Sitting of 10 April 2003

Preamble
The House met at half—past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND TRANSPORT FOR LONDON BILL [LORDS]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SKILLS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    School Funding (Hendon)
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement about the funding of schools in Hendon in 2003–04. [108240]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): According to our latest information, the London borough of Barnet has increased its schools budget by 11 per cent. or £17 million. However, it has increased its individual schools budget—that is, the funding that the education authority passes to schools for them to spend as they consider fit—by only 7.8 per cent. or £10.5 million.
    Mr. Dismore: I remind my hon. Friend that he required Barnet to passport £14.5 million—double what we received in grant. After a 24 per cent. tax increase and £11 million of cuts, the council is still £1 million light. However, the standards fund changes are the real culprit.
    Our schools are £5.6 million short of what they need simply to stand still. Copthall school, a high-performing comprehensive that my hon. Friend recently visited, is losing four teachers and cannot afford the new books for the changed GCSE syllabus. More than half the infant and primary schools are receiving an increase of less than 3.2 per cent. net. Parkfield school is receiving a zero increase; Mathilda Marks Kennedy school is actually losing 1 per cent. in cash terms. There is no prospect—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister will have got the drift.
    Mr. Twigg: My hon. Friend makes his point effectively. I pay tribute to his efforts to draw attention to the situation of Barnet schools. We recognize the
    384
    difficulties that some face. In my original answer, I highlighted the fact that there is a considerable gap between the healthy 11 per cent. increase in the overall schools budget and the amount that is getting through to schools, and we believe that Barnet should deal with that. My hon. Friend has drawn to our attention the enormous variations in the figures for different schools. We encourage the local authority to examine its formula and find ways to support some of the schools that are doing the least well.
    Mr. Graham Brady: The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) rightly blames the Government in connection with the changes to the standards fund, but he did not mention the increased burden of employers' national insurance costs and teachers' pension contributions. This morning, a Barnet head told me:
    "It's breaking my heart. We've got a good school here, but we are struggling to find a penny. We are looking at at least three redundancies."
    What does the Minister have to say to frustrated heads, teachers and parents who are paying massive tax increases but see their schools being cut to the bone?
    Mr. Twigg: It is absurd of the hon. Gentleman to speak of schools being cut to the bone. Changes have been made to the local government funding formula and the standards fund. We have been able to assist several authorities that fell below the 3.2 per cent. threshold, but, unfortunately, Barnet did not fall into that category. However, at an earlier stage, when we agreed to implement the outcome of the School Teachers Review Body process, we acknowledged that the healthy increase in teachers' pay in London, especially in inner London, but in outer London as well, was one that we wanted to support. That is why Barnet received £579,000 from the London budget support grant to enable it to pay the extra money to teachers in those schools. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that that has assisted the schools, but we need to do more, which is why I shall continue to work with the borough and with colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), to ensure the best deal for Barnet schools in future.

    Specialist Schools
    Ms Meg Munn: If he will make a statement on the performance of specialist schools. [108241]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): On 1 April, the Specialist Schools Trust published its excellent latest analysis by Professor David Jesson of York university. I shall place a copy in the Library of the House of Commons. The document presents an analysis of educational outcomes and value added by specialist schools in recent years; it contains a wealth of data and I commend it to the House. To draw out one particular set of statistics: 54.1 per cent. of pupils in non-selective specialist schools achieve five or more GCSE A* to C grades, compared with 46.7 per cent. of pupils in other non-selective schools. That

    385
    represents a 3 percentage point improvement in specialist schools over the previous year, compared with a 2 percentage point improvement in other schools.
    Ms Munn: I welcome the clear benefits that specialist schools provide for pupils, but what about schools in challenging circumstances that would dearly like to become specialist schools, but are struggling both because they have difficulty raising the finance and because they lack the support needed to develop plans that will secure the improvements so evident in specialist schools? What help can such schools receive?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. There are several sources of support. The first is the local education authority: as she knows, the director of education and the authority in Sheffield are giving Sheffield schools substantial support to become specialist schools. The second source is the wide variety of work carried out by the Specialist Schools Trust, which is generally welcomed by schools. One aspect of that support is access to a fund to help schools that are not able to raise the £50,000 by their own efforts. Money is made available to replace that as things move forward. There is substantial help and I want to encourage all schools in the country to seek specialist status.
    Mr. Damian Green: I happily endorse the support for specialist schools of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn). Indeed, I congratulate the hon. Lady on being one of two Labour Members who voted with the Opposition against the ten-minute Bill that was introduced by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) to reduce the powers of specialist schools, when 135 Labour and Liberal Democrat Members were on the other side. Why does the Secretary of State think that he has visibly failed to convince his own party of the merits of specialist schools?
    Mr. Clarke: I read the debate on the ten-minute Bill with interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) made an articulate speech in moving the Bill, which I am studying carefully. As my hon. Friend said in that debate, he is not opposing specialist schools, but arguing for change in the specialist school regime, which he personally favours. That is a legitimate and positive debate to have, and throughout my party we think that specialist schools play a major role in improving educational standards, and we shall support them strongly.
    Mr. Green: The Secretary of State should be aware that while we on the Opposition Benches were prepared to vote for specialist schools, for the Government's own policy, the Minister for School Standards abstained, refusing to vote for the Government's policy. Will the right hon. Gentleman now acknowledge that one of the attractions of specialist school status is the extra money that is available? Will he admit that this year's settlement has left schools throughout the country, in Labour areas as well as Conservative ones, angry and disappointed at the cuts and redundancies that they are facing? As he has heard already this morning, this has
    386
    made head teachers and teachers desperate for any extra money because they have been so badly let down by this Government.
    Mr. Clarke: I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the parliamentary convention is that Ministers do not vote on ten—minute Bills. However, they listen carefully to the debate and take account of what is said.
    Specialist schools make a major difference in raising educational standards. That is why we support them, and that is set out clearly in the proposals. That is why many of my colleagues are encouraging schools in their localities to be specialist schools. That is the right way to go. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the principal motive for schools becoming specialist schools is financial. I do not think that that is the case. The principal motive is the ethos of specialism, which we published a few weeks ago.
    Mr. David Chaytor: Regardless of the merits of my Specialist Schools (Selection by Aptitude) Bill, may I tell my right hon. Friend about the achievements of Derby high school in my constituency, which became the first school in the country to become a joint arts and science specialist school? Does he not think that this is an interesting development? Will he encourage more schools to apply for joint specialisms? Would not that be a particularly useful way forward for schools in rural areas?
    Mr. ClarkeMy hon. Friend's suggestion is entirely correct. As I think he would acknowledge, and as the Select Committee will acknowledge, the proposals that we put forward in "A New Specialist System" encouraged precisely that mix of specialisms that will achieve the sort of quality that my hon. Friend has referred to, both in rural areas and elsewhere. We are developing a creative collaborative approach to specialism, which is the right way forward.
    Mr. David Cameron: What would the Secretary of State say to a local business man in my constituency who supported specialist status for his local school and then received begging letters from the Specialist Schools Trust and other Government quangos, which he described as Government propaganda paid for by taxpayers? Is it right that people who have worked hard to support their local school should receive begging letters from Government bodies?
    Mr. Clarke: That is a facile point. We had an excellent reception, just before Christmas, of specialist schools and sponsors from a wide variety of different schools throughout the country, all of whom were extremely positive about the approach. Many sponsors were looking for additional means by which they could support education in this way. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's constituent school was present at that event, but I expect that it was. However, most sponsors—I cannot speak for the one that he mentions—are positive about the support that they give and often seek to give further support to other schools.
    Barbara Follett: As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) mentioned,

    387
    the process of becoming a specialist school is time-consuming and difficult. The seven secondary schools in Stevenage have banded together and put in a joint application. What measures is my right hon. Friend's Department taking to encourage schools in suitable localities to do the same?
    Mr. Clarke: We are giving guidance to local education authorities to encourage that kind of thing, but I would add one important point: the process of becoming a specialist school is now entirely about one question—the ability to achieve the quality standard necessary to become a specialist school. We will be rigorous about that, but we removed before Christmas the competitive element between schools which meant that, although a school had done the work that my hon. Friend referred to and passed the quality test, it could fail a test against somebody else. All schools that do the work and pass the quality standard will get specialist status, which is a significant difference both for individual schools and the collaborative framework to which my hon. Friend referred.

    Sex Education
    Sandra Gidley: What measures he is taking to improve sex education in schools. [108243]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): From April 2003, there will be a professional development programme for teachers of personal, social and health education which includes a specialist module for sex and relationship education. Up to 750 teachers will participate this year. Those awarded qualified teacher status must now demonstrate that they are familiar with the framework for PSHE, including sex and relationship education.
    Sandra Gidley: It is probably safe to assume that a geography teacher is best placed to teach geography and a maths teacher best placed to teach maths. I welcome the announcement, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is probably not ideal that maths and geography teachers among others should teach sex and relationship education? Will he therefore go a step further and develop a programme in which trained specialist teachers deal purely with sex and relationship education and can deal with all aspects of sexuality and relationships in light of the increasing incidence of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases? Will he also make sure that children at school have good access to information sites on the internet, the use of which is often banned by other programmes?
    Mr. Twigg: I shall not he tempted down the path of responding to the opening part of the hon. Lady's question. That would guarantee me a place in the parliamentary sketches tomorrow, so it is probably best not to.
    The hon. Lady takes a close interest in these issues. I had an opportunity, along with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), to appear before the Select Committee on Health as part of its inquiry into sexual health. The response that I have given today
    388
    demonstrates the seriousness with which we are taking the need for full training and professional development for teachers in our schools. The hon. Lady raised the specific issue of access to the internet, a matter on which I have responded to the Select Committee. Schools clearly want to be able to block access to inappropriate sites on the internet, but if material can be of assistance to sex and relationship education programmes we very much want schools to make that available via the internet. Those decisions are clearly best made at school level, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in encouraging all schools to take up responsible sex and relationship education.
    Mr. Graham Allen: Does my hon. Friend accept that some of the most important skills in that area are parenting skills? Many will benefit immensely, when they have children of their own, if we ensure that they have the full advantages of education. The best teacher is not necessarily the one in the classroom—it is the one at home. Particularly in a deprived area such as my own, proper parental support for youngsters at school is probably the most important skill, even above numeracy and literacy.
    Mr. Twigg: My hon. Friend is right. Parental involvement in the delivery of sex and relationship education is clearly crucial. Our citizenship programme and the inclusion of citizenship in the core curriculum in secondary schools can play a part in parenting education for future parents—people who are now students in our schools. However, we need to look at other ways of engaging with parents. The Connexions programme is one way in which that can be delivered, but I am certainly keen to learn of other positive examples so that we can ensure that parenting education is as effective as possible.
    Statistics demonstrate that some of the work that is going on, particularly when health and education professionals work together, is already having a positive impact. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) referred to the high levels of teenage pregnancy in this country, which is of great concern, but it is welcome that the latest statistics demonstrate that there has been a 10 per cent. fall in the number of under-18 conceptions over the past three years, and I hope that our policies will enable that trend to continue.

    Skills Strategy
    Rob Marris: How many further education colleges he and other Ministers in his Department will visit between 10 April and the publication of the skills strategy to discuss the strategy. [108244]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): Ministers visit colleges on a regular basis. All local learning and skills councils will have discussions with colleges and other providers on the forthcoming skills strategy during April and early May.
    Rob Marris: To help to address skills shortages, further education colleges have been invited to bid for extra learning and skills councils' moneys for additional

    389
    post-19 non-basic skills courses such as plumbing. Will my hon. Friend tell the House how much extra Government money—over and above that already built into baseline provision at colleges—will be available from the Learning and Skills Council nationally as part of the skills strategy for post-19 non-basic skills courses from September? If that information is not currently available, can he tell me the date on which it will be?
    Mr. Lewis: One of the great challenges of the skills strategy is to define the respective contributions of the Government, the individual and the employer. Central to that will be the creation of a funding system that is sufficiently flexible to focus not only on national outcomes such as basic skills level 2 qualifications, but on specific regional skills needs and sectoral skills shortages and gaps. One of the central challenges of the strategy will be to create a more flexible financial and funding framework that will allow us to focus resources on sectors such as plumbing and joinery, in which there are serious skills shortages. The details will be published in the strategy in June.
    Mr. Phil Willis: When the Minister visits further education colleges between now and June, will he clarify the Government's thinking on the delivery mechanism for adult learning and skills? Colleges have been asked to provide three-year plans under the success for all programme, for example. Will that be the vehicle for delivery? Yesterday, the Chancellor appeared to announce that employer-led training will be the vehicle for delivery through the training tax credits. The Minister has also said that the regional development agencies and the sector skills councils will have a key role. Are the Secretary of State and his Ministers running this programme, or is it the Chancellor? What advice would the Minister give to college principals on this matter?
    Mr. Lewis: One of the challenges of the skills strategy is to focus on the needs of the customer. The customers in this case are the individual learners and the employers. We need a combination of interventions to create a much higher level of investment in skills in this country. This is about raising the standards of colleges and training providers generally, which is why the success for all programme is so important in terms of investment and reform. It is also about stimulating employer engagement and investment. That is being done through sector skills councils, through the use of the supply chain and through the use of intermediaries such as banks, financial advisers and others. So we need a high-quality supply side, in terms of educational institutions, but we also need to incentivise the demand side with regard to individual learners and employers. There is not a choice between the two. One of the challenges of the skills strategy is to reduce bureaucracy and create a clearer and more transparent system that small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, will be able to understand how to access far more easily than at present. The skills strategy will seek to address that.
    Lawrie Quinn: When my hon. Friend goes about his business around the country, will he consider coming to North Yorkshire, and, specifically, the Yorkshire coast and Scarborough and
    390
    Whitby? We have particular challenges in terms of the peripherality of our community, and of the delivery of these services in a rural context. We also have entrenched long-term unemployment, and it is a particular concern of mine that we are not getting to those people at the moment. I would welcome an opportunity to discuss these issues with some of those people, so that we can roll out the strategy effectively in my constituency.
    Mr. Lewis: It would be a pleasure to visit Scarborough on any occasion, particularly to meet my hon. Friend and his constituents. We tend to talk about skills in the context of young people doing better and of post-16 staying-on rates. We also talk about work force development in terms of adults who are already in employment. We should not forget those adults who are close to the labour market but who continue to be unemployed and find it difficult to access employment, often because of their lack of basic skills. We intend to focus our strategy in June equally on the needs of those individuals. We have record levels of employment, but we cannot be complacent about those who remain outside the labour market.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: I congratulate the Minister on having produced the quintessence of the Government's approach to everything—a combination of interventions, as he called it.
    Let us look briefly at the Government's record. Individual learning accounts are 50 per cent. over budget, and fraud and abuse are costing taxpayers £100 million. Then there is the folly of winding up national training organisations while only half the sector skills councils are in place. Given the harsh and entirely unmerited things that Ministers have said in the past about further education colleges, should we not look forward to the launch of the skills strategy in June less with anticipation than with dire apprehension?
    Mr. Lewis: When I spoke on a platform recently about skills, in the company of the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, he said that for 20 minutes he had heard the most sensible words that he had ever heard a politician utter on the subject. I said that I did not think that that would do me much good in my own party, but it did, I hope, show that the Government are taken seriously in this regard.
    For the first time, we seek to produce a strategy across Government. This Department, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions are working together on it. We also seek to develop a strategy which genuinely, for the first time, engages with small and medium-sized enterprises. The failure to do that has historically been a major weakness in our system.
    As for further education colleges, those in the sector themselves say that this is the most exciting reform and investment programme they have seen for 30 years.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will someone teach Ministers the skill of speaking plain

    391
    English without resorting to the appalling verbiage and dreadful jargon that smother good sense and do no credit to any holder of public office?
    Mr. Lewis: There speaks the contempt and arrogance of a party that is destined to remain in opposition for a very long time.

    Truancy
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: How many initiatives the DFES and its predecessor Department have announced since 1997 to tackle truancy. [108245]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): Since 1997 we have been working to support local education authorities with a range of measures to tackle truancy and improve school attendance. In the last year we have introduced electronic registration systems into more schools, we have co-ordinated national truancy sweeps, and we have funded behaviour improvement programmes in areas with high levels of truancy. Over the next three years, we will implement our national behaviour and attendance strategy to support schools in improving behaviour and attendance and tackling truancy.
    Mr. Wiggin: What I actually asked was how many schemes the Government had announced. Perhaps the Minister was not there on the day when the answer was given to him, but the truth about the latest Government scheme, involving bringing parents before a magistrate, is that only four out of 10 parents turned up. The local council's principal officer for inclusion said
    "It's obviously been a failure… The scheme clearly needs rethinking."
    Would the Minister care to comment on that?
    Mr. Lewis: I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that truancy is a problem that we need to tackle, and an issue on which there ought to be national consensus. Every day 50,000 children truant, and 7.5 million school days are lost every year. Truancy leads directly to educational underperformance and street crime. What the Government are doing, for the first time, is establishing a combination of positive support and early intervention to prevent truancy and nip it in the bud when it begins. We are also ensuring that sanctions and other consequences result when parents do not fulfil their responsibility to get their children to school.
    More adults than ever before are supporting teachers. We are reforming the educational welfare service. We have nationally co-ordinated truancy sweeps. We are reforming the curriculum—and yes, we are holding parents to account for the first time when they actively condone truancy. We believe that there must be a combination of support, prevention and accountability.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend will be aware that truancy is often related to social difficulties in areas of deprivation, and to family breakdown and the like. This puts enormous pressure on the head teachers of very large schools in such areas, in which there is a high proportion of people with social
    392
    difficulties. Will my hon. Friend consider recommending the appointment of, and the provision of the necessary resources to support, specialist social workers in such schools to take that pressure off of head teachers and teachers?
    Mr. Lewis: There have never been more adults in our schools supporting teachers in their front-line classroom duties. Classroom assistants, learning mentors and Connexions personal advisers are there to make links to provide intensive support to individual young people, particularly those who are the most challenging within the school community. They also make links between what is happening in school and what is happening at home, and central to that is the role of Connexions, which addresses any barrier that is preventing young people from progressing within the education system, be it the curriculum, the relationship with the school, the situation at home, or the relationship with peers. There have never been more adults working as part of the school work force to focus on the needs of all children, but especially of those who are the most challenging to the education system.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Will the Minister acknowledge that court action, fixed-penalty notices, parental contracts and the like are not a great deal of help with the permanent truants, who are completely out of the control of their own parents? What estimate has he made of this hard-core group, and what specific initiatives does he have for them?
    Mr. Lewis: Such observations are fairly typical of the Liberal Democrats, based as they are on the principle of all rights and no responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman will recall the recent high-profile case of Mrs. Amos, who was sent to prison as a last resort because she had consistently failed to send her children to school. However, she is now the greatest advocate of our policy. She says quite openly that she sends her children to school regularly, and her family are receiving intensive levels of support. There is no doubt that, as a last resort, fines and imprisonment lead to the triggering of action that is so important in terms of finally dealing with the underlying problems that result in such children not attending school.

    Pupil Performance (Kent)
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What comparison he has made of pupil performance at key stage 2 in Kent with performance among (a) comparator authorities and (b) English authorities generally. [108248]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): In 2002, Kent's key stage 2 results in English, maths and science were just below the national average, and were below those of similar authorities.
    Dr. Ladyman: Is that not pretty awful? Of course, it has come about because teachers, instead of doing what they want to do in the final year of key stage 2, have to coach the 11-plus. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been reported this week in Kent newspapers as saying that he has no plans to scrap selection. Given

    393
    that, as we now know, we get worse results at A-level than do non-selective areas, worse results at GCSE than do non-selective areas, a higher proportion of failing secondary schools than do non-selective areas, and, now, worse results at key stage 2 than do non-selective areas, is it not about time that we made some plans to scrap selection?
    Mr. Miliband: The Government do not support extension of the 11-plus, as my hon. Friend knows. However, in the end it must be for local people to make decisions about the future of school organisation in their areas. The issue must be the standards to which he refers, and I commend him for the work that he is doing to ensure that the debate is about standards and not about ideology.

    Public Service Agreement Targets
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on progress in meeting his public service agreement targets in relation to (a) literacy, (b) numeracy and (c) truancy in schools. [108249]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): The standards of literacy and numeracy in our primary schools are at their highest levels ever. We are committed to taking extensive action to raise standards further, and to reduce truancy to achieve the challenging targets that we have set.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his reply. Given that the trumpeted public service agreement targets on literacy and numeracy were missed in 2002, and that the target on truancy was missed and then scrapped, why cannot the hon. Gentleman see that for the Government to fail to meet targets set by independent experts would be disappointing, but to fail to meet targets that they themselves have set requires incompetence on a truly spectacular scale?
    Mr. Twigg: I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should make those remarks in a week when the international reading literacy study has demonstrated that the standards achieved by 10-year-olds in this country are the third best of any country in the advanced industrialised world. That is a great tribute to the success of the national literacy strategy.
    We have set very ambitions targets. Since 1997, the numbers of 11-year-olds achieving the expected level in English have risen from 63 per cent. to 75 per cent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to join me in praising that great achievement. Yes, we did not hit the target, but we are not lowering it. We have an ambitious target of 85 per cent. of pupils achieving the expected levels in both English and maths from next year, and we aim to sustain that target through 2005 and 2006. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will support us in seeking to ensure that the vast majority of 11-year-olds reach the expected levels in English and maths.
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned primary schools quite specifically. That theme is consistent with what the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone
    394
    and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Chancellor, has said. In his piece in The Guardian earlier this week, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that 25 per cent. of primary school children could not read, write or count. How does my hon. Friend feel that that compares with the 1997 figure, when 40 per cent. of primary school children were unable to reach level 4?
    Mr. Twigg: My hon. Friend is right. The 1997 figures show that 63 per cent. of pupils achieved that level in English, and 62 per cent. in maths. There has been a very substantial improvement. The national literacy and numeracy strategy and the hard work of teachers in our primary schools have ensured that that improvement has come about.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: Is not the most common cause of truancy the fact that a pupil cannot keep up with classmates? Does the Minister agree that setting helps to raise standards and reduce truancy? Is not it therefore a cause for concern that the overwhelming majority of lessons in our secondary schools are mixed ability?
    Mr. Twigg: The causes of truancy are complex and varied. Different practices are adopted in different schools and areas to tackle that. The evidence on setting is mixed. There is evidence of successful setting in certain subjects at certain stages, and other evidence that shows successful mixed-ability practice. What is important is that we enable head teachers to study the evidence that is available and to make the best decision on setting and mixed ability for the children in their schools.

    Higher Education White Paper
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What representations he has received from students on the White Paper "The Future of Higher Education". [108250]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): Our consultation on the White Paper has so far received 57 responses directly from students. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had numerous meetings with students during our visits to the universities, and as part of our regional consultations. We will publish a full report of the White Paper consultation later this summer.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Has my hon. Friend had time to look at early-day motion 994, which has now been signed by 49 hon. and right hon. Members? It is also supported by Cambridge university students' union, in my constituency. Will she consider the view that the early-day motion expresses, which is that, if extra money is required for universities, a measured increase across the board in tuition fees would be preferable to a system of top-up fees?
    Margaret Hodge: I have seen the early-day motion to which my hon. Friend refers, and I have considered the views that it expresses. Indeed, we considered that option when we put together the proposals in the White Paper. A number of arguments counter my hon.

    395
    Friend's view of the matter, perhaps the most important being that we know that there are different returns for individuals who attend different institutions and take different subjects. At its most extreme, there is a 44 per cent. difference in average returns between graduates from institutions at the two extremes of the graduate pay scale. I put this to my hon. Friend: is it really fair to ask for an even contribution from students when graduates get an uneven return from their attendance?
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister accept that most students take the view that the replacement of grants with loans and the introduction of fees have had a devastating effect on low-income families? Would not a much better way forward be to reintroduce grants, rather that constantly expanding the number of universities? That would mean that children from poor homes had a better and more equal opportunity in education.
    Margaret Hodge: It is entirely because we accept that people from low-income backgrounds may be deterred from attending universities that we are proposing the changes in the White Paper. They include the reintroduction of grants for a third of the student cohort; the continuation of fee remission on the first £1,100 for students with low-income backgrounds; the abolition of the upfront fee, so that students have to repay only after they become graduates and start earning; and the continuation of no real interest being charged on the loans. That is a package of proposals that will counter the feelings of some students, particularly those with low-income backgrounds, that may deter them from attending university.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Has the Minister seen the Open university's submission on behalf of mature students? It makes the point that 50 per cent. of students are mature students and expresses concern about the White Paper's lack of emphasis on such students and, indeed, on part-time students. How does the Minister intend to respond to that?
    Margaret Hodge: We regularly meet the Open university—indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met its vice-chancellor only last week. I do not accept that the White Paper fails to address issues affecting mature students, and I would put two points to my hon. Friend. First, the Government's targeted support in the existing regime has been increased, which particularly helps mature students. Secondly, the White Paper contains proposals to support part-time students, introducing grants to such students for the first time ever.

    School Budgets (Norfolk)
    Norman Lamb: What assessment he has made of the impact of (a) the increase in national insurance contributions and (b) the new formula spending share on school budgets in Norfolk. [108251]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): My Department is analysing in detail the impact of the changes in Norfolk and other local education authorities on the basis of the LEA returns
    396
    now being submitted as a result of financial decisions. On Norfolk, I have discussed these matters closely with the director of education and the chief executive of the county and I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the county council's decision this week to add £500,000 to the extra £1.6 million that the Government were able to allocate recently to help schools in Norfolk.
    Norman Lamb: I join the Secretary of State in welcoming the extra money allocated to Norfolk county council, but will he meet head teachers in my constituency, perhaps with me, so that he could hear directly from them the scale of the problem with this year's budget? I received a letter from a head teacher on behalf of the North Walsham cluster, which set out the position of all the schools in that cluster and pointed out how many schools were facing cuts in staff and teaching support assistance. The situation is pretty bleak, so will the right hon. Gentleman meet those teachers?
    Mr. Clarke: I have already met people from schools in my own constituency and my neighbouring constituency of Norwich, North. I understand that Norfolk representatives of the National Association of Head Teachers are seeking a meeting with me and I am prepared to meet them. I have also had substantial email and letter exchanges with schools, including some in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    The questions that I am putting to Norfolk county council include the following. Why is 41 per cent. of the standards fund—a total of £6.3 million—being held back from schools? Why is 1 per cent. of the individual school budget—£2.84 million received during the year—also being held back from schools? Why was the non-individual school budget increased by 29.5 per cent., which is a substantial amount, much higher than that received by many other authorities?
    The hon. Gentleman may join me in considering why the Norfolk formula allocation has such wide variations in budget share per pupil—for primary schools, the lowest is an 18 per cent. decrease, while the highest is an increase of 95 per cent. The upper quartile primary schools have had embedded increases of an average of 16 per cent., with the lowest quartile receiving only 7 per cent. Those are sharp differentials. The county council does not have a system of floors and ceilings, which it should have, as we do in the country as a whole. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in asking the county to explain itself on those matters.
    Tony Wright: May I express similar concerns to those of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)? I have done a survey of schools in my area and many are in exactly the same position with a shortfall in funding, perhaps requiring redundancies. They also welcome the Government's massive investment in education and the extra £1.6 million, which will go a long way. I also congratulate Norfolk county council on adding the extra £500,000. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging the Norfolk local education authority to put all that extra money in the schools that are facing difficulties,

    397
    redundancies and staff cuts, thereby ensuring that there are no redundancies this year and, I hope, for the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and, like him and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), I acknowledge the concerns of schools. However, the wide variations in the figures between schools are extremely striking. We have to understand why that is, because the budget for each individual school is affected by a combination of the Government's allocation to the LEA, the council tax increase, and the county council's formula for allocating money. We are analysing those factors carefully and I will report back to colleagues in Norfolk.

    Individual Learning Accounts
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: If he will make a statement on individual learning accounts. [108252]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): We have acknowledged the serious mistakes that were made in the design and delivery of the individual learning accounts scheme. The hard lessons learned will inform the development of a successor scheme.
    Mr. Pickthall: Despite the terrible rip-offs that bedevilled the implementation of the individual learning accounts scheme, does my hon. Friend agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept? Does he agree that unions such as the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and I declare an interest as a member—instituted remarkably successful partnership schemes that exceeded what the Government had envisaged? What will the Government do to enable unions such as USDAW, and the TUC, to push the programme further and do vital work for many workers who have never been involved in education since leaving school?
    Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is right to say that the principles that underpinned the individual learning accounts scheme were absolutely right; ILAs were successful in getting non-traditional learners back into learning and in giving purchasing power to learners so that they could choose the learning that was most relevant to their needs. Singularly successful in that process was the role of intermediaries such as trade unions and grass-roots community-based voluntary organisations, which were able to influence learners who, in the past, had found education an entirely negative experience. When we announce the details of the successor scheme in June, as part of the skills strategy, we will seek to ensure that we uphold the original principles, which are as true now as they were before.

    Sex Education
    Angela Watkinson: If he will undertake a review of the publications that will be
    398
    eligible for use in sex education in schools should section 28 be repealed; and if he will make a statement. [108253]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): Head teachers and governors make decisions about materials that are used in schools. They must ensure that materials used for sex education are in accordance with the personal, social and health education framework and the law, and that inappropriate materials are kept out of the classroom. Legally, section 28 has no bearing on what is taught in schools, so a review of publications is unnecessary.
    Angela Watkinson: The Minister will, I am sure, be aware of the nature of some of the publications in circulation, which contain a lot of lurid information that will do nothing to deter pupils from becoming sexually active before they are physically or emotionally mature. Parents, governors and teachers in my constituency would welcome being involved in a review of the appropriateness of any publications that may become available in schools should section 28 be repealed.
    Mr. Twigg: Such matters are best left to the school and to the professional judgment of teachers in conjunction with governors—who, of course, have a duty in law to consult parents. It is very important that parents be consulted by schools when sex education policies are being considered. I do not believe that there is widespread evidence of the sort of abuse that the hon. Lady has described, although I am always willing to look into it. However, the framework that we put in place through the Learning and Skills Act 2000 provides a robust basis for the right kind of sex and relationships education for our children in schools.

    School Budgets (South-West)
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): What assessment he has made of the impact of the increase in national insurance contributions and the new formula spending share on school budgets in the south-west. [108254]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): In 2003–04, the national increase in funding is sufficient to cover the pressures that authorities face, including national insurance. However, we appreciate that, for some authorities, low education formula funding increases, coupled with reductions in the standards fund grant, are likely to result in lower budget increases for schools. In the light of representations about that, we have announced an additional grant of £28 million, including £1.2 million for south-west schools.
    Mrs. Brooke: The Minister will be aware that Poole unitary authority is now the 145th worst funded education authority in the country. Schools face the cuts that he describes, so what action will he take to ensure that improvements in school standards are sustained in Poole and in all other hard-hit authorities across the south-west?
    Mr. Miliband: I am, of course, committed to raising school standards in Poole, as elsewhere. I thought that

    399
    the hon. Lady was about to congratulate the Government on the 29 per cent. increase in funding for, schools in Poole since 1997 and on the £13 million capital programme that will go into action this year. We hope to move to a system of three-year budgets and I encourage the local authority to work closely with schools to ensure that money is getting through to the front line.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: How will school budgets in the south-west, and in nearby authorities such as the Isle of Wight, be assisted by the Chancellor's steps to end national pay bargaining announced yesterday?
    Mr. Miliband: The Chancellor made himself clear yesterday when he set out a careful approach to public sector and other pay. The Government have already taken steps to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility in the education system, including the recruitment and retention allowances that are available locally. They introduce much-needed flexibility to the system.

  SOLIICITOR-GENERAL
  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLIICITOR-GENERAL

    Rape Convictions
    Ms Julia Drown: If she will make a statement on recent trends in the number of convictions for rape. [108261]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): Recent trends show an increase in the number of convictions for rape, but a fall in the percentage of reported rapes that result in a conviction. Of all the serious offences of violence, rape is least likely to be reported, least likely to be prosecuted and least likely to result in a conviction. The Government and the voluntary sector are working with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to improve both law and practice to ensure that rapists are brought to justice.
    Ms Drown: I welcome that reply. A number of people in the criminal justice system believe that rape conviction rates would rise dramatically if every initial police interview was video-recorded. Does the Solicitor-General agree with that view and will she take steps to initiate a more thorough approach to ensure that such initial interviews are video-recorded so that juries see the reality of the impact of those violent crimes on the victims?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Some police forces routinely video-record the initial complaint when the victim comes in. They do that so that she can say it once off and they put the statement together afterwards, without having to go through it slowly, stopping and starting, thereby increasing the ordeal. The question then is whether that practice can be spread to all police forces, so that all complainants have those facilities. Secondly, what is done with those video recordings? Can they be used in court as evidence to show how the victim was when she
    400
    first reported the incident? She might look cool as a cucumber when she actually gives evidence, but the video recording made when she first complained might show her dishevelled and distressed. There are issues about the admissibility of evidence and they are being looked at by the police, the prosecutors and the courts, together with me and my colleagues in the Home Office.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Although we congratulate the Government and support them on anything that they do to enable the successful prosecution of rape offences, will the Solicitor-General give some thought to charges against men that are made erroneously? Can the reporting of cases be not allowed unless there is a guilty verdict?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the anonymity of a defendant on the basis that there is a great deal of prejudice against them if allegations are aired in court, in public. The victim is, of course, anonymous but the defendant's name is in the papers. The question relates to whether an acquittal would expunge all that prejudice or whether it would hang around. The issue is important. As regards openness in court proceedings, the fundamental principle is that, if at all possible, everything should be done in public and everything should be on the record: justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done. The exception for victims of sexual offences was introduced by the House, because victims were not prepared to come forward. An exception was made to the normal rule that everything is public only because otherwise victims would not report. Defendants do not have the luxury of not coming forward—they have to come forward—so the issue of deterring them does not arise, and the normal rule that everything should be in public, unless there are exceptional reasons, should prevail. There are no plans to give defendants anonymity.

