK committed £35million to Rwanda in the last financial year in addition to our contribution to multilateral funding.

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment he has made of the value of leaflets on drugs and young people"s health provided by the organisation Connexions; what public funding for that organisation is provided by his Department; and if he will make a statement; [107571]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the value of leaflets on drugs and young people"s health provided by the organisation Connexions; what public funding for that organisation is provided by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [107572]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 7 April 2003]: Connexions does not produce advisory leaflets on drugs and health issues at a national level. The Connexions Service through its 47 Partnerships in England provides front line advice and support to young people, working closely with other government departments and other public agencies delivering services to young people. Where specialist help is needed by a young person including in the areas of drugs or health, Connexions personal advisers broker access to this specialist support. It is up to Connexions Partnerships to decide

  Percentage

  1 GCE/VCE A-level pass

  1 to 3 GCE/VCE A-level passes

  England

  Buckinghamshire constituencies

  England

  Buckinghamshire constituencies

  Independent schools

  9.5

  4.5

  76.2

  87.2

  Maintained schools and FE sector colleges

  22.4

  13.7

  74.8

  76.7

  All institutions

  20.6

  12.9

  75.0

  77.7

  Admission Policies
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the payments made to Electoral Reform services in respect of(a) the preparation for and (b) the conduct of parental ballots on selective secondary schools' admission policies in each of the last five years. [105839]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations came into effect on 3 December 1998. To date, £1,102,945 has been paid to Electoral Reform Services, the bulk of which is passed on to schools in the form of grants to cover costs in providing information to the company. The payments have been made as follows:

  £

  Petition Year

  (a) Preparation for ballots

  (b) Conduct of ballots

  Total for year

  1998–99

  22,778,81

  0

  22,778.81

  1999–2000

  216,283.51

  1,780.07

  218,063.58

  2000–01

  58,285.36

  0

  58,285.36

  2001–02

  438,099.66

  0

  438,099.66

  2002–031

  365,717.66

  0

  365,717.66

  1So far

  Archaeology
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans his Department has to
  182W
  on the most appropriate use of resources to meet the needs of young people in their area and they may choose to develop leaflets for young people where they see a need, in co-operation with local partners.

  Overall funding available for Connexions in 2003–04 is £457.7 million, which is provided under DfES"s Spending Review settlement.

  A-level Results
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of students achieved(a) one and (b) one to three A-E grades at A level (i) in England and (ii) at schools and colleges based in the Buckinghamshire constituency in 2001–02; and if he will break down those figures between (A) independent schools and colleges and (B) state schools and colleges. [106984]

  Mr. Miliband
  The percentage of students achieving(a) one and (b) one to three A-E grades at GCE/VCE A level in independent schools and in maintained schools and FE sector colleges both in England and Buckinghamshire constituencies in 2001–02 is as follows:

  (a) increase the teaching of archaeology in schools and (b) make pre-history part of all national curricula. [107846]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  There are no current plans for the Department to increase the teaching of archaeology in schools or to increase the references to pre-history within the National Curriculum.

  The teaching of aspects of archaeological study and of pre-history are already included as part of the Programmes of Study for History which is a compulsory part of the National Curriculum in England for all pupils in years 1–9, that is key stages one to three.

  Assaults on Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many assaults on staff by(a) pupils and (b) parents have taken place in each year since 1997; and in how many cases was a conviction obtained. [106956]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  As the hon. Member has been told in previous answers (on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 402W and 28 January 2002, Official Report, column 128W), the Department does not collect this information. Injuries that lead to an absence from work of three days or more must, however, be reported to the Health and Safety Executive. Information

  183W
  available from the Executive shows that all reportable assaults in the education sector in Great Britain totaled 160 in 1999–2000, 171 in 2000–01 and provisionally 143 in 2001–02; there are no figures for the related numbers of convictions.

  Autism
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school age children were recognised as being on the autistic spectrum, and what proportion they constituted of(a) children with special needs and (b) all school age children in each local education authority in England and Wales in each local education authority in England and Wales in each year since 1997. [105865]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not currently available centrally.

  At present, there is no requirement for schools to submit information in the Annual Schools" Census on the nature of such pupils" disability or learning difficulty. However, in June 2001, the Department carried out a pilot study involving a sample of 200 mainstream and special schools to assess whether it would be possible to collect data from schools on a broad range of types of special educational needs (SEN). From January 2004 the Department is planning to ask schools and local education authorities to provide this information.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total level of capital support was for classroom replacement in each education authority in England in 2002. [107319]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given on 24 February 2003,Official Report, columns 338–41W.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what help was given to local education authorities in Somerset for the capital cost of replacing classrooms in each of the last three years. [107321]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given on 24 February 2003,Official Report, columns 338–41W. Allocations so far for Somerset for 2003–04 total some £19.2 million.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money has been allocated for capital expenditure in Selby in North Yorkshire in each year since 1996 through(a) the New Deal for Schools and (b) the local authority capital allocation; and if he will make a statement. [107038]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department allocates capital funding to local education authorities (LEAs) and their schools and not to individual towns or constituencies. Capital funding for North Yorkshire LEA is set out in the following table:

  £ million

  Year

  Total capital

  Of which New Deal for Schools1

  1996–97

  4.0

  —

  1997–98

  5.4

  1.0

  184W

  £ million

  Year

  Total capital

  Of which New Deal Schools1

  1998–99

  7.5

  1.4

  1999–2000

  10.6

  3.2

  2000–01

  229.1

  12.1

  2001–02

  15.3

  6.4

  2002–03

  20.9

  11.5

  2003–04

  34.1

  17.3

  Total

  126.9

  52.8

  1Includes bid-based New Deal for Schools (NDS) up to 2000–01, and formulaic funding for NDS Devolved Formula (from 2000–01), Condition (from 2001–02) and Modernisation (from 2002–03).

  2Includes £7.2 million Private Finance Initiative (PFI) allocation.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what help is given to local education authorities in Somerset for teachers of dyslexia; and what the average size of grants for statemented children was in the last three years. [107320]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Funding is not made available to support specific categories of special educational needs, nor is it made available directly for statemented children. Rather, funding is allocated and distributed via LEAs, who have a duty to provide appropriately for all children in their area, including children with statements.

  Opportunities for professional development for teachers are supported through the special educational needs standard fund grant, from which Somerset LEA has received £1.9 million in the years 2001–04. One of this grant's objectives is to support special educational needs and disability training and professional development for teachers, learning support assistants and other staff. This is in addition to the £614.5 million Somerset has received in Education Formula Spending Share (previously known as Education Standard Spending Assessment) in 2001–04. It is for individual LEAs and schools to decide how they spend this funding, taking account of their statutory duties towards children with special educational needs.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills of the 36 LEAs which received increased budget announced on 25 March, which were in receipt of(a) the floor in their grant settlement, (b) the ceiling in their grant settlement and (c) the maximum amount possible of standards fund awards now consolidated into their budget; what was (i) the highest, (ii) the lowest and (iii) the average amount each LEA received in respect of standards fund moneys; in relation to an amount equivalent to consolidated standards fund money for each of the 36 LEAs, by how much does additional grant (A) fall below and (B) exceed that amount; and if he will make a statement. [107217]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 4 April 2003]: It is not possible to answer the Question in precisely the way it

  185W
  has been asked. The table sets out the information requested in relation to (a) and (b). It also sets out (c) the reduction in Standards Fund grant between 2002–03 and 2003–04 as a result of the Government's commitment to reduce ringfenced funding for schools (d) the difference on a like-for-like basis between the total resources available for schools in 2002–03 and 2003–04 and (e) the level of additional grant announced on 25 March. The purpose of the additional funding is not to compensate authorities for the loss of individual Standards Fund grants but to to ensure that the effective increase in total education funding for LEAs and schools between 2002–03 and 2003–04 is no less than 3.2 per cent. per pupil for all authorities.

  £ million

  Grant settlement

  SF grant reduction

  Total increase

  Extra grant

  Barking and Dagenham

  1.655

  5.075

  1.128

  Bedfordshire

  2.599

  9.452

  0.135

  Bexley

  Floor

  2.037

  2.741

  1.492

  Bournemouth

  Floor

  0.594

  2.039

  0.140

  Brighton and Hove

  Floor

  1.368

  2.822

  0.960

  Bromley

  Floor

  2.456

  6.139

  0.815

  Camden

  1.997

  1.576

  1.168

  Croydon

  Floor

  2.918

  6.226

  1.302

  Dorset

  Floor

  1.452

  8.932

  0.318

  East Sussex

  Floor

  2.887

  11.369

  0.110

  Enfield

  2.527

  6.073

  1.147

  Essex

  Floor

  7.723

  38.500

  1.162

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Floor

  1.723

  1.589

  0.886

  Hampshire

  Floor

  6.668

  28.668

  0.278

  Haringey

  Floor

  3.285

  2.648

  1.330

  Havering

  Floor

  1.799

  3.282

  1.089

  Hertfordshire

  5.932

  23.261

  1.000

  Isle of Wight Council

  0.882

  2.531

  0.110

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Floor

  1.006

  2.364

  0.288

  Knowsley

  2.817

  0.568

  0.736

  Lambeth

  2.609

  7.227

  1.282

  Leicestershire

  2.325

  14.644

  0.835

  Medway

  1.867

  3.608

  1.295

  Norfolk

  5.064

  15.740

  1.595

  North East Lincolnshire

  1.153

  2.738

  0.033

  Plymouth

  Floor

  1.350

  2.665

  0.831

  Portsmouth

  Floor

  1.420

  1.446

  0.891

  Redbridge

  2.295

  5.584

  0.903

  Richmond upon Thames

  Floor

  0.996

  3.659

  0.152

  Slough

  Ceiling

  0.845

  3.417

  0.376

  Southampton

  Floor

  1.489

  1.687

  1.016

  Southend

  Floor

  1.115

  3.765

  0.358

  Suffolk

  4.006

  16.491

  0.108

  Sutton

  1.460

  5.011

  0.503

  Thurrock

  Ceiling

  1.178

  3.597

  0.308

  Waltham Forest

  Floor

  2.803

  2.984

  2.140

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to assist schools where the local education authority has passported to schools the amount expected by his Department, but the net effect of changes in the standards fund has resulted in increases to the school of less than 3.2 per cent. per pupil. [107218]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 4 April 2003]: I would refer my hon. Friend to my written statement of 26 March 2003, Official Report, column 14WS.

  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what change there has been in schools funding in Essex since 1997. [107709]
  186W
  Mr. Miliband
  Funding per pupil in Essex, including both standard spending assessments and revenue grants has increased in real terms from an average £2,790 in 1997–98 to £3,380 in 2002–03, an increase of £590 or 21 per cent. Complete figures for 2003–04 including grants are not yet available.

  International Baccalaureate
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will introduce the International Baccalaureate to schools in England instead of creating an English version of it to replace A-levels. [107927]

  Mr. Miliband
  In our policy document 14–19: "opportunity and excellence" we recognised the particular strengths of the International Baccalaureate while at the same time noting that the IB was not designed to be, and is not, a suitable model to meet the needs of the majority of young people in this country.

  The Working Group chaired by Mike Tomlinson on possible longer-term 14–19 reforms will consider the structure and delivery of the International Baccalaureate as part of its work on a unified framework of qualifications.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of(a) 16–17 and (b) 18 to 24-year-olds on modern apprenticeships are paid (i) below and (ii) above the national minimum wage. [106654]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The national minimum wage does not apply to apprentices who are under the age of 19, or to apprentices aged 19–25 and in the first 12 months of their apprenticeship. We do not routinely collect information on the wages paid to those undertaking a Modern Apprenticeship. However, the fourth report of the Low Pay Commission notes that the lowest quartile pay of apprentices aged 16–25 was £3.72 per hour according to the spring 2002 Labour Force Survey. This is above the minimum wage youth development rate.

  Ofsted Inspections
  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance is issued by his Department to Ofsted about the recommended notice to be given of school inspections. [107098]

  Mr. Miliband
  The period of notice prior to a school inspection is a matter for Ofsted. David Bell, the Chief Inspector will write to the hon. Member and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.

  School Computers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average number of pupils per computer was in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Buckingham constituency in 2002. [107097]
  187W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  It is estimated from a sample survey of schools that the average number of pupils per computer in maintained primary and secondary schools in England at 31 March 2002 was 9.7 and 6.0 respectively. The sample was not large enough to produce reliable figures for parliamentary constituencies.

  The latest information on ICT in schools was published in Statistical Bulletin 07/02 "Survey of Information and Communications Technology in

  Number of permanent exclusions: academic years 1996–97 to 2000–01 East Riding of Yorkshire local education authority

  Primary1

  Secondary1

  Special2

  Total

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population3

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school populations3

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population3

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school populations3

  1996–97

  1

  0.00

  28

  0.13

  0

  0.00

  29

  0.06

  1997–98

  1

  0.00

  22

  0.10

  1

  0.22

  24

  0.05

  1998–99

  2

  0.01

  18

  0.08

  0

  0.00

  20

  0.04

  1999–2000

  3

  0.01

  14

  0.06

  3

  0.63

  20

  0.04

  2000–0l4

  8

  0.03

  30

  0.13

  2

  0.44

  40

  0.08

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools

  3 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of pupils in primary, secondary and special schools.

  4 Permanent exclusions for 2000–01 are estimated as a number of local educational authorities have not confirmed the data for their schools.

  Information on pupils suspended (excluded for a fixed period) is not collected centrally. Following a review of data collected on exclusions, the Department is planning to collect information from local education authorities on both fixed term and permanent exclusions on a termly basis from this summer.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schoolchildren in Kent were classified as special needs pupils in each of the past five years. [105862]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  All schools: Number of pupils with special educational needs (SEN): 1998–2002 Position in January each year

  Kent local education authority

  Number of pupils with statements of SEN1

  Percentage of pupils with statements of SEN2

  Number of pupils with SEN without a statement1

  Percentage of pupils with SEN without a statement2

  19983

  8,591

  3.2

  64,319

  23.9

  1999

  7,587

  3.4

  55,209

  24.4

  2000

  8,030

  3.5

  55,627

  24.3

  20014

  8,375

  3.6

  55,195

  23.9

  20025

  8,318

  3.6

  42,471

  18.3

  1 Excludes dually registered pupils.

  2 The number of pupils with and without statements expressed as a proportion of the number of pupils on roll.

  3 Before local government reorganisation (includes Medway).

  4 Estimates were made for 2001 because the data for SEN are known to be incomplete.
  188W
  Schools 2002', which is available on the Department's website www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics and from the Library.

  School Exclusions (East Riding)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils were(a) suspended and (b) expelled from maintained schools in the East Riding of Yorkshire in each year since 1997. [105233]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information on permanent exclusions is shown in the table.

  5 Figures for 2002 are not directly comparable with those for earlier years because of the introduction of a new SEN code of practice.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the statutory instruments issued by his Department in the last 12 months, indicating(a) the purpose of each and (b) the cost of each to (i) public funds, (ii) businesses and (iii) individuals. [106317]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Supply Teachers (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many supply teachers are working in Buckinghamshire; and what percentage supply teachers represent of the total number of teachers in Buckinghamshire expressed as full-time equivalents. [106985]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the full-time equivalent (FTE) number of regular teachers and number of occasional teachers in service in the maintained schools sector in Buckinghamshire in January 2002.

  Number of teachers

  Regular teachers1

  4,030

  Occasional teachers2

  120

  All teachers

  4,150

  Occasional teachers as percentage of all teachers

  3%

  189W
  1 All teachers (FTE) on contracts of a month or more in service on the survey date (17 January 2002).

  2 Teachers on contracts of less than one month in service for the whole of the day on the survey date.

  Note:

  Teacher numbers rounded to nearest 10.

  Source:

  DfES annual 618G survey.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Baluant Singh
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the explanatory statement was sent by New Delhi to London in the case of Baluant Singh (GV100/76955/NW); and when the Home Office accepted delivery. [106932]

  Mr. Rammell
  The British High Commission in New Delhi has confirmed that no appeal has been received in the case of Mr. Balwant Singh and, therefore, no explanatory statement has either been prepared or sent.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he has entertained Labour hon. Members at public expense in the last 12 months; and at what cost. [106398]

  Mr. Straw
  As Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I have not specifically entertained any Labour hon. Members at public expense. Ministers and parliamentary private secretaries are fed in their official capacity. I have, however, included hon. Members on the guest list for various events over the last 12 months. More detailed information on the individual cost of entertaining hon. Members as part of those events is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the EU Directives and Regulations which have been implemented by his Department since 17 April 2002. [106836]

  Mr. MacShane
  None.

  Family Visitor Visas
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when entry clearance posts began electronic compilation of statistics in relation to family visitor visa(a) applications, (b) decisions and (c) appeals. [106528]

  Mr. Rammell
  The majority of posts were able to start compiling statistical information electronically on family visitor visa applications, decisions and appeals on Monday 2 October 2000. However a small percentage did not begin electronic compilation immediately. I will write to my hon. Friend once information regarding these posts has been collected.

  Graham Island
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Graham Island. [106862]

  Mr. MacShane
  Graham Island is the tip of a small volcano 30 miles off the coast of Sicily which emerges from the sea occasionally for short periods. In 1831 the Royal Navy claimed it but in 1832 it re-submerged. We doubt whether the 1831 claim subsists and have never sought to revive it. We understand that the Italian government claims the island.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of support given to the International Criminal Court by the UK. [106137]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK is a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court. It is, after Germany and France, the third largest contributor to the first budget of the Court, our assessed share being 11.4 per cent. or euros 3,740,632 (approx £2.5 million). Mr. Justice Adrian Fulford was sworn-in as a Judge of the ICC on 11 March 2003. We contribute both unilaterally and through the EU Commission to the funding of a number of NGOs working in support of the court.

  I attended the inauguration of the ICC.

  Politically, the UK continues to encourage other states to ratify or accede to the ICC, both bilaterally and with EU partners in support of the EU Common Position on the ICC.

  Iraqi Civilian Deaths
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to issue an apology to members of families of Iraqi civilians killed by Coalition forces. [106414]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Coalition forces take great care to target only regime and military targets and to minimise civilian casualties or damage to civilian infrastructure. It is impossible to guarantee that no civilians will be killed or injured. We have and continue to express our regret and sympathy for the deaths of any civilians. Our quarrel is not with the people of Iraq.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent action his Department has taken to try to find a solution to the Indo-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir. [106537]

  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. On 24 March the Foreign Secretary telephoned the Indian Foreign Minister to condemn the 23 March massacre of innocent civilians in Kashmir, and to express condolences to the victims" families. We condemn all terrorism wherever it occurs and whatever its purported justification. Violence will not solve Kashmir"s problems. While the dispute between India and Pakistan is at root a bilateral one, the United
  191W
  Kingdom and our international partners stand ready to help both countries to start a process aimed at building confidence, normalising bilateral relations and resolving outstanding differences, including Kashmir.

  In a 27 March joint United States—United Kingdom statement on the violence in Kashmir, the Foreign Secretary and the US Secretary of State Colin L. Powell encouraged both sides to consider immediately implementing a ceasefire and taking other active steps to reduce tension including by moves within the South Asia Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) context. The differences between India and Pakistan can only be resolved through peaceful means and engagement.

  Middle East
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the British Consul General was part of the European Consul Delegation of 5 March to Nablus City; and what reports he has received of the damage to the Old City in Nablus left behind by Israeli forces and its impact in(a) economic and (b) cultural terms. [106881]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  HM Consul General visited Nablus on 5 March with European colleagues. Israel Defence Force (IDF) action has had a serious effect on the town. Health and education facilities have been seriously disrupted. Homes and businesses have been destroyed, and unemployment, according to the Governor of Nablus, is 63 per cent. We have repeatedly urged the parties to implement UNSCR 1435 which calls for Israeli withdrawal and to stop destruction of Palestinian infrastructure. The roadmap offers a mechanism to help achieve this.

  Palestine
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken to produce a draft constitution for Palestinian statehood. [106652]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  At the London Conference on 14 January, the Palestinian delegation committed to draw up an outline constitution based on the principles of political pluralism, rule of law and respect for human rights, and set out a process of consultation, including a referendum. The Palestinian Constitution Committee published the first draft of the constitution of a future Palestinian state in February 2001. Further drafts have since been prepared. We understand that further public consultation is planned to refine the latest draft. A final draft will be presented for a national referendum in due course. HMG has provided legal advice and financial support for this work.

  Papua New Guinea
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his Australian counterpart on terrorist bases in Papua New Guinea. [106138]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not had any recent discussions with his Australian counterpart on terrorist bases in Papua New Guinea.

  Rough Diamond Sales/Arms Exports
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what measures the Government is taking at the UN Security Council to ensure that the embargo on rough diamond sales and arms exports, and the travel ban on key personnel from Liberia will be extended and that a ban on timber exports will be adopted when these issues are discussed in May; [105888]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the role of the Liberian timber industry in the smuggling of arms into Liberia during the current UN embargo; and if he will make a statement; [105887]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2003, Official Report, column 258W, what action the UK Government will take at the next meeting of the UN Security Council on Liberia in May on the timber industry. [106670]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UN imposed sanctions on Liberia as a result of the Liberian Governments' complicity in fuelling the conflict in Sierra Leone. Liberia remains a serious threat to the stability of the sub-region. We believe sanctions should be maintained until Liberia stops its destabilising efforts in the region and meets in full the demands of the UN Security Council.

  We share the concern of the UN Panel of Experts that the revenues from timber sales are being used to fund arms purchases in breach of UN sanctions. In resolution 1408(2002) the UN Security Council called on the Government of Liberia to undertake the audit of shipping and timber revenues and to use the revenues from the timber trade for social, development and humanitarian purposes.

  We have played a leading role in trying to restrict the Government of Liberia's sanction busting activities. We will be calling for the Council to examine all sources of revenue, including timber sales, used to make arms purchases, and to consider ways of addressing the problem in order to prevent the Liberian regime from making illicit arms purchases.

  The Government supports the Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (AFLEG) process, which calls on all African governments and trading partners to take action to control illegal activities in the logging sector and associated trade. The UK will be represented at an AFLEG Conference in April 2003 to push this process forward.

  Security Council
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the UK Government's policy is on Mr. Javier Solana's proposal for the EU to have one seat only on the Security Council. [105926]

  Mr. MacShane
  It is not the Government's understanding that Mr. Solana has proposed that the EU should have one seat only on the Security Council.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common wealth Affairs whether it is his policy that an EU common foreign policy should be explained to the UN by a single Security Council representative. [105928]
  193W
  Mr. MacShane
  This is not the Government's policy.

  Serbia and Montenegro
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had on the status of negotiations on the state union of Serbia and Montenegro. [106134]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Constitutional Charter of state union of Serbia and Montenegro was adopted by the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 4 February 2003.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed the Balkans at the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) on 18–19 March 2003. The issue was also discussed at the European Council on 21 March 2003. The UK and EU partners condemned the assassination of Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic and reinforced our support for Serbia and Montenegro in the fight against organised crime and war criminals and for SaM's further integration into Euro-Atlantic structures. The GAERC welcomed SaM's accession into the Council of Europe on 3 April 2003.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the statutory instruments issued by his Department in the last 12 months, indicating(a) the purpose of each and (b) the cost of each to (i) public funds, (ii) businesses and (iii) individuals. [106328]

  Mr. Straw
  A list of instruments issued or originated by the Foreig and Commonwealth Office and the purpose of each instrument is below. It is difficult to estimate the costs of each, but it is most unlikely that significant costs to public funds, businesses orindividuals have been involved.

  2002/111 The Afghanistan and Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order2002.

  Purpose: This Order revokes the Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) Order 200l and the Afghanistan (United Nations Measures) Order 2001 in the UK

  2002/112 The Afghanistan and Terrorism (United Nations Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2002.

  Purpose: This Order revokes the Afghanistan (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2001 and the Afghanistan (United Nations Measures) Order 2001 in the Overseas Territories

  2002/249 The Pitcairn Court of Appeal Order 2000 (Amendment) Order2002.

  Purpose: To correct an error in the Pitcairn Court of Appeal Order 2000. The form of Judicial Affirmation in the Order erroneously includes the words "So help me God." which are inappropriate for an affirmation and appropriate only to the taking of an oath.

  2002/250 The Territorial Sea Act 1987 (Jersey) (Amendment) Order 2002.

  Purpose: This Order amends the Territorial Sea Act 1987 (Jersey) Order 1997, which extended the 1987 Act to Jersey, to take account of the maritime boundary established between France and Jersey in accordance
  194W
  with an Agreement between the United Kingdom and the French Republic, signed at St. Helier on 4 July 2000 (Cm 5024).

  2002/251 The Al-Q'aida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) Order 2002.

  Purpose: This Order gives effect in the Overseas Territories to Security Council Resolution 1390(2002), under which states are required to prohibit the delivery or supply of arms and related materiel and the provision of related technical assistance and training to Usama bin Laden Al-Q'aida and the Taliban and their associates, and are also required to prohibit the making of funds available to those persons.

  2002/266 The Al-Q'aida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) (Amendment) Order 2002.

  Purpose: This Order gives effect to Security Council Resolution 1390(2002), under which states are required to prohibit the delivery or supply of arms and related materiel and the provision of related technical assistance and training to Usama in Laden, Al-Q'aida and the Taliban and their associates, and are also required to prohibit the making of funds available to those persons.

  2002/1076 The Geneva Conventions (Amendments) Act (Overseas Territories) Order 2002.

  Purpose: This Order extends to the Territories specified in Schedule 1 the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1995, subject to the exceptions and modifications specified in Schedule 2.

  2002/1077 The Overseas Territories (Zimbabwe) (Restrictive Measures Order 2002.

  Purpose: To impose certain restrictive measures against the Government of Zimbabwe and those individuals who bear a wide responsibility for the serious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in that country.

  2002/1252(c34) The British Overseas Territories Act 2002 (Commencement) Order 2002.

  Purpose: This Order brings into force those provisions of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 which are not already in force.

  2002/1618 The Consular Fees Act 1980 (Fees) Order 2002.

  Purpose: To increase visa fees in the UK.

  2002/1627 The Consular Fees Order 2002.

  Purpose: To increase existing fees for passports in the UK.

  2002/1822 The Anti Terrorism (Financial and Other Measures) (Overseas Territories) Order 2002.

  Purpose: To make provision for equivalent legislation to that of the UK on counter- terrorist financing for six Overseas Territories. Anguilla, the Falkland Islands, Montserrat, St Helena and Dependencies, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands.

  2002/1823 The Extradition (Overseas Territories) Order 2002.

  2002/1824 The Extradition (Overseas Territories) (Hong Kong) Order 2002.
  195W
  2002/1825 The Extradition (Overseas Territories) (Application to Hong Kong)) Order 2002.

  Purpose: To update extradition relations between the Overseas Territories on the one hand and UK, other Overseas Territories Commonwealth countries, Ireland and Hong Kong SAR on the other.

  2002/1826 The International Maritime Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2002.

  Purpose: To extend Privileges and Immunities conferred on permanent representatives on member states of the IMO and holders of five IMO posts at director level to the same level of Privileges and Immunities accorded to diplomats.

  2002/1827 The Specialized Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2002.

  Purpose: To accord a refund of insurance premium tax and air passenger duty paid by the International Labour Organisation in the exercise of its official duties.

  2002/1828 International Immunities and Privileges: The United Nations and International Court of Justice (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2002.

  Purpose: To provide for refunds of insurance premium tax and air passenger duty paid by the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.

  2002/2054 The Antarctic (Amendment) Regulations 2002.

  Purpose: To add further restricted areas to schedule 1 of the Antarctic Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/490) and to modify an existing one. These amendments give effect to a Measure adopted by the most recent meeting of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (AntarcticTreaty Consultative Meeting XXV, Poland, September 2002).

  2002/2627 The Overseas Territories (Zimbabwe (Restrictive Measures) (Amendment) Order 2002.

  Purpose: This Order amends the Overseas Territories (Zimbabwe) (Restrictive Measures) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/1077)

  2002/2628 The Somalia (United Nations Sanctions) (Amendment) Order 2002.

  Purpose: UN Security Council resolution 1425(2002) was adopted unanimously on 22 July 2002. Paragraph 2 of the resolution extends the existing arms embargo on Somalia (imposed by resolution 733(1992) as amended by resolution 1356(2001) to prohibit the direct or indirect supply to Somalia of technical advice, financial and other assistance, and training related to military activities. The Order implements the mandatory provisions in paragraph 2 of resolution 1425 in the UK.

  2002/2631 The Somalia (United Nations Sanctions) (Amendment) (Overseas Territories) Order 2002.

  Purpose: UN Security Council resolution 1425(2002) was adopted unanimously on 22 July 2002. Paragraph 2 of the resolution extends the existing arms embargo on Somalia (imposed by resolution 733(1992) as amended by resolution 1356(2001) to prohibit the direct or indirect supply to Somalia of technical advice financial and other assistance, and training related to military activities. The Order implements the mandatory provisions in paragraph 2 of resolution 1425 in the Overseas Territories.
  196W
  2002/2637 The Turks and Caicos Islands Constitution Amendment) Order 2002.

  Purpose: To amend the Constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands to remove provisions which allow for capital punishment in the Turks and Caicos Islands

  2002/2841 The European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member states, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Order 2002.

  Purpose: To specify for the purposes of the European Communities Act 1972 the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the EC and its member States and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

  2002/3132 The Merchant Shipping (Confirmation of Legislation) (Bermuda) Order 2002.

  Purpose: To confirm the Merchant Shipping Act 2002, which is the legislation enacted on Bermuda to repeal the application of the remaining provisions of the UK Merchant Shipping Act 1894 which still apply to Bermuda.

  2002/3139 The European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States and the Republic of South Africa) Order 2002.

  Purpose: To specify for the purposes of the European Communities Act 1972 the Agreement on Trade, Development and Co-operation between the EC and its member States and the Republic of South Africa

  2002/3147 The Merchant Shipping (Revocation) (Bermuda) Order 2002.

  Purpose: To revoke thirteen statutory instruments applying UK merchant shipping legislation to Bermuda. The relevant provisions will be replaced by the local legislation en acted on Bermuda.

  2003/433 The Air Navigation (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) Order 2003

  Purpose: To make provision for the work of the Air Safety Support International (ASSI) which is being established to improve aviation safety regulation in the Overseas Territories.

  2003/456 The Bermuda Constitution (Amendment) Order 2003

  Purpose: To amend the Constitution of Bermuda to give legal effect to recommendations of the local Constituency Boundaries Commission. The Commission recommended the establishment of 36 single-member constituencies, with defined boundaries, for elections to the House of Assembly.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the attacks by government-backed Arab militants upon the Fur people of Darfur in western Sudan; what discussions he will have with the Sudanese Government concerning these attacks; and what benchmarks will be used to determine progress made in these discussions. [106422]

  Mr. Rammell
  There have been persistent reports of fighting in Darfur. The British Embassy in Khartoum will continue to monitor the situation. They are in
  197W
  contact with a wide range of government and National Congress party officials in addition to Darfur MPs and other local representatives. Our Embassy in Khartoum has requested permission to visit Darfur and will do so as soon as possible.

  We discussed the situation in Darfur most recently with the Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as part of the EU/Sudan dialogue on 27 March. He reported that the Government of Sudan has established mechanisms to resolve peacefully the situation in Darfur. We have no separate benchmarks to assess progress.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the mandate of Gerhart Baum, UN Special Rapporteur on Sudan and (b) the human rights status accorded to Sudan by the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva. [107238]

  Mr. Rammell
  We take a close interest and play an active role in the promotion of human rights in Sudan. This includes our strong support for the work of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (HCHR) there. The UK has until now been the main contributor of funding for the Office of the HCHR in Khartoum. As a member of the EU, the UK has consistently supported successive EU-sponsored resolutions at the UN Commission on Human Rights and the UN General Assembly. We believe that it is important to maintain the mandate of the Special Rapporteur as part of the general effort to improve the human rights situation in Sudan. The UNCHR is currently discussing human rights in Sudan in Geneva.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether operations have recommenced in oil concessions 5a and 5b in southern Sudan. [107239]

  Mr. Rammell
  Work has resumed in block 5a in the areas which were abandoned in January 2002. In block 5b no work is under way or planned.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the sunset clauses included in legislation from his Department since 1997. [106946]

  Mr. Straw
  None.

  Travel Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost was of travel by train by staff in his Department in 2002. [106347]

  Mr. Rammell
  Total train travel costs are not readily identifiable from the FCO's current accounting systems. Subject to final audit, the total of train travel in the UK which has been booked through the FCO's rail desk and by the use of rail warrants is £440,650 for the 2002–03 financial year.

  Visas
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for each British 198W
  post abroad which operates a pre-sift system for people applying for visit visas, how many people (a) were advised to withdraw their applications and (b) followed that advice in (i) 2001, (ii) 2002 and (iii) 2003 up to the latest date for which figures are available. [104412]

  Mr. Rammell
  We do not record the number of applicants who are advised to withdraw their application at the pre-assessment stage. To ask Posts to provide this information now would require them to carry out a manual search of their records. This could be done only at disproportionate cost. However, it is now our policy to minimise the use of pre-assessment.

  The number of applications actually withdrawn at Posts operating a pre-sift/assessment from 2001 is set out in the following table.

  January 2001 to March 20011

  April 2001 to March 20022

  April to December 20023

  January 2003

  Abidjan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Abu Dhabi

  24

  305

  165

  0

  Abuja

  101

  569

  0

  0

  Accra

  2,176

  12,107

  7,224

  23

  Addis Ababa

  16

  62

  23

  20

  Algiers

  590

  0

  1,204

  0

  Almaty

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Amman

  98

  756

  —

  —

  Amsterdam

  13

  78

  12

  3

  Ankara

  3

  0

  0

  —

  Antananarivo

  —

  0

  —

  0

  Ascension/St. Helena4

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Ashgabat

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Athens

  —

  10

  30

  1

  Bahrain

  3

  129

  6

  0

  Baku

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Bamako

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Bandar Seri Begawan

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Bangkok

  0

  0

  52

  0

  Banjul

  357

  1,482

  99

  2

  Beirut

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Belgrade

  55

  175

  32

  14

  Belompan

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Berlin

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Berne

  —

  0

  —

  16

  Bogota

  0

  1,181

  219

  0

  Bombay

  767

  7,584

  10,109

  281

  Brasilia

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Bratislava

  0

  897

  146

  0

  Bridgetown

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Brussels

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bucharest

  608

  2,964

  1,804

  99

  Budapest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Buenos Aires

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Cairo

  61

  112

  63

  4

  Calcutta

  76

  935

  820

  0

  Canberra

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Caracas

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Casablanca

  86

  689

  934

  81

  Chicago

  0

  0

  7

  0

  Colombo

  89

  461

  160

  —

  Copenhagen

  9

  154

  113

  17

  Dakar

  1

  8

  17

  0

  Damascus

  137

  898

  506

  19

  Dar es Salaam

  97

  244

  648

  90

  Dhaka

  188

  1,668

  636

  0

  Doha

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Dubai

  34

  167

  26

  7

  Dublin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dusseldorf

  176

  518

  510

  47

  Ekaterinburg

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Freetown

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Gaborone

  —

  0

  —

  2

  Geneva

  40

  393

  378

  25

  Georgetown

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gibraltar4

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Guangzhou

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Guatemala City

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Hamilton4

  —

  0

  —

  —

  199W

  January 2001 to March 20011

  April 2001 to March 20022

  April to December 20023

  January 2003

  Hanoi

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Harare

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Havana

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Helsinki

  —

  24

  0

  0

  Hong Kong

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Honiara

  —

  0

  3

  2

  Islamabad

  4,008

  16,466

  3,824

  545

  Istanbul

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Jakarta

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Jeddah

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Jerusalem

  0

  0

  —

  0

  Kampala

  120

  1,915

  1,717

  0

  Karachi

  321

  6,316

  3

  0

  Kathmandu

  0

  0

  113

  0

  Khartoum

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kiev

  36

  144

  81

  2

  Kigali

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Kingston

  133

  848

  122

  0

  Kinshasa

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Kuala Lumpur

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kuwait

  0

  0

  0

  0

  La Paz

  —

  6

  2

  6

  Lagos

  90

  3,240

  2,516

  316

  Lahore

  —

  4,411

  —

  —

  Lilongwe

  —

  0

  25

  —

  Lima

  0

  19

  37

  10

  Lisbon

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Los Angeles

  464

  1,517

  971

  72

  Luanda

  34

  0

  0

  0

  Lusaka

  0

  0

  28

  —

  Luxembourg

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Madras

  390

  1,430

  —

  —

  Madrid

  56

  260

  222

  —

  Managua

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Manila

  12

  9

  0

  —

  Maputo

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Maseru

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Mbabane

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Mexico City

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Minsk

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Montevideo

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Moscow

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Muscat

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nairobi

  0

  0

  288

  —

  Nassau

  —

  0

  0

  —

  New Delhi

  2,078

  10,902

  7,881

  —

  New York

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Nicosia

  0

  0

  619

  —

  Nuku Alofa

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Oslo

  3

  1

  —

  —

  Ottawa

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Panama City

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Paris

  556

  2,200

  545

  0

  Peking

  61

  0

  0

  —

  Port Louis

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Port Moresby

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Port of Spain

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Prague

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Pretoria

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Quito

  39

  132

  192

  —

  Rabat

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Rangoon

  —

  4

  7

  —

  Reykjavik

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Riga

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Rio de Janeiro

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Riyadh

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Rome

  0

  0

  157

  —

  San Jose

  —

  0

  0

  —

  San Salvador

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Sana'a

  53

  150

  77

  —

  Santiago

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Santo Domingo

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Sarajevo

  1

  0

  3

  —

  Seoul

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Shanghai

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Singapore

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Skopje

  0

  0

  3,940

  —

  Sofia

  0

  2,266

  654

  —

  St. Petersburg

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Stanley4

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Stockholm

  42

  114

  0

  —

  200W

  January 2001 to March 20011

  April 2001 to March 20022

  January 2003

  Suva

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Taipei

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Tallinn

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Tangier

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Tashkent

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Tbilisi

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Tegucigalpa

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Tehran

  336

  2,944

  1,935

  —

  Tel Aviv

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Tirana

  0

  8

  0

  0

  Tokyo

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Tripoli

  0

  117

  65

  —

  Tunis

  119

  576

  174

  —

  Ulaan Baatar

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Valletta

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Victoria

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Vienna

  0

  1

  0

  —

  Vila

  —

  0

  1

  —

  Vilnius

  —

  1

  0

  —

  Warsaw

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Washington

  0

  2

  1

  —

  Wellington

  29

  107

  136

  —

  Windhoek

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Yaounde

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Yerevan

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Zagreb

  31

  116

  85

  —

  Total

  14,817

  90,792

  48,822

  1,704

  Notes:

  1 The January to March 2001 figures are based on the monthly statistical returns received from the 109 largest Entry Clearance posts. To answer this question for all 164 posts we would have to ask those additional posts to extract the information requested. As these posts tend to be the smaller posts it is unlikely that many of them will pre-sift applications.

  2 The April 2001-March 2002 figures are based on annual financial year statistical reports received from all 166 Entry Clearance posts.

  3 From April 2002 all Entry Clearance posts were required to send in monthly statistical returns. The figures provided for April to December 2002 are based on these returns.

  4 These posts only complete annual returns.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with other Commonwealth governments on Zimbabwe. [106861]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are in regular dialogue with our Commonwealth partners about the situation in Zimbabwe. My noble Friend Baroness Amos visited South Africa and Botswana from 31 March to 4 April, and is in contact with other African leaders. We have made clear to our Commonwealth partners that we see no justification for lifting Zimbabwe's suspension from the Councils of the Commonwealth.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's total spending 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. [106434]
  201W
  Mr. Blunkett
  The total spending on Vehicle Crime, Police Recruitment, Child Protection on the Internet and Firearms Amnesty campaigns in the 2002–03 financial year was £8,507,000.1t is broken down as follows:

  Cost £000

  (i) TV

  (ii) Radio

  (iii) Print

  Vehicle Crime

  2,605

  900

  67

  Police Recruitment

  2,585

  440

  878

  Child Protection—on the Internet

  335

  250

  30

  Firearms Amnesty

  —

  230

  187

  Total

  5,525

  1,820

  1,162

  Arrests Without Charge
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been arrested but not charged during the last five years broken down by(a) offence, (b) age, (c) ethnic origin and (d) gender; and what percentage of these individuals were arrested in connection with recordable offences. [106877]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Statistics are collected on arrests for notifiable offences by offence group, age, gender and ethnicity. The statistics do not record what action followed the arrest, nor do they cover arrests for recordable offences.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is taken to inform asylum seekers of hard cases support. [105961]

  Beverley Hughes
  No specific information is currently given to failed asylum seekers about the possible provision of accommodation under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as amended.

  The Home Office communicates information about hard case support with the Refugee Council in the first instance. Asylum seekers can also seek advice from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate helpline. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is in the process of publishing more detailed guidance on eligibility for the provision of accommodation under section 4.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been paid(a) in total, (b) to private sector contractors and (c) to public sector contractors for accommodation provided for asylum seekers by the National Asylum Support Service in each year since the establishment of the service. [106900]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 3 April 2003]: The information is reproduced in the table. Figures for the private sector include two non-profit making organisations. Figures for the financial year 2002–03 are not yet available.

  £ million

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Local authorities

  12

  66

  Private sector1

  46

  153

  Total

  58

  219

  1 Including non-profit making organisations.

  202W
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers the Home Office has placed through Clearsprings Ltd. in the last two years. [107316]

  Beverley Hughes
  The statistical information requested is not available.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of employment of asylum seekers is in the UK. [107322]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not available. Statistics on employment are not broken down by immigration status. Asylum seekers who had not applied for permission to work prior to 23 July 2002 are not entitled to work.

  Information is not available on the numbers who previously sought asylum and were granted permission to work under the employment concession (which was abolished on 23 July 2002), and could be produced only at disproportionate cost. The concession allowed asylum seekers who had waited at least six months for an initial decision on their claim to apply for permission to work.

  The concession was established when widespread delays occurred in the asylum system, and we always made it clear that we would review its operation in light of our on-going reforms to the asylum system. By the time I announced its abolition in July, it had become largely irrelevant and applicable to only a minority of applicants. In 2002 the number of asylum seekers awaiting an initial decision fell to the lowest level for more than 10 years.

  Provisional data shows that 60 per cent. of applications (excluding withdrawals and third country cases) received in 2001–02 had initial decisions reached and served within two months, 78 per cent. within four months and 84 per cent. within six months. We are committed, with our programme of increased resources and on-going legislative reforms, to further improving the speed of the system for new applicants.

  We also believe that while we continued to operate the concession, an incorrect perception existed that all asylum seekers had permission to work while their cases were considered.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the ethnic background will be of asylum seekers the Home Office plans to place in Sedgmoor. [107324]

  Beverley Hughes
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) bases its dispersal policy around the language groups that a cluster area is able to accommodate and for which there are local support services available. Dispersal to cluster areas does not take place solely on the ethnic background of an asylum seeker. The language groups for the Taunton and Bridgwater cluster area of which Sedgmoor is a part are still being finalised at present following consultation between NASS and the local consortia.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the number of asylum seekers that should be placed in towns in relation to the population of those towns. [107325]
  203W
  Beverley Hughes
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is committed to a full consultation process with the regional consortia on dispersal strategy. NASS consults with the consortia as to the number of asylum seekers that each cluster or region can successfully accommodate both from the integration angle and without causing/increasing racial tension in an area. The aim is to achieve a proportionate dispersal of asylum seekers both within cluster areas and across the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 31 March 2003,Official Report, column 572W, on asylum seekers, which district council wards fall within the Taunton and Bridgwater cluster; and what the total population is of the area covered by the wards. [107574]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 7 April 2003]: The following list shows the district council wards that fall within the Taunton and Bridgwater cluster area. The population estimate for Taunton and Bridgwater cluster area is 99,700.

  Taunton

  Bishops Hull

  Lydeard

  Blackbrook

  Holway

  Blackdown

  Bradford on Tone

  Comeytrowe

  Eastgate

  Fairwater

  Halcon

  Killams and Mountfield

  Lyngford

  Manor and Wilton

  Milverton and North Deane

  Monument

  Nerouche

  North Curry

  Norton Fitzwarren

  Pyrland and Rowbarton

  Ruishton and Creeche

  Staple Grove

  Stoke St. Gregory

  Trull

  Wellington East

  Wellington North

  Wellington Rockwell Green and West

  West Monkton

  Wiveliscombe and West Deane

  Bridgwater

  Bridgwater Bower

  Bridgwater Eastover

  Bridgwater Hamp

  Bridgwater Quantock

  Bridgwater Sydenham

  Bridgwater Victoria

  Burglary (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding has been awarded to schemes under the reducing burglary initiative in Buckinghamshire in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what targets have been set to reduce crime under the schemes. [106767]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Reducing Burglary Initiative (part of the Crime Reduction Programme) ran from 1999 to 2002, and the last projects were approved in January 2001. Under the initiative we funded a total of four projects in Buckinghamshire.

  In 1999–2000, under round 1 of the initiative, two linked projects in High Wycombe were awarded funding. One project, in the Castlefield area, was awarded £59,677, with a further £11,623 awarded in 2000–01. The other project, in the Downley area, was awarded £59,677, with a further £10,323 awarded in 2000–01. Between them, the projects aimed to reduce burglary by 20 per cent.

  In 2000–01, under round 2, funding was awarded to two projects in Milton Keynes. One project, in Fenny Stratford Ward, was awarded £7,560; it aimed to reduce burglary in a small residential neighbourhood by 20 per cent. The second project, in Netherfield, was awarded £35,000 and aimed to reduce burglary by 30 per cent.

  Command Paper 5778
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders have participated in family group conferencing since its inception in 1999 as set out in paragraph 2.17 of Command Paper 5778. [106787]

  Hilary Benn
  Family group conferencing is one of a range of restorative approaches available to Youth Offending Teams to engage young offenders and their families to prevent re-offending. National figures are not available on family group conferencing but, as an example of its local development, in Essex between June 2000 and the end of March 2003, 77 family group conferences have taken place and eight are pending.

  Commercial Confidentiality
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [105558]

  Mr. Bllunkett
  The issue of the commercial confidentiality of information received from organisations only becomes relevant if the question arises as to whether the information should be disclosed to another party. In such cases, the Home Office will respond in line with guidance on how to deal with commercially confidential information outlined in The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  205W
  The Code of Practice contains a specific exemption—exemption 13—that protects commercially confidential information from being disclosed. In assessing whether information ought to be withheld under this exemption, officials must determine:

  (1) Whether the disclosure of such in formation could harm the competitive position of a third party.

  (2) Whether the information has been given in confidence, and publicising it would constitute a breach of such confidence.

  (3) Whether the disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to prejudice the Department's competitive position or negotiations, or the effective conduct of commercial or contractual activities.

  It is ultimately up to the Department to decide on disclosure of commercially confidential information. Each case is assessed on its own merits in accordance with the guidance laid in the Code of Practice.

  Community Support Officers
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Mayor of London and (b) the Metropolitan Police Authority regarding community support officers. [106860]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has recently met with the Metropolitan Police Authority and with the Mayor of London. Community Support Officers were discussed at these meetings.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many community support officers are being assigned to the outer London boroughs; and how many(a) have been assigned and (b) are planned to be assigned to the London Borough of Havering. [106867]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The posting of Community Support Officers (CSOs) within the Metropolitan Police District is a matter for the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Commissioner of police of the Metropolis. I have been informed by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) that the CSOs recruited from the first funding round have been assigned to the following boroughs:

  Borough

  CSOs

  Barnet

  8

  Brent

  10

  Croydon

  10

  Ealing

  8

  Greenwich

  10

  Hackney

  11

  Hammersmith

  8

  Haringey

  11

  Islington

  10

  Lewisham

  10

  Southwark

  14

  Enfield

  9

  Camden

  30

  Kensington and Chelsea

  30

  Lambeth

  21

  Westminster

  200

  Tower Hamlets

  20

  Newham

  40

  Heathrow

  40

  206W
  No CSOs have been assigned to Havering.

  Later this month I will be considering the second round of bids for funding CSOs from forces throughout England and Wales including the MPS.

  Contractors (Ashfield)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the financial penalties imposed on the contractor for HMYOI Ashfield exceeded the ceiling of 5 per cent. of annual fees due to the contractor(a) for the financial years (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (b) to date during 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [106908]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 4 April 2003]: No financial penalties have reached the ceiling of 5 per cent. of the annual fee. The contract does not allow for financial penalties in excess of the 5 per cent. ceiling.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), of 18 March 2003,Official Report, column 702W, on the Criminal Justice Bill, what research he used to reach his estimates of the numbers of juveniles likely to be affected by the new provisions. [107311]

  Hilary Benn
  The estimates took account of the numbers of juveniles who are currently sentenced for the offences included in Schedule 12 of the Criminal Justice Bill. Those numbers were taken from Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 2001.

  Criminal Offences
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new criminal offences have been created since May 1997. [107386]

  Hilary Benn
  Although the Home. Office is responsible for scrutinising proposals for new offences, no comprehensive records are kept centrally of all new offences by all government departments. The following information therefore relates only to Home Office measures which have been enacted since 1 May 1997.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created two new offences: breach of anti-social behaviour orders and breach of sex offender orders. It also created nine racially-aggravated offences (amended by the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to "racially or religiously aggravated offences"), but these are based on existing offences and do not render unlawful behaviour which would otherwise have been lawful. The Data Protection Act 1998 created four new offences.

  The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 created 12 new offences. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 created four new offences. The Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 created one new offence.

  The Terrorism Act 2000 created 38 new offences. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 created four new criminal offences. The Football (Disorder) Act

  207W
  2000 created two new criminal offence. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 created three new criminal offences.

  The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 created 69 new criminal offences. The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 created three new criminal offences. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 created two new criminal offences.

  The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 created 12 new criminal offences. The Private Security Industry Act 2001 created 10 new offences. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 created 19 new offences. The International Criminal Court Act 2001 created two new criminal offences.

  The Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Act 2002 created five new criminal offences. The Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 created 19 new criminal offences. The Police Reform Act 2002 created 23 new criminal offences. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 created 28 new criminal offences.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding(a) standard and (b) enhanced Criminal Records Bureau disclosures there were in each of the last three months; and how many were over (i) three weeks and (ii) six weeks old in each month. [103938]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 20 March 2003]: The information sought by the hon. Member is not available in the format requested. There are no IT procedures at present to differentiate between Standard and Enhanced Disclosures that are outstanding. The following is a breakdown for the last three months which shows the total number of outstanding Disclosures held by the Criminal Records Bureau, and details how many were over three weeks and six weeks old. These figures do not include the applications where applicants have been asked to
  provide further information.

  Month end

  Total outstanding

  3–6 weeks

  Over 6 weeks

  December 2002

  152,374

  28,634

  71,567

  January 2003

  131,255

  8,933

  53,754

  February 2003

  121,335

  15,696

  33,651

  Departmental Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by the Department in 2002. [104268]

  Beverley Hughes
  In financial year 2002–03 a subsidy of £179,000 was paid for provision of canteen and catering services to the Home Office's main central London estate. This is in line with the reduction in subsidy forecast in the Department's previous answer on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 348W. The services, including two restaurants and a snack bar, can
  208W
  be accessed by all staff within the Home Office group comprising up to 5,000 based in the central London buildings as well as those visiting from elsewhere.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [106314]

  Beverley Hughes
  The provisional estimate of expenditure (subject to audit) for the Home Office and Agencies during 2002–03 was £46,300. This does not include expenditure by Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs)—collection of this data could only be achieved at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with the pay review in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible, with particular reference to the gender pay gap; and if he will make a statement. [106739]

  Hilary Benn
  In response to the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) Task Force "Just Pay" report, the Government has committed all departments and agencies to review their pay systems by April 2003 and prepare action plans to close any gaps. The Cabinet Office issued comprehensive guidance in January 2002 to assist departments and agencies in carrying out these reviews. Additional guidance on the completing of action plans was issued in early March 2003. The Home Office and its agencies will be completing their reviews by April 2003 followed by their action plans to close any equal pay gaps.

  DNA Database
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many DNA profiles are held on the UK national DNA database; and how many DNA samples have been retained. [106874]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The total number of profiles held on the database at 25 March 2003 was 2,094,858. The Forensic Science Service calculate that these profiles relate to an estimated 1,886,000 different individuals.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have their DNA held on the UK national DNA database broken down by(a) offence with which they have been charged, (b) age, (c) ethnic origin and (d) gender; and what percentage of DNA profiles held on the UK national DNA database relate to individuals who have been convicted of a recordable offence. [106875]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The record on the national DNA database (NDNAD) for an individual contains fields for name, age (at the time the sample was taken), ethnic origin and gender. The NDNAD does not have a reporting mechanism in place for breaking down the numbers on it according to these categories. Specialist software would need to be written to generate this data.
  209W
  A record on the NDNAD does not include the offence code associated with DNA sampling, nor does it include information as to whether the individual concerned has been convicted.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of serving police officers have voluntarily provided DNA samples to be held on the UK National DNA Database; what personal data is stored with an individual"s DNA profile on the UK National DNA Database; and which other databases may be linked to the UK National DNA Database by the police. [106876]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Regulations have recently been changed so that officers joining the police now can be required to give a DNA sample as a condition of service; for officers who joined before that change, it continues to be a voluntary matter whether they give a sample or not. Samples from police officers are added to the Police Elimination Database (RED), not to the main National DNA Database (NDNAD). As at 28 February 2003, there were 61,800 records retained on the RED from English and Welsh police forces, about 48 per cent. of the number of serving officers. The purpose of the RED is to eliminate DNA which officers may unintentionally deposit at a crime scene that they attend in the course of police duties. As a substantial proportion of officers do not attend crime scenes, they have never been asked to provide a sample. If an officer is suspected of committing a crime, they may be required to give a sample for the National DNA Database in the same circumstances as other members of the public.

  Records on the NDNAD for an individual contain fields for name, age (at the time the sample was taken), ethnic origin and gender.

  A permanent link between the Police National Computer and the NDNAD was created in November 2001 to ensure that data regarding the eligibility of individuals for DNA sampling is up-to-date. No other links exist.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response the Government have made to the Human Genetics Commission's recommendations in their report, Inside Information, of May 2002, that(a) the Government should promote a greater degree of dialogue about the justification for the apparent increase in the range of offences for which DNA samples may be taken, (b) the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers establish an independent body, including lay membership, to oversee the work of the national DNA database custodian and the profile suppliers and (c) consideration be given to the creation of a criminal offence of the non-consensual or deceitful obtaining and analysis of personal genetic information for non-medical purposes. [106913]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government response to the main recommendations of the Human Genetics Commission report will be published shortly. This response will address the issues raised by my hon. Friend at points(b) and (c).

  Under the provisions of section 63 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the police may take non-intimate DNA samples from all those charged with, informed they will be reported for, or convicted of a
  210W
  recordable offence. The police may also take a non-intimate sample from those suspected of a recordable offence where there are grounds for believing the sample will tend to confirm or disprove the suspect"s involvement. There are no plans to amend the category of offences for which a non-intimate sample may be taken.

  A recordable offence is one set out in the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000 No. 1139).

  Elizabeth Jensko
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reasons for the retention by his Department of the passport of Mrs. Elizabeth Jensko, Beatty Avenue, Leicester, date of birth 30 March 1979. [106931]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office was sent the passport in question in support of an application relating to an immigration matter. Due to an unfortunate administrative oversight this passport had not been returned as swiftly as should have been the case. The passport has now been sent, along with a letter of apology for the unacceptable delay, directly to Mrs. Jensko at her home address.

  Holloway Prison
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 25 March 2003,Official Report, column 151W, on staff shortages in Holloway Prison, what the financial cost was of the education hours cancelled at Holloway Prison from February 2002 to January 2003; and how many hours he estimates will be lost in the next 12 months, and at what cost. [106663]

  Hilary Benn
  It is estimated that the cost of lost education hours at Holloway from February 2002 to January 2003 is £145,883. It is anticipated that approximately 834 education hours will be lost at Holloway over the next 12 months at a cost of £29,430. This is based on the need to close education one day each month to provide staff with the training necessary to operate in a prison environment.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last visited the Public Enquiry Office at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [105633]

  Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary visited the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's Public Enquiry Office in Croydon on 26 June 2001.

  I visited the Public Enquiry Office on 20 June 2002.

  I receive regular reports on the overall performance of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's After Entry Casework area, including the Public Enquiry Office. I have taken a close interest in the major refurbishment of the front entrance to the Croydon Public Enquiry Office and last met officials on 10 March to discuss the details of this initiative.

  Iraq
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) groups and (b) individuals he has met from the Asian community concerning the Iraq war. [105636]

  Beverley Hughes
  Home Office Ministers have continued to meet representatives of various minority communities as part of the Government's continuing commitment to listen to, protect and reassure all parts of our diverse multi-cultural society on a range of issues of concern to them.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, attended two events in March where he spoke on Race and Diversity and Community Cohesion issues, attended by members of the Asian community. My noble Friend (Lord Filkin), who holds lead responsibility for community relations, has met two Sikh individuals and six Muslim, Hindu and Arab groups over the same time period.

  It is important however to recognise that it is the nurturing of a variety of open communication channels between Government and a range of different representatives which is key to preserving good community relations in this country. The level and nature of this dialogue has significantly changed for the better since the previous Gulf conflict in 1991.

  Lord Filkin has recently written to leading representatives of the Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh communities reassuring them of the Government"s commitment to providing protection to all its citizens and communities, and encouraging them to report any incident that makes them feel frightened or insecure to the police.

  We will of course continue both during and in the aftermath of the current conflict in Iraq, to give sympathetic consideration to any specific requests for meetings that we receive from individuals or groups representing particular communities.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what expenditure has been incurred by his(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 he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [106276]

  Hilary Benn
  The Home Office research department undertakes a wide range of research activities that support the development of information-led policy, including scientific and social research, and includes research gathered from market research and focus groups.

  The department conducts or commissions market and opinion research and focus groups only when it is justified by the specific needs of a particular policy or programme and when this is the most economical, efficient and effective way to achieve the purpose. Consulting and involving the public helps inform both policy formulation and the delivery of better quality public services.
  212W
  It has not been possible to provide information on total costs as complete information is not held centrally. A table of commissioned projects involving some market and opinion research conducted 2002 held centrally has been placed in the Library.

  The Research, Development and Statistics (RDS) Conducts social research supporting all seven Home Office aims. A list of RDS publications is available on the Home Office website and copies are also placed in the Library.

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many proposed negative decisions under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 have been referred to his Department's legal officers for confirmation since 18 March 2003; and what is the estimated cost to his Department to date of this practice; [106613]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 11 February 2003 to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, Official Report, column 711W, when he plans to release statistics on the operation of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; [106612]

  (3) how many persons refused NASS support under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 since 18 March 2003 have subsequently re-applied for such support, having failed to obtain alternative means of support from charitable or other sources; and how many such applications have been successful. [106615]

  Beverley Hughes
  Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, came into force on 8 January 2003. Subject to quality assurance of the data, it is planned to publish information on the operation of section 55 within the quarterly asylum statistics at the end of May 2003.

  The Home Office's Legal Advisor's Branch has provided legal support for the operation of section 55. Any legal costs incurred have been subsumed within normal salary costs.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information on where to seek charitable or other support is given by NASS to those refused NASS support under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. [106614]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on alternative support arrangements that may be provided by charities and other organisations is widely available to asylum applicants refused by the National Asylum Support Service support under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Advice on specific options in the area and sources of further information is given on request.

  Political Asylum Claimants
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department
  213W
  has had with Gosport borough council concerning the possible use of the Daedalus site as an accommodation centre for political asylum claimants. [107682]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 7 April 2003]: I met the Leader and Chief Executive of Gosport borough council on 20 March. There have been four further meetings between representatives of my Department and Gosport borough council since February.

  Force

  31 March 1997

  31 March 1998

  31 March 1999

  31 March 2000

  31 March 2001

  31 March 2002

  30 September 2002

  Avon and Somerset

  490

  493

  493

  507

  501

  488

  476

  Bedfordshire

  499

  509

  530

  541

  543

  529

  522

  Cambridgeshire

  533

  545

  559

  582

  559

  536

  508

  Cheshire

  478

  480

  474

  489

  491

  478

  474

  Cleveland

  383

  376

  393

  396

  395

  381

  364

  Cumbria

  429

  422

  437

  455

  470

  446

  439

  Derbyshire

  535

  543

  549

  546

  534

  529

  486

  Devon and Cornwall

  538

  521

  537

  549

  535

  520

  502

  Dorset

  529

  521

  538

  529

  511

  506

  495

  Durham

  416

  401

  388

  390

  380

  376

  358

  Essex1

  509

  517

  527

  547

  558

  553

  541

  Gloucestershire

  488

  504

  507

  500

  479

  478

  482

  Greater Manchester

  373

  371

  378

  379

  373

  358

  338

  Hampshire

  505

  502

  507

  518

  518

  513

  495

  Hertfordshire1

  488

  496

  506

  497

  543

  576

  544

  Humberside

  435

  439

  448

  457

  460

  428

  411

  Kent

  476

  479

  489

  491

  478

  476

  460

  Lancashire

  439

  437

  439

  449

  438

  433

  419

  Leicestershire

  474

  468

  466

  466

  460

  447

  443

  Lincolnshire

  511

  517

  544

  559

  523

  529

  534

  City of London2

  Merseyside

  337

  337

  336

  345

  344

  340

  331

  Metropolitan Police1

  272

  281

  284

  293

  285

  273

  260

  Norfolk

  540

  544

  567

  572

  561

  548

  539

  Northamptonshire

  509

  517

  537

  551

  537

  516

  525

  Northumbria

  391

  381

  372

  376

  368

  360

  345

  North Yorkshire

  546

  537

  552

  578

  573

  532

  535

  Nottinghamshire

  444

  444

  464

  468

  454

  443

  424

  South Yorkshire

  413

  410

  412

  412

  407

  407

  394

  Staffordshire

  478

  461

  474

  489

  498

  497

  483

  Suffolk

  557

  558

  560

  586

  596

  565

  545

  Surrey1

  479

  483

  472

  441

  522

  543

  533

  Sussex

  474

  491

  522

  531

  531

  526

  510

  Thames valley

  554

  547

  557

  561

  571

  566

  546

  Warwickshire

  539

  542

  555

  563

  548

  526

  503

  West Mercia

  546

  556

  556

  602

  585

  568

  566

  West Midlands

  371

  369

  359

  365

  354

  341

  325

  West Yorkshire

  404

  409

  424

  438

  439

  434

  416

  Wiltshire

  512

  513

  521

  542

  545

  530

  526

  Dyfed Powys

  472

  476

  466

  461

  456

  426

  427

  Gwent

  364

  451

  447

  441

  437

  418

  416

  North Wales

  481

  470

  472

  469

  455

  438

  443

  South Wales

  447

  413

  415

  424

  394

  387

  380

  Total of 43 forces

  414

  417

  422

  430

  427

  416

  402

  Total including secondments

  408

  410

  414

  422

  419

  409

  396

  1 These forces have been affected by the boundary changes which took place in April 2000.

  2 The population per police officer for City of London is included in the Metropolitan Police.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations. [107786]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Police Pension (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2003, which came into force on 1 April, amended certain provisions in the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 in order to underpin the new procedures agreed by the Police Negotiating Board on 30 January for the fairer and more consistent management of ill-health retirement. We consulted the Police Negotiating Board on the draft amendment

  Police
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the population per police officer was in each year since 1997 in each police force area in England and Wales. [107299]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The table gives population per police officer in each police force area in England and Wales in each year from 1997 to 2002.

  regulations before they were made, but apart from drafting points we have received no representations about them.

  Prison Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations made by Patrick Carter in his Review of PFI and Market Testing in the Prison Service; and if he will make a statement. [107292]
  215W
  Hilary Benn
  The Carter report, a copy of which was placed in the Library on 26 February 2002, was welcomed by Ministers at the time of its publication. Much work has been done to develop the issues raised in the recommendations, particularly those involving the development of a performance improvement programme and the development of large-scale multifunction prisons.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in each prison are sharing(a) two to a cell designed for one and (b) three to a cell designed for two. [105400]

  Hilary Benn
  The following table shows the number of prisoners in each prison held two to a cell designed for one at the end of February 2003. Data are provisional and subject to validation by prisons.

  The Prison Service does not collect centrally the number of prisoners held three in a double cell. Overall, the percentage of prisoners doubling up was 20.2.

  Prison name

  Two to a cell designed for one

  Altcourse

  776

  Askham Grange

  0

  Acklington

  0

  Albany

  0

  Ashfield

  0

  Ashwell

  12

  Aylesbury

  0

  Belmarsh

  0

  Blundeston

  40

  Bedford

  272

  Blantyre House

  0

  Brockhill

  0

  Bristol

  90

  Birmingham

  398

  Bullingdon

  128

  Brinsford

  48

  Blakenhurst

  226

  Bullwood Hall

  8

  Brixton

  234

  Buckley Hall

  22

  Chelmsford

  302

  Cardiff

  528

  Camp Hill

  0

  Cookham Wood

  36

  Coldingley

  0

  Castington

  0

  Channings Wood

  38

  Canterbury

  218

  Dartmoor

  50

  Dovegate

  30

  Drake Hall

  0

  Durham

  330

  Doncaster

  0

  Dorchester

  192

  Deerbolt

  0

  Dover

  0

  Downview

  0

  Erlestoke

  0

  Standford Hill

  0

  East Sutton Park

  0

  Everthorpe

  0

  Eastwood Park

  28

  Exeter

  0

  Elmley

  240

  Forest Bank

  0

  Ford

  0

  Frankland

  0

  216W

  Prison name

  Two to a cell designed for one

  Feltham

  0

  Full Sutton

  0

  Foston Hall

  0

  Featherstone

  24

  Garth

  20

  Gloucester

  198

  Guys Marsh

  68

  Grendon

  0

  Glen Parva

  372

  Gartree

  0

  Hollesley Bay

  0

  Huntercombe

  0

  Hatfield

  0

  Hewell Grange

  0

  Holme House

  234

  Hindley

  10

  Hull

  200

  High Down

  0

  Highpoint

  54

  Haslar

  0

  Haverigg

  14

  Holloway

  0

  Kirkham

  0

  Kirklevington

  0

  Lancaster

  176

  Leicester

  320

  Leeds

  946

  Lancaster Farms

  32

  Lindholme

  0

  Lincoln

  246

  Long Lartin

  0

  Latchmere House

  0

  Low Newton

  70

  Lowdham Grange

  16

  Liverpool

  512

  Littlehey

  72

  Lewes

  138

  Leyhill

  0

  Moorland

  56

  Morton Hall

  0

  Manchester

  708

  Maidstone

  0

  Mount

  110

  New Hall

  64

  Nottingham

  316

  Northallerton

  150

  North Sea Camp

  0

  Norwich

  370

  Onley

  0

  Portland

  0

  Parkhurst

  0

  Preston

  610

  Parc

  0

  Kingston

  0

  Pentonville

  418

  Rochester

  0

  Reading

  176

  Rye Hill

  74

  Ranby

  190

  Risley

  0

  Send

  0

  Stafford

  418

  Stoke Heath

  204

  Stocken

  26

  Swaleside

  26

  Shepton Mallet

  38

  Swinfen Hall

  0

  Styal

  28

  Sudbury

  0

  Swansea

  270

  Shrewsbury

  298

  Thorn Cross

  0

  Usk

  212

  Prescoed

  0

  217W

  Prison name

  Two to a cell designed for one

  Verne

  68

  Weare

  0

  Wellingborough

  0

  Winchester

  322

  Wakefield

  0

  Wealstun

  0

  Woodhill

  210

  Wayland

  76

  Wymott

  0

  Whitemoor

  0

  Wormwood Scrubs

  124

  Whatton

  0

  Wandsworth

  806

  Wetherby

  0

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2003,Official Report, column 1243W, on prisons (1) how many prisoners were held in police cells in each year between 1995 and 2002; and if he will make a statement; [106665]

  (2) what his estimate is of how many prisoners will be held in police cells each year between 2003 and 2006. [106664]

  Hilary Benn
  From January 1995 to May 1995 an average of 205 prisoners a month, who would normally be held in Prison Service accommodation, were held in police cells under Operation Container. No prisoners were held in police cells from mid-1995 to July 2002. From 12 July 2002 to 20 December 2002 an average of 199 prisoners a month were held in police cells under Operation Safeguard.

  It is not possible to predict how many prisoners will be held in police cells at any point in the future. 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 prisoners held in police cells to a prison as soon as possible.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of young prisoners with mental health needs since 1997(a) had already had those needs identified and (b) were already receiving mental health services before coming into custody; and if he will make a statement. [107201]

  Hilary Benn
  The information sought is not available in the form requested. In 2000, the Office for National Statistics published a report, 'Psychiatric Morbidity amongst Young Offenders in England and Wales", which contained further analysis of data obtained during the survey of mental ill health in the prison population of England and Wales that it undertook in 1997. This report indicated that 13 per cent. of young men on remand, 11 per cent. of sentenced young men and 29 per cent. of all young women said they had received help or treatment for mental, nervous, or emotional problems in the year before they came into prison.
  218W
  Only people who had been in prison for less than two years were asked this question because it was felt that people who had been in prison for longer would not be able to recall the information accurately.

  In comparison, 11 per cent. of young men on remand, 14 per cent. of sentenced young men and 23 per cent. of all young women reported receiving help for such problems in prison during the past year, or, if they had not been in custody that long, since coming into prison.

  Young offenders who had been receiving help for mental or emotional problems in the year before coming into prison were more likely to report receiving such help while in prison. While 29 per cent. of young men on remand and 43 per cent. of women who said they had been receiving treatment before coming into prison reported receiving treatment in prison, this was true for only 8 per cent. and 16 per cent. respectively of those who had not had treatment.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is collected about a prisoner as part of the reception screening process; and if he will make a statement. [107310]

  Hilary Benn
  On the reception of a prisoner into a prison, information is collected by reception and health care staff. It includes personal details and any outstanding court appearances. An assessment is made of the prisoner's immediate physical and health care needs, and to identify recent substance abuse, and the potential for self-harm or harm to others. Prisoners are also asked about any urgent domestic issues and are permitted to make a phone call.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of a drug prison rehabilitation programme is. [107309]

  Hilary Benn
  There are three different types of intensive prison drug rehabilitation programmes. The average length of treatment intervention is given in the following table:

  Programme type

  Average length

  12-Step

  12 weeks

  Cognitive Behavioural Treatment

  15 weeks

  Therapeutic Community

  12–18 months

  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners entered HMP YOI Styal(a) in 2002 and (b) since January 2003 with drug misuse problems; and if he will make a statement. [106792]

  Hilary Benn
  On arrival at Styal prison, each prisoner sees a doctor and has an opportunity to discuss any drug misuse problem. Statistics are not routinely collected on the number of women prisoners reporting drug misuse problems. However, those members of staff working with drug misusers at Styal estimate that over the last two years approximately 75 per cent. of the total number of receptions have had drug problems.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what help is given to probation officers in Somerset to deal with case load. [107262]

  Hilary Benn
  In the Avon and Somerset probation area staff are regularly supervised by managers to assess workload issues and to enable effective workload management. The Probation Board has agreed a workload prioritisation framework with staff through their respective Trade Unions, which assists staff and managers to be clear about priorities in the event of a shortfall in resources. Specific training is provided for specialist staff.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what help is given to probation officers to complete case work on time. [107263]

  Hilary Benn
  Probation Officers benefit from a range of help to assist them in completing casework on time, including through training leading to a Diploma in Probation Studies. Home Office National Standards for the supervision of offenders in the community sets out minimum standards of expected performance. The National Probation Directorate (NPD) carries out regular performance monitoring and provides feedback to probation areas. NPD has produced a workload prioritisation framework, which has been issued to all areas, and has also developed a workload measurement project. Both of these provide guidance to areas to enable the active management of workload and ensure effective service delivery while maintaining a duty of care towards employees.

  Public Appointments
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many public appointments he has made since 1 March; and if he will list them. [105637]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Between 1 March and 27 March I made two appointments to public bodies as follows:

  Commission for Racial Equality: Trevor Phillips—Chair Parole Board: The Hon. Mr. Justice Gage—Vice Chair

  A total of nine appointments to Boards of Visitors in prison establishments in England and Wales were made between 1 March and 27 March. In accordance with established practice their names are not published for reason of personal safety.

  Railways (Crime Prevention)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he was consulted by the Strategic Rail Authority before the suspension of the Rail Passenger Partnership schemes between local authorities and train companies intended to reduce crime and public fears in and around railway stations; and if he will make a statement. [106886]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was consulted by the Strategic Rail Authority on its decision to suspend the Rail Passenger Partnership funding scheme to new bids. The SRA does
  220W
  not intend to terminate the RPP scheme but for the present the focus will be on seeing through existing commitments and approvals.

  Where RPP funding is used to provide improved facilities and better access at railway stations, this may provide residual benefits in reducing crime at these locations. Also, both the Strategic Rail Authority and the Department are continuing to encourage further accreditations under the secure stations scheme. The scheme is specifically designed to improve and standardise good security practices at railway stations.

  Respect and Responsibility White Paper
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation he has undertaken with young people on the White Paper, "Respect and Responsibility". [105885]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The White Paper "Respect and Responsibility", published on 12 March, takes account of views received from a variety of practitioners and members of the public up and down the country.

  Young people are more likely to be the victims of antisocial behaviour than the perpetrators. We will continue to listen to their concerns as we take this agenda forward, in accordance with guidance to government departments issued in November 2001 "Learning to Listen: core principles for the involvement of children and young people".

  Sexual Offences Bill
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with UNICEF on the Sexual Offences Bill. [107246]

  Hilary Benn
  Ministers at the Home Office have had no direct discussion with UNICEF on the Sexual Offences Bill. UNICEF UK has, however, provided useful contributions to the process which has brought the Bill before Parliament in the form of responses to the various consultation processes which preceded it. Most recently, UNICEF UK was one of approximately 40 organisations which responded to the publication of the command paper, 'Protecting the Public'; and one of those which responded to the recent, limited consultation on our proposals to reduce the period that sex offenders may plan to spend abroad before they are required to notify the police of their travel plans.

  Staff Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in 2002. [106768]

  Hilary Benn
  The Employment Protection Act 1975 gave trade union officials a statutory right to reasonable paid time off from employment to carry out trade union duties. In the Civil Service, since April 1996, department and agencies have been given the freedom to set their own levels of facility time and make other facilities available to their trade union accredited representatives.
  221W
  In accordance with Departmental Facilities Agreements between the Home Office and recognised trade unions, 63 union representatives in the Home Office and its agencies receive up to 100 per cent. paid leave to undertake union duties. A further 820 accredited representatives are allocated 25 days a year to spend on union duties and 16 are allocated 40 days a year. Related costs in 2002 amounted to approximately £4,759,000.

  The Department values the constructive working relationships with the trade unions which provide an efficient means of involving staff at all levels in shaping and delivering our aims.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statutory instruments issued by his Department in the last 12 months, indicating(a) the purpose of each and (b) the cost of each to (i) public funds, (ii) businesses and (iii) individuals. [106333]

  Hilary Benn
  Details of the statutory instruments (SI) issued by the Home Office in the last 12 months, and those Orders in Council which originated from the Home Office, have been placed in the Library. The additional information requested could not be made available other than at disproportionate cost, but the costs to businesses will have been indicated in any Regulatory Impact Assessments previously produced.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the sunset clauses included in legislation from his Department since 1997. [106947]

  Hilary Benn
  The following sunset clauses have been included in legislation from the Home Office since 1997:

  (i) Section 5 of the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 (c.25).

  (ii) Section 112 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c.11).

  (iii) Section 15(3) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c.16).

  (iv) Sections 29, 105, and 123 (in conjunction with section 122 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c.24).

  (v) Section 1 of the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Act 2002 (c.12).

  Travel Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of travel by train by staff was in his Department in 2002. [106386]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office is committed to ensuring that staff use the most efficient and economic means of travel commensurate with operational needs. It is the Department's policy to encourage staff to use public transport rather than private cars for official travel in accordance with the Government's policy on Green Transport.

  During the period 1 January to 31 December 2002, a total of £2,057,785 from public funds was spent on train travel by Home Office staff within the United Kingdom.

  Under-age Drinking
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will implement the new powers for confiscating unopened alcohol containers from minors. [107193]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We have included a proposal in the Licensing Bill, currently before Parliament, to enable the police to confiscate sealed alcohol containers, in addition to opened containers, from young people who are drinking in a public place, or where a police officer reasonably believes that the young person intends to drink alcohol in that public place. If Parliament approves these strengthened police powers we intend to bring them into force as soon as possible following Royal Assent, which we expect during the summer.

  Yarl's Wood
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what payments have been made under the terms of the contract to the contractor for Yarl's Wood since the facility was forced to close owing to fire damage; and if he will make a statement. [107293]

  Beverley Hughes
  There has been no additional expenditure to date on either the buildings or security matters at Yarl's Wood since its closure on 31 March 2002. We have committed funds of about £250,000 for the design of sprinklers, associated works and the design of a new control room. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has agreed that the remaining part of the site should re-open later in the year. We expect that there will be a slow and gradual build up of the population, beginning with a small number initially.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  European Capital of Culture
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether regeneration is one of the criteria for the selection of the European City of Culture 2008; and whether regeneration is a factor which will be considered during the UK bidding process. [107926]

  Mr. Caborn
  The proposals put forward by each of the six shortlisted cities are being considered against the European Union's criteria, which are set out in Decision 1419/1999/EC, and the additional criteria set out by the Government in the document Criteria and Information for Applicants. The city which is selected as our nomination for European Capital of Culture 2008 will be the one which, in the opinion of the independent advisory panel and the Government, best meets all the criteria and will organise the most successful year-long programme in 2008.

  Regeneration is not specifically mentioned in either the European Union's criteria or the Government's additional criteria. However, a number of the criteria relate to the development of the cultural infrastructure, architecture and the urban environment. In addressing these criteria, cities have the opportunity to demonstrate the contribution which culture can make to regeneration.

  Sport England
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to develop the regionalisation of Sport England. [108108]

  Mr. Caborn
  As a result of the recommendations in the joint DCMS/Strategy Unit Report—Game Plan—and a Quinquennial Review, Sport England is undergoing a modernisation and restructuring programme which will turn it into a more strategic and customer focussed body. The programme will involve the devolution of more responsibility for funding decisions on community sports projects to its regional offices. These offices, in conjunction with reconstituted regional sports boards which will be sub-committees of Sport England, will prepare regional sports strategies reflecting national sports priorities in consultation with all interested organisations and agencies in the region. The regional strategies will inform funding decisions in the region.

  Tourism
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total Government expenditure was on tourism in the South West in the last two years. [107329]

  Dr. Howells
  The South West Regional Development Agency spent £10,000 on tourism in 2001–01 and awarded £470,000 to be spent over two years in 2002–03. The English Tourism Council granted £536,770 (2001–02) and £537,766 (2002–03) to South West Tourism. The South West also benefits from the work of the British Tourist Authority, which received £49.7million (2001–02) and £54.5 million (2002–03) from the Department, and the English Tourism Council, which received £13.8 million (2001–02) and £15.4 million (2002–03). In addition, DCMS spends approximately £1 billion annually, including funding for museums, galleries and heritage, which benefits tourism in the South West and throughout the country.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to make the registration of accommodation providers compulsory in the UK. [107500]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have no such plans. Questions relating to tourism policy in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are now a matter for the devolved administrations.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which bodies were consulted in relation to the proposed changes in the tourism structure in the UK. [107501]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regularly met, and discussed tourism reform, with representatives of the tourism industry at the twice-yearly Tourism Fora and at the 24-hour Hartwell House seminar in October 2001, and its follow-up in July 2002. In the summer of 2002, I chaired a Steering Group set up to discuss the practicalities of developing a marketing function for England. This Group was representative of the importance to tourism of the regional perspective and the key role of the private sector. We have also commissioned reports on modernisation and restructuring, and on developing a224W
  domestic marketing function for England, from Groups widely representative of the tourism industry. Scottish and Welsh colleagues were consulted both before the announcement of reform on 31 October 2002 and throughout the development of the new body.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans she has to introduce a distinct national tourist board for England, with responsibility for marketing England, as suggested in the report, The Structure and Strategy for Supporting Tourism: [107505]

  (2) what steps have been taken to restructure English tourism as a result of the report, The Structure and Strategy for Supporting Tourism. [107503]

  Dr. Howells
  When the report, The Structure and Strategy for Supporting Tourism, was published on 4 February 2003, plans announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 31 October 2002 for reform of Government support for tourism were already well underway. The reform has seen the strengths and resources of the English Tourism Council and the British Tourist Authority combined in one organisation, VisitBritain, from 1 April 2003. VisitBritain has responsibility for the promotion of Britain overseas and England to the domestic market.

  In designing this structure, we have responded to industry's priorities of focusing on marketing and e-tourism. We believe that this new and more coherent structure will ensure that England receives an excellent marketing service, coordinated at national and regional level, to make the most of the collective effort of all sectors promoting tourism here and will get the best value for money for England.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her answer of 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 63W, on tourism, what assessment she has made of the effect military action in Iraq has had on the UK tourism industry. [107562]

  Dr. Howells
  It is too early to make an accurate assessment of the effect of military action in Iraq on the UK tourism industry. VisitBritain has reported some nervousness about travel in overseas markets, particularly long-haul, and some airlines have reduced their capacity. A fuller assessment can be made once statistics are available.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans she has to increase the level of Government investment in the English Tourism Council; [107498]

  (2) what extra funds have been made available to English tourism authorities as a result of the report, "The Structure and Strategy for Supporting Tourism". [107502]

  Dr. Howells
  When the report, "The Structure and Strategy for Supporting Tourism", was published on 4 February 2003, plans announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 31 October 2002 for reform of Government support for tourism were already well under way. The reform has seen the strengths and
  225W
  resources of the English Tourism Council and the British Tourist Authority combined in one organisation, VisitBritain, from 1 April 2003.

  Within VisitBritain, English tourism will continue to receive annual baseline funding of £12 million, plus additional funds of £10 million over 3 years (2003–04—2005–06). Of the £12 million baseline, £3.6 million will be channelled to Regional Tourist Boards via Regional Development Agencies. Some of the £10 million of additional funding is contingent upon the successful delivery of reform and matched funding targets being met.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total central Government expenditure on promoting domestic tourism during 2002 was in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [107497]

  Dr. Howells
  Central Government support for domestic tourism in England during 2002 was provided via the English Tourism Council (ETC), which had no remit for promotion. In 2002, it concentrated on research and product development activity, as did Defra in respect of rural tourism. Following a review of priorities for the tourism industry, the roles of the ETC and British Tourist Authority were combined on 1 April 2003 to form VisitBritain, which will have marketing of England as its key domestic tourism role.

  Support for tourism in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a devolved responsibility; questions relating to central Government funding should therefore be directed to each administration.

  UK Sport
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial contribution was given by UK Sport to the BBC seminar at Television Centre

  Website

  URL

  Start-up cost (£)

  Running cost/year (£)

  Communications Bill

  http://www.communicationsbill.gov.uk

  10

  2—

  Communications White Paper

  http://www.communicationswhitepaper.gov.uk

  13,000

  2—

  Culture Online

  http://www.communications.gov.uk/

  32,000

  24,500

  42,000

  DCMS (main site)

  http://www.culture.gov.uk

  81,134

  2—

  DCMS(lottery site)

  http://www.lottery.culture.gov.uk

  60,000

  2—

  Digital Television

  http://www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk

  10

  2—

  Gambling Review5

  http://www.gamblingreview.gov.uk

  3200

  10

  4200

  Golden Jubliee5

  http//www.goldenjubilee.gov.uk

  325,000

  200,000

  412,000

  Golden Jubliee Media Site

  http://www.media.goldenjubilee.gov.uk

  10

  612,000

  Government Art Collection

  http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/home/index.asp

  30,500

  2—

  1 In house.

  2 Running costs for these websites are covered under one contract at £51,000 per annum.

  3 2001–02

  4 2002–03

  5 Costs of the Golden Jubilee and Gambling Review websites were met by the Home Office and later transferred to DCMS.

  6 One year only.

  Note:

  DCMS has over 60 NDPBs and could not collate the information requested without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what policy on(a) core hours and
  226W
  on 25 March; what the outcome was of the seminar; when a report of the seminar will be published; and for what reason UK Sport funding was used for the seminar. [107702]

  Mr. Caborn
  UK Sport joined forces with the BBC to establish Sport Summit. The event aimed to gather a group of those responsible for leading sport at all levels within the United Kingdom to discuss the country's strategic approach to sport.

  UK Sport contributed £60,000 towards the costs of staging the event, with the BBC contributing support in kind, by hosting the event and providing related programming across their radio and online platforms. Such events are in line with UK Sport's Royal Charter, which charges the organisation with developing cohesive strategies for furthering the interests and knowledge of sport in the United Kingdom. At present no formal report of the day has been envisaged, however, the day's proceedings were recorded and feedback forms have been received from a number of the delegates indicating wide spread support for the event. In addition UK Sport are intending to develop an action plan in conjunction with the BBC that will take forward the issues that were raised on the day.

  Websites
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the(a) cost of and (b) number of visitors to each website operated by her Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which her Department is responsible in each year since its establishment. [107633]

  Dr. Howells
  The following websites are operated by DCMS. Visitor figures are only kept for one year.

  The main DCMS website, www.culture.gov.uk received 365,305 unique visits and 5,920,848 page impressions between March 2002 and February 2003.

  (b) flexible working hours is operated by her Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which her Department is responsible. [107607]
  227W
  Dr. Howells
  The Department supports a range of flexible working options aimed at helping staff to achieve a better work/life balance including part-time working, job-share, compressed hours, term-time working, homeworking and flexible working. Core hours are currently between 10 am and 12 am and 2 pm and 4 pm, although these restrictions will shortly be removed as part of our commitment to offering staff even greater flexibility.

  The Royal Parks Agency has a formal flexible policy with core times between 10 am and 12 am and 2 pm and 4 pm. We keep no central records of the flexible working policies operated by our non-departmental public bodies and it would incur disproportionate cost to collect this data.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Castlereagh Police Station
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress with investigations into the break-in at Castlereagh police station last year. [107688]

  Jane Kennedy
  The investigation into the break-in at Castlereagh continues. A formal direction regarding the extradition of one suspect is awaited as part of the investigation. Other aspects of the inquiry to identify those responsible and bring them to justice are in progress.

  Victims
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding bodies have responsibility for allocating funds to groups and organisations dealing with victims' issues; how much each such body has allocated to victims' groups in the current year; and which victims' groups have benefited. [106241]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  To answer this question will require substantial research. I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as the information is available.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received from groups and organisations dealing with victims' issues about levels of funding. [106242]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Des Browne, meets regularly with victims' groups and funding is frequently one of the many issues raised. I continue to make the case for more money for victims initiatives, and groups' representations and the work they do will be taken into account in allocating any further funding that may become available. Equally, I must take account of the fact that many victims do not align themselves with victims" groups.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take measures to streamline the procedures whereby victims" support groups apply for and obtain government funding. [106354]
  228W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Government have taken measures to streamline procedures for victims" groups applying for funding.

  The criteria for the Core Funding Scheme 2003–05 were based on the findings and recommendations of an independent evaluation of the previous scheme and on consultation with victims' groups. The Scheme was also subject to an Equality Impact Assessment. Victims' groups welcomed the consultations and were positive about the final shape of the new scheme.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if it is his policy in his dealings with victims' support groups to distinguish between(a) groups supporting victims of the Troubles and (b) groups related to terrorist organisations or individuals with terrorist backgrounds. [106355]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Government do not operate a hierarchy of victims. It is not possible to differentiate grief or hurt according to who or what a person is. We look at need and not cause.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding has been provided(a) by the Government and (b) by the European Union for (i) victims' support groups and (ii) support groups closely related to terrorist organisations or individuals with terrorist backgrounds in the last five years. [106356]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  To answer this question will require substantial research. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information is available.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 31 March 2003,Official Report, column 586W, on benefits, if he will set out the estimates that his Department had made for planning purposes prior to issuing invitation letters. [107091]

  Malcolm Wicks
  According to our customer research, 85 per cent. of our customers have access to a suitable bank/building society account. We expect the vast majority of these customers will opt for payment to be made into their existing account.

  Of the 15 per cent. of customers who currently do not have a suitable account we believe some will opt to open a current account, some will open a basic bank account and some will open a Post Office card account.

  We have always recognised that there will be some customers for whom Direct Payment is not an option. We are currently exploring alternative ways in which these customers could receive their money.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the cost to(a) central and (b) local government of administering council tax benefit in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [102866]
  229W
  Malcolm Wicks
  Central Government's subsidy to local authorities for the administration of council tax benefit during 2000–01 amounted to £155.1 million. Of this sum, £74.2 million was funded by this Department using a formula agreed with the Local Authority Associations, and based mainly on the size of the council tax benefit caseloads, with additional elements for accommodation and staffing costs.

  The remaining £80.9 million was funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Executive through the Revenue Support Grant (Grant Aided Expenditure in Scotland) within their local government finance settlements.

  Reported expenditure by local authorities amounted to £229.9 million. Local authorities account for their expenditure in very different ways. For example some will provide a cost net of additional grants from the Department. Because the data reported by authorities do not reflect a uniform accounting standard across authorities, reported expenditure across all authorities may not be directly comparable with the grants paid figures.

  From 2003–04, administration subsidy for both housing benefit and council tax benefit will be funded entirely by this Department as one direct grant to local authorities.

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £100,000.

  2. Reported local authority expenditure figures are subject to revision by local authorities.

  Sources:

  Administration subsidy figures

  1. Social Security Income Related Benefits (Subsidy to Authorities) Amendment Orders 2000.

  2. ODPM Revenue Support Grant Settlement 2000–01.

  3. Welsh Authorities—included within Revenue Support Grant Settlement 2000–01.

  4. Scottish authorities; "Grant Aided Expenditure 2000–01".

  Local authority expenditure figures

  1. English authorities—reports to the ODPM, and its predecessors/using form RO4.

  2. Welsh authorities—reports to the Welsh Assembly using form RO4.

  3. Scottish authorities—reports to the Scottish Executive using Local Financial Return LFR9.

  4. Figures are subject to revision by local authorities.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the real growth in spending by his Department between 1997 and 2002 on(a) housing benefit, (b) council tax benefit, (c) pensions, (d) disability benefits, (e) child benefits and (f) unemployment related benefits; and if he will make a statement. [97352]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table. It shows the Government is spending less on the costs of unemployment—so that the annual bill is now around £5 billion lower than in 1996–97. This allows the Government to continue to invest with confidence in the key priorities—pensioners and families.
  230W

  Total change in expenditure in real terms, Great Britain, financial years 1996–97 to 2001–02

  Percentage

  DWP Annually Managed Expenditure

  Total Benefit Expenditure

  (a) Housing Benefit

  -7.0

  -12.7

  (b) Council Tax Benefit

  2.3

  2.2

  (c) Pensions

  16.5

  16.5

  (d) Disability Benefits

  23.2

  23.2

  (e) Child Benefits

  Including Family Credit/Disability Working Allowance

  Excluding Family Credit/Disability Working Allowance

  14.3

  14.3

  (f) Unemployment-related benefits

  N/A

  -57.9

  Notes and definitions:

  (a) (b) and (f): Second column includes Housing and Council Tax Benefit expenditure financed within local authorities" Housing Revenue Accounts and general funds.

  (c) Includes Retirement Pension and equivalent benefits for people over pension age, Minimum Income Guarantee. Winter Fuel Payments and Over 75 TV Licences. Expenditure on Over 75 TV Licences includes Northern Ireland.

  (d) Includes Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance, Invalid Care Allowance, Independent Living Funds and Vaccine Damage Payments.

  (e) Includes Child Benefit (including Lone Parent addition), Guardian's Allowance and Child's Special Allowance, child-related elements of Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance. Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance (unless otherwise stated).

  (f) Includes Jobseeker's Allowance, Unemployment Benefit, and Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit for the unemployed. Some expenditure in this category will also be included in (a), (b) and (e). Information on DWP AME is not available for this category because the data that is used to identify unemployed people in receipt of Housing Benefit and/or Council Tax Benefit does not show whether their benefit is funded by DWP, or from the other sources of funding for these benefits (local authorities" Housing Revenue Accounts and general funds).

  Source:

  Departmental Accounts and estimated outturn underlying the Pre-Budget 2002 forecasts.

  Local Authority Software
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the cost of alterations to local authority software as a result of(a) the new tax credits, (b) housing benefit reform and (c) the pension credit. [106647]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not available on the specific costs of alterations to local authority software. However, during 2002–03, we distributed £6 million to local authorities to help them meet set up costs relating to new tax credits.

  We also distributed an extra £15 million for set up costs relating to the pension credit. As we recognise that some of the development for pension credit will continue beyond 2002–03, we have allocated a further £2 million for 2003–04.

  We are not yet in a position to estimate the cost of software changes in the Standard Local Housing

  231W
  Allowance pathfinder authorities, but are discussing the details of the scheme with the authorities and their software providers.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 31 March 2003,Official Report, column 608W, on post office card accounts, if he will set out the timetable for devising and implementing the scheme. [107092]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are currently exploring alternative ways in which these customers could receive their money.

  Name of Campaign

  TV Expenditure

  Expenditure on Radio

  Expenditure on Print Media

  Total

  Antibiotics

  —

  —

  0.44

  0.44

  Flu

  0.95

  —

  0.581

  1.531

  Immunisation

  —

  0.3

  0.35

  0.65

  Mind Out

  0.056

  0.014

  0.072

  0.142

  National Health Service—including nurse recruitment

  1.986

  0.0865

  2.0363

  4.108

  NHS Direct

  —

  —

  0.58

  0.58

  Organ donation

  0.06

  0.05

  0.10

  0.21

  RU Thinking/teenage pregnancy

  —

  0.945

  0.275

  1.22

  Sexual Health

  —

  0.534

  0.240

  0.774

  Social Worker Recruitment

  —

  0.213

  0.720

  0.933

  Smoking

  7.524

  0.050

  0.935

  8.509

  TB Awareness

  —

  —

  0.09

  0.09

  Winter

  —

  —

  0.25

  0.25

  Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make available to the Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS trust additional funding to enable the trust to implement immediately the recommendations of the Commission for Health Improvement report on maternity services at the hospitals, published on 31 March. [107198]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department welcomes the publication of the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) report into maternity services at the Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals national health service trust. We are currently considering the recommendations contained in the report and will make a formal response shortly. However, it is a matter for the trust, working with the strategic health authority, to produce and implement an action plan for the CHI recommendations relating to the trust.

  Central Records System
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the anticipated(a) benefits and (b) cost savings are of the proposed central records system in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [108027]

  Mr. Lammy
  The creation of the integrated care record service (ICRS) is a core infrastructure element of the Government's modernisation programme for the national health service. Its primary focus is to enable the delivery of responsive care tailored to the needs of citizens and patients as described in the NHS Plan rather than specific cost savings.

HEALTH

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's total spending 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. [106438]

  Mr. Lammy
  A list of the major campaigns run by the Department of Health's Communications directorate during 2002–03, whose advertising expenditure included television, radio and print media is shown in the table.

  ICRS benefits will result in improved clinical effectiveness rather than just administrative efficiency. The table provides a summary of the key benefits that are expected.

  ICRS benefits

  Improved efficiency

  Time savings Reduction in duplicate tests, DNAs Improved scheduling

  Effectiveness and Patient outcomes

  Access to knowledge Patient outcomes Improved compliance with clinical protocols

  Safety of care

  Reduction in medical errors

  Support for patient centred care

  Timeliness/reduction in waiting times Equity Better patient experience Patient empowerment

  Whole system working

  Shared record Enables different models of care Support for care across organisational boundaries

  Meet core corporate objectives

  Performance targets Corporate and clinical governance

  National health service health authorities and trusts will of course need to make business cases justifying their investment in ICRS implementations and demonstrating value for money.

  The Government's national strategic programme for the NHS is concerned with major developments in the deployment and use of information technology (IT) in

  233W
  the NHS. It aims to connect delivery of the NHS Plan with the capabilities of modern information technologies to:
  support the patient and the delivery of services designed around the patient, quickly, conveniently and seamlessly;
  support staff through effective electronic communications, better learning and knowledge management, cut the time to find essential information (notes, test results) and make specialised expertise more accessible;
  improve management and delivery of services by providing good quality data to support national service frameworks, clinical audit, governance and management information.

  The Government will continue to work closely with the clinical professions to ensure these goals are achieved.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training has been provided to(a) GPs and (b) carers in identifying children who (i) have problems in schools, (ii) have alcohol or drug misuse problems and (c) are committing anti-social or criminal behaviour as set out in paragraph 2.15 of Command Paper 5778. [106783]

  Jacqui Smith
  Paragraph 2.15 of Command Paper 5778 refers to general practitioners as one gateway into more specialist services for parents and carers who need extra support in differing circumstances.

  The children at risk cross-cutting review looked at the issue of training for professionals working with children and young people and recommended the development of a common core of learning and skills objectives.

  The Government will be publishing a Green Paper that will examine how well services are meeting the needs of children at risk, of poor outcomes, including educational failure, offending, victimisation and abuse and ill health. It will examine what could be done to make services more responsive and better able to intervene earlier in the life cycle rather than in response to crisis.

  Community Health Council Properties
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Community Health Council properties are owned by the NHS; how many such offices are leased; how many leases will be ended in the next six months; how many such offices will be allocated to other NHS uses; and what the cost implications are for the NHS of these property changes. [105965]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are 25 Community Health Council properties owned by the national health service; another 158 are leased and 76 of those leases will be ended in the next six months. As is usual in such circumstances, surplus CHC office premises will in the first place be offered to other NHS organisations. If no alternative health service use can be found, the leases will be determined or, if freehold, the premises sold. It is not possible at this stage to estimate the costs involved.

  Community Pulmonary Rehabilitation Services
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which primary care trusts employ community pulmonary rehabilitation nurses. [106495]
  234W
  Mr. Hutton
  Nurses have a significant contribution to make to the care of people with respiratory conditions. Pulmonary rehabilitation is increasingly offered in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, particularly to older people, to help people achieve their highest level of function and independence. However, information on local service configuration in England such as the number of pulmonary rehabilitation services, and their staffing profile, is not collected centrally.

  We expect all primary care trusts however, to plan provision of services that meet the needs of all patients including those who have pulmonary disease.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the role of community pulmonary rehabilitation services in reducing emergency admissions to acute hospitals; and if he will make a statement; [106496]

  (2) what guidance he has issued to primary care trusts on community pulmonary rehabilitation services; and what performance targets he has set for these services. [106494]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently developing a guideline on the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary and secondary care. NICE is due to publish the guideline in 2004. In January 2003, the Respiratory Alliance published its guidance, "Bridging the Gap", which aims to help primary care trusts to commission and deliver high quality allergy and respiratory care.

  We have issued no guidance to primary care trusts on community pulmonary rehabilitation services nor made any assessment of the role of community pulmonary rehabilitation services in reducing emergency admissions to acute hospitals.

  Consultants
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants there are in each accident and emergency department in England. [106207]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of accident and emergency (A&E) consultants within trusts which have an A&E department have been placed in the Library.

  Where this figure is less than 10, there is a risk that individual doctors could be identified. This is contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998. For this reason, published data is rounded to the nearest 10 or where the figure is less than five, the number is replaced with a star.

  Coronary Care
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants were working in coronary care in the NHS in(a) England, (b) each NHS region and (c) each NHS trust in each of the last six years. [106602]

  Mr. Hutton
  The three specialties involved in coronary care are cardiology, cardio-thoracic surgery and paediatric cardiology. Information on the number
  235W
  of consultants for each specialty by strategic health authority and national health service trust has been placed in the Library.

  Where this figure is less than 10, there is a risk that individual doctors could be identified. This is contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998. For this reason, published data is rounded to the nearest 10 or where the figure is less than five, the number is replaced with a star, *.

  Dental Charges
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Department's policy on NHS dentists' charges for missed appointments. [106855]

  Mr. Lammy
  The dentists" terms of service, Schedule 1 to the NHS (General Dental Services) Regulations 1992 as amended, allows a dentist to claim from a patient in respect of loss of remuneration resulting from a failure of a patient to keep an appointment for general dental services. Patients must be informed that failing to keep an appointment will result in a charge.

  Diabetes
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make insulin pumps available to diabetes sufferers on the national health service. [105747]

  Mr. Lammy
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued its full guidance on the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion for diabetes in February 2003. The guidance states that insulin pump therapy is an option for some people with Type 1 diabetes. Health professionals are expected to take full account of this guidance when exercising their clinical judgement. Hospital consultants may prescribe equipment such as insulin pumps as part of national health service treatment. It is for the NHS locally to make decisions about the best use of its resources on the basis of its priorities and needs.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress with the implementation of the national service framework for the treatment of diabetes. [107152]

  Mr. Lammy
  We continue to lay the building blocks for implementation of the diabetes national service framework (NSF). We have appointed a National Clinical Director for Diabetes to lead progress and provide support to the national health service in delivering the NSF. The diabetic retinopathy screening programme is being developed and the screening pilots for Type 2 diabetes are already under way.

  Dual Diagnosis
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish detailed guidance for treatment of mental health dual diagnosis patients; which categories of dual diagnosis are being considered for such guidance; and if he will make a statement. [107240]
  236W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Health published the "Dual Diagnosis Good Practice Guide" as an addition to the "Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide" in May 2002. The guide explicates the policy and good practice in the provision of mental health services to people with severe mental health problems and problematic misuse of any drug including alcohol but not tobacco.

  The National Treatment Agency for substance misuse (NIA), in partnership with the Department of Health, has recently published "Models of Care", which sets out a national framework for the commissioning of an integrated drug treatment system for adult drug misusers in. England. This includes detailed guidance on provision of services for psychiatric co-morbidity (dual diagnosis) and the document also cross-references the "Dual Diagnosis Good Practice Guide" for mental health services.

  The Department of Health also commissioned the Royal College of Psychiatrists to publish an information manual for multi-disciplinary practitioners based on expert review of the evidence and its implications for safe and effective practice entitled "Co-existing Problems of Mental Disorder and Substance Misuse (Dual Diagnosis)—An Information Manual" in 2001. This has since been distributed widely. In addition, a literature review and collection of abstracts on this subject was commissioned from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and is available on request.

  Foster Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 12 March 2003,Official Report, column 340W, on foster care, if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement in the Choice Protects Review of local authority fostering allowances. [106550]

  Jacqui Smith
  I announced the Choice Protects Review in March 2002 because of my concerns about placement services for looked after children. The Choice Protects Review is looking at all aspects of the fostering service, specifically focusing on support for foster carers.

  Foundation Trusts
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to appoint the Independent Regulator of NHS foundation trusts. [106638]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to parliamentary approval, the Independent Regulator will be appointed when the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill is enacted.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether an hon. Member is eligible to apply for the position of Independent Regulator of NHS foundation trusts; and if he will make a statement. [106639]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to parliamentary approval, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will disqualify Members of the House of Commons from eligibility to apply for the position of Independent Regulator.

  GP Practices
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner doctors' practices there were in 1995; and how many there are now. [107228]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested for England and for Wales is shown in the table.

  Unrestricted Principles and Equivalents (UPEs)1 and Partnerships as at 1 October 1995 and 30 September 2001

  1995

  2001

  UPEs

  Partnerships

  UPEs

  Partnerships

  England total

  26,702

  9,062

  27,843

  8,817

  Wales total

  1,719

  534

  1,785

  517

  1 UPEs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  Sources:

  Department of Health General Medical Services Statistics England and Wales as at 1 October 1995

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics England and Wales as at 30 September 2001

  Department of Health Statistics for General Medical Practitioners in England: 1991–2001

  The 1995 data for England and for Wales, and the 2001 data for England is available from: www.doh.gov.uk/public/ NHSWorkforce.htm

  The National Assembly for Wales published the data for 2001 at:www.wales.gov.uk/keypubstatisticsforwalesheadline/content/health

  Information relating Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of the devolved Administrations. While the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved responsibility rest with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Health Overview and Scrutiny Committees
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the local authorities that(a) had and (b) did not have health overview and scrutiny committees working by 1 April. [108011]

  Mr. Lammy
  This information is not available. The Department will be monitoring the implementation of the powers to scrutinise health services as it rolls out across England.

  Health Trusts (Taunton)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many voluntary organisations made expressions of interest to the Commission for Patient Public Involvement by the deadline of 26 March to initiate, develop and manage patient and public involvement forums for(a) Taunton Dean Primary Care Trust and (b) Taunton and Somerset NHS Hospital Trust. [108033]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information relating to the expressions of interest to provide support to patient and public involvement forums is a matter for the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. The Commission can be contacted at 9th Floor Ladywood House
  45–56 Stephenson Street
  Birmingham
  B2 4DY

  Independent Regulator
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedure is in place for(a) an NHS hospital trust and (b) an independent hospital to give notice to the Independent Regulator of its intention to become an NHS foundation trust. [106640]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to parliamentary approval, provisions in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will allow for an application to be made to the regulator by persons (other than a national health service trust) to be incorporated as a public benefit corporation and authorised to become an NHS foundation trust, if the application is supported by the Secretary of State.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Independent Regulator, before making its prudential borrowing code, will be required to consult any independent organisation that intends to make an application to become an NHS foundation trust. [106641]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to parliamentary approval, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will make provision for the Regulator to consult such persons as he considers appropriate and this may include independent organisations that intend to make an application to become a national health service foundation trust.

  Iraq
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether each strategic health authority has a programme in place to accommodate the mental health needs of returning servicemen and women; and if he will make a statement; [107167]

  (2) what preparations have been made by the NHS for on-going mental health and counselling services for returning servicemen and women. [107168]

  Jacqui Smith
  Most returning armed forces personnel requiring mental health care will be treated by the Defence medical services, which have experience in dealing with mental illnesses resulting from conflict. National health service mental health care will be available to any Service personnel who need it.

  The capacity and flexibility of mental health services provided by the NHS mean that no specific programmes or preparations need to be made for treating returning Service personnel. If they require NHS mental health care they will be able to access it through appropriate referral routes.

  NHS Professionals
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS acute trusts have signed up to use NHS Professionals; and what proportion of acute trusts this represents; [104080]

  (2) what national deadlines were set for the expansion of NHS Professionals between November 2000 and January 2003; [104649]

  (3) what representations he has received on the adequacy of the (a) facilities and (b) IT systems to support NHS Professionals; and if he will make a statement; [104651]
  239W
  (4) pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2002, Official Report, column 1054W, on NHS Professionals, what the terms of reference of the assessment are; [104081]

  (5) what representations he has received on the (a) training and (b) criminal records checks undergone by nurses used by NHS Professionals; and if he will make a statement; [104648]

  (6) what representations he has received on the funding of NHS Professionals; and if he will make a statement; [104650]

  (7) if he will make a statement on his Department's role in supporting the West Yorkshire Ambulance Service over the introduction of NHS Professionals. [104869]

  Mr. Hutton
  To date, 42 national health service acute trusts are making use of NHS Professionals, which represents 17 per cent. of all NHS acute trusts. In addition 13 other NHS trusts are making use of NHS Professionals. The Government's aim is that by April 2005 all NHS trusts should be using the NHS Professionals service exclusively to source temporary nursing staff.

  The assessment of NHS Professionals was established to take stock of progress on its implementation, review the different approaches in the provision of temporary staffing and recommend the most viable options for continuing this service in-house.

  Currently, each provider of NHS Professionals has sourced their own facilities and information technology (IT) solutions. The new special health authority for NHS Professionals will be responsible for the future long-term strategy for the core business processes of the NHS Professionals service, including call centre management, employment services, payroll, payments to agencies, invoicing trusts, management reporting and IT. National targets for the expansion of NHS Professionals were set out in Health Service Circular (HSC) 002/2001 published 16 February 2001.

  The new special health authority for NHS Professionals will be responsible for the future longterm strategy for training. Criminal records checks will be carried out on NHS Professionals nurses as laid down in Departmental Guidelines. In common with checks for other staff groups, theses are subject to some delay at the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) but the position is improving. Such checks are not mandatory except in the case of appointments to posts caring for children within the terms of the Protection of Children Act 1999, which require a check to be made against the Protection of Children Act List. In these cases, a fast-track facility for checks is available at the CRB.

  NHS Professionals was allocated £7 million to support the start up of pilot sites. A further £29 million has been invested this year. We will continue to invest in the implementation and development of NHS Professionals through the new special health authority for NHS Professionals.

  The Department of Health has worked closely with West Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service (WYMAS) NHS Trust on the development of NHS Professionals and has provided funding to take account of extra costs incurred on implementation and will continue to work with WYMAS through the next stage
  240W
  of development to move their NHS Professionals operations to a new special health authority for NHS Professionals.

  Nurses
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many student nurses entered the NHS in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [107685]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 April 2003]: Information on the number of national health service funded pre-registration nursing and midwifery training places in each of the last ten years is shown in the table.