    Race Hate Crimes
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If she will make a statement on the policy of the Crown Prosecution Service towards the prosecution of alleged race hate crimes. [108263]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): The Crown Prosecution Service reviews all allegations of inciting racial hatred in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors. All cases are considered individually on their merits. However, when considering the public interest test, the code for Crown prosecutors specifically states that a prosecution is likely to be needed in the public interest if the offence was motivated by any form of discrimination against the victim's ethnic or national origin. All such prosecutions are dealt with by specialist prosecutors in the casework directorate in CPS headquarters.
    Mr. Dismore: Can my hon. Friend say why extremists such as Abu Hamza, who regularly on our televisions and in our newspapers spews out vitriol inciting hatred

    401
    and violence towards Jews, Hindus, Americans and many other people, cannot be prosecuted? Surely those racist attacks that are visibly coming from his own mouth are evidence enough for a case of inciting race hatred.
    The Solicitor-General: Offences of inciting racial hatred and offences against the person such as threats to kill are prosecuted. Indeed, the Crown Prosecution Service recently reported that in the past year there has been a 20 per cent. increase in the number of defendants dealt with by the CPS for offences involving race hatred. That is against a background of a 28 per cent. increase in such defendants over the year before, and the conviction rate being kept steady at 83 per cent. There is greater determination for police and prosecutors to work together to bring offenders to justice. If there is sufficient evidence to bring about a conviction, it will nearly always be in the public interest to prosecute such offences.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given the collapse at trial of the libel action brought by the notorious revisionist historian, David Irving, against Deborah Lipstadt for her excellent book, "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory", can the right hon. and learned Lady tell the House what discussions she has had with, or what advice she has offered to, the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to its policy on the circulation of revisionist neo-Nazi material?
    The Solicitor-General: If material constitutes by its circulation an offence of inciting racial hatred, if there is sufficient evidence to constitute the elements of that offence, and it is brought to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police or anybody else, it will consider whether to bring a prosecution under the code for Crown prosecutors. If the hon. Gentleman would like to bring forward evidence, the Attorney-General and I will undertake to look at it. We consider very seriously any cases that are brought to us by hon. Members, as we do those that are brought to us by members of the public and others.

    Prosecution Policy (Financial Institutions)
    Mr. David Kidney: What monitoring role she performs regarding decisions whether to prosecute in connection with suspicious transactions reported to the authorities by financial institutions. [108264]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): The Attorney-General and I superintend the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office, who are independent, and they make the decisions on whether to prosecute suspicious transactions reported by financial institutions. We regularly meet the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss current investigations and prosecutions.
    Mr. Kidney: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that bank reports to the authorities of suspicious transactions have rocketed in recent years, and that
    402
    there were more than 50,000 such reports last year? Given that the whole country is rightly focused on depriving terrorists of their funds, stopping money laundering and denying smugglers the proceeds of their trade in human beings, drugs and alcohol and tobacco, can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the prosecuting authorities are sufficiently geared up to respond to the enormous rise in the number of such suspicious transactions?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In the past, fraud has all too often been considered as a victimless white-collar offence that is not important. My hon. Friend is right to say that money laundering, drug trafficking and human trafficking are all connected with money laundering. Prosecutors across different departments have been working together on the issue, as have ministerial colleagues. My hon. Friend will know that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which introduces a new offence of failing to disclose suspicious transactions, came into force in February this year, and that further money laundering regulations placing obligations on professionals to disclose will be introduced later this year. The international fraud business lies behind a lot of other crime, and we have to gear up our act to tackle it.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Solicitor-General is, of course, right to concentrate on the use of anti-money-laundering and proceeds of crime legislation against terrorism and other serious crimes such as drug smuggling. Will she accept the point that I put to her ministerial colleagues in the Home Office, however, that some financial institutions have used the legislation, which has laudable intentions, to impose extra and very burdensome obligations on customers, particularly on small charities, and have sought to increase their statutory requirements by adding requests for intrusive information for their own commercial reasons? Will she agree to meet me and representatives of charities who have contacted me to look into this matter? We do not want laudable anti-terrorism legislation being misused to intrude too much into people's personal lives and personal information and to disrupt the valuable work that charities do.
    The Solicitor-General: Of course, I agree to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the important issues that he raises. Clearly, a balance must be struck: on the one hand, charities and small businesses do not want to be overburdened by reporting regulations, but on the other, they are often victims of fraud themselves. Fraud against small businesses and charities is an issue that they are rightly concerned about dealing with. I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and to take those issues forward.
    Mr. John Burnett: The Customs and Excise prosecution office now comes under the Solicitor-General's Department's aegis. Millions of pounds have been lost to the Exchequer in connection with the failed London City Bond and

    403
    Stockade prosecutions. When will those matters be resolved finally? When they are resolved, will she make a statement to the House?
    The Solicitor-General: When the matters are resolved finally, I shall certainly consider how to give the House
    404
    appropriate information as required on those important cases. I know that the hon. Gentleman has corresponded with and met the Attorney-General in relation to the matter, and that he takes an interest in these issues. I cannot comment further at this stage, but, clearly, we keep the issue under review.

Iraq
12.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the situation in Iraq.
I will deal in a moment with the post-conflict arrangements. Let me start, however, with the military situation. All right hon. and hon. Members will have followed the extraordinary events of the last four days as coalition forces entered Basra and then Baghdad. We can all share the new sense of hope so evident on the faces of ordinary Iraqis who are now tasting freedom, many of them for the first time in their lives.
I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the courage shown by the men and women of our armed forces and those of the United States, and their compassion in dealing with the civilian population. Some of our service personnel and some of the United States personnel have made the ultimate sacrifice to help remove the threat from Saddam's regime and to secure Iraq's liberation. We mourn them and we send our deepest condolences to their families and to their comrades in arms.
I also want to express my profound sorrow at the death of innocent Iraqi civilians as well as of a number of international journalists and aid workers. This is, I am afraid, a tragic consequence of military conflict, despite all the care taken by the coalition military forces to keep casualties to a minimum.
Given what we have seen and what we now know, there is understandable euphoria at the progress made in recent days. We must recognise, however, that the military task is far from complete. Large areas of Iraq are still not under coalition control, and units of the Iraqi armed forces are still engaged in combat. After years of brutal repression, we have also inevitably seen excesses and lawlessness on the streets as the old regime collapses. Coalition military forces will be doing all that they can to provide a secure environment for the Iraqi people.
For all the difficulties that may be ahead, we are, without question, now at the start of a new and much better chapter in Iraq's history. As our control extends, I am afraid that still more of the dark secrets of Saddam's regime will be revealed. Just two days ago, ITN's Bill Neely gained entry to Saddam's secret police building in Basra. In graphic detail, a former inmate, Hameed Fatil, described how he had been tortured, along with two of his brothers. Hameed was the lucky one; his two brothers, having been tortured, were then executed, but Hameed had to re-enact the ordeal that he had gone through before the cameras. There were no television cameras in Saddam's torture chambers—there are now, and the truth that they reveal is shocking.
As for Iraq's programmes to develop chemical and biological weapons—to develop weapons of mass destruction—we know that those programmes existed. We know that those weapons existed, and in 173 pages of damning detail the weapons inspectors have already spelt out all the questions that the Iraqi regime has failed so systematically to answer. We now will seek those answers, which the Iraqi regime failed to provide. We pledged to rid Iraq of those weapons, and we stand by that commitment.
406
The recent, rapid course of events has made all the more timely the discussions on Monday and Tuesday at Hillsborough between President Bush and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Those discussions were dominated by issues relating to post-conflict Iraq. Copies of the joint declaration issued by the two leaders have been placed in the Library.
Our immediate priority is to ensure the delivery of food, medicine and humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will make a statement on that shortly; but, in brief, British forces are already heavily engaged in the provision of humanitarian assistance and in the organisation of basic services in the areas of the south that we control. As the coalition brings security to more of Iraq's territory, the flow of assistance will increase. We are actively looking at sending police advisers to Basra to assist UK forces and to help to create a more lawful and peaceful environment as soon as possible, but our responsibilities to the people of Iraq go well beyond immediate humanitarian relief.
For a generation, Iraqi people were starved of information both about developments in their own country and in the wider world, but those days when they had to labour under the lies spread by Saddam's propaganda machine are now at an end. I am pleased to announce that a new Arabic television service, "Towards Freedom" is being launched in Iraq today, with opening statements from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush.
A major subject of discussion at Hillsborough was how best to help the people of Iraq build a stable and prosperous country, living in peace with its neighbours. The Hillsborough declaration emphasised that the United Nations had a "vital role" to play in the reconstruction of Iraq. The United Kingdom and United States plan to seek the adoption of new United Nations Security Council resolutions, which would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq. In that context, we welcomed the appointment, by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, of a special adviser to work on that range of issues.
At Hillsborough, we reaffirmed our commitment to protect Iraq's oil and other natural resources, as the patrimony of the people of Iraq, which should be used for their benefit, and for their benefit alone.
Active discussions are under way among members of the Security Council to prepare the ground for those further resolutions. In addition to participating in the Hillsborough discussions, I have travelled in the past week to Berlin, Brussels, Paris and Madrid for consultations with Secretary Powell and the Foreign Ministers of Germany, Russia, France and Spain and our other NATO and EU colleagues.
It is our guiding principle that, as soon as possible, Iraq should be governed by the Iraqi people themselves. We therefore support the early formation of an Iraqi interim authority, which will progressively assume the functions of government. The coalition will need to work with the UN in establishing that body. As an initial step, I greatly welcome—I believe that the House will, too—the initiative taken by British military

407
commanders in the south of Iraq to bring together local tribal leaders. I envisage at the right moment a national conference, bringing together credible representatives from all parts of Iraqi society to agree on the establishment of the interim authority.
Iraq's neighbours, too, have important interests at stake. They, like us, want to see a stable and prosperous Iraq living at peace in its region. Many of them have given valuable support to the military coalition. All will have an important contribution to make in the reconstruction phase. Last week, I saw the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mohamed Gul, and I look forward to talking to him again shortly. Next week, I will be visiting a number of Gulf states in the region.
My ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), will shortly be visiting Syria and Iran. It is important to maintain dialogue with both those countries. Syria and Iran now have their chance to play their part in the building of a better future for Iraq. I have maintained a dialogue over the past two years with the Iranian Government and, in particular, with Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, covering a wide range of issues, including some that cause us concern. As for Syria, we hope that it will now take the opportunity to make a decisive break with the policies of the past and so contribute to a better future for the entire region.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has so often emphasised, nothing would make a more significant contribution to stability in the region than a solution to the Israel-Palestine issue. That, too, was the subject of major discussion at Hillsborough. The Prime Minister and President Bush look forward to the publication of the road map as soon as Abu Mazen's Cabinet has been formed. President Bush made clear yet again his commitment and that of his Administration to implementing the road map and, as he said at the press conference, to expending the same amount of energy in the search for peace in the middle east as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done in respect of Northern Ireland.
For the Iraqi people, the search for a lasting peace began yesterday. Iraq has been a country essentially at war with its neighbours and itself for the past 24 years, its people subjected to a tyranny whose full horror will become ever more apparent in the coming days and weeks.
Just 23 days ago, this House endorsed the Government's decision to resort to the use of force in order to remove the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and to bring the Iraqi people's long nightmare to an end. In committing our armed forces in this way, we in this House took the most difficult decision that can ever face any democracy. But we were right to do so, and today we are well on the way to achieving the objectives that we in this House set. In doing so, we have taken on new responsibilities to and for the people of Iraq, and we will apply the same energy and commitment to fulfilling those responsibilities as we have to the military task.
Mr. Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for an advance sight of it.
408
While the conflict is not yet over, today must nevertheless be a good moment for the Foreign Secretary. We recognise the positive contribution that he has made to the emerging situation in Iraq today, and we must all welcome the enormous progress towards liberation that has been so swiftly and effectively achieved.
Three weeks ago, this House voted to send our armed forces to war. We asked much of them and they have responded magnificently. War is grim and cruel, but we can take pride in the courage, professionalism, attitude and, most importantly, restraint of our servicemen and women in this conflict. We pay tribute to them and to the American and other coalition forces as well.
We on the Conservative Benches remember with great sadness and pride those who gave their lives in the cause of bringing liberation to the people of Iraq and thereby making the world a better and safer place. Nor should we forget those innocent but unavoidable civilian victims of war who have been killed or wounded. They have also bought freedom for their country.
The military phase is clearly not yet complete. Our thoughts and prayers must remain with the coalition armed forces in the difficult and dangerous days ahead. However, we must look to the peace as well. Many unanswered questions remain. The first problem is the increasing outbreaks of lawlessness and looting. It is legally incumbent on the coalition to ensure public order and safety and means of enforcement. I presume that there were plans in place to deliver that. I should be grateful if the Foreign Secretary could tell us what they are. For example, could there be a role for NATO in helping to produce the manpower in the short term? Have Arab states made any offers to participate in peacekeeping? What proportion of the existing police service in Iraq can be sufficiently trusted to play a central part in enforcing the law? Security is an urgent matter, not least to enable the provision of humanitarian aid.
On Tuesday in Belfast, the Prime Minister and President Bush referred to the vital role of the United Nations. Will the Foreign Secretary clarify that? What precisely does "vital role" mean? Will he confirm that the United Nations is already involved through its control of current oil revenues under last week's renewed resolution on oil for food? Is it clear to whom, legally, the revenue from Iraq's oil belongs? What progress is being made to achieve a further resolution to lift current sanctions? I believe that that is needed to enable the restoration process to proceed. Is it included in the resolution that the United States tabled in the Security Council today? What else does that resolution contain? How many resolutions should we expect as a result of the Foreign Secretary's statement today?
The Foreign Secretary spoke of early steps to set up an interim administration. Will he give us an indication of the likely timetable for reconstruction? For example, will there be a conference in Naziriyah this weekend, as has been suggested? How soon and by what process will a leader of the interim authority emerge? When does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the interim authority will be in place? What will be its relationship with the Pentagon Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance? Will they run in tandem?
What did President Bush mean when he spoke of the United Nations helping to stand up an interim authority? When the Foreign Secretary mentioned

409
endorsement, did he mean that a resolution was imperative, or can it be achieved in other ways? Who will ensure that the interim Iraqi authority is, as promised, both Iraqi and representative of all parts of the country?
It was a bit rich of the French President, who ensured that neither France nor the United Nations are involved in the liberation of Iraq, to claim that
"reconstruction is a matter for the UN and it alone".
Did the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity yesterday, when he met his French counterpart, to refute that, and to point out that France's conduct in recent weeks gives it little or no authority to pontificate now?
We welcome the Foreign Secretary's reassertion that uncovering and eliminating weapons of mass destruction remain a key objective. What independent arrangements are being made to verify the discoveries when they are made?
We have long emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the state of Iraq. How does the Foreign Secretary intend to manage the inevitable tensions between Turkey and the Kurds in northern Iraq as Kirkuk, Mosul and the surrounding oil fields are liberated?
What is the Foreign Secretary's current assessment of reaction to war in the Gulf and the wider region? He mentioned the publication of the road map, which is obviously important. When will it be published—in days, weeks or months? Is he worried about the reported unhelpful activities of Syria?
The war's objectives—disarming Saddam Hussein, eliminating weapons of mass destruction and liberating the people of Iraq from oppression—were right when the House endorsed them three weeks ago. They remain right today. It is in all our interests that they are successfully achieved and that a prosperous and peaceful Iraq replaces the evil that has gone before. We must not waver in our determination to see them through.
Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous personal comments, which I reciprocate. Military action should not be an issue of partisan politics across the Chamber because that is bad for the country and, above all, bad for our armed forces. Thankfully, because of the official Opposition's statesman-like position, it has not been such an issue, and I express my gratitude to the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman, especially.
The right hon. Gentleman asked several questions and I shall do my best to reply to as many as I can. I am sure that other hon. Members will raise several of them. The increasing outbreaks of lawlessness were discussed in some detail this morning at a meeting of Ministers. The situation is, as ever, patchy, but reports as of this morning show that the situation is changing. British commanders in the south say that there seems to be less looting and lawlessness than before. They are doing everything that they can to ensure that law and order is restored and, as I said, we are looking actively at putting together teams of police advisers to assist with that role. Of course, we are aware of our responsibilities under the fourth Geneva convention, the Hague regulations and the additional protocol.
410
The right hon. Gentleman asked what we meant by the "vital role" for the United Nations. I was asked that yesterday, and no doubt I shall continue to be asked it. In the end, the judgment of whether the role of the United Nations turns out to be vital will be set against history. Reality will be the referee of that. President Bush did not use the word reluctantly; he volunteered the word three times in answer to questions during his press conference at Hillsborough. The framework is as set out in the decisions announced at Hillsborough and, before that, in the Azores. This country and the United States have recognised not only the general role for the United Nations, but its vital role on not only humanitarian relief, but reconstruction.
We are working with our partners in the United Nations Security Council on one or more further resolutions. The right hon. Gentleman asked how many, and that depends on the practicalities. One resolution—1472—has been passed since the military action began. Despite suggestions that we had run into difficulties, it was agreed rapidly, thanks not least to the co-operation of Germany, which sponsored it, and the resolution's unanimous support. We look forward to similar co-operation in the future.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about likely timetables. I am sorry that I cannot provide him with explicit timetables, but we are getting on with the job as quickly as possible. He asked about the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, which was established by the United States. Several of our people are working alongside General Garner and his staff. The body's function is as stated in its title—reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. It will 'work with the interim authority in the early stages, but we hope that such external institutions will be replaced relatively quickly by internal institutions that will be run for, by, and from the Iraqi people themselves.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the reported comment by the President of France. I raised that during constructive discussions yesterday morning with Dominique de Villepin, the French Foreign Minister, and I was assured that President Chirac had not used those words. [Interruption.] Well, the right hon. Gentleman asked the question and I raised it yesterday.
We understand Turkey's historic anxieties and also the anxieties of the Kurdish people on either side of the border. We look to Turkey, as we do to every other member of the United Nations, to comply with existing UN Security Council resolutions that lay down emphatically the importance of having respect for Iraq's territorial integrity within its existing borders. I shall talk to Foreign Minister Gul again shortly.
The right hon. Gentleman asked when the road map would be published. It will be published as soon as Abu Mazen's cabinet is in place—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, he asks whether that will be days or weeks, but I am afraid that that is a matter for Abu Mazen and Chairman Arafat, not for me.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about Syria and reports of its unhelpful activities. We hope that Syria's actions are not unhelpful, but to the extent that they are, we look to it to end any and all assistance to the Iraqi regime and to co-operate fully with the people of Iraq and coalition forces.
Mr. Mark Oaten: I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance notice of his statement. I am sure

411
that everyone in the House will welcome yesterday's events in Baghdad. We hope that they mark the end of the most intense period of this conflict and although military operations will continue, a welcome end is now in sight. Liberal Democrats join the Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to our armed forces and, of course, mourning the loss of life during the conflict.
The Foreign Secretary said that he stands by his commitment to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Will he outline who he believes should take a lead role in the task of identifying and disposing of any weapons of mass destruction that may be found in Iraq? Is that now a task for coalition troops or United Nations inspectors? The Prime Minister said yesterday that independent verification would be preferable. Did he mean that UN inspectors should be given the task and, if so, when does the Foreign Secretary envisage that it will be safe for them to return?
Now that Saddam's regime has fallen, does the Foreign Secretary still envisage that there will be direct attacks on Saddam himself or is the Government's policy now safe capture? If capture is the policy, will he confirm Saddam's status? Does he regard Saddam as a war criminal who is subject to international law, or is Saddam's fate subject to a decision made by any future Government in Iraq? What advice has the Foreign Secretary sought from the Attorney-General on that point?
Finally, the Foreign Secretary has made it repeatedly clear that occupying forces have a responsibility for law and order and people's welfare under international law. We welcome his statement that police advisers will be sent to Basra but, clearly, more than just advisers will be needed. What plans exist to change the role of British troops to policing and peacekeeping, and will more troops be required to fulfil those functions?
Mr. Straw: I greatly welcome the change of the Liberal Democrats' tone. There is always space in heaven—[Interruption.] I was about to say that there is always space in heaven for sinners to repent, but for the benefit of the Hansard reporters, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) added "bandwagon". I did not want them to be confused about what the hon. Gentleman said. The change of tone is good news and we look forward to further recantations of the Liberal Democrats' position. If they will the end, they have to will the means as well—
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): The end of Charlie.
Mr. Straw: We hope not.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) asked about inspectors. As I said in my statement, we are completely committed to finding the answers to the questions—173 pages of them—raised by UNMOVIC in its last, and final, report of this phase that was published as the Security Council meeting on 7 March finished. The military forces are bound to have the initial responsibility for that because we are in occupation and, for all sorts of reasons, the inspectors are not in Iraq.
We will discuss future arrangements for verification with the United Nations, Kofi Annan and our coalition partners, but any discoveries that are likely to made—
412
either by chance or in the heat of the battle—will almost certainly be made by coalition forces. Given those circumstances, I hope that there are no cries by people who did not support military action in the first place—who managed to will themselves into believing that there were no biological or chemical weapons in Iraq—that because coalition military forces make the discovery, if and when that happens, the veracity of their discovery is to be challenged. There is a reality that needs to be accepted.
The hon. Gentleman asked about direct attacks on Saddam versus his capture. I would much rather see that man put on trial as a war criminal. Unlike Saddam, I mourn for the death of any individual whether they are a criminal or innocent, and I am sure that I speak for the whole on House on that. However, I cannot say for certain in what circumstances—if any—that man will be either captured or apprehended.
On Saddam's status, we have of course taken advice from the Attorney-General. I have before me the full text of the relevant parts of the fourth Geneva convention, the Hague protocol and regulations and the additional protocol. It is likely that Saddam will be classified either as a criminal or an unprivileged belligerent. In any event, he will be put on trial if he is captured alive.
Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend is quite right: as the liberation of Iraq proceeds, more of the regime's dirty secrets will be revealed to the public at large. For human rights reasons alone, I am certain that the military action will be vindicated.
On war crimes, Indict's A list has 12 most wanted war criminals; its B list has 35. We know that at least one of them—Ali Hassan al-Majid—is dead, but the rest remain. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that if those people are alive, they will stand trial, preferably at a UN war crimes tribunal on Iraq which has long been awaited? Many documents will be found in the process of liberating Iraq. They will contain secrets that the regime will undoubtedly want destroyed. I hope that there is a system of preserving them so that the photographs and the documents in the police stations and cells can be used against those people who have committed those awful crimes.
Mr. Straw: I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend. She showed huge courage in standing up for an oppressed people in parts of Iraq and for the Iraqi people as a whole, and she has taken completely unwarranted and unjustified criticism for that. Unfolding before our eyes on the television screens is vindication enough for her stand.
War criminals were the subject of part of ministerial discussions this morning. We do not know where those people are, but if we did they would be apprehended if it were safe to do so. If they are alive and we can obtain evidence, the UK and the United States intend to ensure that they face the full rigour of the law. It all depends on the evidence because we, the United States and the international community operate trials according to the evidence, unlike the trial system operated in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. One critical part of gaining the evidence is to ensure the integrity of the evidential chain from the moment that the documents are discovered so that there

413
can be no accusation later of a contamination of evidence. We are in active discussion with our armed forces and those of the United States to ensure that that happens.
My hon. Friend also asked whether war criminals would be put on trial before a UN tribunal or some other tribunal. No decision has been taken. If we establish a Government and governance of Iraq by the Iraqi people, that would be a matter of intense discussion with them. Although I appreciate the role that UN tribunals, like those in respect of Yugoslavia and Rwanda, have played, they are hugely expensive. The tribunal on the former Yugoslavia has already cost more than $500 million; the tribunal on Rwanda is getting on for $600 million for nine indictees. We have to consider whether there are other swifter, more efficient, but equally just processes to bring such people to trial.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's generous tribute to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) will be echoed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In order to underline the Government's determination to have a smooth transition to Iraqi rule, will he discuss with the Prime Minister the possibility of appointing a resident Minister—a member of Her Majesty's Government—to be present in Iraq during those crucial weeks?
Mr. Straw: I will certainly raise it out of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but the better approach—the one that we are following, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made clear to the House—is for us to have a senior representative of the British Government with military experience working alongside General Jay Garner of the United States. When I am in the Gulf early next week I shall discuss those issues with General Garner and our representatives, but I believe that that is the better way to proceed for the time being.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister on the cardinal and indispensable role that they have played in placing a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians right at the top of the international agenda? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the liberation of Iraq highlights even more starkly the subjugation of the Palestinians, speedy, definitive progress on the road map will be the best way to dispel any scepticism in the Muslim world on the operations that are taking place?
Mr. Straw: I agree with my right hon. Friend and am grateful to him for his personal remarks, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be. As I have often said, delivering peace between Israel and the Palestinians requires an end to the terrible injustices perpetrated against the Palestinians. It also requires an end to the terror that the Israelis have suffered. One of the many benefits that should flow from the liberation of
414
Iraq is an end to the state sponsorship of desperate terrorism, which has caused such damage and death in Israel and the occupied territories.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Government will continue to work towards a political settlement in Iraq which enables our troops to come home as soon as possible and that we have learned the lessons of the mistakes of the Kosovo conflict which have left our troops there four years later? The prospect is that our troops will be home from Iraq a long time before they are home from Kosovo.
Mr. Straw: Yes is the answer, but there is a big difference between Kosovo and Iraq. Part of the problem is in determining the status of Kosovo. That is still unresolved. Is it a state or part of the former Republic of Yugoslavia? No or very few institutions were functioning properly in Kosovo whereas Iraq has an institutional base. We do not want to stay a day longer than we are needed, but we will stay as long as is necessary. That is the same for the United States. The whole purpose is to liberate Iraq, to deal with the weapons of mass destruction, to help support and sustain a secure and stable Iraqi Administration and developing democracy, and then leave.
Jane Griffiths: My right hon. Friend knows that BBC Monitoring Service, based in my constituency, has provided and will continue to provide an unrivalled, swift and unbiased news and information service from the region. Will he offer a message of congratulation to the staff there who have been providing that service in the last difficult weeks and months?
Mr. Straw: Yes, I would like to congratulate those staff and the staff of many other agencies whose unseen and unsung work has made such a contribution to the success of the action.
Peter Bottomley: It was necessary to have a national understanding of the reasons for Britain to be part of the coalition. May I publicly acknowledge that one of the important factors in that was the public decision of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) to stay in the Government? That has helped many people to understand that the purpose of the action is to benefit the Iraqi people, both in and outside Iraq.
In the coming months, will the Foreign Secretary give attention to whether far more can be done to spread the message around the world that very few wars are fought between sides that are both reasonably democratic, and very few high-level and persistent civil wars occur in countries whose Governments govern with the assent of the people?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman pays a generous, but entirely well-deserved compliment to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. I am sure that she is grateful—
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): indicated assent.
Mr. Straw: I know that she is, but I thought I ought to check. [Laughter.]

415
The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) makes an important point about democracy. Democracy is not only right in itself, but the greatest bulwark against terror, terrorism and tyranny. The events in Iraq in the past few days are fascinating to those who take an interest in the history of humankind. There was a regime that had immense power, but only the power that is exercised down the barrel of a gun; remove that, and all the power crumbles into dust. By contrast, democracy, the power of the spirit, lasts and lasts.
Mr. Tom Levitt: By some estimates, as much as one fifth of Iraq's population has fled the country in the past 20 years. Some Iraqis are in Britain today, and many of them either had or have acquired skills, professions and experience that would be invaluable in the rebuilding of their country. Will the Government be in a position to assist any Iraqi citizens who, of their own free will and in due course, wish to return to Iraq to contribute to the rebuilding of their country?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the 4 million people who were forced to leave Iraq. Their number is an indication of the desperate state of that country. It is early days, so I cannot make any promises about the type of programme that we might establish to get people back to Iraq, but I remind the House that we did that in respect of Kosovo and Afghanistan, and we shall of course take that experience into account.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I join the Foreign Secretary in his tribute to the forces, but will he include the Australians, who have often been forgotten, and perhaps even the Kurds, who have been advancing from the north with the Americans?
I understand the extent of the upheaval in Iraq, but I am concerned about media reports of one officer suggesting that, if it proves necessary, some Ba'athists might take on police activities again. We must be very careful about that. Based on our experience of people who have been involved in terrorism seeking to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland, we doubt that the people of Iraq will readily accept those who have persecuted them in the past continuing in such a role.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman raises the important and difficult issue of distinguishing between the leaders of the terror and those who went along with it because that was the nature of the society. We will have to make use of many people in the middle and lower ranks of all the services who remain in Iraq so that administration can continue—indeed, that is an obligation on us under the various conventions and texts of international law. Our armed forces initially, and then the interim authority, will have to make difficult judgments about who are genuinely culpable and who can be allowed to get on with their jobs once they have shown loyalty to the new Government or Administration. That is a task that must be undertaken.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State say what plans there are to establish a policing operation in Iraq to prevent further looting of many
416
benign public institutions, which will remove evidence that could be used to prosecute war criminals in future? By what date does he expect British and American forces to have withdrawn completely from Iraq and handed over either to a UN international body, or to an Iraqi organisation? Will he confirm that Britain and the United States have no plans to maintain either a permanent presence in Iraq, or permanent commercial control over the Iraqi people and economy?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend started well, but as ever—[Laughter.] Of course I cannot give a date—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? Give a date."] He knows very well that I cannot give a date. I have already said in answer to a previous question that our troops will not stay in Iraq longer than is necessary. We have no interest in them staying longer than is necessary.
As for oil, yes, some have suspected that oil is an issue, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has categorically answered those suspicions on many occasions, saying that if our sole interest had been Iraq's oil, we would have spared ourselves any humanitarian concern and taken the short cut to doing a deal with Saddam Hussein. The action has nothing whatever to do with oil. President Bush and the Prime Minister have repeated their commitment that the oil wealth and revenues of Iraq should be used for the Iraqi people alone. That is what will happen.
Mr. Paul Goodman: Does the Foreign Secretary believe that without a UN resolution, the coalition will represent "an occupying army" with no legal right to reconstruct Iraq? That is the view of the Secretary of State for International Development, who is in her place; is it the view of the Government?
Mr. Straw: The position is that the coalition forces have every lawful right to act in accordance with the various legal texts to which I have already drawn attention. Those rights and powers are extensive, and it goes without saying that everything that our forces and civilian personnel, and those of the United States, do will be strictly in accordance with international law.
Mr. Clive Betts: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially his comments about the need for a resolution of the Israel-Palestinian issue. No one doubts his commitment or that of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the middle east peace process, but a degree of scepticism persists about the depth of the US Government's commitment. Will he state whether he believes that the Americans are prepared to face up to the Israelis on the question of illegal settlements? Without their removal, there can be no unified and viable Palestinian state. Will he also give an assurance that the timetable accompanying the road map is not negotiable and will not be stretched into the distant future as a result of backstage pressure from the Israeli Government?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment. Achieving a peace raises difficult issues for all the parties concerned. There are difficult issues for the Government and the people of Israel, because they will have to deal with the questions of settlements, refugees and east Jerusalem. There are difficult issues for Arab

417
states, which will have to recognise the state of Israel. There are difficult issues for the Palestinians and the Arab states, who will have to stop terror.
As for the motives and commitment of the United States Government, I believe what I see with my own eyes: a President of the United States who is completely committed to what he says he will do. He is a man of his word and I believe that he will fulfil his commitments, first, to publish the road map, and then to exert the same energy to implement the road map as our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has exerted in respect of Northern Ireland, which is a huge amount. He knows the importance of delivering justice to the Palestinians and security to the Israelis, not only for those people, but for the security of the whole region.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that there be no reason for the liberated people of southern Iraq to turn against British troops? Those of us who served in Northern Ireland in 1969 remember when the Catholics turned against the British forces. Will he also recall the success of the use of British police and they way they helped during the elections in the run-up to the Rhodesia settlement? Finally, will he ensure that when the bulk of the British troops return, there will be a parade for them in London, so that people can see and thank them?
Mr. Straw: Although it is early days, I think we have already seen in Basra and the south that, far from their turning against British troops, as people's terror and shock from the regime gives way to confidence in the way that British troops undertake their duties so well, they are being welcomed, not rejected. Of course there will be criminal gangs. There will be members of the Ba'ath party who do not want to meet members of the armed forces, but they will be in a minority.
As for honouring our forces, the hon. Gentleman will realise that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. However, I am in no doubt that he will be committed to ensuring that appropriate means of honouring, collectively as well as individually, the fine service of our armed forces will be found.
Laura Moffatt: My right hon. Friend will have seen press statements about the Basra maternity hospital being looted. I welcome his commitment to considering sending police to assist our troops to restore law and order in such institutions. Understandably, there is anger among doctors in Basra about those events. There is also anger among clinicians in this country. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that work will continue to restore order as quickly as possible so that babies can be born safely in a free Iraq?
Mr. Straw: Yes, I give that undertaking. I also give an undertaking to ensure that we get water and power on as quickly as possible—in some instances power has been cut not as a result of coalition action but as a result of sabotage by retreating Iraqi forces—and that there are proper medical supplies.
Mr. James Paice: The Foreign Secretary and virtually all of us in the House
418
know full well that the only long-term ambition that either Britain or America has for Iraq is for it to be a peaceful and stable country, and for the action that has taken place to lead to a more stable and peaceful world. However, the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there are many people, especially in the region, who have their doubts about long-term objectives. Will he do everything that he can to ensure that those who are responsible for letting contracts for rebuilding Iraq understand that sensitivity, and that whatever the source of the money to pay for it, wherever possible Iraqi resources and companies and other resources within that region will be utilised to help to rebuild the country—rather than the activity being seen as somehow a business opportunity for other parts of the world?
On a personal note, I add that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister deserve and are entitled to a few days' break over the next few weeks. I mean that genuinely. However, will they find time to consider what has been happening in one or two other parts of the world while the eyes of the world have been directed on Iraq? I am thinking particularly of some horrendous incidents in Zimbabwe.
Mr. Straw: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the behaviour of the coalition forces and the Governments who are behind them in the way in which we deal with post-conflict Iraq. We must show the same high standards as our armed forces have shown in the military conflict.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about time off. I have already cancelled a holiday. I took that decision when military action began. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right about conflicts that are going on elsewhere. I reassure him by saying that although these issues have not been front-page headlines, I have been very concerned, for example, about Zimbabwe and by the brutal treatment that has been shown by ZANUPF forces as they appear to be losing their grip in parts of that country. Similarly, I have been very concerned about the rising tension across the line of control between India and Pakistan.
Clare Short: The Congo too.
Mr. Straw: And the Congo. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
Those three issues have been subjects of discussions, not least at Hillsborough.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Surely no one could have failed to be moved by the pictures yesterday of the jubilation of ordinary Iraqi people in celebrating their freedom. It much reminded me of when I sat watching the television when Nelson Mandela walked free from his incarceration. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Iraqi people could do worse than consider some of the experiences that South Africa had on its road to building freedom in that country?
Saddam's evil and brutal rule is over in Iraq. Once again, brave men and women have given their lives to the great prize of freedom. We owe them a great debt of honour.
Mr. Straw: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, including his point about South Africa. I pay tribute to