  Nursing and midwifery

  1992–93

  16,338

  1993–94

  14,197

  1994–95

  12,480

  1995–96

  13,381

  1996–97

  14,984

  1997–98

  16,539

  1998–99

  17,689

  1999–2000

  18,707

  2000–01

  20,021

  2001–02

  21,770

  Between 1992 and 2001, the number of nursing and midwifery training places has increased by 5,430 or 33 per cent.

  The Government are committed to increasing the numbers of training places for nurses and midwives. The NHS Plan stated that, by 2004, there would be an extra 5,500 nurses and midwives being trained each year. Since the 1999 baseline, there has been an increase of 3,063 and latest figures suggest a further increase of around 1,540 in the current financial year.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the qualifications requirements for people becoming nurses in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [107686]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 April 2003] The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) is the independent statutory body, which sets the standards of conduct and competence required to register and work as a nurse in the United Kingdom, ensuring fitness to practise and public protection. These standards are reviewed from time to time as necessary by the NMC.

  At present, the NMC also sets specific educational entry requirements for pre-registration nursing and midwifery programmes leading to registration. However, following consultation the NMC will in future set only broad, general entry requirements. These have yet to be determined.

  The new rules will require applicants to meet the general entry requirements defined by the NMC and the specific educational entry requirements of the higher education institution (HEI). The NMC acknowledges that HEIs accept a range of academic and vocational qualifications, with their own processes for assessing non-standard entrants.

  Organ Donors (Overseas)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on obtaining organs from donors abroad. [106111]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Human Organ Transplant Act, 1989 prohibits, in the United Kingdom, commercial dealings in human organs, places restrictions upon transplants between living persons who are not genetically related and requires certain information to be supplied about transplant operations.

  Most countries with organ transplant programmes also have legislation banning payments for organ donation. There are formal arrangements in place between European transplant organisations to ensure that when an organ cannot be used in the originating country it is offered for use to patients in other European countries.

  Overseas Dentists
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what courses and qualifications are available to ensure that overseas dentists wishing to practise in England have training, skills and qualifications at an equal level to dentists trained in England. [106884]

  Mr. Lammy
  In order to practise dentistry in the United Kingdom, dentists must have their qualifications recognised by, and register with, the General Dental Council (GDC). Generally, overseas qualified dentists wishing to practise in the UK have to pass the GDCs international qualifying examination, but nationals of other European Economic Area states holding specified dental qualifications awarded by these states are entitled to automatic recognition in the UK on the basis of agreed minimum training requirements.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to make increased use of pharmacists to ease the pressure on GPs; [107018]

  (2) what plans he has to transfer responsibility for repeat prescriptions from GPs to chemists. [107021]

  Mr. Lammy
  Community pharmacists have an important part to play in our plans to expand national health service services, thereby relieving pressures on general practitioners whilst making better use of their own skills. They already provide advice on minor ailments and sell a wide range of medicines which help people take care of their own health. Patient group directions can enable pharmacists to supply groups of patients direct with prescription-only medicines.

  Pharmacists are increasingly involved in providing support and detailed advice to patients and to doctors on the use of medicines. The first repeat dispensing schemes will begin shortly. Pharmacists will supply medicines for up to a year, without the patient needing to go back to their general practitioner for a further prescription. Later this year, the first pharmacists will become supplementary prescribers. With the patient's
  242W
  consent, pharmacists will be able to prescribe under the terms of a patient-specific clinical management plan agreed with their doctor.

  The new general medical services contract proposes new ways to assess whether services could be offered by other health professionals, especially where these services could be accessed more easily and more cost-effectively than through traditional general practice. We expect pharmacists to play a full part in this and we are currently developing a new contractual framework for community pharmacy to help make that happen.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that vulnerable patients, with particular reference to(a) the elderly, (b) the disabled and (c) young mothers, continue to have easy access to local pharmacy services. [107019]

  Mr. Lammy
  Under the National Health Service Act 1977, it is the responsibility of national health service primary care trusts (PCTs) to arrange the provision of pharmaceutical services in their area. This includes determining whether it is necessary or desirable to secure adequate provision of services by granting new applications. The Health and Social Care Act 2001 also empowers PCTs to devise contracts for local pharmaceutical services which address particular local needs.

  In January 2003, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) published a report, which recommended that there should be no controls on the opening of new NHS pharmacies. In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), on 26 March, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, announced that the Government favours change to open up the market and to improve quality and access, so that more NHS patients can use the skills of community pharmacists for advice, information and services. The OFT report had also noted that in a more competitive environment problems could arise through the possible effect of deregulation on the ability of patients in some areas to access high quality pharmacy services. The Government is therefore examining these issues further. It intends to come forward with a balanced package of proposals before Parliament rises in the summer. Any proposed changes would then be the subject of full consultation.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to address the increased demand on the pharmacy work force. [107020]

  Mr. Lammy
  Securing adequate numbers in the pharmacy work force and developing the roles of pharmacists and their staff are central to the success of our pharmacy strategy. There are over a third more new pharmacy students now than 10 years ago. We forecast a 12 per cent. increase in the pharmacist work force between 1998 and this year. New schools of pharmacy should provide additional graduates from 2007 onwards. At the Department's request, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain has established a pharmacy work force planning and policy advisory group to scope future work force needs and advise on managing supply and demand. The group is expected to report in 2004.
  243W
  We are also considering responses to the discussion paper, "Pharmacy Workforce in the New NHS", launched in September 2002 to improve the skill mix of the pharmacy work force and develop the role of pharmacy support staff. We will bring forward proposals in due course.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received on the desirability of retaining and nurturing smaller independent pharmacies; and if he will make a statement. [107230]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have received over 1,000 responses to the report the Office of Fair Trading, published in January 2003, many of which refer to the desirability of maintaining smaller independent pharmacies.

  The Government favours change in England to open up the market and improve quality and access, which we intend to do without diminishing the crucial role that pharmacies play, especially in poorer and rural areas. The Government intends to come forward with a balanced package of proposals before Parliament rises in the summer. Any proposed changes would then be the subject of full consultation.

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds there were in each year since 1992 at Royal Shrewsbury hospital. [107203]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of beds

  1992

  523

  1993

  523

  1994

  523

  1995

  523

  1996

  523

  1997

  523

  1998

  523

  1999

  523

  2000

  523

  2001

  523

  2002

  529

  2003

  540

  Source:

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals NHS Trust

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff are employed by his Department. [106289]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the response given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State (Mr. Alexander), Cabinet Office on 3 April 2003,Official Report, column 780W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed by his Department in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [106967]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the response given to him by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 4 April 2003,Official Report, columns 891–92W.

  Staff Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in 2002. [106773]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department of Health, including its agencies, has 10 accredited full-time union representatives (100 per cent. of their duties), who may receive paid leave to undertake union activities.

  In addition to facility time, a reasonable amount of paid time off for accredited representatives, to enable them to carry out trade union activities, may be given within a limit of 15 days per annum. An additional 10 days may be given to those elected or appointed to national union bodies such as group and national executive committees.

  As all annual leave taken by staff is recorded and checked locally by business areas within the Department, there is no centrally held information available on the cost of paid leave taken by accredited representatives for trade union activities.

  The Department does not hold any details of union duties undertaken by non-departmental public bodies staff.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Archaeological Investigations
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans his Department has to replace the present system of competitive tendering in developer-funded archaeological investigations. [107842]

  Mr. McNulty
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 16, "Archaeology and Planning", advises that, where archaeological remains may be affected by development proposals, suitable archaeological investigations should be arranged by the prospective developer. In its policy statement on the future of the historic environment, "The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future". the Government encourage the growth in the number of organisations competing for projects to record archaeological sites and to advise on the potential impact of development proposals. It also looks to English Heritage to ensure that the necessary high standards are maintained in the examination and recording of sites. It is for local planning authorities and prospective developers in individual cases to secure the best means for the conservation of archaeological remains likely to be affected by development proposals.

  Building Regulations (Thermal Insulation)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to clarify the advice contained in Annex C paragraphs C37/40/44/49/50 of the Planning Policy Guidance in respect of replacement of fenestration in listed buildings to take account of the self certification provisions within the April 2002 revision to Building Regulations relating to thermal insulation; and if he will make a statement. [105840]
  245W
  Mr. McNulty
  English Heritage has produced an interim guidance note on the considerations that should be taken into account in the implementation of the Building Regulations Approved Document Part L, "Conservation of Fuel and Power", as it affects historic buildings.

  In line with the commitment in the Planning Statement, "Sustainable Communities: Delivering Through Planning", the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to review existing planning policy guidance, including that contained in Planning Policy Guidance 15, "Planning and the Historic Environment". The review will enable us to consider regulatory and other changes affecting the historic environment that have been introduced since PPG 15 was issued in September 1994 and to consider the extent to which these should be reflected in updated guidance. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister aims to publish draft revised guidance later this year for public consultation and this will provide the opportunity for representations to be made.

  Disabled Facilities Grants (Gloucestershire)
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much of the disabled facilities grants awarded to district and city councils in Gloucestershire was spent by each in each year since 1998. [107707]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 13 February 2003,Official Report, column 971W.

  Home Ownership (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the level of home ownership in the Buckingham constituency in 2002. [107781]

  Mr. McNulty
  The 2001 Census reports that 76 per cent. of households in Aylesbury Vale Local Authority are owner occupied. Aylesbury Vale Local Authority comprises the entire Parliamentary constituency of Buckingham, and part of Aylesbury.

  Social Landlords (Eviction Orders)
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made in meeting the commitment made by his Department in April 2002 to improve the collection of data concerning the number of possession orders and evictions by social landlords; and what discussions have taken place with the Lord Chancellor's Department about this issue. [106921]

  Mr. McNulty
  Discussions between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Court Service are continuing and we remain committed to finding ways of achieving a better breakdown of the data currently collected on the number of possession actions and evictions by social landlords. Enhancing the data will enable us to monitor trends on possession actions and improve our understanding of the causes of homelessness.

  Urban Renewal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he is taking to promote urban renewal. [107149]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government's policies for delivering an urban renaissance were set out in the Urban White Paper, "Our Towns and Our Cities: the Future", published in November 2000. This provides the framework within which Government policies and programmes affecting urban areas in England are coordinated.

  In February 2003, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future"—a £22 billion action programme to improve housing and communities, including over £5 billion to regenerate deprived areas. This programme builds on the policies and actions in the Urban White Paper and the Rural White Paper, "Our Countryside: the Future".

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is investing over £4 billion through the Neighbourhood Renewal National Strategy Action Plan to tackle deprivation, and extend prosperity and opportunity to the poorest neighbourhoods in the country. This money is used to encourage the better targeting of services and mainstream public funds to the most deprived areas and to provide evidence of best practice through pathfinder programmes.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish a map showing(a) present and (b) projected wind farms in England. [106817]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Youth Homelessness
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to publish the research commissioned by his Department in 1999 into youth homelessness as part of the Homeless Action Partnership(a) to provide a reliable estimate of the number of young people affected by various types of homelessness and (b) to provide a tool kit for local authorities to produce accurate figures locally; and how much has been spent on each of these pieces of research. [103133]

  Mrs. Roche
  Two research projects were commissioned in 1999 to assist the Youth Homelessness Action Partnership. The first looked at the effectiveness of a range of initiative working with young people to prevent homelessness. Publication of a good practice guide and a research summary is planned for late spring 2003.

  The second study, to investigate methods of estimating numbers of young homeless people and to provide a local authority toolkit, has proved much more problematic because of the difficulties in achieving reliable estimates. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans, therefore, to publish this work.

  The costs of the work were £78,918 and £67,517 respectively.

TRANSPORT

  Airports (Night Noise Restrictions)
  The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar)
  On 27 February I announced (Official Report, 26WS) that we had been considering the timetable for the forthcoming consultation about night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted Airports and that we had decided to consult shortly on an interim proposal to extend the present night restrictions regime at those airports for a further year, to October 2005. This consultation paper is published today.

  The policy background to the night flying restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted is changing. New European Community legislation is coming into effect; the Government is awaiting the outcome of a long running European Court of Human Rights case about an earlier night restrictions regime at Heathrow Airport; and we are continuing with our major consultation "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East" which refers to aspects of night noise policy.

  In view of these developments, as the consultation paper explains, we propose to continue the current night restrictions regime at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted for a further year, until 30 October 2005. We propose that the movements limits and noise quota for both the winter and summer seasons remain the same as for the respective seasons for each airport in the year from 26 October 2003 to 31 October 2004.

  The consultation paper also commences consideration of some of the general principles and policies underlying the night restrictions; in particular, the present policy of having common arrangements at all three airports and the broad issues relating to the possible extension of the night quota period (currently 2330–0600).

  It also explains how we intend to take forward the results of two reviews relating to the classification of aircraft for night restrictions purposes and how we intend to take forward the results of a separate review of the departure noise limits and the related noise monitoring arrangements.

  The consultation will close on 11 July. Copies of the consultation paper are available in the House Library. All responses will be taken into account. Subject to those responses, we aim to announce our decision on the proposals for 2004–05, by 31 October 2003. Responses on other matters covered in this consultation paper will
  10WS
  be taken into account in developing proposals for the next night restrictions regime for consultation, in due course. They will also be taken into account as appropriate in the forthcoming Air Transport White Paper.

PRIME MINISTER

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
  I am pleased to announce that the ninth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, entitled "Defining the Boundaries within the Executive: Ministers, Special Advisers and the permanent Civil Service", has been published today by the Committee.

  Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Libraries.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Development Agencies
  The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson)
  I would like to inform members of the House how the Department will report on the performance of the Regional Development Agencies, including the London Development Agency which reports to the Mayor of London.

  RDAs are funded through the cross departmental Single Programme funding mechanism known as the Single Pot. Attached to the Single Pot is a set of challenging targets which were agreed with the RDAs, and in the case of London, with the Mayor.

  RDAs' achievement against their Tier 3 milestone (output) targets will be reported to the House twice yearly. This will be shortly after the RDAs have submitted their reported achievements against the output targets for the first six months of the financial year and again at the end of the year.

  More information about the performance monitoring framework for the RDAs is available on the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/rda/info/index.htm.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Resource Distribution
  The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche)
  In my written Statement on Friday 4 April, I announced that we would be making available £800 million to local authorities from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) in 2004–05 and 2005–06 as part of our strategy to revitalise England's poorest neighbourhoods and create places where people want to live, not leave.
  11WS
  I am today announcing the details of individual allocations for each of the 88 local authorities that are eligible for NRF. These are set out in the table below.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund Allocations 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06

  Local Authority Names

  NRF Allocation 2003–04 (£m)

  NRF Allocation 2004–05 (£m)

  NRF Allocation 2005–06 (£m)

  Allerdale

  0.855494

  0.855494

  0.855494

  Ashfield

  0.963610

  0.963610

  0.963610

  Barking and Dagenham

  1.632728

  1.632728

  1.632728

  Barnsley

  5.444138

  5.444138

  5.444138

  Barrow-in-Furness

  1.838382

  1.838382

  1.838382

  Birmingham

  22.043488

  22.043488

  22.043488

  Blackburn with Darwen

  4.334824

  4.334824

  4.334824

  Blackpool

  3.007888

  3.007888

  3.007888

  Bolsover

  1.468832

  1.468832

  1.468832

  Bolton

  5.425706

  5.425706

  5.425706

  Bradford

  9.811898

  9.811898

  9.811898

  Brent

  2.279124

  2.279124

  2.279124

  Brighton & Hove

  1.368876

  1.368876

  1.368876

  Bristol

  3.565266

  3.565266

  3.565266

  Burnley

  1.273270

  1.273270

  1.273270

  Camden

  4.218670

  4.218670

  4.218670

  Coventry

  5.289550

  5.289550

  5.289550

  Croydon

  0.581248

  0.581248

  0.581248

  Derby

  3.250468

  3.250468

  3.250468

  Derwentside

  1.482310

  1.482310

  1.482310

  Doncaster

  8.789850

  8.789850

  8.789850

  Dudley

  1.520564

  1.520564

  1.520564

  Ealing

  0.917076

  0.917076

  0.917076

  Easington

  4.433270

  4.433270

  4.433270

  Enfield

  1.859594

  1.859594

  1.859594

  Gateshead

  4.642852

  4.642852

  4.642852

  Great Yarmouth

  1.987230

  1.987230

  1.987230

  Greenwich

  3.881452

  3.881452

  3.881452

  Hackney

  11.765406

  11.765406

  11.765406

  Halton

  3.928410

  3.928410

  3.928410

  Hammersmith and Fulharn

  1.033290

  1.033290

  1.033290

  Haringey

  5.334814

  5.334814

  5.334814

  Hartlepool

  3.137518

  3.137518

  3.137518

  Hastings

  1.375160

  1.375160

  1.375160

  Hyndburn

  1.293636

  1.293636

  1.293636

  Islington

  6.270020

  6.270020

  6.270020

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1.080670

  1.080670

  1.080670

  Kerrier

  1.610488

  1.610488

  1.610488

  Kingston upon Hull

  7.507272

  7.507272

  7.507272

  Kirklees

  2.992056

  2.992056

  2.992056

  Knowsley

  7.390938

  7.390938

  7.390938

  Lambeth

  2.421686

  2.421686

  2.421686

  Leeds

  8.395582

  8.395582

  8.395582

  Leicester

  8.376970

  8.376970

  8.376970

  Lewisham

  2.452506

  2.452506

  2.452506

  Lincoln

  0.400000

  0.400000

  0.400000

  Liverpool

  20.132706

  20.132706

  20.132706

  Luton

  1.509866

  1.509866

  1.509866

  Manchester

  20.595082

  20.595082

  20.595082

  Mansfield

  2.298642

  2.298642

  2.298642

  Middlesbrough

  5.249302

  5.249302

  5.249302

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6.843050

  6.843050

  6.843050

  Newham

  13.331960

  13.331960

  13.331960

  North Tyneside

  3.073580

  3.073580

  3.073580

  Nottingham

  9.245880

  9.245880

  9.245880

  Oldham

  4.673976

  4.673976

  4.673976

  Pendle

  1.960942

  1.960942

  1.960942

  Pen with

  0.829146

  0.829146

  0.829146

  Plymouth

  2.114140

  2.114140

  2.114140

  Portsmouth

  0.956660

  0.956660

  0.956660

  Preston

  2.520434

  2.520434

  2.520434

  Redcar and Cleveland

  3.472138

  3.472138

  3.472138

  Rochdale

  4.877998

  4.877998

  4.877998

  Rotherham

  3.668606

  3.668606

  3.668606

  12WS

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund Allocations 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06

  Local Authority Names

  NRF Allocation 2003–04 (£m)

  NRF Allocation 2004–05 (£m)

  NRF Allocation 2005–06 (£m)

  Salford

  5.440814

  5.440814

  5.440814

  Sandwell

  8.050568

  8.050568

  8.050568

  Sedgefield

  1.138926

  1.138926

  1.138926

  Sefton

  5.631300

  5.631300

  5.631300

  Sheffield

  9.580862

  9.580862

  9.580862

  South Tyneside

  5.382194

  5.382194

  5.382194

  Southampton

  0.861780

  0.861780

  0.861780

  Southwark

  7.912358

  7.912358

  7.912358

  St Helens

  3.873114

  3.873114

  3.873114

  Stockton-on-Tees

  3.852204

  3.852204

  3.852204

  Stoke-on-Trent

  4.033744

  4.033744

  4.033744

  Sunderland

  7.163770

  7.163770

  7.163770

  Tameside

  1.340230

  1.340230

  1.340230

  Tower Hamlets

  10.623640

  10.623640

  10.623640

  Wakefield

  4.439314

  4.439314

  4.439314

  Walsall

  7.121950

  7.121950

  7.121950

  Waltham Forest

  2.553490

  2.553490

  2.553490

  Wandsworth

  0.400000

  0.400000

  0.400000

  Wansbeck

  1.379330

  1.379330

  1.379330

  Wear Valley

  1.706214

  1.706214

  1.706214

  Westminster

  1.497296

  1.497296

  1.497296

  Wigan

  2.725242

  2.725242

  2.725242

  Wirral

  5.075192

  5.075192

  5.075192

  Wolverhampton

  5.928270

  5.928270

  5.928270

  Totals

  400.000

  400.000

  400.000

  Regional Government
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  Following changes made to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, I am writing today to all Members in the English regions outside London to follow up my earlier letter about the soundings exercise on the level of interest in holding a referendum about establishing an elected regional assembly. Voters in two-tier local authority areas will now have a say about the form of unitary local government relating to their area that would be introduced if an elected assembly is established.

  Those who have already responded to this exercise are also being contacted again. In both cases, we are making it clear that we will consider further evidence or comments if people's views have changed in light of the amendments. We do not expect this to cause many people to change their minds about their response to the soundings exercise, but if people have changed their minds we would be happy to receive further views, information and evidence on this matter. If their response remains the same, they do not need to take any action-their original response will be considered as before. Additionally, any individual or organisation who did not previously submit comments, but now wishes to put forward views, information or evidence on the level of interest in a referendum can do so.

  Copies of the revised pro-forma have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. They are also available from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website via http://www.odpm.gov.uk. Responses to this additional phase of the soundings exercise are requested by 16 May, since the Secretary of State is likely to take his decision shortly after that.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Energy Efficiency Targets
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michaell Meacher)
  Following announcement of the Climate Change Levy, an energy tax that came into force on 1 April 2001, the Government agreed that companies in energy intensive industries could enter into 10-year energy efficiency agreements in return for an 80 per cent reduction in the levy rate. Forty-four sector associations signed agreements, representing over 5,000 companies, who operate over 12,000 individual facilities.

  The first target period ended on 31 December 2002 and companies that met the terms of their agreements were re-certified on 1 April 2003 for the reduced rate of Levy payments for the two forthcoming financial years.

  There were a total of 5,742 "target units" in the Agreements when the results were submitted by sector associations in February 2003. (A target unit is one or more facilities that share a single target) Overall, 5,042 target units were re-certified, or 88 per cent. of the total. This represents a total of 10,500 facilities. Of the 700 target units that were not re-certified, 581 dropped out of their agreement or did not return information to their sector association and 219 failed to meet their targets.

  The CCAs as a whole saved 13.5 million tonnes of CO2 (3.7 mt Cartoon1) against an estimated 2000 baseline, or 15.8 million tonnes of CO2 (4.3mt C) against pre-CCL baselines. This is 10m tonnes more than projected. However, a large majority of this reduction came from the steel sector. Even without this contribution the other sectors have exceeded their targets by almost 1 million tonnes of CO2.

  If the sectors with energy efficiency targets had produced their 2002 output at their efficiency in their baseline year they would have emitted an extra 5.2 million tonnes of CO2. This demonstrates real gains in energy efficiency.

  Companies were able to purchase allowances in the UK emissions trading scheme in order to help meet their target, and 600,000 allowances were bought and retired this purpose. Companies were also able to convert any over-achievement into allowances that can be sold or used against future targets. A total of 4.0 million tonnes of CO2 has either been sold or retained for future use, subject to independent verification.

  A summary of the performance of the sectors is attached. A full analysis is available in the document Climate Change Agreements—Results of the First Target Period Assessment and at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ccl/results.htm. Please note that this is a preliminary analysis at this stage. Defra will continue to update this document when more complete analyses have been completed.
  1The UK Climate Change Programme uses units of carbon rather than CO2 to measure greenhouse gas emissions, so both units are presented here.
  14WS
  The performance by sector is given in the following table.

  Sector

  Number of Facilities Re-certified

  ‥ of target units re-certified

  Absolute Saving kt(CO2) (a)

  Aerospace

  21

  100%

  15

  Aluminium

  57

  100%

  2000

  Craft Baking

  2967

  100%

  -9

  Brewing

  62

  100%

  29

  Cement

  17

  100%

  1600

  Ceramics

  223

  97%

  188

  Chemicals

  285

  100%

  2000

  Cathode Ray Tubes

  3

  100%

  21

  Dairy Industry

  133

  99%

  35

  Egg Processing

  9

  100%

  1.9

  NFU—Eggs

  277

  68%

  53

  Eurisol (Mineral Wool)

  6

  100%

  8.9

  Food & Drink

  1081

  100%

  160

  Foundries

  217

  95%

  139

  Glass

  45

  100%

  39

  Gypsum Products

  6

  100%

  -21

  Leather

  11

  100%

  6

  Lime

  8

  100%

  170

  Malting

  33

  100%

  4.2

  Poultry Meat Processing/Feed

  81

  98%

  -30

  British Meat Fedtn

  185

  97%

  27

  Metal Forming

  107

  100%

  23

  Metal Packaging

  23

  95%

  18

  Motor Manufacturers

  19

  100%

  36

  NFU—Pigs

  608

  100%

  64

  Non-Ferrous

  111

  100%

  130

  Paper

  84

  100%

  -930

  NFU—Poultry Meat

  520

  83%

  53

  Poultry Meat Rearing

  1050

  99%

  72

  Printing

  105

  96°A

  -22

  Rendering

  20

  100%

  14

  Reprotech

  1

  100%

  Rubber

  8

  100%

  171

  Semiconductors

  18

  100%

  60

  Slag Grinders

  6

  100%

  3.5

  Spirits

  68

  100%

  42

  Steel

  60

  100%

  9400

  Supermarkets

  1342

  100%

  5.7

  Surface Engineering

  187

  100%

  29

  Textiles

  153

  100%

  114

  Agricultural Supply

  178

  100%

  23

  Vehicle Builders And Repairers

  60

  100%

  0

  Wallcoverings

  15

  100%

  28

  Wood Panel

  9

  100%

  -22

  Total

  10,479

  15,749

DEFENCE

  Clyde Naval Base
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  The Ministry of Defence's Contract for the provision of new jetties in support of the Royal Navy's nuclear submarine fleet at HM Naval Base Clyde was awarded on 31 March 2003 to AMEC plc.
  15WS
  AMEC have been awarded the design, construction and commissioning contract worth approximately £100 million as part of its existing Prime Contract.

  The contract will provide a floating jetty facility that provides four alongside berths, two of which are double berths, thereby giving six fully serviced berthing positions. The construction is due to be completed by 2007.

  Welfare Support (Gulf)
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  Further to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 2 April, I can now set out the way in which we intend to implement a service to allow families to send packets free of charge to troops deployed in the Gulf. This service will be limited to letters and packets of up to 2kg in weight and will be implemented when the operational situation allows. The priority at this time must remain the operational requirements of our Service personnel.

  The system will allow families to send addressed letters and packets to individuals serving in the Gulf through Post Office Counters free of charge. The Royal Mail Group will transport these parcels to British Forces Post Office (BFPO) at Mill Hill. BFPO will arrange onward transportation to the Gulf and distribution in theatre. Mechanisms are being put in place to handle the anticipated increase in mail. Further details will be announced nearer the time when we are ready to implement the new procedures.

  For the free service to work for the benefit of all, I would ask families to restrict the number of packets they send in order that the system does not become overwhelmed, thus creating delays in delivery of mail.

  This scheme is aimed only at those closest to the Service personnel who are serving in this operation. We will not be providing a service for packages which do not have a named recipient. This will help to ensure that the new scheme for letters and packets is well targeted without overloading the logistics support network and delaying vital messages and packages from loved ones. For those who might wish to show more general support for our troops I would encourage contributions to the UK Forces Gulf Fund (details available at http://www.ukforcesgulffund.org and 0800 107 0200) which has recently been set up to allow the public to support those injured as a result of their deployment in support of military operations in the Gulf, and the families and dependants of those who have been killed.

TREASURY

  UK and IMF 2002
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown)
  I am today publishing the fourth annual report to Parliament on UK operations at the IMF, "Growth, Stability, Poverty Reduction: the UK and IMF 2002". Copies are available in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Higher Education
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke)
  I have today published our document Widening Participation in Higher Education, which sets out our plans to safeguard access and widen participation in Higher Education, giving more help and opportunities to all our people to achieve of their best.

  We face an historic problem in our society: the under-achievement of many people who come from less advantaged backgrounds. In 2000, just 18 per cent. of young people from the lower three socio-economic groups were benefiting from Higher Education, compared with 48 per cent. of young people from the higher three socio-economic groups.

  Education must be a force for opportunity and social justice. Whilst meeting the challenge of expanding Higher Education, we need to ensure fair access and equality of opportunity for all those who have the potential to benefit from it, irrespective of their background, schooling or income. Universities have a crucial role to play in this task. They need to identify, encourage, admit and support to graduation all those who have the potential to succeed.

  The evidence set out in Widening Participation in Higher Education suggests that the principal barriers to access to Higher Education are attainment, aspiration and application.

  We are tackling the attainment gap with a range of initiatives, from the very earliest years onwards, to improve standards and widen opportunities. The Sure Start programme aims to improve the health and well-being of families and children in deprived areas from the very beginning. The National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies have led to significant advances in achievement for all groups at primary school level since 1997 but more so for children from disadvantaged homes. Our planned 14–19 reforms will improve standards and choices, and our Success for All programme is reforming Further Education by raising standards of teaching and learning.

  We are already working to raise aspirations through the successful Aimhigher programme. Many universities are also taking imaginative actions to ensure that more people with real talent apply to university. However, of those students who obtain A level passes corresponding to 30 UCAS points, those from the three higher socio-economic groups are significantly more likely to apply for places at the longest established universities than those from the lower groups. Therefore, universities and colleges could do more to raise aspirations and encourage a broader range of applications.

  Although application rates differ by social class between different types of universities, acceptance rates from those applying are much closer. Admissions to universities are a matter for universities themselves and generally they operate in a way that is fair. Admissions should always be on merit—irrespective of class, background or school attended—based on an applicant's achievements and potential. A-levels are the single most important way for assessing merit but

  17WS
  universities are increasingly using a range of other ways to help them make admissions decisions. The Government has asked Professor Stephen Schwartz, Vice Chancellor of Brunei University to lead a team to identify good practice in admissions. We expect one of the results of this work to be a statement of principles about admissions which we hope all universities will adopt. Universities wanting to charge a higher variable tuition fee will wish to demonstrate to the Office for Fair Access that they subscribe to these principles.

  There are also concerns that the proposed introduction of variable tuition fees poses a risk to widening access. The Government plans to take a range of measures to address this, including the re-introduction of a maintenance grant and abolishing up-front tuition fees. Nevertheless, it is also important that universities which wish to increase their fees play their full part in preserving and widening access.

  For that reason, the Government proposes to legislate when Parliamentary time is available to require institutions wishing to increase their fees in excess of the standard fee (currently £1,100) for any of their courses to draw up an access agreement. Agreements will fall to be approved by a new Office for Fair Access (OFFA), which will be separate from but supported by HEFCE. OFFA will operate within a legal and policy framework established by the Government but will exercise its
  18WS
  independent judgement in applying this framework. I will send the head of OFFA an initial letter, together with revisions from time to time, setting out OFFA's statutory duties and how they are to be met.

  The access agreement will cover a five-year period and will set out the fee levels the institution wishes to levy (up to a maximum of £3,000 from 2006); the bursaries and other financial support available; the outreach work to be undertaken by the institution with schools and colleges to help raise the level of attainment, aspirations and applications; and the institution's own milestones for assessing progress in widening participation. An Individual university's admissions policies and procedures will be outside the remit of the access agreement and OFFA. OFFA will monitor implementation of the access agreements and make an annual report to Parliament.

  There will be no targets or quotas set by the Government. We are working to ensure that everyone who has the ability to participate in Higher Education does so, if we are to expand to meet our future economic needs without sacrificing quality.

  There will be a period for comment until 2 June 2003.

  Copies of the document will be placed in the Library and will be available in the Vote and Printed Papers Office.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Royal Assent
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grenfell): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Health (Wales) Act,

Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act,

Police (Northern Ireland) Act.

Select Committee Reports
2.36 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked the Leader of the House:
What would be a reasonable time between publication of a Select Committee report and a debate on the report on the Floor of the House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, what is a reasonable interval varies case by case. It depends on various factors, including when the Government's written response is issued, whether the debate is to take place before or after that response and the point in the Session at which the report is published. It also depends on chairmen's requirements, including whether they try to insist on prime time.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, not being chairman of any particular committee, I am not sure what my noble and learned friend is talking about. I know his interest is at the heart of all this and government priorities obviously matter. On the other hand, is he aware that the Select Committee on Economic Affairs has produced a major report on globalisation that was published on 18th November and no date has yet even been proposed? Will my noble and learned friend accept—knowing what an agreeable man he is, I am sure that he will—that the work of Select Committees is effectively destroyed if there is such a long delay between the publication of a report and its debate? If he agrees with that, as I am sure he will, what does he propose to do about it?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend said that I am always agreeable and that is, in fact, true. I am about to demonstrate that by partly agreeing with him. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will wish me to recount the facts. The EAC published that report on globalisation on 17th January. The
126
Government responded on 21st March. We offered a debate in prime time on Monday 17th March. That was not acceptable. We offered a three-and-a-half-hour debate on Thursday 10th April. That was not acceptable. If the esteemed chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee wished to have a debate on a Friday, we could have accommodated him at very short notice.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House agree that it is slightly ironic that this House has probably the most respected system of reporting on European Union affairs in the form of written reports, and probably the most dilatory provisions for debating them?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and I have been in contact on this. We are looking forward to the debate on 9th May. His committee may have the answer to the problem, which is to have debates in prime time in Grand Committee—that is one possibility—or to have debates in the Unstarred Question time for an hour and a half.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as the esteemed chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee—although, unlike my noble and learned friend, I am extremely disagreeable—I ask him to recognise that for once he has not quite got his facts right. I was offered four or five dates at different times. What they all had in common was that every time I accepted one it was then taken away from me, including the two that my noble and learned friend mentioned.
To be constructive, will my noble and learned friend bear two things in mind? First, some reports, such as another one from the committee that I chair to do with the present state of the economy, have value only if they are debated fairly soon after they appear. Otherwise, it is a complete waste of time. The second thought that noble Lords generally might like to consider is whether we could add your Lordships' Select Committees to the group who can have debates on Wednesday afternoons. We could also expand the capacity of Wednesday afternoons by having three two-and-a-half-hour debates that day. One could take one's chances on whether one was first, second or third. That way, we could increase our ability to debate these topics and allow the Select Committees to have as good a chance as the political parties and others.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the esteemed chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee said that he was disagreeable. He was offered three hours' prime time on Monday 17th March, but he did not wish to accept that. We offered three and a half hours on Thursday 10th April and he did not want to accept that. As far as Wednesday is concerned, subject to the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, I would be very content to try to accommodate. However, we have a heavy legislative programme—an appropriately heavy one—and we have legitimate

127
demands for Statements on Iraq, for instance, which rightly take up our time. There is the alternative, which we shall look at on 9th May, of having debates in Grand Committee. There is no reason apart from inertia and the fact that it has never been done before—neither of which qualifies as a reason—why we should not do it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord not think that there is every reason why we should not do it? The whole purpose of a debate is to have the whole House. We do not want to go into a little committee room and have a debate there.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is not a little committee room. It is the Moses Room, which has been admirably refurbished under the direction of Black Rod. It is hardly a lurch from the Chamber. In fact, if one actually comes to debates very often, as I frequently do, one will know that the House is by no means filled to over-capacity.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House is to be congratulated on his suggestion of the Moses Room. It shows his skills. If we did have any debate there it could not possibly do any harm because no one can hear a word that is said there.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I therefore understand the merits of the Moses Room. The noble Lord is for once quite wrong. Had he been to the Moses Room recently, he would know that it is perfectly easy to hear what all the contributions have to offer. Whether that is an advance I leave to your Lordships. However, it is perfectly easy to understand everyone.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House understand that very many noble Lords feel that if these reports are shuffled off to a Grand Committee and downgraded in that way the press, who take little enough interest in our affairs anyway, will take even less interest?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, what we have done on this particular report on globalisation is to offer two periods of prime time—Fridays in the Chamber where all noble Lords who have an interest can attend. What I am trying to do is to accommodate the reasonable request of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to have debates reasonably promptly after the reports are published. With the best will in the world, if your Lordships are not willing to sit in the morning—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord about his rather bizarre suggestion that these debates on Select Committees should take place on Wednesdays, which are days set
128
aside for debates for the different political parties? I hope that he will not assume that his suggestion would be generally acceptable.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the suggestion may or may not have been bizarre, but I was not its father. The paternity belongs to my noble friend Lord Peston.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is being very generous with time, which is not generally welcome. Is he flexible enough to agree that better use could be made of the time that is available to us? For example, I understand that, next week, we shall debate North Atlantic salmon—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Barnett: Perhaps the debate is tomorrow, my Lords. I am sure that noble Lords are fascinated with the subject.
Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Barnett: I am sure that they are, my Lords. However, I hope that my noble and learned friend will accept that globalisation is a rather bigger issue than Atlantic salmon.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Barnett: My Lords, have we spent only six minutes on this Question or has the clock stopped? May we have a few minutes more to discuss Atlantic salmon or globalisation?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if we are having a debate on North Atlantic salmon next week, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will be the only one present.
Your Lordships cannot endlessly have the penny and the bun. If we wish to sit truncated hours, as we do, then something has to give. There is no real reason why we should not work on Fridays or in the morning.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that a large cause of the problem of pressure in your Lordships' House is the abominable state in which most of the Bills arrive in this House from the other end?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not, actually. I think that we have had a very improved experience, and government amendments have fallen significantly in number. The real answer, I feel, with important legislation, is always to start it in this House so that it is in perfect form by the time that it goes to the Commons for their scrutiny.

Fallen Stock
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What provisions are in place to deal with fallen stock.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, discussions on the fallen stock issue are continuing with the industries concerned. However, the Government have been prepared to make an initial contribution to an industry-operated voluntary subscription scheme for the collection and disposal of fallen stock. There are a number of other ways in which farmers can comply with the new rules, including the use of incinerators, knackers' yards and rendering plants.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Is he not concerned that some of the proposals will increase the risk of spreading infection? Does he agree that burial on site, which has been going on for many years, is in fact the best way of dealing with fallen stock? Does he also agree that the whole push of the Animal Health Bill was to tighten security and prevent the spread of disease? One of the options to which he referred, involving the transport of diseased animals around the countryside, is in fact likely to cause the spread of disease.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Baroness. The new European regulations are a recognition that the burial of stock, particularly in areas close to watercourses and in much other land, can cause long-remaining disease and other problems. Certainly it is necessary for all farmers and transporters to observe tight biosecurity both on the farm and in the transportation of live and dead stock. That would remain the case and the necessity under any of these options.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, does the Minister realise that he has every livestock farmer in the United Kingdom up in arms over the Government's failure to come to a solution with the National Farmers Union of each country? Does he further agree that Scottish Ministers have given an extension from 1st May until the issue is resolved? Why cannot that be done in England?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, far be it from me to interpret exactly what the Scottish Executive has done within its own powers, but effectively it cannot alter the date of the application. Although it has indicated that the rules may not be enforced as substantially from day one, because of uncertainty, there are issues relating to how they will be enforced initially. There has been failure to establish an adequate collection service because, despite many meetings with the NFU and the farming unions, we have not agreed a satisfactory contribution. The farming unions have
130
declined to accept any system that involves the industry itself making a contribution to a national collection scheme. Therefore, we are left to fall back on individual farmers making individual arrangements with transporters and disposal operatives. That is not a sensible solution. It may be a solution in certain circumstances but it is not a sensible solution for everyone. I am glad to say that we have now returned to constructive relations and discussions with both the farmers' unions and the disposal and transport industry.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as he probably read in Farmers Weekly, many trading standards officers regard the directives as unenforceable and that one-third of farmers in Wales are more than 100 kilometres from a rendering plant, which makes things extremely difficult? Does he also agree that five EU countries do not charge their farmers for such a collection service? Why is that not the case here?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at least nine other EU countries are charging farmers to some degree. Unlike the noble Lord, I do not necessarily believe every word in Farmers Weekly. Clearly a question arises as to how we are to enforce the system, but trading standards operatives will have to get used to it, as will farmers and disposal units. However, the whole point is that we have the necessary capacity in this country in terms of both transportation and rendering, and other methods are available, as I have outlined. This system could be made to work but some of the cost must fall on the industry itself.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, what is the situation with regard to islands? For example, is there still an abattoir on the Isle of Wight? If an animal breaks a leg, is there an alternative, apart from having to cart the animal in pain in a boat to the mainland to have it put down? What is the position? There must be many islands around the UK where matters will become very tricky if farmers are not allowed to deal with the situation themselves.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, so far as concerns the situation to which the noble Baroness refers, rendering capacity, incineration and vets still exist on the Isle of Wight. As I understand it, there is not a fully commercial abattoir, although I shall correct that if I am wrong. Only the remotest areas are exempt from the rules under European legislation. Those areas will include some of the Scottish islands and highlands but not normally the Isle of Wight.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the sentence for an offence under these regulations is a maximum of two years' imprisonment? Does he anticipate that the sentence will be applied per lamb, so that a person burying two dead lambs will be liable for four years' imprisonment, and so on? How can the system work?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, they are maximum sentences, and clearly each individual case will be a

131
matter for the court. The Government's aim is to put in place a system which works and which will require relatively light enforcement. I believe that, once we agree the nature of the system with the industry, that will be deliverable.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Cottesmore Hunt, which is listed as a collection point for fallen stock. Does the Minister realise that, as from 1st May, no renderer will come to pick up stock? I have rung the whole lot in the East Midlands area but none will come. It would cost us more than £40 to take a dead sheep from the collection point to the renderers. That is more than it is worth to the farmer and most farmers would not pay. Will the Minister give careful consideration to extending the existing scheme for cattle over 30 months so that all livestock delivered to a collection point can be taken to the renderer with a payment for rendering and transport?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, obviously I cannot comment on the particular circumstances that the noble Lord described. However, the whole point of the Government's offer to set up a collection and disposal system is that the scheme available for cattle over the age of 30 months should be extended to deal with fallen stock. The scheme covers the country and can deal with the collection of animals and species that are fallen stock other than 30 month-old cattle. That offer then needs to be supplemented by a contribution from the industry, either directly or in the form of a levy. It is hoped that we can reach agreement on the system with the NFU within the next few days.
Earl Peel: My Lords, what advice would the noble Lord give to a farmer who, say, lives and works in the Pennines? When the new regulations come into being, if that farmer goes on to the hill and finds that perhaps half a dozen sheep have been suffocated in a snowstorm during the night, will he be expected to bring them all the way back? Can I further suggest to the noble Lord that he and some of his officials visit that type of countryside to see what it is like for themselves? They would then realise how utterly daft these regulations are.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, given the scientific and geological information that we have, the alternative suggested by the noble Earl is that we leave or bury animals on the hillside. However, that could pollute our water courses and so forth. Clearly we need to make practical arrangements in order to gather up and dispose of such stock. Some will be dealt with in farm incinerators and some through transportation. We need transportation and we probably need a collection and disposal system of the type that the Government are now discussing with the NFU. But let there be no doubt that this is ultimately a public health and environmental problem. The alternative is to allow the potential threat to persist.

Iraqi Prisoners of War
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether prisoners of war taken in Iraq will be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the Government have long made plain that they will act in conformity with international law. The taking of prisoners of war is a recognised and legitimate means of reducing an enemy's strength and fighting capacity. Iraqi military personnel who fall into the hands of United Kingdom forces are prisoners of war and therefore will be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am most grateful for that reply from the Minister. However, perhaps I may ask him about the position of those who are known as "unlawful combatants" and who may be paramilitaries of one form or another. Does the Minister agree that those people fall under Article 5 of the third Geneva Convention, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, and should therefore, as in the first Gulf War, be brought before a competent tribunal to determine their status? Can the Minister assure us that neither POWs nor this group of people will in any circumstances be sent to Guantanamo Bay?
Lord Bach: My Lords, if such people are taken into the custody of the United Kingdom forces, they will be treated under the terms of humanitarian law and will of course be looked after both humanely and safely. If they are passed on to another coalition partner—for example, the United States—to be guarded, then an arrangement is in place between the coalition forces that the following will happen. First, there will be no transfer outside the borders of Iraq without the consent of the detaining power, which will in those circumstances be the United Kingdom. Secondly, jurisdiction will be exclusive to the detaining power—at least for events that occurred before their first detention. Thirdly, as the noble Baroness suggests, where there is any doubt about their status—sometimes there may be no doubt about it either way—the United Kingdom may well have to convene tribunals.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many Iraqi prisoners of war are being detained by British forces and how long it will take to process them and to record their relevant details in accordance with the Geneva Conventions? In addition, how many British troops are required to guard and protect them and what amount of food, water and medical supplies are allocated to them in accordance with the Geneva Conventions?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as of this morning, the United Kingdom forces were guarding more than 6,500 coalition prisoners. They are being held in the

133
United Kingdom divisional compound in Iraq, and UK forces are deployed to guard the prisoners of war. The numbers depend on the circumstances in force at the time. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will understand if I do not give more precise details.
We are processing the prisoners as fast as possible; the Red Crescent is content with the action that we are taking in that regard. Prisoners are of course being given sufficient food, water and access to the medical facilities that they require.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am sure that all views about the war, whether favourable or critical, converge in pressing for every aspect of the Geneva Convention to be applied. Does the Minister agree that it is vital at this stage of the war that we are seen to be applying every aspect of the convention to all prisoners of war, regardless of various grey shades of identity? Does he further agree that the recent response of the Secretary of State for Defence to a question on "Newsnight"—
"I'm not saying where they would go to, because we have not decided that"—
is, although understandable in the circumstances, perhaps less than satisfactory?
Lord Bach: My Lords, with great respect to the right reverend Prelate, I do not agree that that is unsatisfactory. We are still considering the issues concerning prisoners of war and others; that needs extremely delicate handling. Of course, if they are within our jurisdiction, as it were, they will remain so and we will make the decisions about them.
Of course we hope that the conflict will end sooner rather than later and that prisoners of war can return to their homes.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the other day the Minister gave in his Statement a figure of 9,000 prisoners of war. Today's figure is 6,500. Will he explain the discrepancy?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me that opportunity. It is clear that the response that I gave did not contain the right figure; there was confusion about that. As soon as that came to my notice, I wrote to the relevant Front-Benchers on all sides of the House, and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and placed a copy in the Library of the House containing the true figures. I apologise for having given that figure last Thursday but, of course, the figures change every day.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, will the Government give some priority to Kuwaiti prisoners of war and those missing in action since the previous Gulf War?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am delighted that that question has been asked, because it is one matter about which the Iraqi regime has been asked ever since the first Gulf War ended. I believe that there are 600 Kuwaiti prisoners whose whereabouts are completely
134
unknown. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Iraqi regime has done absolutely nothing to assist the Kuwaiti authorities on that matter. We shall certainly be looking into that as matters develop.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it would be contrary to international law for coalition forces to imprison unarmed civilians merely because they happen to belong to a certain political party?
Lord Bach: My Lords, merely because they happen to belong to a particular political party? Yes, of course that would be unlawful. But we have the power to capture and detain combatants and others who pose a direct threat to United Kingdom forces or whose continued liberty poses a threat to our overall mission. If one or other of those requirements is met, we are entitled under international law to detain them.

Convention on the Future of Europe
3.4 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to ensure that Parliament is fully consulted on the conclusions of' the European Union Convention on the Future of Europe before the start of the proposed intergovernmental conference.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government have made clear the importance that we attach to full parliamentary consultation on the conclusions of the Convention on the Future of Europe before the start of the intergovernmental conference. We expect the convention to conclude in June, as mandated, but the date of the IGC is not yet decided. The Government have made clear that any dates for the IGC must allow for proper and substantial parliamentary discussion of the issues and full participation of the accession states.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. It occurred to me when she commented last week that the convention will end at the end of June, that the intergovernmental conference is likely to start at the end of September and that that does not provide an especially convenient intervening space for full consultation with national parliaments.
Given that the Prime Minister himself has made clear on several occasions that the role of national parliaments in the European Union is one of the issues in the convention to which we attach most importance, can we ensure by one means or another—with time made available and the appropriate documents and government proposals published for discussion in both Chambers of this Parliament—for full consultation to be provided between the end of the convention and whenever the start of the IGC is agreed to be?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Prime Minister has made clear that he regards the role

135
of Parliament as an important issue in the convention. It would therefore be perverse not to allow the role of Parliament to be properly exercised between the end of the convention and the IGC. The noble Lord mentioned the possible date of September. The fact is that it was originally expected that the IGC would be held in 2004, but, as I am sure that the noble Lord is aware, some European Union countries are pressing to begin the IGC in 2003.
Nothing has been decided and no dates have been alighted on as suitable. I am acutely aware of the concerns in this House, which I am sure reflect concerns in another place, that proper time must be allowed for the substantial and proper parliamentary discussion to which I referred.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, have not recent events in Europe—I know that the Minister has such great love for the behaviour of her French and German counterparts recently—made the plans drawn up by the European convention a matter of fairy stories rather than of the future?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I indeed have great affection for our friends in France and Germany—I thank the noble Earl for remarking on it. As your Lordships discussed in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, last week, several extensive issues, such as economic governance, legal personality and how we can go forward on the common foreign and security policy and the European security and defence policy, are involved. They are all important and need to be resolved.
The point is that your Lordships and another place should have a proper opportunity to discuss them at the conclusion of the convention, at the end of June, and before the beginning of the IGC, which is when decisions will be taken in the European Union on the basis of unanimity.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that her reference to legal personality illustrates in just one way the relationship between the future of European institutions as a whole? Can she assure the House that before we enter those essential deliberations, the Government will clarify their position on the future of the Council of Europe and its conventions?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government will need to clarify our position on a number of issues. If I may say so, that is the sort of debate to which your Lordships are peculiarly well placed to contribute. The fact is that we have worked extremely well with our European partners in the convention, but they, too, will be considering the convention conclusions before the IGC.
Your Lordships and the Government may take one view, but we must acknowledge that entirely different views may come from our partners elsewhere in the EU. The important thing is to have those discussions
136
before the IGC. I stress again that nothing will be fixed until the IGC has decided the position; and it will do so on the basis of a unanimous vote.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is it not wishful thinking to assume that in present circumstances—my noble friend Lord Onslow has drawn attention to them—the convention can possibly reach agreement by June, in six weeks' time? Has not the draft constitution been bombarded with hundreds, if not thousands, of amendments? Is not the draft of the praesidium miles away from the view of the rank and file?
Would it not be better to give up the attempt to have a new Treaty of Rome—on which, I gather, our Italian friends are so keen—and to aim more sensibly for the end of the year, when, one hopes, there will be a little more agreement? By this time next year, the new applicant countries, which, after all, will have to live inside the changed Union and new constitution, will have a chance to consider it. Why the rush?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that there is a rush. Many amendments to the convention are being put forward, but we expected no less than that. As I indicated, at a working level the convention is working very well together. After all, three of our own Members are involved on the convention. My noble friend Lady Scotland, who is sitting beside me, is the Government's alternate on the convention, but noble Lords are also very ably represented by the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan and Lord Tomlinson. They are sensible people who can discuss with their colleagues from the other European countries the conclusions that they wish to reach over the convention. I am assured that the convention is still on track to reach its final conclusion by the end of June as originally mandated. There is no rush. The convention is working sensibly and properly together, as noble Lords would expect.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, having just returned from last week's session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and witnessed the overwhelming animosity towards the United Kingdom by most European parliamentarians, does the Minister not agree that it would be better to postpone the conclusions of the convention until present divisions in Europe have receded and there is a more friendly atmosphere?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have our differences with our colleagues in Europe. That is absolutely clear. Nobody has tried to hide any of those differences. We all know that they centre on the very, very difficult question of the military conflict in Iraq.
The noble Lord refers to "animosity"; I refer to it as differences. I assure noble Lords that differences are not marring the discussions in the convention. My noble friend Lady Scotland assures me that the discussions in the convention are continuing in a constructive way that noble Lords would expect. Noble

137
Lords are at liberty to ask our other noble colleagues, who are not with us today because they are no doubt working on those issues, but we believe that we are on track to finish the convention.
I remind noble Lords that the convention conclusions bind us to nothing—that is the point—and not only your Lordships but colleagues in another place will be able to discuss the convention before we return to the IGC, where the real intergovernmental negotiations will have to take place.

Corus
3.12 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth Lord Livsey of Talgarth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan to intervene in the negotiations among Corus, the LNM Group and Brazilian companies to take over Corus's steelmaking plants.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Corus is in discussion with bankers to renegotiate long-term funding and is developing plans to enable it to return to profitability. The Government are in regular contact with Corus at the highest levels and have been given assurances by the company that it is planning for a viable future in the UK. Any commercial negotiations would be a matter for the company.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that steel-making is likely to be terminated in the UK if the interest shown by the LNM Group, headed by Lakshmi Mittal, and CSN Brazil results in the takeover of Corus's UK steel-making plants? That would put 26,000 employees in Port Talbot, Teesside and Scunthorpe out of work, with a huge knock-on effect on local employment. It would be catastrophic. The financial pages of the newspapers show that that interest exists. Will the Government, therefore, purchase the British arm of Corus and restructure it as with MG Rover or temporarily take it into the public sector? After all, steel is fundamental to the security of the manufacturing industry in the UK. UK Corus's shares are worth only 8p—a total of £260 million— which is surely a snip at present.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know that Corus is criticised for failing to respond to media speculation. Sometimes it is a little tight-lipped, but we can see why. The sort of media speculation with which the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, now regales the House is enormously damaging to Corus's suppliers, customers and employees. I do not think that we should take part in that kind of speculation.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I declare an interest as the ex-general-secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation community union. Bearing in mind the reply that the Minister has just given, but nevertheless taking account of Corus's annual report, in which the
138
chairman stated that there will be further restructuring in the company, does the Minister not view it as essential that the trade unions meet the Government and the board of the company to try to avoid what has happened over the past few years; that is to say, some 10,000 job losses? It is essential that steps are take to avoid further tragedies in what was once a great company.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Brookman, that it is essential that the Government keep in close contact with both the management and the unions in Corns. I can assure him that that is the case. Patricia Hewitt has met Sir Brian Moffat and Michael Leahy of the ISTC on a number of occasions recently and will continue to do so.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, at present, have the Government any powers to prevent an asset-stripper from purchasing Corus or any part of it for the purpose of disposal?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I do not think that there is any adequate definition of what is meant by an asset-stripper. Clearly, Corus is a commercial company. It can conduct any negotiations it chooses, and it is doing so. We are concerned about the assurance that Corus has given to us about the plans for a viable future in the United Kingdom. Subject to that assurance, if I were the management of Corus, I would be talking to anybody who could help.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, given the perilous state of the British steel industry, can the Minister confirm that, contrary to a European Commission recommendation, the British Government in a fairly recent meeting of the Council of Ministers opposed the application for anti-dumping measures against unfairly traded imports of hot-rolled coil from Egypt, Slovakia and Turkey? If that was their stance, what is the explanation for it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that, strictly speaking, we opposed it only in relation to Egypt. The position of the accession states, principally Slovakia and Poland, is quite different. There is an issue there of the possibility of state aid, but it would be only for the purposes of reducing capacity. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, agrees that, from the United Kingdom's point of view, a reduction in capacity elsewhere in Europe is very desirable.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the worst scenario did arise and steel-making in the United Kingdom came virtually to an end—presumably, the Government do not want that result—are the Government prepared to do something to prevent the closure of our steel industry? If so, what are they prepared to do?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I were to start to respond to such hypothetical questions, not

139
only would I exceed my own responsibilities in this House but it would be enormously damaging, not particularly for government, but for the steel industry in this country. I shall not take part in such speculation.

Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill
3.19 p.m.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
3.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO VOTERS
(1) Information shall be circulated to voters before any order is made for a referendum providing details of—

(a) the powers, responsibilities and constitutional arrangements of elected regional assemblies;

(b) the costs incurred by the boundary committee and the forecasted costs of any subsequent local government reorganisation;

(c) the administrative and initial starting costs for the establishment of regional assemblies;

(d) the predicted annual costs for the running of regional assemblies."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to speak probably for the last time on this type of amendment, asking for information about powers, responsibilities and constitutional arrangements, about the costs forecast to be incurred by the Boundary Committee—we know that the Government have done work on this—the administrative and initial starting costs for the establishment of regional assemblies and the predicted annual costs of the running of the regional assemblies, on which the Government have also done some work. The amendment would ensure that voters are able to make an informed choice, when they vote in a referendum on the options. The relevant information must include information about costs and the sources of the money.
I shall not dwell on the first part of the amendment. The case that voters should be informed about what they are voting for is irrefutable. I am sure that the Minister will agree with that, as he has done all the way through our deliberations on the Bill so far. The rest of the amendment relates to the provision of information about the costs of creating an elected regional assembly. Information about the cost of an elected regional assembly is important. It was important enough for the Labour Party to include in its 1997 manifesto a commitment that the exercise should be "cost-neutral". We support that proposition, and I would be interested to know whether the Minister holds to that manifesto pledge. Do the Government now believe that it is right that the reorganisation should divert funds away from investment in our public services? We should make no mistake about it: if the scheme is not cost-neutral, the only money that could be provided for it is money that could be spent on public services.
I have no doubt that the Minister will say that it is difficult to calculate the costs accurately. That is not what the amendment asks for, and, anyway, I agree. However, that does not mean that no attempt should be made to do so, and, as I said, we know that the Government have done something about it.
We have been through reorganisations before. I hope that we have all learnt a lot from them. There is information from the previous round of local government reorganisation—10 years ago—that has been independently analysed. The work of the Local Government Commission, as analysed by Professor Michael Chisholm, suggests, for example, that the costs of local government reorganisation would be well over £2 billion. That figure is widely regarded as an under-estimation of the true cost.
The Government might also argue that, although there will be initial costs, there will be savings in the long run. Again, it is difficult to see how they reach that conclusion. Local government reorganisations tend not to cut costs. The reform of local government in the early 1970s led to an increase in staffing of nearly 5 per cent and to the spiralling costs that led to the financial crisis that precipitated the Layfield inquiry.
If one applies to West Sussex the Ernst & Young model accepted by the Local Government Commission to assess costs and savings associated with reorganisation to a unitary authority, one can see that only on the basis of a unitary county would the transitional costs be repaid within a reasonable timescale. Even if one inflated the savings estimates from the model by 10 per cent and reduced the cost estimates by the same amount, one can see that reorganisations into more than one unitary tier of government do not pay the transitional costs.
Where will the money come from to pay for the transitional costs? In the previous round of local government reorganisation, according to Chisholm, upwards of 30 per cent of the costs of reorganisation were met from local authority reserves and revenue accounts. Is that to be the case again? The answer is clear: local people will, in the end, be asked to pay.
They will pay through their council tax, and they will pay through a reduction in the quality of service delivery. The Government will, no doubt, have their own figures. I would be glad to hear them and would welcome a chance to examine the cost models on which they are based.
It is important that we have a debate on the matter. People must be provided with the information that will enable them to make an informed decision. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised if I return to the question of powers. Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that he would not adjourn the House until I got a reply to the Written Question that DEFRA refused to answer. Sadly, I did not hold the Minister to that. If I had, we would not have adjourned, and we would have lost today's business. I have still not got a reply.
I leave it to your Lordships to decide whether that is deliberate obstruction or sheer incompetence on the part of the Government. I do not know. It is difficult to take part in a debate about an amendment relating to powers, when I do not have the Answer to my Written Question. I hope that the Minister will regain his touch. Perhaps, he should be in charge of more than one department. He got me a quick reply from his department; if he ran more than one department, we might all get quick replies. I shall have to come back to the matter when I have the information to hand.
Paragraph (d) of the amendment refers to the costs. My noble friend Lady Blatch has made all the relevant points, and I agree with her that the people who will pick up the tab will be the council tax payers, which will mean a reduction in services.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I have great sympathy with my noble friend Lord Caithness on the question of powers. I speak in the light of yesterday's experience, which was such a sad occasion for me. I started by giving the Government every chance to illuminate the darkness of my mind and clarify, I think, eight or nine points that I raised. Noble Lords will imagine the depths of my sorrow, when I received absolutely no enlightenment.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, who replied to the debate, would have done his utmost to help me; he is always helpful. On this occasion, however, either no one told him what the answers were or there were no answers because nobody had even worked them out. I acquit the noble Lord of any intention to disappoint me.
I notice that the amendment moved today by my noble friend Lady Blatch, with her customary eloquence, is very similar to the amendment that I moved yesterday. I can hardly resist the temptation to express something of the disappointment and mortification that I felt when my amendment of yesterday and the remarks that I made then evoked no attention from my Front Bench, except a desire to get on with the business. I had not, at that point, obstructed the business—but be that as it may.
142
Today, I shall resist the temptation to repeat all my questions of yesterday. I shall content myself with this semi-simple question: what powers will the assemblies have? There is a second question: where will they come from? We cannot just manufacture powers. The new powers that we are to give to the assemblies must come from somewhere. That will cause Ministers great discomfort. I cannot recall a government being anxious to shed powers. It is rather to the taste of Ministers to enlarge their empire, not to shrink it. I mean no disrespect to that very important personage the Deputy Prime Minister, but he is the last Minister who is inclined to shrink his empire, which now stretches over many pages in the Civil Service Yearbook. It is a record size; he has 120 columns.
Where are the assemblies' powers going to come from? Which Ministers are going to say, "We have more powers than we need, so we will give them to these worthy assemblies"? There are difficulties: no one has decided how many members will be in the assemblies and where they will come from. A great deal is undecided. It would be nice if one or two of the Minister's colleagues were to say, "We realise that this is an important occasion for self-sacrifice and we are prepared willingly to part with some of our powers". The answers to those questions would be fascinating. I assure the Minister that if he will be so gracious as to let me have a reply I shall maintain a peaceful silence thereafter.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the Minister still owes me a reply to a question I posed some time ago. I asked what would happen if t here was a local government review followed by a referendum resulting in a no vote and who would bear the thrown-away costs. The Minister was unable to give me an answer when I last posed the question. Will he now assure me that unfortunate council tax payers will not bear the cost of such an abortive review?
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, yesterday my noble friend Lord Peyton referred to my "terrifying glance". I hope that by now he has decided that I am less of a Rottweiler. I am delighted that he has returned to this tack today in his eloquent fashion. One of the most important aspects of the Bill is what information will be available to voters about the proposed role of regional assemblies before the election takes place.
We discussed at great length whether a regional assemblies Bill should have been produced before this Bill. We now have a commitment from the Government that a draft Bill will be published if possible. I hope that we will yet have a commitment that it will be produced. It has taken us hours to unpick what the regional assemblies will amount to. Had that information been available at an earlier stage we could have saved a great deal of time.
The voters must know before they start to decide how they are going to vote in a referendum what regional assemblies are going to do; what their responsibilities will be; and where they will fit constitutionally within the system. We have heard from the Minister that

143
regional government will not be a local authority. It is another completely odd governmental arrangement. We must also know about the costs that will result from a vote in favour of regional government which untangles again the Boundaries Committee. We also need to know the administrative start-up costs for the establishment of the regional assemblies. In the past we have had explained the costs in terms of London and Scotland; it is important that the voters know what they are in for.
Those are at least four of the main elements of information that we require. We have also discussed other information which the Minister has indicated will be available to voters in advance. I hope that the Minister will give us the reassurance we seek that all the information we have asked for will be made available to voters prior to any order for a referendum.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the importance of information cannot be exaggerated. We have debated it before and I believe the Minister agrees and will remind us of the different roles of the Government, the Electoral Commission and the participants campaigning on both sides. To take up the last comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham: is the list complete? The costs are mentioned, but they are one side of a debit/credit account. One is going over a line about information into political argument for and against regional assemblies and the cost benefit analysis of a strategic regional tier and improved decision making closer to where the implications will be felt. Can the list be complete in legislation? I am sure that the Electoral Commission will want to draw many matters to voters' attention.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, there is a saying by Raymond Chandler that if you are writing a thriller and are in doubt as to what should happen next, you should always have a man come through the door with a gun in his hand. The Minister has been admirable in his response to our debates throughout Committee and Report stages, but when confronted with Raymond Chandler's problem he has a habit of falling back on the White Paper.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that my exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Evans, on the Prime Minister's and the Deputy Prime Minister's reference to regionally elected assemblies was a try-on. I should have realised that Ministers like the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are above having their forewords and prefaces checked by civil servants to make sure that they are not speaking nonsense from which the Government have to resile at a later stage.
The Minister may not always be with us, as I have remarked previously. His confidence that everyone will know exactly on what they are voting in a referendum would not necessarily be sustained if another Minister were in charge of the proceedings at the time we arrived at them. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I take on the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. Forewords are always
144
slipped in at the last minute after the work has been done. They can pass one by. I guarantee, however, that they are read. The last time I was invited to sign one, I said, "I'm not having my name on that and you can take the photograph out as well". I am not saying what it was. It was a purely factual document; not policy. I assure the noble Lord that Ministers read forewords.
I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on one point. The Government are not starving public services of money. I shall not recite what happened to public services in the 1980s and 1990s, but the modest amount of public expenditure involved here does not starve public services of money. I have no doubt that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will produce tomorrow some more up-to-date figures on the vast legitimate expenditure on public services. The noble Baroness need not worry on that score.
I do not want to get off on the wrong foot, but the amendment's main purpose is to delay. It can sound sweet because everything looks great until you read it. It states that,
"before any order is made"—
which is the phrase on which it all hangs—information needs to be placed before the public.
As I have repeatedly said—and I am happy to confirm it again today—the Government intend to publish a summary of our proposals for elected assemblies prior to any referendums. I have given a commitment that the Government will do their best—will do their damnedest—to publish a draft Bill before the first referendums.
The amendment would require the information to be circulated before the order was made, rather than before the referendums, which substantiates the fact that it is a delaying tactic. We must publish our statement before the 28-day period in which publication of material is restricted, but do so close enough to the referendum so that it is fresh in people's minds. The order can be made many weeks before the referendum, so to publish this or similar information would not be productive for the electorate.
I am going to fall back on the White Paper, on which the Bill is based. This is only the paving Bill. The answer to many of the questions posed in many of the debates during the Bill's passage will be found in the main Bill. However, we will not have the main Bill unless there is a "Yes" vote in a referendum. If potential voters want to know about our proposals sooner, it is Recess reading for the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, of the White Paper. The noble Lord need not be frightened off by the large publication as there is a 12-page summary document. I recommend that it can be read on the Tube on the way home and will give him the most up-to-date information that he can require in order to make a judgment and keep his promise to say nothing else today.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the Tube is far too hazardous a place for me to read such subversive and unclear literature. The White Paper is the sole weapon

145
which the Minister has waved at us all—and he is waving it at me now. I can assure him that I am totally untempted and unattracted by it.
I will keep my vow of silence if the Minister will answer the simple question which I dared to ask him: whose powers will be given to the assemblies?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the short answer is that they will be powers from Ministers and not from local government because the statutory functions of local government are not changing. Yes, Ministers will lose some powers as a result of this. There is no question about that. It would not be possible for the assemblies to have the power to vary among their budget heads unless the powers came from Ministers. It is the only place the powers can come from.
From a statutory point of view, the powers will come from the main Bill. But they will come from Ministers, who will lose powers as a result of the elected regional assemblies. We are happy to do that because we believe in devolving some of the decision making from the centre. It is being taken away from Ministers.
I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, because I earlier asked colleagues whether he had been sent an Answer to his Question. I was reliably informed that it had been delivered this morning. That is being checked now. I shall not apologise two days running for DEFRA because the situation is quite unacceptable, but I was assured that the Answer was delivered to him this morning. I am hoping that that Answer, or even a copy of it, can be placed in his hands while he is in the Chamber.
I say to the noble Lord. Lord Peyton, that the powers will come from Ministers, not from local government.
I apologise if I did not answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. He asked about the costs of the review if' there is a "No" vote in the referendum. It will be up to individual local authorities to decide how much they want to spend putting evidence to the Boundary Committee. Obviously there is an expenditure there. It will be up to them also whether they are for or against an elected assembly. There is no policy on this; it is up to local authorities. The consequence is that local authorities will make their own decisions on spend and will have to stand by the result of the referendum, whatever that is. Whether they are for or against the referendum, they will put their views to the Boundary Committee in respect of local government changes. We do not intend to underwrite any potentially excessive expenditure by local authorities—
3.45 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, surely the Minister is wrong to suggest that it is a voluntary matter for the local authorities. Let us take the case of Cheshire where the county council has stated firmly, as has Lancashire, that it is completely against a referendum. If as a result of the sounding exercise the Secretary of State decides that there will be a referendum and
146
therefore a review, Cheshire will have to service the Boundary Committee and provide it with all the information it requires. It is not a voluntary matter; it is expenditure thrust on the Cheshire County Council as a result of the Minister's decision. Why, therefore, should not the Minister pay if the referendum, which Cheshire never wanted in the first place, resulted in a "No" vote?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not know what vote and what debate has taken place in Cheshire County Council to substantiate that. But that is not the point. Local authorities provide evidence and service committees, public inquiries, planning appeals and parliamentary boundary reviews. It is part and parcel of the function of local government. They decide how they want to present their case and they control the costs. It is not a matter that the Government should underwrite.
If there is a "No" vote—
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am sorry to come back—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Waddington: My Lords, no, let me put my question first. Surely, it is plainly inaccurate to say that the local authority controls the cost. The local authority is obliged to service the Boundary Committee once the Minister has said that there is to be a boundary review. There is nothing voluntary about it. Those costs are incurred directly as a result of the decision of the Secretary of State that there should be a referendum and therefore there has to be a boundary review.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Waddington, is out of order in making a second speech—indeed, a third speech—without asking the leave of the House. This is Report stage. If he has questions to ask the Minister, he must ask them after the Minister has finished. I have checked the Companion and that is the rule.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not know all the rules, but the fact is that I cannot alter the answer. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, does not like the answer, but I cannot give it any other way. The local authorities are in charge of the costs of what they do as regards the boundary review. They decide how strong a case they will make, the costs of the briefs and what they will do in terms of submissions. That is wholly within their control and it is not a matter for the Government.
I hope that this is taken on board because it will happen whatever Minister is around at the time. The Government will issue a statement about the powers and the options for local government reorganisation. This amendment does not provide for everything in any event. The local government options are important but the statement proposed by the amendment would include costs incurred by the Boundary Committee.

147
Those costs will be known, but what is the relevance of the costs of the Boundary Committee to whether voters want an elected assembly?
It may be interesting to have the information, but that factor will not weigh upon whether the voter votes for an elected assembly. The money will have been spent anyway and having the information will not mean that the voter can vote to stop the expenditure. He cannot change the decision. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, the costs have been incurred and the money spent. I cannot therefore see the relevance of having them.
I would not nit-pick over everything. Not every situation is contained in the amendment and I suspect that by the time the amendment was tabled the Government's proposal to accept the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, yesterday would not have been known. The menu could therefore have been extended.
I can assure the House that all reasonable information required to allow voters to make an informed, mature choice as to whether they want to vote for an elected regional assembly will be made available. It will be based on the powers and functions of the assembly, its size, consequences of local government reorganisation and so forth. Perhaps not all the necessary consequences of costs will be included, but certainly it will include what will happen to the local government in their area.
Along with what the assembly will do, and its powers, those are the matters that voters will want to know about before they decide whether they want a new structure—a new political animal, if you like. Voters will want us to keep our eye on the ball and address the main issues so that they can make informed choices. They will not want to be driven down the road of decision-making with 20-odd paragraphs detailing what the Boundary Committee may have spent on cups of tea or cakes and biscuits. All that is totally irrelevant and demeans the value of holding a referendum on such an important issue. I hope, therefore, that the amendment will not be pressed.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Minister for having kicked enough people to enable me to receive the reply that I have been seeking. It has taken since 17th March for the department to regurgitate four paragraphs from the White Paper, which tell me nothing.
However, when it comes to powers, one other paragraph in the reply may interest noble Lords. Discussions have been held with regard to flood defence arrangements. I can tell your Lordships that those powers are not to be transferred to the regional assemblies.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in responding to this amendment the noble Lord said that the one thing the
148
Government are not doing is starving public services of money. I invite the Minister to talk to headteachers up and down the land.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, let me complete my remarks. The Government have talked about a "headline" sum of money exceeding, it is true, the rate of inflation that has been made available to education. What they have not taken into account is the cost of the 1 per cent increase in national insurance contributions, the massive additional sums employers are being forced to contribute to pensions for teachers, the incremental drift that is in place as a result of policies introduced by this Government, and new burdens on local government. None of those costs has been taken into account. I believe that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches may agree with that point. No doubt they, too, have been hearing from schools right across the country, as I have done. If any more money is to be made available other than to provide a neutral effect to implement these policies, then that would come from public services.
The noble Lord said that the main purpose of the amendment was to introduce delay. If giving information to the people who require it and if giving that information at the outset of the exercise so that they are in a position to understand the nature of the animal for which they are going to have to make sacrifices is regarded as a delaying tactic, then that is his view. As he has done on a number of occasions already, the noble Lord will admit that once it has been determined that a region shall hold a referendum for a regional assembly, the exercise to be undergone will be long, painful and expensive. People need to know for what it is that they are going through all that. If they do not have that information at the beginning of the exercise, then it would be a confidence trick not to give it to them until the point at which they are about to vote.
My noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Caithness have been extremely patient. They have talked about powers and responsibilities on a number of occasions. I can tell the Minister that we have read and re-read the summary document and every single word of the White Paper. I turn to that document in my effort to seek answers. I do so because the one thing that these documents do not give us are answers to the questions that we have asked relentlessly throughout our debates on the Bill and will continue to ask until it has passed through this House.
I have mentioned previously paragraph 3 of the summary to Chapter 4, which states that:
"Assemblies will be given a range of powers to help them to deliver these strategies".
We have made the specific point: give examples of actual powers that will be passed down from national government to the regions; powers that are freestanding to do things and to determine them.

149
However, qualifications are added to that statement. Box 4.1 in Chapter 4 states that,
"skills and employment—which will set out how an assembly and its partners will improve the skills of the workforce and ensure that everybody has access to job opportunities".
That is a function of the county councils, the learning and skills councils, the sector skills councils, the national Learning and Skills Council, the national council for sector skills and some local authorities—not including job centres and so forth. What specific power will the new assembly be given? Will it have the power to second-guess, or perhaps the power to make all those bodies do its bidding? What will be the powers?
I turn to transport. Box 4.1 states,
"transport—which will spell out plans to address congestion, improve public transport and road links, and ensure that the transport system supports sustainable economic growth".
That is a function of the county councils and, where they have the appropriate responsibilities, the unitary authorities. Will the new assemblies second-guess those bodies, will they take powers from them or will they do something else?
In regard to waste management, Box 4.1 states,
"waste—which will set targets and indicators for regional waste management capacity and disposal, including for the recycling and recovery of waste".
Waste management is a county council and a unitary authority function. It is not a national function; it is a local government function.
I turn now to housing. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches find this amusing, although they are supposed to care about local government. Box 4.1 states,
"housing—which will deal with all aspects of the housing market and social housing in the region".
That is a function of district councils and, in part, a function of county councils—as well as, of course, unitary authorities where they exist.
My final example is health improvement, on which Box 4.1 states,
"health improvement—setting out a long-term public health strategy, which assemblies will agree with the relevant Regional Directors of Public Health".
There is already in place a long-term strategy for health matters throughout the regions of the country. What form is the new strategy to take? Furthermore, we have in place the primary care trusts and the regional strategic authorities. What will their functions be if the new regional assemblies are going to second-guess them? What powers will the regional assemblies be given in respect of this area?
Those voting for this amendment will be voting for information to be made available before an order is made so that, throughout the reorganisation exercise, the nature of the regional assembly, its powers, functions and predicted costs will be made known.
150
That guarantee will be put on to the face of the Bill which will require the Deputy Prime Minister and/or his replacement to honour that commitment.
Those who vote against the amendment will be denying any guarantee that such information will be made available to the people who really matter; the people in the regions.
3.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114, Not-Contents, 164.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Kimball, L.

Ampthill, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Kirkham, L.

Arran, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Astor, V.

Laing of Dunphail, L

Astor of Hever, L. [Teller]

Lane of Horsell, L.

Biffen, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blaker, L.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marsh, L.

Burnham, L.

May of Oxford, L.

Byford, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Caithness, E.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montrose, D.

Carrington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Moynihan, L.

Chadlington, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chalfont, L.

Naseby, L.

Cobbold, L.

Noakes, B.

Colwyn, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Onslow, E.

Crathorne, L.

Palmer, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Patten, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Denham, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L,

Dixon-Smith, L.

Plumb, L.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Prior, L.

Feldman, L.

Rawlings, B.

Ferrers, E.

Reay, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Freeman, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rogan, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Saatchi, L.

Hanham, B.

Sandwich, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Henley, L.

Selborne, E.

Higgins, L.

Selsdon, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Sharples, B.

Hogg, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Howe, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Hylton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Swinfen, L.

Jopling, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

151

Trumpington, B.

Warnock, B.

Vivian, L.

Weatherill, L.

Wilcox, B.

Waddington, L.

Windlesham, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Harrison, L.

Addington, L.

Haskel, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hayman, B.

Alderdice, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hooson, L.

Amos, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Andrews, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jeger, B.

Avebury, L.

Jordan, L.

Bach, L.

Judd, L.

Barker, B.

Kilclooney, L.

Barnett, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Laming, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lipsey, L.

Billingham, B.

Listowel, E.

Blackstone, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Borrie, L.

Lockwood, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brennan, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brett, L.

Brightman, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brookman, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNally, L.

Burlison, L.

Maddock, B.

Carter, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Chan, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Christopher, L.

Methuen, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Mitchell, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morgan, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Crawley, B.

Newby, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Northover, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Orme, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Desai, L.

Paul, L.

Dixon, L.

Pendry, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Elder, L.

Peston, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Puttnam, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Radios, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Filkin, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Razzall, L.

Gale, B.

Rea, L.

Gavron, L.

Redesdale, L.

Golding, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Rennard, L.

Goodhart, L.

Richard, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Goudie, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rooker, L.

Gregson, L.

Roper, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Russell, E.

Hamwee, B.

Sandberg, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sewel, L.

152

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Varley, L.

Sheldon, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Walmsley, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Simon, V.

Whitaker, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Whitty, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Wigoder, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Wilkins, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taverne, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Temple-Morris, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.8 p.m.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"REFERENDUMS EXPENDITURE
After paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 14 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41) there is inserted—
"(2A) In the case of a referendum held under the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 an overall limit shall be placed on the total permitted spending by all permitted participants campaigning for and against the proposition, and that limit shall be equal in respect of each side and subject to a formula by which the overall ceiling is no more than £1 million.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return to a matter that we raised earlier in Committee—the restrictions, if any, to be placed on the amount of money that can be spent by or on behalf of candidates during any referendum campaign. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me following our last discussion on this matter. He answered a number of my questions but I should like to raise one more point that he did not clarify. He has made it clear that the institutions of the European Union can contribute to the referendum campaign. That was one of the matters about which I asked him. However, it is not clear how much will be allocated to participants—that is, the candidates who are standing and the list candidates as well.
In his letter to me, the Minister said that Section 117 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000,
"provides that no individual or body can incur referendum expenses of more than £10,000 during the referendum period unless they are registered as a 'permitted participant"'.
I imagine that a "permitted participant" would include a candidate. I am not clear, therefore, about the rationale regarding the money available. I understand that for all other elections, there are various formulae. I have spared the House by not going through the formula for each aspect of elections because I do not think it would be very instructive. What is instructive, however, is that there is a formula. It relates to the amount that the constituency member—that is, a candidate—can spend, which is usually per head, and how much is available to the subsequent list members.
A very rough calculation of the amount available for the Greater London Assembly elections leads me to the view that that figure was under £1 million. There

153
needs to be an upper limit on expenditure and probably also on total expenditure. I am concerned that companies will be able to put in money without having to appeal to their shareholders.
If there is to be a formula, does the Minister yet know what it will be? If not, will the noble Lord consider that that expenditure should not be more than £1 million—which is a lot of money in terms of promoting people's futures?
The Minister told me that he would let me know before Third Reading if he had any further views. I have returned to the point a bit sooner and if he can give any further information, I shall be grateful. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will give the noble Baroness the latest information and will honour my commitment to come back with more before Third Reading.
Amendment No. 25 seeks to set the overall limit on the total permitted spending by all participants campaigning for or against elected assemblies. Let us be absolutely clear that we are not here talking about candidates but about campaigns for or against an elected assembly.
The noble Baroness wants a ceiling of £1 million and cited the rough basis for that figure. I shall not quite quibble with it because, from her point of view, there is some logic to it. As my noble friend Lord Evans explained in Committee, that approach is at odds with the one taken by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Schedule 14(2) to that Act allows for an order to be made setting limits on expenditure incurred by individual permitted participants—either by themselves or on their behalf. It envisages that that might be done by setting limits for different categories of permitted participant—as has already been done in respect of UK-wide referendums.
Moreover, my noble friend explained at length that the amendment would result in an unworkable solution in terms of both timing for setting individual limits and enforcement of the limits. I will not repeat those reasons now as they are on record from the Committee stage.
Schedule 14(2) to the 2000 Act contains a provision to set different limits in relation to referendums held in parts of the UK. My right honourable friend Nick Raynsford, Minister of State with responsibilities for local government, wrote to Sam Younger, chair of the Electoral Commission, seeking its views on whether different limits should apply for regional referendums—and if so, what they should be and why. The commission has not yet undertaken detailed work on appropriate levels for regional referendums but has suggested that its officials work with those of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which we think is a sensible way forward.
We also need to reflect with the commission on how regional referendums should interact with local government referendums. We envisage putting out proposals for public consultation before making any
154
order—and Parliament will of course have the opportunity to scrutinise in due course any order made under Schedule 14(2) to the 2000 Act.
I assure your Lordships that we shall look carefully at the whole issue—this is new territory—and seek to work very closely with the Electoral Commission. In light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied. I repeat my commitment to contact her before Third Reading if I have more up-to-date information.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister's reply and for the correspondence that has ensued through the course of the Bill. The Minister has sought to keep us up to date. Even though my noble friend Lord Caithness was absent, at least there was an intention to keep him informed. We all appreciate that courtesy, so I wanted to place our thanks on record.
I do not propose to pursue the amendment. I want only to leave on record that one aspect of the campaign must not be overwhelmed by another simply because extra money is available from different sources. There must be some way of ensuring equality in giving the right to spend to a certain limit but no further. If the Minister agrees, perhaps he will ensure that aspect is discussed with the Electoral Commission, so that both parties are on a level playing field as far as money is concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Combination of Polls]:
4.15 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 24, after "section 1" insert "or (Local government referendums)(2) with one another or"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 26, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 34, 58 and 60. These amendments are all consequential on there now being local government referendums. Amendment No. 26 enables the regional referendum poll to be combined with the polls for local government referendums.
Subsection (6) of Amendment No. 12 moved yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, required that the two referendums must be held on the same date. It makes sense to enable the polls to be combined, to reduce bureaucracy and duplication of effort—which would be the case if the polls had to be run in parallel. Under the amended Clause 6, it would also still be possible to combine these polls with other polls for local or general elections or for local mayoral referendums.
Amendment No. 28 amends Clause 7. It simply ensures that the Electoral Commission can encourage voting in relation to regional referendums and local government referendums. Amendment No. 34 amends Clause 9. It ensures that a Minister of the Crown can make provisions for the payment by the Electoral Commission of charges and expenses in connection with both types of referendum.
Amendment No. 58 amends Clause 28. It ensures that Parliament can provide for any expenditure of a Minister of the Crown in connection with regional referendums and local government referendums. Amendment No. 60 amends the Long Title so that it reflects the holding of referendums about options for implementing the recommendations of local government reviews.
I urge your Lordships to support these sensible tidying amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 35, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 35 and 41. In moving her amendment for a second referendum question, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, explained that her amendment provided for the Secretary of State, by order, to make provision in connection with the holding of the second referendums. She explained that such a power was needed because the options which will be put to voters in two-tier areas will vary from region to region, and because we would need time work out, in each case, the best arrangements for the new local referendums. Nevertheless, before making such an order, it is important that the Electoral Commission should be consulted. Amendment No. 41 provides for this by making suitable provision in Clause 11 of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 27 and 35 are consequential amendments, which tidy up the Bill, so that the various obligations on the Secretary of State to consult the Electoral Commission are all set out in one place. Noble Lords will recall that such requirements exist in relation to the Secretary of State's order-making powers under Clause 6—"Combination of polls"—and Clause 9—"Expenditure". Amendments Nos. 27 and 35 remove the separate requirements from those clauses and brigade them together in Clause 11. I emphasise, however, that the amendments in no way diminish the obligations on the Secretary of State to consult the Electoral Commission.
I shall move Amendments Nos. 35 and 41 in the appropriate places. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Encouraging voting]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 4, line 5, leave out "section 1" and insert "this Part"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert "provided that anything they undertake to encourage voting does not disproportionately favour one of the possible referendum outcomes to the detriment of the other"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 29 would provide that nothing the Electoral Commission undertook to encourage voting
156
disproportionately favoured one of the outcomes. The amendment would ensure fairness. As the Minister knows, because we said it previously in the debate and because legal challenges are currently being made, public money is being spent on arguing for a referendum. We know—or, at least, no one has convinced us otherwise—that the few examples of those who are campaigning against referendums are doing so at their own cost.
It is not unreasonable to believe that a similar imbalance may carry on when the Bill becomes law and campaigning and the use of public money becomes legitimate. The amendment would make it clear that the Electoral Commission must be entirely impartial as it encourages voting in the referendum.
There are people in the North East who believe that the playing field is not level. I know that the Minister will say, with every good intention, that there is no intention that anything other than a level playing field should prevail. However, given that people are uncertain and losing confidence, it is important to have a requirement on the Electoral Commission that can be seen to be a legal requirement as well as one of good intent.
The Electoral Commission is an independent body with a sensitive role; it will not be the first time that it has engaged in such a role. It would be very easy to influence the outcome of the referendum as it works to boost voter turnout. Anything that can be done to boost voter turnout is important, and it is important to make the commission's role in that clear. I have every confidence in the commission and in the Minister, when he tells us of the Government's intentions for it to remain neutral. The amendment provides the legislative back-up to justify its neutrality in this context, giving more confidence to local people in the process. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this is an important amendment. The noble Baroness referred to the fact that, in the North East, there has been a grave suspicion that public money from council tax payers has been used to support one side of the argument.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and Mr Raynsford, for reacting positively to suggestions that government money was being used on one side of the argument. They made it absolutely clear that they do not approve of government or taxpayers' money being used on one side of the argument. That is very welcome, but a fear remains that in some parts local authorities are using public money.
Neil Herron, of the metric martyrs association, is taking action against Sunderland Borough Council on the grounds that it has participated in an organisation campaigning for regional assemblies to be established. I well remember that in the Welsh referendum, the money and the opinion expressed in the newspapers was skewed towards the "Yes" campaign, and there were accusations that public authorities had used public money in advance of the referendum and, in some cases, during the referendum.

157
This is an important amendment, which enables this House to establish that it believes that any referendum should be carried out very fairly, without rate payers' or taxpayers' money being engaged on any one side of the argument. It also gives the Government the opportunity to reiterate that they will not allow, under any circumstances, government money to be used on one side of the argument. I can only hope that, if they have any influence with local authorities, they will prevail on them to take the strong, fair and legal line that the Government themselves are taking.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was right to draw attention to what is happening in the North East. However, jiggery-pokery is also being practised in the North West. I had occasion earlier to draw attention to a letter addressed by the chief executive of the North West Regional Assembly to Lancashire County Council. The council had told the assembly that it had reason to believe that money that it had given the assembly was being wrongly spent on campaigning. The assembly had the effrontery to write back to the council, admitting that it had passed a resolution, saying,
"we, the North West Regional Assembly declare our intention to become an elected Regional Government",
and had immediately afterwards issued a press release saying that it was campaigning,
"for a referendum in the Region at the earliest opportunity to give people in the North West their say on whether they want directly elected Regional Government".
Rather unconvincingly, when it was pointed out to the assembly that if it was so campaigning it would be acting illegally, the assembly tried to go back on what it had said in the press release. That was hardly convincing, given the plain wording of the press release.
Obviously, therefore, we need to be very watchful. We must learn from that unfortunate experience.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, in Committee, when we debated an identical amendment, my noble friend Lord Rooker said that he agreed with the whole thrust of the noble Baroness's case but argued, nevertheless, that her amendment was unnecessary. I believe that the noble Baroness is really looking for reassurance today that the Government agree with the position she has taken. I hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Baroness.
As my noble friend said in Committee, the Electoral Commission is an independent body that takes a fair and responsible approach to all its statutory duties. It should not be seen to favour one outcome of a referendum over another. Under Clause 7, we consider that the commission would have a public law duty to act in a reasonable and balanced way. It could be subject to challenge by way of judicial review if it acted in a biased way. The power is simply to encourage voting; it is not to encourage any particular outcome.
However, Amendment No. 29 might positively encourage the commission to act in a biased way. If the commission has information that one particular result
158
in a referendum is more likely than another, is it actively to persuade voting the other way? Indeed, the amendment would seem to imply that the commission can favour one of the possible outcomes of the referendum provided that it acts "proportionately", whatever that means. But crucially—I stress the word "crucially"—Clause 7 should only be about getting people to turn out to vote, not influencing for whom they vote. The commission should, quite rightly, do this in an unbiased way.
I should respond to the interventions made by the noble Lords, Lord Waddington and Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The amendment relates to Clause 7, which is solely about the role of the Electoral Commission. It has nothing to do with the activities of other bodies. During proceedings on the Bill, both in Committee and on Report, we have heard many stories about the activities of the North East and of the North West, but, so far, there is no evidence in that respect.
However, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that the Government would not under any circumstances use money to favour one side over another. I believe that that was the substance of his intervention. With that explanation, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as always, we shall want to reflect upon the noble Lord's response. I believe that he has given us a good deal of what we wanted by way of these amendments. I thank the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Provision of information to voters]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4, line 7, leave out "This section" and insert "Subsection (2)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) will apply for the purposes of a referendum on regional assemblies. Consistent with the provisions of that Act, Clause 8 of the Bill is currently drafted to permit the Electoral Commission to step in and ensure that voters have the information they need in order to make an informed choice when they vote about whether they want an elected assembly. It limits the Electoral Commission's role to situations where it has not otherwise appointed "designated organisations" in relation to each possible outcome at the referendum; in other words, where it has not designated yes or no campaigns.
With the introduction of the second referendum into local government reorganisation, upon which we agreed yesterday, we need to establish the rules that will apply. The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, permitted the Secretary of State to establish such rules by order. We shall be talking to the Electoral Commission about how these referendums should be run. There are a number of options available.
It is possible that we shall apply some or all of the PPERA rules. Alternatively, as these are local referendums, we might establish something more akin to

159
the rules that apply to the mayoral referendums. We might do something different again. We want to discuss such matters with the Electoral Commission. But in advance of establishing those rules, it seems prudent to allow the commission sufficient scope to ensure that voters in each local government referendum have sufficient information to make an informed choice—if, for example, the information would not be made available in other ways. In effect, it is a consequential amendment arising from the decisions made yesterday. Quite clearly, there remains work to be done with the commission as regards finding a satisfactory way forward. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, as we now find ourselves "muddled" on these two referendums, perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on one point. I do not know whether the Minister has had time to think about this, but is it the Government's intention to have two separate questions on two separate ballot papers? If that is the case, they will be separated and people will be able to see that they are voting on two entirely different matters and on a different referendum. Alternatively, is it the intention to introduce this as a second question tied up with the first referendum?
It is an important point. We have many concerns, but one of the problems with the second question is that there does not seem to be any way of voting against it; in other words, there is no way for someone to say "I don't want this local government reform"—or, indeed, any of it. People will just be asked to choose an option. It should be made clear that these are two separate entities, even though they may be taking place on the same day.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Baroness's question because no decisions have yet been made. However, I shall base my response on past experience. As my noble friend Lord Evans said when moving earlier amendments, essentially we want the referendums to take place on the same day and in the same polling booth. We do not know the degree of the questions or of the options on the local government referendum—at least two choices, possibly more—or, indeed, how they will be set out and deployed in the length of a ballot paper.
As is normal, I suspect that it may involve two separate ballot papers, one being a different colour to the other to make clear that difference. They may be put in the same ballot box and then separated later, or placed in separate boxes. I simply do not know. It may be wholly impractical to put all the information on one paper because we would not know the exact layout of the local government options. This is a matter for consideration. The layout must be clear to voters.
As regards the regional referendum, this will clearly be a case of whether the voter is in favour, or not in favour, of the proposal. With the local government referendum, it follows from the whole thrust and the pattern—does it not?—that there will be two or more options from which to choose. It is up to the elector
160
which option, if any, he or she chooses. I cannot envisage how there could conceivably be any other way forward. There will be two or more options, one of which must be chosen if people so wish. Alternatively, they could abstain.
I have just been given some further information. I shall read out the advice in this briefing note, in the knowledge that what I have just said may be completely contradictory. On the question of whether there will be two ballot papers or one, I am advised that either approach is possible. I think I said that. My briefing goes on to say that we are discussing the matter further with the Electoral Commission—good! As for which approach is appropriate, I am advised that that may depend on the number and length of the local government options. Indeed, that is what I just said. Clearly, further work is required on the matter.
By and large, the answers are self-evident. It depends to a certain extent on the nature of the options for local government; in other words, how many there are in a particular area. They will vary. It is a countywide, local referendum, which may be different in the same region. Such considerations are a matter for the Electoral Commission. People must be able to understand the information supplied.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the arrangements sound fairly complicated, especially if the options for local government are to be spelt out precisely. For example, in a large region many changes may be made to the boundaries of district as well as county councils. It will not simply be that X is abolished and Y is instituted. Many other changes would need to be understood. First, will those arrangements be approved by an order before Parliament? Will there be an order before Parliament to ascertain whether there will be separate ballot papers and what will be on them? Secondly, will the advice of the Electoral Commission be sought in terms of approving the arrangements?
Did the Minister really mean that the regional assembly vote is straightforward: that one is either for it or against it? During the previous debate, the noble Lord rightly made this point: that there is a link between whether one wants a regional assembly; and the price for having that regional assembly. There is a link between the two votes; one is linked with the other. The answer to a regional assembly vote could be "Yes" because one of the options is satisfactory, or "No" because the arrangements are not satisfactory. Simply being for or against a regional assembly is not entirely without complication. There is a link with the other question.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have the advantage of the first question in the Bill. That is a straightforward "Yes" or "No". The consequences will now be made clearer because of the second referendum. The alternative originally was to have a "Yes" or "No" and, in publications produced by the Government and others, to spell out that the consequences of having an elected regional assembly is single tier local government. In order to give a greater choice of options for the form of single tier local government, the situation is necessarily more complex.

161
The noble Baroness asks whether there will be an order. As we discussed yesterday, the order will be subject to the affirmative resolution including the text of the options to appear on the ballot paper and any extra information such as maps. The Electoral Commission's views will be sought and put before the House with the order. All these matters will come back to Parliament.
In order to make a rod for my own back I shall give an example. I had it ready to use yesterday but there was not a suitable time. I believe that it would be useful to have it on the record. I want to be as open as possible. I asked for an example of a region where there were some complicated options—perhaps across a county boundary. I have chosen a region where I understand that the chamber has specifically requested not to be part of the first tranche. Whatever the soundings—I do not know what they are—the regional chamber of the West Midlands has said that it does not want a referendum; it does not want to be in the first tranche. I do not wish to refer to the two areas which we have always debated because I have to give examples of how the local structure might be joined together and it might mislead.
I hope that the example I give will help. Noble Lords may chastise me, saying that it was not helpful and it would have been better not to have known about it. The example is purely hypothetical. It does not mean that the West Midlands will be among the first regions to hold a referendum. I have stated that the chamber has asked that it should not be. Nor shall I say anything about the unitary structure of the West Midlands. That would be a matter for the Boundary Committee if it were asked to do a review of local government.
Let us suppose that following a review there is a set of recommendations for Worcestershire; that is, the area currently comprising of the district councils of Malvern Hills, Worcester, Wychavon, Wyre Forest, Bromsgrove and Redditch. The recommendations involve two options: the first for a single unitary authority based on the current county boundary; the second for two unitary authorities, one comprising the current districts of Malvern Hills, Worcester and Wychavon and another comprising the districts of Wyre Forest, Bromsgrove and Redditch. In this case, Worcestershire would be treated as the county area and voters in that area would vote for which of the two options they preferred. In similar circumstances, there would be separate votes also in Warwickshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire, the other county council areas of the West Midlands. I simply take the county of Worcestershire as an option.
Let us look at an alternative scenario in which two options are on the table—a single county unitary for Worcestershire and a two-unitary solution—but where the two-unitary solution included the creation of an authority which crossed the county line and took in part or all of the area of the district of Stratford-on-Avon which is currently part of Warwickshire. There would also be other options on the table for Warwickshire in order to take account of that. The county area in this case would be the combined areas of Worcestershire
162
and Warwickshire and the referendum would be held on a combined basis in the two counties to see which option people favoured.
That is an example where the Boundary Committee may put forward an option which crosses a county boundary in the same region. We are not talking about regional boundaries. The option would be in the two-county area as opposed to the single county area and would be accompanied by maps and visuals. I hope that that is helpful to the House. It is intended to be so.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, I found worrying one remark by the Minister. He said that he cited the region because the regional chambers had said that they did not wish to be in the first tranche. He said also that that does not mean that it will not be in the first tranche—so it was not a good reason. That singles out the region in a worrying way. Had other regions known that, they may have been wise enough to have said, "We don't want to be in the first tranche either".
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness reads far too much into it. I asked officials yesterday morning for an example which would flesh out how the system would work. I asked specifically not to be given an example from the north-west or north-east region because we would have to give hypothetical details about which district might join with which in two areas which have been debated constantly since Second Reading. I asked for an area on which there has been no debate. As far as I know, there has been no hypothetical issues with regard to the West Midlands. Yorkshire and Humberside have been mentioned.
I read in the Birmingham Post—I have had no correspondence with the chamber—that it had said, "We do not want to be part of the first tranche". It is a matter for the Deputy Prime Minister whether he follows that judgment depending on the soundings. I have no knowledge of the soundings. It is no good giving an example of invented names from a county which does not exist. One has to give examples of real places in order to explain how the system may work in one circumstance or another. I fail to see how one could give examples of other than real places. The example is purely hypothetical. It is based on an ad hoc arrangement. The Boundary Committee could put forward an entirely different arrangement. That is up to the Boundary Committee, not me or my officials.
I asked for an example of a scenario where the county line might be crossed. The county area has to be defined. It is a county council if it is within the one county. However, the Boundary Committee has flexibility to make sensible arrangements for single tier local government. It may say that in certain areas it is a good idea to cross a county boundary. What would be the consequences of that for people having a referendum on the local government issue? Please do

163
not read too much into it. It is too late to start campaigning or writing to all the regional chambers. That is not why I gave the example.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall not read too much into it. The noble Lord has been extremely helpful. However, my noble friend Lady Seccombe may be put out by the remark that there was no mention of the West Midlands. My noble friend mentioned it in some detail in her Second Reading speech as did other noble Lords.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 27, at end insert—

"(4A) Subsection (4B) applies if the Secretary of State makes an order under section (Local government referendums)(2) to cause a referendum to be held about the government's proposals for the structure of local government.

(4B) The Electoral Commission may take such steps as they think appropriate to provide for persons entitled to vote in the referendum such information as the Commission think is likely to promote awareness among those persons about the arguments relating to the options in those proposals."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Expenditure]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 34 and 35:
Page 4, line 38, leave out "section 1" and insert "this Part"
Page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Thomas of Walliswood): My Lords, I call Amendment No. 36.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding is that Amendment No. 35 pre-empts Amendment No. 36.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, that is quite right. I cannot call Amendment No. 36. I call Amendment No. 37.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Exclusion of legal proceedings]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 5, line 11, leave out "No court shall" and insert "A court shall only"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, for the purposes of speaking to Amendment No. 37, I shall repeatedly refer to cols. 558–64 of the Official Report of 24th March.
When I sought to query why Clause 10 states that,
"No court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers",
and so on, I took it to mean that no court should entertain any proceedings. That is what the words say and that is what I believed they meant. I then turned to the Explanatory Notes to see whether I had misunderstood the position. One argument put
164
forward in support of the provision, which I have never believed is a valid argument in this Chamber, was simply that it has been done before. Reference was made to the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act, but the Act that is truly pertinent to the debate was passed 28 years ago. The Minister has quite openly agreed that this Bill addresses a unique provision. I should therefore like to consider my Amendments Nos. 37 and 39 in that light and on their merits.
If the Bill—in a free-standing clause which does not refer to any other clause—states that,
"No court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the … ballot",
I shall take it to mean just that. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, at col. 559, said:
"the clause does not rule out any and every challenge to a referendum result being looked at by the courts".
But as the Bill states that,
"No court shall entertain any proceedings",
it does rule out any challenge regardless of whether it is minor or major. The noble Lord, at col. 560, went on to say:
"The clause is certainly designed to cut out less serious challenges".
Not only does that contradict the noble Lord's first statement, but there is no reference to either serious or less serious offences being brought before the court. Indeed, as I keep repeating, the Bill states:
"No court shall entertain any proceedings".
The noble Lord went on to say that,
"an alleged serious error could be challenged in the courts",
but he could not give an example. How can it be challenged in the courts if no court will entertain the proceedings? He went on to say:
"Court challenges take time. Undue delay could result in difficulties as regards introducing the main Bill to set up the assemblies".
If a wrong has been done and a remedy has to be sought in court, that wrong must be remedied regardless of whether it delays this or any other Bill. It is not an argument to say that a court challenge should not be allowed because it might delay this Bill or the later assemblies Bill.
The noble Lord went on to repeat:
"We recognise that the clause may not prevent all challenges, particularly those of a serious nature".
Again I say that that cannot be the case.
The noble Lord also said that my Amendment No. 72 in Committee was a "little dodgy" because it imposed a rather short time scale. I have taken him at his word and extended it to three months, which I think is probably more reasonable. I think that it would be wrong to make the time scale any longer as it could allow for very much delayed vexatious challenges. Neither the Minister nor we would want that.
The noble Lord, at col. 561, went on to say that he hoped that,
"Members of the Committee accept that the clause does not prevent serious challenges".