419
his son, who is serving with our armed forces in the Gulf, and through his son to all his fellow comrades in arms in our services, the United States services and the Australian services.
I shall draw the attention of the House to a remark that I think says almost everything about the Iraqi regime and its complete absence of principle or scruple. It is what I heard on the radio this morning, as many others did, from Mohammed al-Duri, who was the Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations. Unfortunately, I spent many hours sitting in the same room with him listening to him explain and justify the evil nature of the Iraqi regime. He speaks extremely good English and knows what he is saying. He said, "The game is over." So for him, the killing, the terror and the lies were all a game, and he knew it. Those who think that we were wrong to take action—the apologists who are still around—need to bear in mind that one of the greatest apologists for the Iraqi regime has put his hands up and said, "The game is over."
Mr. Paul Marsden: rose—
Hon. Members: Oh no.
Mr. Marsden: Please, please. Wait for it.
Does it not say so much about the Government that as the bodies are being stacked up in the main Baghdad hospital, the Government see it as a priority to set up a new propaganda television station? Thirsty Iraqi civilians will not be impressed by replacing the 6 o'clock news with Saddam with the 10 o'clock news with Tony.
Mr. Straw: I doubt very much whether that will gain the approbation of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
Mike Gapes: We have had many years of experience of dealing with authoritarian regimes—for example, de-Nazification, what happened in Japan and the work that was done in central and eastern Europe over the past decade. I declare an interest as chair of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I ask my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development whether early consideration can be given to how we can go forward on an all-party basis, as we have done over many years, to help the people of Iraq get a genuine, multi-party democratic system.
Mr. Straw: Yes is the answer to that. It is worth bearing in mind that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy has been active in eastern Europe. Some of those countries suffered under tyrants who were nearly as bad as Saddam Hussein, including Romania's Ceaucescu. They have emerged from those shadows to form an active, functioning democracy, and are about to come into the European Union. We can do the same, or similar, for Iraq, by giving it support to empower its own people to form that active democracy.
Several hon. Members: rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Provided that there are brief questions and only one from each Member, I shall be able to call all the Members who are standing.
Tony Baldry: The Foreign Secretary was right to draw attention to the failures of the war crimes
420
tribunals in Bosnia and Rwanda, but there is another model that the United Kingdom and the United States initiated and were responsible for, which is the successful tribunal in Sierra Leone that has its own specific UN mandate. I wonder whether that might be a model for Iraq. It would ensure that whatever happens is under the authority of the UN and has international respect.
Mr. Straw: There are a number of models, including domestic ones. We need to consider what will work and what will be most cost effective.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will democracy in Iraq not require even more than political parties and general elections? Will it not require extensive civil liberties so that people can form interest groups to represent their positions, such as the trade unions that have traditionally been strong in the Basra area? Will the Government see that the Iraqi labour movement is facilitated to ensure that it has a full role in the establishment of a new Iraq?
Mr. Straw: We will certainly look at that question.
Angus Robertson: May I echo the Foreign Secretary's condolences on the deaths of service personnel, civilians and journalists in conflict, and praise the professionalism of the UK armed forces? In welcoming the apparent end of the Hussein regime, I wish to ask a specific question about post-Hussein Iraq? The Foreign Secretary will be aware that there has been widespread autonomy for the Kurds in recent years, including different arrangements in the oil-for-food programme. Will the UK Government support the Kurds if they wish to maintain that devolution in future?
Mr. Straw: We greatly welcome the autonomy that the Kurds have been able to achieve. Iraq is a country with many differences within it, but it is crucial that whatever arrangements are reached they are developed and agreed by the Iraqi people within the essential framework decided by the international community—the United Nations—on the territorial integrity within the existing borders of Iraq.
Glenda Jackson: Who will decide who constitutes a credible representative of the Iraqi people in the interim Government? We are receiving reports that there is no agreement at the moment in the American Administration on the issue, and there are clear differences of opinion between the Departments of State and Defence. Will the responsibility for that decision therefore rest with the United Nations?
Mr. Straw: It will not be possible for it to be done by the United Nations simply because it would be premature for the UN to be involved in that direct way. In any event, even it was, it does not have the expertise to say that X should be a representative but Y should not be. We have agreed with the United States and the international community that those decisions will be made by the Iraqi people themselves. We have already made it clear that we want to work with the United Nations and, of course, coalition forces, but we have to

421
start somewhere. As in Afghanistan, one starts somewhere, gets representative councils together at a regional level which then come together and form a national conference. They start off with an interim authority, which is what we are talking about, then, over time, more democratic and representative institutions are built up.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: What is the danger of the liberation of Baghdad being used as a justification by the regime in North Korea for acquiring its own nuclear deterrent? Will the Foreign Secretary see his Chinese and Russian counterparts to ensure that the UN takes a robust line on that issue?
Mr. Straw: I do not think that there is any excuse for the action currently being taken by North Korea in defiance of its international obligations. Yes, this is a matter that I have actively discussed with my Chinese and Russian counterparts, and, of course, with Secretary Powell, Mrs. Kawaguchi, the Japanese Foreign Minister, and many others.
Mr. John Burnett: I understand that Iraq's national debt, incurred by Saddam Hussein, is well over $50 billion. I assume that there have been discussions in connection with that massive liability. Does the Foreign Secretary believe that that debt is properly and lawfully repayable?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman would have to ask a better lawyer than me about that last question, but we are looking carefully at the issue of potential liabilities of any successor Government, and are discussing it with the international financial institutions as well as the United Nations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will happily deal with that in greater detail when she makes her statement.
Mr. Mark Prisk: In his statement, the Foreign Secretary said that the search for a lasting peace in Iraq began yesterday. I agree with those sentiments. However, our armed forces are still in theatre and still face dangers, so will the Foreign Secretary clarify at what point, legally speaking, he, the Government and the coalition will regard the war as over? If, as I suspect will be the case, there is no neat point, what implications does that have for the formation of a lasting civilian Government?
Mr. Straw: I doubt that there will be a neat moment. Self-evidently, there will not be a moment when a
422
surrender by Saddam Hussein is accepted because he has taken the coward's way out, if he is still alive. Certainly, all his henchpeople have taken that way out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Henchpeople!"] Women as well, I must point out, have been actively involved in the biological weapons programme. There will therefore not be a precise moment—historians will judge it later. As for international law on occupation and armed conflict, the coalition forces will be the authority until we can transfer that authority to an interim authority in Iraq and then a full Government. There will be a phased transfer according to the nature of the governmental functions to be transferred.
Dr. Vincent Cable: In view of the commitment in the statement to protect Iraq's natural resources as the patrimony of the people of Iraq, who will represent the people of Iraq in negotiations, some of which are urgent, to determine the terms and conditions of operating contracts in the oilfields and the future of things such as the production-sharing agreement with the Russian company, Lukoil.
Mr. Straw: There is a well established and, I am told, technically very good oil organisation in Iraq. We obviously have to make a decision about those right at the top of the organisation. but I am told that most people are there because of their expertise in running an oil organisation, not for other reasons. In the early stages, we will have to do our best with the available resources and people but, over time, we will get the interim authority established, then the decisions can be seen to be more legitimate. However, we have to start somewhere.
Chris Grayling: May I take the Foreign Secretary back to the question of Syria? Is there any substance to persistent reports that Syria has been harbouring both Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and now members of the outgoing Iraqi regime, and, if so, what action do he and the United States plan to take?
Mr. Straw: I am well aware of the persistence of those reports, but I am not willing to speculate on them. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there have been conversations between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of Syria and between our ambassador in Damascus and the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As I have said already, we expect the Syrian Government not to take any action and to desist from any action that they have already taken, whether harbouring people from the regime or supplying or otherwise assisting them. We want them to co-operate fully with the coalition forces, as that is very much in their interest as a neighbour of Iraq.

Business of the House
1.37 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Dr. John Reid): The business for the week after the Easter recess will be as follows:
MONDAY 28 APRIL—Commons consideration of Lords Amendments to the European Parliament (Representation) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 29 APRIL—Opposition day [5th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Title to be confirmed.
WEDNESDAY 30 APRIL—Motion to approve a money resolution on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, followed by Commons consideration of Lords Amendments to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, followed by Commons consideration of Lords Amendments to the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
THURSDAY 1 MAY—Debate on Broadband on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 2 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
Right hon. and hon. Members will wish to know that the provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 5 MAY—The House will not be sitting
TUESDAY 6 MAY—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Mr. Eric Forth: May I welcome the Leader of the House to his new responsibilities, and hope that he finds them both enjoyable and satisfying? I am sure that he will be conscious of the role that he plays as Leader of the House in representing the interests of the House at the highest levels of government. Has he had an opportunity yet to read the document issued by the Committee on Standards in Public Life entitled "Defining the Boundaries within the Executive: Ministers, Special Advisers and the permanent Civil Service"? I hope that, if he has, he will be able to assure us of an early opportunity to debate the document, and that he will make a commitment now that the Government intend to carry out its recommendations—not least, for example, that
"an independent office holder, called an Adviser on Ministerial Interests, should be established to provide advice to Ministers on compliance with those sections of the Ministerial Code which cover the avoidance of perceived and actual conflicts between their public duties and private interests, formal or otherwise."
Further recommendations include:
"The Civil Service should be established in statute."
"Special advisers should be defined as a category of government servant distinct from the Civil Service."
"A clear statement of what special advisers cannot do should be set out in primary legislation."
"The total number of special advisers should be contained in statute, with an upper limit subject to alteration by resolution approved by both Houses of Parliament."
424
The report also proposes that
"An Accounting Officer should not hesitate to notify his or her concerns, in accordance with Treasury guidelines for Accounting Officers, where he or she believes that the Minister in charge of the department is contemplating a course of action relating to the operation of the press office which would infringe the requirements of financial propriety or regularity."
Under the heading "Securing the boundaries", the report suggests that
"The Government should begin an early process of public consultation on the contents of a draft Bill. The Bill should receive pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."
I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that there is some important material in this report. I also hope that, if he has not already read and absorbed it, he will do so quickly and that he will make a commitment today that these matters will be dealt with urgently by the Government, covering, as they do, important matters such as special advisers and the integrity and impartiality of the civil service.
I am sure that the Leader of the House will recall what the Chancellor said yesterday, because he was sitting right beside him. The Chancellor was recorded faithfully in Hansard as saying that
"the British economy is now better placed to recognise local and regional conditions in pay, such as the extra costs for retention and recruitment that arise in London and the south-east, especially for the low-paid. In future, therefore, we plan regional price indexes showing differences in regional inflation rates; remits for pay review bodies and for public sector workers, including the civil service, will include a stronger local and regional dimension". —[Official Report, 9 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 283.]
I am sure that the Leader of the House endorses thoroughly everything that the Chancellor said in that regard. I am sure that he is enthusiastic about it and I am sure that he will want to tell us today of the degree of urgency with which he will want to press ahead with those recommendations, and of the nature of the vehicle by which the Chancellor's excellent statement will be brought to fruition.
Finally, may I ask the new Leader of the House when we are going to see the foundation hospitals Bill?
Dr. Reid: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very gracious welcome, which I believe is fairly untypical. I will take it as being a new start, and I will respond in as emollient a fashion—[Interruption.] Well, I did my homework, as you would expect, Mr. Speaker. I have never regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a "libertarian thug" or a "Scottish brute", which I understand is how one of his former parliamentary colleagues describes him. I actually felt quite relieved that a strange journalist, Mr. Quentin Letts, should have described me in much less strong terms than the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues appear to use to describe him. I have never found the right hon. Gentleman to be those things, however, and I look forward to emollient exchanges across the Dispatch Box. I should also pay tribute to my predecessor, who I know was widely respected on both sides of the House, and to my deputy, who stood in over the last few weeks. [HON. MEMBERS: " We want Ben!"] Well, given the rate at which I change jobs, you might well have Ben in the very near future.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of the Wicks report. He will be aware that it was published only on Tuesday of this week. We will, of

425
course, consider its recommendations carefully. It is too early for us to give a line-by-line analysis of it, although the right hon. Gentleman went a long way towards doing so when he took us through it. I am grateful to him for that, as there are now large passages of it that I will not have to read, having had them helpfully dictated to me. At first glance, some of the recommendations—including some to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—have already been implemented or are already happening in practice. We will look carefully at the report, however, and give it our urgent consideration, because we take this important topic seriously. We will also bear in mind, although the right hon. Gentleman did not mention it today, his constant robust opposition to over-regulation in government.
Mr. Forth: Not in this area.
Dr. Reid: I see that this is an exception to that rule.
On the British economy, I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to remind us of a subject that is creating its own historic headlines in terms of the lowest inflation for some three decades, the lowest interest rates—it has been announced today that they are remaining low—since 1955, the highest number of people in work, the lowest unemployment rate and the longest sustained growth in the British economy. These things not only give us a degree of certainty in an uncertain world, but enable us to combine nationwide guarantees, as exemplified by the national minimum wage and the working families tax credit, with a degree of flexibility, as the Chancellor described yesterday. We will approach that matter with a degree of urgency, as the right hon. Gentleman requested. He asked me to calibrate the degree of urgency, and I think it will please the Liberals to know that the matter will be treated with urgency in due course.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions and I look forward to our exchanges across the Floor of the House, including those on foundation hospitals when we come to debate that issue.
I do not know whether it is appropriate to mention it on this occasion, but I was warned that, during business questions, we are expected to signify our stance by the nature of our ties and socks. I chose a tie today that I hope represents stability and certainty in a very uncertain world. I cannot say the same for the rather garish tie that the right hon. Gentleman is wearing today, but, unlike him and his colleagues, we do not take risks, either with the economy or with the social development of our country.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am not called Tyler for accidental reasons. May I reiterate the congratulations that I and my colleagues have already given to the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion? May I draw to his attention early-day motion 1048, which relates to the UK Gulf forces trust fund?
[That this House welcomes the establishment of the UK Gulf Forces Trust Fund to channel charitable public support for members of the UK Armed Forces and attached civilians involved in the war in Iraq; notes that the fund will also benefit their dependents; congratulates
426
the National Service charities The Army Benevolent Fund, King George's Fund for Sailors and the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund, and The Royal British Legion and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association and other service charities, on establishing and promoting the new fund; and calls on the Government and honourable and Right honourable Members to urge the public to give generously to the UK Gulf Forces Trust Fund.]
I am sure that, in his previous capacity as a Defence Minister, the right hon. Gentleman will have recognised what the British Legion has also told us, which is that once the focus of public and media attention has moved on from the hostilities, it is much more difficult for such a trust fund to raise the necessary sums of money from the public. As we must all hope that we are now moving into such a phase, will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to say, on behalf of the Government, that they enthusiastically endorse that trust fund for the UK Gulf forces and their dependents?
May I also draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1018? Will he take this opportunity to reiterate his personal commitment to removing outdated religious discrimination?
The Parliamentary Secretary will recall that, at last week's business questions, I raised the question of the Wicks Committee, and I am delighted to have gained the support of the Conservative party on that issue, albeit a week late. Will the Leader of the House now consider urgently whether the proposed civil service legislation is appropriate for pre-legislative scrutiny, either by both Houses together or by this House, because there is clearly going to be a great deal of discussion about its contents? I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that the Wicks Committee's recommendations are very far-sighted. I think he would also agree, however, that they require careful scrutiny by the House. Will the Government therefore bring forward a draft Bill, and can we have pre-legislative scrutiny of it?
Dr. Reid: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's last point first. He will be aware that we are attempting to use pre-legislative scrutiny more and more for the legislation that comes before the House. Indeed, it was one of the advances—sometimes referred to as "modernisation", although it is actually a more rational way of looking at these things—introduced by my predecessor. I cannot give a commitment regarding the specific Bill, but I will certainly give a commitment to view the matter sympathetically.
I must confess that I am not familiar with the detail of either of the early-day motions mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall work through as much as I can by next week. I can say this about the first EDM: I think that anyone who has observed developments over the past few weeks will recognise that, notwithstanding all the vagaries of politics, the people who have really taken the risks—as they always do in such circumstances—are the young men and women of the British armed forces. Earlier today someone spoke of the possibility of honouring them, and I dare say that that will be considered; but I think no better honour could be bestowed on them than the expressions on the faces of some of the people filmed yesterday confronting their first few days of freedom. The confusion, anticipation, relief and joy reflected on those faces did indeed

427
constitute such an honour. But any initiative, through trusts or otherwise, to raise money or look after our armed forces in some other way is to be encouraged.
As for the general issue of religious discrimination, I can only say that I am against such discrimination on any grounds—as would be expected from someone with my background, who, it seems, is prohibited from marrying the monarch or the monarch's daughter. That is a great pity for monarchs' daughters; but I personally have never had such a proclivity, and I do not want anyone to read too much into the information!
Again, the question is one of priorities. Given the range of business before the House, it may take a little time to get rid of many things that are objectionable but largely irrelevant in the modern world.
Several hon. Members: rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I hope I can engage the sympathy of the House. We have a crowded business schedule, and I cannot guarantee that I will call everyone who wants to question the Leader of the House. Another important statement follows, and we must then proceed to the Budget debate, to which a great many Members wish to contribute. A great many Members also wish to go home at 6 pm. There are difficulties for the Chair, and I would appreciate very brief questions and very brief answers.
Mr. Robin Cook: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment to what I believe is the most enjoyable job in the Cabinet. I hope he has as much fun at the Dispatch Box on Thursday afternoons as I used to.
Somewhere in my right hon. Friend's in-tray will be a brief setting out the agreement that most Bills to be dealt with in the next Session should be published in draft during the current Session. Many Members think that the best way of strengthening scrutiny here would be to let Parliament comment on Bills while they are still in draft, before being frozen in their final form. I should warn my right hon. Friend, however, that—I know this from experience—Departments will only come up with the goods if he continues to nag them to meet the deadlines. May I assure him that he will have my full-hearted and enthusiastic support, and that of many Members on both sides of the House, if he maintains the pressure on Departments to deliver the drafts before the summer recess?
Dr. Reid: I thank my right hon. Friend for his advice. I assure him that I will do as he suggested. No doubt that was only one of the valuable pieces of wisdom that he will pass on when we have our discussions this week. Let me repeat, on behalf of the whole House, grateful thanks for all that he did for the Government in this and indeed other positions.
Sir Patrick Cormack: As the House no longer has an opportunity to debate private Members' motions, and as certain issues can be decided only on substantive motions, will the right hon. Gentleman—whom I welcome warmly to his new task—give us an opportunity before the end of this Session to
428
debate, at the very least, the new Tuesday sitting hours? Many Members whose votes secured that narrow majority of seven have changed their minds.
Dr. Reid: There are many routes to the same destination. We covered some of them a few days ago during questions to the President of the Privy Council, when I said that, whatever my own views, I did not want to be coming in with some agenda to reverse everything or anything. I also said, however, that I had an open mind, and that the House could take stock as things developed. I think it would be best to allow a reasonable time in which to try out the arrangements in practice, regardless of our original views, and to deal with issues as they arise—but only in the event of substantial and genuine practical problems. As I have said, I have an open mind. It will depend on what evidence of problems there is.
Mr. Wayne David: As my right hon. Friend will know, a Standing Committee meets from time to time to discuss the Convention on the Future of Europe. Unfortunately it was difficult to secure a quorum at its last meeting, one reason being a clash with another European Standing Committee. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that everything possible is done to avoid such clashes in future?
Dr. Reid: It is up to Committees to decide when they meet, and Committees are rightly jealous of their powers in this and many other respects, but I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I will do anything I can to facilitate a more convenient agreement.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the new Leader of the House tell us when he expects the Report stage of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill to take place? As he will know, at least three months elapsed before it was rushed through its Committee stage, during which only a small proportion of its provisions were discussed. I am sure that the Minister responsible will confirm that there was no attempt at filibustering. This seems to me to be an unnecessary and inefficient way of dealing with an important measure: the inadequate time allowed in Committee means that the other place will have to deal with most of the Bill.
Dr. Reid: Although I was not centrally involved with that Bill, I know that it was widely regarded as important, indeed urgent. I am afraid that I cannot specify the exact timelines at this stage, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Yesterday I learnt that someone in the Home Office had leaked the information that the Government's response to the Home Affairs Committee's report on historical sex abuse would be published on Friday for Merseyside police authority. I had no objection to the leak other than on the grounds that the Committee's Chairman did not have that information, and neither did I, as chair of the all-party abuse investigations group.
I assume that the information was leaked for a number of reasons, not least to enable the police authority to defend itself in an indefensible position, but

429
I strongly object to the leaking of the information before it was given to members of the Select Committee. I also resent the fact that the document will be issued on what is essentially the last Friday of this term, which means that the subject may well drown in the proliferation of press reports on Saturday. Will the Leader of the House instigate a Home Office inquiry immediately to ascertain how such a thing can have happened?
Dr. Reid: I share my hon. Friend's concern. This is a serious issue, which I know has affected a number of her constituents. A number of groups and stakeholders have been involved in the process. I assure my hon. Friend that any information in the public domain did not come from Ministers. I have no authority to initiate an inquiry into the leak, but I want to make that plain. The Government's response will be published tomorrow; in the meantime, as I have said, I share my hon. Friend's concern.
Sir Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House acknowledge the importance of the approaching enlargement of the European Union to agriculture in this country? Given the Doha round and the mid-term review, is there not a case for an early debate on agriculture and its future in the United Kingdom?
Dr. Reid: I agree that all those things are important. Indeed, before the headlines were diverted to the Iraq conflict they featured in our discussions with our European colleagues. I am sure that they would indeed benefit from further discussion; Westminster Hall might provide a useful vehicle.
Mr. David Watts (St. Helens, North): My right hon. Friend will be aware that the current European structural fund programme ends in 2006, and that consultation is taking place between this Government and our European partners. Will he find parliamentary time for discussion of this important issue?
Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend will undoubtedly be aware that we are obliged to report on progress made against economic performance measures by 2006. I am pleased to say, however, that my hon. Friend's constituency has benefited by almost £20 million under the current structural fund programme. Economic performance will be examined in due course, and although matters may be difficult, let us hope that next time, we get as much benefit as we possibly can from the structural fund for my hon. Friend's constituency, and for the whole country.
Mr. Roger Gale: I am sure that you will share, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the appreciation of all hon. Members for the work carried out by the House of Commons post office and its staff. You will also know that the Royal Mail Group has now curtailed its evening collections from the House, and as a result the last collection is at 6 o'clock. Given the new sitting hours, that makes life very difficult for Members, who now find it necessary to process mail in the early evening to send to offices for onward work. The Royal Mail Group has
430
written to me today, saying that this is not directly a result of its wishes, but is an imposition of Postcomm under the terms of its licence.
The House appears to be being treated as a business, rather than as part of the democratic process. May I ask the Leader of the House to make representations to Postcomm, and to explain the difference as subtly as he knows how, in order that the postal service that the Royal Mail Group would like to provide for us can be restored?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Dr. Reid: I will look into this issue, which has been raised before. If the authority that the hon. Gentleman mentions is indeed involved, I shall try to convey his views, which are shared by all Members.
Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will probably be aware that 28 April is workers' memorial day. Given that 28,000 serious accidents and more than 300 fatalities occur in British workplaces every year, will he give close consideration to having an early debate on the Floor of the House on how to revitalise health and safety legislation?
Dr. Reid: I am aware that my hon. Friend is promoting a private Member's Bill on health and safety at work, and I have a great deal of sympathy with and support for that, as do the Government. I know that he will raise this issue for debate at every opportunity, and rightly so. It should be a matter of concern for all of us, and perhaps he might like to apply for an Adjournment debate on it as well.
Mr. John Bercow: I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in the execution of his new responsibilities. Given the growing coverage of severe acute respiratory syndrome, which was highlighted in an important letter to The Times last Thursday by Mr. Malcolm Rees, a lecturer in health economics at the University of Buckingham, which is in my constituency, may we please have a statement or a debate, in government time, on the epidemiology of the disease and the possible development of a vaccine against it, and on the advice proffered by the Department of Health to those who think that they might suffer from the disease?
Dr. Reid: I will make the hon. Gentleman's views known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, because this is a very important issue. In many cases, the less that is known about such issues, the more frightening they are to the public. The Government have certainly tried to do what we can to put information in the public domain. The Department of Health issued information and advice to all general practitioners, trusts and public health authorities as early as Thursday 13 March, and on Monday 7 April it issued advice to the public, and to those travelling to south-east Asia on this specific subject. Partly as a result of this timely response, to date we have had, I think, only five probable cases in the United Kingdom, compared with a total of some 2,722 in other countries.
Obviously, my thoughts are with anyone who has suffered in this way, including the hon. Gentleman's constituent, and their families. The hon. Gentleman can

431
be assured that the Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency are continuing to monitor the situation, and we will try to put as much information in the public domain as possible.
Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing a debate in Government time on the current Competition Commission inquiry and the recent Office of Fair Trading inquiry into the future of the retail supermarket industry? In particular, will he acknowledge the concern of many of my constituents in the north Harrow and Pinner districts about a possible future closure programme in respect of any new owner of the Safeway store chain, given the importance of Safeway stores to the economic health of other businesses in those district centres?
Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend will know that we take the issue of competition very seriously, and he may also know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has referred four of the five proposed acquisitions of Safeway to the Competition Commission. The commission will report by 12 August, so it should not be that long before we have a response. Of course, we keep competition in all aspects of industry and commerce under constant review.
Mr. Roy Beggs: May I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role as Leader of the House, on behalf of my Ulster Unionist colleagues? We may not always have seen eye to eye when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but we hope that this new beginning for him could be a new beginning for us all. I should also pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary for his work as acting Leader of the House; he confirmed to us all that he will be a greater star one day.
May I add my voice to those who have already called for an urgent statement on Northern Ireland? May I also call on the Leader of the House, given this afternoon's news that the visit of the Prime Minister and Taioseach to Hillsborough has had to postponed due to yet more republican intransigence, to allow an urgent debate in Government time—so that we can reflect on this issue—on the need to move on without Sinn Fein-IRA if it refuses to carry out the very necessary acts of completion that ought to have been carried out long ago?
Dr. Reid: On the latter subject, I am not completely up to date on the past hour's news, because I have been on the Front Bench. However, as promised, the Prime Minister will make a statement on wider matters before we rise, on Monday, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will wish to take the opportunity to raise certain issues with him. To judge from my limited but hopefully valuable experience of Northern Ireland—it was certainly valuable to me, as well as enjoyable—it would be a great boon to everyone if we were to draw to a conclusion the decades, and in some cases centuries, of terrible factional fighting and pain in what is a beautiful part of the United Kingdom.
432
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, and in particular for what he said about my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am familiar with the refrain of the "Star of County Down", but I understand that we now have a star of the office of the Leader of the House, as well.
Mr. Richard Bacon: In his letter to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, the deputy Leader of the House acknowledged that business managers would make more time available for a debate on the European Convention "if need arises". Will the Leader of the House accept my assurance that the need and the opportunity have arisen, and that a good time for such a debate—on the Floor of this House—would be after the Praesidium has finished its discussions on 25 May, and before the resumption of the Convention in early June, so that Ministers can explain their position, and all hon. Members can explain, in a high-profile debate in Government time, their concerns to members of this House's representation to the Convention?
Dr. Reid: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific commitment today, but he will know that we have devoted considerable time to debating this issue in various forums, including Westminster Hall.
Mr. Bacon: On the Floor of the House.
Dr. Reid: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I lack many qualities, but I can hear and understand English, despite my accent. We will keep that issue, and many others, under review.
Andrew George: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government suffered an effective defeat when they failed to secure a majority in this morning's delegated legislation Standing Committee considering the Sea Fishing (Restrictions) Order, which would restrict days at sea? Liberal Democrat Members prayed against the order and forced a debate, largely because the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments found the order to be "defectively drafted". Will the Leader of the House ensure that time is found for a full report on the matter, and for a debate on the Floor of the House?
Dr. Reid: I understand that, unfortunately, there were two errors in the way that the order was drafted, but also that neither was significant or substantial. The errors related to limited aspects of the scheme and did not create any real problems for enforcement, nor jeopardise the entire vires of the order, as has been suggested. Therefore, the basic days at sea provision, one of the substantial matters addressed by the order, is not affected.
We will shortly introduce an amendment to correct those errors, and to include any adjustments necessary as a consequence of the recent agreement in the European Agriculture and Fisheries Council on amendments to the EU scheme. I cannot give the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) a specific

433
guarantee that that will happen on the Floor of the House, but the amendments will be brought forward shortly to remedy the errors that I have outlined.
Mr. Tim Boswell: I am an officer of the all-party group on abuse investigations, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). I endorse the hon. Lady's remarks earlier, as there is a real worry that miscarriages of justice may have taken place and that people may be in prison who should not be there. Does the Leader of the House agree that one thing at least could be done to make a positive contribution to dealing with the embarrassment caused by the publication of the report just before Easter, and the real situation that is continuing, and that that would be to arrange for an early and full debate so that the matter can be thrashed out?
Dr. Reid: I am not sure that the release of the report before Easter is an embarrassment in itself, although, as I have said already, I have considerable sympathy for, understanding of and agreement with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) about the leak. Obviously, I shall reflect on the matter to see whether there is anything more that I think can be done to compensate, but I do not think that the necessary investigative powers are part of my remit or vires.
Pete Wishart: May I, on behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, also welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position? A consensual figure such as he is exactly what is required as the new Leader of the House. In that spirit, will the right hon. Gentleman follow the example of his predecessor in making sure that the interests of the minority parties are looked out for? Specifically, will he continue to make progress in ensuring that we have our
434
rightful and fair places on Select Committees, and that a member of the minority parties gets a place on the Liaison Committee?
Dr. Reid: Not only do I have reputation for being emollient and consensual, but the hon. Gentleman knows that I am also a long-time guardian of the interests of the Scottish National party. He can be assured that I shall do everything that I can to continue that tradition.
Michael Fabricant: I was alarmed to hear the Leader of the House say that we would have a debate on broadband on 1 May.
Keith Hill: Why?
Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) asks why I was alarmed, so I shall explain. The most controversial aspect with broadband is its availability in rural areas. Has the Leader of the House forgotten that 1 May is local elections day, particularly in rural areas? I shall try to be in the House to discuss the important question of broadband, but I and many other hon. Members of all parties are likely to be drawn back to our constituencies for election day. That could make it impossible for us to discuss the availability of broadband in rural areas. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider moving the debate away from 1 May to a time when all hon. Members can be here to discuss this important issue?
Dr. Reid: I understand the hon. Gentleman's question, but two things strike me. First, I did not anticipate that a complaint would be levelled at me on my first appearance at the Dispatch Box in my new role about the fact that the House would be having a debate on a certain matter. Normally, complaints arise for the opposite reason. Secondly, I had not anticipated a demand from the Conservative party that we should take a holiday on 1 May.

Iraq (Humanitarian Situation)
2.15 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the humanitarian situation in Iraq, and the international planning for post-conflict rehabilitation and development.
As the House knows, it is now 22 days since military action began. Coalition forces are occupying a large part of Iraq, including parts of Baghdad. British forces are occupying much of the south-east. Our forces have been providing humanitarian assistance in the areas that they occupy, in line with their obligations under the Geneva convention and the Hague regulations. The Treasury has provided £30 million to fund these efforts, and my Department is continuing to provide advice on humanitarian issues to the UK armed forces.
In most of the country, food is not currently a major problem. The oil-for-food programme distributed additional rations in central and southern Iraq before the start of the conflict, so supplies will not run out for many families until the end of April, and we hope that the oil-for-food programme can be re-established by then. There are not, so far, the large numbers of internally displaced people and refugees that were feared. The risks remain, however, that people may move if there are shortages of food or medical supplies, or if the fighting escalates. The UN system has made contingency plans to cope with large movements of people.
The main humanitarian problems to date have involved water supplies in towns and cities to the west and south of Baghdad, where power supplies have been disrupted. Disruption to water supplies presents a real threat to health. In some areas, supplies have now been reconnected, or tankers are supplying water. The Royal Engineers built a valuable pipeline from Kuwait into Umm Qasr, from which water is being tanked to other towns. However, in other areas, the problems remain. We are monitoring the situation very closely, and are looking to do whatever we can to resolve the problems. UK forces are doing all that they can to restore power supplies in the areas that they control.
Over the past few days, we have also received reports of an increasingly serious humanitarian situation in Baghdad. Hospitals are overwhelmed with casualties. Electricity is mostly out of order. Some parts of the city no longer have piped water. Most hospitals are using back-up generators and stocks of additional water pre-positioned by the International Committee of the Red Cross in recent weeks. These are now beginning to run out.
We heard yesterday from the ICRC of violent looting in Baghdad—much more violent than what went on in Basra. The ICRC has a real fear that there will be a breakdown in law and order. There are reports of a hospital being looted and of individuals attacked and, in some cases, raped. The ICRC has said that it is temporarily unable to pursue its emergency assistance mission in Baghdad. That is very serious, as the ICRC is the organisation that gets to hospitals and keeps things running. We have offered to do all that we can to help, and since we received that complaint arrangements have
436
been made to secure the ICRC warehouse in Baghdad. The warehouse stores lots of generators and hospital supplies, so it would have been a disaster to lose it.
The ICRC's senior logistician has been killed in Baghdad. I am sure the whole House would like to offer our condolences to his family and friends, and to express our support and admiration for the work that the ICRC is doing in keeping water, energy and medical facilities functioning in this very difficult situation. It really is a very fine organisation. The whole world should admire it.
There has also been looting, as the House knows, in Basra, Umm Qasr and elsewhere in the south. In Basra, some water plants have been looted and rendered unserviceable. UK forces are working with local leaders to try to restore order as soon as possible.
There are reports today that the Kurds have entered Kirkuk, and that looting is also taking place there. We are also monitoring that situation very closely.
As soon as it is safe to do so, UN agencies will return and take over responsibility for co-ordinating humanitarian support, in accordance with humanitarian law and principles. The UN has considerable experience of this role and is well prepared for operations in Iraq. Last week, the UN security co-ordinator assessed some parts of southern Iraq, and a number of UN agencies and NGOs have made initial visits to those areas. The UN will proceed area by area rather than wait for the whole country to be safe, so that it can return with the humanitarian NGOs as soon as it is safe to do so.
In the north of Iraq, local authorities, UN agencies and NGOs are providing assistance. There are some displaced people, but the great majority are being accommodated by relatives or local authorities and assistance is being provided where it is needed. The World Food Programme has succeeded in getting food over the Turkish border and it is now being distributed.
There are serious problems with unexploded mines and ordnance, some of which date back to the 1991 war, and border areas are heavily mined. The coalition is providing information to the United Nations Mine Action Service on mines and unexploded ordnance of which it is unaware. UNMAS is mapping that and is planning a programme to raise awareness of the dangers and mark affected areas and make them safe. We are supporting the Mines Advisory Group and will contribute to further humanitarian mine action through our response to the UN appeal.
On 28 March, the UN launched its flash appeal for Iraq. I committed £65 million—$100 million—from the UK on the day the appeal was launched, and contributions from the US, EU, France, Germany and the Netherlands bring current commitments to more than $1.2 billion. The total appeal was for $2.2 billion for six months, and the UN hopes that it will be partly funded by the oil-for-food programme.
The total DFID commitment to support humanitarian work in Iraq is now £115 million, made up of £32 million to the Red Cross, £78 million to the UN and £5 million to NGOs. Another £95 million is available for further contributions in response to evolving needs. In addition, the Chancellor announced yesterday that he would set aside a further £60 million for DFID to claim from the Treasury if and when needs arise.