165
However, as the provision states that,
"No court shall entertain any proceedings",
serious or otherwise, I do not believe that that is the case. As long as those words remain in the Bill, I think that there will have to be a very good explanation as to why we should accept what the Minister has been advised.
The noble Lord, at col. 563, went on to say:
"Therefore, some case law does exist but no ouster clause of this kind has ever been considered by the courts, and that is a problem".
We had a debate about the ouster clause, but I still do not believe that it impacts on how we approach Clause 10. In the middle of the night when we were discussing this amendment in Committee, when he had finished his duties as the Deputy Chairman of Committees, my noble friend Lord Elton leapt to his feet to resume his place on these Benches. He admitted to me that he had never before sat through such a confusing and extraordinary debate. When able to speak in the debate, at col. 564, he said:
"I have been longing to join in this debate. If the words in the Bill do not mean what they say, surely words should be found that mean what the Government intend. Could we have words that say what the Government intend so that people like the noble Lord and myself, who are not lawyers, can understand what they mean so that we do not have to pay vast sums of money to lawyers to tell us what they mean?".
In winding up on the amendment, I said:
"The public will have to make sense of what it means".
We in this place are part of the Westminster village. We are accustomed and privy to legalese on a daily basis. However, it is the public who will have to understand what the Bill means. As I said then:
"If at the end of the day we say, 'Do not worry about reading the words on the page, the Minister says that they mean something else and when it says that no court shall entertain any proceedings, do not believe that because they will entertain some proceedings as long as the proceedings are serious because that is what the lawyers advise'''.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who had almost but not quite the last word on that amendment. She said:
"It is so serious that one will want to read the debate".—[Official Report, 24/3/03; cols. 558–64.]
I have read the debate. I still think that my amendments are worthy of consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have the gravest doubts as to whether the wording of Clause 10 could exclude proceedings for fraud. However, the fact remains that Amendment No. 37 can do no harm. Certainly it would make the matter a lot clearer. I cannot see how it could do any harm. I therefore urge the Minister to accept it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the point is indeed serious. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said that the Government will come back with an amendment to the clause, I think that it would be more useful to consider what the Government are working on. I have one observation to which the Minister need not
166
reply. Given that the role of the courts which cannot be ousted is that of judicial review, and given that the period for applying for a judicial review is, I believe, six weeks rather than three months—which is the period mentioned in Amendment No. 39—I should like to know how the provision fits within the context of the overall law of judicial review. One has to be extremely careful about the unforeseen consequences of this type of provision.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the initial remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Yesterday—when I was criticised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for even raising the issue of Clause 10 in relation to Clause 5, although I was at the time speaking to Amendments Nos. 38 and 40, I think—I made a firm commitment that we would come back at Third Reading with government amendments to Clause 10. That said, I hope that we do not need to prolong the issue. I am not a lawyer and therefore I must operate on the best advice I am given. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is absolutely right: at present there is no evidence that the courts could be ousted from considering, say, a fraud case concerning, for example, a returning officer.
It appears that Clause 10 imposes a blanket ban but it does not. That is what I am told. In this type of situation we non-lawyers find out how lawyers make their money. We are dealing with something that appears to be absolutely straightforward with no qualification whatever. It looks like a blanket ban but we are told that it is not. There are circumstances in which the courts would hold the right to look into something.
Therefore, we shall return at Third Reading with an amendment which not only relates to fraud but focuses on issues such as the type of legal challenges that can be made, the type of court that would have jurisdiction and possibly a time limit in bringing proceedings. There are a number of options, including something along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness in relation to the timing of legal challenges. But we need to consider the matter very carefully because Third Reading will be our last opportunity to get it right.
5 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and in the light of what he has just said, will he be able to ensure that the amendments that he might propose are available in time for other people to take some advice and, if necessary—if they believe it desirable—to table amendments to his amendments?
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords. As someone said yesterday, when a Bill is published, there are notes on the clauses. However, I regret that when the Government or others come along with substantial amendments which the Government accept, the Explanatory Notes for those amendments are not necessarily available. In this case, I shall not be able to stand here at Third Reading with amendments to Clause 10 unless I or the Government

167
have been able to publish an English translation with legal footnotes and back-up explaining exactly what those changes mean.
Frankly, if I am not up to the task, I shall plead with my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General to come along to help out. I hope that, if I can obtain an English translation explaining what we are trying to achieve with the necessary precedents, I shall be able to cope and give people comfort. However, I shall not return with amendments unless a satisfactory explanation has been given in advance. By definition, that explanation must allow for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
I do not have any idea of the timetable, although I have a vague idea in my mind about the date of Third Reading. I thought that it would be on 28th April in order to meet the requirement for Royal Assent to be given on 8th May, as I was told by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. But there is sufficient time. I know that the recess is in the way but, if there is time to dream up the amendments, there is time to dream up a translation that we non-lawyers can understand.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with regard to the so-called "information" that I had, I am sorry that the noble Lord does not receive such information from his own party. It seems that his party gave us the information before giving it to the noble Lord.
I consider the Minister to be more than equal to the task of taking the Bill through the House. I have the utmost admiration for the feisty way that he has done so and for the fact that he has been courteous and incredibly patient with some of us who have been more than a thorn in his side throughout the proceedings. But that is the stuff of politics, and the strength of this House lies in the way that we operate.
However, one thing surprises me. With the benefit of parliamentary counsel, which is considerable, and with the benefit of officials who take away the Committee stage of a Bill, consider all the pros and cons that have been argued and return with a reasoned, properly explained note, it should not be necessary to engage the Attorney-General, who has a million other things with which to concern himself—not least the Iraq war—to deal with this one amendment. The advisers in the department should have an answer to this question.
Perhaps I may give a parallel example. If a parent received a notice that no appeal would be entertained for questioning a grievance about a pupil in school, the parent could be forgiven for believing that that would deny him an appeal against the grievance about his child. A serious case would be considered but not a minor or vexatious case. That cannot be the explanation for Clause 10. As I said, the clause is freestanding. There is no reference to schedules, and there is no link to any other clause in the Bill. It simply states:
"No court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the … ballot".
It will have to be a very good explanation indeed.
168
Frankly, from what the noble Lord said, I consider the clause to be otiose. I believe that it is redundant, that it could come out of the Bill and that whatever is on the statute book could prevail. The amendment that the noble Lord will bring back at Third Reading might take that into account. But if an amendment is tabled to the clause and if the clause remains part of the Bill, I shall take it as read that it will at least achieve the purpose and aim of my amendments. If that is not the case, I shall be very worried.
I listened to yesterday's debate but was not sure whether the amendments were intended to comfort my concerns about Clause 10 or to comfort the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I had intended to press the amendments but I shall not do so today because I believe it is important to give the Minister an opportunity to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading.
So far as I am concerned, at present the Plain English Campaign, myself and others who read the clause—especially those who are not used to legalese—will have no doubt in reading what is actually plain English:
"No court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot".
Therefore, in eager anticipation of Third Reading, which I believe is to take place on the 28th—at least, that is the date which I have been asked to put in my diary and which has rather scuppered my holiday—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 5, line 11, after "questioning" insert "—
(a)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 5, line 14, at end insert—
"(b) the number of ballot papers or votes cast in a referendum held in pursuance of an order under subsection (2) of section (Local government referendums) as certified by a person appointed for the purpose in pursuance of an order under subsection (9) of that section."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Supplementary]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 5, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) No order may be made under any of the following provisions unless the person making the order first consults the Electoral Commission—

(a) section (Local government referendums)(9);

(b) section 6(1);

(c) section 9(1)."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Local government review]:
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 6, line 42, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 43, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 44. Amendment No. 43 would eliminate a redundant subsection from the Bill. In effect, the clause in question enables the Secretary of State to prepare to direct the Boundary Committee to review local government in a given region before the ink has even dried on the statute book—indeed, I think that it probably already has done. It gives the Secretary of State power to consider views, information and evidence about the level of interest in a given region in holding a referendum. It also enables the Secretary of State to consider a number of factors that might influence which region or regions he directs the Boundary Committee to review. Therefore, it is a question of leaving out subsection (7).
With regard to Amendment No. 44, if noble Lords cast their eyes over Part 3 of the Bill, they will see that the whole of Clause 20 is devoted to the way that the Electoral Commission will be required to prepare and submit its advice. We on this side of the House see no reason why the transparent process that the Bill requires the Electoral Commission to follow is not applied to the work of the Boundary Committee.
As the Bill stands, a direction to the Boundary Committee will simply specify the date by which a review of local government structure will begin in a given region and the date by which the Boundary Committee will have to make its recommendations. The Bill states that a direction may require the Boundary Committee to start and finish its work by certain dates. Such wording implies that even this sparse information may, if the Secretary of State so chooses, be omitted from any direction he gives the Boundary Committee.
The amendment simply seeks to ensure that the review process is open and transparent. It lays down a set of steps that must be included in any direction to the Boundary Committee. Those steps provide a safeguard for people living in areas in which local government reviews will be carried out. They ensure that people are aware of the Boundary Committee's remit; the timescale to which it will operate; and the consultation opportunities that they will have to take part in the review process.
Local government reorganisation is likely to have more of a direct impact on people's lives than decisions about the electoral areas in which they live. There is no doubt that plans to abolish county and district councils, many of which have long histories of serving their local communities, will cause significant and prolonged disruption to the delivery of vital public services—a matter to which we again return.
That disruption will start from the moment that local government reviews are announced. The uncertainty that such reviews inevitably breed will deliver a blow to the morale of the councils affected and will distract councillors and officers from the essential task of delivering efficient, effective public service.
To minimise that uncertainty, there needs to be a clause that maps out the review process from start to finish. By their nature, reviews are lengthy and complex, but the longer they drag on, the more levels of uncertainty arise. The amendment would simply ensure that the Boundary Committee's work was open to public involvement and scrutiny.
We believe that the Boundary Committee would welcome any attempt to increase public participation in its work. Local people have an inherent understanding of their local communities and are best placed to inform the Boundary Committee's recommendations to the Government. I therefore hope that your Lordships will endorse my arguments by supporting the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 43 seeks to delete Clause 12(7). It would mean that the Secretary of State could not do anything in connection with his consideration of the level of interest or of the factors set out in Clause 12(5)—such as the implications of carrying out a review in two or more regions at the same time—until the Bill had received Royal Assent.
We want to enable regions that want a referendum to be able to hold one as soon as possible. Conducting the soundings exercise on level of interest while the Bill is before Parliament minimises delay in the process. Debate on the Bill in Parliament has also raised publicity for the proposals, which we hope will encourage people to send us their views. The amendment is clearly intended to undo all the work undertaken for the soundings exercise that we initiated last year.
The approach taken in subsection (7) is well precedented—for example, by Section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000. We are not prejudging Parliament. No decisions on the region or regions to go ahead will be taken until the Bill has received Royal Assent. I do not think that I must make the case for having started the soundings exercise, because we have done so repeatedly throughout our debates.
From previous debate, your Lordships will know in respect of Amendment No. 44—a proposed new clause, in effect—that we entirely agree with the sentiments behind it and that in fact, by importing the requirements of the Local Government Act 1992 into this Bill by means of Clause 14, we have ensured that the Boundary Committee will consult widely and that local people will have an opportunity to comment on the process and the recommendations.
The consultation requirements with which the Boundary Committee will have to comply are set out in Section 15 of the Local Government Act 1992. I assure noble Lords that they are the same requirements as were applied to the structural reviews of the 1990s and that will apply to other structural and boundary reviews carried out by the Electoral Commission in future.
So the Boundary Committee will be required to take steps to inform all interested parties about its draft and final recommendations and of the period within which

171
they can make representations. It must already deposit copies of recommendations at the principal office of any principal council. If the South West were to be reviewed, the Secretary of State would expect to ensure that suitable steps were taken to provide for copies to be deposited at the office of the Council of the Isles of Scilly. In practice, all past reviews have published full reports and the Boundary Committee would doubtless do the same.
Noble Lords suggested that those requirements should be in the Bill, but it is not our practice to repeat provision for the same procedures and arrangements in new legislation when those procedures are already set out in statute—not least so as to avoid confusion. I thought that we all agreed early on that we should not write the same thing into a Bill twice. If it is contained in another Act, refer to it, do not repeat it. Otherwise, the risk of confusion is too great.
I therefore hope that noble Lords will accept that to have repeated all the relevant parts of the 1992 Act would have added greatly to the number of clauses in the Bill to no advantage whatsoever. To repeat these provisions would suggest that we should repeat them all. That would be nonsense. However, the spirit is included in the legislation that is on the statute book. I therefore hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response, especially to Amendment No. 44. However, it does make me think that all of our discussion would be remarkably helped if there were an idiots' guide somewhere that mentioned which other Acts of Parliament could be applicable. In Bills, there is only a flat statement, which we must then unpick before we discover that provision can be found in other legislation. I do not know how many Acts there have been concerning local government reviews and local government boundaries—I have not bothered to count them—but there are many. As we have already discussed, other Acts are involved, such as the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
I must accept, because I have not checked, that what the Minister said is correct—that that is what would be implemented, that that is what is written into subsection (8)(a) and (b). I never disbelieve the Minister; I assume that that is what is said; and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Local government review: supplementary]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 7, line 13, leave out "what structural change is most appropriate" and insert "appropriate structural change"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 46 to 48 and 51 to 53. Those are essentially consequential amendments to our decision yesterday to allow a second
172
referendum on local government reorganisation. I hope that it will not be necessary to labour that point, although I shall do so if required.
Amendment No. 46 signifies a change of policy. I owe the noble Earl, Lord Caithness an apology—I intended to give it to him last night, but the opportunity did not arise. During the course of an exchange yesterday, he asked me about existing unitary authorities having their boundaries changed, when we had clearly said that that was a no-go area. As I was answering him, I thought that the answer that I was giving him could not be right, because of the implications of the second referendum. I did not have an opportunity to refer to my note, which reminded me that I had said something wrong, because we had changed policy.
Amendment No. 46 represents that change of policy. It significantly changes the policy with which we started, because it changes the basis on which any review is conducted. That responds directly to the concern raised by the noble Earl and others—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. The Boundary Committee should be allowed to consider the boundaries of existing unitary authorities. Although the Government remain concerned to limit the impact of reviews and continue to believe that there is no general need to review the boundaries of unitary authorities, we are prepared to concede that there may be circumstances in which that makes sense. Indeed, in Committee, we were given an example in which there appeared to be a consensus.
Amendment No. 46 therefore allows the Boundary Committee to consider unitary boundaries with a view to expanding them to take in part of a two-tier area. We propose to amend the guidance that we intend to issue to make it clear to the Boundary Committee that we would expect it to exercise that discretion only when there were pressing reasons to look at unitary boundaries.
We do not intend this relaxation in the parameters of the review to degenerate into a free-for-all, in which every unitary authority bids to expand its boundaries. I shall not name any of them, but there are some close to home. Therefore we want the Boundary Committee to be satisfied that both the unitary authority and the adjoining two-tier authorities are persuaded of the need to adjust the boundaries.
Amendments Nos. 45 and 48 provide for the necessary changes to ensure that the Government are in a position to allow voters at a second referendum to vote on different options for unitary local government. It provides that instead of a simple coming forward with recommendations for the best unitary structure, the Boundary Committee must make recommendations for at least two options in relation to each county area. It will assess the options against the same criteria as it would otherwise have used, and which are provided for in Clause 13(8). It is most important, therefore, that all the options presented in its recommendations must have regard to the interests and identities of local communities and the need to secure effective and convenient local government.
Amendment No. 48, alongside the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, establishes a transparent process by which the Secretary of State will proceed once he has received the committee's recommendations. He will have to allow six weeks before laying an order for the second referendum. During that period, he will be receptive to representations as he makes up his mind about the proposals that he will put to voters. Where necessary, he may direct the Boundary Committee to provide him with additional information or advice. He will also be able to reject any of the options and direct the committee either to make different recommendations, or to carry out a further review. If he does so, he will have to wait a further six weeks after receiving any new recommendations before he can make a referendum order.
He will decide which of the committee's recommendations he is going to put to the voters before he makes an order and, in the light of any representations received, whether to modify those recommendations. He will then make an order setting out the options in the form of a question to the voters and seek the Electoral Commission's views on the intelligibility of the question and on the supporting material, as I explained previously in the debate on Amendment No. 17.
The other amendments in this group make minor technical adjustments to the Bill to facilitate the changes that I have just described, which follow from the agreement of the House yesterday on the noble Baroness's amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 7, line 20, at end insert "unless it has the effect that any part of the area of a relevant local authority becomes part of the area of a local authority which is not a relevant local authority"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Review procedure]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 47 and 48:
Page 8, line 21, second column, at beginning insert"—
( ) In subsection (1)(b) omit "under this Part";"
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
"BOUNDARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) This section applies in relation to recommendations made by the Boundary Committee in pursuance of section 12(1)(b).
(2) The recommendations must include at least two options for structural change in relation to each county area in the region.
(3) At any time after he receives the recommendations the Secretary of State may—

(a) direct the Boundary Committee to supply him with additional information or advice;

(b) reject one or more of the options.

(4) If the Secretary of State rejects one or more of the options he may direct the Boundary Committee either—

(a) to make different recommendations, or

(b) to carry out a further local government review of the region and to make further recommendations.

(5) If the Secretary of State acts under subsection (4)(b), sections 12(8) to (10), 13(3) to (8), 14 and this section apply for the purposes of the further review and recommendations.
174
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) it is immaterial whether the Secretary of State has considered any of the matters in section 12(5).
(7) County area must be construed in accordance with section (Local government referendums)(3)."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 15 [Implementation of recommendations]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 8, line 45, at end insert—
"( ) a majority of those voting in each district and county area voted in favour of an elected regional assembly,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment refers to the first referendum question: should there be an elected regional assembly for such and such a region? We have been concerned throughout this Bill that the county and district areas might be overwhelmed in a referendum on a regional government. The disparity between the numbers in the counties and districts against those in the large metropolitan areas might mean that even if they voted 100 per cent no, it could have no effect on what would be their own future and their being subjected to a local government review. Those would be the areas where it was carried out. It is not about whether they have a review, or what sort of local government they want. It is on the question of whether they believe that they want regional government at all.
This amendment would ensure that where a referendum took place the returning officer had to ensure that in the vote there was a majority of those voting in the county and the district areas in favour of regional government before he could declare that referendum a success—if other parts of the region voted in favour. It is a simple amendment, but it is not simple in its aim. It seeks to make sure that those county and country areas are not engulfed by the metropolitan areas. We have looked during this Bill at some of the disparities of numbers that are apparent in the White Paper. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I attach the greatest importance to this amendment. I referred earlier to a letter written by the chief executive of the North West Regional Assembly to the clerk to Lancashire County Council. In that letter, elated 17th March, the chief executive said:
"Lancashire County Council will be aware of the high level of public interest in the North West region, with regard to a referendum on elected regional government."
The chief executive certainly does not lack effrontery, because when he wrote that letter, he must have known that Lancashire County Council had issued a statement saying that all parties on the council were against a referendum on regional government.
That letter and the remarks of the chief executive highlight the absurdity of the present situation. There is a real risk of the Secretary of State resolving that there should be a referendum in the North West, although Lancashire and Cheshire are against it and Cumbria is at the best ambivalent. That is happening simply because noises in favour are emanating from the North West Regional Assembly, reflecting some support in the Merseyside and Manchester conurbations. There is real

175
risk of a referendum resulting in a yes vote in favour of a regional assembly, simply because of the overwhelming voting power coming from the conurbations of Merseyside and Manchester, and in spite of the fact that the people in Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria have voted almost overwhelmingly against.
Why should the people of those counties be saddled with a regional assembly in the North West because of a big vote in favour in the conurbations but minimal support throughout the rest of the region? It would be a travesty of justice, and a travesty of democracy if the council tax payers of Lancashire, Cheshire and Cumbria were saddled with the cost of this completely pointless elected assembly and had to pay the salaries of members of an assembly who we now know would have precisely nothing worthwhile to do. No doubt they would find work, because work is always found for idle hands. No doubt they would find some justification for their existence. It would be a travesty of justice and democracy if the people of Lancashire had to pay for that frolic. I commend the amendment to the Minister.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, as I understand it, "each" in this context is a synonym for "every". It seems that that is not being denied. I wanted to be clear about that in case I was going down the wrong road. If I am right, as I appear to be, any one district or county area would have a veto on the decision of the whole region. The amendment suggests that there should not be a regional referendum, but referendums in each district—and each county area, although I do not think that would be necessary, because there would be results from the districts anyway.
That is nothing like any way in which we have ever voted before and I do not think that it is how we should go about it. Under these proposals, if any single small part of Wales or Scotland or a London borough had voted against the new constitutional arrangements, they would not have happened. It might be quite hard to elect MPs under such a system. If one ward voted against, what would happen to the MP? I shall not go down that route, because it is not quite equivalent.
Making such a provision for referendums goes to the root of what regional referendums are about in a way that we cannot accept. It would mean that there would not be a regional referendum.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, is she opposing the amendment on the ground that a small, insignificant district area could hold the whole region to ransom simply by not having a majority in favour, or would her argument still apply if any part of a region, however large—for example, a county area, or perhaps across two county areas—was against? Is the noble Baroness arguing against the idea in principle, or is her argument based on one small, insignificant district council area?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am arguing against the idea as a matter of principle, large or small. Of course, if the large areas vote against, that will have an impact
176
on the outcome of the whole referendum. On a similar—though not identical—amendment in Committee, the Minister said that if there was a tiny majority, the Secretary of State would think very hard about whether to proceed with setting up a regional assembly.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I support what my noble friend said. It is a great pity that the specific argument of a small district council area within a region was used to oppose the amendment when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is in fact against the amendment in principle. What she said about larger areas, such as a whole county area, is simply not true. As my noble friend Lord Waddington made absolutely clear, if the whole of Northumberland, the whole of Cumbria or even the whole of Lancashire and Cheshire together voted against a regional assembly, they could still be outvoted by the metropolitan urban areas.
The fact that we now have two-tier questions on the ballot paper—one about regional assemblies and the other about the particular shape of the single-tier authorities below the regional assemblies—makes no difference. Everybody is going to answer the regional assemblies question, so if all those in a two-district area in some of the region voted against any option in the regional assemblies or even did not fill in the ballot paper but voted against the regional assembly, they could still be outnumbered by the others. That does not remove the risk of being outvoted by the urban areas. One has only to think of places such as Greater Manchester, Newcastle or—if we may be allowed to use the West Midlands again—some of the more densely populated areas there. We know that the largest area has over 8 million people in it. If all the country areas in that region voted against an assembly and all the densely populated areas voted for it, the country areas would lose. The noble Lord is going to say that we should not pre-empt how people are going to vote. We do not know until they have cast their vote. However, a small percentage of urban voters can outnumber a high percentage of rural voters. Even if turnout in the rural areas is very good and turnout in the urban areas is very poor, there could still be an overwhelming majority of urban voters outvoting and overwhelming the rural voters.
I am sorry again that the county and rural areas are not being supported by the Government or the Liberal Democrats, but we shall continue to do that. I support my noble friend.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope that Hansard will make it clear that I deployed a number of arguments in support of our position.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, there may very well be a case for some rural weighting, but I am not sure that the amendment would achieve a fair balance. If the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, really believes that urban dwellers are any more in favour of regional government than those in rural areas, I think he is making a big mistake. People in urban areas are

177
just as concerned about the imposition of yet another tier of government, which they will have to pay for and from which they will get no benefit.
I do not know how to achieve rural weighting. There are circumstances in which there should be rural weighting, but I do not believe that one area should be able to veto the whole decision.
I am an urbanite and I know that people living in our towns and cities no more welcome the Bill than do people out in the counties and the districts. I would probably not support the amendment. I am so diametrically opposed to and hateful of the Bill that I have been prepared to support Opposition amendments all the way along, but I am very hesitant on this one.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not know what would happen if there were a Division on the amendment. My noble friend did not say that he would come and support me.
Throughout our debates, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has spoken with great confidence and certainty about the views of the electorate in Lancashire and Cheshire. I am not sure there have been any local votes there on the issue yet.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, both Lancashire and Cheshire County Councils have issued statements saying that all parties are against a referendum.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I also said earlier that I was not aware—and please do not send me any paperwork on it—of councils having had any resolutions, debates or votes on the issue. A statement issued by the party leaders is very different from having a genuine debate after mature consideration of what is in the Bill, although I know it is not enough.
All along I have sought not to overplay the elected regional assemblies. I do not want to underplay them. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is definitely a two nation Tory. There is no doubt about that. She sees the two nation split as urban and rural. She cannot conceive of anyone in Manchester asking what is in the proposals for Manchester. She automatically assumes that urban means you go for it because you get control. That is the kind of language that we have tried to get rid of. We are trying to build one nation. That is why we want a regional referendum, not one carried out on a district basis, setting off one part against another. That is the theme throughout all the noble Baroness's speeches, which I regret, because I do not think society is like that.
This is a bit of a nit-picking point, but the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about it at the start of her speech so that she could be clear about the words. Technically, under the amendment there would have to be a majority in each district and county area, including those districts that are already unitary. Somehow, I do not think that is what the noble Baroness intends. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made a similar proposal in Committee. I spoke at length then, and it would probably not be best to have another debate on thresholds, so I shall cover generally only the main points.
178
We believe that the fairest and simplest measure of the referendum result is the votes cast across the region. We have debated the boundaries, the shape of the regions, their differences and the soundings. We followed that precedent in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. We do not think that it would be fair if people who did not vote could effectively veto a "Yes" vote by those who did.
Secondly, it is wrong that the desires of those who vote should be thwarted by those who, for whatever reason, do not bother. The thresholds give an additional, perverse incentive for those opposed to the proposal to stay at home.
Thirdly, we must all encourage as many people as possible to vote. I know that it is difficult. People can get switched off; they can be asked to vote too often; they can argue that they do not understand, but in a democracy we have a job to alert people to the fact that their views count in this case. They count even more than they did at the beginning of the Bill, following the strengthening that we did yesterday.
Clause 7 enables the Electoral Commission to,
"do anything they think necessary or expedient for the purpose of encouraging voting at referendums".
They may encourage voting, not the decision. We dealt with some of the issues relating to that in Committee.
Yesterday we debated the amendments of the noble Baroness opposite, which will give local people a choice on the structure of unitary local government in their two tier areas. It is true that one follows the other—we have not hidden that. Elected regional assemblies mean single-tier local government. People now have a choice about the shape and structure of the single-tier authority and its components. The Government supported that amendment, which is now part of the Bill. It will be welcomed by people living in England's districts and counties.
This is not an urban versus rural issue, however much the noble Baroness tries to stir it up to make it so. She can keep goading the Liberal Democrats, with whom her party has obviously fallen out of love during the passage of the Bill, all she likes. The noble Baroness nods. I should not have said that.
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, the noble Lord should not have said that. With the leave of the House, does the noble Lord agree with me that the very urban areas that we discussed such as Greater Manchester and other unitary authorities have nothing to lose and nothing to gain in this debate? There will simply be another tier above them. The noble Lord says that rural areas have nothing to lose. But, whichever way rural areas vote, if there is a vote for a regional assembly, which may or may not be enhanced by the density of voting in urban areas, they stand to lose at least one or more of their district councils and all their county councils. Am I right in saying that, whatever happens, they will lose some of what they regard as their local government?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the assumption is that everybody thinks that everything is perfect. I spent part

179
of yesterday listening to teenagers talk about life in rural areas for people of their age, including jobs, education, housing, and the problems of being denied opportunities to start businesses. They were generally having a good moan to the powers that be here in London at a meeting of the rural forum in one of the departments. If everything were perfect in rural areas, I would not have heard everything that I did yesterday in the queries and good positive suggestions made. We should not be against change in the principled way that the noble Baroness is. She wants everything set as if the chocolate-box image of the countryside existed. Life in those areas is not like the image that the noble Baroness presents. Therefore, within the context of the changes to the regional pattern of the country and the devolution of power from Government, we are giving an opportunity for people to have a greater voice.
The constant theme has been the counties. The two northern counties have been mentioned constantly, with reference to Manchester and Newcastle. Of the eight regions outside London, four have a majority in two-tier areas and four have a majority in unitary areas—it is split. But the concentration is always on the one area as though the whole country were like that. It is not. As I repeatedly said, in the East Midlands and the Eastern region the argument would be the exact opposite. Yet I could make the same speeches proposing these changes. The noble Baroness could not make the same speeches opposing them. I am not seeking to tempt her and I apologise for goading her. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press this amendment. It is not justified.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the Minister is a very brave man if he issues a challenge to my noble friend Lady Blatch, because she might very well take it up. It is my job to reply, so I am leaping in just in case the Minister has to defend himself further. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out that the amendment was probably not perfect. Despite what the Minister has said, I am still concerned about the imbalance that could result from the vote on regional government, specifically because counties and districts are the areas where new unitary structures must be created. Therefore, in a way, it is important that counties and districts are perhaps even more in favour of regional government and the consequential review of local government than the metropolitan areas are. I do not intend to pursue the amendment today, but I do not promise not to return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 8, line 45, at end insert—
"( ) in any such referendum, the proportion of those actually voting for the proposition is equal to, or greater than, the proportion given in Schedule (Proportion of electors required to secure a majority) for the relevant percentage of the eligible electorate certified as having voted,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, halfway through the previous debate, I thought that the
180
Minister was answering the question on thresholds, but I think he recovered ground and started again. This amendment would insert a new subsection. Amendment No. 59, which is grouped with it, seeks, more importantly, to insert a new schedule. The amendments touch a critical issue: what forms a majority in a referendum? We considered the matter briefly in Committee, but it is essential to probe further.
When such debates have taken place on other Bills, it has inevitably been claimed that amendments such as these are aimed at making it harder for a referendum to pass. Doubtless, we shall hear that from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, if from nowhere else. If they were willing to sell out the future county councils in return for undisclosed promises, sadly we cannot expect them to require a reasonable majority before the abolition of counties. Frankly, the refusal to accept a reasonable threshold test, just like the refusal to accept a plain, straightforward question, has always seemed to say most about the lack of confidence that the exponents of a referendum have in their case.
The Bill embraces very major constitutional change. That change must be made only if it carries not only the majority of voters but substantial public backing. The change in this referendum, as now acknowledged on all Benches in this House, is likely to lead to the abolition of many counties, particularly those in the areas of change. The counties are the oldest administrative divisions in our country, going hack as far as Saxon times. They operate effectively, are sensibly sized and provide the traditional roots for every family in the land. People talk about being Cornishmen or from Lancashire or Norfolk. Are not those the instinctive and instantly understandable ways in which the vast majority of people define their being? No one outside the bunker of the Deputy Prime Minister believes that counties and people's associations with them are not important. The referendum to be held under the Bill points only to the abolition of historic counties.
Regional assemblies will weaken our central Parliament, and my noble friend Lady Blatch referred to that fact earlier in our debates. Such constitutional change should not be made on the basis of a bare majority of a tiny turnout in a vote on confusing questions. That is why many other countries require a threshold beyond a bare majority when issues involving constitutional change are at stake. Australia requires a majority of voters nationally and in at least four of the six member states. In the past, New Zealand required a 60 per cent "Yes" vote. In Italy, referendums succeed only if the turnout exceeds 50 per cent.
It is far from frivolous to suggest that we should have thresholds in relation to a matter as far-reaching as that dealt with by the Bill. In a general election-type turnout, a majority of one is sufficient, but the problem occurs at the other end of the spectrum. Given some local election turnouts, one must ask whether a majority of one in a referendum with a low local election-type turnout would give a verdict that was clear and conclusive enough to justify irreversible

181
change. We doubt that, which is why, in Amendment No. 59, we propose a new schedule, in the form of a table.
The amendment would ensure that we avoided a situation in which a majority of one on a dismal turnout would be enough to abolish our historic counties and impose a new layer of bureaucracy. It links turnout to majority. The lower the turnout, the more significant the majority needed. If the turnout is at the level of a strong local election turnout—over 45 per cent—a simple majority will do. However, as the turnout drops—by 5 per cent—so the number required to vote for the proposition increases—by 4 per cent—until, on a turnout of less than 30 per cent, the support of two-thirds of those voting would be needed.
I did not need to carry on with the table. The Government or the Liberal Democrats may wish to argue otherwise, but I hope that it is unlikely that turnout would drop below 30 per cent, although it was less than that in London. I am happy to leave the figure at two-thirds, which is a sufficient majority to affect constitutional change in many countries. Some of your Lordships may say there are cliff edges. That is the case, to some extent. It would be possible to add further sub-divisions to avoid that, but it would complicate the table.
The advantage of such a table is that it combines turnout and majority. That is significant. Including such a table would provide a major incentive to both sides to achieve a good turnout. Noble Lords will see readily from the table that, if some "Noes" do not vote, because they believe that that is the same as voting "No", they will be mistaken. Every "No" who abstains and, therefore, causes the percentage of the poll to drop will, by not voting, increase the proportion voting "Yes". Therefore, the usual accusations made about thresholds are not valid.
If those who say that they favour having a regional assembly were to abstain in the same way as the "Noes", the proposition would be difficult. However, on the assumption that all "Yes" supporters vote and that the regional assemblies are wanted as desperately as those on the Benches opposite say that they are, the figures proposed in the table will ensure that neither side can disproportionately influence the result by not voting.
I do not pretend for a minute that the table is the only solution. I am ready to take guidance on it. Some have said that I am being too generous about a proposition that we oppose in principle—namely, regional government—while others say that we are creating difficulties. That suggests that we have probably got things nearly right. The table is clear and unequivocal. Everyone will know the rules of the game. They will know the criteria against which the result will be measured. That is the sensible way to proceed, in what may be several referendums.
I hope that I will not be told that I am being disruptive; I am certainly not attempting to be so. I hope that we can have a sensible debate about what constitutes a sufficient majority in a referendum of
182
such importance. If there is a possibility of low turnouts for referendums that push through change of major constitutional significance, we must address the issue of turnout against majority.
What we face is the abolition of our 1,200-year old counties to allow the Government to embark on an experiment in the constitutional unknown. That decision requires a clear question and a conclusive result. Amendment No. 59 would contribute to the achievement of that conclusive result. Surely, that is in the interests of those on all sides of the debate, if they want any regional assembly to carry wide acceptance. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has made some interesting points, some of which I agree with. However, we must be careful. If, in this country, we are into having referendums—we have several of them—we must be consistent. We cannot just change the rules for a referendum when we dislike the particular issue before us. The noble Baroness referred to that, when she said that she thought that she had got the thing about right, as her party did not like the idea of regional government.
When I was a local councillor, a previous government—supported by the noble Baroness—told us that, if someone did not bother to vote on whether people should be able to transfer their home, it would be treated as a "Yes" vote. One cannot change one's mind and have different rules just because one dislikes a particular thing or because one wants something in particular to happen. The noble Baroness is right to say that other countries have higher thresholds for referendums and that there are rules for them. However, at this stage of the progress of the Bill, we should not try to change the basic rules that we have for referendums. Some of us on these Benches could make other arguments if we were to make such general changes.
We are getting near to the end of the Report stage, and I must make it clear that, right from the beginning, we have said that we support regional government. As a party, we have talked about it since the time of Gladstone. It has been in various documents that we have published. We have been clear about it and about where we stand on the constitution and any changes to it. Our party has discussed the issue over many years. We have been accused of being muddled, when the opposite is true. We are the only party that has consistently held the same view of constitutional matters for a long time. We hold those views so dearly that, in the run-up to the previous election, we worked with the present Government, before they were elected, to bring some of those things to pass, and they have come to pass. Our attitude to this Bill has been precisely consistent with that. We have been consistent and clear about where we stand on constitutional issues.
As I said, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in moving the amendment, made some valid points with which I agreed. However, we cannot start messing

183
about in the Bill with how we deal with turnouts for referendums. My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the Minister pointed out that, if, at the end of the day, there has not been a high turnout and the results are skewed in one area, the Minister has the option of examining the results and deciding what should happen. On these Benches, we support that.
I am pleased that the Report stage has gone more quickly today. I hope that we will be able to resolve the outstanding issues at Third Reading.
6 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has made a convincing case for the amendment. She has given us many interesting examples of precedents set in other respected first world countries. I am sorry that the internationalists on the Liberal Democrat Benches have not paid more heed to that.
The amendment is very modest. Regional assemblies represent a definite constitutional change. Assuming a turnout of 25 per cent, which is possible and quite likely, because people are punch-drunk with elections nowadays, if such a constitutional change were to be pushed through with the support of less than 13 per cent of the electorate—which would be the case if only 51 per cent of those voting supported the change—it would be intolerable. All the amendments do is raise the hurdle rate in such a case from approximately 12.6 per cent to approximately 16.6 per cent; a very modest safeguard.
However, I must point out a slight flaw in the drafting of Amendment No. 59. As drafted, if exactly 40 per cent of the electorate voted—that is statistically unlikely, but it could happen—it is unclear whether the threshold would be 54 per cent or 58 per cent. Similarly, if exactly 35 per cent of the electorate voted, it is unclear whether the threshold would be 58 per cent or 62 per cent. That matter needs looking at before the next stage. Apart from that I support the principle of the amendments.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I have not intervened at any stage of the Bill and I apologise to the House for doing so at this late time. I have listened with great interest to the arguments advanced and I have been particularly impressed by my noble friend Lord Waddington's stoic defence of the interests of the North West, whether it be Lancashire or Cheshire. I want the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to be under no illusions—speaking as someone from North Yorkshire—that feelings are equally strong in North Yorkshire as in the North West. It is for that reason that I rise to support my noble friend's amendments.
The percentage of turnout at local or general elections is largely irrelevant. It is regrettable when it is low, but the important thing is that an election takes place, simply to allow the democratic process to continue. But when we are contemplating a change of this magnitude—as my noble friend Lady Hanham said, the county councils go back for many years and
184
are of great historical importance—I see no reason why we should not impose a threshold. It seems logical and it will be wholeheartedly supported in the regions. I know that I will be speaking for a great number of people in the north-east of England when I say that these amendments will be extremely welcome.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the Labour Party itself introduced a precedent for such amendments when it wished to give devolution to Scotland in the late 1970s. At that time a minimum proportion of the electorate had to vote. If that proportion was not reached, even if there was a majority in favour of devolution, devolution did not take place, as happened at that time.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I find this one of the strangest amendments ever tabled. It says that there will be a referendum and the Electoral Commission will suggest that people vote because we agree with people voting, but we cannot tell them what the value of their vote will be until tomorrow, because if not enough folk turn up it will not have that much value if they want to vote in favour of the proposal. It is almost like saying to voters on 1st May, "If you don't have a 30 per cent turnout in your ward and the winning candidate doesn't have 66 per cent, you won't have a councillor tomorrow, or an MP for that matter".
I do not believe that this is the right way to proceed in a democracy. I am not keen on referendums but this is one of the many hurdles. I should have thought that the Tories would be overjoyed with this Bill because of the hurdles. Throughout my lifetime, all the changes of a constitutional nature under Conservative Governments have not been tainted with referendums at all, whether it was the abolition of my urban district of Elland in 1973 or the West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council in 1986—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Or the GLC, my Lords.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: And more, my Lords. There we are. I would not entertain this amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I painfully remind the noble Lord that eventually we paid for that policy at the ballot box and that history may repeat itself for the present Government. The Minister will remember that at a previous stage I asked him whether the result of a vote would be binding—I cannot recall the answer.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is not.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I now know that it is not. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddocks, reminded us that the result of the election is not binding. So what the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, said was a consequence of the amendments is also a consequence of the Bill as drafted. The Minister may take a subjective judgment that the turnout was not robust enough to establish a regional assembly, so when those people vote they still

185
do not know what the outcome of the election is to be. That is why Clause 2 states that they may "help to decide" and not that they will decide by their vote.
At least my noble friend Lady Hanham is putting an objective test that, depending on the turnout, a defined percentage will have to be reached. We all know that in local government, county district and unitary authority elections across the land, however low the turnout, a majority of one or more is enough to secure the election of a councillor. But in this election that is not the case. If there are 8 million electors in one area—sorry, the population is 8 million, so I do not know what the number of electors will be, probably 5 million or 6 million; so, if 5 million or 6 million are entitled to vote for an elected assembly and a small percentage do so, they may or may not get one.
I believe that under the rules if there is a marginal "No" vote, the Minister can regard the election as null and void for whatever reason, because the result is not binding, and run another election, because the Bill gives him the power to do so. It is much better to accept an amendment along the lines of my noble friend's. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that we need to look at the interaction between the percentage of voters and the proportion required because exactly 35 per cent or 40 per cent of the electorate may vote and people need to know what that provision means. But the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, has been defeated by that of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and from the Minister's indication of assent to me.
It is far preferable to have at least a known level of support for this constitutional change. I support my noble friend.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, if I were the Minister I would welcome the amendment because it would formalise my discretion. Having my discretion formalised would mean that, if subsequently I took a decision it would not in fact be discretion because it would be in the Bill and I would not have to argue for it, but I would be in a position where we had established the way in which the vote should be decided in the case of a low poll. It would be a high poll in the local government election and one would probably finish up somewhere in the middle of the range.
The fact of the matter is that 21.7 per cent of the electorate can bring about a major constitutional change if only 35 per cent vote. If 30 per cent vote, 20 per cent can bring about major constitutional change. Below that, it is 20 per cent and 13.2 per cent. On a 10 per cent poll, 6.66 per cent of the electorate can bring about major constitutional change. That is the effect of my noble friend's amendment.
I would have thought that the Minister might find that a reasonable limit on his discretion. I want to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that this is not the right time to introduce this change. We have had a number of referendums in this country and the big problem we have had—and it goes back to when we
186
were discussing the Scotland Bill—is that we had no formal procedure for them. If we had acted at that stage, we would not be having this argument now.
However, having started down this road, there is an argument that says that this is not the right time. It will never be the right time. If it is never the right time, we will never do it, but we should have done it long ago.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we in this country are suffering from a bout of "referendumitis". In this Bill, not only have we set up arrangements for a referendum on whether we should have regional assemblies, but we have also extended the range of referendums by having one on local government boundaries. We seem to be making it up as we go along.
At the same time, the Government are refusing a referendum on what might be the greatest constitutional change we shall have. That is the result of the Convention on the Future of Europe where there are far-reaching proposals for a change in our constitution and that of other countries. I do not know where we are going on referendums, but it is certain t hat where constitutional change is involved a simple majority is not good enough. Any golf club which wants to change its constitution must have a 66 and two-thirds majority. Indeed, any organisation worth its salt before it changes its rules and constitution will need far more than a 50 per cent majority. Even the National Union of Mineworkers has a 55 per cent majority rule before people can go out on strike. It is therefore clear that when we want to change the constitution we must have an overwhelming majority. Indeed, if a building society or other business wants to sell its business, it needs a 75 per cent majority.
Here we are, in our great Parliament, talking about changing constitutions with a mere 50 per cent when perhaps only 40 per cent of the electorate are voting. The people who say that we need to get to grips with this problem are right. Whether the amendment gets to grips with it, I do not know. It needs to be considered.
In the House of Commons in 1979—the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will remember it as well as I do—some of us introduced an amendment to the Scotland Bill which provided that 40 per cent of the total electorate voting yes would constitute a majority. It may well be that that simplistic arrangement might work better than the convoluted arrangement in the amendment before us.
I believe that if we are to establish referendums, and if we are serious about it, we should lay down rules which, as regards referendums on constitutional matters, will be standard and understood and will ensure that constitutional change is supported by the large majority of the country.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have had a much more interesting debate than occurred in Committee when we discussed an amendment in my name similar to that of my noble friend Lady Hanham. Some people on the Labour Left-wing and the Liberal

187
Democrat Party by negating the amendment wanted to reduce debate at this stage, but clearly they have only increased the quality of the discussion. This has been a much better debate and a better-argued one.
I was particularly taken by what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said, based on his experience of another place. The amendment I tabled in Committee was relatively simple in comparison to the effort my noble friend Lady Hanham has made to try to achieve a working compromise for a sensible Bill. But I like the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, because it is equally simple.
It is clear that, despite the letter of 3rd April kindly sent to me by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in reply to the comments I made in Committee, this is a matter that we need seriously to address. It is a key issue in the Bill because we are dealing with a constitutional change. It is a change for which the Government are not taking responsibility: they say that they do not want to change local government and that it is a matter for those who take part in the referendum. If there is a referendum, however small a percentage of the electorate vote, the smallest majority of that will effect a constitutional change. There is no option for those who live in a two-tier system.
I hope that we will read with care what has been said today—there have been many good arguments—and come back at a later stage with a final amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I was not intending to speak, but I am provoked by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I am sorry to say that because I am very fond of her. She and I have been and are colleagues in other enterprises. I take exception to what she said in her speech on two counts.
Her doctrine was essentially that of unripe time. I echo what my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said on that matter. I remember the period in another place between 1997 and 2000 when the Government made up the referendums as they went along. I remember challenging Miss Glenda Jackson who was then in charge of a particular Bill on the Government Front Bench. I asked her when the Government were going to put together a formula which would be consistently followed in each of the referendums. She said that those matters were outside her purview and would have to be decided by people greater than she.
We then experienced the results in the Welsh and London referendums and saw relatively low levels of interest in both. Only in 2000, when all those referendums were out of the way, did the Government come around to formalising matters in the 2000 Act. Therefore, doctrine of unripe time does not in my view apply. It seems perfectly proper that we should examine these matters if that is the example which the Government set in the first instance.
I have a second reservation about what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said. It was that the Liberal Democrat objection to parties being elected to power at
188
Westminster when the party achieves only 43 per cent of the vote seems to run counter to the objections that she is raising to these patterns today. I merely make the remark philosophically and temperamentally.
Yesterday the Minister said (at col. 101 of the Official Report) that the electorate is now much more savvy about matters such as the ones we are discussing today. However, a turnout of 25 per cent, based on the results in Wales and London, seems to be a perfectly reasonable supposition as regards the kind of vote we shall see in these referendums. Twenty-five per cent is not a respectable total vote for introducing massive change, particularly when one goes down to what would be the even majority. It is right that the hurdle should be higher, as my noble friend Lady Hanham has proposed in her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wish to make a minor point. I shall say very clearly the name of my noble friend Lady Maddock. I am sure that she will be grateful if noble Lords take note that she is not plural; she is very singular indeed.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly on this issue. I hope that a referendum will be held in the North East. How are we to explain to people living in the north-east of England, close to the Scottish Border, that restrictions will be placed around the numbers of people voting for or against, when the Scottish Assembly has been set up next door which was not subject to those kinds of restrictions?
What the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said was perfectly true. If these were the first ever referendums, then possibly there would be a stronger argument, but certainly not at this point. It would be totally unfair to the people of the North East if they do decide to hold a referendum. I hope that my noble friend will resist these amendments.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, to get it out of the way, I shall declare an interest. In 1978 I voted for the 40 per cent rule. I did so for a reason. Some of my noble friends in this House may well have been in the Chamber in another place that night. It was one of probably only two occasions during my 27 years in another place where one speech made to a full House changed the vote. It was the speech made by George Cunningham, who moved the amendment. That speech was an absolute classic. The place was packed and most Members were against the proposal because it looked so arbitrary.
I shall not go into the details, but George Cunningham's speech completely changed people's minds on how they would vote that night, and I was one of them. So I plead guilty. The result was a botched referendum in Scotland, which resulted in a "Yes" vote that could not get over the hurdle. That may have been the other side of the coin referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch: we paid the political price for it and learnt the lesson.
We are now in the position where we are following the precedent set in Scotland, in Wales, in Northern Ireland and in London. It would be absolutely crazy

189
and unfair if we were to change the rules for any proposed regional referendums when we have already held referendums in so many other areas of the United Kingdom.
It is true and I can confirm that the referendums would be advisory. There is no issue about that. When we originally discussed this matter in Committee I also remarked that if the turnout was very low—I cannot put a figure on it—and the majority was very small again, I cannot and will not put a figure on it—the Secretary of State would have to consider the result and think long and hard about the way forward. On the other hand, because the referendum would be advisory—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I am very interested in what he has just said. I say that because in Wales the majority was only 6,000, barely adding one percentage point to the "Yes" vote. I shall keep the noble Lord to his comments.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend is interested in what I am saying, but I am not seeking to goad anyone. I am repeating the remarks I made in Committee. Indeed, my noble friend has been in the Chamber for most of the six days that we have debated this Bill. Perhaps he was out of the Chamber at the time. Because the referendums will be advisory, the Secretary of State will have to make a judgment, go to another place, make his views known and be tested on them.
I am not going to say what I was about to say because that will just wind noble Lords up. If a referendum is advisory, the result could he looked at in another way: the Minister might be on the borderline and make an irrational decision which would be absolutely crazy. However, the point I seek to make is that the referendums would not be binding.
I shall contradict only one point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. If there were a "No" vote on a small majority, the Secretary of State could not then order another referendum. For heaven's sake, yesterday we debated for over an hour the question of whether a five-year gap before holding another referendum after a "No" result would be sufficient. How, then, could the Secretary of State order on a whim another referendum because he did not like the result? Last night we debated whether the gap should be five years or 10 years. Obviously memories are short.
We have already debated this. It is our view that there is no obvious way of deciding what should be the threshold. Our previous debate on Amendment No. 49 concerned votes in the counties and districts, and served as a form of threshold, which is why I have used the term. It provides a hurdle, a point at which to assess a decision. It would not depend on a straightforward and simple majority vote. It would serve as a threshold in a similar way to the proposed arithmetical figures.
190
Because there is no obvious way of setting a threshold level other than by a simple majority—which is the tried and tested way of doing things in this country—we want to stick to it. Otherwise an unfair advantage is given to those people who do not choose to vote. We want to encourage more people to vote.
It does not work in the same way in a general election. It has been a while since we had a perverse result, where a party wins the overall majority of votes in the country but secures only a minority of seats in another place. It has happened, but it did not bring about the constitutional rows that I thought it should have done at the time. If it happened today, however, I am sure that something would be said.
There are certain perverse issues attached to going for a simple majority, but to find a working threshold that is acceptable to most people is difficult. This was tested in another place and several amendments were tabled regarding what percentage of the electorate had to vote. The majority of the proposals varied between 25 per cent and 50 per cent.
I do not rest my case on the point, but we have examples of other countries which have put in place rules on referendum thresholds. No one has mentioned what happened recently in Serbia. Its threshold led to the most perverse difficulties when the Prime Minister sought to form a government. As I have said, thresholds can work in very perverse ways.
We need to set our minds to the task of maximising the number of people who freely want to vote on the basis of the information made available to them. We want to switch them on and enthuse them about the issues. That may be difficult in some cases, on the basis of what I have said in the past. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, also made the point: no new powers, no new money, but some people are willing to enthuse about the chance to give a voice to their region and the chance to have a say in the allocation of the existing massive levels of public expenditure. It is up to those involved, but persuading the maximum number of people to go out to vote either way is extremely important.
What happens at Third Reading is up to noble Lords, but I cannot see any formula that will work better than a simple majority, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State will have to make a judgment based on the turnout and the majority, and taking into account whether the result is clear cut. He will have to decide whether a "Yes" result has provided a sufficient steer for him to decide to proceed on to the publication of a Bill and the setting up of an elected regional assembly. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the amendment has generated a fascinating debate on the whole matter of what justifies the acceptance of a vote. I am grateful for having been credited with working out the schedule proposed in Amendment No. 59. However, in all honesty I have to say that it is a slightly attenuated schedule originally put forward by my late noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I bow to no one in

191
saying that my brain would be a pea in comparison to his brain. He worked out the table. I hope that noble Lords will accept that it was the effort of someone who had very considerable experience in this area. At the time I believe that Lord Mackay was trying to influence the debate on the ultimate form of the Scottish Assembly. We know now that some of those Assembly votes were quite derisory, as indeed they were for elected mayors.
I worry a lot when I think that the Secretary of State will have to make the decision about the threshold below which a referendum decision will not be accepted. The current thresholds where the referendum decision has been accepted are pitiful. My noble friend has already referred to the fact that turnout in London was 27 per cent; it was lower than that in Wales, and we have already heard about the monkey that was voted in with about 13 per cent. On those bases, our constitutional arrangement for referendums is laughable. The percentage of the vote in favour was not justifiable. If we want something that is lasting and enduring, we must at least try to establish that its original base was correct and there was sufficient support when it was originally introduced to justify changes being made.
As my noble friend Lord Peel reminded us, the county councils have been the senior level of government for many years; they have been the base of government in the rural areas. For them, this is a hugely important time—it is a watershed for some of them. It would be absolutely wrong for county councils to be disestablished on the basis of a frivolous and trivial vote.
I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, from which I take considerable heart. I have taken note of the points, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about the result of the way in which the schedule works. I should like to consider those points further and decide whether to bring the matter back at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 9, line 5, at end insert "or (Boundary Committee recommendations)(4)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 9, line 8, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Application of 1992 Act]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 10, line 8, at end insert "but references to a local authority do not include references to a parish council"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Advice of the Electoral Commission]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 11, line 7, after "direction" insert—
(a)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, government Amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 56 all relate to Clause 19 on the advice of the Electoral Commission on elected matters. They are necessary because of the situations that may arise now we will be having local government referendums in parallel with regional referendums.
Amendment No. 55 gives the Secretary of State discretion to require that the commission give advice in relation to a specified number of options. Let me give noble Lords an example of when we might need to do this. There could be a legal challenge to the result of a local government referendum but the regional referendum was not subject to challenge and showed a clear majority in favour of an elected assembly. In that situation, we might want the Electoral Commission to be able to start work on advising on electoral matters for the assembly. But it would need to do so on the basis of different potential local government options being implemented, since the Secretary of State would not be able to confirm what would be implemented in the area subject to challenge. That is why we need to be able to direct the commission to come up with advice based on different options.
Amendment No. 55 is consequential. Amendment No. 56 enables the Secretary of State to vary the direction outside the two-year period. This is in case the result of a repeat referendum is not available until after the expiry of the two-year period. Such a result would clarify the future local government structure and would warrant a revised direction. These are necessary amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 11, line 8, at end insert—
"(b) may require the advice to be given in respect of a specified number of options."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 11, line 9, after "varied" insert "(whether or not within the period of two years mentioned in subsection (2))"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Funding for regional chambers]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 56A:
Page 12, line 22, leave out "any person" and insert "a regional chamber"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I can be brief on Amendment No. 56A. It seems like a small point, but on rereading the Bill, I saw that it said:
"The Secretary of State may make a grant to any person in respect of expenditure incurred in connection with the activities of a regional chamber".
That does not explain whether such a person is from the regional chamber, totally independent of the chamber or from another body.
A regional chamber that commissions work, establishes a partnership with an individual and/or another body or wishes some activity within its remit to be carried out by another person should commission that project and grant the money for it. If there is to be government funding,
"in connection with the activities of a regional chamber"
the chamber must make the case for that activity. It must set out the cost of the project for which it is accepting bids. The grant should be made out to the chamber, which should then allocate the funding to whoever is carrying out the activity.
This is important because, as the Bill stands, any person could claim that he is carrying out work which is an activity of a regional chamber. It might be a self-appointed person—we really do not know. There is a great overlap of activities between regional chambers, regional development agencies, regional assemblies and many other bodies in the region. Therefore, it should be made explicit that the regional chamber should make the case for receiving a grant from the Secretary of State and should then allocate the money to the person carrying out the activity. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, in reply to the amendment, I hope that the Minister will remind us why it is thought necessary at this stage to take the power to make a grant to a regional chamber considering that we have had regional chambers for some time now, and they seem to have got on quite nicely without any grant from the government.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I can be as brief as the noble Baroness was in moving the amendment. Part of the explanation is in paragraph 74 of the Notes on Clauses. However, I have a better, plain-English version, which I will put on the record.
Amendment No. 56A would require the Secretary of State to make the grants to the chamber rather than any person. This would be completely and utterly impractical. We do not currently pay grants directly to the seven chambers which are unincorporated associations because that would mean the grant would be recovered from the pocket of one or more members of the chamber should recovery prove necessary. Instead, we pay the grant for unincorporated chambers to an accountable body. An accountable body may be a local authority or an organisation such as a regional local government employers' association, which has legal standing. For example—I can list these all, if need be—we pay the grant to an east of England local government conference and to the Wakefield metropolitan borough council on behalf of its regional chambers. The Bill as drafted would allow us
194
to continue these different secure routes for the funding of the chambers. Some are incorporated, some are unincorporated and some are about to become limited companies—but the accountable body in each case is not the chamber. For example, Northumberland County Council is the accountable body in the case of the North East Assembly.
Currently, we make the grant for activities under the regional chambers fund such as in respect of scrutiny of the chambers' regional development agency under Section 126(1) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996:
"The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, give financial assistance to any person in respect of expenditure incurred in connection with activities which contribute to the regeneration or development of an area".
The words "any person" in the Bill follow that precedent. Grants are made to the legal "any person", therefore the entity—not to any Tom, Dick or Harry.
I draw the attention of the noble Lord. Lord Waddington, to paragraphs 73 and 74 of the Explanatory Notes, which refer to the funding of regional chambers. It would be ridiculous for me to read that guidance into the record but it explains the reasons for the clause.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I know that the Minister has fought his corner very hard to achieve more clarity in some of the legalese before us. I am sure that the noble Lord is as frustrated as I ever was as a Minister, when the argument is made that because certain wording was used for a previous statute, new legislation must abide by it.
In plain English, the Bill says that the Secretary of State may make a grant to "any person". If it said—as the Minister explained and the Explanatory Notes make clear—that grants will be made to an accountable body, that would make more sense. At least that would smack of accountability and indicate that the body receiving the funding would be accountable. The fact that the words "any person" have appeared in previous statutes is no answer. I am not happy, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Commencement]:
[Amendment No. 57 not moved]
Clause 28 [Expenditure]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 13, line 35, leave out "section" and insert Part"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
In the Title:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 60:
Line 4, after "consideration;" insert "for the holding of referendums about options for implementing the recommendations of such reviews;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Business
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, as the Unstarred Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is now the final business of the day, the time limit on debate is now one-and-a-half hours, not one hour. If all noble Lords speak for no more than 15 minutes, we should finish within the time limit.

Specialised Health Services
6.43 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements are being put in place for commissioning specialised health services from April 2003.
The noble Lords said: My Lords, I am very grateful for that announcement, as it was going to be rather difficult to stick to the 10-minute limit on my introductory speech. This subject is one in which the House has shown considerable interest and is an area that affects the lives of millions of ordinary patients.
Specialised services are defined by reference to the national specialised services definitions set, the first version of which was published in December 2001. Excluding the highly specialised national set, the definitions number 35 conditions and cover services provided to catchment populations of more than 1 million—that is, those covering more than one primary care trust. They include burn care, rare cancers, cystic fibrosis, epilepsy surgery, hepatology, infectious diseases, perinatal pathology and psychotherapy specialised services. That is a considerable number of specialised areas, each of which has a great effect on the individuals life.
In its 1999–2000 report, the national specialist commissioning advisory group remarked that a common characteristic of low-volume services and treatments was that they were often provided at high cost, requiring specialist technical expertise and a concentration of clinical care. With specialised services, annual activity is often unpredictable and treatments are expensive. Providers may treat patients from all over the country.
Haemophilia is a typical example. Some 6,000 people are affected, costing about £115 million per annum to treat. Within that total, £20 million is spent on patients with inhibitors—that is, resistance to treatment with factor VIII or IX as appropriate. Immune tolerance treatment for such patients typically costs at least £1 million per patient—a very high figure. In this context, one new patient in a PCT area can severely dent a budget.
The key document, Shifting the Balance of Power proposed that the PCTs should,
"commission specialist services for the appropriate size of population often covering several PCTs".
That was designed to replace the previous system where health authorities collaborated in commissioning specialised services through regional specialised commissioning groups.
During debate on the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, considerable concern was expressed by Members of both Opposition Benches about the proposed devolution of specialised commissioning to primary care trusts. In particular, it was not clear how local commissioning would deliver clinical effectiveness, equity of access and economic viability any more than the previous model. There was no clear reason for changing the key factors that had led to the establishment of specialised commissioning. There was doubt about the level of expertise in PCTs to commission such services. There was concern that many specialisms would be damaged because of uncertainty. There was particular concern that specialised services would be subjected to the same local cost pressures as any other service and would receive low priority within PCTs because of the relatively low numbers within the local population depending on them. There was concern also that important developments led by regional specialised commissioning groups would be delayed by the change.
The Government assured us that PCTs would be expected to band together in effective commissioning consortiums but that strategic health authorities and health and social care directorates would exert influence in case of need. Ministers also assured us during the passage of the 2002 Act that it was better to have joint working between PCTs to deal with commissioning than,
"some rather arbitrary definition, inevitably by central government, about which functions should be dealt with at a different level from PCTs".
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, added:
"The thrust of the Government's approach is to devolve, but to set very clear outcomes and standards to be achieved rather than to second guess the mechanisms in detail".—[Official Report, 16/5/02; col. 445.]
We were assured that the new consortiums would be a means of sharing risk, so that there would be no postcode lottery in future. Transition arrangements were agreed by the department to procure stability for the first year, after the implementation of Shifting the Balance of Power. Regional specialised commissioning groups were continued for a further year, with primary care trust members replacing the former health authority members. It was explicitly stated that consortium arrangements created under the auspices of current RSCGs should be continued, with PCTs honouring existing financial commitments.
In what seemed subsequently like a loss of confidence, John Hutton, the Minister of State, announced a review of specialised commissioning in March 2002 with a view to issuing guidance on arrangements to be implemented from April 2003. That was originally promised for last autumn. The consultation exercise to inform the review ended on 30th September 2002 but no announcement of the outcome was made until last week—right at the beginning of the 2003–2004 financial year.
The long-awaited guidance on specialised commissioning was published on 3rd April. Frankly, it has cleared up very little of the confusion. The guidance

197
is a mere 27 paragraphs long and leaves many questions unanswered. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to answer them tonight. In summary, it says that PCTs are expected to work collaboratively and that they are responsible for establishing such groups, while strategic health authorities are responsible for oversight and performance management. Arrangements should encompass two broad groupings, with planning populations of 1 to 2 million on level 1 and 3 to 6 million on level 2. When RSCGs are working in line with the guidance, there is no need to change them. When a specialised service has a planning population greater than 6 million—in other words, fewer than eight specialist centres—level 2 groups should consider working together. Finally, decisions of collaborative groups should be binding on all PCT members.
A sample establishment agreement and performance assessment framework for collaborative commissioning groups is included with the guidance as appendices. The guidelines therefore appear to stick closely to the devolved approach to commissioning outlined in Shifting the Balance of Power: The Next Steps. Nevertheless, they are vague in the extreme and raise a huge number of questions.
The future of RSCGs, in so far as they still exist, is still extremely uncertain. It is unclear whether these bodies universally have a future after 2004, even in the light of Hazel Blears's statement in January that their lives are to be extended until 2004. It seems that only some will be retained. What will happen to existing consortia, such as the Pan Thames Consortium for Haemophilia?
The primary care trusts that join the consortia will apparently continue to have complete discretion about whether they want to prioritise spending on particular specialised areas and join an individual consortium. What happens if a PCT declines to join a consortium, or a level 1 consortium declines to join the appropriate level 2 collaborative commissioning group? The continuing RSCGs or level 2 consortia appear to have no power to compel primary care trusts to join consortia. Will the strategic health authorities be able to do so? It appears that they can performance manage, but have no power to compel. Should not the arrangements in some cases be mandatory rather than purely voluntary? There is the question whether the 75 per cent rule, which at least ensured that the old health authorities were bound by consortia decisions, is still applicable to ensure that PCTs are bound by those decisions.
We were told during the passage of the Act that the role of the strategic health authority would be to oversee the consortia arrangements, with regional directors of health and social care ensuring that the specialised services that go beyond strategic health authorities are also delivered properly within that region. Where is that stated in the guidance? How much executive authority will RSCGs or level 2 consortia have? What will their duties be? Who will ensure that commissioning collaboratives are created and quality maintained?
Will the definition set continue to be published and developed? What plans does the department have to monitor the effectiveness of the new arrangements in the coming year? Where have the data on which the new guidance is based? Last September, a survey by the department as part of the review, which was leaked to The Times, showed that most PCTs were struggling in many specialisms to engage with the issues of specialised commissioning among their responsibilities.
Many patients' organisations, clinicians and, indeed, the Specialised Commissioning Alliance can testify to the fact that development of specialised commissioning has been patchy. Has the preparedness of PCTs to assume responsibility for specialised commissioning improved markedly since the department conducted its review last year? Do PCTs now have the necessary specialised commissioning expertise?
What about funding and earmarked budgets? Given the late date of publication for financial planning purposes of the guidance, will the department protect spending on specialised services in real terms for a further year? What will the obligations of PCTs be as regards setting aside funds for collaborative commissioning or RSCGs? What happens to existing service agreements for specialised services after April 2003? The issue of' risk sharing is important. What will encourage PCTs on this score to join in with consortia rather than follow their self-interest when very few of their patients need a particular specialised service?
We on these Benches are concerned that the new guidance does not follow the views expressed in the consultation. A great demand in the consultation, from 75 per cent spread evenly across all categories, believed that PCTs should be required to delegate authority for specialised commissioning to consortia. The guidance seems to cut strongly across that. Has the majority in the consultation that supported a national group for planning purposes and a national framework for commissioning been ignored, or is this a matter for a level 2 group?
We on these Benches have always been concerned that the new commissioning arrangements could be highly detrimental to patient care. We are concerned that specialised services should not be left to compete with mainstream service priorities in PCT budgets. Our concern is that some PCTs may choose not to commission via consortia, which would mean block contracts and great difficulties for specialised services. The outcome would be a resurgence of postcode prescribing as PCTs struggle to accommodate the unpredictable and sizeable expenditure associated with many specialised conditions.
The Government's proposals in this area take a blanket view that all centralisation is bad and that decentralisation is good for all purposes. We on these Benches have always believed that devolution is best done to the appropriate level. It is not always a question of pushing everything down to the lowest possible level. The appropriate level is where the expertise and resources are best deployed. We have considerable concerns about the Government's proposal. We look forward to the Minister's reply.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for not being in the Chamber when he began his speech. I was taken by surprise when the dinner-hour debate started at 6.45 p.m.
I want to thank the noble Lord for asking a Question about what is an important issue for patients requesting special services from their family doctor or primary care trust. Prior to April 2002, health authorities commissioned specialised services. I speak from my position as a non-executive director and vice-chairman of the primary care trust for Birkenhead and Wallasey, which serves 220,000 people on Merseyside.
Specialised health services are now commissioned by primary care trusts on behalf of their strategic health authority. In Merseyside and Cheshire, a specialist commissioning team of hospital consultants, GPs, managers, pharmacists and patients' representatives handle requests for specialised health services. This zonal commissioning team is based in Central Cheshire PCT, and serves a population of over 2.5 million people. There are three zones in our region in the North West.
Representation on the commissioning team comes from all PCTs and the strategic health authority in Merseyside and Cheshire. Decisions made by the commissioning team or consortium are binding on all member PCTs. The budget for commissioning specialised health services comes from the 0.5 per cent of the "weighted" allocation of each participating PCT. The "weighted" allocation is determined by the size of population served and the proportion of vulnerable residents such as infants, young children and older people as well as their "deprivation index".
Commissioning of specialised services is in response to requests from three sources: first, patients who approach their GPs; secondly, hospital consultants providing specialised services defined by the Department of Health; and, thirdly, health professionals using appraisals and guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence—NICE. Specialised services are defined by reference to the specialised services national definitions set. In December 2002, 36 services were listed by the Department of Health as specialised. They fell into two groups, as the noble Lord explained: specialised services with planning populations around 1 to 2 million and specialised services with planning populations around 3 to 6 million that usually cover a whole region.
In the first group commissioned by PCTs in a consortium are services related to cancer, cardiac surgery, child and adolescent mental health (tier 4 in the National Service Framework), liver disorders, low secure psychiatric services, neonatal intensive care, neurosurgery and renal/kidney replacement therapy. Of these services the most requested in our zone are coronary artery revascularisation surgery available at cardio-thoracic centres. Specialised hospitals also approach zonal commissioning teams to sell their services.
200
The most recent issue for consideration by PCTs was a new drug for liver and bile duct cancers whose review has not been completed by NICE. The zonal commissioning team consulted NICE, which supported the use of this new and effective drug. The drug is now being purchased.
Specialised services with planning populations of 3 to 6 million are in a larger list that includes AIDS/ HIV treatment, blood and bone marrow transplant, severe burns, cleft lip and palate, genetic services, medium and high secure psychiatric services, paediatric intensive care, morbid obesity, rare cancers, spinal injury and pulmonary hypertension. I should point out, however, that this is not an exhaustive list.
There is growing interest in the question of whether the current system of commissioning specialised services is giving more satisfaction and more promptly than the former one commissioned by district health authorities. For the past 12 months, specialised services have been commissioned by PCTs that are closer to local patients than was the case with health authorities. Together with other national initiatives such as "Patients Choice" for coronary artery surgery—I declare my interest as a national trustee of this scheme, co-ordinated by the British Heart Foundation—we are receiving fewer complaints of patients waiting more than six months for treatment.
But treatment for rare diseases, such as liver and bile duct cancers, continue to pose problems for commissioners, even when NICE guidelines recommend them. The prescribing budget of PCTs is still inadequate for expensive drug treatments. In areas of health inequalities, more prescriptions are written to treat a population whose health status is worse than that of their economically better-off neighbours.
The availability of NICE reviews and guidelines has reduced professional arguments about treatment options but increased patients' demand and expectations for effective and expensive treatment being readily available through local doctors and hospitals. This is not always the case. Some patients have had to wait for treatment.
Another issue that continues to challenge commissioners in PCTs is that of inadequate specialised services; for example, on Merseyside and Cheshire paediatric infectious diseases are a case in point. We have only one consultant. As a result of this limitation, adult physicians are treating children in some districts. The situation can be overcome by sending our patients to Manchester, or further away to Birmingham. But parents are not happy to travel 50 miles, or more, to be with their sick child. Another example is the shortage of paediatricians with skills in managing epilepsy in children. So the jury is still out on some aspects of commissioning specialised services.
In ethnic minority communities, genetic services for the diagnosis and management of inherited blood diseases, such as sickle-cell disease and thalassaemia, are still limited to a few centres in London, Birmingham and Manchester. But increasing numbers of black Africans and Caribbean people have been living and growing up in the United Kingdom since the

201
end of the Second World War. So why have services for their inherited anaemias not been developed systematically in the NHS? There is a feeling among many black people that services of special significance to them are ignored while equally uncommon genetic diseases affecting white people receive funding. It is now time for government to dispel that impression.
I look forward to the Minister's reply on these unresolved issues associated with commissioning specialised health services.
7.5 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for giving us the opportunity to have this important debate. Before I begin, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I have not had the chance to speak on such matters since he took his place on the Back Benches. I should like to pay tribute to his efforts over the past four years. I have in mind in particular his efforts as regards the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002, both of which will make such a difference to children in helping them to fulfil their potential in the future.
In outline, I seek assurance from the Minister that the health needs of children in care will not be overlooked. Such children very often have very particular needs. I would not like the restructuring of the NHS to lead to this group of children being overlooked in the future. I am especially concerned about the situation of youngsters in children's homes. I believe that there are now only about 5,000 children in such residential settings. That is partly due to the fact that such homes have developed a very poor reputation over recent years. I refer to the abuse of children in the North Wales case, and in other areas of the country, along with the relevant reports. As a consequence staff working in these homes have often become quite demoralised. They have encountered what they perceive to be a lack of respect from the public, and from professional colleagues working with children in other disciplines.
Yet children's homes can provide an appropriate setting for some children in care. Indeed, the majority of children in care in Germany reside in children's homes and group settings. Nevertheless, such staff are often faced with very troubled and challenging children. The latter are becoming more and more challenging because the policy has been to keep children in their families as far as possible. One respects and values that policy, but, as a consequence, some children are often very damaged by the time that they arrive in a children's home.
On a recent visit to a children's home, I arrived to find both a police van and a police car outside the premises. The previous evening one of the children had been in discussion with one of the staff, who had been sitting in the front seat of her car. The child had punched the staff member in the face. Another recent case involved staff of a home preparing for the arrival of a child. That child, who had learning difficulties, was known to have an interest in martial arts and a
202
tendency to lose his temper quite easily. Again, there can be cases regarding young girls; for example, staff at the children's home might suspect that a 13 year-old girl could be pregnant. However, she is not prepared to tell them what is happening to her. Similarly, a 15 year-old girl may be at risk of entering prostitution. She may arrive at the home late at night carrying gifts from her boyfriend which suggests that she could be running such a risk.
The staff in such homes are acting in loco parentis. They are the closest carers for these most troubled and challenging children. As we all know, such staff have been neglected for many years in terms of support and training. The Government have made moves in the right direction to improve the situation through the Quality Protects programme, the new national minimum standards for residential homes for children and the development of a statement of purpose in children's homes. I welcome those improvements.
It is important that the recommendations of the Warner report entitled Choosing with Care—my noble friend Lord Warner led the inquiry which considered the selection, development and management of staff in children's homes—are followed. The report states:
"Children's homes should have a therapeutic and developmental role … Such an approach, however, requires homes to have ready access to psychiatric, psychological and psychotherapy professionals to train, supervise and support the home's staff.
Often the most cost effective and appropriate role for professional specialists is that of supporting staff in children's homes who are working directly with children … 'the best [professionals] recognise that some continuing relationship with the home is the proper context in which to offer their expertise"".
The report continues:
"We consider that there is scope for using the professional NHS or educational specialists to train, advise and support staff in homes".
Among the many benefits of such support is that,
"the status of staff will be enhanced as they take on a more professional role with respect to children".
From my own experience, I support strongly the report's recommendations. I visited recently a home which had access every three weeks to a consultation from a psychotherapist from the Tavistock Clinic. The purpose of such support on a regular, continuing and frequent basis is to help staff to think about the children with whom they work and the impact of that work on themselves. Some years ago, I visited a hostel run by Centrepoint which had such support on a weekly basis. The hostel was dealing with some of the most challenging children. I was recommended to visit it by outreach workers working with young homeless people. They were sending their most troubled children to Buffy House in Olympia. What was remarkable was that that hostel, working with some of the most difficult children, had the lowest level of staff sickness in the whole of the Centrepoint organisations. Such high quality professional consultation for staff in children's homes reduces stress on staff and encourages them to engage in professional development. I am advised that there is plenty of evidence that it works. It is increasingly considered to be good practice. I hope that the new national minimum standards for residential

203
care and the statements of mission for children's homes will be the tools by which it will be recognised that that should be a fundamental service widely available to staff in children's homes.
My concern—other noble Lords have raised such concerns today—relates to health services for small groups which demand specialist input. There is a great shortage of child psychologists. I am anxious that when the need is recognised, there will be no agency through which to commission such services. I should appreciate assurances from the Minister that these services will be provided for when need is identified. Access to consultation with an appropriately trained mental health professional on a regular basis is as important and useful to staff in children's homes as is the use of a hard hat and a pair of steel-capped boots for a person working on a building site. I look forward to the Minister's response.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones, asks a most important Question. I, too, have to apologise to the noble Lord: I was not in my place at the beginning of his speech. I was travelling back from Stoke Mandeville where His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales was opening the most wonderful new sports stadium for disabled people. As every single traffic light was at red, I can tell your Lordships that I was sweating.
At the Report stage of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill 2002, several noble Lords who are present today debated on 29th April the national specialist services and their commissioning. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the Minister at that time, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. He was one of the hardest working Ministers this House has ever had. Even though the noble Lord did not accept the amendment on specialist services, I miss him and his presence today.
Noble Lords are present tonight because since the middle of 2002 patient organisations, advocacy groups and professional bodies have been expressing their collective concerns about the proposed arrangements and the expected disruption to services and patient care. I am sure the Minister has anticipated that we should like positive assurances that the specialist services will be given the chance to develop and build on their expertise and will not be put at risk by PCT commissioners. We are considering life and death situations and specialist rehabilitation services which only special centres of excellence have the skills and expertise to deliver.
I should declare an interest, having broken my back many years ago resulting in paralysis. I have benefited from the expertise of specialised treatment at a spinal injuries centre. I founded the Spinal Injuries Association and am its president. I know that it is one organisation which will read with interest the Government's reply to this debate.
204
If patients are not referred to spinal units when they sustain an injury which leaves them paralysed they are at risk of developing horrendous pressure sores which can cause months if not years of extra time in hospital at a cost of millions of pounds. Spinal patients treated in general hospitals have the difficult problem of having to deal with inexperienced staff who do not know or will not learn how to undertake a manual evacuation of the bowels. That is one of the most difficult and upsetting procedures for paralysed people if there is no system in place. Moreover, the urinary tract, which is prone to infection, needs expert attention, as do blood pressure problems. The psychological aspects are equally important.
All sorts of specialised units are desperate for reassurance. They need to have dedicated teams of doctors, nurses, therapists, psychologists and volunteers. They need to know that the money meant for their unit is getting there and is not being milked off for the needs of other parts of the trust. They need to be audited and monitored. Above all, we need to know how the arrangements for commissioning will work. I hope that the Minister will spell that out tonight in a way which is acceptable to all.
Spinal units are at risk of bed blocking. Patients need to leave hospital when they are ready. So often, however, they have to remain because of impossible arrangements in their homes. They may not have a wheelchair or other necessary equipment, or a care package may not have been prepared.
I pay tribute to Mr El Masri, the spinal surgeon at the spinal unit at Oswestry. He is dedicated to his patients and has worked tirelessly to build a new unit fit for this century. The unit has two bungalows, each with four rooms, so that patients who are ready for discharge but awaiting social services or the fulfilment of housing needs can leave hospital. Patients can stay in these halfway houses, called Trans House, which stop them becoming institutionalised and bored and help to relieve bed blocking. If the Minister has time to visit the unit at Oswestry and other such houses, I am sure that she will wish to congratulate the people there. Their hard work and fundraising have produced such a good outcome.
Last week, someone I know from Norfolk, a paraplegic who has lost a considerable amount of weight and been involved in investigations, learned that she needs to have a spinal unit assessment of her condition. She has been told that she will have to go privately as her home trust is outside the area. Do we have a National Health Service or do we not? Norfolk does not have a spinal unit, and the situation is similar in many other parts of the country. What is happening to extra-contractual referrals and out-of-area treatments? What are they going to be called now? It is vital that patients who need specialised treatment, wherever and whatever the need, receive it.
I do not want to be seen as partisan. I know the importance of specialisation in so many fields of medicine. In dealing with HIV/AIDS and Parkinson's disease, for example, the monitoring of drugs and research is vital if progress is to be made. One therefore

205
wants consultants who are interested and trained and able to approach the issue on a worldwide basis. Complications occur in conditions such as pulmonary hypertension if the correct diagnosis is not made. Getting patients to the experts quickly saves not only money in the long run, but much suffering for patients and their families.
If the Government wash their hands of the responsibilities of providing specialised healthcare services, the gaps will get larger. I hope that the Minister will spell out how PCTs will manage to organise these services for their populations and, if they fail, who will pick up the casualties. What will be the position of the strategic health authorities? The worldwide Internet tells patients and their friends what is possible. It will not be good for the Government if the U K falls behind. There must be good staff to look after patients, there must be possibilities for research and development and suitable transport for patients and their visitors to reach places of treatment which may be far from their homes. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
7.25 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, no one should conclude from the short list of speakers in this debate that its subject matter is of little importance. Quite the opposite is true. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is to be congratulated on having tabled this Question on a day which could hardly be bettered in terms of relevance and topicality. Those of us here who are veterans of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill a year ago need no reminding of the debates that we had on specialised commissioning during both Committee and Report stages. Those debates underscored the doubts felt by many, both inside and outside this Chamber, that the model being proposed by the Government for commissioning specialised services was badly flawed. In the end, of course, no amendment to the Bill was pressed; but I venture to say that that was no reflection of the government response, which did very little to allay the concerns that we all had.
As if to acknowledge those concerns, Mr Hutton announced in March of last year that there was to be a review of the whole issue, which indeed there duly was. One must not be too churlish about this. Unlike some consultations I can think of, this one had all the signs of being a genuine listening exercise. The only trouble is that for an inordinately long time after that it was we who found ourselves listening. Until the end of last week, we were still listening for a statement of what exactly is going to happen and how the new system is going to function. Ever since the end of last year, we have been told that an announcement on this critical issue would be made "shortly". So it was a great relief to learn, on the cusp of the new financial year, that definitive guidance had actually been published by the department.
I should say straight away that our recent concerns about delay and uncertainty were not abstract worries about the process. What matters in all of this is of course the patient. The Minister will know that there has been great concern among patient organisations
206
that gaps are appearing in the provision of services. We have just had a supposedly transitional period in which the regional specialised commissioning groups have continued to oversee the setting up of PCT consortia. That was undoubtedly the right decision. It was the absolute minimum needed to try to ensure some degree of stability and continuity as the new commissioning arrangements were being assimilated and put in place. But the Minister will also know that there is widespread agreement out there that the RSCGs have by no means outlived their usefulness. Many believe that they have a permanent role to play in commissioning services which are best planned across several strategic health authorities, with a population of perhaps three million to six million people.
It is pleasing to see in the new guidance that the Government have heeded those concerns by saying, in effect, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". RSCGs, where the arrangements are currently working well, are not now to be disturbed. As I said just now, I do not want to be churlish. But really what we have just witnessed is a giant chasing-around exercise which has ended up more or less at the point where we started. At the heart of the argument is the fundamental concern that we voiced last year during the passage of the Bill, which is that to devolve the purchasing of high-cost, low-volume treatments to PCTs is to devolve down to the wrong level in the system. PCTs suffer from something that they cannot help. Most of them will have no in-house expertise for commissioning this type of service. That expertise was thinly spread in the first place when we had regional health authorities, but it will be even more thinly spread now, and much of it would have been dispersed altogether if the RSCGs had been allowed to disappear.
It is also felt by many that small PCT consortia are not good mechanisms for encouraging innovation into the NHS and for driving forward those innovations in a timely way. To do that, one needs some kind of central mechanism to operate across a broader base—not, I hasten to say, a central means of control but rather some way of overseeing and guiding commissioners and facilitating improvements.
A considerable weight of opinion in the response to the consultation favoured a national group, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, consisting of representatives from the various commissioning consortia, whose job it would be to take a bird's eye view of specialised services across the country and to play a role as a facilitator in introducing and monitoring them. The guidance is silent on that idea, but perhaps I could ask the Minister whether she could be a little more forthcoming on it.
In that general context, I have a query about strategic health authorities. When it comes to making a new investment through either of the two tiers of commissioning consortia, I am not quite clear what role SHAs will have in the decision-making process. Will they be able to influence or second-guess decisions taken by the collaborative commissioning groups and, if so, in what way?

207
The consultation also threw up the real worry that at PCT level some specialised services will be squeezed out in the annual budgeting process. A PCT board, faced with cost pressures as all boards are, could decide that low-cost, high-volume services were a greater priority for them than signing up for a slice of a service level agreement of which only a small handful of their patients might in the end avail themselves.
Some PCTs might decline to join a consortium altogether. There are already examples of that happening around the country. A prime example is enzyme replacement therapy in Croydon PCT. Another is renal services in London. Two years ago, there was agreement in the RSCG that a fourth renal transplant surgeon should be funded in south-west London at a cost of £340,000. That money would be contributed by the PCTs in each of the five London sectors, plus Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Thames Valley. But what has happened? We find that the PCTs in four of the five London sectors have refused to put any money on the table, and that could put the proposal at risk.
So, again, it was a huge relief to find in the guidance that the Government have woken up to that damaging possibility. Henceforward, it appears that all PCTs will be required to join collaborative commissioning groups and that the decisions of those groups will be binding on all members. It would, however, be very helpful if the Minister could make clear exactly what degree of compulsion is involved here. The guidance seems to be worded in a way that could be interpreted as being precisely that—in other words, guidance rather than anything stronger. If a PCT refuses to contribute to a particular service which other members of the collaborative group are funding, what action can be taken? Are there sanctions against that PCT which can be enforced?
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to the unanswered questions in the guidance. That is certainly one. I agree with him completely on his observation. But, in particular, I believe that there was a lack of clarity about the interface between the commissioning consortia and managed clinical networks. The guidance states that the collaborative commissioning groups will ensure—that is the word used—support for managed clinical networks without explaining how or through what governance mechanisms that support will be forthcoming. Managed clinical networks cover cancer and renal dialysis and transplant, among other services, and are extremely important. Clinical and managerial accountability is essential for those services. The example in the appendix to the guidance of NorCom states that it will monitor and support managed clinical networks. One has to ask how quality standards can be guaranteed if this model is not followed.
What is needed, of course, in the procurement of specialised services are two things: stability and certainty. But if there is no guaranteed, committed funding by PCTs for a service, we shall have the very opposite of that. There must be a way of achieving
208
100 per cent involvement and compliance among PCTs. The obvious means of doing that is to have a levy, rather as the NorCom model does in the appendix to the guidance. Is that what the Government envisage and, if so, why is it not mentioned explicitly in the body of the guidance? For the year just beginning, it may be rather late in the day to ensure that the funding of some services is safeguarded in real terms, especially where service agreements have run out. It would be helpful to know whether the department is examining ways of addressing that.
But there is, in any case, an in-built tension here. Priorities are never set in stone; they change over time. Deciding on priorities depends on a number of things. To start with, there must be input from patients and the public. Only with that voice from outside is there likely to be an objective view about what services are needed where. Secondly, there must be some clinical input to ensure that proposals emanating from providers of services can be evaluated properly. I do not know how either of those will be achieved, and perhaps the Minister could make that clear in her reply.
The third ingredient in setting priorities is surely the freedom to move commissioning money from one provider to another. I have a particular worry here in relation to foundation trusts. Specialist providers which become foundation trusts in the future will depend on the income they receive from commissioning consortia in order to service their capital commitments. We understand that those service agreements will be legally binding. I should be very glad to hear from the Minister how this apparent rigidity in the way that funding is to be directed is consistent with the need to switch money between different services in response to changing priorities.
Notwithstanding the publication of the guidance, we should not delude ourselves that some areas of specialised commissioning are in anything other than a precarious state. In a number of regions, the commissioning consortia have barely got off the ground. Dermatology, foetal medicine, epilepsy surgery, rheumatology and specialised women's health services have very low coverage and can be seen only as being at risk. Cleft lip and palate, neonatal care and spinal injury services have very patchy provision. Those gaps must be addressed.
The government guidance, although late, is welcome. We shall need to continue digesting its implications. There are still many unresolved and serious concerns about access to services. It is helpful that the Minister now has an opportunity to shed a little light on some of the darker corners.
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for giving us an opportunity to discuss what everyone who has spoken this evening agrees is an extremely important issue. I am particularly grateful to noble Lords who spoke with such affection, as well as respect, about my noble

209
friend Lord Hunt. I certainly echo everything that has been said. I myself miss him very much at this moment. I am shuffling my papers in a desperate attempt to introduce some coherence into my thoughts. I am sure that he would not have had that problem.
I hope that this is an opportunity for me to do the job that I believe noble Lords would like me to do—that is, to provide clarification and reassurance on a number of the points raised about the sensitive and complex issue of commissioning specialist services. Those services go to the most vulnerable because they are rare disorders, they affect a relatively small number of people and they are provided in centres which are often far from home.
In the time I have, I shall do my best to answer the detailed questions that were raised—I am sure that I shall not be able to answer all of them; but I shall certainly write to noble Lords about those that I cannot—through my general survey of what the guidance is intended to do. Briefly, I shall consider what has been inherited; the review itself; the responses to the review; and what we want the guidance to achieve. We all agree that commissioning special services so that they meet the span of needs in the local community while balancing that against the routine and daily requirements of local health needs is a skill. It requires judgment, expertise and foresight, as well as careful planning.
Specialist services fall into two groupings related to the size of population. Traditionally, planning populations of 3 to 6 million have traditionally been provided for by the regional specialist commissioning groups, each of which established a tier below it that covers populations the same or of a similar size to that of a strategic health authority—1 to 2 million. For the transitional period, those services have been maintained.
So specialist services are part of the continuum of care that stretches from primary to tertiary services, and they are increasingly managed as part of the clinical network. Until the creation of the PCTs in April 2002, the RSCGs indeed drew their membership from health authorities, as did local groups, and those arrangements generated many advantages by basing collaborative commissioning arrangements on planning—and nurtured existing and emergent managed networks. For example, by encouraging a lead commissioner acting on behalf of everyone they supported the establishment of coherent commissioning and minimised transaction costs. By promoting collaboration, it was possible to pool financial risk.
Those are strengths that the Government wanted to ensure were continued in the new commissioning arrangements that have been in place since April 2002. Indeed, the review last summer allowed the opportunity to reveal how they were working. Noble Lords have been rather unkind about that review, suggesting that it represented a loss of confidence in some way. Perhaps not. It was an opportunity to take stock of what was developing in the field during the transitional year and to ensure that people knew what were positive outcomes and developments that could be introduced.
210
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, the Government listened closely to what was said. There was a large response and a large degree of consensus. That was broad-based and the guidance that has been produced is also broad, but specific enough to be extremely useful. It is broad because the whole principle of devolving NHS commissioning to primary care trusts by definition means that those decisions are best taken—as are commissioning decisions as a whole—in the local area where the NHS knows its patients, their needs and how and where to provide them.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but does she really believe that the current guidelines represent the consensus established during the consultation? As many of us read it, the consultation requested a much greater degree of upward devolution, if you like, from the PCTs on a firmer and more compulsory basis than is currently the case.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, if the noble Lord allows me to develop my argument, I think that I can satisfy him. The guidance does follow the spirit of the consultation, especially in relation to the development of regional specialist community groups. Essentially, the guidance ends the uncertainty of commissioning arrangements—as the noble Earl said, it is extremely important to build certainty into the commissioning arrangements, alongside clear thinking.
From the responses to the report, it was especially clear that the work of the regional specialist commissioning groups was highly valued, but that they were still developing organisations. That accorded with the Government's view of the continuing importance of maintaining strategic responsibility at that level. So let me emphasise, as does the guidance, that where such regional and local specialised commissioning groups and arrangements are working effectively in line with the guidance, there is no need to change them.
To address the specific question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who cited my honourable friend Hazel Blears in another place as saying that the RSCGs would continue only, by implication, for another year, when she spoke, she meant 2002–03; she was not talking about the future. So I can certainly put the noble Lord's mind to rest on that point.
I hope that I can also reassure him on another matter. As the Government believe that planning must take place at the appropriate level, and given the population for which the regional groups have always been responsible and their success as developing strategic bodies, their work and the response that we have received—we are certainly considering developing regional specialist commissioning groups in future. There is a definite continuing role for them.

211
To continue my argument about regional commissioning for a moment, the guidance places an explicit value on the continuity of commissioning and strategic development at regional level.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this is too good an opportunity to miss to probe further. Who decides whether those arrangements are working sufficiently effectively for the RSCGs to continue? It is so qualified in the guidance that they are to carry on, but only where they are working effectively. Who decides on that? That will mean that there is a patchy network.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, again, to continue with my argument, the guidance will guide the RSCGs. We are asking them to build on their experience and knowledge of specialist services; to develop their capacity; and, concerning the guidance's advice on the nature of commissioning, to put in place the clear strategic process that will guarantee that commissioning is working at regional and local level.
To turn to my second point, the guidance essentially aims to ensure that all RSCGs and local commissioning groups meet the level of the best. We want them to put in place agreed remits and powers, clear accountability and public and patient involvement that can be approved by the strategic health authority, so that the relationship between the collaborative tiers is clear and appropriate.
We have made clear that what we mean by the proper functioning of commissioning groups is that there is a clear and agreed structure that enables them to develop clear referral guidelines, access criteria and treatment protocols; and to follow the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines, appropriate data-monitoring, clinical and financial risk-assessment procedures and service-specific commissioning consortia.
Those are the pillars of good practice. They are spelled out in the guidance and CCGs that follow the guidance will be well on their way to intelligent and successful commissioning. We envisage the regional groups as fulfilling an extremely important role—as they have—and developing that role in future.
I turn to some questions that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the role of PCTs. He and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked whether their decisions were binding and, if so, what the nature of that binding arrangement. We expect that the remit, the powers and the rules of engagement will be agreed by the member PCTs. It is up to them to decide the nature of the binding agreement that they will enter into. There will be scope for development. We are agreed that the decisions taken are binding on all PCT members and that the commissioning process is transparent, so that providers and the public are clear who is commissioning. There is a clear direction for the PCTs to engage seriously with the process of commissioning.
Noble Lords have asked what is the role of the SHA. It is up to the SHA to ensure that that takes place. The SHAs have the oversight of PCTs. They will have the
212
responsibility for ensuring that the guidance in the respect that I am describing is followed. It is a developing arrangement and a developing reform. We have provided additional and clear signposts for the standard of performance that we expect, and how PCTs can avoid the risks that have been identified. For example, we want to see a dedicated commissioning team in every PCT. They have already demonstrated their value. We want to put the PCTs in the driving seat. We have emphasised the need for coherence and integration in the overall approach. We have asked the PCTs to incorporate plans for specialised services in their future local delivery plans. Those plans are at present being evaluated by the Department of Health.
We have linked commissioning into education and training for specialist services, so that work force confederations are including considerations in their work programmes. We have emphasised the need to build local and public confidence through a transparent process, so that PCTs are expected to make public the remit and rules of engagement. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about the importance of the involvement of the users of the service. Indeed they will be involved. PCTs should ensure that their views and experience are fed into the commissioning process, and that certainly involves the user groups, who have the greatest experience.
Noble Lords have raised the issue of capacity. I must stress that PCTs have already been in place for a year. They are still developing systems. They are developing their expertise, but they are developing a history of continuity in workforce and practice that I hope will reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who raised that question. The evidence that we have suggests that after a year they are developing the systems to deliver local services. There is a growing understanding of their roles and the size of the agenda. We have no evidence to date of the PCTs failing to commission properly, and now they have the guarantee of more certainty, because they have three-year allocations so that they can plan more effectively. We believe that the capacity will be built through mature collaborative behaviour.
That is not all. We are providing support around the PCTs, and that may address the noble Earl's question about why we have not supported the idea of a national group. We have a support system which includes the training and support programmes offered through the national primary care trusts. They are finalising a self-assessment tool for commissioning competencies. That will include specialised services. There is the overall responsibility which the SHAs hold for performance. That is the key to successful arrangements.
The commissioning process is underpinned by the national frameworks, which guide best practice and treatment in areas such as CHD and diabetes, which cross over with specialist services. NICE gives clear guidelines on prescriptions.

213
We have built certainties and reassurances into the system. The PCTs will have already developed the competence in line with successful commissioning arrangements, which will continue and will be aided by the guidance.
I shall briefly answer a few of the questions that other noble Lords have raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about spinal units. It is extremely important that people with spinal injuries are able to access spinal units, for all the reasons that she mentioned, particularly the issue of pressure sores and so on. A new review into spinal services is being conducted by three RSCGs in the south of England, including Stoke Mandeville hospital. It will look at provision and performance of services in relation to commissioning and spinal units. A report will be finished by May to be presented at a conference. We hope that generalised good practice will come out of that, which others can access and develop. That is good news.
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, referred to the fact that black and ethnic minorities suffer disproportionately from some forms of disease. We are very conscious of that. We have addressed the genetics issue in different ways. We expect the Green Paper on genetics very soon. A specialist committee of commissioners has been addressing genetic issues. We issued detailed guidance on sickle cell some time ago and we hope that universal neonatal screening for every child will be
214
available within the next three years. In different ways, we are looking at the issues that seem particularly to disadvantage black and ethnic minority families.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about young people in childcare homes in particular. One issue that they particularly have to contend with is mental health services. RSCGs have a particular responsibility to address issues of mental health of children. In addition, a lot of support is coming through Quality Protects and the new child and mental health services with additional funding, which makes it essential that people who look after children are aware of the need to take advantage of what is coming their way. That is why training is very important and why the voice of the child and the staff in the PCT commissioning process is particularly important. We should certainly look out for that.
I have gone well beyond my time and I am conscious that I have not addressed many of the detailed questions that have been raised. I am very sorry that I have not been able to deal with them. I shall have to write to noble Lords and pick up the points of detail. I hope that the guidance will be welcomed and supported across the House.

Nottingham City Council Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Water Bill Rill
  (Fourth Day)
  Tuesday, 8th April 2003.
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff) in the Chair.]
  Clause 38 [Objectives and duties under WIA]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 92:
  Page 42, line 15, at end insert—
  "( ) The Secretary of State shall define water poverty as those households spending over three per cent of their income on water charges."
  The noble Baroness said: I am particularly pleased to open this sitting by moving this amendment because it lays the ground for much of our discussions on the rest of the Bill. It requires the Secretary of State to come up with a definition of water poverty, and it suggests what that definition should be. In framing that definition, I pay tribute to the work of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, which produced a good study, Water Poverty in England. That thorough study came up with a couple of modest recommendations, the first of which is that the Government should give consideration to setting 3 per cent of net income as the level above which it is unreasonable to expect a household to meet water charges. The second recommendation is that the water regulator should investigate the extent to which water poverty contributes to water debt.
  I tabled the amendment because I believe that without a definition of what constitutes water poverty, it is hard to decide who is in water poverty. I do not believe that the regulations in the Bill do anything to reduce the number of households affected by water poverty or to help the industry in relation to the ever-increasing problem of water debt. We now rightly have a regime that does not allow people to be disconnected from the water supply if they fall into debt. That should remain. Once that arrangement is in place, one needs to be aware of who cannot pay their water bills and who will not pay their water bills. We will discuss water debt later today.
  The amendment frames the issue in such a way that it begins to address something that has not been addressed by the Government to date. When the Minister replies, he may say that the Government's arrangement involving vulnerable groupings of people who may apply for help with their water bill answers the problem. However, I believe that there are some 4 million people in that vulnerable group, which
  GC 2
  includes the elderly—who may also be incontinent—those with severe illness problems and those with large families who may find it harder to be in full-time work— that is certainly true in relation to both parents. They are often people with multiple problems. The vulnerable groups provisions fail on two counts: first, the provisions made under them are taken up by only 1 per cent of those who are eligible, which is a really pathetic rate for benefit take-up; and, secondly, the concept that lies behind the approach is somewhat Victorian, in the sense that it involves a charitable assumption, which is run—for good reasons—by the industry in a way that assumes that other water consumers will pay for those who cannot pay.
  I hope that the amendment will start the Government's thinking about defining water poverty and help them to decide that the current position is not satisfactory. I hope that the Minister will agree to the amendment as the first stage of addressing the problems of those who cannot afford their water bill and of the industry, for which the debt problem is substantial. The industry needs to know, if it is to deliver all that we expect of it—including environmental goods and so on in the Bill—that the people who cannot pay will be properly helped. That help should be provided on the same basis as that for other benefit help, not as a throwback to Victorian charities. I beg to move.
  Baroness Byford: Whether it is necessary to have the amendment in the Bill, I understand the reasons why the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, moved it.
  I have some questions for the noble Baroness., or for the Minister. First, is the criterion requested in this regard carried through in relation to any other utility Bills? Secondly, the noble Baroness said that 1 per cent of benefits were taken up, but 1 per cent of how many? Thirdly, in recent times, the water companies themselves have tried to address the whole question of debt and debt repayments. To a certain extent, they have been very successful at it. I am not associated with any water company at all and therefore have no insight in this regard. If they have been successful and no one has genuinely been put at risk who would otherwise have been helped by their strides to address the debt situation, one would have to question whether writing something into the Bill would detract from their ability to try to bring debtors into line and encourage them to pay something. I believe that there has been a lengthening of the time in which one can pay or spread the load.
  Those are indirect questions. I understand why the noble Baroness made her remarks in this context. All of us are concerned about poverty. Those three questions need addressing. I should be grateful if that were done by the Minister when he winds up or by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, when she responds to the Minister.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): I assume that the concept that the noble Baroness is proposing is the equivalent concept of fuel

  GC 3
  poverty, which is defined as 10 per cent of net income. However, that has various legislative strategy and scheme implications and the provision of various services are related to it. However, the approach in the amendment is entirely in isolation and is not followed through with amendments anywhere else in the Bill, so far as I can see, and would have no legal effect because it offers a definition that is not contained in any other legislation. I therefore believe that the effects are not clear.
  There is obviously an issue in this regard but, as the noble Baroness said, we have already taken action to stop household water disconnection and in terms of protecting vulnerable groups, who would otherwise cut back on water that they could not afford, with meters. We also have the current consultation on extending the protection for vulnerable households. The Government are addressing the problems of water poverty but the definition does not appear to help or to be clearly based in fact on the people who may be affected by the costs or the difficulties of providing water. The fact that the amendment would not have any effect means that I am not sure that it is the best way, beyond pure symbolism, to deliver anything for those who are genuinely in poverty, partly because of their water costs.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am slightly surprised by the Minister's lack of enthusiasm for the amendment. I had hoped that he would say that he agreed with the spirit of the amendment. There is not a great deal of carry-through to frame it so that it could take effect in relation to the rest of the Bill. At this stage I had hoped to discover the Government's attitude to the issue.
  The fact that water is at the end of the debt list—which is of itself a reason for my amendment being worthy of more consideration than the Minister appears to give it—says nothing for the value of water. If the Government are concerned about creating a fair society— which I believe they are—then the people most in need of help with their water bills should be entitled to it. The failure to define "water poverty" does not help.
  I have tables that answer the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in regard to the kinds of people who apply and the numbers who are successful. Rather than read them out at length, I shall pass her a copy.
  It is difficult to deal with a problem until it is clearly defined. If we cannot define the substance of water poverty it will be very difficult to find a mechanism for dealing with water debt in a way that does not badly affect people. Having brought in legislation to stop disconnections there was then a failure to address the issue of the rising debt problem. Although I accept that expanding the amendment would require a new clause in the Bill, it is worthy of somewhat more enthusiasm.
  The noble Baroness asked a third question which I have not answered. I cannot remember what it was. Perhaps she will help me.
  Baroness Byford: The noble Baroness said that 1 per cent of benefit take-up was referred to in the report. My question was, "1 per cent of how many people?" I want to establish how many households were affected. It could be 1 per cent of 10 or of 10,000. Obviously there could be quite a difference.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: According to the report. some 4 million may fall within the category of water poverty. So it would be 1 per cent of 4 million.
  As regards the Minister's question about whether this is the equivalent of fuel poverty, I do not believe that it is. Provisions for not disconnecting people from their water supplies are already in place, whereas if they could not afford heating they would stay cold. It is not equivalent but it is no less important for a different reason. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 92A:
  Page 42, leave out line 16 to 26.
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 92A concerns special interest groups. The noble Lord. Lord Borrie, spoke on the subject at length in our previous discussions. We would prefer to have all groups included or none included. Having listened to what the noble Lord said last week, we consider that none should be included. I hope that I have spoken to the right amendment. I beg to move.
  3.45 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): I should inform the Committee that, were the amendment to be accepted, I would not be able to call Amendment No. 93 because of pre-emption.
  Baroness Byford: I notice that Amendment No. 92A is grouped with Amendments Nos. 98A and 116A. I apologise to the Committee; my head is not quite as it should be. I shall now speak to those amendments.
  Amendment No. 98A deals with a small grammatical point. We believe that the word "consumers" includes both existing and future consumers—a point we debated last week—and that the term "future consumers" has no place on the face of the Bill. The argument that I advanced in connection with Amendment No. 92A applies equally to Amendment No. 116A.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Going back slightly, if we were to define clearly people in water poverty we could simplify this part of the Bill for those who have difficulty paying their water bills. To that extent, I support the amendment. It is certainly not true that all those of pensionable age, for example, would need any special provisions. They often fall into the better-off categories of society. I press the Minister again on whether the Government are clear about people who are unable to pay their water bills.
  Lord Borrie: I feel somewhat ambivalent to this group of amendments. I did not speak to the previous

  GC 5
  amendment because I was a little puzzled as to what it was for. It is of interest because, obviously, the whole issue of people who cannot pay because of low income is important. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, indicated, water companies have had to cope with this problem in recent years as they have been disallowed from disconnecting.
  All of us, no doubt, are very much against the notion of disconnecting people who are poor—the "can't pays" rather than the "won't pays". None the less, I hope that Members of the Committee will recognise that the ultimate threat of disconnection was of some value—at any rate so far as concerned the "won't pays"—because eventually one got a payment. Water companies are now faced with the problem that there is no ultimate sanction because, for sheer humanitarian reasons, everyone has to be supplied with water. Very often the ones who cannot pay are in most need—the single-parent families, the substantial families—and for them it would be a disaster on a Baghdad scale if supplies were not maintained.
  This is a very important matter. It is right that individuals with low incomes should be of special concern to the Secretary of State or the authority, as the case may be. The previous amendment might have defined people on low incomes and have been of some value to that extent, but otherwise it was—I suggest rather rudely to the noble Baroness—a little academic.
  As to the list as a whole, it seems perfectly reasonable to pick out each of the other groups. However, as I suggested last time, I am not sure why individuals residing in rural areas should be picked rather than those living in urban areas, some of whom include the poorest in the country. Why should one pick one group rather than the other?
  The trouble with picking such a group, as I suggested on a previous occasion, is that that encourages the Opposition to add to the list. Last time— I am glad that we have put this behind us now—students in full-time education were deemed to be a separate and proper group to pick out. That is the trouble with a list of this kind. At the end of the existing new subsection (2C) it says that this little list,
  "is not to be taken as implying that regard may not be had to the interests of other descriptions of consumer".
  One wonders what the point of it is. No doubt the Minister will explain. At the moment I am ambivalent as to its purpose and unsure whether it should be retained.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I feel that this part of the clause clouds the issue. The issue of water debt is, as we have discussed many times, twofold: there are the "can't pay" and the "won't pay". Some of the "can't pay" people attempt to pay because they have pride and do not want to have bills hanging over them, whereas some people who "won't pay" are as wealthy as anyone here and they think, "There is no sanction so we can get away with it".
  I do not think that this amendment tackles either of those categories; it certainly does not tackle the second category. But there must be ways. I speak as a director
  GC 6
  of water companies that have not been involved in the minutiae of this, but I know that there has been an attempt to get water companies, through an organisation of water companies, to come to a solution of this major problem of indebtedness. I would prefer to see such a list done away with, and a commitment put on the face of the Bill for the Government to do everything possible to try to reduce the level of indebtedness of the water companies that has increased by 10 per cent since the sanction of disconnection was introduced. We shall come to further amendments later.
  The emphasis in this set of amendments is on those who "can't pay"—not those on this list but those who have a real problem. There should be some way of dealing with that through the benefit system, which deals with matters such as mortgage repayments. There are also supplementary benefits for various things and I cannot see why water cannot be included in that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has stated, there is a list provided by the citizens advice bureaux which advises those who are in straitened financial circumstances to pay off their debts in a descending order of importance. I think water comes about fifth, after such matters as payments for clothes, catalogue buying and satellite television subscriptions. It is a big issue but I am not necessarily sure that the amendments—particularly this one—deal with it.
  Lord Whitty: Likewise I am not sure that these amendments address the problems referred to. It is possible to be completely purist, as my noble friend Lord Borrie was urging us on this amendment, and to delete all reference to any individuals. Were the Bill to be in that form before the Committee I am sure that amendments from the Opposition to pay particular attention, for example, to pensioners, the disabled or those in rural areas would undoubtedly have arisen. Where one draws the line is a matter of judgment. A complete deletion of those would imply that there has to be equality of treatment for all groups.
  I think it is right that the attention of the authorities should be drawn to these categories: the disabled, the elderly, those on low incomes and those in rural areas. That is right in this context as it is in other contexts. Therefore, to some extent it is a matter of taste, but it must be the case that to operate effectively the authorities would have to pay attention to those groups.
  I do not like Amendment No. 98A at all. As my noble friend Lord Borrie mentioned on the previous occasion, the reference to future consumers is a way of getting the authorities to focus on the long-term interests of consumers as well as on the shorts-term interests of consumers. Therefore, to delete the list would not be helpful. Amendment No. 116A is effectively covered by those comments in relation to Amendment No. 92A.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: If 4.4 million households in England and Wales were in debt at the end of the financial year 2001—that is the last year for which I have figures—that is 19 per cent of households.

  GC 7
  I understand that the Minister does not like this amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, or my previous amendment, but if the amount of household water debt is that high, what do the Government intend to do to remedy the situation? If they will not accept any of our amendments, do they intend to bring forward something of their own?
  Lord Whitty: We have discussed these issues with the companies, and we shall continue to do so. Dealing with household debt and dealing with the distribution of household debt is not really something that can be dealt with in the legislative arena. It certainly is not something that can be dealt with by these amendments.
  Baroness Byford: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I have three questions for the Minister. First, on the amendment that seeks to delete all those in the list, are specific groups named on the face of other utility Bills? Secondly, I understand that the thrust behind the Minister's response to Amendment No. 98A is that he wants to give encouragement to future consumers. There is no difference between us on that; we just do not think that it is necessary on the face of the Bill, hence the amendment.
  Thirdly, surely all those groups of people laid down in the Bill, except perhaps those living in rural areas—it would not necessarily be true of them—would fall directly within the benefit system. If they fall within the benefit system, because they are low income families or are recognised as having problems, surely the benefit system would make it unnecessary to specify them separately in the Bill. With regard to the pensioner category who live in rural areas—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that I am not making an appeal on our own behalf—
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I note that there is a Division in the Chamber.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 3.57 to 4.7 p.m.]
  Baroness Byford: Before the Sitting was suspended, I put three questions to the Minister. Provided that he is happy that he has understood them, I am happy to await his response.
  Lord Whitty: The response is normally given by the mover of the amendment, but I shall attempt to answer.
  Baroness Byford: Perhaps the Minister will forgive me. I thought that I had asked three questions to which he had not responded when the Division Bell sounded. I assumed that he would answer those before I did so.
  Lord Whitty: One of the questions related to provisions in other legislation. The provision in the Utilities Act 2000 is virtually the same—apart from the last group; namely,
  "customers … whose premises are not eligible to be supplied by a licensed water supplier".
  GC 8
  On the issue of the inter-relationship of those groups and those in debt, as I said, we have been in discussion with the water companies. One of the reasons why this matter is not easy to deal with in legislation is that the pattern of debt is very different for each water company. Therefore, we are conducting some research and discussion with the companies about how to deal with that.
  Although much of the focus of the discussion has been on debt, these groups are not designated only because they are the most likely to fall into debt—some are not in debt. Disabled consumers, for example, have special service needs; rural consumers have connection and distance problems, and probably service problems as well. So it is not primarily for reasons of debt that these groups are listed here, although the issue is relevant. I believe that I have dealt, at least in part, with the three questions put by the noble Baroness.
  Baroness O'Cathain: What else would the reason be, if not debt? The provision of water is automatic—water is water, is water, which is provided. Looking at the clause again, I cannot quite understand the Minister's point. The words are:
  "the Authority shall have regard to the interests of".
  Surely those interests relate to paying for water rather than to anything else.
  Lord Whitty: Yes, but the questions of connection. of how much is paid for the services and of how the service charges are raised—and, therefore, the amount of money required from consumers—are not necessarily related to the propensity of those consumers to get into debt. They relate to the totality of the charging system and to the way in which the service providers operate, to make sure that they do not discriminate against these groups.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Are there not effectively two categories? There are those who are presently classed as "vulnerable groups", and those who have to spend more than 3 per cent of their income on their water bills. Those are the two relevant groups.
  I cannot quite understand why "individuals of pensionable age" in paragraph (b)—I do not quite have to declare an interest yet!— should be in a special category unless they have difficulty paying their bills; otherwise, why is there no category for those who are perfectly well off?
  Baroness Byford: Before the Minister responds, perhaps I may ask him to clarify the point I raised with regard to those who are considered to be struggling to pay their bills. My question before the Sitting was suspended related to the fact that most of those people will be on some form of benefit; therefore, their needs will be covered by the benefits system. The Minister did not address that point in his reply.
  Lord Whitty: Their income may be supplemented by the benefits system for certain services, but problems caused by the water companies may not be covered. The benefits system helps families which meet certain terms. But a family with a certain number of children

  GC 9
  or with a certain degree of disability may be in a different situation from another family as far as concerns its water requirements and the way in which the water companies supply the water. You cannot rely on the benefits system to remove the requirement for the authorities to pay attention to these groups.
  Pensioners often have difficulties in meeting bills, in making complaints and in accessing the service companies. It seems sensible to include pensioners in the Bill, as is the case for other utilities. Not all pensioners, rural dwellers and people on low incomes will be vulnerable in relation to water. Clearly there is an overlap in the provisions, as there is in regard to fuel poverty.
  It is important to stress that although the alleviation of fuel poverty as an objective is contained in government statements and government legislation, a definition of fuel poverty is not required by the legislation. Equally, we do not define water in the Bill in the way suggested by the noble Baroness in the previous amendment. But we do designate those groups to which authorities, councils and so on have to pay attention in relation to various aspects of their work.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 94:
  Page 42, line 45, leave out "that power or the performance of that duty" and insert "those powers or the performance of those duties"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No 94 seeks an explanation of why the multiple powers and duties at the beginning of new subsection (2E) become singular at the end of the subsection. Do the Government envisage that any of the interests mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) will have an impact only upon a single duty mentioned in subsection (1)? I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the point. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: When the Secretary of State or the authority exercise powers or perform duties under this section they may have regard to certain interests affected by that power or that duty. To amend it to the plural would imply something entirely different. It could imply that when the Secretary of State or the authority exercise any of the powers or perform any of the duties under Section 2(1) of the Water Industry Act, they may have regard to interests affected by any of the other powers or duties. That clearly would be wrong. It is only when exercising one of those powers that they have to deal with the people affected by that power.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful for that clarification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 95:
  Page 42, line 46, at end insert—
  "(2F) In performing the duty under subsection (2A)(c) above the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Authority shall—

  (a) act in accordance with the current direction issued under section 5A(6) below;

  (b) have regard to the long term interests of consumers;

  (c) without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing. ensure that appointed companies are able to fund on reasonable terms all required investment programmes and the long term maintenance of their assets;

  (d) apply to all appointed companies all determinations and conclusions of the Competition Commission (including all methodologies adopted by the Commission) which relate to any such company."