437
The House will be aware that I have made a commitment—and I believe that it is widely supported—that I will not redirect funds to Iraq from other emergencies such as southern Africa, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Afghanistan or the west bank and Gaza. Neither will I divert funds from ongoing programmes supporting development for poor people elsewhere. The Treasury has generously contributed funds so that help for Iraq is not bought at the expense of other poor and needy people.
When I made my last statement on 24 March, I said that the most important priority was to restore the operations of the oil-for-food programme. On 28 March the UN Security Council unanimously approved resolution 1472, giving the Secretary-General authority to adapt the programme to changed circumstances so that it could continue to operate for 45 days. The World Food Programme estimates that most Iraqis' current household food stocks should last until the end of April, while the UN, Red Cross and NGOs can provide assistance to cover a short gap in the programme.
The scale of need, with 16 million Iraqis totally dependent on the programme and most families partially dependent on it, means that it is critical to get the oil-for-food programme working again as quickly as we can. The World Food Programme concluded contracts last week to buy a further 400,000 metric tonnes of food aid for Iraq, which it intends to use to replenish the oil-for-food distribution system. Supplies should start reaching the region by late April, but they will reach people only if we can keep the distribution system in place. That means helping Iraqis to keep in operation 55,000 separate outlets across the country, 45,000 of which are in the centre and south of Iraq. In some parts of the country, they are still doing so. In others it will be a greater challenge, but we will work hard at it and I will keep the House informed.
We are also working on plans for reconstruction and development. The Geneva convention and the Hague regulations impose obligations on occupying powers. The House should not be disturbed or embarrassed because I am using a common term in international law. The Attorney-General advised us that it was perfectly proper under resolution 1441 and previous resolutions to take military action, but our forces have the legal status of an occupying power in an occupied territory. That is no secret and I repeat that there is nothing embarrassing about it. It is all covered by the Geneva convention and the Hague regulations. As I was saying, they impose obligations on occupying powers to provide for humanitarian needs, to keep order and to keep the civil administration operating.
Major reform and reconstruction require the authority of a legitimate Government authority. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush made clear in their Hillsborough communiqué that they plan to seek the adoption of a new UN Security Council resolution that will affirm Iraq's territorial integrity and make provision for an appropriate post-conflict Administration for Iraq. The UN has a vital role to play in helping the Iraqi people to establish a broad-based and fully representative Iraqi interim authority as soon as possible.
438
The establishment of a legitimate Government is an essential precondition for the engagement of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the international community to provide support to the Iraqi interim authority. Without the full involvement of the bank and the fund, rehabilitation would be less effective and more difficult.
Iraq is a naturally wealthy country with considerable oil resources, educated people, strong institutions and a proud history. It should be a prosperous middle-income country. In order to make progress, there will need to be agreement to reschedule and restructure Iraq's huge debt and reparations claims. Currently, there is little economic activity in Iraq apart from oil exports, which fund a massive programme of handouts through the oil-for-food programme. The reform effort will need to support Iraq in a transition from a centrally planned impoverished economy to build a modern growing economy. It will be possible to phase out the oil-for-food programme as the economy develops.
The atmosphere in the wider region is currently tense and angry, and the conflict has caused economic decline in neighbouring countries. Economic development in Iraq will benefit its people and the wider region, but we must also remember that there is a severe humanitarian crisis in the west bank and Gaza strip and that progress in the middle east requires full implementation of the road map and the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel by 2005. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bush reaffirmed their commitment to the implementation of the road map at the Hillsborough talks.
Events on the ground in Iraq will change day by day. As the military phase of the crisis comes to an end, the priority will be to provide order and humanitarian relief and to establish an Iraqi interim authority so that the longer-term reconstruction effort can begin. I will keep the House informed. Reports on the humanitarian situation are being placed in the Library of the House each weekday morning.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I should like to thank the Secretary of State for letting me have a copy of her statement in advance. I welcome the swift progress of the military campaign. Although the humanitarian position in Baghdad remains serious, a lengthy siege of the city could have been a major humanitarian disaster.
I join the Secretary of State in expressing my condolences to the family and friends of the ICRC worker killed in Baghdad. The ICRC reports that hospitals are stretched to their limits as a result of the fighting, which is worrying. When will Baghdad be safe enough for NGOs to deliver emergency supplies, or are coalition forces already doing so? When will the power and water supplies be restored?
There is an urgent need for the restoration of law and order. The chaotic scenes of violence and looting that we have seen in Basra are preventing aid organisations from delivering vital aid to Iraq. Does the Secretary of State believe that it is currently safe enough for them to work there? If aid agencies are unable to enter Iraq for some time, does she accept that the coalition must discharge its responsibilities under the Geneva convention to deliver aid?

439
Given that the war is not over and that our forces will still be engaged in fighting the remnants of the Iraqi regime, how well equipped are our troops for keeping the peace in their humanitarian role? The Secretary of State said that the UN agencies will return as soon as it is safe to do so, but is it not a Catch-22 situation? Does she agree that there is a key role for the UN in maintaining order in Iraq now?
The Secretary of State said that the success of the oil-for-food programme depends on good distribution, which is absolutely key. However, where it is not working, are coalition troops manning food convoys, or will UN or Iraqi nationals do that? Given that the most serious food shortages are in southern Iraq, is the port of Umm Qasr working to its full capacity? We understand that only one navigation channel is open, and only for shallow shipping.
The question remains about the extent of the UN's role in the reconstruction of Iraq. In an earlier statement, the Foreign Secretary said that his opposite number now disputes that President Chirac said that the reconstruction of Iraq was a matter for the United Nations and it alone. That is very different from saying that the United Nations should have a vital role. What does that difference augur for a UN resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq? The Secretary of State has said that, without such a resolution, coalition forces will be an "occupying" army under international law. However, given the coalition's rapid progress, a resolution on reconstruction will be required sooner rather than later. If we do not get a resolution soon, what does the Secretary of State believe will be the legal position of our troops in Iraq? Does she stand by her statement of 26 March that the coalition has no authority
"to reorganise institutions or establish a new Government"— [Official Report, 26 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 277.]
That statement seems to contradict what she said in today's statement.
We welcome the extra funding that the Chancellor has announced for humanitarian relief and reconstruction in Iraq. However, we are concerned to hear that only just over half of the UN appeal for funds has been pledged. Does the Secretary of State agree that a key lesson from Afghanistan is that a lack of funding can seriously hold back reconstruction? That could prove a problem in Iraq, too.
If our troops are to be welcomed as liberators and not as conquerors, Iraqis must be closely involved in the process of reconstruction. Will the Secretary of State say what is being done to ensure that Iraqi companies, Iraqi teachers and Iraqi doctors and nurses are fully involved in the rebuilding of their country? What consultation is taking place with Iraqi opposition groups on the form of a new Government?
I commend the troops, who have done so much to liberate the people of Iraq over the past three weeks. I also pay tribute to the courage of the people of Iraq who have come on to the streets to celebrate the downfall of Saddam's regime. We must mirror the success of the military campaign with an effective programme of humanitarian relief. The end of Saddam Hussein must herald a new beginning for the people of Iraq.
Clare Short: Let us all hope that there is not a lengthy siege of Baghdad. Yesterday's scenes were very
440
welcome, but Baghdad is not yet safe or secure and the fighting is not yet over. We must not act prematurely—the situation is very dangerous. I cannot tell the hon. Lady when the UN will be able to return to Baghdad, and the NGOs tend to go in when the UN goes in. It is the Red Cross that moves in when circumstances are so difficult, but even the Red Cross is not operating at the moment, which is the real risk to Baghdad. However, we are talking to our military—who, in turn, are talking to our coalition partners—about ensuring that the Red Cross's supplies are secure and that hospitals are made secure. The Red Cross has to gain access to Baghdad and the coalition can help in getting the water supply working and getting basic drugs in.
As I said in my statement and as I have made clear before, the aid agencies will return. The UN is ready. It has a system of reviewing security, after which individual NGOs will review their own security. That is beginning to happen in the south. The progress will continue, dependent on the military situation.
As I have made clear—repeatedly, I had thought—under the Geneva convention and the Hague regulations the coalition has duties of humanitarian care until such time as things are safe, when the UN will return and take over the role. That is why the military has humanitarian advisers and why the Treasury has provided resources. There are food supplies that are not needed; the shortages have been in water, power and health supplies to some hospitals.
There has been enormous muddle in the debate on the UN's role in reconstruction.
Mr. William Cash: In the hon. Lady's mind.
Clare Short: There is no muddle whatsoever in my mind. If the hon. Gentleman is muddled, that is a great pity, because the position in international law is absolutely clear and has been agreed by all countries. By the authority under which we are taking military action, our forces are occupying forces in occupied territory, with duties under the Geneva convention and the Hague regulations to supply humanitarian relief to civilians, to keep order and to keep the civil administration running. The forces are empowered to make such changes as are necessary to keep the civilian administration running, but they are not entitled to bring a new Government with sovereign authority into being or to make big structural reforms in the country. That is absolutely clear and is agreed by all international lawyers. There were differences of view about the authority for conflict, but there are no differences whatever on this issue. The hon. Gentleman should go back to school if he thinks that that is not the case.
The resolution that will be needed in the Security Council, to which President Bush and the Prime Minister have reaffirmed their commitment, is not for humanitarian relief or for the troops to do what they have to do under the Geneva convention, but is to bring into being a Government with legitimate authority. Of course, in the meantime, our troops will consult local people in all the towns where they are operating and will take advice on issues such as whether policing can be up and running again. However, for the restructuring of the political system in Iraq, a Security Council resolution will be needed to give proper authority.

441
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said that only half the UN appeal had been funded. However, given that such a short time has elapsed, I think that that is quite good. There are billions of dollars in the oil-for-food programme; it is a question of getting that money released and getting food supplies into the country. Ships are bringing food in, but the big problem will be distributing it to people across the country.
I do not agree that a lack of money has held back reconstruction in Afghanistan; it has been a lack of order outside Kabul.
I agree absolutely with the hon. Lady that Iraqis must be engaged in rebuilding. The Iraqis are a very proud people and there are lots of educated people. The distribution system for the oil-for-food programme depends on Iraqi people. Iraqi engineers have been keeping the oil industry going, often using old technology. We must not put them to one side. They must be engaged in running their country in the interim before taking the lead in setting up the new Iraqi interim authority.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for being allowed advance sight of her statement. My party joins in sending condolences to the families of everyone who has been killed in this conflict—civilians, military personnel and voluntary workers.
The right hon. Lady acknowledged that the security situation in Iraq is dire and that stopping looting, fighting and further damage to infrastructure is of prime importance in allowing the NGOs and the UN to do their work. While we wait for that, will she answer a few specific questions? When will humanitarian corridors be set up? Will more British soldiers be needed to keep them secure? We have heard a little about Umm Qasr, where the deep port is not yet open, but will the right hon. Lady comment on the news that insurance companies are not insuring boats that use the port, which is inhibiting the delivery of aid?
I am sure that we have all been appalled by the harrowing pictures of civilians who have been injured during the conflict—in particular, the pictures of children. I understand that the Red Cross and Médecins sans Frontières is not operating in Baghdad at the moment and that conditions in hospitals are appalling. When does the Secretary of State expect more medical supplies to arrive? Are Army medical staff able to help in any significant way? Has any thought been given to airlifting wounded civilians—especially the children—out of Iraq to receive treatment in other countries while the situation remains as it is?
When does the right hon. Lady expect clean water to be available to all Iraqis in Basra and Baghdad? What is being done about reports that the illegal selling of water by truck drivers is going on all over the country? Will she consider making a statement to the House on the humanitarian situation in the west bank and the Gaza strip? That issue is of great concern.
Clare Short: I am sure that we all agree with the hon. Lady that the loss of any life regrettable—and all innocent civilian life. We send our condolences to all the
442
families involved. Stopping the looting is of enormous importance, even for emergency humanitarian operations. The UK military had to secure Basra and ensure that our troops were safe, but the priority now is to stop looting and restore order so that humanitarian relief can flow, the Red Cross can gel access to hospitals, and the UN can come in to start the big humanitarian operation.
We favour not corridors but humanitarian space. We do not want narrow ways in; we want to open up bigger parts of the country for normal humanitarian operations. That is what the UN wants rather than humanitarian corridors. The UN thinks that there can be some return in the south and individual NGOs are planning their return.
A lot of food is already on the seas. Ships are on their way to Umm Qasr with the massive supplies of food that are needed to get the oil-for-food programme up and running again. I am not aware of a problem at the port, but I shall double-check and will get back to the hon. Lady.
Insurance companies always increase their prices massively in crises such as this. Expensive insurance is available and it is being paid for. The experience was the same in Afghanistan and in other crises. I shall double-check that point, too.
The situation in Basra will progress quickly and our troops will be able to ensure that there is enough power. Lack of power means that the water supply is not being used to full capacity. The Red Cross has patched it, but our forces and our engineers will be able to put it right.
The situation in Baghdad is much more unstable and much more worrying. Fighting is still going on and the Red Cross cannot operate at present. The priority is to secure its warehouse and to get Red Cross workers back into the hospitals. There are Red Cross supplies in the city, but the problem is getting access to them. Similarly, appeals have been mounted to help people such as the poor little boy who lost both his arms, as well as his parents, but there are problems in getting access to many of the injured in hospital. Iraqi doctors are bravely working long hours, but they have no water or electricity and they are running out of drugs. The absolute priority is to get the Red Cross in to reinstate those emergency supplies.
The allegations about illegal sales of water relate to the pipeline to Umm Qasr built by British armed forces. Water sales are not illegal in the sense that, in a very hot country with limited water, people actually make their living by supplying water. However, our troops have stopped those sales for the time being. When some people have no water and the poorest have no access to it, it is not right to charge for water.
I do not know whether there will be time for me to make a statement to the House on the west bank and Gaza. However, I shall certainly try to arrange for a written statement, as the situation there is bad.
Mr. George Foulkes: I have no doubt whatever that my right hon. Friend is the best person to lead our reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Does she agree that it is unhelpful to focus on alleged disputes and on the legalities? In circumstances such as these, the problem is to get everyone involved, to get enough resources, to achieve

443
co-ordination and to keep interest going when the media spotlight turns away. I know that my right hon. Friend is involving the UN and its agencies, the rich countries, the European Community and the NGOs, but will she ask the World Bank, whose spring meeting will be held soon, to make a commitment to give resources for the long-term support of Iraq, which will need support from every possible quarter?
Clare Short: I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend. Whatever the position taken by any person or country during the run-up to the conflict, everyone must be agreed on ending the conflict, getting humanitarian supplies running again, ensuring that the future of the country is better than its past and moving forward on the peace process in the middle east so that the whole region can have a better future. We need to work to bring the international community back together. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund cannot engage with the problems unless there is a legitimate Government. Many countries—for example, Japan—traditionally are big suppliers of aid; they want a legitimate Government and a Security Council resolution. Whatever people's views were before the conflict, everyone should use all possible influence to achieve the Security Council resolution so that we can work with the UN to set up a proper interim authority. That is certainly what the Government are doing.
Tony Baldry: I thank the right hon. Lady for the briefings posted daily on her Department's website; they are extremely helpful to everyone who wants to understand the situation.
I do not think that there are great differences between hon. Members on what is being attempted in respect of humanitarian space. Presumably, the UK Army, UK NGOs and others will focus on Basra to try to create the largest humanitarian space so as to reinstate power and water supplies and then move out from there. Will the right hon. Lady try to enlist the help of UK NGOs, many of which have considerable experience in water provision? The other day, members of the Select Committee were with the World Bank, whose president made it clear that the bank wants to support Iraq as soon as possible. However, he made it clear to us, in terms, that the bank could not do that without specific UN authority.
Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Many tributes have rightly been paid to our armed forces for their courage, but when they undertake their duties as peacekeepers, under the Geneva convention, they are undoubtedly the best in the world. They built on their experience in Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and East Timor, and brought ISAF—the International Security Assistance Force—into being in Kabul. In their work in Basra, they are a model for the world and we can all be enormously proud of what they are doing. They want to undertake their duties under the Geneva and Hague regulations and hand over to the UN as soon as it can operate. That is clear. Their intention is to fulfil all the proprieties correctly. In the meantime, they will do everything in their power to achieve order and to keep things running.
Not many UK NGOs operated in what was Baghdad-controlled Iraq; more of them have experience in the north. Some are preparing to return and when they do
444
so they will do a good job, but we must be careful not to displace Iraqis. They are a proud, educated people with a strong tradition of running the oil-for-food programme. We need complementary relationships, but Iraqis must lead wherever possible.
The hon. Gentleman is right: the World Bank and the IMF have conducted analytical work and are preparing for a needs assessment, but they cannot operate without a legitimate Government, and that requires a Security Council resolution.
Helen Southworth: What plans does my right hon. Friend have to involve Iraqi women in the reconstruction of the new Iraq, so that they can play a full part, professionally and politically as well as domestically, in creating the new Iraq?
Clare Short: Half the population of Iraq is aged under 15. As the country has crumbled, education for the younger generation has been less good. However, there are many highly educated Iraqis, including many women, who already play a significant professional role in the administration of the country. As was said earlier, Iraq is like the former Soviet Union, where people had to join the Communist party if they wanted to be a teacher. Many members of the Ba'ath party are not the real leaders of the regime, and they will need to remain in their jobs so as to continue to run their country. Women will have a role. All over the world, when the UN brings new legitimate Governments into being, it has made a point of ensuring that women are represented in those Governments.
Alistair Burt: The scale of the task to be undertaken indicates that, whatever the resources of our forces, they must be joined as soon as possible by humanitarian aid agencies. In giving evidence to the Select Committee when it examined the possible consequences of conflict, the NGOs made it clear that it would be difficult for them to operate without UN authority. That is why it is vital to indicate precisely what will happen and when. Although some NGOs have decided to re-engage, is the Secretary of State confident that the facts on the ground now mean that the first responsibility of aid agencies, regardless of who is actually in control and what the legalities may be, is the people of Iraq? Is she confident that agencies have put aside any concerns that they may have had before the conflict and that they are ready to be engaged on the scale that is necessary to support our forces and deliver properly to the people of Iraq?
Clare Short: There is absolutely no need for a Security Council resolution of any kind for the humanitarian system to operate. The UN has a duty, always and everywhere, if there is safe access, to help people on any side of any conflict. The UN is clear about that. The only question relates to operational safety. As soon as any part of the country is safe, the UN will say so. The UN has good systems for checking safety and the NGOs tend to follow its advice. Movement into the south is beginning. The UN is the bigger operator and the NGOs help to deliver services at the end of the line. Neither the UN nor the NGOs have any doubt about operating. There have been arguments about NGOs operating with the military; NGOs have reservations about that. The

445
military operate under the Geneva convention and will hand over to humanitarian systems as soon as possible. That handover will not be a problem for our NGOs and our military.
Tony Worthington: The Prime Minister and the President of the United States made good progress earlier this week in saying that there is a vital role for the United Nations. Everybody is saying that humanitarian aid is necessary. Normally, that would be undertaken by OCHA—the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs—which is a well-established United Nations organisation. We now also have ORHA—the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs—which was set up by the United States Government under General Garner. There cannot be two co-ordinators. Does my right hon. Friend believe that we are on the way to solving that problem?
Clare Short: A clear solution is available. The coalition's duties under the Geneva convention and the Hague resolutions are very considerable. To ensure that civilians are properly cared for in humanitarian terms, given the situation in Baghdad—[Interruption.] If the shadow Attorney-General, who appears not to understand the law, would stop heckling, he might learn something. We need to secure order, to get oil-for-food up and running and to get policing back. Those requirements are all covered by Geneva convention regulations on looking after civilians, keeping order and keeping civil administration running. That would be a proper role for ORHA. The UN's role is needed in the bringing into being of a legitimate Government with sovereignty. The UN can operate as soon as there is safety—it does not need any authority—and it should
lead on humanitarian issues.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I thank the Secretary of State and her officials for keeping hon. Members of all parties informed about the developing humanitarian situation—that is welcome. Will she confirm how much money is already held in the oil-for-food programme account unspent? That money could be released to the considerable benefit of the development and reconstruction of Iraq. Is a UN resolution required to release those resources and, if so, will the proposed new resolution that is being discussed include such provisions?
Will the Secretary of State confirm when sanctions on Iraq will be lifted? What steps need to be taken in the UN in terms of a resolution to that effect, so that there can be economic development that is not just based on the sale of oil? Will the UN resolution that she is discussing include the lifting of sanctions? Finally, what will she be doing in the next week or so to ensure that the resolution is finalised?
Clare Short: The oil-for-food programme involves all the oil that is legitimately sold from Iraq. All the money goes into a UN account that funds the purchase of food, medical supplies, basic repairs to water and sanitation systems, and so on. There is about $2 billion in the fund.
446
Since the passing of the UN resolution to which I referred, more food is being purchased. Much of the wheat comes from Australia and therefore has to travel by sea for some time. About $5 billion is tied up in outstanding contracts. An attempt is being made to weed out those contracts that will not be fulfilled to release the money so as to make more orders. Much of the oilfield has been secured, and when oil starts to flow again, money will flow again. We have to keep the system running until the economy can grow, then it can be wound down.
The new resolution was required to give the Secretary-General the authority to act, because under the previous arrangements the Iraqi Government made orders, and they were in no position to continue to do so. That role has been taken by the UN. The authority was given for 45 days, and there will need to be arrangements to roll it forward. There is general agreement that sanctions should be lifted as soon as possible. We need a properly verified process for looking for chemical and biological weapons and for getting rid of them. Sanctions should then be lifted as rapidly as possible so that the economy can start to recover and trade with neighbouring countries can resume.
We are all working on the UN resolution that will help to bring into being a legitimate interim Iraqi authority. The main thing is to improve the atmosphere of relationships in the international system. I am going to the World Bank spring meetings with the Chancellor this weekend, and we shall do some work on that so that the World Bank can engage with the situation.
Ann McKechin: I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend about the necessity of the UN's involvement in the creation of the interim authority, especially to aid reconstruction. Does she share my concern about the comments made in the past 24 hours by the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, to the effect that the coalition, not the UN, should determine the membership of such an interim administration? Such moves are likely to make a UN resolution to support it more difficult, which will in turn make reconstruction much more difficult.
Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that there have been many different voices in Washington that are amplified into New York, and they do not help. However, what President Bush said at Hillsborough did help. He made very strong and clear comments about the need to involve the UN in the process. He is the President, so the right guy is saying the right things.
Gregory Barker: The Secretary of State said in her statement that reconstruction requires the authority of a legitimate government authority. Does she realise that under the fourth Geneva convention of 1949 and the Hague regulations of 1907, the coalition forces represent a legitimate authority? Would it not be appalling if the serious business of the reconstruction of Iraq and the absolute imperative for re-establishing civil society were held up for a day, let alone weeks or possibly even months, while horse-trading went on at the UN?
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman might find international law irritating, but we need a law-abiding

447
world with strong multilateral institutions. Under the law that we have, the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq can move forward very well. The real safety of that country depends on Iraqis feeling that they are in the leadership as regards the reconstruction of their country, and the UN is needed to bring that about. That is the view of virtually every Government in the world, but not, clearly, of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The peculiarity of the oil-for-food programme is that the distribution of food was in the hands of the Ba'ath party, as it was coterminous with the state. That gave it a tremendous amount of extra influence over the 60 per cent. of the population who depended on that programme. The Secretary of State said that the World Food Programme has contracts for a further 400,000 metric tonnes of food that will replenish the existing distribution system. Will that distribution system be subject to radical change? If the individuals from the Ba'ath party who terrorised people turned up again, that would not be helpful in establishing a peaceful Iraq.
Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. That is one of the tragedies involved in the prolongation for 12 years of what was meant to be a short-term sanctions regime. The people of Iraq became increasingly dependent on an overweening state, and as the economy shrivelled, handouts were all that most people had, and the regime was strengthened. That is a regrettable feature of the prolongation of the sanctions regime. We have to get the programme up and running because of the sheer scale of the operation that is needed to keep people fed in the short term. My hon. Friend is right that it was used punitively, and we have to ensure that people who were excluded are included in future distribution. We need to get it up and running again in order to phase it out as rapidly as possible. Without it, however, getting food to everyone in need would be an enormous task, and the international system has never done anything on that scale.
Mr. Paul Marsden: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her commitment to getting humanitarian aid into Iraq. Although I agree that Iraqi hospitals are in a terrible state, that is the result not only of the bombardment, but of 12 years of economic sanctions. What more can be done to give those injured civilians access to specialist medical facilities in this country and across the west?
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right. The state of the hospitals and the water and sanitation systems was terrible before the conflict began. Since then, there has been some cutting off of energy supplies and power supplies. Many people are without water. Hospitals with large numbers of injured people have no power and no water, and are running out of drugs. The International Committee of the Red Cross is the heroic organisation that is operating in that situation. It has supplies pre-positioned throughout the country, and its people have been enormously brave throughout the conflict in reconnecting power, bringing in generators
448
and moving water in. The biggest worry is that the Red Cross is not operating in Baghdad. That is the priority; then we must go step by step. At the moment, we have to maintain supplies of water and basic drugs—hospitals are running out of painkillers.
Mr. Tom Clarke: May I declare an interest as chairman of the all-party Kurdistan group? At our annual general meeting on Tuesday, a number of Kurds who attended expressed huge admiration for the tremendous work that the Secretary of State has done and continues to do. They understand, as common sense suggests, that there will be a period of transition before formalisation and the involvement, for example, of the United Nations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when that occurs, it is right to accept her advice to try to build bridges with all other nations, including the neighbouring state of Turkey? Without that, it will not be possible to rebuild northern Iraq, and the whole of Iraq, in the way that that was done following the conflict in the early 1990s.
Clare Short: I agree very much with my right hon. Friend and I am grateful for his remarks. Of course, the transition period will comprise Geneva convention obligations to keep things running; the UN humanitarian system running increasingly, and subsequently, I hope; consultations with local communities; and a process to bring the interim Administration into being. I hope that all that will run together very soon. Building bridges and connections, and getting co-operation from neighbouring countries are also important, and work on that has been going on. Tension has always existed between Turkey and the Kurdish area of Iraq, but things have gone well up to now, and we must keep that going. Turkey had sealed the border and getting humanitarian supplies through was a problem, but they are coming through now and being distributed in the north. I agree with my right hon. Friend's point, we are working on it, and there is similar progress in relation to humanitarian supplies coming in from Iran. All of us need to unite to give the people of Iraq a better future and to work together for the middle east peace process.
Mr. Chris Mullin: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that resources will not be diverted to Iraq from other areas of the world that face very serious problems? Does she think that our allies and international institutions will take the same view? Is there not a danger that events in Iraq, serious as they are, will distract attention from, for example, the catastrophic situation in the Congo or the looming famine in Ethiopia and Eritrea, where millions of lives are at stake?
Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right that that is always a danger. When humanitarian catastrophes occur, those that command media attention tend to get priority. The people affected by the non-media-attended crises are equally important, however, and they must be properly cared for. The World Food Programme's appeals are bigger than they have ever been in its history. The WFP is worried that, even if it gets the

449
money, its systems, capacity, logistics and the people responsible for moving masses of food around the world will be under strain. My Department has wonderful draw-down arrangements with logisticians, engineers and health workers, as my hon. Friend knows, and we have put those at the service of the World Food Programme. There is no doubt that international systems will be very strained, in terms not just of money but of the capacity to move and attend to all the emergencies in the world. We must work hard to make sure that that is done.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Despite the differences between nations about the strategy for dealing with Saddam Hussein, the whole House will welcome the contributions made to the UN fund by the EU, particularly by France and Germany. Will my right hon. Friend convey to her opposite numbers in France and Germany how much we welcome that contribution, and will she urge other EU partners similarly to look at their responsibilities, as the EU has an important role to play in this important reconstruction programme?
Clare Short: Yes, indeed. The Netherlands has also contributed individually, as well as through the EU. I will be having a working dinner in Washington, in the margins of the World Bank meeting, with a number of Development Ministers, including my colleagues from France and Germany, to achieve the purpose to which my hon. Friend refers.
Mr. Andrew Love: My right hon. Friend mentioned in her statement the need to reach agreement to reschedule and restructure Iraq's huge debts and reparation claims. Two weeks ago, I was at the UN, and I was staggered to discover that those could amount to up to a third of the income of the country. Does my right hon. Friend accept that not only rescheduling but, in some cases, cancellation of some of those reparations 450
payments should be treated as a matter of urgency if that country is to get back on its feet, restructure and rebuild its economy?
Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The level of debt and claimed reparation payments is so great that they could lock a naturally wealthy economy into an inability to recover: shades of Germany after the first world war. It is very important that we get this right. Paris Club and London Club arrangements exist for rescheduling and writing down debt. It is a UN matter in relation to compensation, but the matter needs attention; otherwise, a corset will be placed around the economy and it would never recover.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the duties of occupying powers to make sure that humanitarian aid arrives and civil administration is rebuilt. Am I correct in believing, however, that it would not be legitimate for an occupying power to enter into long-term contractual arrangements with private companies that would be binding on a future legitimate Iraqi Administration? Is there any truth in the reports that we are hearing that, for example, a particular American company is already being given a long-term contract to run the port of Umm Qasr?
Clare Short: My hon. Friend's understanding of the law is basically right. In relation to much of the publicity about USAID, the development agency, and contracts with American firms to spend the money available for the first phase of the humanitarian duties under the Geneva convention of the US armed forces, they have been talked about in such a way that they sound like permanent contracts. That would not be legally possible, and most reputable companies would not accept such contracts, because they would know that that was not legally possible. It is possible to have contracts—the port has to be kept running—but the long-term future of the port will be a matter for the Iraqi interim authority when it comes into being. It is important to get the World Bank and the IMF involved to bring standards of transparency and to ensure the proper letting of contracts, and to advise the interim authority in that regard.

Points of Order
3.7 pm
Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before the war with Iraq, I raised on a point of order with Mr. Speaker the question of the basis on which Ministers can exercise their discretion to publish the legal advice that they have received. That question led to the Prime Minister issuing the legal advice, in summary form, that the Attorney-General had given on the legality of the war against Iraq. A similar situation seems to be developing in respect of some of the answers that we have received today about the post-reconstruction governmental situation in Iraq. On the basis of the precedent that has been established, would it be possible for the Secretary of State for International Development to supply the advice to the House as the Prime Minister did with regard to the legality of the war against Iraq?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): That is entirely at the discretion of the Minister concerned.
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, we now have less than three hours for this debate, and I do not wish to detain the House with this point of order. It strikes me as surprising, however, that the Speaker has not used the powers that he could have used to restrict the time available for Back-Bench speeches, as I understand that more than a dozen people would like to participate in this debate. Can you give us an insight into why that decision was made, and at least recommend how long Back-Bench speeches should last?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The House, it seems, sometimes wants it both ways. It wants statements from Ministers during the present crisis, and it also wants the opportunity to have this important debate. I think that Members are probably mature enough to impose their own limit on speeches today.

Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [9 April].
  WAYS AND MEANS

    AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
    Motion made, and Question proposed,

    (1) That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance.

    (2) This Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

    (a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;

    (b) for refunding an amount of tax;

    (c) for any relief, other than a relief that—

    (i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and

    (ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description— [Mr. Gordon Brown.]

    Question again proposed.

    Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
    3.9 pm
    Mr. David Willetts: I begin by declaring the interests that appear in my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
    Yesterday's Budget was overshadowed by events in Iraq, and I am sure that all hon. Members recognise that the drama of what happened in Baghdad rather overwhelmed whatever was happening in the Chamber. The collapse of an entire regime is inevitably more dramatic than what is simply the collapse of a set of economic forecasts. But even without those events thousands of miles away, yesterday's Budget statement was strangely lacking in vigour and anything that would have compelled our attention. The reason for the strange absence from the Budget statement of interest or drama was that the two crucial strategic decisions that will shape the remaining months or years of the Chancellor's occupancy of his office were both avoided in his statement yesterday, and neither of them can be delayed for much longer.
    The first evasion, of course, was on the euro. The Chancellor is in a very odd position. His defence of the declining performance of the UK economy is that at least we are doing better than the continental economies. As always, things are relative; it is not really that we are doing well, but they are doing even worse. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deliver a Budget in April saying that we are doing so much better than they are, and then turn round a few minutes, days or weeks later and say that he wants to tie our monetary and fiscal policies inextricably to the very economies whose performance he has been denouncing. As a result of that central confusion between the alibi that he presented to the House yesterday and any argument for entering the euro in the future, he has carefully avoided saying anything about the biggest single decision facing him as Chancellor.