  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 95, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 99. The amendments relate to two important issues. Amendment No. 95 concerns the long-term interests of consumers. We discussed in earlier debates the cost of long-term maintenance. Proposed new subsection (2F)(b) and (c) speaks for itself in that regard. Paragraph (d) is particularly important as it requires that the methodology adopted by the commission should apply to all appointed companies. The amendment seeks to clarify the situation. I understand that the Enterprise Bill removes possible political influence. Once agreed, methodology is established.
  Amendment No. 99 deals with the same issue and seeks reasonableness and proportionality. Proposed new subsection (1A) states:
  "The Secretary of State may not exercise his power under subsection (1) above so as to increase the cost that may have to be met by any relevant undertaker or by any consumer".
  That is proportionate and should be targeted. I beg to move.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I thank my noble friend for introducing the amendment, to which I have attached my name. The background behind the amendment is that, in determining the prices to be charged, a methodology is given to all companies by which they produce their final figures. The amendment requires that the methodology should be agreed by the authorities and all the companies before they go on to do the "number crunching".
  The appeal process should apply not only to companies which have appealed against the methodology but to all companies. That is very important. Otherwise the same situation will arise as the last time there were appeals from the water companies to Ofwat, when some companies were involved but it was not a general appeal. If an appeal is made and a condition is agreed through the appeals process, particularly in regard to the methodology, it should apply to all companies and there should be no further appeal.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: On page 42, lines 6 and 7, the Government specify that the

  GC 11
  companies must be able to secure reasonable returns on their capital for shareholders. The noble Baroness. Lady O'Cathain, disagrees.
  Baroness O'Cathain: The reasonable returns are not only for shareholders but for investment in maintenance and infrastructure. A high level of capital investment is required to enable the infrastructure to continue to supply fresh clean water to every household. It is not necessarily a shareholders' perk. It is not money to be given in dividends to shareholders.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the noble Baronesses for that explanation. I should like the Minister in his reply to confirm that interpretation of what the Government have put on the face of the Bill. Some definition of where the reasonable returns on capital are expected to go is helpful and perhaps, for that reason, this amendment would also be helpful. There probably needs to be a hierarchy of interest of consumers, infrastructure, and so forth, that is clearly understood. I know that the pricing mechanism and the water authorities' duties include that. But as the Bill seems to go into great detail on some of these points, spelling out that hierarchy would be helpful.
  Lord Whitty: In relation to this particular discussion, the reference to "reasonable return" in paragraph (c) is part of a sentence which refers to the proper carrying out of those functions. Therefore, it is fairly much as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, indicated. As regards hierarchy of objectives, the problem with Amendment No. 95—with which I have some sympathy—is that it appears to give primacy to the long term and to long-term investment over other provisions. Clearly, in some circumstances, the regulator would have to pay attention to the short-term impact. An immediate and draconian price rise, for example, could be something to which the regulator would have to pay attention, while also giving consideration overall to the longer term. It could override, in terms of its effect on the consumer, the long-term position.
  This clause is fairly inoperable; it does not indicate the period of long term to which it refers. Of course, throughout the regulatory structure we will have periodic reviews. That could imply that there would always be a trade-off of the long term against the short term, whereas clearly the regulator and the other authorities would need to have a balanced approach.
  The Secretary of State issued guidance to Ofwat earlier this year stating that,
  "The Government would expect regulators and companies to take a long view, not confined to the limits of the periodic cycle, in devising and recommending solutions".
  That general guidance stands and achieves the objectives that the slightly difficult formulation in the amendment might not.
  Amendment No. 99 concerns the question of the financial costs that might be imposed on water companies and their customers. I support the aim that the costs and benefits of any guidance issued under this clause must be assessed and properly considered. The
  GC 12
  Government are committed in this and in other contexts to producing regulatory impact assessments for that reason. In addition, in the impact assessment which accompanied this Bill, the Government said that where there might be significant financial implications, they should be taken forward by means of new legal provision.
  I do not think that the way in which Amendment No. 99 is directed to undertakers' and consumers' costs is appropriate. However, I am prepared to take Amendment No. 99 away and try to come back with something more appropriate.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for his last comment on Amendment No. 99. As he knows, it is difficult to propose amendments that fit, that are relevant and with which the Government may have sympathy, even though the wording is perhaps not quite right or unacceptable. I thank the Minister.
  With regard to Amendment No. 95, the Minister said that it might put in jeopardy a short-term need that needs addressing if we look too much at the long term. I should like to take this issue away and perhaps return to it at a later stage. I accept that the general guidance given to Ofwat is in being. But the amendment, particularly as regards methodology and the duty to publish it, has not been addressed. Therefore, we may need to look at this again.
  I believe that these amendments would help the Bill. A two-stage approach helps to ensure that the price review process is more transparent and predictable to characteristics of good regulation. Price determinations are undertaken on the basis of published and agreed methodologies. I thought that that was something which the Government would support. We believe a two-stage approach achieves early resolution to disputes on methodology and policy. It has the potential that lengthy and costly appeals could be reduced. Therefore, it would be of benefit to customers who currently have to bear the full costs of appeals to the Competition Commission.
  In the mean time, the Minister has said that he will look again at Amendment No. 99. He might also have a look at Amendment No. 95. I am not tying him to a commitment to do that as he has not given any indication of doing that. We are trying to ensure that all determinations are common to all companies. It seems much more logical to go down that line than perhaps to have different concepts for different companies in different areas. If the Government want to go down that latter course—a bad pun; another pound in the Water Aid bucket—I think that that and the implications that it might have on individual water companies should be made clearer. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 95.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 96:
  Page 43, leave out lines 24 to 26.
  The noble Duke said: This is another probing amendment. Subsection (4) contains various references to companies holding an appointment

  GC 13
  under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Water Industry Act. Suddenly, in sub-paragraph (iii), there is a reference to "the person" who is the licensed water supplier. The Secretary of State or the authority is to ensure that this person's licence does not authorise it to carry on any activities in the area of "the company". Frankly, I am unsure what the Government intend by this provision and would appreciate clarification from the Minister.
  In speaking to Amendment No. 96, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 100, which is linked to it. Under new Section 2A, the Secretary of State may issue guidance to the authority concerning its contribution towards the attainment of any social or environmental policies. We welcome this provision, particularly the requirement that the Secretary of State and the assembly consult the necessary stakeholders.
  I am also pleased that the draft guidance will be laid before Parliament, but I am unsure whether the guidance will have the same status as a statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure. It appears that there is the usual 40 days' time for consideration of content, during which either House can resolve that the guidance should not be issued. Does that mean that the draft guidance could be rejected or amended, if any Member wished to do so? Will the draft guidance be subject to a substantive debate in each House? I should appreciate some clarification on the parliamentary status of draft guidance. I beg to move.
  4.30 p.m.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 96 seeks to remove the prohibition on licensed water suppliers associated with an undertaker from operating in that particular undertaker's area. This provision is needed to ensure consumers are protected and to promote competition.
  We expect undertakers to compete in their areas of appointment against licensees by offering better prices and services and operating at higher efficiencies. At the same time, we expect undertakers to create associated companies so that they can enter the competitive market in other parts of England and Wales.
  If these associated licensees were able to operate in their parent undertaker's area, the undertaker could find ways of encouraging customers to transfer to its associates in order to remove them from their regulated activities and the price control mechanism. This could be done only at the expense of the customers remaining with the regulated business.
  The prohibition has also been put in place to ensure that when licensed water suppliers operate in an area they are competing with each other and the undertaker on a level playing field. I hope that I have given the explanation that the noble Duke sought.
  As has been said, Amendment No. 100 seeks to redefine the duration for which any draft social and environmental guidance must be laid before Parliament for approval from "40 days" to "40 working days".
  GC 14
  Although the social and environmental guidance is not a statutory instrument, the Bill replicates the negative procedure for parliamentary scrutiny, including the usual exclusions. The 40 days are therefore calendar days in exactly the same way. Forty working days would depart from the normal parliamentary procedure and would extend the time that the draft guidance has to lie before both Houses to beyond the time allowed for statutory instruments. We believe that that would not be appropriate. If a matter is raised, there could be a debate if the usual channels agree.
  The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for her clarification. I feel much more at one with what the Bill is trying to achieve and what we are discussing. There is a problem that the usual channels may not always agree to a debate. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 97:
  Page 43, line 26, at end insert—
  "( ) to have regard to the Water Framework Directive and proposals for Water Framework Directive-related programmes when taking pricing decisions;"
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to probe the water industry's thinking on Water Framework Directive-related programmes, which may well require actions to be undertaken that the Government consider fall under the proposed new subsection (3)(e), which is introduced by subsection (4) of Clause 38,
  "to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development".
  I do not believe that the measure is specific enough. For example, would the planting of a forest in a river basin catchment be the kind of issue that the water industry would have regard to when carrying out its duties? My noble friend Lord Livsey will give further examples. Will the Minister explain to what extent the water industry must take the Water Framework Directive into account as, at this point in time, the directive is not included in the Bill? I beg to move.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I shall expand a little on what my noble friend has said, particularly in relation to the Water Framework Directive. Article 9 of the directive refers to the recovery of costs for water services. It states that,
  "Member states shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs, having regard to the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III".
  It goes on to say that,
  "water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently, and thereby contribute to the environmental objectives of this Directive".
  It continues:
  "an adequate contribution of the different water uses, disaggregated into at least industry, households and agriculture. to the recovery of the costs of water services, based on the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III and taking account of the polluter pays principle".

  GC 15
  In proposing the amendment, my noble friend Lady Miller draws attention to the fact that Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive lays out its stall as regards the matter we are discussing. I refer to the statement that I have just read out. We should like to probe the Minister's thinking on the matter as it seems to me that what is laid out in the Water Framework Directive is eminently sensible when calculating pricing policies.
  It indicates clearly that the social dimension has to be taken into account and states that,
  "Member States may in so doing have regard to the social, environmental and economic effects of the recovery as well as the geographic and climatic conditions of the region or regions affected".
  Therefore, the social dimension should be taken into account in pricing policies. These are very important issues in relation to the Bill. The amendment seeks to probe the Minister's thinking on whether the Water Framework Directive needs to be integrated into the Bill?
  Baroness Byford: I do not want to comment further on what has been said but we come back to the same question and difficulty—that is, that there are issues in the Water Framework Directive that cannot be included in the Bill. It puts us in a ridiculous situation and I wish to log my concern again. I understand why the noble Baroness has moved the amendment.
  Lord Whitty: As the noble Lord said, the amendment would require the Secretary of State and the authority to have regard to the Water Framework Directive and its consequent programmes when taking pricing decisions. I do not think that anyone will argue with that. However, we do not need new legislation to do that as it is already in process.
  The directive requires us to have regard to certain principles in the recovery of costs, notably the polluter pays principle. As a result of the directive, we have set out in our consultation that the water charging system in this country already takes such matters into consideration without legislative change being required.
  We certainly recognise that the directive will require programmes of investment by water companies and others. A process for implementing the directive will identify exactly what needs to be done and the timetable. Once those programmes are defined as legal obligations on the companies under the directive, the Secretary of State and the authority will be under a duty to ensure that their financing carries through. At present that is a responsibility of Ofwat. There is already a very well established procedure—the periodic review of water price limits—under which Ofwat sets price limits relating to considerations now required by the directive. The obligation that companies must meet, and of which Ofwat must take account, will be clearly set out in guidance to the regulator. In January, as I said, we issued new guidance for the next periodic review. That set out how the Water Framework Directive should be treated for
  GC 16
  the purpose of price limits in 2005 under the existing process. It is too early to say what investment will be required. Under the provisions of the Water Framework Directive, the indications may be that most of the investment will be required beyond 2010 but some schemes may need funding between 2005 and 2010, in which case the Water Framework Directive schemes will be included in the guidance that will be issued under existing legislation. There is no need for any new legislation in this field. We have therefore not provided new powers in the Bill.
  Baroness Byford: I want to respond to the Minister on that. He clearly said that there is no need for that. The truth of the matter is that the Water Framework Directive will not be adopted until after we have passed the Bill; that is one of the arguments that we have had all along. It has huge implications. The Minister said that guidance was sent out to Ofwat earlier this year, if I understand him correctly—I listened quite carefully, I trust. He also said that there will be clear guidance to come in the future but that it was too early to say as yet.
  We are being asked to take an awful lot of things on trust in the Bill in addition to giving the Government powers to do whatever, because we do not have any control over guidance. However, when we debate the Bill and primary legislation, we do have that. I again say that I find where we are unsatisfactory and will continue to say so throughout the Bill. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say on the one hand that that is not necessary and, on the other hand, that we will clearly need to have guidance. Perhaps the Minister will comment on my comments.
  Lord Whitty: The point is that we can and do issue guidance under present legislation; we have already done so in anticipation of the implications of the Water Framework Directive. We do not need new powers in that regard.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Before the Minister concludes, will he comment on paragraph (e) at line 27 on page 43? It refers to the need,
  "to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development",
  which is a worthy goal that I fully support. Is it necessary to have that in the Bill?
  Lord Whitty: This involves the substitution of a section in the previous regulations, which updates it. Normally, I am pressed by the Liberal Democrats to include sustainable development on virtually every page of the Bill. I am not quite sure what point the noble Baroness is making.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My point is that when the Minister responded to the amendment, he said that the amendments tabled by myself and my noble friend Lord Livsey to the Water Framework Directive were not necessary because that would happen anyway. I suggest that it is necessary to have those amendments in the Bill. I would be very pleased if the amendment on sustainable development were included in the Bill.

  GC 17
  If we keep ignoring the Water Framework Directive and do not include it in any of the matters to which the various bodies must pay attention, guidance will of course later refer to that. As we said at the beginning of the Bill's Committee stage, that is unsatisfactory in terms of the start of the process for introducing the most important piece of water legislation for the past 20 years. We should also consider the fact that if that is not included in the Bill, it will be seen as a less important issue than those matters that are included. If the Minister does not believe that that will be the case, I should be relieved. The fact that it is not in the Bill and is not primary legislation will make it appear to be a less important issue.
  When I moved the amendment, I asked the Minister about a specific example. River basin management might require the planting of a forest, which is a very wide point for the water industry authority to take account of. As water cycle issues are increasingly taken into account, a company might be required to regard that as relevant. Without our amendment, the sorts of directive-related programmes referred to in the amendment will be seen as being less worthy than other issues in the Bill. I shall return to this on Report, when we will again discuss the Water Framework Directive. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 98:
  Page 43, line 27, at end insert—
  "(4) In performing their duties under this Act, the Secretary of State, the Assembly and the Authority shall also have regard to the following—

  (a) the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed;

  (b) the desirability of promoting and facilitating the development and use of effective forms of self-regulation;

  (c) any other principles appearing to them to represent the best regulatory practice;

  (d) the desirability of encouraging investment and innovation in the water industry; and

  (e) the opinions of consumers and members of the public."

  The noble Baroness said: In this amendment. we are considering the whole question of good regulation or better regulation. The Better Regulation Task Force, which was established back in September 1997, is, as noble Lords will know, an independent body that advises the Government on action to ensure that regulation and enforcement accord with the five principles of good regulation, which are set out in the relevant document.
  We want to ensure that the five principles of good regulation are recognised in the Bill to ensure that all regulators follow those principles. The benefits that accrue with better regulation are proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted. The amendment would strengthen the addition to the objectives of the regulation set out in the Bill. The
  GC 18
  Secretary of State or the authority shall consider those extra requirements. Paragraph (a) in the amendment refers to the need to be,
  "targeted only at cases in which action is needed";
  in other words, that involves not considering other bits where no action is needed. We believe that that would save costs to the Government and the water companies in terms of management time and cost time. If we can save in relation to such costs, that would obviously help the consumer. All costs that are put on water companies eventually get passed on to the consumer. If we target only cases in which action is needed, it appears to us logical that the Government would agree to that.
  We also believe, as indicated in paragraph (b) of the amendment, that,
  "effective forms of self-regulation",
  should be encouraged in the first place. In paragraph (d), we support,
  "the desirability of encouraging investment and innovation in the water industry".
  I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I rise briefly to support the amendment, to which my name and that of my noble friend Lord Livsey are attached. It is very important. I expect that the Minister will again say that it is not necessary to include such provisions in the Bill. In a Bill that is very long on detail, it would be nice if some of the principles underpinning its entire regulatory nature were spelt out and reinforced. We have debated in previous sittings some of our concerns about proportionality and targeting. The amendment would strengthen the already good example that Ofwat has set in quoting the principles of good regulation in the periodic review for 2004.
  Lord Borrie: My first reaction on reading the amendment was that it comes from the "motherhood and apple pie" school of legislative drafting. Extremely worthy principles are set out in it. It made me feel good inside just to read them, especially when I got to the end of the amendment, which states that,
  "the opinions of consumers and members of the public",
  will be taken into account.
  I do not want to make fun of the amendment, because it occurs to me that it has some very worthy principles. Those who drafted it ought to get a prize from the Better Regulation Task Force for doing so. I know that the same amendment features in the Communications Bill that the House is considering. However, I am conscious that although the principles might be very familiar to us as legislators, they are not so well embedded in our constitution and way of life that we can take them for granted. When one reads through them slowly, it seems that they are all pretty obvious. I have emphasised the parts that I think are most obvious. None the less, to have them in the Bill is worth while.
  The Minister may feel that it is sufficient as an alternative if the regulators set everything out, not only when they start their working life, but perhaps

  GC 19
  regularly in their annual reports. So be it, but it may do good and will certainly do no harm to set the principles forth in the Bill. Despite my immediate reservations to seeing the words set out in cold print, I commend the amendment.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I shall follow that ringing endorsement from the noble Lord. I thank him for his congratulations on the drafting of the amendment. In fact, it was sheer plagiarism, because it comes out of the Ofcom Bill. There is a virtue in that because, in the new regulatory system in which we are trying to have better regulation in all activities of the economy and our legislative life, the sooner people get used to the principles the better. We have had lots of principles for years and years that come as second nature to people, whether or not they are noble Lords or involved in legislation at all.
  Following the establishment of the Better Regulation Task Force, the time has now come to take on board some of its work and conclusions. I am sure that we all think that its conclusions were superb. They were like a breath of fresh air going through the whole morass of regulation. The five principles listed in proposed new subsection (4)(a), which are,
  "transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed"
  —I call them the TAPCT principles—will become something of a mantra, but they are none the worse for that.
  There is another message in the amendment beyond plagiarising the Ofcom Bill. In the periodic review in 1999, the Competition Commission was actually critical of Ofwat, primarily on the transparency route. It told them that the mistake should not happen again, and the amendment might help in that direction. As I say, we are definitely taking on the findings of the Better Regulation Task Force. There should be consistency of approach across the industry as a whole.
  Do not forget that, when the Bill becomes an Act, Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the Environment Agency. English Nature, the Health and Safety Executive and, I am sure, many other such bodies will be involved. We want to ensure that people try with 100 per cent commitment to fulfil their obligations in regulation, as in everything else. We would like to know that there was consistency of approach in all the areas. I simply hope that the Government will buy into that, and therefore that the Secretary of State will underpin it. I thank all those who have supported what I originally suggested.
  Lord Whitty: There is a straight plagiarism of the Communications Bill, which in other respects has not been the most popular piece of legislation in the House. Part of the amendment would not do any harm, but it does not really add anything. The water industry is not the same as the communications industry. The principles in proposed new paragraph (a) are already adopted by Ofwat, and making them statutory would not make a lot of difference.
  GC 20
  There is a difference on the reference to self-regulation. In a fully competitive market, or one approaching full competitiveness such as telecommunications, self-regulation can lead to benefits to consumers and companies, and minimise the problems of official regulation. The water industry is different, however. It is still virtually monopolistic in terms of supply. It is essential. It covers very sensitive issues, such as pricing, cold-water quality, and environmental standards. I do not think that the option of self-regulation—it might apply to communications, and certainly does in several other sectors —should be given the preference that the amendment would demand by implication.
  The regulatory system already works to deliver investment and innovation by setting and policing challenging standards for improvements. Not having precisely the same commitments on regulations as the Communications Bill will not detract from the water regulator continuing to have that effect. Putting an apparent preference for self-regulation in this Bill could greatly reduce the pressure on the water companies to achieve the objective that we are all seeking.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I have not spoken, but I agree with a lot that has been said from this side of the Committee. The amendment is excellent. It is a catchall, really, as it includes all the aspects that should be taken into account. Has the Minister considered the importance of reporting the performance of different companies in relation to proposed new paragraphs (b), (c) and (d)? Paragraph (b) is about,
  "the desirability of promoting and facilitating the development".
  How much promoting and facilitating is being done? How much investment and innovation is taking place? How does one company compare with another in those terms and to improve matters so far as the delivery of services for customers is concerned?
  There is a lot in the amendment. Although I agree with the Minister in one sense when he says that there is a monopoly, in another there is not, because there are variations in performance. I have seen Ofwat figures of comparison. The amendment sets out all the aspects that one would expect to find in a report.
  Lord Whitty: The amendment does not require any reporting as I read it, but Ofwat already reports and the authority that replaces it will continue to report on much to which the noble Lord referred.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his response, although I am disappointed. He indicated that he considered that parts of the amendment were desirable, and that the Government could accept them. He has reservations on proposed new subsection (4)(b) and has explained why—in particular, that he thinks that it will reduce the ability of the water companies to run their businesses as well as they might.
  Would proposed new subsection (4)(a) be acceptable? I am really looking to the Minister for guidance. I cannot see any reason not to accept proposed new subsection (4)(c) or (d). He indicated

  GC 21
  that proposed new subsection (4)(e) was already catered for, but would he have regard for proposed new subsection (4)(a), (c) and (d), or a rewording of those paragraphs? As the wording is obviously not acceptable to the Government, they could take the wording away and think about tabling or letting us table another amendment to deal with the issues that those paragraphs cover. To me, they seem to make common sense and to be acceptable.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: We do not usually legislate on the basis that there is no good argument against a particular provision. We legislate on the basis that it is necessary. In general, we do not need a repetition of the reference to various principles of regulation that are set out in the amendment. However, I shall have another look at it to see whether there is a version of it that would be helpful.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister, particularly in relation to paragraph (a). It is important that it is targeted only at cases that need action. It seems to me silly to waste taxpayers' money on examining cases where no action is needed or where the action has been agreed with Ofwat directly and the water companies are trying to put the matter right. I believe that paragraph (a) is hugely important. I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that he is willing to consider paragraphs (a), (c) and (d). I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 98A not moved.]
  Clause 38 agreed to.
  Clause 39 [Guidance to Authority on social and environmental matters]:
  [Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]
  Clause 39 agreed to.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 101:
  After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
  "AUTHORITY'S STATEMENT OF POLICY
  After section 2 of the WIA there is inserted—
  "2B AUTHORITY'S STATEMENT OF POLICY
  (1) The Authority shall prepare and publish a statement of policy with respect to its determination of charges in periodic reviews and interim determinations under all or any of the instruments of appointment of companies as relevant undertakers made by virtue of Part 2 of this Act.
  (2) The Authority's statement of policy under this section shall include a statement of its policy with regard to—

  (a) the carrying out of its duties under this Act insofar as they relate to its determination of charges;

  (b) the matters to be taken into account and the methodologies to be applied in its determination of charges; and

  (c) the extent to which the performance of functions by persons with powers and duties conferred or imposed by or under this Act or any other enactment are relevant to its determination of charges.

  (3) The Authority shall determine charges in periodic reviews and interim determinations under a company's instrument of appointment as a relevant undertaker on the basis of the most recently published statement of policy.
  (4) The Authority may revise its statement of policy and where it does so shall publish the revised statement.
  (5) Publication under this section shall be in such manner as the Authority considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the matters contained in the statement of policy to the attention of persons likely to be affected by them and shall not be made less than twelve months before a periodic review.
  (6) When preparing or revising its statement of policy under this section, the Authority shall consult relevant undertakers and such other persons as it considers appropriate, subject to the requirements of subsection (7).
  (7) For the purposes of subsection (6)—

  (a) consultation shall be by way of written notice given by the Authority not less than six months prior to the publication of the statement of policy which it is preparing or revising;

  (b) such notice shall state—

  (i) the matters which the Authority proposes to publish in its statement of policy and its reasons for including them in the statement; and

  (ii) a period of not less than three months within which that person may give written notice of objection with respect to the matters referred to in the notice; and

  (c) the Authority shall give each person reasonable opportunity to make oral representations to it on the matters referred to in the notice.

  (8) The Authority shall not issue or publish a statement of policy unless—

  (a) no notice of objection to the policy is given to the Authority within the time period specified in its notice under subsection (7); or

  (b) if one or more relevant undertakers gives notice of objection to the Authority within that time—

  (i) the proportion (expressed as a percentage) of the relevant undertakers who have given notice of objection is less than such percentage as may be prescribed; and

  (ii) the percentage given by subsection (9) is less than such percentage as may be prescribed.

  (9) The percentage given by this subsection is the proportion (expressed as a percentage) of the relevant undertakers who have given notice of objection, weighted according to their market share in such manner as may be prescribed.
  (10) If the conditions referred to in subsection (8) are not met, the Authority shall (within three months of its receipt of the first or only notice of objection) refer the policy to the Competition Commission for review.
  (11) Where a reference is made to the Competition Commission under this section, it shall be the duty of the Competition Commission to determine whether the policy which is the subject of the reference operates in a manner best calculated to fulfil the duties of the Authority arising under this Act.
  (12) Where a reference is made to the Competition Commission under this section, the Authority shall not prepare or revise its statement of policy other than on the basis of the determinations of the Competition Commission.
  (13) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as he considers appropriate for regulating the procedure to be followed with respect to any reference to the Competition Commission under this section.
  (14) Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by subsection (13), regulations under that subsection may, in relation to any such reference, apply (with or without modifications) the provisions of any enactment relating to the references to the Competition Commission under the provisions of this Act, the Fair Trading Act 1973 (c. 41) or the Competition Act 1998 (c. 41).""
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with the authority's statement of policy. We feel that it is important. I know it is a long amendment. I believe that the hearts of Ministers and legal people must have sunk when they saw the length of it. The Minister nods. I quite understand, but the amendment is very important; that is why we have tabled it. We would not table amendments unless we thought they were important.
  The aim of the amendment is to achieve better decision-making through discussions at an early stage in order to get decisions right in the first place, which would, in turn, lessen the work referred to the Competition Commission. If that were achieved, it would save costs both from the commission's point of view and from that of the water companies, the latter having to provide senior managers who are then away from their job of running the water companies efficiently, which is what we require them to do. We believe that that preventive work would benefit all.
  Concern has been expressed by Water UK that there is a lack of opportunity for companies to make representations early enough. Subsection (7)(c) of the proposed new clause would give each person reasonable opportunity to make oral representations. I hope that the idea will be welcomed by the Minister.
  Subsection (11) places on the Competition Commission the duty to determine the policy. I shall deal with that shortly.
  Subsection (12) states that,
  "the Authority shall not prepare or revise its statement of policy other than on the basis of the determinations of the Competition Commission".
  If it does, why have a Competition Commission at all? We believe that no one should overrule it. That is why the amendment is in that form.
  Subsection (13) states that,
  "The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as he considers appropriate for regulating the procedure to be followed with respect to any reference to the Competition Commission under this section".
  I return to subsection (11), which states:
  "Where a reference is made to the Competition Commission under this section, it shall be the duty of the Competition Commission to determine whether the policy which is the subject of the reference operates in a manner best calculated to fulfil the duties of the Authority arising under this Act".
  I have picked up one or two specific issues from this rather long amendment. I suspect that other noble Lords may wish to comment on issues to which I have not referred. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: My overall reaction to this rather lengthy amendment is that it is far too prescriptive and not something that we should include on the face of the Bill, because it greatly limits the flexibility with which the independent regulator can operate. In certain circumstances it is also counter-productive. We need to allow the regulator to find innovative ways to carry out its duties.
  GC 24
  Essentially the amendment has two aspects. It would require the authority to prepare and publish a statement of policy about changes in periodic reviews. It would also give undertakers the right to oppose the policy of the authority.
  It is certainly important for there to be constructive dialogue between the authority and undertakers, but I do not believe that the mechanism of the second of those provisions is right. The proposal for a statement of policy, and especially the procedures surrounding it, would be somewhat bureaucratic and would not improve the conduct of periodic reviews. Following the last periodic review, the Environmental Audit Committee recommended that the process should be made shorter. This amendment would require the authority to consult on a statement of policy at least 18 months before the periodic review, which would definitely prolong the process.
  The same extended process would also apply to revisions of the statement of policy. The effect of that would be to make it more difficult for the authority's policies to keep up with the need for change. In keeping people informed of change there is already provision in the Bill for the authority to prepare and publish a code of practice and a forward programme. They must cover the discharge of all its functions, not merely those of price-setting.
  I have some concern about other effects of the proposal; for example, the idea that undertakers should be able to oppose and block the policy of the authority even before it is made. Undertakers can already appeal against price determinations once they have been made, and there is also referral to the Competition Commission.
  We need to remember that the authority must exercise its functions in the manner best calculated to satisfy a number of aims, including the consumer objective and the financial stability of an undertaker. Companies therefore already have the advantage over consumers, as consumers cannot appeal against price determinations. But the amendment seeks to go further and to give companies the right to obstruct any statement of policy with which they do not agree. Consumer bodies would have only limited rights to participate. So the balance that is struck—both the balance of judgment as to pricing decisions against other decisions that the regulator has to make, and the balance of influence between the companies and consumers—would be disturbed if this amendment were to be adopted in its literal form. The influence that undertakers would have over the authority's policy would detract from its duty to balance all of its duties as an independent regulator.
  As far as the companies are concerned, they already have a chance to make representations. Ofwat consults on its periodic review and its methodology, and many informal discussions with the companies take place. There is already a much more constructive approach to establishing an agreed approach than is implied by the slightly confrontational implications of the amendment. While I understand some of the

  GC 25
  motivation behind the amendment, I do not believe that it would be helpful, and it would greatly restrict the ability of the regulator to do its job.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister. I do not necessarily agree with his assumption that the amendment is too prescriptive and that it would necessarily reduce the flexibility of the regulator. I shall consider that point.
  With regard to including all its duties, we have discussed trying to ensure early representation and the chance for oral representations to be made. The Minister did not touch on that point in his response. I should have thought that the Government would welcome any proposal that would enable early discussions to take place. If the industry feels at present that it needs a further provision on the face of the Bill—because it is not sufficiently clear that there is a good line of communication—I should have thought that the Minister might feel able to accept such a proposal. That said, I will re-examine the point.
  On the statement of policy, I heard what the Minister said, but I do not necessarily agree with him. I shall read his remarks carefully in Hansard. I shall make no further comment at this stage; I shall take the matter away and reflect on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 102:
  After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
  COORDINATED REGULATION
  After section 5 of the WIA there is inserted—
  "PART 1A COORDINATED REGULATION
  5A COORDINATED REGULATION
  (1) In this section—

  (a) the Agency, the Authority, the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water and (if and while separately appointed) the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water for Wales and the Consumer Council for Wales shall together be referred to as "the regulators";

  (b) water undertakers, sewerage undertakers, licensed water suppliers, and all other persons engaged in water supply, or the drainage or disposal of sewage, shall together be referred to as "the water industry" or "water industry bodies";

  (c) "final price determinations" means final price determinations issued by the Authority pursuant to periodic reviews carried out by it under all or any of the instruments of appointment of companies as water or sewerage undertakers;

  (d) "the consultees" means the persons that the Secretary of State is required to consult under subsection (3) below;

  (e) under subsections (2), (6), (9) and (11) below—

  (i) the duties of the Assembly shall relate to water industry bodies whose areas are wholly or mainly in Wales; and

  (ii) the duties of the Secretary of State shall relate to all other water industry bodies.

  (2) The Secretary of State, the Assembly and the regulators shall exercise all their statutory powers and duties, which relate to or may affect the water industry, in a coordinated manner.
  (3) To that end, the Secretary of State and the Assembly shall from time to time (and so often as may be necessary for the purposes of subsection (6) below) consult each other and the regulators, the Council, representatives of the water industry, and such other persons as they consider appropriate, for the purpose set out in subsection (4) below.
  (4) The purpose referred to in subsection (3) above is the consideration of—

  (a) the policies that should be pursued by the water industry in the long term interests of consumers;

  (b) the costs and benefits of those policies;

  (c) the times within which those policies should be implemented; and

  (d) accordingly how those policies should be funded.

  (5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (.4) above, in considering the matters referred to in that subsection, the Secretary of State, the Authority and consultees shall take into account—

  (a) the duties imposed on the Secretary of State, the Assembly and the Authority under sections 2 and 2A of the WIA;

  (b) all other statutory duties and Community obligations imposed on the Secretary of State, the Assembly and the regulators which relate to or may affect the water industry; and

  (c) all statutory and regulatory duties, and Community obligations, imposed on the water industry.

  (6) The Secretary of State and the Assembly shall, at least twelve months before each occasion on which the Authority is due to issue final price determinations, issue a direction to the regulators on the matters listed under subsection (4) above, taking into account the matters listed under subsection (5) above.
  (7) The Secretary of State and the Assembly shall, in formulating such direction, take into account the consultations carried out under subsection (3) above.
  (8) The Authority shall give to the Secretary of State. the Assembly, the other regulators, the Council and the water industry at least eighteen months prior written notice of the date on which he will issue any final price determination referred to under subsection (6) above.
  (9) The Secretary of State, the Assembly and the regulators—

  (a) shall exercise all their statutory powers and duties, including their powers to issue directions and guidance (other than that contained in subsection (6) above), in accordance with the direction from time to time issued under subsection (6) above; and

  (b) to that end, and for the purpose of meeting the requirement set out in subsection (2) above, shall consult and cooperate with one another in relation to the exercise of their respective powers and duties.""

  The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with co-ordinated regulation. As it is not quite so long as the previous one, I hope that the Minister may deal slightly more sympathetically with it.
  It is important that co-ordination between regulators is established early. It should be reliable and transparent, and should bring forward everything that we seek to establish.
  Each regulator has different, and potentially conflicting, responsibilities. Currently, no binding statutory framework is proposed in the Bill to ensure that regulators work together in an integrated and co-ordinated manner. Water companies and other organisations could find themselves having to juggle different interpretations and priorities, possibly resulting in inappropriate, unfair and costly regulation. That has been recognised in recent

  GC 27
  legislation introduced in Scotland. People usually regard reference to Scottish regulation as the "horror of horrors"; however, we believe that the matter should be more clearly defined in this Bill too. Were the amendment to be accepted, it would ensure co-ordinated and consistent regulation; it would introduce predictable regulation, and an integrated approach between the regulators; and it would achieve better regulation at a reduced cost.
  The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill—I believe I am right in saying that the Bill has not yet completed its passage—contains, on page 2, a specific provision to that effect. So the Scottish Parliament considers such a provision to be important. Under the heading "The general duties", subsection (4)(c) includes the provision that,
  "Scottish Ministers … and the responsible authorities must … so far as practicable, adopt an integrated approach by co-operating with each other with a view to co-ordinating the exercise of their respective functions".
  That seems a very sensible thing to do. Subsection (5) states:
  "Without prejudice to subsections (1) to (4), the Scottish Ministers and every public body and office-holder must, in exercising any functions, have regard to the desirability of protecting the water environment".
  In requesting co-ordinating regulation to be included in the Water Bill, our amendment is a matter of common sense. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.
  In proposed new Section 5A(2), we ask that a direction for co-ordination should be placed on the face of the Bill. We believe that such a provision is important. That is why we have tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Perhaps the reason for not attaching our names to this amendment is that we were frightened by its length. In all seriousness, we have tabled a much more amateurish proposal, which nevertheless aims to achieve a similar point in spirit; namely, that each regulatory body should pay attention to the duties of the others. Perhaps our proposal was too short and the amendment before the Committee is somewhat lengthy and complicated; but the Bill needs to include somewhere a provision that each regulatory body shall pay attention to the duties and obligations of the others.
  That is not only because a good example has been set in Scotland. The unfortunate tensions that can sometimes exist between regulators are unlikely to be solved if they are required only to pursue their particular duties in parallel. We should like them to be empowered to work together and seek an amendment to that effect. Perhaps the Minister will be able to accept this amendment; if not, I expect that we shall want to return to the matter on Report.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Borrie: Since privatisation took place 13 or 14 years ago, the water companies have often been pulled
  GC 28
  in different directions by the different regulatory agencies. Although they all have their separate objectives—no doubt justifiably—I am sure that the idea that there should be co-ordination between them would be most helpful to companies and to their customers. In other words, co-ordination is a consummation much to be desired. It would be in the public interest. Surely the UK Parliament is not so grand that it will not take note of useful precedents that may come over the Border from Scotland. If there is a precedent in Scotland that is useful, let us follow it.
  My only quibble relates to the mention in paragraph (a) of the amendment, on page 6 of the Marshalled List, where mention is made of the "Consumer Council for Wales". I believe that that body has been included in error. Those on the council are not regulators; they are advisers. I do not think that the council is meant to be included; it is there by accident. Apart from that, I commend the ideas behind the amendment to the Minister.
  Lord Whitty: I do not think anyone will object to more co-ordination—my objection is not to the length of the amendment—although there is already a great deal of co-ordination. I know that there were complaints about the previous first round of the periodic review, but I think that the various bodies have worked together well as regards the latest periodic review. My objection is to the fact that the amendment effectively gives powers to the Secretary of State to override the independent economic regulation. Subsection (7) of the proposed new clause effectively says that the Secretary of State shall issue directions for everything covered by Clause 4—the totality of the duties of the economic regulator.
  The Scottish example is simply a call for co-operation. The problem with this amendment is that it effectively blurs the jurisdiction between the regulator and the Government. It refers to the Government taking a lead in consultations on the periodic review, and then issuing directions, including on how policies should be funded. That would take the Government right into the domain of the independent economic regulator.
  I do not believe that that is the noble Baroness's intention. It is certainly not an appropriate role from the Government's point of view. Indeed, the Government were criticised by the Environmental Audit Committee and by the Better Regulation Task Force for what was seen as too excessive an intervention in the last price review. The amendment would provide a statutory basis for a much more substantial intervention. I do not believe that that is a particularly healthy move.
  Baroness Byford: I thank Members of the Committee who have taken part in this debate. As ever, I am glad to have the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on side. His knowledge and experience of these matters is hugely important to our debate.

  GC 29
  I accept that in paragraph (a) on page 6 we have perhaps put the Consumer Council for Wales in the wrong place. I shall look into the matter.
  Lord Whitty: It should be the consumer council for water.
  Baroness Byford: Now I understand: it is a mis-type. I apologise. I thank the Minister. I accept that there is an error.
  As to subsection (7), it was not our intention to override the present position in the way the Minister suggested. I shall look again at that issue.
  On the other hand. the amendment received support from other Members of the Committee. The Minister suggested that the amendment was too long. I accept that length does not always bring quality and we may need to look again at the amendment. Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether in principle—I am not pushing him on the wording—he will accept a revised amendment addressing the issue of co-ordinated regulation. If so, would he prefer me to draft it or would he prefer to put more suitable words together himself? It would save a lot of time in the long run if he did so because government amendments are usually accepted. Does the Minister wish to comment, or will he leave it for me to come back with this issue on Report?
  Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may leave it to other noble Lords to bring forward a more appropriate amendment.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for that indication. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 103:
  After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
  "NARROWING SCOPE OF REGULATORY APPEALS
  In section 12 of the WIA, after subsection (4) there is inserted—
  "(4A) In determining any question or other matter under subsection (3) above, the Competition Commission may consider as determined any matter in respect of which the appointed company does not dispute the determination by the Authority.—
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 103, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 104. Amendment No. 103 seeks to introduce a new clause in regard to the narrowing scope of regulatory appeals, and Amendment No. 104 seeks to introduce a new clause in regard to licence modifications.
  The amendments seek to build in a provision for the Competition Commission to ignore any matter that the appointed company does not dispute. In other words, if a company recognises that there are problems which it is willing to address, and about which there is no dispute, they should not be discussed again and again. That would obviously save costs.
  Am I correct in understanding that, at present, if a matter is referred to the Competition Commission it will have to consider all of the company's working
  GC 30
  functions and responsibilities—in other words, it cannot deal directly with specific problems? if so, surely an awful lot of time and money is wasted unnecessarily. Where a company and the commission agree, it would seem unnecessary to carry forward this expensive burden ad infinitum.
  Amendment No. 104 concerns licence modifications. We believe that water companies should be able to go through the authority to the commission and to influence the content of a referral. That option is not open to them at the moment—they have to go to Ofwat—and we believe that a more direct route may be of benefit to all concerned. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I am not attracted to the amendment. Once a referral is made the Competition Commission has the right to examine the total package. The amendment would require it to investigate only those areas in which the undertaker disagrees with the authority.
  The Better Regulation Task Force addressed this issue in 2001. It was concerned that any such restriction could lead to companies targeting only certain aspects of the price review—in other words, cherry picking those which they wanted turned over. The same reservation was expressed in the report Appeals Against Regulatory Decisions: Improving the Mechanisms, which was commissioned by Water UK, among others. The report recommended that the existing system of comprehensive price determination appeals to the Competition Commission should remain the central mechanism of appeal.
  The alternative is that companies could decide those areas in which the commission intervenes. That is not particularly healthy. As consumers do not have a right of appeal in that sense, the effect would be to allow the companies to decide and restrict the Competition Commission's purview of their decisions. That would upset the balance not only between the regulators and the companies but between the regulators and the consumers. It would not be healthy to move down that road.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that response. I did not intend that water companies should be allowed to cherry pick. I was trying to establish whether one could save time and money—something we all agree is desirable. If the amendment suggests that companies should be allowed to cherry pick, I am obviously not too happy about it.
  The amendment does not refer to "must" or "shall"; it refers to "may". I do not know whether the Minister considered the amendment in a different way. It does not seek to impose a duty that the commission "shall" consider. It would apply only in circumstances where it was decided that it would be wiser for the commission to consider only certain parts of a case

  GC 31
  rather than the whole case, in which instance this would be a sensible amendment. Perhaps the Minister has not read the amendment in the way it is intended.
  Lord Whitty: It would still upset the balance between the authority and the consumers. The amendment is not justified.
  Baroness Byford: I accept what the Minister has to say in regard to Amendment No. 103. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 105:
  After Clause 39. insert the following new clause—
  "REGULATORY APPEALS
  After section 17 of the WIA there is inserted—
  "CHAPTER 1A REGULATORY APPEALS
  17AA NOTICE OF APPEAL
  (1) This section applies to any decision made by any relevant decision-maker (acting other than in a wholly adjudicatory capacity) under this Act, the Reservoirs Act 1975, the Water Resources Act 1991 or the Water Act 2003 against which there is no statutory right of appeal against the merits of that decision to any independent appeal body.
  (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), such decisions include any decisions—

  (a) relating to the public disclosure of information; or

  (b) made under any of the provisions listed under Schedule 16 below.

  (3) The Secretary of State may add to the provisions listed under inserted Schedule 16 below by regulations.
  (4) Subject to section 17AD(2) below, a person affected by a decision to which this section applies may appeal against it to the Competition Appeal Tribunal or such other relevant body as the Tribunal considers appropriate.
  (5) The means of making an appeal is by sending the Competition Appeal Tribunal a notice of appeal in accordance with Competition Appeal Tribunal rules under section 15 of the Enterprise Act 2002.
  (6) The notice of appeal must be sent within the period specified, in relation to the decision appealed against, in those rules.
  (7) The notice of appeal must set out—

  (a) the provision under which the decision appealed against was taken; and

  (b) the grounds of appeal.

  (8) The grounds of appeal must be set out in sufficient detail to indicate—

  (a) to what extent (if any) the appellant contends that the decision appealed against was based on an error of fact or was wrong in law or both; and

  (b) to what extent (if any) the appellant is appealing against the exercise of a discretion by the relevant decision-maker.

  (9) In this section references to a decision under an enactment—

  (a) include references to a decision that is given effect to by the exercise or performance of a power or duty conferred or imposed by or under an enactment; but

  (b) include references to a failure to make a decision, and to a failure to exercise a power or to perform a duty, only where the failure constitutes a failure to grant an
  GC 32
  application or to comply with any other form of request to make the decision, to exercise the power or to perform the duty.

  (10) For the purposes of this section a decision to which effect is given by the exercise or performance of a power or duty conferred or imposed by or under an enactment shall be treated, except where provision is made for the making of that decision at a different time, as made at the time when the power is exercised or the duty performed.
  17AB DISPOSAL OF APPEAL
  (1) The relevant appeal body shall dispose of an appeal under section 17AA in accordance with this section.
  (2) The relevant appeal body shall decide the appeal on the merits and by reference to the grounds of appeal set out in the notice of appeal.
  (3) The relevant appeal body's decision must include a decision as to what (if any) is the appropriate action for the decision-maker to take in relation to the subject-matter of the decision under appeal.
  (4) The relevant appeal body shall then remit the decision under appeal to the relevant decision-maker with such directions (if any) as the relevant appeal body considers appropriate for giving effect to its decision.
  (5) The relevant appeal body must not direct the decision-maker to take any action which it would not otherwise have power to take in relation to the decision under appeal.
  (6) It shall be the duty of the decision-maker to comply with every direction given under subsection (4).
  17AC APPEAL OF DECISION
  (1) A decision of the relevant appeal body on an appeal under section 17AA may itself be appealed.
  (2) An appeal under this section—

  (a) lies to the High Court; and

  (b) must relate only to a point of law arising from the decision of the relevant appeal body.

  (3) An appeal under this section may be brought by—

  (a) a party to the proceedings before the relevant appeal body; or

  (b) any other person who has a sufficient interest in the matter.

  (4) An appeal under this section requires the permission of the relevant appeal body or of the court to which it is to be made.
  17AD INTERPRETATION
  (1) In this Chapter—
  "the relevant appeal body" means the Competition Appeal Tribunal or such other of the following bodies which the Tribunal considers appropriate to hear the appeal—

  (a) the Competition Commission;

  (b) the Lands Tribunal;

  (c) a Government Inspector;

  (d) an arbitrator appointed by agreement between the appellant and the decision-maker; and
  "the relevant decision-maker" means the Director, the Environment Agency, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales where they take a decision which is appealable under section 17AA.

  (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the relevant appeal body by which particular types of appeal are to be determined and accordingly with which those appeals are to be lodged.""
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 105, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 106. Amendment No. 182 concerns a schedule to the Bill.
  In regard to Amendment No. 105, proposed new Section 17AA(1) would rectify the current situation where there is no statutory right of appeal under the Bill, the Reservoirs Act 1975 and the Water Resources Act 1999. We believe that an independent body should be available to consider appeals.
  Subsection (4) states:
  "Subject to section 17AD(2) below, a person affected by a decision to which this section applies may appeal against it to the Competition Appeal Tribunal or such other relevant body as the Tribunal considers appropriate".
  We suggest that such appeals should be made to the Competition Appeal Tribunal but we are not tied to that one body; they could be made to a person appointed by the Minister to undertake such hearings who would consider the substance of the evidence. The Better Regulation Task Force supports our thoughts on the appeals system.
  We believe that the proposed system of appeals for companies is not strong enough. The companies have raised with me the question of adequate provision in the Bill of human rights legislation. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: I have a quandary about Amendment No. 105. During the course of this Bill, we seem to be in danger of focusing almost exclusively on the needs of the water companies. However, this amendment would affect far more than simply the water companies. I do not want to comment on the merits or demerits of substituting an appeals tribunal process for current judicial review by the courts. But I doubt severely that the Competition Appeal Tribunal would be an appropriate body for some of the decisions listed or that it should be the body that would appoint other bodies to hear appeals on these occasions.
  That might be appropriate for bodies like water companies that are engaged in competitive issues. But many of the individuals or organisations who would be caught by this provision simply are not in that capacity and it would be inappropriate.
  Lord Whitty: This rather complex set of amendments would, effectively, create a whole new chapter in what is currently the Water Industry Act. They have a wide range of implications in terms of appeals. Each measure referred to under Amendment No. 182 raises different issues. There is a fundamental issue as to whether appeals under those areas would best be dealt with by keeping the current judicial review in a High Court position rather than establishing a whole new appeals body which covers all of these issues. The difficulty is that any appeals body is bound to have limited expertise and resources to replicate what are, strictly speaking, policy decisions.
  The provisions relating to flood plans, water resource management plans, drought plans, special-category effluent and so forth, are all essentially policy decisions of that nature. As the noble Baroness said, they affect a far wider range of players than the water companies and their consumers. In many of these, the Secretary of State issues directions only to set out what
  GC 34
  a plan should contain or to get the undertaker to review it. I should be surprised if that was seen as a threat. But what is a problem is if we build an appeal system which would cover all these issues.
  Some issues are best covered by the Environment Agency as the appropriate appeal body; others, as they are primarily policy decisions, are best left to the use of judicial review, as is appropriate in such circumstances when reviewing unreasonable decisions. The purpose of a regulator is to balance the interests of the industry and the consumer and to give a balanced approach both in general and on a case-by-case basis. To have a whole new system of appeal and to extend the appeal to virtually everything covered in the Water Industry Act seems excessive.
  In relation to some of the decisions, that would also be seriously counterproductive—for example, proposals and appeal against decisions relating to the disclosure of information. That would obstruct the powers which this Bill is trying to give to the consumer council to publish information in the interests of consumers. I do not think that the appeals mechanism proposed here is appropriate. If there are problems with particular decisions or particular policies, that is a matter for appeal via the courts. The idea that any regulator's decision can be appealed and is, therefore, a second-guess on all of these areas, does not seem to be sensible, given that we have the failsafe of judicial review.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for covering some of the issues that I raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that she felt that this amendment was very narrow and that it aimed at being of benefit to the water companies, but that other people would be affected. Indeed, if the water companies themselves are affected, it affects all the consumers too. They are the ones that are providing water for us, both as individuals and as companies, and that actually get the benefit of trying to get this legislation right. Therefore, I slightly disagree with the noble Baroness—indeed, the noble Lord referred to it too.
  However, I have heard what has been said. I accept that there is the right of judicial review and that that has always been clearly there. But that is a fairly lengthy and a costly step to take. We were trying to ensure that there was another way that could be looked at. I should like to take this away and consider it. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 105.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
  Clause 40 [Standards of performance in relation to water supply]:
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 107:
  Page 46, line 16, after "research" insert "and the appraisal"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 107 is linked with Amendment No. 113. Amendments Nos. 109, 110 and 111 slightly fall within the same remit. With the leave of the Committee, I hope that the Minister is happy to take them together. I know that they apply to two different sections, but it would seem logical to do so. We asked for them to be ungrouped,

  GC 35
  so it is our fault, not that of the Government. But if I can speak to Amendments Nos. 107 and 113, and then to Amendments Nos. 109, 110 and 111 together, it would be sensible.
  Amendment No. 107 proposes inserting the words "and the appraisal". We are asking the Government to take into consideration the cost benefit analysis. After research has been completed, surely some cost analysis should be the norm. It may be that the Minister tells me that that is so—in which case my amendments probably will be unnecessary.
  For the convenience of the Committee I shall speak to the other amendments as well. Amendments Nos. 107 and 113 deal with water—if I am right. Amendments Nos. 109, 110 and 111 deal with sewerage. I hope that I have the right ones linked together. The same argument goes for both sets of amendments. In effect, we are asking the Government to consider particularly Amendment No. 107 in order that appraisal is taken into account. Indeed, it is implemented again later in Clause 41. The same applies to the other three amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: As I understand it, the second batch of amendments are, in a sense, the substantive ones in that they would require the Secretary of State to carry out an appraisal of the effects expected from performance, and prevent him from making regulations if the results of the appraisal indicated that the financial impacts of the regulations outweighed the benefits.
  We have produced the regulatory impact assessment with this Bill. In that context, we committed ourselves to producing a separate regulatory impact assessment on each occasion on which the powers under the overall sections were used. The scope of RIA is considerably wider than the way in which the appraisal is defined in this context.
  Compared to a full regulatory impact assessment, the appraisal proposed is narrow. It concentrates heavily on financial costs rather than environmental or social gains and other indirect effects which are important to the water and sewerage sectors. Therefore, the commitment to RIA is actually a bigger commitment than what is being sought in these two groups of amendments via an appraisal.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I am heartened to hear that. I agree with the Minister that if a regulatory impact assessment was in force for these issues it would be better than the amendment, but where is it on the face of the Bill?
  Lord Whitty: I referred to the regulatory impact assessment that came with the Bill. That is where the commitment is. It is not on the face of the Bill in that sense.
  Baroness O'Cathain: The reason for the amendment is to have something on the face of the Bill. If the Minister could bring forward his own amendment to
  GC 36
  put the regulatory impact assessment on the face of the Bill, that would be wonderful. What are the Minister's comments on that?
  Lord Whitty: We shall consider the implications of that. Precedent issues are involved here. By and large the regulatory impact assessment process is carried out on the basis of ministerial undertakings and is not on the face of a Bill. That is because it is essentially a procedural issue and not a statutory issue. Clearly if a regulatory impact assessment is required for the proposed legislation as a whole, any undertaking within that would be carried out were those powers to be used.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister. I accept his final comment and genuinely thank him for it. We are pleased that the Government will think about these amendments and come back with something that, hopefully, will put the measure on the face of the Bill. That is what we were after and that is what I think the Minister said. My understanding of what the Minister said—we shall need to read Hansard tomorrow—
  Lord Whitty: I said that I would consider it. I then put in the huge qualification that we have to consider it in the context of how we deal with other RIA commitments.
  Baroness Byford: I accept the Minister's clarification. But he indicated that he would consider it and, without tying the Minister to anything specific, I am grateful for that. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 108:
  Page 46, line 22, after "undertakers" insert "or licensed suppliers"
  The noble Duke said: In moving Amendment No. 108, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 112.
  Under Section 38 of the Water Industry Act the Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of facilitating the determination of the extent to which breaches of prescribed obligations amount to breaches of the general duty to maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply.
  Clause 40(6), to which this amendment refers, requires the Secretary of State to specify the water undertaker or undertakers to which any regulatory proposals may refer. I am puzzled as to why the new licensed water suppliers are not included in subsection (6). Is there not a chance that these suppliers might breach the general duty to supply laid out in Section 37 of the 1991 Act?
  Under subsection (3) of the clause, for the purposes of making regulations, whether or not it is after an application, there appears a category of,
  "such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate".
  But there is no such mention in the case I am discussing.
  Amendment No. 112 addresses the same general point. If a licensed water supplier would be affected by regulations, would it not be appropriate that a notice is also served on that supplier? I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The issue of when water undertakers should be the only specified body and when water undertakers and licensed suppliers should be specified has arisen time and again in the Bill. 1, too, look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Duke said, Amendments Nos. 108 and 112 assume that statutory performance standards will apply to licensed water suppliers. This will not be the case. The standards exist to supplement the general duty on undertakers to provide an efficient and economic system of supply in their area. Licensed water suppliers will use the system but undertakers will remain responsible for the performance of the system which they own and operate. The standards will, therefore, apply only to them and not to licensed water suppliers.
  They will compete on price and on service standards and the access agreement will deal with system issues to the satisfaction of the undertakers. It is therefore the role of the undertaker, through the contract and the agreement, to cover this area. Licensed water suppliers will not accept the responsibility that falls on the undertakers.
  The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for clarifying the issue as regards the fine line between the undertakers and the licence holders, which takes a bit of unravelling. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 109 to 112 not moved.]
  Clause 40 agreed to.
  Clause 41 [Standards of performance in relation to sewerage services]:
  [Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 114:
  Page 48, line 10. after ''for" insert—
  "(a)"
  The noble Baroness said: I apologise to the Committee for getting water and sewerage mixed up in the previous group of amendments. If the Committee will bear with me, I shall be dealing on this occasion, I hope, with sewerage in respect of Amendments Nos. 114, 115 and 116.
  Sewerage and drainage systems are designed to cope with existing and planned development. The system has to be managed to cope with excessive rainfall and demand. However, water companies have no discretion as to where a developer or householder connects to the drainage or sewerage systems. Some
  GC 38
  developments are designed with sustainable drainage systems such as soakaways. This may mean that there is no surface water sewer.
  Currently there is nothing to prevent a householder from connecting his surface water run-off to the public foul sewer. Such an overloading of systems can lead to sewer flooding. There is a case for allowing water companies to reject or amend developers' plans for connections in cases where it may lead to problems for existing infrastructure and to suggest alternative connection solutions.
  All Members of the Committee will be aware of the proposed enormous housing developments, particularly for the South and the South East. I wonder how much consideration has been given to the pressure that will place on existing sewerage maintenance and infrastructure. Again, I should be grateful if the Minister will respond to that issue.
  We believe that there should be a requirement to develop a sewerage system that is planned and managed in a sustainable manner to reduce the risk of flooding from sewers and which would ensure consideration of sewerage and ancillary works at an early stage of the development and construction process. The amendments ask the Government to carry out a quantitative economic and statistical appraisal. I advanced the same argument in regard to Amendments Nos. 109, 110 and 111, which dealt with water. These amendments deal particularly with sewage and sewerage responsibilities. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: We had similar thoughts but found a different place in the Bill to insert them. They are found in Amendment No. 185, which is a long way ahead. We shall debate that amendment later. The issue of water running into sewers and so on is very important. I do not believe that it is given sufficient consideration in the Bill as it stands. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Obviously I support these amendments. I said at Second Reading that there should be an obligation on building companies, development companies and construction companies to consult with the local water and sewerage companies. After all, they have been operating either in their current form or in their pre-privatisation role in the area for more than a hundred years in most cases. They know the specific area involved. Too often one finds, with the value of hindsight, that buildings should not have been constructed in certain areas because the infrastructure was not capable of supporting the new development, particularly in relation to areas such as water meadows and marshy lands, which are prevalent in parts of the South and South East, despite our lack of water. That can cause enormous problems for the construction of new developments and for the existing buildings and structures in the area. If there is a way to have an absolute demand that any new development should consult with the local water and sewerage companies, that would be to everyone's advantage.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I want to add to what has been said. My noble friend Lady Miller alluded to Amendment No. 185. We are discussing an important matter. In the past, I have had to deal with specific circumstances in which outdated flooding overflows have formed part of a previous development—perhaps 30 or 40 years previously. Additional housing in that situation caused serious pollution problems. They were not in the South East. Rivers of high-quality water were wrecked in storm conditions because of lax planning regulations when housing was expanded on certain sites.
  Lord Whitty: While I accept what noble Lords have said about the importance of sewerage and the necessity for developments to take account of the problems that can arise if a development does not recognise what has happened there already and what will be needed in terms of increased pressure on the system—we are in discussion with water companies and the ODPM about sewerage and development —planning guidelines already specify that water companies should be consulted.
  On the amendments as such, they are, as the noble Baroness said, the exact equivalent of those we have just discussed in relation to water, and they call for appraisals. I shall not repeat what I said about the desirability or preferability of having the RIA system, to which I referred. My comments in that respect also apply in this regard.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful to noble Lords who spoke. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, commented on the importance of this matter; it is important. In some ways, it is almost more important than the water issue, although that sounds ridiculous. For those of us who went through areas and were caught out by flooding—that seems to happen so often—the most dreadful experience was not when clean water was coming in but when sewage water came back into people's houses. That is very undesirable. I hope that the Government will give greater consideration to this group of amendments. The householder can do nothing at all about the problem. One can get rid of dirty clean water—if I can express it that way—quite well, but the thought that one has had polluted water in one's house, however much one cleans it out, is absolutely abhorrent to most of us.
  I heard the Minister's response to my earlier amendments. I am obviously disappointed that he is not able to give a better response to this group. Perhaps when he has had time to reflect on our discussions—Ministers' notes are often prepared before the debate has taken place—he may reconsider at a later stage. I hope that in particular in relation to this issue, which deals with the concerns expressed about foul water if flooding occurs; it also involves the importance of having enough good sewerage conditions, particularly with regard to new-build houses. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 not moved.]
  Clause 41 agreed to.
  Clause 42 [General functions of the Council]:
  [Amendment No. 116A not moved.]
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 117:
  Page 48, line 31, at beginning insert "households containing"
  The noble Duke said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 118 to 120.
  This amendment has a slightly familiar ring to it; we are considering itemising various individuals and conditions. When considering the way in which the council might apply the criteria, it is important to consider households that contain the disadvantaged individual and not leave the clause open to rejection of their interests because another individual who is in the house does not meet those criteria. We have been given a request to have regard to the needs of full-time students. If a household of several students had one individual who did not meet the low-income criteria, the clause might allow the council to feel that it need not consider the interests of the remainder. By offering to households this consideration, that danger might be eliminated. I beg to move.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendments Nos. 117 to 120 would change the emphasis from individuals to households when it comes to the vulnerable groups to which the consumer council must have regard.
  Could I reassure the noble Duke that if the interests of the individual are to be considered, the council is in effect already considering the interests of the household containing such an individual? This is the mirror image—the exact opposite—of the views that he expressed. That is particularly true with regard to water and sewerage services that are supplied to the premises as a whole in which the individual lives. That would be the case with issues related to water pricing. That is reflected in the vulnerable groups scheme. which is aimed at households that combine low income and unavoidable high-water use. However, there are occasions when the interests of the individual go beyond the interests of the household. For example, illness—such as the need for home dialysis—may make a consumer particularly vulnerable to interruptions in the water supply. We should ensure that the consumer council is able to have regard to those circumstances as well. The clause has been carefully drafted to achieve that without the noble Duke's amendment. I hope that, with that explanation, he feels satisfied that we are in agreement about what we want the Bill to say.
  The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for placing that explanation on the record, which is very much what we wanted. It proves that whatever the state of the household or the individual. it will receive the consideration that the council should give it. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 118 to 120 not moved.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dean of Harptree): If Amendment No. 121 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 122.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 121:
  Page 49, leave out lines 13 to 35 and insert—
  "( ) Subject to subsection (7) below, in the exercise of its function under this section, the Council shall have regard to the need for excluding from such proposals, advice, information and views, so far as practicable—

  (a) any matter which relates to the affairs of an individual, where the publication of that matter would or might, in the opinion of the Council, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that individual; and

  (b) any matter which relates specifically to the affairs of a particular body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate. where publication of that matter would or might, in the opinion of the Council, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that body."