    453
    However, there was a second evasion in yesterday's Budget statement, concerning what will happen to the Chancellor's fiscal plans in the medium term. He has public spending as a proportion of national income throughout the whole period covered by the Budget, gradually growing from 36.5 to 38.5 per cent. of gross domestic product, reaching a higher level as a percentage of GDP than we have seen for more than 20 years. What we need to know is how the Chancellor will finance that steady increase in public expenditure not just in real terms, but as a proportion of our national output.
    One option, of course, is more borrowing, and the Chancellor is going to borrow more. He shows his future borrowing running at more than £20 billion as far as the eye can see. As well as more borrowing, there is more taxation, and the table on page 260 of the Red Book is devastating because it shows tax revenues rising as a percentage of GDP from now until kingdom come, going upwards, well above 38 per cent. of GDP. So what the right hon. Gentleman's Budget shows is that he will have higher spending, higher borrowing and higher taxing. That is not the prospectus on which the Government were elected in 1997; it is not the prospectus on which they were elected in 2001; but it is the prospectus buried in the tables in the Red Book.
    Kali Mountford: What is the hon. Gentleman most proud of from the Conservative party's period of tenure? Was it the high borrowing or the low spending that he was most proud of?
    Mr. Willetts: I am proud of the fact that we left our economy in 1997 in infinitely better shape than we found it in 1979—that was our achievement, and all Conservative Members can still take great pride in it.
    I want to press the Chancellor on the fact that more spending, more borrowing and more taxing are in his own forecasts buried at the back of the Red Book, and that is based on a quite exceptionally favourable set of economic assumptions. He is saying that the British economy will now grow by 2 to 2.5 per cent.—whereas the International Monetary Fund has said that it might perhaps grow at 2 per cent.—and next year it will miraculously bounce back to a growth rate of 3 to 3.5 per cent., when the IMF said only yesterday that it believed that the growth rate next year was most likely to be 2.5 per cent.
    So having been caught out with his forecasts already and twice having to reduce his forecasts for this year, the Chancellor shows no compunction whatsoever in carrying on assuming that he will have high growth rates in future. He is like someone who has just lost a bet on the grand national and says that that is evidence that he is more likely to win his bet next year. He is no more likely to be proved correct in next year's forecasts than in those for previous years.
    If the Chancellor's forecasts are not correct and the outside, independent forecasters and international organisations are, the scenarios will be even worse than those set out in the Red Book. Indeed, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned in the last hour at a seminar on the Budget that it believes that the Chancellor will
    454
    face tax increases of between £4 billion and £11 billion simply to finance the public spending plans set out in the Budget if its economic forecasts, rather than the Treasury's, are correct.
    The Budget has two crucial omissions—one in regard to the euro; the other the failure to set out what the Chancellor will do when he faces the fiscal crunch of being unable to finance the spending plans contained in the Budget. But the Chancellor tried to fill the gaps that should have contained his central Budget judgments with a large amount of detail on tax credits and benefits.
    The Chancellor is one of those anoraks who is deeply interested in those things—and, I confess, so am I. I am rather intrigued by some of his proposals. I have previously debated with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the ideas, for example, about the reform of housing benefit, to which I give a cautious welcome. Some of the ideas in the Budget on such subjects are well worth exploring, but I have to tell the Chancellor that he will not compel the nation's attention if he makes those ideas the central point of a Budget judgment.
    Housing benefit reform and a variety of other measures that would pad out a rather thin social security uprating statement really will not do as the centrepiece of a Budget statement during a debate on the future of the nation's economy. Given that the Chancellor has offered us that material, I should like to touch for a few minutes on four of the specific topics in the Budget: the child trust fund; the Chancellor's proposal on pensions and savings; his measures to try to improve employment; and, finally, his tax credits.
    I have chosen to begin with the child trust fund, partly because there is a considerable degree of shared ground. I accept that one of the most interesting developments in the thinking about the reform of the welfare state in the past decade has been the recognition that we should think not just about the income of people who are in poverty, but about the importance of encouraging them to build up assets and pots of saving as well. Hon. Members on both sides of the House share that ground. It goes back to the Tory vision of property-owning democracy, and we wish to see more people in this country owning more assets.
    We are happy to participate in the debate on assets and poverty, but I have to tell the Chancellor that, as always, what is basically a good idea is spoilt by an obsession with making everything so complicated. Instead of one scheme, there are two: a child trust fund and a savings gateway. Those two different proposals are easily confused. His child trust fund will involve not just putting in money when a child is born, but perhaps further payments—we do not know the detail—when the child is five, 11 or 16. There will be some sort of means test because there are two values of payment— £250 or £500—so there presumably has to be a means test at four different stages of each child's life to assess whether the higher or the lower payment will be made.
    So, to choose an example at random, the Chancellor's neighbours in Downing street, with four children, would face 16 separate occasions of means-testing for their four children simply to participate in his child trust fund. It seems rather excessive to require the Prime Minister's family to submit information about their income to the Chancellor on 16 separate occasions to

    455
    enable him to establish exactly the size of payment that he will make into their children's bank accounts. Why could he not do it a bit more simply?
    The Chancellor's scheme stops at the age of 18, perhaps because that is when the money will be needed to pay the tuition fees that this Government have introduced. We want a scheme that carries on encouraging and rewarding saving throughout people's entire working lives. That is why our lifetime savings account not only carries forward into the future, but is far simpler and more flexible than what the Chancellor has proposed.
    The second subject that I wish briefly to raise is the question of pensioners and the importance of saving for retirement. One of the other extraordinary omissions from yesterday's Budget statement was anything about the pensions crisis facing our country. We are seeing the collapse of the post-war settlement in British pensions and the collapse of occupational funded pensions, which have been such an important part of financing the retirement of millions of people. I am surprised that the Chancellor did not feel the urge to say anything whatever about that subject, especially given his own track record in that regard. We all remember what he said in his first Budget statement in July 1997:
    "Many pension funds are in substantial surplus and at present many companies are enjoying pension holidays, so this is the right time to undertake a long-needed reform."—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 306.]
    That is what he said. Well, the substantial surpluses and contribution holidays are long since gone, but the £5 billion a year in tax remains. What we want to hear from him is some recognition of the effects.
    I offer the Chancellor the following suggestion. The Opposition will accept that the problems facing our funded pensions are not wholly the result of the tax increase. I do not pretend that they are solely and exclusively the result of the £5 billion a year in tax. There are many factors behind the crisis; his tax is an important one, but not the only one. We will accept that the problem is not only the tax if he will come to the Dispatch Box in return and accept some responsibility in respect of the tax and if he is willing to show just the faintest hint of recognition that his £5 billion a year tax has something to do with what is happening to the savings of millions of workers. Instead of so busily engaging in conversation on the Front Bench, why does he not take this opportunity to accept at the Dispatch Box that that tax has had an effect on the funded savings of millions of people?
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Willetts: We are being offered a rather poor substitute for the Chancellor, but if the right hon. Gentleman will not intervene, I shall of course accept another intervention.
    Mr. Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give a commitment that he will reverse the decision made by the Chancellor?
    Mr. Willetts: What I am trying to find out is what the Chancellor thinks has been the effect of his decision. I
    456
    deeply dislike many of the 53 tax increases that this Chancellor has imposed. I would love to be able to reverse many of them. When we come to reach our financial judgment in the run-up to the next election, we will decide which ones we can afford to reverse. That is the responsible position to adopt.
    Mr. Michael Jack: Does my hon. Friend recall that the justification given by the Chancellor for ending the payable tax credit was reducing the pressure on companies to pay dividends with a view to helping them increase their investment? Does he think that that squares up with the falling levels of private investment reflected in the economic data revealed yesterday?
    Mr. Willetts: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. He is right that one of the many forecasts that the Chancellor had to reduce yesterday in his Budget judgment was his estimate of the performance of business investment, which is not growing as he had hoped but declining.
    The wider point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) relates to the absurd economic theory that was advanced to defend the tax increase—I am afraid that I heard it from the Economic Secretary at one point—that we could somehow encourage investment by encouraging companies to hold on to more of their retained earnings. That theory represented a complete failure to understand the role of the capital markets in allocating capital in the most effective way. The distribution of a company's profits means not that they are lost to the economy, but that they go into the capital markets to be allocated to the firms that have the best use for them. It is a sort of constipation theory of investment to say that people have to hold on to something in order to maximise investment. Of course, that theory is now being comprehensively demolished by the evidence before us.
    We are facing not only the attack on funded savings in our pensions, but the logical consequence—driving people into dependence on means-tested benefits instead. This year, 60 per cent. of pensioners will be dependent on means-tested benefits. That is not the sort of country that we want to live in and it is not what the pensioners of this country want. They want the dignity and independence of enjoying an income from their own savings, rather than to face more and more means testing.
    I ask the Chancellor to consider an example that illustrates the ultimate absurdity of his system. I have identified the position of a 70-year-old man with a basic state pension and an income on top of that of £60.07 a week. That 70-year-old pensioner, with his £60.07 income on top of his basic state pension, has achieved the apotheosis of the Chancellor's vision of how his system should work. Every week, the pensioner is paying £1.04 to the Inland Revenue and receiving £1.04 of pension credit. The two transactions exactly balance out, as he is paying £1.04 to the Chancellor's Revenue department and receiving £1.04 from the Pension Service. I suppose that we should regard that as a triumph of the Chancellor's policies in rewarding saving, but I regard the whole game as absurd.
    The situation is worse than that. Of course, I am assuming that that pensioner is at least collecting the benefit, but we know from the report published only

    457
    yesterday by the Select Committee on Public Accounts that there is a very serious problem with the take-up of means-tested benefit. The Committee's 12th report states that
    "between one-quarter and one-third of entitled pensioners do not claim Minimum Income Guarantee… one-third Council Tax Benefit and one-tenth Housing Benefit."
    The total amount unclaimed is in the range between £900 million and £1.8 billion. Thus, there is an enormous amount of unclaimed benefit, and as a result, all the models that the Chancellor offers to show how much better off everyone will be as a result of the benefits have the one slight problem that many people do not collect the money that he would like them to receive.
    James Purnell: Surely what matters to pensioners is whether or not they are better off, not whether or not they are means-tested. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the number of pensioners in relative poverty after housing costs has fallen by 50 per cent. since 1997? That contrasts with the record of the Thatcher Government for whom he worked—a record of which he said he was proud. Under that Government, the income of the absolute number of people in poverty, or the bottom 10 per cent., fell by 20 per cent. in absolute terms. They were worse off by 20 per cent. Is he proud of that record, as he said earlier?
    Mr. Willetts: The point that I was making is that a lot of the figures on poverty assume take-up that simply does not exist. Even according to the Chancellor's targets, 1 million pensioners will not be claiming the benefits in 2006.
    I am also trying to address an issue that I believe the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions recognises, as he has referred to it in the past. I am trying to invite those on the Government Front Bench to consider not only the figures for today, but the impact on behaviour for the future. The question is what the scope of means-testing says to people who are considering whether to save. I do not claim that that is an original point or a distinctively Conservative one, but it seems a very powerful point that the sort of static model that we just heard advanced does not recognise.
    For the benefit of Ministers, I should like to give a quote not from a Tory, but from Ernest Bevin. The Secretary of State has previously heard me cite the quotation. which appears in Alan Bullock's biography. The remarks were made when Ernest Bevin came to his executive council of the Transport and General Workers Union in 1937 after he had painstakingly worked to try to set up a funded pension scheme for the sheet metal workers of south Wales. Much to his disappointment, the members of his union voted against having an occupational pension. Bevin reported to his executive council:
    "I think it is a tragedy for South Wales, but it appears that a large number of the men take the view that if they become party to a superannuation they are merely saving the Unemployment Assistance Board expenditure. When a large community develops a relief complex of this character it is not good for democracy."
    That is the point. Will the spread of such means-testing affect behaviour in a way that none of us support? The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Work and
    458
    Pensions need to tackle that question. I believe that they understand that; it is a pity that they will not acknowledge it.
    Funded pension saving has declined and dependence on means-tested benefits has increased. That is the Government's record on pensions. It is a disaster for our country.
    Ms Karen Buck: Is not it the case that before the proposal for the pension credit, there was no value in people saving if modest savings took them just above the level of income support? The pension credit will provide an incentive to save. That is its value.
    Mr. Willetts: But there are other, better methods of alleviating poverty among pensioners that do not have the same effect on savings. When the pension credit was considered in the House, we tabled a reasoned amendment, which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the Liberal Democrats supported, that would have provided for the money to go towards a higher pension for older pensioners. It would have targeted poverty without the need for so much means-testing. It would not have had the same effect on incentives to save as the spread of means-testing.
    Mr. Paul Goodman: Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the following words:
    "The pension credit unquestionably adds further complexity to an already Byzantine system of retirement provision, which is causing confusion for pensioners, pension providers and those saving for their old age."?
    That is a quote from the report of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, of which the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) is a member.
    Mr. Willetts: I am grateful for that intervention. The report reflects a widespread anxiety that has been expressed by not only Conservative Members but the National Association of Pension Funds Ltd, the Institute for Public Policy Research—the Government's favourite left-wing think-tank—and Age Concern about the spread of means-testing. They demand that the Government at least consider reforming the benefits system as part of tackling the pension crisis.
    James Purnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Willetts: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once and I want to make progress.
    Instead of considering reforming the benefits system, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions produced a Green Paper that completely ignored the state's role in creating the mess in which people find themselves. It ignored the problem of absurdly complicated benefits. Someone said that the Green Paper was so green that cows could graze on it. It is therefore not too late for the Secretary of State to present proposals for a simpler, better benefit regime for pensioners.
    Let us consider another old favourite about which we heard more yesterday: crackdowns on the unemployed. No Budget or autumn statement by the Chancellor is

    459
    complete without a crackdown on the work shy. Every year since 1997, the right hon. Gentleman has gone for the headlines. In July 1997, a headline read, "Labour to be tough on workshy". After the March 1998 Budget, we read: "Puritan Brown goes to war on workshy". "Brown declares war on workshy" stated a newspaper after the 1999 autumn statement. In 2000, The Sun stated, "Blitz to hit workshy". The Chancellor is good at spin. In March 2001, he got "Workfare system facing the jobless" into The Daily Telegraph. Well done! In November 2002, after the autumn statement, The Times reported, "Brown gets tougher on hardcore unemployed".
    I always watch with interest for the spin about how tough the Chancellor will be on the unemployed. Every year, a little like the man who clears up the mess after the procession has passed, I table a few parliamentary questions to ascertain what is actually happening. Of course, what happens is always different from the spin. Let me give three examples of the gap between the Chancellor's rhetoric and reality.
    First, let us consider lone parents. I shall cite the latest figures on workless, lone-parent households. A welcome and steady welcome decline occurred for several years. It began when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was Chancellor and continued after 1997. Workless, lone-parent households declined to a low point of 680,000 in autumn 2000. The Chancellor subsequently launched his new deal for lone parents. Since then, the trend has reversed and the figures are now increasing. According to the latest statistics, for autumn 2002, there are 707,000 workless, lone-parent households.
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): What has happened to the proportion of lone parents in work since Labour has been in government?
    Mr. Willetts: The total number of lone parents in work has increased. Since 1997, the percentage of lone parents in work has risen. However, the downward trend was reversed in 2000 and the position has subsequently deteriorated.
    A similar analysis applies to disabled people. Labour has been talking tough but failing to deliver. Those on incapacity benefit decreased steadily since we introduced the benefit in 1995 until 2000. Since then, the figure has risen. Now, more people are on incapacity benefit than when Labour took office in May 1997. The number is increasing, partly because of so-called reforms that the Government introduced, claiming that they would reduce it. However, people are staying on incapacity benefit for longer because they believe that if they begin to work but subsequently have to go back on incapacity benefit, its terms would be different. They do not want to run that risk. That is a classic example of the perverse effects of ill-thought-out policies. More people are on incapacity benefit now than before the Government introduced their so-called reforms.
    Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend's comments reflect a pervasive cynicism about the chasm between the Government's words and their actions. Does he know that, only last month, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon.
    460
    Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks) on how many occasions jobseeker's allowance had been withdrawn from individuals who had thrice refused reasonable job offers? The Under-Secretary got into a frightful rage but was unable to give a figure.
    Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right. When one asks for the number of people who have been given a mobile phone to help them find a job, or have lost their driving licences because they have not complied with the Child Support Agency, or have been sent to prison or fined because they have refused two job offers, the Government either do not have the figures or they are pathetically small. The Government have large headlines and small results. That is the story of all their welfare-to-work policies.
    Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Willetts: I have given way to the hon. Lady once, and I would like to make progress.
    I am sure that the Chancellor will want to touch on tax credits during the debate—I hope that he will—because he loves his tax credits. I shall begin with some common ground between us: it is important to boost the incomes of people with low-paid jobs. If we are to have a flexible labour market, people, and especially those with family responsibilities, might accept wages on which we could not expect a family to maintain itself in a decent society. In such circumstances, it is right to top up families' incomes so that they are higher than their earnings. That is a shared principle that goes back to the early 1970s when Keith Joseph introduced the family income supplement. The principle was reflected in our family credit and, most recently, in the working families tax credit. I disagreed with the Chancellor about aspects of the working families tax credit. For example, I regretted the way in which he changed the system of payment so that rather than delivering the payment as a benefit to the parent—possibly at home—it was delivered via the pay packet. That was completely unnecessary, and the Financial Secretary and the Paymaster General probably persuaded him to see sense and return to the pre-2000 regime of delivering it as a benefit, which I welcome.
    I am rather sorry that the working families tax credit disappeared at the end of last week because the new system is even worse than the one that it replaced. The new system is far more complicated and it is causing considerable distress to people throughout the country. If the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or the Chancellor wish to intervene on this point, I would appreciate it. I talked to people at a citizen's advice bureau only last week and they told me about problems encountered by people who received the working families tax credit until last week and who will now need the child tax credit to form a significant element of their income. However, unless they had submitted the claim form by 31 January—I think that that was the deadline—there was absolutely no guarantee that the Inland Revenue could deliver the child tax credit. That will affect low-paid Families. As the Chancellor has transferred responsibility from the Department for Work and Pensions—formerly the Department of Social Security—which had at least some understanding

    461
    of the issues, to the Inland Revenue, he is running the significant risk of leaving hundreds of thousands of families in considerable financial distress.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware that I asked my office to contact the Inland Revenue this morning on behalf of one of my constituents who applied in October to transfer her working families tax credit to child tax credit? She received no response to her application and was given an explanation that many applications had been lost in a warehouse. All inquiries to the Inland Revenue produced no indication of when child tax credit would be received by her or the many other poor families to whom the Chancellor boasts the credit will give such assistance.
    Mr. Willetts: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. That is a serious problem that is arising throughout the country for a simple reason: the Inland Revenue uses annual returns of income—it works on an annual basis. People fill in tax returns, or are taxed using pay-as-you-earn, and necessary adjustments are made at the end of the year. The Department for Work and Pensions helps poor people who need money immediately—week in, week out. People on low pay need their income topped up and boosted this week. I do not believe that the Inland Revenue understood the need to get the money out promptly every week or that the child tax credit needed to be delivered to families with low earnings this week because they would otherwise have insufficient money to feed their children and heat their houses.
    The Chancellor has decided—it is entirely his responsibility—that the Inland Revenue must operate as an alternative benefits agency. He might not believe in contestability of public services when it comes to health or education, but he certainly does when it comes to delivering benefits. The Inland Revenue now has responsibility to ensure that low-paid families receive a regular income. This is the first week in which it has had such responsibility and the indications are not good. They show that we will all have constituents whose families are not receiving the money that they expect and need. I know that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has shed responsibility for that, but if he can offer any comfort to the thousands of families who face such a considerable worry by tackling the problem, that would be welcomed by not only Conservative Members, but people struggling in citizen's advice bureaux throughout the country and hon. Members of all parties who have constituents with problems.
    On tax credits, the Chancellor has been his own worst enemy. He has constructed a system that is so complicated and confusing that many people are unable to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. If everyone had claimed the means-tested benefits to which they were entitled, an extra £5 billion of benefits and tax credits would be paid each year to families and pensioners in the UK. Had that £5 billion a year been paid to them, it would have taken the Chancellor's public expenditure and borrowing limits above the 3 per cent. rule that he set himself. It is the final irony of this Chancellor's record that it is only the failure of his tax
    462
    credits and means-tested benefits to reach the people who need them that has enabled him to keep his public expenditure plans within those rules. That is why we oppose the Budget and the judgments behind it.
    3.44 pm
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): This Budget is for a Britain in which flexibility and fairness, enterprise and full employment go hand in hand. It champions economic strength and social justice, building on all that we have done to ensure macro-economic stability and to deliver high and stable growth.
    I want to focus on our aims of greater labour market flexibility, full employment in every region and making work pay, and on the extra measures that we are taking to help pensioners and to build a fairer society for all. First, however, let me acknowledge the albeit tepid welcome that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) managed to give to at least one or two of our measures. In so far as there is a shared aspiration on asset-based welfare or asset-based democracy, there is also a clear difference. He may talk about it and give a bit of a welcome for the child trust fund, but Labour is delivering asset-based democracy with 1.1 million more homeowners and net household wealth up 40 per cent. since we came into office. The difference is that he can talk, but we can deliver.
    If we look at the Budget in the round, it is clear that because of the tough decisions that Labour has taken over the past six years—making the Bank of England independent, bringing public finances under control—Britain is better placed than other countries, and better placed than it was in the past, to withstand the global downturn and to benefit when world economic recovery begins. We have the lowest inflation for 30 years, the lowest interest rates for 40 years and the highest levels of employment in our history.
    The hon. Member for Havant made light of welfare to work and matching rights and responsibilities, accusing us of big headlines and little delivery. When it comes to welfare to work and progress to full employment, surely there is no bigger headline than the 1.5 million extra people who are in jobs thanks to a Labour Government and our welfare-to-work initiatives. Those achievements did not happen by chance. They certainly did not happen because we followed the advice of those on the Conservative Front Bench. After all, the Conservatives opposed Bank of England independence, the fiscal rules, the new deal, public investment and even the working families tax credit, the loss of which the hon. Gentleman lamented. It was clear that they have learned nothing. He and his colleagues should ask themselves why, when they were in charge in the early 1980s and early 1990s, Britain was first into the downturn and suffered the most and longest. When we have produced growth in every quarter for six years, why did they twice have the British economy in recession for five quarters in a row?
    Mr. Andrew Hunter: Some commentators said today that the greater part of job creation in the past 12 months has been in the public sector, not the wealth-creating private sector. The

    463
    private sector continues to suffer from belt-tightening and that trend looks set to continue. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on that?
    Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we should not be employing more teachers, more police officers, more nurses or more doctors, then he is confirming the shadow Chief Secretary's agenda of 20 per cent. cuts in public spending. The detailed figures relating to the 1.5 million extra jobs now in the economy show that whereas about 400,000 are public sector jobs, more than 1 million of the extra jobs that we have generated are in the private sector. The difference between Labour in government and the Conservatives in government is that, thanks to their mismanagement of the economy and the depth of those recessions, they cut not only public sector employment so that hospitals, schools and policing suffered, but private sector employment, too, so that unemployment rose to more than 3 million, which was enormously wasteful to individuals and to our society. I make no apology for employing more public servants to deliver front-line public services, but the success of our economic policies has resulted in more employment in the private sector as well.
    Conservative Members should ask themselves why their Government had interest rates at more than 15 per cent. for a year, whereas we have them at 3¾ per cent. Whereas we have inflation at 2.5 per cent., they had inflation at 20 per cent. in the 1980s and 10 per cent. in the 1990s. We have a cumulative current surplus over the cycle. Although, this year, net borrowing is projected to be £27 billion or 2.1 per cent. of GDP, borrowing under the Conservatives reached a high of 8 per cent. of GDP—in today's terms, £83 billion of borrowing—in just one year. The hon. Member for Havant talked about the legacy the Conservatives bequeathed to us, but they left us debt standing at 44 per cent. of GDP. Yesterday's Budget stabilises debt below 34 per cent. of GDP, as far as the forecasts go—
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Smith: Britain is not simply doing better compared with other industrialised countries, but doing very much better than in the past, including when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was in charge.
    Mr. Clarke: Will the Secretary of State please stop making ridiculous claims about interest rates and inflation based on comparisons with the inflationary recessions in the 1970s and 1980s, which were quite different from the problems that are hitting this country now? Almost every country in the world can claim that it now has the lowest interest rates that it has had for about 30 years—indeed, fears of deflation are running through the developed world. In fact, the UK currently has the highest interest rates in the G7 and has done so for most of the time that the Labour Government have been in office.
    Mr. Smith: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was listening to me. I did not simply point to the '70s and the '80s; I pointed to the '90s as
    464
    well—not that long ago—when, under the Conservatives, inflation was in excess of 10 per cent. The reason why there is now greater economic stability, 1.5 million more people in jobs and many more businesses thriving in our country is that we have been building an economy on a sound macro-economic foundation, following tough, firm and clear fiscal rules, assisted by the independence of the Bank of England. By contrast, he refused to put firm fiscal rules in place and opposed the independence of the Bank of England.
    Mr. Clarke: The Secretary of State is going back to the '90s, but not to the time when the economy was handed over to the present Government. When I left office as Chancellor I was able to boast of the lowest mortgage rates and interest rates for many years. This country has had 10 years of growth with low inflation. Private sector jobs were created as a result of the ongoing benefits of that and the United States-led boom. Things have changed now: public sector employment has been rising by 70,000 a month—they are not all teachers or nurses—and private sector employment is falling quite rapidly. Once they get into difficulties, the Government will find that they have lost control.
    Mr. Smith: I do not blame the right hon. and learned Gentleman for talking up his record and achievements, but he should compare current mortgage rates with what they were when he was in charge. As for his legacy, look at that debt of 44 per cent. of GDP and compare it with our achievement of getting debt below 34 per cent.
    If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is comparing different downturns in the world economy and their domestic effect, he must ask himself why it was that in the world downturn of the 1980s, employment went down by 1.3 million. In the downturn of the 1990s, employment went down by 1.6 million. Contrast that with the position in this world downturn, where employment has increased by half a million. That is the result of the macro-economic stability and the policies of economic success that we have put in place.
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: If the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) is not content with main comparisons of mortgage interest rates, perhaps he should consider the growth in living standards under the present Government compared with that under the Government of whom he was a member.
    Mr. Smith: Absolutely. Living standards have been rising. Net household wealth is 40 per cent. stronger than it was when we came into office. That is a consequence of the stability that I have been talking about and the tough fiscal decisions that we have taken. That has meant more people in jobs, people being better off and successful businesses. It has meant also that we are able to invest more money where it is needed. The Conservatives ran down public services, investment and infrastructure, with unemployment of more than 3 million and millions in poverty. We are tackling poverty and, at the same time, targeting public spending on front-line services—for example, health, education, transport and crime fighting.

    465
    This year's Budget implements our spending review commitments with real rises in education spending, for example, of about 6 per cent. a year. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister highlighted yesterday, an international report finds that English primary school readers are now among the best in the world. We have the highest ever number of police officers—there are more than 130,000 officers, more than ever there were under the Conservatives. According to the British crime survey, crime is down by more than 25 per cent. Through the increase in national insurance that was announced in last year's Budget, spending on health in the United Kingdom will rise by 7.2 per cent. a year in real terms right through to 2008. That will secure the national health service as a quality service, with 25,000 more doctors, 80,000 more nurses and more than 100 new hospitals, all free at the point of need. It is because we took tough decisions, stuck to the fiscal rules and built a strong economy that we can now go further.
    Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out a range of measures that build on a stable foundation to promote enterprise, to tackle poverty, to protect the environment and to ensure a better quality of life for current and future generations. During the debate today and in the days that follow, Opposition Members will have to tell us whether they support our drive to improve the supply of housing and the streamlining and simplifying of planning decisions. They need to say whether they back our measures to help break down the barriers to business success by reducing red tape and simplifying tax for small businesses. These measures will bring greater flexibility to capital markets, to product markets, to housing and planning and labour markets.
    Mr. Jack: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Smith: On flexibility, I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Jack: I wonder whether in that litany of gains that he has put before the House he can refresh my memory as to how much the loss has been in the value of pension funds, endowment policies and other similar investments since 1997.
    Mr. Smith: We should consider what is happening to pensioner incomes rather than the allegations and the figures that are thrown around by Opposition Members. It is possible to hypothesise all sorts of things about funds. What matters to pensioners is the money that they are getting. We must have regard to surveys of household income. The right hon. Gentleman and those on the Opposition Front Bench will find that pensioner incomes are up by 20 per cent. in real terms since Labour came into office.
    Mr. John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman is focusing excessively on inputs to the detriment and perhaps even the exclusion of outputs. Given that the trumpeted public service agreement targets on literacy and numeracy were both missed in 2002, and that the target on truancy was missed, then
    466
    scrapped, can he not see that although it would be disappointing if the Government missed targets set by independent experts, for them to fail to meet the targets that they have set themselves requires incompetence on a truly spectacular scale?
    Mr. Smith: I heard the hon. Gentleman use precisely the same language yesterday to make precisely the same point, which was rather more effective in the original than in the repeat. He is talking about outputs, and so am I. Crime surveys show that crime is down by more than 25 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about outputs in the health service, he should take a look at the fact that 130,000 fewer people are waiting a long time for operations, or that, unlike the past, 98 per cent. of people suffering from cancer now get to see a consultant specialist within two weeks. Literacy and numeracy have both improved significantly since the Opposition were in office to the point where, as I said earlier, the Prime Minister could highlight international reports commending English standards in our primary schools. We are therefore doing better—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) asked the Minister a question and he has replied, so perhaps he would listen.
    Mr. Smith: I shall take your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that I have answered that one.
    On employment, since 1997, we have transformed our employment programmes and approach. On input, we are investing £2.2 billion in transforming Jobcentre Plus to make it the best welfare-to-work service in the world. On output, every year we are helping over a million people into jobs through Jobcentre Plus. Investment is matched by reform, for example, the introduction of the work-focused interview and an approach that matches rights and responsibilities, and makes work pay. The Budget carries reform further forward. With some parts of our country still having twice the unemployment of others, we want to get more people into work and offer a better service still to employers through local initiatives and innovation, harnessing the talents of our local managers and staff to meet the labour market needs of their communities.
    Mr. Bailey: Given the way in which the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) rubbished the Government's rights and responsibilities agenda, perhaps the Minister would like to comment on the situation in my own local jobcentre? It offers a step up scheme, for which 102 customers have been identified as eligible, and 49 of the long-term unemployed, the most problematic people on the register, are now in employment under it.
    Mr. Smith: That is indeed a success to be proud of, and I join my hon. Friend in commending not only the programme but our front-line staff in Jobcentre Plus, who work with partners in the private and voluntary sectors and make such a success of those initiatives.
    From April next year, we will be able to take the devolution of power and responsibility to front-line staff further by giving managers powers to adapt new deals to local needs and introduce a new discretionary fund to give local managers new, enhanced flexibility to direct

    467
    resources to tackle local barriers to the labour market. With local discretion will go a new performance regime, with better rewards for the best performing managers and staff and a tougher approach to the worst performing, including replacing the management where that is what it takes. In every area, Jobcentre Plus specialist managers will match employers who need staff with unemployed people who need jobs. We are helping more people into work and ensuring British businesses, big and small, improve competitiveness by having access to the right employees at the right time.
    We will also target resources on areas of high need to provide a particularly responsive job placement service to employers. As nearly half of all vacancies are generated by small and medium-sized enterprises, a new team will work at the regional level across Jobcentre Plus to produce a step change in service to the small business sector, building on the success of Employer Direct, which is already taking 13,000 job vacancies a day.
    We shall also take further action to address the needs of those facing additional and particular barriers to work. From April next year, specialist account managers will work with employers in areas of particularly high ethnic minority unemployment, and a new £8 million fund will be established for local initiatives to help people to find work in those areas. To ensure that people at risk of drifting into longer-term unemployment take every chance of a job, we shall bring in weekly signing for those on jobseeker's allowance between 13 and 19 weeks of unemployment. We shall also increase the area over which new JSA claimants will be expected to travel to find work.
    In terms of making work pay, since 1997 we have reformed the system so that it pays to move from welfare into work. Too often, however, unemployed men and women say that losing their housing benefit means that it is not worth their while to work. So from next April, people on housing benefit who move into work will no longer be required to submit a new claim for housing benefit. They will simply inform the local authority and continue to be paid the out-of-work rate until their benefits are recalculated.
    Ms Buck: I welcome the proposals to offset housing benefit against income to help to make work pay in high-value areas. May I, however, flag up one worry? There are people in my constituency who have been waiting for some time for their housing benefit calculations to come through, because companies such as Capita are taking some time to do the work, and this might also happen under my right hon. Friend's new system. Those people can build up massive overpayments, the repayment of which can lead to rent arrears and, in some cases, to the issuing of eviction notices. Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to work with local authorities to ensure that tenants do not unwittingly end up with serious rent problems because of housing benefit overpayments?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. I acknowledge her experience and expertise in this area, and I always listen carefully to what she has to say. We are in fact already acting on these issues. We have made £200 million available to local authorities, for example, to improve their administration, which in many cases involves updating outdated information technology
    468
    systems. We also have a help team out there working with the worst-performing local authorities, and it is succeeding in helping to transform their performance.
    Like my hon. Friend, however, I suspect that there was something fundamentally flawed in the system of housing benefit that we inherited. That is why we are piloting the new approach—which was welcomed, at least in spirit, by the hon. Member for Havant—in which there will be a standard allowance that will depend on a person's family circumstances and income, rather than on the rent that they pay. That will be much more simple and straightforward to administer, because it will avoid having to poke around and assess every individual letting that is taking place within the housing benefit system. I know, because my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) has talked to me about this as well, that there are particular challenges involved in bringing the standard housing allowance system into areas of great rent variability, such as the constituency that she represents. We shall learn from the pilots how best to deal with that.
    There are now 200,000 more lone parents in work than there were in 1997, and, as the hon. Member for Havant had to acknowledge, their employment rate is now 54 per cent., compared with 46 per cent. when we came into office. That is good progress, but we need to do more. The Budget brings forward a package of measures to break down barriers to work. For many lone parents, the costs involved in looking for work are a disincentive. So, in a groundbreaking pilot, lone parents who voluntarily attend regular work-focused interviews and undertake job search will be offered an extra £20 a week to cover job search costs, rising to £40 extra a week—and topping up wages for a year—when they move into work.
    While the minimum wage today is £147 for a 35-hour week, tax credits—much derided by the Conservatives—raise the minimum family income for a lone parent with two children to £276, even after tax, which is almost twice as much. We shall want to do more for lone parents who want to work part-time, as for many that is an important stepping stone into work in general. The housing benefit disregard announced yesterday, which will help 90,000 people, means that for lone parents paying £50 a week part-time work will pay £213 a week. That is what we are talking about when we say we must make work pay, and help people to move from welfare to work.
    Mr. Wayne David: I acknowledge and welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, but does he recognise that much more should be done about crèche facilities?
    Mr. Smith: Child care provision of all kinds is extremely important. We have a child care strategy, and the substantial extra resources we are providing will provide hundreds of thousands of places in addition to the hundreds of thousands that have already been added to the existing number. Moreover, Jobcentre Plus means that in every area a child care partnership manager will

    469
    ensure that local child care provision, including advice given in jobcentres and support for employers, is properly co-ordinated.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Smith: I should like to make a little more progress.
    A flexible, dynamic economy must go hand in hand with a fairer society so that everyone has an opportunity to fulfil his or her potential. Since 1997 we have reversed the long-term trend of rising child poverty and reduced the number of families living on less than £10,000 a year by a third, and the Budget allows us to go further. We will tackle the cycle of low expectation—a cycle that can take people from low income in childhood, through low pay in adult life, to low income in retirement. The Budget allows us to give all children opportunities that have hitherto been confined to the few, by giving everyone a chance to build up some savings. The new child trust fund will give every newborn child £250, with double that amount going to the poorest.
    The Budget confirms that pensioners with modest savings and occupational pensions will gain from pension credit, which will provide, on average, an extra £7 a week for half the pensioner households in the country. Here is a challenge for the Conservatives, who love to deride pension credit—along with all the other credits—and talk of people being sucked into means-testing. Half our pensioner households will be, on average, nearly £400 a year better off. Is the Conservative party going to take that money away from them? That is the question that it must answer between now and the next general election.
    Taken together, our reforms will make pensioner households more than £1,150 a year better off in real terms, with the poorest third gaining over £1,600. Most pensioners have no income tax to pay, but those who do will benefit. Age-related personal allowances for the forthcoming year will rise to £6,610 for those between 65 and 74, and to £6,720 for those aged 75 and over. No pensioner will pay tax on an income of less than £127 a week.
    Mr. Goodman: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned means-testing. According to the most recent take-up figures, did take-up of income support, jobseeker's allowance, council tax benefit and housing benefit go up or down?
    Mr. Smith: We need to do more about take-up of those benefits. I acknowledged that when the figures were published. What neither the hon. Gentleman nor the hon. Member for Havant has mentioned is the acknowledgement in that and other reports of the considerable impact that our take-up campaigns have already had. For example, 150,000 more pensioners have benefited from the minimum income guarantee by an average of £20 a week. As we roll out the new pension credit, we will contact every pensioner in the country with unprecedented energy and attention to ensure that every pensioner gets the entitlements that should be their right, and which they deserve.
    James Purnell: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) is a
    470
    member of the Work and Pensions Select Committee, and that it unanimously welcomed the pension credit? It said that the pension credit
    "will ensure that most pensioners will be better off as a result of having saved for their retirement, compared to those who have not."
    Mr. Smith: I am sure that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) drafted that text, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) for drawing it to my attention. [Interruption.] Apparently, the hon. Member for Wycombe did not draft it.
    Mr. Goodman: I am certainly happy to acknowledge that I signed up to the report on the pension credit—if the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) will also acknowledge that he signed up to its concluding paragraph, which states:
    "However, the Pension Credit unquestionably adds further complexity to an already byzantine system of retirement provision, which is causing confusion for pensioners, pension providers and those saving for their old age."
    Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might also like to confirm that, although the Committee welcomed the money, it never accepted the principle of the pension credit.
    Mr. Smith: We have had an illustration of the fine tradition of compromise that underpins the standing and integrity of our Select Committee reports. However, I cannot but draw the House's attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman supports the pension credit, whereas the hon. Member for Havant opposes it. Their position is going to come apart between now and the next general election.
    To provide greater financial security and to reduce anxiety for those who stay longer in hospital, we will ensure that, where pensioners and those receiving income-related benefits currently lose about 40 per cent. of their pension after six weeks in hospital, everybody admitted to hospital from yesterday onward will be able to keep their benefits in full for stays of up to 52 weeks.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend has sneaked in a little word—as did the Chancellor—that nobody has properly picked up. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) often accuses the Department of keeping things to itself. However, am I right in saying that this provision will apply to everybody who is on income support, and will that not constitute a huge benefit to the mentally ill in particular, who have complained for years that when a schizophrenic, for example, is sectioned under mental health legislation, they lose their housing benefit after a few weeks, which makes it even more difficult to get back into the community? Is this not a fantastic gain for people such as the mentally ill?
    Mr. Smith: It is a very important gain, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that the provision applies to all income replacement and benefits for up to 52 weeks. For the avoidance of doubt, it will not apply to attendance allowance and disability living allowance, because those are living cost and care cost benefits that are met while people are in hospital.