  The noble Baroness said: This amendment and those grouped with it deal with two issues, the first of which involves the fact that the Bill appears to require the consumer council for water and Ofwat to publish an explanation. I should be grateful for the Government's views on which of those bodies should publish what sets of information. Secondly, the amendments aim to give back to the consumer council for water the power that the Bill currently proposes to remove from it; that is, the power of being able to publish large swathes of information.
  The defence of that is that it might well affect a company's share price if certain information was disclosed. We would prefer the Bill to be drafted in a different way, so that the consumer council for water could discover and require all the information from the water undertakers, and then decide in its opinion what information was able to be disclosed.
  It will be very difficult for the consumer council for water to fulfil its role sufficiently and as fully as we believe that it should be able to if the Bill stays as it is. As it is drafted, there are many occasions on which the defence of the water industry, should it choose to use it, could be, "Well, that information will lay us open to unfair competition or is commercially sensitive" and so on. The amendments are designed to discover the Government's thinking in drafting the Bill in such a way that the consumer council for water has far too little power in terms of requiring information. I beg to move.
  6 P.m.
  Baroness Byford: I understand that there are many amendments in the group. Has the noble Baroness spoken to all of them?
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. I have spoken to the amendments, because two sets of them are very similar and one is really a technical amendment that follows from the others.
  Baroness Byford: I am sorry; I did not mean to cut in. We have Amendments Nos. 139, 140 and 141 in the
  GC 42
  group. If the three provisions that they would remove were left in the Bill, they would have the effect of leaving with the authority the responsibility for gathering necessary information, removing from the authority the responsibility for publishing the necessary information, and giving the publication responsibility to the council. The noble Baroness has covered the same subject, perhaps in slightly different words.
  As a result of our three amendments, I ask the Minister what the rationale behind the provisions is. Does he consider them to be a reasonable reallocation of responsibilities or does he think, as we are suggesting, that it is not a very satisfactory position for the council to be put in? When we have debated the issues before, the Liberal Democrats may have gone in a slightly different direction from us, but sonic of the information that they think that the council should be able to have might well be confidentially and economically not that which is relevant to the council itself.
  As I say, our three amendments are little ones. They are about clarity. The first is on the gathering of information, the second on publishing, and the third on whether all the responsibility is put on the council. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
  Lord Whitty: The bulk of the amendments deal with the relationship between the council and the authority in terms of publication. It is worth bearing in mind that the provisions in the Bill are the same as those in the Utilities Act that set up Energywatch, the equivalent to the consumer council for water. They ensure that the consumer council takes into account any opinion expressed by the authority. The amendments suggest that we remove that requirement to have regard to the opinion of the authority.
  I recognise the need for the independence of the council, but simply distancing itself from the authority and removing the necessity to have that regard could have a detrimental effect. There are quite a lot of technical issues involved in assessing whether publishing information can have serious prejudicial effects on companies or others. Therefore the advice of the authority would be appropriate, and it makes sense for the council to be able to draw on that expertise.
  Baroness Byford: The group is split. It would certainly help me—I cannot speak for the whole Committee—if the noble Lord mentioned which amendments he is referring to as he goes through. That would be hugely helpful.
  Lord Whitty: I am referring to the hulk of the amendments in the group. Amendments Nos. 121, 124, 132 and 155 deal with four different types of publication—advice to public authorities, advice and information about consumer matters, reasons for refusing to supply information, and the power to investigate other matters. All four areas are dealt with by the bulk of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. They repeat the elimination of the requirement that the council should have regard to the view of the authority, presumably on the grounds

  GC 43
  that we must ensure that the council is independent, as she said. I question whether independence requires it not to have regard to the views of the authority, and therefore I would not accept those amendments.
  The three amendments to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred are Amendments Nos. 139, 140 and 141. They would remove a direct duty on the council to publish statistical information on undertakers' performance against prescribed statistical standards. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, also questioned who was really publishing what under the provisions.
  So far as those amendments are concerned, I am aware that both Ofwat and WaterVoice support the status quo of leaving the duty with the authority rather than the change in the Bill, which would give it to the council. I take that view and the arguments put by the noble Baroness seriously. I am therefore prepared to consider further the form of the amendments, and accept at least in broad terms the principles that lie behind them.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am grateful to the Minister for that unexpected willingness to consider some of the amendments again, as I was preparing to return to my idea that the members of the consumer council for water, when appointed, would find it very difficult to operate under the regime as drafted. I am particularly grateful for his assurance and will be pleased to see what the Government come back with. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 122:
  Page 49, leave out lines 33 to 35.
  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak to Amendment No. 122, and also Amendments Nos. 125 and 134. They are fairly short probing amendments that really seek clarification. What do the three lines referred to in the amendment mean? Is the reference to "paragraph (b)" meant to indicate proposed new Section 27E(4)(b) or, following the direction to proposed new Section 27E(3)(c), to proposed new Section 27E(3)(b)? The amendments are technical. I beg to move.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am hoping that inspiration on the very technical nature of the points put by the noble Baroness will come to me. Before publishing information about an individual or a body, the consumer council must have regard to the opinion of the regulatory authority about whether the information might seriously or prejudicially affect the interests of the individual or body, and concerning the desirability of publishing such information.
  The amendments would remove the authority's discretion to provide an opinion on a case-by-case basis, or by way of a general description of a type of information. We think that that would lose flexibility, which would bring several drawbacks. The practical effect would be that the council and the authority would have to treat each case individually. I am sure
  GC 44
  that the noble Baroness did not intend to increase bureaucracy for the council and the authority, nor the costs, which in due course would feed through to the companies and then to the consumers. I nearly used another word, but I did not want to put another pound in the water box!
  The ability to provide an opinion on a general description of information would also help to ensure consistency of approach which will increase the value to the consumer of the council's publications and contribute to regulatory certainty for the water industry.
  With regard to new Section 27E on page 49 or the page referred to by the noble Baroness—I believe I have this right—(b) refers to (4)(b). I hope with the explanation that I have given as to the unfortunate by-product of the amendment tabled that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Byford: If I am totally honest, I am confused, but at a greater level. I apologise to the Committee. This has been a trying afternoon—I mean that genuinely. A problem that we face is that a Bill is being discussed in the Chamber and our second Front Bench speaker is unfortunately attached to that. That is why two of us are struggling as best as we can.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My noble friend Lord Whitty would understand. The noble Baroness may recall that last Thursday I was dealing with a Northern Ireland matter and he was here in Committee.
  Baroness Byford: We have a practical problem. We are trying out this new concept. Sometimes some of us find it very trying. I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. I shall need to look at this matter again. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 123 to 125 not moved.]
  Clause 42 agreed to.
  Clause 43 [Provision of information to the Council]:
  [Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 not moved.]
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 128:
  Page 51, line 29, after "may" insert "reasonably"
  The noble Baroness said: This group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 128, 131 and 137—is concerned with the provision of information to the consumer council for water. At the moment the Bill states that,
  "The Council may not direct the Authority to supply information relating to any licensed water supplier or its customers".
  We would like to know whether the Government feel that the council will be able to fulfil its functions properly if that particular clause stays in the Bill. We are also not very happy with new Sections 27H to 27J. We are seeking to delete them as we believe that that would strengthen the position of the consumer council for water. I beg to move.
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We agree with the aim of Amendment No. 128. It is important that the council acts responsibly and avoids imposing an unnecessary burden when it directs the authority or an undertaker to supply it with information. I believe that I can reassure the noble Baroness that, as a public body with clear duties and functions, the Council can only request information required for the performance of its duties and functions. As we are establishing the council to be an effective body, it would be reasonable for it to require information sufficient to perform its allotted role effectively.
  It would not be appropriate for it to demand information irrelevant to its duties and functions. Therefore, there is an appropriate safeguard against excessive requests. However, even when it is necessary for the council to have information, there is a further question about the form in which the information should be supplied. That is why the Bill is explicit that the form must be reasonable to ensure that the demand is realistic and sensible in terms of time, cost and effort.
  Amendments Nos. 131 and 137 would replace the dispute resolution procedures in the Bill and enable the consumer council to enforce its own directions when the authority or an undertaker refuses to supply it with information. We recognise the need for the CCW to be as independent as possible. But we believe that the dispute resolution procedure in the Bill is a fair balance. It makes sense for the authority to take that role because of expertise in the industry. It will know whether a refusal to supply information is reasonable. I do not believe that that makes the consumer council dependent on the authority; rather it is a procedural safeguard. Furthermore, there is a power to designate a third party if it transpires that for any reason that is appropriate.
  These amendments would actually mean that there would be no need for the consumer council to resolve a dispute about whether it was reasonable to direct the supply of information—it would just be able to enforce its own directions. We believe that that would not be an appropriate arrangement. I have gone into some detail so I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness and I hope that she will not press the amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I note that the Minister welcomes Amendment No. 128 which inserts the word "reasonably". That was a precursor to the other two amendments because the consumer council would reasonably want those powers that we were giving it should Amendments Nos. 131 and 137 have been accepted. I shall read what the Minister has said about the dispute resolution procedure being sufficient, but I have doubts that at the moment the CCW is in a position to ensure that it can acquire all the information that it requires.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, perhaps I can correct her. My reassurance was that the duty to
  GC 46
  behave reasonably was already present and, therefore, the amendment was not necessary—rather than saying that I was accepting the amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for that clarification. I agree that the word "reasonably" appears in line 28. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 129 to 132 not moved.]
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 133:
  Page 52, line 25, at end insert—
  "except where the Authority is the body which has failed to supply information, and in which ease the Council shall have regard to advice from the Secretary of State as to the application of subsection (3)(c) above"
  The noble Duke said: In moving Amendment No. 133 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 135, 136 and 138. On page 51 at line 24 it is provided that the council may direct the authority to give it information. It is not, in our view, fitting or sensible that the authority should then be in a position to direct the council that it cannot supply the requested data because it would be undesirable to publish it.
  On Amendment No. 135, the authority consists of a small number of people easily identified and clearly tied up with water matters. The Secretary of State is not any old Secretary of State but whichever one has the environment portfolio. On the other hand, the Assembly is a large body of people. Job titles are not the same as in London. Job content is not the same. The Bill should make it clear that there is a defined area within the Assembly which has rights of access to this information and that no other will do.
  Turning to Amendment No. 136, the council may from time to time be reluctant to comply, or feel that it should not comply. It may also feel that it should publicise both the request and the reasons for its refusal to fulfil the same. It is possible that the body demanding the information will be unwilling itself to publish the details. The council should have the right to publish these reasons.
  I now turn to Amendment No. 138. On page 51 of the Bill, the provision from line 24 onward specifies that the council may direct the authority or an undertaker to supply information. Under the terms of the Bill, the authority has the final say over whether this information may be published. In this clause it is made clear that if the council fails to allow publication of requested data, that failure may be published in the manner chosen by the body that requested it in the first place. That is unbalanced.
  At the moment, relationships between the current director and WaterVoice are apparently good enough, so that, in practice, neither would have to "direct" and neither would "fail to comply". The changes being brought about by the Bill may, however, affect those working relationships, and not necessarily for the better. I beg to move.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 133 would require the council to seek the opinion of

  GC 47
  the Secretary of State when considering whether to publish a notice of reason from the authority on its refusal to provide the council with information.
  I hope that I can reassure the noble Duke as to why, in each case, the Bill states that the council should have regard to the authority's opinion on whether information may have a serious or prejudicial effect.
  Assessing whether publishing information may have a serious or prejudicial effect on a company may mean examining quite technical details involving financial markets, for example. There is nothing within the Bill to prevent the council from also consulting the Secretary of State, but the authority is best placed to take a proper judgment. That is still the case, even when it is the authority that holds the information.
  Amendment No. 135 would allow only the Minister responsible for water services within the National Assembly for Wales to make a request for information from the council. It would, of course, normally be the case that the responsible Minister would make the request, and, where necessary, there would be liaison within the Welsh Assembly. However, the Assembly is a single entity in law and I do not believe that it would be appropriate to treat it differently in the Bill. I should be in trouble with the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, were I to say anything other than that.
  I suggest that Amendment No. 136 is not necessary. The protection built into the Bill is to ensure that whichever body receives a notice explaining the reasons for refusing to supply information gives some thought to the implications before publishing it—especially the views of the individual or body which supplies the information. But, aside from the general safeguards on publication, there is nothing in the Bill that would prevent the council from publishing its own notice of refusal to supply information.
  Amendment No. 138 would require the Secretary of State to enforce against the authority a council request to provide information. We would expect the authority to behave in a responsible and appropriate manner. However, except for the powers of judicial review, the Secretary of State currently has no powers to enforce against the regulator. It would have serious implications for regulatory independence if she did. I do not believe that it is a road that we should start along, even for such a relatively—I do not deny its importance—minor issue as this. I hope that the detailed explanations I have given have reassured the noble Duke and that he will not feel the need to press this matter further.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Before the Minister sits down, I acknowledge her remarks about the Assembly, and point out to the noble Duke that there is an environment Minister in the Assembly who would, on every occasion, deal with such a matter. There is also an environment committee in the Assembly, which the environment Minister would consult on occasions about such matters.
  The Duke of Montrose: These amendments contain a fairly varied menu. I am grateful to the Minister for
  GC 48
  addressing each of them individually. In the light of what she has said, I think that we should take the amendments away and read her remarks in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 134 to 138 not moved.]
  Clause 43 agreed to.
  Clause 44 [Provision of statistical information to consumers etc]:
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 139:
  Page 54, leave out lines 7 to 9.
  The noble Baroness said: I move this amendment merely to thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for agreeing to take the amendment away and reconsider it. I beg to move.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Minister agreed to take away the amendment, not to accept it.
  Baroness Byford: I accept that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 not moved.]
  Clause 44 agreed to.
  Clause 45 [Consumer complaints]:
  [Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 143:
  Page 55, line 4, after "subsection" insert "(2A) or"
  The noble Baroness said: This group of amendments is intended to give the CCW the power to set a level of compensation and not simply to have to refer the complaint on.
  We believe that it is reasonable that, as a consumer body, the council should have the power to set a level of compensation not in excess of £5,000. That will not break the bank for any water undertaker, but we believe that it would give consumers confidence that it would be able to take action on their behalf rather than merely investigate, pass the buck to the authority and be able to do nothing substantial about a complaint. I beg to move.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I strongly support the amendment. In my experience, as matters stand, consumers have little chance to complain properly and to seek compensation. I believe that such a provision would considerably strengthen the powers that are necessary to achieve recompense for consumers.
  I have long experience, for example, of cases of pollution from old pipes despoiling clothes, involving considerable amounts of money, where water companies have repeatedly refused to compensate adequately. These powers are necessary to secure such recompense.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Byford: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 151 and 153, which are also in this group. Both are probing amendments.
  As the proposed new Section 29(11) now stands, it could be taken to mean that the council "may" report to the authority or to the Secretary of State or to the Assembly. Surely it is intended that it should report to the authority and to either the Secretary of State or the Assembly. I seek clarification because the word "or" links everything together. I am sure that my legal knowledge is not as good as that of the team sitting behind the Minister.
  As to Amendment No. 153, subsection (2) will remove the duties of the authority in regard to complaints. Where in the Bill does it ensure that complaints sent to the authority are not simply ignored as being none of its business? The public are prone to take complaints to where they believe they should be dealt with, and then involve the press if they do not get a satisfactory answer from that source. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the situation.
  Lord Borrie: I wish to speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—that is, Amendments Nos. 143 and 144—and to the role that she has suggested for the consumer council.
  The consumer council has played an important role in recent years. It is known generally as WaterVoice, is much respected and has done a great deal for consumers in representing their views to companies, in the areas in which they are located and nationally. The Bill gives it a more important role. It is made more independent of Ofwat—which everyone accepts is a good thing—and the Committee wishes it well in the future.
  The council has a role in investigating consumer complaints but, as the noble Baroness said, in her view it should have a larger role in passing the buck to the companies or to the authority. It should be able to resolve disputes and. although the noble Baroness did not mention this, it should be able to fine companies up to £5,000.
  I disagree with the noble Baroness on the latter part of her argument. It would be quite wrong to confuse the council's roles as a consumer advocate, as a partisan for consumers, and as a representative of consumers, both locally and nationally, with the role of an adjudicator, especially an adjudicator with a power to impose penalties. That is not an appropriate role. It is not appropriate to join together in one body the role of an advocate and the role of a judge or adjudicator, but that is what the noble Baroness seeks. She proposes that the council should be not only a judge, but a judge with the power to impose penalties.
  We should stick with what is in the Bill, which states in proposed new Section 29(10):
  "After investigating a complaint the Council may make a report to the Authority, the Secretary of State or the Assembly".
  The previous subsection states that representations may be made on behalf of the complainant to the relevant undertaker—that is the water company—about anything to which the complaint relates.
  GC 50
  That seems to be an appropriate relationship between the bodies involved—especially between the consumer council and the authority. Other clauses, which we have yet to come to, indicate that the authority should have power to impose penalties on companies for various misdoings. I ask the Committee not to accept the noble Baroness's amendments.
  Lord Whitty: Very much for the reasons outlined by my noble friend Lord Borrie, Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 are not appropriate. I understand the argument that the consumer council should have teeth, but we should not confuse the duties of a representative with those of an adjudicator and enforcer. There are other ways of giving the consumer council teeth to enable it to resolve disputes resulting in damages. WaterVoice has secured binding mediation agreements with a number of water companies whereby voluntary compensation can be made payable. According to the last report, a total of £600,000 was recovered in compensation or rebates for water customers in that way. We can certainly foresee further development of that approach.
  Such an approach would be unprecedented. For example, Energywatch, which was established under the same legal framework as in the Bill, does not have statutory powers to secure compensation for customers who require it. I understand that it is not seeking such powers to do so. It would confuse the role of the consumer council if we were to give it such powers.
  As to Amendments Nos. 146 and 147, it would appear that there is some misunderstanding about the purpose of proposed new Section 29(6). Under the Water Industry Act, certain specified technical issues are defined as "disputes"—for example, a request by a non-domestic customer for a water supply, a closure or a restricted use of a public sewer. Those disputes are reserved to the regulator for determination. They are not the same as complaints. The process leads to a binding decision being made and the Bill provides for disputes that are wrongly brought to the consumer council to be transferred to the authority. The need for the consent of complainants is included to give them the opportunity to consider the issue afresh before entering into a detailed disputes procedure.
  It is not intended—it would not be sensible—for the council to get involved in technical issues which are properly disputes to be determined by the regulator. So there may be some terminological problems here.
  Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I understand the arguments deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that the consumer council should not be able to specify amounts of compensation and ensure that they are paid, but surely in the defence of the consumer it should be able to recommend to the regulator that a complaint should be upheld and that compensation should be paid. It would then be up to that body to decide how much should be paid.
  At the present time there is an inadequate defence of consumer interests and, although the wording of the amendment may not be precisely in the right mode—

  GC 51
  and, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, the functions may not be as well defined as they ought to be—nevertheless it is very much in order for the consumer council to protect the interests of consumers in this respect.
  Lord Whitty: The consumer council can make an assessment of a case and make approaches to the water companies. It can also engage, as has WaterVoice, in setting up a voluntary mediation process. But the amendments would turn the consumer council into an adjudicator and enforcer requiring compensation to be paid. That is a boundary it should not be allowed to cross. Were it to do so, it would distort its relations with the companies and everyone else.
  Amendments Nos. 151 and 153 deal with a different issue. The council's power to make a report is discretionary. It will wish to ensure that it targets its report in the most effective way and it can decide whether a report will be of interest both to the authority and to the Government. There is nothing to stop the council sending a report to both bodies but we should not force the council to do so, which is the implication of the amendment.
  The Bill requires the council to co-operate and to exchange information with the authority, with the Secretary of State and with the Assembly and to record the arrangements made in a memorandum. That is probably the best way of setting the ground rules between the various bodies involved.
  If I understand the noble Baroness correctly as regards Amendment No. 153, I think that I can reassure her that the principle of Section 30 that there should be a proper mechanism for considering complaints is carried into the Bill by Clause 45. The authority must pass complaints to the consumer council. The council is also required to pass over to the authority, with the consent of the complainant—which I said in response to the middle group of amendments—anything which constitutes a dispute which is statutorily required to be determined by the authority. Therefore, there is a mechanism and we do not need Amendment No. 153.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank Members of the Committee who spoke in that interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that I did not emphasise enough the level of compensation to be paid. I obviously did because he spoke eloquently and at length. However, it strikes me that in other parts of the Bill, the Environment Agency, for example, has multiple roles—as a friend and as an enforcer. But in terms of the consumer council for water, that body is not allowed to have multiple roles.
  Therefore, while I would accept what the Minister said, I shall balance it with the role being drawn up for the Environment Agency. I reserve my right to come back on this amendment at a later stage.
  Baroness Byford: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, I should be grateful for the
  GC 52
  Minister's observation on her point about the Environment Agency. Constantly through this Bill, we have been questioning the position of the Environment Agency. I am now in a ridiculous position. In some ways, I do not support the noble Baroness's amendments in the way that she would like me to, but she raises a very important question which the Minister has not answered sufficiently. Therefore, I encourage him perhaps to return this: how can there be one set of rules for one authority and one set of rules for another? If that is to be so, the rules should be expressed more clearly than they are in this Bill.
  So before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, I should be glad of further explanation from the Minister. I am not asking for what the noble Baroness is asking for on these particular amendments. But I have raised and will continue to raise throughout this Bill the issue of the very real position that the Environment Agency finds itself in, with greater freedom to be judge and jury of everything and with no comeback to even Parliament. I do not find that satisfactory. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say to my question before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: The Environment Agency is not mentioned in any of these sections of the Bill. I am not sure how the Environment Agency got dragged into one of the perhaps limited number of areas in which it does not feature. It is well known that there is a statutory basis for the Environment Agency having a number of different responsibilities, but all that is wrapped up in its own operation. What we are talking about here is a consumer council. We can pursue this issue at another point in the Bill. The noble Baroness may have an objection to a particular power or duty of the Environment Agency but I do not think that that is particularly relevant to these amendments.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I shall explain it in a different way. Perhaps sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander would be a simpler and well-known way of putting it. If we can have one body that has multiple functions as friend/critic/enforcer/adjudicator, that could be the precedent for another body having the same powers. The Minister said that the Environment Agency has those roles on a statutory basis. In tabling these amendments, that is exactly what I am arguing that the consumer council for water should have. The Minister can hardly say that my amendments are not relevant when I am trying simply to give the statutory basis, as he said, that the Environment Agency has. It has crept in because I am drawing a parallel, as I am sure that he actually knows.
  However, I shall consider what the Minister said and keep his remarks in mind. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 144 to 153 not moved.]
  Clause 45 agreed to.
  Clause 46 [Investigations by the Council]:
  [Amendments Nos. 154 to 157 not moved.]
  Clause 46 agreed to.
  Clause 47 [Financial penalties]:
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 158:
  Page 59, line 9. leave out "(1) or"
  The noble Duke said: In speaking to Amendment No. 158, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 159, 160, 161 and 161A. Again, this is perhaps a slightly varied menu and I hope that it helps warm the cockles of the heart of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on the other side that we are getting through so many items. These amendments all concern penalties. Under subsection (1) only the authority has a right to impose a penalty, so there should be no question of the Secretary of State or the Assembly doing so.
  Amendment No. 159 is a probing amendment. The period of 42 days is almost certainly intended to be six weeks, but the Bill does not say so. Company accounts departments usually work a five day week, excluding bank holidays. This wording might throw them out, unless it is made clear in the Bill as to what is intended.
  Turning to Amendment No. 160, perhaps the Minister can tell us on what the 10 per cent is based. Does he regard 10 per cent as the anticipated annual profit of a water company? Ten per cent of the turnover of Severn Trent is a vast sum. Moreover, a sizeable proportion of its turnover is derived from activities other than that of a water undertaker. Will such a penalty cover all activities? There are also small water undertakers for whom the loss of 10 per cent of turnover would be a death blow. Will the Secretary of State set out safeguards to stop this happening? If a company was generating only 2 per cent profit, it would put the company into loss for five years running.
  As regards Amendment No. 161, reference to provision and final orders is contained in the Water Industry Act, Sections 18 to 20. From these it appears that the only way that the Secretary of State can avoid making at least a provisional order is if she decides that the contravention is trivial and has been corrected. Will the Minister explain in what circumstances the enforcement authority will impose a penalty without first having issued a provisional order?
  That is particularly important as the company may appeal only to the enforcement authority itself over the timing of payment of penalties, there being, apparently, no independent body allowed for. If the company wishes to dispute the amount of a penalty, up to 10 per cent of turnover, it must go to the High Court. Is it reasonable that any company, but especially a small one, should be faced by a penalty of up to 10 per cent of turnover, imposed without an order 12 months after the contravention or failure? Is it fair that that company's only recourse should then be to the High Court?
  I turn now to Amendment No. 161A. On page 61, lines 23 and 24, reference is made to charging interest at the rate specified in Section 17 of the Judgements Act of 1838. Will that same rate apply to this section? If not, will the Minister state whether the rate to be
  GC 54
  specified by the court will be above or below the rate applied by the enforcement authority when no appeal is involved? I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I am not particularly taken with any of these amendments but for different reasons.
  As regards Amendment No. 158, I am not entirely sure, even after the noble Duke has spoken, what the intention of the amendment is. However, its effect would be that the authority would not have to issue a notice of the proposed penalty and would not have to consider any representations or objections. I cannot see that that is an improvement in the situation from anyone's point of view. It would certainly he contrary to what we intend to do in the regulatory procedure as a whole.
  Amendment No. 159 deals with the question of days. The use of the term "days" is common in statute, and it is accepted as having a common-sense meaning. There is nothing in these provisions that would suggest that this period of 42 days, itself a multiple of weeks, is anything other than calendar days. Therefore, I am not sure why we need to change it.
  On Amendment No. 160, the amendment would reduce the maximum level of a penalty that an enforcement authority could impose from 10 per cent to 1 per cent of turnover. The noble Duke asked what was the turnover on which the penalty would be calculated. Although there are established bases of turnover, the definition will need to be the subject of consultation and detailed regulation. The amendment proposes to reduce the figure from 10 per cent to 1 per cent.
  The figure of 10 per cent does not make its first appearance in this Bill. It already appears in the Competition Act 1998 as the limit to a penalty for restrictive agreements or for abuse of dominant position. There is also a 10 per cent limit in the Utilities Act 2000. That was introduced at Report stage in this Chamber in response to cross-party lobbying led by the noble friends of the noble Duke on the Opposition Benches.
  Reducing the maximum penalty to 1 per cent would be out of kilter with the provisions in those pieces of legislation and would limit the enforcement authorities' ability to deal with companies that breach their conditions of appointment or other statutory duties. We must also bear in mind the significant public health or environmental damage that might result from a breach of such duties.
  Amendment No. 161 would delete references to the time limits that apply to financial penalties where no final or provisional enforcement order has been made. The effect of the amendment would be absolutely to prohibit the enforcement authority from being able to impose a financial penalty in such circumstances.
  It is surely appropriate that financial penalties can be imposed in circumstances such as the breach of a condition of appointment, where it may not be appropriate to go through the full enforcement order process.

  GC 55
  The Bill as drafted includes a 12-month time limit on the ability of the enforcement authority to start within a year a free-standing process of imposing a penalty. This gives companies the ability to have a clearer expectation of what might happen so that they are able to plan ahead.
  I turn to Amendment No. 161A. The Bill is drafted so that the court will be able to set the level of interest. It is appropriate for the court to have this flexibility to deal with appeals on a case-by-case basis. The effect of the amendment would be that the court would be tied to the same decision whenever there was a successful appeal, regardless of the seriousness of the company's failure or of the merits of the case. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to tie the hands of the court in such a way.
  The noble Duke also raised the question of whether the Secretary of State should be able to set the level of penalties. That provision is only an extension of the existing enforcement procedure. It appears in the Bill, in the Water Industry Act and in other pieces of legislation. Drinking water quality is the responsibility of the Drinking Water Inspectorate which is part of the apparatus of the Secretary of State. That is why there is a specific reference to financial penalties being set by the Secretary of State in that context.
  The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for his various replies. In some ways Amendment No. 158 was a probing amendment. It seems to me that what the Bill is trying to say is that the authority can impose penalties under subsection (1) and the Secretary of State can impose penalties under subsection (2). The fact that they are run together looks slightly strange. However, I pass that by.
  I was grateful to hear the Minister mention maintaining flexibility. That is a good idea as regards penalties. In view of what the Minister said on all the other matters. I shall take away the amendments and reconsider them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 159 to 161.4 not moved.]
  Clause 47 agreed to.
  Clause 48 [Enforcement of certain provisions]:
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 161B:
  Page 63, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Duke said: In moving Amendment No. 161B, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 161C.
  In the 1991 Act the Secretary of State or the director has to be satisfied that the company has transgressed and is likely to do so again. The requirement for satisfaction has not altered, only now it is not necessary for wrongdoing already to have occurred.
  How will the Secretary of State, the Assembly or the authority be satisfied that a company is likely to contravene a condition? Unless, that is, the condition
  GC 56
  or requirement is inherently unreasonable or some set of circumstances has arisen that will mean that the company is bound to be in difficulty.
  I turn to Amendment No. 161C. This is beginning to read like a vendetta on water and sewerage companies. First, they no longer have to have transgressed to find themselves in serious difficulty. Now they have 21 days instead of 28 to make representations against what may be both a harsh and wholly unjustified charge. Will the Minister lay out a believable scenario which explains why the Government have thought it necessary to write these provisions into the Bill? I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: We have proposed a change to the existing enforcement provisions so that the enforcement authorities—the Secretary of State, the Assembly and the authority—are able to take action before something goes wrong. This proposal would be reversed by Amendment No. 161 B.
  It is important to distinguish between the order and the penalty. It is important to bear in mind that although there are penalties for breaching an enforcement order, the order itself is first and foremost to tell the recipient what action they must take to rectify a situation that has gone wrong.
  If it is apparent that a contravention is about to happen, the regulator or the Secretary of State should be able to take steps to prevent it via an enforcement order. One of the safeguards in the enforcement order procedure is that the enforcement authority must notify the proposed recipient before making an order. The proposed recipient can then make objections. In those circumstances it is sensible and desirable to make an order.
  Amendment No. 16IC would remove the proposal in the Bill to speed up the enforcement process by reducing from 28 days to 21 days the minimum time that can be allowed for objecting to a notice informing someone that an order is being considered. The reason for this change in the Bill is to reduce the time in which further harm can occur. Therefore, the reduction in the number of days is sensible. If an enforcement order is being considered, the matter is usually already serious and it is important that the action that the order will require should be taken as rapidly as possible. In more complex cases, the notice can specify a longer time that would be more appropriate to those circumstances but in many cases 21 days should be the appropriate minimum time.
  7 p.m.
  The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for his reply. We asked him to describe some scenarios. Are there frequent examples about which he knows in which the question of 21 or 28 days would have been vital? Did the things that went wrong go that seriously wrong that they required the reduction in the amount of time for which the people accused could appeal? Foreseeing the damage and accusing people before it happens is a very difficult concept. In terms of water regulation, we are in a fast-moving situation. Could

  GC 57
  the Minister tell us at some point what situations he foresees in which that shortening in time would be important?
  Lord Whitty: I am reluctant to give hypothetical examples because one then has an example that every case is judged against. Clearly, as the noble Duke said, if, in a fast-moving situation involving water— literally—damage is being done and is likely to get worse, the damage done over 28 days is clearly greater than that done over 21 days. Any reduction is beneficial. It is reasonable to give a certain amount of time in which to comply but there can be significant benefits in making the period a week shorter. If problems are considerably more complex, it is reasonable that the timescale should be longer than 21 days. Twenty-eight days—effectively, a full month—appears to be too long for dealing with serious damage situations.
  Baroness Byford: I wonder whether I may press the Minister further. Presumably, if there are emergencies—I do not believe that this falls into that category—there are facilities in the Bill by which everything gets overridden and emergencies are dealt with. My noble friend did not ask the Minister to give an example of a particular case; he asked the Minister more generally how many times in the past—let us say, the past two years—the regulators have found themselves at difficulty when working with the 28-day system. In other words, what pressure has been brought to bear to change the period from 28 to 21 days? That was the question; my noble friend did not ask for an example of a particular company or occurrence. Will the Minister clarify that?
  Lord Whitty: No, I cannot clarify that because records will not be kept in that form. That is for the reasons that I have expounded. If we bring the period down to the minimum reasonable level of three weeks, we would be dealing with more situations more effectively than we might otherwise have done. Giving people three weeks in which to comply is not unreasonable; giving them 28 days—another week—if one is at the other end of the damage threatened is not justifiable.
  Baroness Byford: I hear what the Minister said but it does not quite answer our discussion. Presumably somewhere in the Bill is the ability to make emergency provisions, but that is not what we are discussing; we are discussing asking for some damage to be put right. I ask the Minister what facts have brought the Government to wish to reduce the timescale from 28 to 21 days? In fairness, he has not answered that point.
  Lord Whitty: All I can say is that 21 days is the equivalent period in the other utility provisions.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that answer; we had not had it previously.
  The Duke of Montrose: The question raised was: what is an emergency? If something is causing great damage, it will do so during the first seven days. I
  GC 58
  cannot see that the period between 21 and 28 days will make a great deal of difference, although it might make a difference to the people making the appeal. Given what the Minister said, we will take the matter away. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 161C not moved.]
  Clause 48 agreed to.
  Clauses 49 to 53 agreed to.
  Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 162:
  After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
  "RULES FOR THE AWARD OF COSTS OR EXPENSES
  After paragraph 7 of Schedule 7A to the Competition Act 1998 there is inserted—
  "8 Rules shall make provision in the case of references under the authority of section 12 of the WIA—

  (a) for the award of costs or expenses, including any allowances payable to persons in connection with their attendance before the Competition Commission;

  (b) for taxing or otherwise settling any costs or expenses directed to be paid by the Competition Commission and for the enforcement of any such direction.

  9 In making provision for the matters in paragraph 8 the rules shall set out the principles to be followed for the award of costs or expenses and for taxing or otherwise settling such costs or expenses.""
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment, which appears in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Byford, deals with a situation in which there have been appeals to the Competition Commission by individual water companies. If the appeal, or the costs of the appeal, go against the water companies, customers of that water company would be liable for the cost of that appeal. The consumer body, WaterVoice, is particularly angry about all of that. The subtext of what we would like in this regard is that the Competition Commission should be given discretion—that should not be automatic in the case of, for example, a nonsense appeal—to allocate the costs to Ofwat. The costs would therefore be spread over all the water companies if the issue was of national significance. Some water companies might appeal for something that was "piggybacked on" by other water companies, and the poor water company that had led the appeal and incurred all the costs found itself to be disadvantaged and the customers of that company would find themselves with higher prices.
  The director general should be under a duty to implement the Competition Commission's decisions for all water companies. That is the point in essence. I am interested that this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 162A., which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I beg to move.
  Lord Borrie: I shall speak to Amendment No. 162A and comment on Amendment No. 162. When a company challenges Ofwat's determination as to the prices that the company may in future charge its customers, it does so by seeking a reference to the Competition Commission. When the Competition Commission redetermines the price limits set by Ofwat, the present law requires the Competition

  GC 59
  Commission to provide in those price limits for the company's costs in pursuing the case before the Competition Commission, Ofwat's costs and the Competition Commission's costs. Those costs therefore fall ultimately on the customers. The only ground on which the Competition Commission may currently decline to allow for such costs in the price limits that it determines is if it considers the company's request for a reference to the Competition Commission or the costs incurred to be unreasonable.
  A company currently appears to have little or no incentive to refrain from testing Ofwat's new price limits by going to the Competition Commission. In reports from the Competition Commission in 2000 about price limits set for Mid Kent Water and for Sutton and East Surrey Water, the Competition Commission stated the present law and had to follow it but questioned the desirability of invariably having to permit costs in such inquiries to be recovered from customers.
  The purpose of the amendment, on which I have been greatly assisted by Ofwat, ensures that the Competition Commission should first conclude what price limits it should determine on the normal principles of what is necessary to enable the company to perform its normal core functions and to enable it to get a reasonable return on its capital. Then it will separately decide the fair allocation of costs between the company's customers, its shareholders, the customers of other regulated companies, and taxpayers.
  In my view, the commission should have statutory discretion to decide what is just in each case, and therefore to decide whether the company's case had any substance, whether it had convinced the Competition Commission on any of the points that it contended for, and whether the company's method of presenting its arguments and the costs incurred were appropriate and reasonable. If the Competition Commission decided that the company had acted properly in pursuing its case, it would in principle be expected to include the company's cost in the new price limits—and so too the costs of Ofwat and the Competition Commission.
  I am not sure whether I am right or not, but Amendment No. 162 seems to concern all references to the Competition Commission, not only those relating to price determinations. It deals generally with the allocation and setting of all costs incurred in such references through the making of rules by the Competition Commission. Amendment No. 162A ensures a discretion to the Competition Commission to decide whether costs faced by the company should be included in the price limits determined by the commission.
  Baroness Byford: The amendment—
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My noble friend Lord Whitty has to speak now.
  Lord Whitty: My noble friend is exaggerating slightly, but the amendments raise some serious issues
  GC 60
  that the Government ought to consider. Amendment No. 162A in particular raises the question of whether it is sensible to continue to give no discretion to the competition authority as to where it allocates the costs. Some of the arguments in support of that by my noble friend are correct. Although Amendment No. 162 goes somewhat wider and I would not accept going quite so wide as it, I agree to take the amendments away together and I hope to come back on Report with a proposition from the Government.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: May I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I failed to note that her name had been added to the amendment. I was speaking to save her time.
  Baroness Byford: I stagger to my feet. My name is attached to Amendment No. 162. When we tabled the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, had obviously not tabled Amendment No. 162A. I was interested to read that his amendment particularly tried to give discretion to the Competition Commission.
  I should say straight away that I am very grateful for the Minister's indication that he will look at the two amendments, and I do not want to prolong the Committee. The only point that I want to make is particularly in relation to Amendment No. 162. Others speak with great authority because they are on water authorities, but I am not. I speak with a consumer's hat on, as the customer. As an outsider, it is a concern that the costs as the Bill stands will—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—be handed directly to individual customers. That is bad enough in a big water company, but in a small water company the costs will be proportionately much higher.
  That is the additional point that I wanted to underline. If the Minister is kindly to take the amendment away and consider it, I would hate him to come back on Report only for us to jump up again and say, "But, my Lord, you have not considered the matter fully". I am sure that the Government would not want that to be a result of the present drafting of the Bill.
  With those few words, I express my grateful thanks to the Minister, although my noble friend will do so formally for us. I also wanted simply to highlight the whole question of costs and the effect that they have on smaller companies.
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply, and to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. Discretion is the big issue, and the one word that we both mentioned. It is a very adult way of behaving. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 162A not moved.]
  Clause 54 agreed to.
  Schedule 4 [Licensing of water suppliers]:
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 162B:
  Page 132, leave out lines 4 to 6.
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment is probing. We are concerned that it would appear that, if a licensed water supplier had an authorisation to introduce water into the supply system of a water undertaker. he may not use the water supplied by another licensed water supplier. I find that extraordinary. Is that correct? If so, why the prohibition? I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: There is indeed a prohibition in the Bill as it stands. The provisions require licensed water suppliers who want to introduce water into the supply system to either obtain a source of water or buy water from an undertaker. I am prepared to have a look at whether that prohibition would be sensible in all circumstances. I am not sure that the amendment as it stands makes the right circumvention, but it clearly raises an issue at which we would like to look.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: When the Minister looks at that issue—I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising it through the amendment—will he also confirm whether it will be in line with the Water Framework Directive's requirement, which I think is for water to be treated as a tradeable commodity?
  Lord Whitty: It is probably better that I look into that and come hack to it on Report.
  Baroness Byford: I am very grateful to the Minister. As I said, the amendment was probing. Sometimes one merely has to do something extraordinary to bring forward a chance to debate what we thought was a gap or slight concern in the Bill. I thank him for agreeing to take the amendment away and, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 162C:
  Page 132, leave out lines 36 to 40.
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment is another probing amendment. It is a primary condition of a licensed water supplier's licence that the company may not supply domestic premises. During presentations on the Bill from various bodies, it was made clear to us that very large customers often do not require water of the same domestic standard. I underline the domestic angle.
  Proposed new Section 17B(5)(a) states that the pipes involved will be used to send water from an undertaker's treatment works to the premises of its customers. It does not specify that none of those customers shall be requiring water of domestic quality. Therefore, it is surely wrong for those pipes to be used to carry water from another source to a non-domestic customer of a company that is not a part of the water undertaker.
  Proposed new Section 17B(6), (7) and (8) on page 133 refers to treatment works being designated by the Secretary of State as treatment works for the purposes of proposed new Section 17B(5). There is no reference, however, to the treatment works being—I use the word
  GC 62
  carefully—exclusively for the use of a licensed water supplier. Will the Minister explain the intention? I beg to move.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 162C proposes the deletion of the definition of the undertakers' drinking water supply system in the competition provisions. That would reduce competition to the undertakers' non-potable system. That is only a small part of the pipe network owned by the undertakers. The restriction would rule out effective competition. Licensees—I hope that this answers the noble Baroness's concern—will be able, through the competition framework, to require access to water mains from the undertakers' treatment works to the customers' premises. If that is not sufficient to answer the range of concerns, I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will do that. The reason for the amendment is that a different quality of water can be expected for domestic premises from that for premises that do not require such a high standard. From examining the provision I could not discover how water of different standards could be piped down one system. The Minister may be able to inform the Committee on that point; but I shall accept what the noble Baroness has said: that she will take the matter away and consider it. I am an amateur in these matters, but on looking at this I wondered how it was to be achieved.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I can assure the noble Baroness that she has raised a question that came into my mind. As a plumber's daughter, I do not understand how that will work. Together, we shall find out before Report stage.
  Baroness Byford: It is good that the Committee includes such a variety of people. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 163 to 166 not moved.]
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 166A:
  Page 141. line 43, at end insert "; and
  (d) the modifications are such that no holder of a water supply licence will cause, by virtue of those modifications, any disadvantage to any water undertaker"
  The noble Duke said: We return to the modification of the standard conditions of water supply licences. The amendment is occasioned by the realisation that the Bill sets up competition in the water industry by laying out a new and level playing field for licensed water suppliers. It is fashioned from part of the pitch used by water undertakers but is not level with it. The water suppliers will operate by removing from the water undertakers up to 2,000 of their biggest customers. The undertakers will receive a copy of each licence granted to a water supplier, but the Bill does not give them the right to appeal against such a licence.
  Modifications of licences must either involve only standard clauses or only change particular clauses in circumstances that do not disadvantage the relevant licence holder in relation to other holders. If any licence holder objects to a change in a standard clause, he has a vehicle for doing so. In all this, the water undertaker has no rights. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I understand the concern, but I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. When the regulator proposes modifications to the standard licence conditions for water suppliers, he will be bound by the duties under Section 2 of the Water Industry Act to promote effective competition in the interests of customers. That means that he could not promote a modification that would put an undertaker under unwarranted disadvantage. Nor could he, for example, amend an undertaker's condition of appointment so that licensees cannot compete effectively, as neither of those would be in the interests of competition or in the interests of the customer. I believe that the concern is unnecessary; therefore the amendment is not necessary.
  The Duke of Montrose: I hear what the Minister says, but we wish to take the matter away and reconsider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 166B:
  Page 143, line 23, after "it" insert "and put it into the public domain"
  The noble Duke said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 166C. This is a probing amendment. We seek to determine who is meant by,
  "persons likely to be affected by it".
  What type of publication does the Government have in mind as being suitable?
  On Amendment No. 166C, once a matter has been referred to the Competition Commission, no one, not even the Secretary of State, should be allowed to withdraw it. It should be the duty of the authority to ensure that, by the time the reference is made, the basic reasons for doing so are well established. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: On Amendment No. 166B. which seeks to place a requirement on the authority to put references in the public domain, that is already practised and Ofwat will have the responsibility to ensure that that continues in line with open and transparent regulation. I do not believe that we need to specify that on the face of the Bill.
  Amendment No. 166C is slightly more complex. It removes the Secretary of State's power to veto referrals to the commission by the authority. The water supplier licence conditions are there to implement much of the Government's water supply competition policy. Hence the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to determine the initial standards of licence. Therefore, it
  GC 64
  follows that a power of veto is logically required over a change to the licence conditions. Without it, the policy intent behind the initial standard conditions could be lost by subsequent modifications. It is also important to note that the same arrangement exists in the gas and electricity licensing regimes, and they have operated successfully there for some years.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: In the Minister's first reply to the amendment asking for this matter to be put into the public domain, he referred to the fact that Ofwat already does this, so it does not need to be on the face of the Bill. When drafting amendments on something that is already custom and practice, it would be helpful to know when custom and practice mean that there is not a requirement for something to be said on the face of a Bill.
  Baroness Byford: I had written that point in my notes. Is such a matter already on the face of other Bills, or is it just normal practice? If it is normal practice, but it is not on the face of any other Bill, then I believe we should start to include it; if it is already in other Bills, then it should be included here, because the principle has already been established.
  Baroness O'Cathain: If such a matter is not established, it should be. The reality is that we are not supposed to be mind-readers. Above all, we need clarity and transparency, referring back to the wonderful five Ofcom virtues. I believe that this point is important.
  Perhaps I may say to the Minister that. in our discussions on the Competition Bill—going back some time—I did not realise that we had allowed the Secretary of State to have such fantastic power. What happens if the Secretary of State has a brainstorm and goes mad?
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: That could never happen under a Labour government.
  Baroness O'Cathain: The noble Baroness makes a sedentary intervention.
  The Duke of Montrose: I suggest that we call the undertaker!
  Lord Whitty: This may be an appropriate point at which to break the proceedings. Before the Committee adjourns, perhaps I may say, on the issue of what is placed in the public domain, that legislation is inevitably inconsistent as regards what is on the face of the Bill and what is not. The point in regard to this particular proposition is that this is so central to the Government's overall policy on transparent regulation that the assumption can be made. Whether that transfers itself into custom and practice so that it could never be altered becomes a philosophical point. I am not prepared to engage with the noble Baroness on that during the debate on this amendment, which, subject to my noble friend intervening, will be the last

  GC 65
  amendment that we shall consider today. Such provision probably does not need to be on the face of the Bill. Nor do I necessarily think that the draconian powers for a sane—let alone a mad—Secretary of State are sufficient to warrant the concerns that have been expressed.
  The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for his reply. As this has turned out to be such a hotly contentious issue, we should like to take it away and consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 166C not moved.]
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This may he an appropriate moment for further consideration of the Bill in Committee to be adjourned until noon on Thursday.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel): The Committee stands adjourned until noon on Thursday.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eight o'clock.

  North Korean Refugees
  North Korean Refugees
  China: Human Rights
  China: Human Rights
  China: One-Child Policy
  China: One-Child Policy
  Guantanamo Bay Detainees
  Guantanamo Bay Detainees
  Belfast Agreement: Equality of Treatment
  Belfast Agreement: Equality of Treatment
  Northern Ireland: Rate Relief
  Northern Ireland: Rate Relief
  Republic of Ireland Civil Servants Working in Northern Ireland
  Republic of Ireland Civil Servants Working in Northern Ireland
  Waterways Ireland Headquarters
  Waterways Ireland Headquarters
  Northern Ireland Office Victims Liaison Unit Core Funding
  Northern Ireland Office Victims Liaison Unit Core Funding
  Northern Ireland: Planning
  Northern Ireland: Planning
  Committee on Standards in Public Life: Ninth Report
  Committee on Standards in Public Life: Ninth Report
  Iraq: Humanitarian Obligations
  Iraq: Humanitarian Obligations
  Gulf Troops: Free Letters and Packets
  Gulf Troops: Free Letters and Packets
  Royal Navy Nuclear Submarine Berthing, Clyde
  Royal Navy Nuclear Submarine Berthing, Clyde
  Military Service: Compensation Tribunal
  Military Service: Compensation Tribunal
  European Convention on Human Rights, Protocol 4
  European Convention on Human Rights, Protocol 4
  NHS: Free Prescriptions for People over 60
  NHS: Free Prescriptions for People over 60
  NHS: Voucher Scheme for Spectacles
  NHS: Voucher Scheme for Spectacles
  NHS: Dental Check-ups
  NHS: Dental Check-ups
  NHS: Eyesight Tests
  NHS: Eyesight Tests
  Education of Children in Care
  Education of Children in Care
  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
  Elected Regional Assemblies: Soundings Exercise
  Elected Regional Assemblies: Soundings Exercise
  Disabled People: Restrictions
  Disabled People: Restrictions
  EU Travel on Parliamentary Business
  EU Travel on Parliamentary Business
  Young People who Sexually Abuse
  Young People who Sexually Abuse
  National Emergency Warnings
  National Emergency Warnings
  Iraq: Postwar Reconstruction
  Iraq: Postwar Reconstruction
  European Security and Defence Policy: Effect of Differences over Iraq
  European Security and Defence Policy: Effect of Differences over Iraq
  Iraq: Coalition Forces
  Iraq: Coalition Forces
  Regional Assemblies: Functions
  Regional Assemblies: Functions