    471
    For pensioners aged 80 or over, the Budget also introduces, from yesterday onwards, an extra payment of £100, over and above the £200 winter fuel payment, for the remainder of this Parliament. Almost 2 million people aged 80 or over will benefit.
    We have just reached the end of the largest ever consultation on occupational pensions. We shall shortly produce plans to open avenues to flexible retirement and to increase saving through proposals to make informed choice a reality, to improve the information and advice available for people planning their retirement, to simplify radically pensions legislation and red tape to make it easier for employers to provide good pensions. and to improve protection for scheme members and restore confidence in pensions. Anxiety over scheme closures undoubtedly undermines such confidence.
    Kali Mountford rose—
    Mr. Willetts: I want to take the right hon. Gentleman back to higher winter fuel payments, which he touched on briefly. He used a phrase from the Red Book, which states that the additional £100 is
    "for the lifetime of this Parliament".
    Do the Government intend, if re-elected, that the extra £100 would apply in the next Parliament?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman can look forward to that being in our election manifesto.
    Kali Mountford rose—
    Mr. Smith: I well recall, however, how Opposition Front-Bench Members—I think including the hon. Member for Havant—were foolish enough to deride the winter payment as a gimmick when it was first introduced. At first, the Opposition were going to abolish it. Then, if I remember correctly, they were going to consolidate it in the pension. Then, in abject confusion as the election came upon them and they saw how popular the measure was, they were going to give pensioners a choice as to whether it was consolidated or paid separately. In his own interests, I urge the hon. Gentleman to think carefully and not to repeat the same mistake. [HON. MEMBERS: "We want him to repeat the mistake."] Labour Members want the hon. Gentleman to make the same mistake again, so perhaps he will.
    Kali Mountford rose—
    Mr. Smith: This year's Budget builds on our achievement since 1997. We are giving children the best start in life. We are making work pay. We are making sure that pensioners share in the country's rising prosperity.
    Kali Mountford: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Smith: I must draw my remarks to a close, but I cannot resist giving way to my hon. Friend.
    Kali Mountford: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that trust in pensions, especially in private and occupational pensions, is extremely important? Will he build on the
    472
    work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)? Before he left his post as Minister for Pensions, he was dealing with pension liberation schemes. People who had put money into pension schemes honestly had it virtually stolen from them in scams. Several companies were brought to book by my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield. I believe that the cases have gone through the courts and that the companies have been punished for their dreadful acts. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the regulations will look at pension schemes, and protect pensioners from that sort of vile activity?
    Mr. Smith: Absolutely. My hon. Friend draws attention to a very important matter. She is right to commend the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) in this area. I assure her that the fine tradition that he established will be carried forward. We will prosecute anyone who tries to defraud pensioners in this country.
    In conclusion, I believe that we have set out our vision for a fairer, more flexible and more enterprising Britain. We have rejected the Tory failings of the past—the economic instability, the high unemployment, and the under-investment in our schools and hospitals—which denied people opportunity and quality public services.
    This Budget, as with all the others over the past six years, is about building a Britain of full employment. It is about maintaining a course of prudence and stability. It is about investing in our public services.
    We reject—as I believe that the British people reject—the 20 per cent. cuts proposed by the Opposition, and the shadow Chancellor's doctrine of shackling public spending to short-term shifts in gross domestic product. That would damage public services and investment, destabilise the economy, and take us back to boom and bust. That is where the Opposition are headed with the Howard doctrine.
    The truth is that the Opposition have learned nothing, but Britain has learned that, with Labour's prudent course of economic stability and enterprise, flexibility and fairness, we can achieve full employment and quality public services, and give everyone the chance to make the most of their potential.
    This Budget carries forward the Government's work of building a strong economy and a strong society, where enterprise and social justice go together. I commend it to the House.
    4.23 pm
    Mr. Paul Burstow: I rise to address the issues to do with health and welfare, which are the principal subjects for debate today. I want especially to deal with matters connected with benefits and pensions, because yesterday's Budget statement omitted any reference to the growing pensions crisis. It did little, if anything, to reverse the Chancellor's love of complexity in our tax and benefits system. It leaves real questions about how we as a country will be able to resource, in the medium to long term, the Government's commitments—which Liberal Democrats support—to invest in our public services, most particularly in education and health. The Budget also raises questions to do with the resourcing of social care, and I shall return to that matter in a moment.

    473
    We have a pensions crisis in this country, but we do not have a pensions Minister at the moment. It is a particularly bad time to have a vacuum in such a key ministerial post within the Department for Work and Pensions—not least as the Green Paper consultation process comes to a close. It has been useful to hear the Secretary of State talk about his expectations for occupational pensions, but what we really need is a Minister for Pensions working now to give the public confidence that the Government are not in denial of the pensions crisis, but are taking action to deal with it.
    Why does the Prime Minister believe that managing the Labour party and appointing a party chairman is more important than tackling the pensions crisis? We have had six Pensions Ministers in six years of Labour government, so what does that say about their approach to pensions? Does it mean that every one of those Ministers was not up to the job? What does it demonstrate to the public? What confidence can people have that the Government are on top of the pensions difficulties faced by so many of our constituents? Undoubtedly, the current vacuum in respect of a Pensions Minister is sending out the wrong signal.
    More and more of our fellow citizens coming up to retirement and, indeed, many who are currently retired, face the prospect of a period of poverty. The latest Government figures show that more than one in five pensioners—2.2 million of our senior citizens—live in poverty today. As we have already heard, the Government's approach is to provide more and more means-testing. However, when he was the shadow Chancellor, the Chancellor was not in favour of means-testing. Indeed, in 1993, he said:
    "I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in fifty years of the welfare state has never been achieved—the end of the means test for our elderly people."
    So what happened? Was there a Damascene conversion on the road to government that led the Chancellor to conclude that that was no longer the way forward? We reject that view and believe that excessive reliance on means-testing is increasingly denying the poorest in our land access to the resources that they need. The Chancellor has increased means-testing and the complexity of our system. As a result, we have seen a reduction in take-up.
    The Department published figures a week ago—the Secretary of State acknowledged that they were not good enough—that bear repetition. Pensioners are currently missing out on up to £1.8 billion of benefits and up to 270,000 pensioners are missing out on housing benefit. Some 670,000 are missing out on the minimum income guarantee and up to 1.43 million on council tax benefit. As council tax bills land with a loud and disappointing thud on people's doormats, we should reflect on the failure to increase take-up of council tax benefits. In fact, we have seen a reduction in the number of people taking up such benefits to the extent that people are losing, on average, £7.60 per week.
    What additional steps are being taken to learn the lessons from the failures of the take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee and ensure that more people take up council tax benefit? Is it not a pity that the Chancellor did not take the opportunity yesterday to
    474
    announce his acceptance of our policy of cutting council tax bills by £100 across the country? Given the regressive nature of council tax, that would have helped the poorest people in our country and the poorest pensioners among them.
    If take-up is already a problem, it will be even greater in respect of pension credit. The Government estimate that 3.8 million households will be eligible—half the pensioner population, the Secretary of State tells us—but that only 2.8 million will receive the benefit by October 2004. By 2006, an extra 200,000 are expected to claim it, taking the total to 3 million people. The Public Accounts Committee rightly described the Department's target as entirely unambitious in respect of driving up pension credit take-up. That is why we reject the reliance on means-testing and argue for the boosting of the basic state pension. We propose a £5 across-the-board increase, plus extra help that is targeted on the basis of age additions£10 at the age of 75, and £15 at the age of 80.
    Yesterday, the Chancellor made a welcome announcement on age addition at the age of 80. The figure of 25p has not been increased since it was introduced more than 30 years ago. However, rather than increasing the age addition, he chose to go down the route of paying it through the winter fuel allowance—the extra £100. It would be churlish not to
    welcome that extra money, but it is worth pointing out that, if we consider what the 25p would be worth today if it had been indexed to prices over the past 30 years, we find that it would stand at the princely sum of £2.19 a week. That is based on figures that were published by the Department for Work and Pensions in July last year. Obviously, they have to be updated slightly, but they give a good indication. The £100 equates to £1.92 a week. All that has been achieved by the Chancellor's largesse yesterday is a catch-up on the past 30 years of failing to index the age addition. That is hardly generous, despite the way in which it was presented. Liberal Democrats believe that the targeting of extra help to the over-80s requires a substantial extra investment. That is why we propose an extra £15 a week, or £780 a year, to the over-80s.
    Yesterday, the Chancellor made much about flexibility in the labour market. He talked about additional support and assistance to schemes to promote employment among the over-50s. However, if we are serious about addressing labour market inflexibility, we have to tackle deep-seated ageism in the labour market. Ageism denies access to employment for many thousands of our fellow citizens and it denies people their dignity and liberty. It makes no economic sense. The cost of ageism to our economy—as estimated by the Employers Forum on Age—is £31 billion a year in lost production, lost taxes and lost opportunities. What a waste of money.
    Today, one in three people who are over the age of 50 but below the age of the state pension are out of work. Some of those people have made a deliberate choice to retire, to take up voluntary work, or whatever. However, far too many of them have been tossed on the scrap heap by employers who have adopted ageist assumptions about their capacity to do the job. Age should not be seen as a proxy for a person's capability or competence to do anything; and yet, still today, surveys shows that employers use age as a criterion when

    475
    deciding whether to employ a person. We need age-discrimination legislation. The Government must signal that they will not wait until the last minute of the last hour of 2006 to introduce legislation under the European Union directive on equal treatment. The Government must not simply legislate for employment but legislate to deal with age discrimination across the whole economy—in terms of goods and services, whether publicly or privately provided, as well.
    I want to touch on a couple of other issues, the first of which is the child and working tax credits and the £9 million advertising campaign that we have all seen on our televisions over the past few weeks and months. From answers that the DWP has given, 2 million of the 5 million families who are entitled to this tax credit are not claiming it. Again, complexity is denying access, denying benefits and denying extra income. At the same time, the old tax credit system is winding down. A constituent came to see me last weekend and said that they had applied for the old tax credit and been told that they would have to wait because the staff who would process it were now processing all the claims for the new system. My constituent may also lose out on a maternity grant because time scales mean that they will be timed out. I hope that that will not be the case and that, when I write to the Department, Ministers will confirm that my constituent will get the tax credit and will not be penalised because of processing delays in the system.
    The Liberal Democrats welcome increased investment in the national health service. Last year, we voted for the national insurance increase because we believed passionately that extra investment was needed. However, the Labour Government spent too much time during their first term inflating figures to create the impression that substantial investment was being made. They raised expectations that were not met, thus allowing the Conservatives to peddle their current line that extra investment will not make a shred of difference to our national health service. That is a false argument, but the Government have brought it on themselves by the false figures and accounting of their first term.
    Where is the money going? Waste is a serious problem in the NHS. I offer the House some examples. Agency nurse costs have risen threefold since Labour came to power and are currently £529 million a year, half of which is spent in Greater London alone. NHS resources of £500 million are going into agency costs rather than into the provision and retention of directly recruited staff.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Would it not be sensible to bring such agencies into public ownership, as public services, so that they are non-profit making?
    Mr. Burstow: In a way, the Government tried that with the establishment of NHS Professionals—their answer to the cost of agency nurses. That body was set up to manage bank nurses and other agency nurses to provide a service to the NHS. However, that form of nationalisation produced a poorer service, which was rejected by many trusts.
    We need sensible strategic planning for the use of agency staff rather than the panic measures currently being adopted. Only 18 months ago, an Audit Commission report concluded that there was not
    476
    enough planning in the use of agency staff; they were merely being used as a firefighting measure to plug gaps as and when. The lesson to be drawn is that, if we want family friendly practices throughout the economy, we should be seen to have adopted them in the NHS. People are voting with their feet and leaving the NHS to work for agencies, where they find the flexibility that they are not given when they work directly for the NHS.
    There are questions about the pressure on the NHS to hit Whitehall targets that often relate not to genuine clinical needs but to other Government ambitions. For example, the Government set a target of four hours for waiting in accident and emergency departments. In March, they carried out a snapshot survey to find out how things were going. The problem with taking a snapshot is that everyone lines up for the photograph to make it look as though they are doing a good job. During the week of the Government's snapshot survey, extra agency staff were brought in, overtime was increased, and training courses and scheduled operations were cancelled so that the right figures were achieved.
    Maintenance in the health service is also a problem. When the Government took office, the cost of the maintenance backlog to deal with the peeling paint in the crumbling buildings of our health service was £2.8 billion. The Labour Government were going to save the NHS in 24 hours. What is the situation six years later? The figure for the maintenance backlog is £3.4 billion and rising. PPP has not solved that problem. What are the Government doing to deal with that long-term maintenance backlog?
    The Chancellor rightly talks of the need for long-term investment in the health service. He commissioned the Wanless inquiry, which we welcomed. We subscribe to many of its findings. However, we were puzzled by the fact that Wanless said time and again that health and social care were sides of the same coin and that they needed to be seen as part of a whole system, yet Wanless was denied the possibility of inquiring into the adequacy of social services resources. Surely it is time to hold such an inquiry, not least given the integral relationship between the two parts of the system. The NHS can begin to deliver many of the Government's targets only when its social care partners are properly resourced. That is why it is disturbing to learn that in the past six years 124,000 fewer households received home care—a 25 per cent. reduction in the number of people receiving care in their own homes. Is it any wonder that there are still problems with delayed discharge? Instead of tackling the underlying causes, a system of fines has been passed into law that will damage working relationships on the ground, but will not solve the problems. Is it not time to have a Wanless on social services funding?
    My final point on the national health service concerns prescription charges for the chronically ill. Wanless described that situation as
    "not logical, nor rooted in the principles of the NHS".
    Under rules written in 1968—an entirely different time when medical science was not as good as it is today, and when people with acute short-term medical conditions tended to live less long than they do today—thousands of our fellow citizens with chronic long-term medical conditions do not gain access to exemptions to prescription charges, but have to pay. They may be

    477
    exempted if they are very poor and on income support, but those on the margins pay through the nose. For example, those on incapacity benefit find themselves in a serious situation whereby, because they have just 7p more a week than someone on income support, they do not qualify for the exemptions and end up having to pay their prescription bills. It is therefore not surprising that 750,000 prescriptions issued to people with long-term medical conditions—prescriptions that could change the quality of their lives—are not being taken up. What a waste of those people's quality of life. I hear about people saying to their GP or pharmacist, "Which of these prescriptions will make the most difference to me?" Some of the people who are paying, but should not have to, are those with asthma, cystic fibrosis or Parkinson's disease. The Budget should have addressed that long-term anomaly, which Wanless identified and on which the Government should act.
    The Budget is built on a number of assumptions by the Chancellor—untested favourable assumptions about growth and investment by the business sector. It is time that the Chancellor subjected his whole Budget to an independent audit by the National Audit Office. It should not be for the Chancellor to choose the assumptions that he submits—the NAO should be able to look at the whole Budget so that we know whether we are basing our debates on firm assumptions rather than on woolly, ungrounded and unfounded assumptions.
    The Chancellor has spent six years producing Budgets that make our tax and benefits system more complicated. He has been slow to invest in our public services and he has remained in denial about the crisis in our pensions system. The problem that results is an imbalance in the economy as a whole. Manufacturing is in recession and there are serious problems of investment in the business economy. Unless the Government begin to tackle that imbalance and ensure that the long-term growth forecasts are not just Mickey Mouse figures but a reality, we will not be able to pay for the increased borrowing—which we support—to provide improvements to public services. As a consequence, the Government's whole strategy will start to unravel, allowing the case of of others who wish to make cuts in public services to be heard more effectively. That is the danger of the strategy that the Chancellor outlined. It is a high-risk strategy, and I hope that his luck holds; otherwise public services will suffer. For our constituents, that will be the biggest concern of all.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I remind the House that the debate must conclude at 6 o'clock. There were three statements, so time is very limited. I ask Members to exercise a reasonable amount of discipline in making their contributions so that a maximum number of Members can be called.
    4.44 pm
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: Conservative Members' comments, not only today but yesterday, have focused on waste and bureaucracy. I suppose that that is what I would have expected. Yesterday, however, I went to the Library and dug out an interesting document—a research paper on parliamentary
    478
    questions, debates and contributions, which was released last week. I discovered in it that between 13 June 2001 and 7 November, one Member of the House, who shall remain nameless—at least for the time being—managed to ask 3,036 questions more than his nearest rival: 18 oral parliamentary questions, at the cost of, I think, £299 each, plus a staggering 4,206 written parliamentary questions at £129 a pop. Most of them were about waste and bureaucracy, at a cost to the taxpayer of more than half a million pounds. Not only do Tory policies cost us more, but Tory politicians cost us a lot more. That is an example of bureaucracy and waste if ever there was one.
    Once the dust has settled on the Budget and we look back at headline figures, four key areas will come to mind with regard to their impact on my constituency. On employment, health, education and pensions, the national figures grab attention. We are down to under 1 million unemployed, and we have the highest ever employment level. On health, by 2008, we will have some 80,000 more nurses and 25,000 more doctors. On education, we have a settlement by which we are moving towards spending 6 per cent. of GDP on our children's education. A range of measures has been introduced for pensioners over the years, but those announced yesterday will be particularly welcome to campaigning groups in my constituency.
    Sometimes, however, those measures can seem a long way away from the working man and woman on the streets of Gloucester, and the statistics do not seem to relate to them in their day-to-day lives. I can understand that. As a constituency MP, I relate most to measures such as the new deal, which has reduced youth unemployment in my constituency by 75 per cent. When Labour came to power in 1997, 347 young people under the age of 25 in my constituency were out of work. Remarkably, that figure has been cut to 71. As a result of other measures introduced by the Chancellor in the past six years, a staggering 1,297 Gloucester people have been taken off benefits during that period. I remember working as a cleaner during my holidays for just £2.30 an hour. I am proud to say that, under this Government, in October this year, the national minimum wage will be £4.50, and we are looking at implementing a minimum wage for younger groups, too.
    When we talk in statistical terms about growth, productivity and how we compare with the rest of the G7, it can be boring for the man in the street. The single most important factor, which I mentioned in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is the improvement in living standards. If we look back over the past 50 years, this country has experienced the greatest improvement in living standards since post-war times. That is hugely significant.
    I mentioned the minimum wage and the difference that it is making. Clearly, the Tories were against when it was introduced, although I think that they are in favour of it now. I do not know exactly what the Liberal Democrat policy is on the minimum wage: it is Thursday, so I think that they are against it at the moment. I gather that instead of the council tax, they propose a local income tax, although we do not know at what level that would be set. A figure of 3p in the pound

    479
    has been mooted, but in an internal document leaked last week, they said that they did not want to be drawn extensively on the level of that income tax.
    Mr. Andrew Love: That was on Wednesday.
    Mr. Dhanda: And on Monday.
    The Liberal Democrats fought a rather tenacious campaign in last year's local elections. At national level, they are talking about removing 1,000 jobs at British Energy by doing away with a Government loan to my constituency. It is interesting that Liberal Democrat councillors should be elected in the very ward in which they would axe those jobs, yet they tell us in their national campaigns what they would do for our local economies.
    I mentioned the headline figures for health—the 80,000 nurses and 25,000 extra doctors we propose to have by 2008. They are big ballpark figures, but I have only to look out of my office window to see a £30 million new hospital taking shape—one of scores of such developments throughout the country. We have had scores of extra nurses, dozens of extra doctors and more hospitals, and I have become the first Member of Parliament in a generation who has opened hospital wards in my constituency, rather than presiding over their closure. Of course the hospitals in Gloucestershire hope to be in the first stream of foundation hospitals. I am sure that we will return to that discussion and that it will be a very strong bid indeed.
    As well as being involved with the £30 million brand new hospital, I am the first Member of Parliament for Gloucester to preside over the opening of a huge educational establishment—a new university campus—worth £19 million. We heard about the 6 per cent. of GDP and the ballpark figures nationally. For my locality, that translates to a 7.2 per cent. increase, given the new funding formulae that have been interpreted, but there is still more work to be done.
    The formulae are tied to the tax credit system, so in local education authorities, such as Gloucestershire, that are in part leafy—it has affluent areas and impoverished urban areas, such as parts of my constituency—it is important to target the increases in education funding that have come about because of the number of people who receive working families tax credit in those areas.
    Head teachers from my constituency have come to the House to make their case directly to Ministers. As consequence and as a direct consequence of our economic position and the measures that the Chancellor has taken during the past six years, we have been able to achieve increases in our education funding formulae and, as I said, a 6 per cent. increase across the country.
    All that contrasts remarkably with what Conservative Front-Bench Members propose. Early this week, the shadow Chancellor wrote a pre-Budget piece in The Guardian in which he talked about the failure, as he put it, of primary schools under a Labour Government. He said that 25 per cent. of primary school students were failing to learn to read, write and count properly. Well, that compares with 40 per cent. of children failing to reach level 4, and 20 per cent. cuts throughout the health
    480
    and education systems, when he was in government. Those cuts would translate into about 678 teachers being lost in Folkestone in his constituency.
    The other headline figure that I mentioned related to pensions. There has been an awful lot of campaigning on pensions, particularly by pensioners groups, such as the T and G pensioners forum in my constituency, which has been very keen for some time to ensure that pensioners who end up being hospitalised still have dignity and can claim their pensions despite the fact that they may be in hospital for more than six or 13 weeks. Such groups will be more delighted than any others with the changes that the Chancellor has announced this week. I for one am also very grateful for some of the other changes, such as the pensioner credit, which will affect more than 8,000 pensioners in my constituency. Typically, they will be £7 a week better off, or £9 a week better off if they happen to be in a pensioner couple.
    It is important to mention a group of my constituents who have come to Westminster and campaigned on finance and Treasury issues—those involved in trade justice campaigns. Trade justice campaigners throughout the country can rightly be proud of the fact that we have made a commitment to ensure that 115 million children around the world go to primary school and get the education that they deserve. Hon. Members on both sides of the House can be very proud of that.
    4.55 pm
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I refer the House to my business interests in the Register of Members' Interests. After yesterday's Budget, I look forward to the day when the present Chancellor rises to make the same declaration, as I fear that we are nearing the stage when he should move on to the private sector phase of his career. I think that he is now getting into very worrying difficulties, which he still denies in the House that he faces.
    The prudent Chancellor is long gone and well behind us. Indeed, he was an iron Chancellor for the first two years to an excessive extent. He is now a classic tax-and-spend Chancellor of the Exchequer of the sort that we have seen in the past. He spends first and taxes later, he is getting into all the difficulties that such Chancellors have faced in the past, and he continues to be in denial and will not share with the House exactly what he will do to get us out of the consequences of his policies of recent years.
    In yesterday's Budget, the Chancellor gave us a pause from tax and spend. Indeed, he gave us a pause from Budget measures. It was very lucky for him that a war was raging—obviously, that is uppermost in all our minds at the moment—as it deflected attention from the paucity of his speech and the lack of any ordinary Budget judgment, comments on the economy or measures of any significance. He was almost saying "Steady as she goes", although I think that he was doing so not because he does not feel the tremors in the deck, but because he does not quite know what to do next to avoid the consequences—unless, Micawber-like, he is lucky enough to see something turn up to save him from the next stages.
    I said that the Chancellor gave us a pause from tax and spend. He certainly did so in comparison with last year's Budget and public spending statement, but he had

    481
    cleverly left in the pipeline tax increases which he announced last year, but which come into effect only now. Unfortunately, from the point of view of the real economy, they do so at a disastrous time of slowdown in economic activity. We all know that £7 billion-worth of national insurance increases are now coming into effect and that they will be a severe blow to business and commerce in this country. That tax on jobs comes at a time when the job market, certainly in the private sector, is already looking in a perilous state.
    Everybody has just received their council tax increases, which are miles above inflation. I shall say only en passant that I am one of the few no doubt maverick Members of the House who still think that we will never solve that problem without returning to some modernised version of rate capping, as I do not believe that local government is capable of showing restraint to the required level when the economy slows down—but that is not currently a fashionable view.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has also frozen personal allowances—another subtle and slightly stealthy way of raising personal taxation—has paused. Nothing more of any significance was added yesterday. He slightly tightened policy, but mainly by closing loopholes. My first serious point is that I think that that is ducking the problem. We now face a situation in which we are talking about when he next has to raise taxation and not whether he has to do so, and about exactly what damage he will do to the real economy, and eventually public services, when he does so.
    Yesterday's Budget included a few themes on which I shall briefly dwell. It appears that the main theme was "Building a Britain of economic strength and social justice". I know no Conservative—certainly no one-nation Conservative—who would not have subscribed to that at any time in the past 20 years. We shall hold the Chancellor to account for his delivery, but it was very near motherhood.
    The Chancellor made great play of welfare to work. There is no difference between the Government and the Opposition on the desirability of helping to move people from welfare to work. Indeed, it was the theme of the second Budget that I presented as Chancellor, but its origins go back to the time I worked with my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Young when he was at the Department of Trade and Industry on his Action for Jobs programme, which drew heavily on workfare in the United States. I marvel that the entire Labour movement, which then attacked it vigorously and intensely, now tries to prove that it can do the same and gets headlines in The Sun about tackling the work shy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made clear in his excellent speech, we do not disagree with the Chancellor's motives—welfare to work is a desirable public policy aim. We have won the argument. However, we criticise the Byzantine complexity of the Government's methods.
    The Chancellor usually steals phrases from us, but I noticed that he did not utter the phrase that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions recklessly used a moment ago: "No return to boom and bust." For the first time, the Chancellor did not say that. Like me, he is not sure whether a bust will occur. I do not predict
    482
    a bust, but the danger exists if things go wrong and his luck does not hold. He therefore no longer repeats the phrase.
    Everything for which the Chancellor claims credit and all the benefits that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) mentioned derive from the good news in the economy in the past few years. We have had more than 10 years of growth with low inflation. I do not want to argue about the past, except to point out that the Chancellor had an excellent inheritance in 1997. We had growth and low inflation, and the public finances were returning to balance. We had fiscal rules. I aimed to achieve a balanced Budget over the economic cycle. It is a tighter rule than the Chancellor's. The International Monetary Fund agrees that it is a better rule than the golden rule, with which I once flirted. Two years into my period of office, I issued a Red Book that contained both, but I was persuaded that it was too flexible. If one achieves the golden rule, it also means that the Government are probably not contributing to savings as they should, but we were well on course.
    The Chancellor then had the good luck of a period of unprecedented global boom. We now know that it was largely led by a boom in the United States that collapsed when an asset bubble burst. He is now in trouble, to which he is not reacting because he does not know what to do.
    The Budget speech was remarkable. The Chancellor has abandoned every rule that used to apply. I acknowledge that some of them were tedious and old-fashioned, and led to lengthy speeches about monetary aggregates and every tiny tax change. That has long gone. Indeed, the Chancellor hardly delivered a Budget speech at all. He went into long, tedious details of changes in various departmental policies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant said, they could have been given in speeches or written answers by the Under-Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions, for Trade and Industry or for any other relevant Department.
    Like most people who are interested in economic policy, I was waiting for the description of public debt and some sort of forecast. The comparatively slow exposition of detail suddenly ended. I could not keep up with my notes as figures streamed out. After much slow delivery of fiddling nonsense about other Departments, which the Chancellor likes to command, he raced through gabbled figures. That was the only time when he addressed the so-called "hole" in his Budget. It is a good description of the problem over which he was skipping. He did not deal with the hole in the Budget at all.
    The convention is to welcome the odd measure, which I shall do briefly. I welcome what has been done for pensioners and benefit recipients who go into hospital. I have looked at the cost of that and congratulate the Chancellor on his decision. I cannot understand why none of us did that a few years ago. It is a wholly welcome measure.
    I was also going to welcome the end of national pay bargaining. I was riveted by that passage of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I have always thought that one of the best ways to remedy deficiencies in an economy is to end national pay bargaining, which our private sector achieved many years ago. In fact, that is the advice that I give to Germans now, and we should replicate the policy in our public services. The right hon.

    483
    Gentleman talked about pay review bodies and setting the pay for public servants in general with regard to regional price indices. When we are trying to recruit nurses, teachers, firemen and others in high-cost parts of the country, I have always thought it absurd that we can only recruit them by setting the same basic pay rise for every nurse from Land's End to John o' Groats. But by this morning on the "Today" programme, the Chancellor had chickened out, so we may not hear much more about that. He reversed rapidly at the first threat of a national strike and I am not sure how many of us will have the courage to keep on supporting him on that. We backed away from ending pay bargaining in the public sector, but at least it got a welcome mention.
    I shall now gabble through what I regard as the real Budget, which can only be abstracted if one reads the Red Book because that shows what the Chancellor has done and what he thought he was going to do. Hon. Members only have to look at 2002 to see what is going wrong with the economy. Government consumption in that year was very heavy. It rose by 3.75 per cent., the highest rate of growth for 25 years. Government capital spending rose by 9 per cent., but business investment declined and ended the year 5.5 per cent. below what it was at the end of 2001.
    Business fixed capital investment was down 9 per cent. in 2002, the fastest decline in business investment since the 1960s. Manufacturing output fell by 4 per cent. between 2001 and 2002. That must be noticeable even in Gloucester, where it seems that good things have been happening. Manufacturing is back in recession, with more than 600,000 manufacturing jobs lost since 1997. I refer the House to a good article in the Financial Times this morning debunking the Chancellor's misleading figures about our productivity record and the competitiveness of our industry. He made totally misleading use of figures based on a slight change to the statistical base since November last year. Under the Government, productivity in the private sector has been rising at half the rate that it was under the Conservatives when Labour took over.
    On the short-term forecasts, I am, of course, going to make the same point as everyone else about the scandalous optimism of the second and third-year forecasts, but, first, what will happen this year? We are supposed to be examining that closely. The Government forecast GDP growth for 2003–04 of 2.25 per cent., which is above all the independent assessments, and they are generous at 2 per cent. That figure is based mainly on private consumption and private spending, which in turn are based on a housing boom and public sector pay rises.
    The Government are still saying that GDP growth will increase by more than 2 per cent. Presumably, they believe that the housing boom will continue to help to finance that. Government consumption is forecast to increase by 1.5 per cent. But even in the financial year on which we have just embarked, the Government are forecasting a further decline in business investment of minus 0.25 per cent. and net trade in goods and services of minus 1.25 per cent. That is how they get the 2.25 per cent. growth.
    I have given enough figures to illustrate the key point: we have reached a stage at which the wealth consuming and spending part of our economy is still growing heartily. So public spending and wealth consuming is
    484
    the main sustaining force behind our growth. The wealth-creating private sector—business—is declining. If business investment and productivity are so weak, the long-term expectation is that the outlook for the economy is not healthy.
    In my opinion, it is not true that that the UK is better placed than any other country in the world to withstand the forthcoming problems. To be fair to other hon. Members who wish to speak, I have no time to go into the detail of the fiscal problem that that poses for the Chancellor, which he has not addressed. His problem is not only that Government Departments are now getting better at spending the enormous sums of money that are in the books, but that the huge fall in tax revenues has made all his forecasts wrong. The big falls are in income tax and corporation tax. They are the reason why he has had to adjust his borrowing figures so much already.
    The Chancellor forecasts that his tax revenues will bound back when this country returns to big growth in two years' time. He expects his tax revenues, including from corporation tax and income tax, to start to grow again as though we had returned to the 1990s boom conditions that he enjoyed so much. I believe that that will not happen. The Treasury has returned to underestimating the likely growth in revenue, which will continue to disappoint Treasury expectations. To use the jargon, structural changes have taken place and structural problems have arisen in the Chancellor's ability to get revenue. For the reason why, return to the point I made a moment ago: it is because the tax-paying, wealth-creating part of the economy is being shrunk, whereas the tax-consuming spending part of the economy is growing. That is why all the forecasts of revenue bounding back are, in my opinion, wrong, even assuming that the growth forecasts are even remotely credible.
    The Chancellor cannot stop making the books look more attractive by promising a fantastic rebound in years 2 and 3 of his Red Book, whatever they may be. I know scarcely anyone who believes that the economy will grow by more than 3 per cent. in the year after this one and the year after that, but the right hon. Gentleman keeps pushing rosy forecasts as an excuse not to do anything. He will not get away with it. He is already taxing business, jobs and pensions in a damaging way; the only question is when and where he will have to raise taxes again. He is desperately hoping to be able to put that off until after the next election, or on to some other Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    I very much do not wish to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer who takes over from the present incumbent—a gambler who has taken a bet that probably will not come off. His successor will have a great deal of work to do to sort out the problems that he leaves behind.
    5.12 pm
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Perhaps because he is my namesake, I have a regard for the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), but he will not be disappointed to hear that I will not take any of the advice that he has offered the House in the past few minutes. In terms of job rotation, perhaps, given his own career, he should not look in his local employment office for the post of employment adviser.

    485
    I reflect with great joy on the advice that he freely dispenses and the advice that he gave to Mrs. Thatcher in 1990, but I conclude that the quality of his advice appears to have deteriorated since then.
    I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has delivered a particularly good Budget. The politics of envy have been somewhat evident in the past few minutes, and for good reason. Let me briefly recall what my right hon. Friend inherited in 1997 from the previous Government, before referring to my constituency, where the backdrop is now very different. The former Chancellor and those who occupied that office in the Conservative Government gave us unemployment of about 3 million and the highest mortgage rates that any of us can remember; we know that neither will return, certainly not under the present Government. I do not remember inflation under the right hon. and learned Gentleman being anything like 2 per cent.
    The Budget, including the inevitable contribution to the war and reconstruction and confirmation of the public spending programme commitments, is extremely welcome. So are the main objectives of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in my constituency. I welcome the fact that we are talking about full employment, as I did during the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The eradication of poverty is extremely important in my constituency and elsewhere. There have been real achievements to back it up. Everything that has been said today about security for pensioners is most welcome and meaningful, and applies to virtually every part of my constituency. I welcome too what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had to say about international development. He has attacked poverty at home and he has applied those principles abroad.
    Full employment—employment opportunities for all—is a noble idea. In addition, it is something that is practical and can well be achieved. We are clearly in pursuit of that goal, given the Government's record.
    The Government started with a number of disadvantages. For example, when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe was in government, he did not—nor did Conservative Chancellors before him—make the most of the benefits of oil revenues. If only the present Government, in addition to the growth that they have introduced, had had the benefit of those oil revenues. Under a Labour Government, many of my constituents would not have suffered as they did.
    I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has invited right hon. and hon. Members to apply the objectives of his Budgets locally. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) wants to intervene, I shall give way. It seems that he does not wish to do so. Earlier, he was making ridiculous noises about incapacity benefit. I hoped that when he was referring to that he would not include in that area the 20 per cent. reduction in public expenditure to which his party is committed.
    I welcome the Chancellor's view—
    Mr. Willetts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Clarke: No, I am not giving way. My time is limited. The hon. Gentleman went on for about 25
    486
    minutes, and he knows that I have only 10 minutes. I would relish dealing with him, but I intend to deal with more important matters.
    The Budget has delivered, as have the Government, for small businesses. Local accountability is welcomed. Reforms to housing benefit, which are important to my constituents, are to be welcomed. Such reforms are long overdue. Budgets of all sorts, delivered by whatever party, can only help to create the atmosphere in which jobs are provided and produced. That is why I want to take the opportunity to welcome the challenge that the Budget presents to Scottish Enterprise, for example. I think that it should be making more of the opportunities that the Government's economic successes provide.
    Some infrastructure has been provided in Scotland, but I shall deal with my constituency in terms of the challenge to Scottish Enterprise. If ever there was evidence of the decimation of manufacturing bases in Scotland, there is the former Gartcosh site. We have an industrial development park, but I would welcome inward investment and jobs. Scottish Enterprise has the opportunities. Unemployment in my constituency has fallen considerably, but there is still scope to reduce it further. That will remain the position for as long as the industrial park is not developed fully. That leads me to the conclusion that Scottish Enterprise can do more for my constituents, for Lanarkshire and for the people of Scotland.
    I welcome the new flexibility at jobcentres for those who are seeking work. I welcome the fact that we are monitoring local labour markets. Further, I welcome the investment that has been mentioned. We had a little debate about investment in the private sector as against the public sector. However, we will not get improvements in the health service, education, transport and law and order services unless we provide jobs, training and careers, which are essential and which my constituents would welcome. That applies very much to the caring services. The decision that pensioners should receive a full pension while in hospital is excellent. Part of the Government's community care policy is about recognising people's needs in such a situation.
    Mr. Michael Connarty rose—
    Mr. Clarke: I am particularly sorry not to give way to my hon. Friend and former Parliamentary Private Secretary, but I said that I would speak for only 10 minutes.
    Michael Fabricant: Good for you.
    Mr. Clarke: I am glad that my speech is pleasing the hon. Gentleman. I would like to say the same about his, but that would be less than honest.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, the former Chancellor, took a swipe at local government, but when he reads Hansard I believe he will reflect that he was being a bit unfair. We rightly pay tribute to nurses, teachers and the police, but social services in my constituency would be very much the poorer were it not for the influence of local government. Without that influence, voluntary organisations, which make a tremendous contribution to the lifestyle of our

    487
    people, would be lesser bodies. I also welcome the fact that in 2003, the European year of disabled people, various Government initiatives have been introduced to try to improve job opportunities for people with disabilities and their advocates. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has given a particularly inspiring lead. Like the Disability Rights Commission, I would like even more opportunities for people with disabilities because they can contribute so much at every level in society, and that contribution is welcome.
    In conclusion, we heard earlier today from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development about the G7 summit which will take place in Washington at the weekend, and which she and the Chancellor will attend. I welcome the fact that she said that apart from the inevitable discussions on Iraq there will be further discussions about Africa, Asia, poverty-focused programmes in the third world and fair trade. The essential message of the Budget on fairness and justice applies just as much internationally, and I welcome the recognition that developing countries and developed nations can make a contribution to one another. I believe that together we can improve the world and indeed improve our own constituencies for the benefit of all whom we seek to represent.
    5.23 pm
    Mr. Michael Jack: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), whose record in the House on campaigning for people who are disabled and in need of help is exemplary, and his speech today reflected that.
    I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has escaped from the Chamber. We had the usual frothy performance from him in which he attempted to paint the last Conservative Government all in black and the present Labour Government all in white, when what we are dealing with is a fundamentally different situation. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said in his excellent speech, world economic circumstances are different now, and for different circumstances there are different solutions. The present Chancellor was dealt an extremely good hand, but listening to his Budget yesterday, I detected signs that he is beginning to squander the legacy that he was left. I shall focus on that in a moment.
    Underlying the Budget is the growth in public consumption, the decline in private investment and, in particular, the further decline of manufacturing industry. May I say that members of the Government have distorted the position of my party on the provision of public services? I would like to put on record the fact that I detest the Government's continued distortion in representing as fact the idea that we would make 20 per cent. cuts in public spending. That is not the position of our Front Bench. It relates to a remark relating to the administrative costs of government and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe pointed out, the growth in the rise of employment in the public sector illustrates precisely the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) was getting at in his remarks. I just wish that, in
    488
    the interests of balance and proper debate, the Government would not continue to distort that position.
    Mr. Bailey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Jack: I would like to make progress because I am conscious that if I, too, take only 10 minutes, others may yet be able to speak.
    I welcome the proposals for pensioners. I was also most interested in the idea that some local authorities could share in gains if they were able to bring new companies and businesses into their area, and I look forward to seeing more details of that proposal. I am sorry that, as we are thinking of Iraq, the Chancellor did not take up an idea about which I have written to the Treasury, which is to give some form of encouragement—perhaps through a mechanism similar to the research and development tax credit—to those in the private sector who seek to invest in the really difficult places such as Iraq. I would ask the Paymaster General, even at this late stage, to give some thought to mobilising private investment in places such as Iraq, where the expertise of such businesses will be much needed, when some encouragement through the tax system might be an advantage.
    Listening to the Chancellor yesterday was a bit like having a large Chinese meal. I felt full at the time but woke up hungry the next day. It is always dangerous to judge a Budget on the day, so I judged it today. It was no better today than it was yesterday, and yesterday was pretty boring and meaningless. The Budget had the flavour of Micawber hoping that something somewhere would turn up.
    The comments of those experts who gave their immediate reaction were quite interesting. I was particularly attracted to the words of DeAnne Julius, the former Bank of England Monetary Policy Unit member, who had an enviable record as a private economist before going on to the committee. She said of the Chancellor:
    "He is placing big hopes on a quick recovery this year and next but if that does not happen, we will see a ballooning deficit and not a shrinking one."
    Mark Cliffe, global head of economics at ING Financial Markets, said:
    "It's still not clear where the Treasury's projected revival in investment is going to come from."
    George Buckley, of Deutsche Bank, said:
    "I very much doubt that we are going to see that growth materialise."
    If it does not, all the Chancellor's hopes and assumptions will crumble to dust.
    It is interesting to note, when we look at the accuracy of Treasury forecasting—which underpins the philosophy of this Chancellor's approach—how we all ignored one very important point. In recent years, when the economy has been doing well, the Chancellor has come to the Dispatch Box and said, "The extra money that I have to repay debt is greater than I ever thought." And we all thought that that was rather good, but we did not reflect on the fact that, in its own way, it represented a considerable inaccuracy in the forecasting model that the Treasury was using. I should have thought that the penny would have begun to drop in the Treasury by

    489
    now, and that it would have realised that what goes up rather more quickly than the model predicts could come down with equal rapidity. I am therefore very surprised that there appears to have been no adjustment in the Treasury's economic modelling.
    If we look at the predictions that have been made over time for the borrowing requirements, we can come to some very interesting conclusions. The prediction made in 2000 for the year 2003–04, which we are now in, was for a £3 billion borrowing requirement. By 2001, that had been reduced to £1 billion. Then panic set in, and, by 2002, the Treasury was predicting borrowing of £11 billion. Last November, the prediction was for £20.1 billion, and by yesterday it was up to £24 billion. So in the space of three forecasting years, the Treasury has gone from £3 billion to £24 billion—a factor of eight. No private company could run its business on the basis of being eight times out with such a fundamental piece of analysis.
    We all listened with sublime interest to the recital of growth rates of 2.25 and 3.5 per cent.—in what? Well, we are talking about a very large figure, namely our gross domestic product. The predicted GDP figure for 2004 is £911 billion. On the basis of the Chancellor's prediction, a fall in that amount—the sum total of activity in the economy—by just one third of 1 per cent. is the equivalent of a downward adjustment of the growth forecast in the Red Book from 3.25 per cent. to 2.9 per cent.
    I estimate—using the Chancellor's methodology—that such a fall could add a further £10 billion to Government borrowing for that year. The Chancellor's method of calculation shows that a 0.75 per cent. change in the economy's predicted growth rate between 2000 and 2003 resulted in a 21 per cent. increase in borrowings. That is why it is so important for us to spend some time examining the figures underpinning the Chancellor's position—and what we see is that a minor change in a very big number can have a dramatic effect on the bottom line of Government borrowing.
    I am disappointed by the Treasury's unwillingness, despite my efforts through parliamentary questions, to reveal in public its model demonstrating the way in which it predicts tax receipts. Sadly, although the Treasury model as such is available for scrutiny, the tax receipts model is not; and unless we know exactly what is going on, no one can accurately predict the course of the economy.
    The Secretary of State talked briefly about boom and bust. That was an interesting aspect of the Chancellor's speech. The boom and bust under Labour has been the bust of personal pensions, the bust of endowment policies, and the bust of private investment. The Budget contains nothing of any note to deal with people's current worries about the future of their pension funds and, indeed, their personal savings.
    All we were given in regard to personal savings was the so-called children's trust fund. The provision of £300 million a year to help a group of non-taxpayers to save strikes me as bizarre. In fact, taxpayers—parents—will park a lot of taxable money in this great trust, and when their children are 18 they will suddenly help themselves to a nice little earner when their ISA allowances, for
    490
    instance, have run out. I see it as the "save for university" fund. Meanwhile, the Government are talking about encouraging talented people from overseas to come to this country, and using public money to do it. The two proposals do not add up, and I think the children's trust fund is a waste of time.
    I am very sad that inheritance tax relief was not raised by more than £20,000. It is all very well for the Chancellor to say that 95 per cent. of estates can escape. Look at the labyrinthine process in which people have to become involved to escape inheritance tax when, through no fault of their own, the value of their major asset—their house—has increased. That is the ultimate form of double taxation.
    The Budget statement contained the usual list of reviews and studies. I sometimes wonder how the great captains of industry who are involved in such projects have enough time to steer their company ships as well.
    Let me end by saying something about the tax burden. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) pointed out, the tax burden will rise—but let us not forget that between 2002–03 and 2005–06, £47 billion of extra tax will be taken out of this country: £10.2 billion a year. That is indeed a heavy burden to be borne for the sake of public service improvement that is yet to be delivered.
    5.34 pm
    Kali Mountford: May I say with all possible gentleness to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) that it is highly unlikely that he will be faced with the problem of taking over the current Chancellor's job, however much he may wish to do so? I should also say to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) that I could not disagree more with his analysis of enabling children to save. He seems to have a rather cynical view of what parents might wish to gain on behalf of their children, whereby they will want to purloin such money as a personal, tax-relieved benefit. I do not see that happening.
    In communities in my area, working-class people who are brought up on council estates want to save for their children so that they can get on better in life. Everybody aspires to the next generation's doing better than themselves. Some families have achieved that for many years, but others have found, after years of unemployment, that their ability to save for their children has been greatly reduced; indeed, in many cases it has been totally eradicated. Some families are now out of the habit of saving, so it is a very good thing for parents to have this opportunity to save on their children's behalf, with some help from the Government. That money is not there to help in a cynical way with top-up fees, for example; it will enable those aged 18—that vital time in a person's life when they reach maturity—to take decisions that they would be unable to take if they had no assets at all. It is a shame when those from an asset-based background try to deny such assets to others.
    I am somewhat confused by the argument of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). I cannot see how some form of local taxation would help the poorest pensioners; in what way would that be better than the council tax, for example? He has completely overlooked the fact that any form of local tax would, in

    491
    itself, be means-tested; that is the nature of taxation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) laughs, but if he does not know how taxation works—
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I think that that is your problem.
    Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman has entirely missed the point.
    Mr. Carmichael: Tell us what the point is, then.
    Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman is behaving in a rather silly fashion—he ought to grow up. What is important is that the people who need the most money get it. What has been suggested would be a rather bizarre way of getting around the problem. What will best help pensioners is not giving more flat-rate money to those who can already afford everything; it is targeting money from scarce resources—
    Mr. Burstow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Kali Mountford: No, I shall finish this point, which I have made many times, although it obviously has not sunk in to the heads of certain feeble-brained people. The best way to help the poorest people is to make money available to them. The only point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is that the way to tackle the problem of getting money to the families who are not claiming it is to address the question of take-up. We must establish take-up campaigns.
    Mr. Burstow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Kali Mountford: Yes, but I should point out that we are short of time.
    Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Will she therefore be voting against the extra £100 flat-rate winter fuel payment for the over-80s?
    Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman makes what he thinks is a very clever point, but his own party and mine—
    Mr. Burstow: Will the hon. Lady answer—yes or no?
    Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman likes hectoring and heckling, but he does not like listening. The point is that there is a particular problem with the over-80s that needs to be addressed because they constitute the poorest group of pensioners, and unlike other pensioner groups, they never had the chance to gain from occupational pensions and private pensions. There has been a huge rise in the number of personal pension plans, but there are problems with that industry, and we may need to regulate it to ensure that pensioners and savers trust such schemes, so that they continue to invest. However, the hon. Gentleman has completely missed the point that the over-80s have had the least opportunity to save for themselves. His argument
    492
    simply does not work. [Interruption.] He can continue to laugh if he wants to, but he will not learn much that way, will he?
    I want to draw the House's attention to what I consider to be a very important matter in connection with work and pensions. That is the proposition that we should look more flexibly at what we can do for people who are unemployed and in receipt of benefit. In my constituency, there are 8,186 people on income support or pensions who will gain from the help that will be available to them if they should ever be unfortunate enough to be in hospital.
    However, one ward in my constituency has the highest number of people unemployed and on benefits, and the lowest income. In other wards, people have a great deal more income and a great deal more to gain. We must look at how I and my local jobcentre can tackle the community in the ward to which I referred, analyse what is going on there, and make sure that people get the help that they need—training, support and help back into work. That has to be provided on a case-by-case basis, and not according to the simple across-the-board approach that we have had to date.
    I see that time is running very short. I shall sit down now, in the interests of allowing further debate. However, I hope that the House will see the need for targeting help on those who need it most.
    5.41 pm
    Dr. Liam Fox: Someone asked me last week whether it was nerve wracking to stand up and speak in front of a packed House. I guess that we will have to wait until another day for the answer to that question, but if the debate was sparsely attended, that was counterbalanced by the quality of the speeches.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) talked about the disastrous effect of introducing tax rises, and especially a tax on jobs, at a time when the economy is slowing. He reminded us that the Chancellor, in his role as domestic Prime Minister and great keeper of the real Labour truth and vision, had offered us enterprise, a family-friendly Budget, social justice—pretty much everything but places in heaven. I suppose that that was just in case there might be a place next door.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) again made a very informed speech, in which he talked about the need for clarity in the model used to predict tax receipts. He also mentioned the Government's shameless distortion of the supposed 20 per cent. cuts planned by the Opposition. The Government know that that is not our policy. It makes me wonder sometimes what moralising politicians, who for political advantage are willing to say things that they know are blatantly untrue, tell their children about the need to tell the truth.
    It is a shame that we have not had a health debate in this debate on the Budget. Health is the Government's flagship policy. They have raised national insurance to fund rises in health service spending, but the Government are too afraid to allow the Secretary of State for Health to be paraded in front of his own Back Benchers. The Opposition would love to discuss the real health reforms that the Government might introduce in the future. In fact, we would have welcomed the chance

    493
    to support the Secretary of State in his policy, and to congratulate him on the forthcoming Bill for opt-out foundation hospitals. We should also like to congratulate him on persuading the Treasury to move towards local pay and the abandonment of national collective pay bargaining. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde can be reassured that we certainly will have the courage to stick with that policy. I hope that the Government will. I am sure that the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association and Unison would have loved to have heard the Secretary of State give the House details of how local pay would be implemented in the NHS. However, we wait for another day for that.
    We have been promised much in terms of reform. In his famous interview with The Sun, the Chancellor said that there would not be one penny more until the changes necessary to carrying out the modernisation that the health service needed were secured. However, what real reform have the Government introduced? We have had some reorganisation, and the pieces have certainly been moved around. We have lots of spin to go with that, but the basic problems remain. The system is still too centralised, politicised, wasteful and bureaucratic. Its targets are entirely wrong, and drive activity in the wrong direction.
    I entirely agree with the Paymaster General, who will wind up the debate for the Government and who told the House:
    "Waiting lists, perversely, allow people to be treated not according to clinical need but on the period of time and political priorities of the Government."—[Official Report, 26 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 962.]
    Yet that is exactly the perverse policy that the Government are following. It is a system that allows far too little choice.
    I wonder what people would make of the concept of choice expressed in a written answer from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). Of part of the Government's choice programme, he said:
    "The trust on whose waiting list the patient is held before the start of the choice process, checks whether the patient falls within the eligibility criteria for choice."—[Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 644W.]
    What sort of concept of choice is that? The only real reform that the Government are proposing is foundation hospitals but, because of the Government's internal sensitivities, we are not allowed to debate that in the House.
    The Government's basic programme of reform on health has utterly faltered. What have we had? The consultant contract is a disaster. The GP contract is currently a disaster. Agenda for Change is not yet supported and is likely to fall into the category of disasters. Community health councils were abolished in order to provide better patient representation, but what did we get? We were told that the new supervision powers in place of those councils would guarantee that communities had a say about what happened in their area, but we are now told that they are not mandatory. The powers are there, but they do not have to be exercised.
    494
    We have had changes to care home regulations, resulting in the loss of 60,000 care home beds. We had a GP recruitment scheme, which was to provide 2,000 extra GPs between 2000 and 2004. With just a few months left, we have had only a little more than 400. Another plan was to send patients abroad. The cost of setting up, researching and administering the pilot scheme, which sent a total of 234 NHS patients to France and Germany, was a staggering £468,000. That is probably the greatest reform so far.
    The funding of specific services will also be reformed. Under the NHS cancer plan—one of many—the Government pledged that an extra £570 million would be directly allocated to cancer services. We were later told by the cancer tsar that directly allocated does not mean ring-fenced: it is only an aspiration. The audit carried out by Cancer BACUP found that 50 per cent. of cancer networks had not received their expected allocation of funds, as 43 per cent. reported a shortfall in promised funds of between 20 and 25 per cent. More than 80 per cent. did not expect to receive the funds in 2003–04 and 70 per cent. of strategic health authorities pointed out a huge difference between the resource requirements to meet the needs of cancer services and the resources available to primary care trusts.
    That is a pretty sorry tale and the same is true for hospices and mental health services. Everyone is asking where the money has gone. Faced with the failure to reform, new Labour resorts to type with spin, half-truths and downright lies. We are told that the Conservatives do not believe in the NHS and run it down at every opportunity. That presumably means not telling the truth because, under new Labour, telling the truth about the health service will lead to one of three consequences. People will be intimidated, like Mrs. Rose Addis; browbeaten, like NHS managers; or abolished, like CHCs.
    My area, and that represented by the Paymaster General, has three trusts, none of which has any stars. The in-patient waiting list has increased from 10,000 at the end of December 2000 to 12,894 now. Are we supposed to say nothing about that because that is a criticism of the services to patients and undermines the basis of the entire system? Of course not. It is the duty of MPs to stand up and tell the truth.
    I should like to tell the Government about privatisation. The involvement of the private sector is important. We must
    "set the parameters for future partnerships we will need between tax-funding and personal contributions … We should be opening up health care … to a mixed economy … and be willing to experiment with new forms of co-payment in the public sector."
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): That sounds like charges.
    Dr. Fox: Those are not my words, but those of the Prime Minister in one of his recent lectures. The Chief Secretary says that it sounds like charges; yes, it sounds very much like that to me, and all those who listened to the Prime Minister's speech would have been thinking exactly the same. The Chief Secretary is famous for scoring own goals in his television performances and he has managed one in the House, too.
    The private agenda is often mentioned. It is not the Conservative Government but the current Secretary of State who has signed a new concordat with the private

    495
    sector. Diagnostic and treatment centres are run by the private sector; there is private management for failing trusts; and the private finance initiative has been exalted to a near religious status. Labour Back Benchers might like to know that, last year, income from private patients in the NHS rose by 7.9 per cent., despite all the Government's rhetoric.
    We are now seeing a decline in the number of beds and an increase in the number of bureaucrats. The number of beds in 1996–97 was 198,000, but is now 184,000—a reduction of 14,000. Yet the administration and estate staff have increased from 196,000 to 224,000. A Labour document states:
    "Those who parade such figures do not realise that it is made up of people like painters and gardeners".
    I suppose that the primary care trusts and the strategic health authorities have been advertising for people to do a bit of dabbing of paint on the windows and to cut the grass, and have not been advertising for financial flow managers or public health staff. That is an absolute nonsense, and this is a Government in love with bureaucracy. However, consultant vacancies have risen from 2.3 per cent. to 3.8 per cent. in the past two years; the bill for agency nurses is now contributing hugely to hospital deficits; the number of cancelled operations has gone up from 52,000 to 81,000 since Labour came to office—and the figure worsened in each quarter of the past year; delayed discharges are a major problem and yet, rather than tackling the underlying problem, Labour has an absurd system of fines for local authorities; emergency re-admissions are up; clinical distortions have increased; and hospital-acquired infections have now reached the point where 5,000 patients a year die from them.
    The situation has become absurd. We have looked at data from the Audit Commission and others, and we have looked at the Government's figures on how clean the hospitals are. The House will be pleased to know that more and more hospitals are hitting the Government's top target for cleanliness. However, in the 20 trusts with the highest rates of hospital-acquired infection—where people are most likely to die of it—13 get the Government's top rating for cleanliness and others get the second-top rating. That will be of huge reassurance to patients. The system suffers from endemic fiddling of the figures—both by the Government and encouraged by the Government.
    The Government have thrown money at the system. Funding has increased by 21.5 per cent. in real terms; yet, by the classic measure of finished consultant episodes, activity is up by 1.5 per cent. The number of patients who were admitted to hospital last year actually fell by 0.5 per cent. It really takes talent to spend so much money and get so little back for it. We have to take the politicians out of the running of the service. That will mean abolishing the Government's central targets, giving power back to the professionals and giving real choice to the patients. The Government cannot succeed in running the health service by the present model. The Government believe that the patients are there to service the NHS, when it should be that the NHS is there to service the patients. That is the real difference.
    5.52 pm
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I want to return to the Budget debate and to the discussions of the past two days, but in my concluding remarks I will turn
    496
    to the points that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has made on the health service. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for their contributions over the two days of the Budget debate. They will forgive me if I am unable to reply to every point in this short wind-up speech. Many thoughtful views have been expressed—by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, surprisingly—on a number of
    important challenges that face this country.
    Britain has sustained the longest period of economic growth and the longest period of growth in living standards for half a century. Unlike the American, German and Japanese economies, the British economy has had uninterrupted growth in every quarter over the past six years. We have the lowest inflation for 30 years, the lowest interest rates for 40 years and the highest levels of employment in our history. Despite difficult world economic conditions, we are able, because of decisions that we have made, to meet our military and security costs abroad and at home and to pay for the costs of building the peace. We are able to maintain, in full, our record of investment in schools, hospitals, transport and policing. We are able to provide help for British business, industry and commerce.
    This Budget marks a new stage for the Government. Having made reforms since 1997, we are now seeking to achieve a more flexible and more enterprising full-employment Britain—a Britain of economic strength and social justice. We have set out our detailed economic reforms, which are aimed at achieving, for each region and nation, the greater flexibility that we need to develop and maintain the global competitiveness that is necessary for us to secure our goal of full employment.
    We should be clear. The flexibility that we seek in employment and pay, and in the liberalisation of capital markets and product markets generally, is not secured at the expense of fairness to families and members of our community—quite the opposite. It is underwritten by policies to promote fairness through full employment, tackling poverty through tax credits and better public services. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, outlined our undertakings to assist lone parents, to improve employment rates and to develop skills. All are central to our strategy.
    In an intervention, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) referred to a reply that had been given to his office about tax credits. He should not have been given such a reply. That should never have happened and I apologise to him. I shall be more than happy to take up personally the specific inquiry to which he referred. It is unacceptable that a Member of Parliament should have been given such information.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My constituent told my office that that was the explanation that she had received locally. My office was not given that explanation, but it was given information that implied that serious delays would take place so I welcome the right hon. Lady's indication that she will look into the matter.
    Dawn Primarolo: None the less, my offer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman stands. It is unacceptable

    497
    that delays should have occurred and that Members of Parliament should be advised incorrectly. That needs to be dealt with swiftly.
    About 3.9 million claims for payment of tax credit have been received against an eligible population of 5.7 million. That does not include up to 1.3 million people in receipt of income support or jobseeker's allowance who will automatically receive the increase this year in their child premiums. The volume of claims is enormous and, unfortunately, errors are inevitable in some cases, but it is not correct to give the impression that there is excessive delay or that people have not been paid on time the money that was due to them.
    Mr. Willetts: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Dawn Primarolo: I will, but I hope that hon. Members will then allow me to reply to the debate.
    Mr. Willetts: Will the Minister assure all the people throughout the country who, until last week, were receiving working families tax credit that they will all receive this week the child credit to which they are entitled? That is the problem.
    Dawn Primarolo: The problem is whether people have applied for the credit and when. The hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable about such systems, especially the vastness of the tax credit system, to which more than 5 million people have access, so he will realise that if somebody applied late for their tax credit, it may not be possible—even with all the will in the world—to get their payment to them in time for it to be continuous. They will get the money and we are prioritising to ensure that they do. However, it would be to make a false promise to the House to give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman requests. For example, where people have sent in wrong information, late information, incomplete information or information that we have been unable to verify, I could not make such an undertaking to the House.
    In his speech, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe talked about unbalanced growth. In particular, he suggested that the wealth-creating sectors of the economy were being neglected. The Government recognise that manufacturing is disproportionately affected by the slowdown, but the same is true across the globe, as he knows. That is why the Government have implemented a proactive enterprise agenda, which has been welcomed by the CBI in its response to the Budget, as a way of continuing to develop and enhance enterprise and entrepreneurship, and to ensure growth in the sector.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman also suggested that the growth forecasts were optimistic. We do not agree, and nor do three quarters of the independent forecasts which, for 2003, are within or above the Government's forecast range. Since 1997, the Government have, if anything, tended to underestimate growth forecasts.
    498
    I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about the importance of understanding the trends in the global economy, but it simply is not true, as he said, that business investment is suffering unduly in the United Kingdom. British investment has weakened across the world—in the United States, by 12 per cent. We have also experienced that pressure in Britain. However, total real business investment for 2002 remains at 14.5 per cent., which is higher than in 1997.
    It being Six o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  PETITION

    New Station (Golborne)
    6 pm
    Andy Burnham: Golborne is a former pit village in my constituency and in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). It stands at the crossroads of the north-west; indeed, it is hard to imagine a more strategic location. Nestled in the corner of the M6 and the east Lancashire road, next to Haydock racecourse, the town stands at the confluence of Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Cheshire on the historic Liverpool to Manchester route, yet, unbelievably, the area is the most poorly served by rail in the whole of the north-west. It bore the brunt of Dr. Beeching's axe, leaving nearby Leigh, the largest town in England, without a railway station, and Golborne stranded. People used to work locally, but with the closure of the pits and the loss of other local jobs, Golborne, Lowton and Ashton have become commuter areas. Many people have moved into the area to its new housing estates, but have no choice other than to get into their cars and join the queues on the east Lancashire road. Golborne is crying out for a station, which would be the catalyst for its wider regeneration.
    This petition, unlike many others, has Cabinet backing. My neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, and I live in Golborne and Ashton. We can assure the House that the 1,800 people who have signed our petition—neighbours and friends, as well as constituents—would use a station if they were given one.
    The petition states:
    To the House of Commons.
    The petition of residents of Golborne, Lowton, Ashton and the surrounding districts
    Declares that a new railway station in Golborne, Greater Manchester, would enhance the quality of life for residents in Golborne, Lowton, Ashton and the surrounding districts and would make public transport accessible for both business and pleasure.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government, the Strategic Rail Authority, the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority and others concerned to take steps to provide a new railway station in Golborne.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Tax Credits (Scotland)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
    6.2 pm
    Ann McKechin: This month marks one of the biggest-ever reforms of the Inland Revenue and the Benefits Agency, with the introduction of a new tax credits system for low-paid workers and people with families. It represents a comprehensive sea change in the way in which people are taxed on their income by recognising that everyone who is in work or bringing up children contributes to building a stronger economy and a stronger society, and that we should assist those who, at different times of their lives, are in need of additional support.
    Since being elected in 1997, the Labour Government have worked progressively to reform taxation policies to support workers and families. In particular, they have introduced measures to help people into work and to make work pay, and at the same time they have given more help to families when they are bringing up their children. Such measures are, of course, integral to the Government's agenda of halving child poverty by 2010 and setting ourselves the ambitious target of eradicating child poverty within a generation. In a modern society, extending opportunity for all children and ensuring that people's life chances are no longer unfairly determined by their childhood circumstances is not only morally right but essential to a strong economy and society.
    In their first Parliament, the Labour Government introduced the working families tax credit, the disabled persons tax credit and the children's tax credit. Those measures have already made a substantial difference for many low-paid workers throughout Scotland, together with other fiscal measures such as the introduction of the 10p rate of tax, increases in child benefit and the reduction in the standard rate of income tax. Since 1997, families with children are, on average, £1,200 per year better off as a result of those measures. As a result of the targeting of our reforms, households in the poorest fifth of the population are, on average, £2,400 per year better off in real terms.
    I am pleased that the Government are now able to offer a much more sophisticated and targeted system of assistance, and I know how much effort my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has expended in the past few years to bring those plans into effect. She and her staff are to be congratulated on that real achievement in fiscal reform.
    The new tax credits introduced this month are an attempt to build on the successes of the original system in order to offer a better system of support for families and people in work. I welcome particularly the move to pay the new child tax credit to the main carer, normally the mother, rather than to the principal household wage earner. I am also delighted that, for the first time, eligibility for the new tax credits is being extended to thousands of people who were previously excluded, such as student nurses and low-paid workers without children. In fact, I understand that the Government have estimated that more than 5 million families will benefit from the new child tax credit alone, compared with 2.5 million under the old scheme. As I represent
    500
    part of a city in which the largest income bracket is £10,000 to £14,000, I know that that will make a real difference to thousands of our citizens.
    Recently, I held a roving surgery in my own constituency to promote the new system, and I met a disabled woman who was working part-time and had no children who will be approximately £3,500 a year better off with the new tax credits. Another constituent whom I met, however, who was in a low-paid job and had a two-year-old daughter, will be better off by approximately £2,500 a year due to a combination of both the working tax credit and the child tax credit. I was genuinely surprised and delighted at the generous support that the scheme provides, and I know that my constituents were just as pleased.
    As my right hon. Friend will be aware from recent press reports, however, it is currently estimated that only 3 million of the 5 million families in the UK entitled to the new tax credit have completed and returned their forms. I am concerned to ensure that, in Scotland, we are able to maximise the take-up rate. Only this week, the Child Poverty Action Group, while welcoming the launch of the scheme, expressed concern about the relatively low take-up and asked the Government to continue their present campaign. From speaking to my constituents, I know that many are still unaware that they may be eligible for benefits offered by the new reforms. Although I appreciate that those who were under the old working families tax credit scheme have received application forms automatically, my right hon. Friend will know that the new system widens substantially the net of beneficiaries. As employers are no longer involved in processing the administration of tax credits, little or no information is being disseminated at places of employment among the small and medium-sized enterprise employers. That, however, is where a large percentage of potential applicants such as women and the low-paid work. Is there any way in which information can be distributed through the place of employment, perhaps based on the Inland Revenue's records, which will show potentially low or lower-paid work forces.
    I appreciate the sophistication and extent of the television and press advertising in recent months, including the targeting of women's magazines, and that is certainly a big help in encouraging a positive level of claims. Clearly, however, more work in this direction is required, and possibly for a much longer, sustained period so that the message gets through to all parts of our communities. Has the Minister considered further advertising in the local and free press, together with advertising on local radio stations, particularly as evidence suggests that that is where most women or low-paid workers obtain access to news and information? Has the Minister or her staff made any contact with local authorities in Scotland about how they can use their networks, particularly in schools and nurseries, to promote the scheme?
    I have also met a considerable number of people who claim that they have received the forms but have still to complete them, and in their words, "haven't quite got round to it". Most seem unaware of the time limits: for example, that they needed to return the forms by the end of January to guarantee that their money would be paid in time for this month., or that they would lose money if they did not apply within the first three months.

    501
    That suggests a few problems. First, although I am sure that my right hon. Friend and staff at the Inland Revenue have made every effort to condense the application form to 12 pages, many people, particularly those with literacy problems, still find completing such a form, which is in fairly small print with a good number of boxes and a substantial amount of supplementary notes, a daunting prospect. Their first instinct is to gaze at it with perplexity, put it down and forget about it. My right hon. Friend will no doubt reply that, in most cases, applicants will be able to skip a good number of the questions, depending on their circumstances, but that is not necessarily as clear to every applicant when they look at the form.
    Secondly, many people will start looking for last year's P60 and may realise that they have lost it or that their employer has failed to provide it. That starts the tortuous search for the duplicate and, again, frustration and a degree of confusion can result. Will staff issue reminder letters to those who have received application forms but who have still to return them, and will people be encouraged to make more use of the helpline assistance?
    I was alarmed that a number of constituents have contacted my office in the past week to say that they are having substantial difficulty reaching the helpline number. My staff have phoned the number over the past couple of days and have repeatedly received a BT message that the call cannot be connected owing to the volume of calls. A number of other Members of Parliament have indicated that their constituents are experiencing similar problems in other parts of the country. Will the Minister comment specifically on what steps are being taken to tackle that problem, given that we are implementing the scheme this year?
    Last week, I attended the annual conference of One Plus—a voluntary organisation based in the west of Scotland that does a huge amount of valuable work in assisting and providing training for sole parent families. Concern was expressed about take-up and, although people are aware that a tax credit scheme is in operation, their knowledge of its scale and detail is, probably understandably, fairly vague. Some of the rules of eligibility are quite complex.
    For example, at the conference I met a woman whose 18-year-old daughter, currently a student, has just had a baby, and they both reside with her. She has been advised that she may be able to claim for tax credits as she is supporting her daughter and grandchild. A number of other women also spoke about the lack of any response so far from the tax office about their applications to confirm that their payments will be made. That highlights the need for a very high level of efficiency and support in the Revenue to ensure that the take-up of benefits is as high as possible and that payments are received on time.
    Targeted benefits are always more difficult to administer, but I fully understand and support the Government's priorities. I have been impressed recently by the work of the new pension agency, which is checking its record base, identifying pensioners on low incomes and contacting them with information about their possible eligibility to enhanced benefits, such as the
    502
    minimum income guarantee. In fact, my mother was one of those who received such a letter last year. Is it possible for the Inland Revenue to conduct a similar exercise for those who may now benefit from the working tax credit, which is specifically intended to benefit low-paid workers?
    Will my right hon. Friend comment on the feedback that her officials have received about the current media campaign? Does she see merit in continuing the level of the current campaign to ensure wider take-up? In particular, has her Department considered any further measures to increase participation and to chase up those who, to date, have failed to return their forms to the Inland Revenue? Does she agree that more needs to be done to emphasise the three-month period to make sure that families and low-paid workers do not lose out on that important reform?
    The new system is vital to our aims to ensure that all families and workers have a decent income and that we successfully combat poverty in Scotland and in society generally. Like my right hon. Friend, I am very keen to ensure that all those who are eligible to benefit in Scotland know how to claim and submit their applications to the Inland Revenue. The Government have made an enormous effort to get the scheme into operation. There are bound to be teething problems, as my right hon. Friend said earlier this evening, but I urge her and her colleagues to continue to work to allocate the necessary resources to ensure that the scheme is a real success.
    6.13 pm
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on securing this Adjournment debate in what has been a busy week. It is very timely given the introduction of the new tax credits, and I hope to deal with each of the points that she has made. In particular, I thank her not only for the support that she has given personally in the House in participating in the legislation's progress through Parliament, but for being actively involved in her constituency in assisting us to get the message across about eligibility for the new tax credits.
    My hon. Friend well knows that, as a result of the reforms that we have introduced—the working families tax credit and the disabled persons tax credit, linked to the national minimum wage and huge increases in child benefit—the Government have made significant progress in tackling poverty and low pay not only in Scotland, but throughout the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
    As a result of the improvements that we have made and the reforms that we have introduced, families with children in the poorest fifth of the population will be £2,500 a year better off in real terms from April 2003 compared with 1997. Our new child tax credit will be complemented by the new working tax credit, which builds on the work-based elements from the old provisions.
    On my hon. Friend's comments about publicising tax credits through the workplace, I confirm that we have done all that we humanly could to encourage all employers, including local authorities, to make available information about the tax credits, particularly

    503
    the working tax credit, which will still be paid through the wage packet. On future activity on publicity, training and information for potential tax credit claimants, I reassure her that the Inland Revenue will continue its activities next year, but not at the same level, to encourage people to apply.
    On take-up and the numbers who have applied for the new tax credits, I should like to take this opportunity—my hon. Friend did not do so—to put straight the record with regard to others' comments about take-up of the new tax credits. We anticipate that about 5.75 million families in the United Kingdom will benefit from the child tax credit. Of those families, about 1.3 million are in receipt of income support and jobseeker's allowance. Those families do not need to claim tax credits this year. Instead, we have increased the child premium in those benefits to ensure that they receive the same amount as they would have received had they been on the tax credits, although we plan to transfer them on to the system next year.
    I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that families who are entitled to make a claim do so as soon as possible. That is why the Inland Revenue has spent £12 million on bringing the new tax credits to public attention. It wrote to everyone who was receiving the previous tax credits inviting them to claim. Indeed, it sent reminders and included messages in items such as child benefit books and bounty packs. It then attempted to ring as many potential claimants as possible to remind them to claim if they had not done so. Some members of the public became a little irritated at being contacted so many times by the Inland Revenue encouraging them to apply for credits when they had either simply not got around to doing so or had already done so. We can be absolutely sure that the message has got across. We believe that we are well on our way to achieving an excellent target. To date, we have received more than 3.9 million claims from families. As I told my hon. Friend, that does not include the 1.3 million who are on income support or JSA, who will receive the benefit automatically.
    Of course, it is vital to encourage people to apply by the end of January. We started advertising last August so that we could process forms in time for claimants to receive payment by the beginning of April. As my hon. Friend said, some people unfortunately did not fill in the forms at the time and may have completed them recently. That led to huge pressure on the telephone helplines and the Members' helpline. At the beginning of the week, the number of calls to the tax credit helpline was astronomical. No contact centre in the country could have handled it—indeed, all the centres put together would have struggled. We already have 1,900 people answering calls. They are handling approximately 500,000 calls a week and, on some days, the calls exceed that number.
    To deal with the extra demand this week, 150 staff were added today, 250 will be added tomorrow and 300 on Monday. A further 700 staff will be in place by early next week. Tomorrow, we shall double the capacity of calls that can be taken by the Members' helpline; we shall treble it by early next week. I understand that people are anxious, especially those who have left it late to apply, or have not received confirmation from the Inland Revenue that payments will start. The Department is doing everything that it can to provide that service to communities in the United Kingdom.
    504
    I should like to pay tribute to Inland Revenue staff. In the past three months, they have moved heaven and earth to try to ensure that all the applications for tax credit were speedily tackled. It is a huge achievement on their part that millions of people are receiving tax credits, and that will apply to millions more as we move through the month. Once we are finally in a position to give the exact information about what happened in the first month of implementation, I am confident that that splendid work will be demonstrated to all. The staff have not flinched from being asked to do increasing amounts. Thousands of Inland Revenue staff who are totally committed to introducing new tax credits have been involved.
    My hon. Friend asked about future publicity and methods of ensuring take-up. She is right that it is important in the next few months to stress to people that if they do not submit their application before the beginning of July, they will lose payment for the early part of the year. So long as they submit it in time, it will be backdated. That must be our next focus. We shall redouble our efforts to issue the information through the many routes that we have used, for example, the citizens advice bureaux, which have been splendid, and the Child Poverty Action Group, which has helped through updating its advice book and undertaking the training of its staff on our behalf.
    The claim forms are 12 pages long—half the length of the forms for working families tax credit, but none the less, 12 pages—because we need to get the information about the families and their structures on to our systems for the first time. Future renewals will be much easier, but we do not yet have the information and it is important to secure it. Of course, the process will continue because any new claimant will be faced with the form. As always, the Inland Revenue looks critically at the information that it sends out and the application forms that it designs, and it constantly tries to make them simpler.
    I understand that some people have been caused anxiety by the question of their previous year's income because they have wondered whether to submit a P60. We do not ask for a P60; we ask for the claimant's previous year's earnings. If anyone is in doubt about what to do, they should ring the call centre, and try to do so outside peak hours. I understand that a good time to ring is while certain soaps are on the television, because most people are watching them. Alternatively, if members of the public need assistance to complete their forms but cannot get through to our call centres, they can visit or ring an Inland Revenue inquiry centre.
    In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend for her unstinting encouragement and support for the introduction of the new tax credits. I agree that we still face large challenges. We must get the information out to, and the claims in from, those who have not yet applied. We must deliver either weekly or four-weekly payments on time to families who are in desperate need of the money. The Inland Revenue is working flat out to process claims, including recent claims, to get award notices out, to deal with inquiries and to get payments in place.

    505
    I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that we have made an impressive start on a major reform. I assure her that we, too, want to ensure that the implementation of the system in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom goes smoothly and as well as possible to deliver the
    506
    important revenue to families when they need it most. The money has their name on it, and it is up to us to ensure that we get it to them.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Six o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Urban Renewal
2.30 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As this is the third cross-cutting question session in Westminster Hall, I hope that hon. Members will not require me to explain the procedure in detail again. Hon. Members who have tabled questions will be called in the same way as in the House and, likewise, will be allowed a supplementary question. Other hon. Members and Opposition spokesmen who rise in their places will be called as appropriate and as time permits. A small number of second supplementary questions may also be granted, depending on the pace of events.
I remind hon. Members of the obvious: that this is a question-and-answer session and not a series of mini-debates, so I would appreciate brevity in both questions and answers.
Finally, I stress that this remains an experimental procedure and feedback from all those participating is most welcome, preferably in private notes to me.

Oral Answers to Questions
The Government were asked—

Estates (Improvements)
Ms Oona King: What extra funds are being made available for environmental improvements to, and redesign of, estates to discourage vandalism and drug abuse. [107466]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Wills): Although no specific funding is available for environmental improvements to estates, a number of funding streams can be tapped to redesign estates, discourage vandalism and tackle drug abuse. Home Office funding over and above the £9.6 billion allocated in 2003–04 to the police service includes £72.3 million for crime and disorder reduction partnerships and £50 million for police basic command units.
In addition, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has allocated £2 billion over 10 years to the new deal for communities; £400 million has been allocated in 2003–04 to the neighbourhood renewal fund; and £250 million has been committed over three years to improve the quality of public parks and spaces.
Ms King: The Minister will agree that design is a way of minimising the problems of antisocial behaviour, vandalism and drug abuse. Bearing in mind the cleaner, safer, greener spaces initiative, will he ensure that the design of estates is taken into account when seeking to
106WH
improve urban areas and will he consider greater coordination with all the various agencies involved in that work?
Mr. Wills: I am happy to give that assurance. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work. She has been a doughty campaigner for her constituency. All Ministers are aware of the needs of Tower Hamlets, and it is partly as a result of that and her sterling efforts on its behalf that it is benefiting from the streams of Government funding—£10.6 million in 2003 from the neighbourhood renewal fund and £56.6 million from the new deal for communities.
I know that the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) would like to say a few words as a large part of the responsibility falls to his Department.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): The document to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) refers, "Living Places—Cleaner, Safer, Greener", was extended subsequently by the communities plan, "Sustainable communities: building for the future". At the core of that document is a real commitment to ensure that designs are central to all that we do in growth areas, low-demand housing areas, neighbourhood renewal areas and, indeed, everywhere across the piece of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We are reviewing planning policy guidance and working closely with colleagues in the Home Office to update our documents on designing out crime rather than designing in crime, which has happened too often in the past when architects seem to have gone out of their way to do that.
Mr. David Heath: I support the comments of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), but does the Under-Secretary agree that the problem affects not just inner-city urban areas but all urban spaces, including even those in rural constituencies, and not just estates but all common places in urban areas? Does he also agree that maintenance of the built environment, as well as the improvement of the general environment, is useful? Put together, would the measures not have at least as much effect as some of those in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill that we discussed earlier this week?
Mr. McNulty: I certainly agree with that, which is why I emphasise that design is at the core of all that we do in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. That applies not only 10 deprived areas and to neighbourhood renewal areas but across the piece in urban and rural areas in the north, the south and the midlands. That is especially true of new build, which is surrounded by low-maintenance but high-quality public spaces, small green spaces and parks. I therefore entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does the Under-Secretary for the Home Department agree that the experience in the United States in reducing problems, such as broken windows, and in providing policing to address urban disorder and crime shows conclusively

107WH
that how an area is policed is as important as the amount of money invested to regenerate or to change it? If policing does not take place, we end up with examples such as the north Peckham estate in which a lot of money is invested in the immediate aftermath of a murder or tragedy. However, when policing levels are reduced, the same problems of disorder manifest themselves. What are the Government doing to link regeneration schemes to changing police practices to ensure that there are lower levels of crime and disorder?
Mr. Wills: Because the hon. Gentleman has cogently outlined the case for Government policies, I assume that we are assured of his support for the Anti-social Behaviour Bill and other measures that we are driving forward. He is, of course, right. Since we came to office in 1997, we have adopted holistic, joined-up approaches to solving those problems. We agree that we must not let any antisocial or disorderly behaviour go unchallenged and unpoliced. That requires investment by the Government, which is why we are investing in record numbers of police. Police numbers are now at the record level of more than 131,000, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. It is impossible to achieve such a level of policing without investing sufficient money, and it would be impossible to achieve that if public spending were cut by 20 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman's second point that money alone is not sufficient is right. We need to see more police on the beat, which is why we have driven forward reforms through the Police Reform Act 2002 and the taskforce chaired by Sir David O'Dowd to cut the burden of bureaucracy on the police force to ensure that more police are on the streets. We are giving them the necessary tools to tackle the antisocial behaviour that makes so many people's lives a misery in all areas of the country. Given the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I hope that we can look forward to his support for the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, which will tackle many of those issues.
Mr. Grieve: The Minister will know that we do not view the Anti-social Behaviour Bill with disfavour, but many of its provisions already exist—for example, aggressive beggars can already be dealt with under the Vagrancy Act 1966, and there are numerous other examples. The Government are reinventing the wheel. The powers are already there; the question is whether there are sufficient police to deliver new practices to ensure that provisions, whether they are in the Government's Bill or in earlier legislation, are enforced. There is ample evidence that there are not.
Mr. Wills: Everyone accepts that there is a great deal still to do. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the provisions of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. He will find that the measures are necessary and will be invaluable tools for the police. It is true that the provisions are not all that the police need: we must ensure that they spend more time on the beat, that they are given the resources that they need and that the courts are equipped properly to process the various measures quickly enough. The problem is complex and requires action across the whole criminal justice system and in government, but we are tackling it with the necessary resources.

Suburban and Urban Regeneration
Dr. Andrew Murrison: What environmental factors are taken into account in the regeneration of (a) suburban and (b) urban areas. [107467]
Mr. Henry Bellingham: What environmental factors are taken into account in the regeneration of (a) suburban and (b) urban areas. [107469]
Mr. Mark Francois: What environmental factors are being taken into account in the regeneration of (a) suburban and (b) urban areas. [107470]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): Regardless of area—be it urban, suburban or rural—the Government recognise that environmental factors play a critical role in successful regeneration and improving the quality of life for those who live and work in our towns, cities and communities.
Dr. Murrison: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. There are 120 local air quality management areas in this country. Some of them are in surprising places, and two of them are in my constituency. What assessment have Ministers made of the likely increase in the number of local air quality management areas as a result of the building in the south of England upon which they have embarked? Would they agree that air quality is a principal consideration in planning consent for such building?
Mr. McNulty: I agree that air quality is an important factor in environmental matters. I do not know off the top of my head whether it is a material planning gain in all circumstances, which is slightly distinct from whether it is an important factor to be taken into account. I understand that both the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consider the matter seriously. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life may add something in the spirit of harmony and parliamentary pluralism.
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) is right to say that air quality is sometimes bad in surprising areas. That is one reason why the mapping of air quality and the co-operation that is taking place with local authorities is very important. We wish to address the issue and improve not just the quality of air, but the quality of information.
Mr. Bellingham: Is the Under-Secretary aware of the Nar-Ouse regeneration scheme in my constituency, which has a huge amount of local support? It has the support of the local borough council, and it also has the support of the Deputy Prime Minister who came down during the last election to a tremendous fanfare. He came down to support me, which was very kind of him, and said that he was announcing the scheme. He also announced that it was to be a millennium community scheme.

109WH
Obviously, the scheme takes into account the point about regeneration because it deals with the regeneration of derelict land. Part of the site is a former fertiliser factory, and everyone wants the scheme to get the final go-ahead; there is a huge amount of local support for it. Will the Under-Secretary examine that scheme and do all that he can to support residents in my constituency to ensure that it gets off the ground?
Mr. McNulty: I am pleased to hear about the level of support that the hon. Gentleman has, not in relation to the election campaign, but for the millennium community scheme. I shall do all that I can to ensure that—it and the other millennium community schemes throughout the country at various stages of development—delivers for the people in the area.
Mr. Francois: One of the largest regeneration projects in Europe is the Thames gateway area, which touches on the borders of my constituency of Rayleigh. As I understand it, the Government are due to outline their detailed plans for the gateway next month. In advance of that, can I ask Ministers, when there is a controversial planning application anywhere within the Thames gateway area, what the planning authority will be for the purposes of that application? Will it be the local district council in the normal way, the Thames gateway, or some other body?
Mr. McNulty: The short answer is that it depends where in the gateway area the controversial or otherwise planned application is. The hon. Gentleman will know that we made announcements in the communities plan about particular configurations and mechanisms for delivery in various parts of the gateway. The specific answer to his question is that, if development took place in parts of London or Thurrock, many of the planning powers would rest with urban development corporations.
If the development were in south Essex, which I suspect is more relevant to the hon. Gentleman, it would be a matter for the local planning authority, because south Essex and many parts of north Kent have gone for a more partnership-driven approach rather than something specific in relation to planning power.
Andrew Bennett: May I remind Ministers considering regeneration just how much local people cherish allotments, parks, cemeteries and public open spaces? They very much welcome the extra money that the Government are making available for them, but they find it a little puzzling that other political parties are keen to cut the resources available for such facilities. Specifically, will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department tell me what point we have reached on the question of the reuse of graves and the generation of income from that, which will ensure that cemeteries are looked after and are attractive, safe places where people can go to grieve?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Wills): I shall write to my hon. Friend, because I cannot give him a precise answer. From my own experience, I know how
110WH
incredibly important the matter is, and I echo his thoughts about it. I shall write to him with a detailed answer.
Andy Burnham: I wish to bring to Ministers' attention the Leigh sports village, which is a pioneering regeneration scheme in my constituency. It will provide sorely needed, high-quality sports and education facilities in a deprived community, and it is due to be submitted for planning approval within days.
People in Leigh live in fear that a spotted toad or a great rare newt will be found on the site in the next few weeks. In some cases, environmental factors are not just taken into account, but are given too much weight in the overall calculation. I ask Ministers to advise Government offices, particularly the Government office for the north-west, to ensure that such schemes, which will improve the quality of life and have huge public support, are not derailed by what are, in some cases, marginal environmental considerations.
Mr. McNulty: In the broadest sense, environmental factors are weighed in the balance with many other factors in deciding on planning permission. I would not underestimate the love or affection in which the spotted toad or whatever else is held. I shall not answer the question in its strictest sense, not least because I am the planning Minister for the north-west, and the matter may cross my desk. However, in general, we exhort Government offices to follow best practice when dealing with planning applications, to consider matters in the round and to include in the balance specific policy planning guidance for the area and the region, as well as other material planning matters such as the environment.
Lawrie Quinn: May I direct my question to the Minister for Sport, who represents a Sheffield constituency? In the context of urban renaissance, he will be aware that Yorkshire Forward has seven community schemes in our region, one of which is the Scarborough urban renaissance project. Fundamental to any environmental consideration is the fact that we have the sea at our front door, so we are tightly drawn on where we can go. An excellent aspect of the scheme is the partnerships that have developed between communities and individuals. Central to them have been cultural, tourism and sporting considerations. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that that type of approach—fundamentally, a people approach—is used in urban renaissance projects not only in Yorkshire but across the country?
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): Working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, we changed PPG 17, which had been a real problem. It had not been revised for 10 or 15 years, but we changed it last year from a reactive to a proactive piece of planning guidance. It asks every local authority to examine its sporting needs in terms of open spaces and planning and to report to the Government.
If my hon. Friend remembers, the Government inherited a problem when they came to office in 1997. The previous Administration allowed 40 playing fields to be sold off each month. We curtailed that and now

111WH
have a proactive piece of legislation that ensures that every local authority carries out a needs assessment. The stick is that the Secretary of State will reject any planning application to close any playing field or other sporting venue until the needs assessment is done. The ODPM and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have worked together creatively to ensure that the two things come together for sports facilities. We have also taken a view on greenfield sites and sports facilities. Again, it is proactive. I hope that it will lead to a much more sensible approach to sports facilities, which are badly needed throughout the country.
We are dealing with tourism through the regional development agencies. We have given them the powers and resources to address that very important industry, which has been the subject of under-investment and for which there has not been a strategic approach in the recent past. There are major economic drivers in relation to tourism and, in that sense, the RDAs are making it a major part of their plans for the economic renewal of many regions.
Mr. John Greenway: This is an opportune moment to raise a point that I was hoping to make if I caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on Question 6. I remind hon. Members that I am a trustee of the National Playing Fields Association.
I am sure that the Minister for Sport is not seeking to mislead, but the fact remains that the Government have not produced a single statistic to back up what he just said about 40 playing fields per month being sold off under the Conservative Government. We know from the Government's figures that 202 playing fields have been sold since the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister can confirm that the PPG17 guidance sets no test of need for recreation, but only a test of need for education.
Why is no account taken of the need or demand for other types of open space? That is in direct conflict with what the Under-Secretary said. Is there not a conflict of interest when a planning authority and a local education authority are parts of the same council? If the Minister for Sport and the Under-Secretary, to whom I am addressing my questions, disagree with my contention, would they happily meet me and other trustees of the NPFA? We believe that what I have said is exactly correct.
Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman's comments are not accurate. PPG17 puts a burden on all local authorities to do a full strategic assessment of the recreational open spaces used for education and other purposes in each and every area. It is in that context that such planning applications have to be determined. I recently met my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) to discuss PPG 17 and how it will be bedded in. At some stage in the near future, I will be more than happy to meet the NPFA again, with or without the hon. Gentleman in tow. However, he would, of course, be extremely welcome.

Social Housing
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Whether Government targets for social housing in urban areas have been met. [107468]
Mr. Desmond Swayne: What targets the Government have set for social housing in urban areas. [107474]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): The 2002 spending review reaffirmed our commitment to delivering decent social housing by 2010. The sustainable communities plan sets out the resources and the policy changes that would put us on track to meet the 2010 target. The target applies equally to all areas of England, rather than simply to urban areas.
We are on track, according to local authority plans, to meet the 2004 interim milestone of reducing by one third the number of non-decent homes in the social sector. This will bring the total down from 1.6 million in 2001 to 1.1 million in 2004.
Mr. Robathan: The question was quite specific. I asked whether Government targets have been met, but I did not notice an answer. I understand that the number of new-built social houses has fallen by one third since 1997, which is quite extraordinary. What confidence does the Under-Secretary think that the House, or the public, should have that the Government will increase their social housing build? Indeed, what confidence can one have when such announcements are made by the Deputy Prime Minister—as with the announcement in February this year—whose housing interests were so vividly exposed by the previous Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who found that he had been acting against the Orders of the House?
Mr. McNulty: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I have already remonstrated with him for continuing to bore the House with irrelevancies.
In the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he suffers from the same delusion as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who, in a written parliamentary question, asked me the same thing, but inserted the word "new". There is no target for new social housing in terms of our decent homes target and there is no target in terms of build for social housing—that is a matter for local plans, regional plans and everything that will follow when Royal Assent is given to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.
Our one target for social housing is to bring all housing up to the decency level by 2010. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) asked whether we have achieved that target. Short of using H.G. Wells's time travel machine, he will have to wait until 2010.
Paul Clark: My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will be well aware of the review that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is leading on the delivery of development in the Thames gateway and of his intention to make a statement in May 2003. I am especially interested to know if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can say whether that statement is still on target to be made in May 2003, bearing other events in mind, and if he expects the

113WH
statement on the level of development to lead the way and set the scene for the various delivery vehicles to make a serious contribution to social and affordable housing in the Thames gateway.
Mr. McNulty: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as well as engaging in a range of other activities, is chairing a Cabinet Sub-Committee called "MISC 22", for no other reason than 22 was the next number. The number 21 had been taken.
I understand that that body is still on schedule to report by the end of May on a range of issues, not least on the scope for detailed delivery of housing—affordable and otherwise—in the gateway. Other issues include a range of mechanisms and policy changes that may be needed in that context, such as value capture, review of planned obligations, and how, with a mixture of public and private funding, we will secure the necessary infrastructure to make all the developments in the gateway vibrant and sustainable communities rather than simply creating urban sprawl and add-ons to existing communities.
Simon Hughes: Are the Government prepared to consider a target in housing that would allow need to be met before demand? As the Under-Secretary will know, the borough, of which I represent part, has the largest local authority housing stock in London. Sites that become available could often be used for social housing if they were not bought by the private sector to provide much more expensive housing or second and third homes for people who are already housed.
Mr. McNulty: I fully understand the nature and context of the hon. Gentleman's question for the reason, among others, that I have responsibility for the new deal for communities. I know Aylesbury intimately, but sadly not Southwark. Buckinghamshire has different problems, but I must say to him that the development of Southwark's new deal development plan and its subsequent local delivery documents is, in the first instance, a matter for Southwark.
In the coming months, however, we will be reviewing circular 6/98 as a matter of urgency. The review will take on board the needs assessment process and a range of others that may or may not he included in the end. There are some very good, sometimes radical, ideas about a new use class order for social housing that would capture a social model, but leave the home in a social sector without necessarily preventing people from rising up the elevator to private home ownership. That will be considered in the mix, but it is a matter for Southwark and its unitary development plan and local development framework, albeit in the context of the Mayor's London plan, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is being examined in public in full detail.
Mr. Edward Davey: The Under-Secretary talks about targets, but has conveniently forgotten to mention the target from the spending review 2000; namely, that the Government were going to help to build 100,000 new affordable homes by the end of 2004. Will he tell us what has happened to that target and what progress has been made? Does he realise that constituencies such as mine
114WH
desperately need new, affordable homes, yet the Government's policies to date—the starter home initiative, for example —have failed to deliver on what they promised. Fewer than 70 per cent. of the homes promised under the starter home initiative have been built. Moreover, the Government have failed to support councils and realise the potential supply from empty homes. When will the Government deliver on their old targets?
Mr. McNulty: I know that it is a common feature of the Liberal Democrats to flip flop on almost every issue, but I did not realise that that had a temporal dimension. They are now asking me to comment on targets that are, in one sense, a year away from fruition and that, in another sense, are two years away. I hope that the hon. Gentleman endorses our sustainable communities plan, which includes £22 billion of public expenditure, some £5 billion of which will specifically be for affordable housing, and up to £1 billion of which will be for key worker housing. I certainly eschew the notion that the starter home initiative has failed. I have spent much of my time in the past few months going up and down the country, and certainly around London and the southeast, seeing firefighters, teachers and nurses who are in fire stations, classrooms and with patients only because of the starter homes initiative. If Kingston has not got its whack from the initiative, it needs to pull its finger out.
Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister alter the rules so that those local authorities that have established a good record of maintaining their existing housing stock can be allowed much greater freedom to dispose of their budgets by building additional units?
Mr. McNulty: It is extremely unlikely that we will change the rules, given that the ink is barely dry on the rule changes that we made on 5 February, when the sustainable communities document was announced.
Mr. Swayne: The rules are a product of a time when many authorities were not maintaining their stock, so much so that it became uninhabitable. Now, good authorities can no longer be held back by bad ones. However, New Forest district council now has to rip out perfectly good kitchens from its existing stock and put in new ones, rather than building new houses, simply to comply with the rules imposed by Whitehall. It must be horses for courses. Will the Minister reconsider his answer?
Mr. McNulty: All local authorities need to produce housing stock plans by 2006. The hon. Gentleman may be referring to decent home standards. I imagine that constituents of the New Forest, East or New Forest, West require those decency standards as much as anyone else. He exhorts me to travel back in time to a land of milk and honey under the Conservatives that never existed, and the Liberal Democrats exhort me to travel forward in time. I would rather stay where I am.

Open Land and Parkland
Dr. Vincent Cable: What action the Government are taking to safeguard metropolitan open land against the pressures for urban and suburban development. [107471]
Miss Anne McIntosh: What plans the Government have for the safeguarding of parkland in suburban areas. [107473]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): In planning terms, metropolitan open land is afforded the same protection as designated green belt. Government policy on the green belt, as set out in planning policy guidance 2, has not changed.
Dr. Cable: If the policy is unchanged, can the Minister explain the circumstances in which my local council, which happens to be Conservative-controlled, could proceed with proposals to lift metropolitan open land protection of large areas of parkland, allotments and playing fields? Is it true, as the council claims, that the Government have threatened that, unless it does that and builds on green land specifically to meet housing targets, it will incur financial penalties from the Government?
Mr. McNulty: It would be remiss of me to comment on second-hand hearsay, not least from a Tory council. As I said, the policy protection afforded to MOL is the same as that for green belt, as outlined in PPG2. That has not changed. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman, by his wiggling, is signalling that I should leave for my time travel or write to him, I am happy to write to him on the specifics but, as I said, I will not comment on second-hand hearsay from a Tory council.
Miss McIntosh: Perhaps the Minister will consider the practice of the flagship Labour-controlled City of York council, which seems to build, or want to build, on every inch of parkland, green belt and greenfield site in its area. What reassurance can he give those of my constituents in Vale of York who live within the parameters of City of York council that their green belt, greenfield sites and green space in totality will be protected from such growth schemes as the northern gateway scheme?
Mr. McNulty: I have no comment on the specifics of that. If the hon. Lady wants to write to me, I will look into the matter, but I respond to her point by mentioning the same planning protection for the designated typologies of land as is in legislation; it was inherited from the Conservatives. I am referring to PPG3, which talks about brownfield first, then urban edge, then greenfield and, in the final instance, green belt or MOL.
It is for each local planning authority, whatever its political make-up, to submit its plan in an orderly fashion. Plenty have not done that, which is why we are reviewing the entire planning system. I exhort all constituents, no matter to which party their MP belongs, seriously to engage in the development of those plans.

Urban Parks
Mr. Gareth Thomas (Harrow, West): What action the Government are taking to increase funding to refurbish (a) sports and (b) general facilities in urban parks in London. [107472]
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): A number of funding streams are available to improve
116WH
sports facilities, including those located in parks. They include the lottery sports fund and the community capital development programme. It is not possible to give accurate figures covering funding just for facilities in parks. However, to give hon. Members some idea of the scale of funding, more than £180 million from the fund has been spent to date on improving sports facilities across London. The community capital development programme will provide £60 million between 2003 and 2006 for the provision of sports facilities in deprived areas.
On the issue of parks in general, the Government have committed £201 million over three years to improve the quality of parks and public spaces throughout England. That will include a new "liveability" fund of £89 million to help local authorities to improve their public spaces.
In addition, and in recognition of the importance of urban parks and public spaces, the Government have asked the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment to set up CABE Space to champion the vital role of parks and public spaces in improving quality of life and delivering sustainable communities. CABE Space will be launched next month and a new director of CABE Space has just been appointed.
The Government also provide funding to the Urban Parks Forum, which has been instrumental in setting up the London Parks and Green Space Forum.
Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. Is he aware of reports from CABE that almost 50 per cent. of local authorities in London and elsewhere have no strategy for their green urban spaces? Is he aware, too, of the suggestion that almost a third of people are deterred from using parks because of the fear of crime? Although the sums of money that the Minister announced today are excellent news, is he confident that he has enough money to provide the necessary incentives to all local authorities in London and elsewhere to get sports and other facilities in parks up to scratch?
Mr. Caborn: I referred earlier to PPG17. For the first time we have been able to bring sports facilities, open spaces and recreational space together in the planning guidance. Local authorities are now under instructions through PPG17 to carry out a needs assessment across the range of those facilities and open spaces and to bring it into their planning regimes. I hope that if they do not do so and alterations are wanted, the matter will come to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and there will thus be a prerequisite for them to carry out that assessment.
My hon. Friend spoke about having a strategy. The strategy will have to be in the needs assessment. We hope for a quantum change in the way we look at open spaces and sports facilities. The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), is deeply involved in the matter, too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. McNulty): Building on the "Living Places" document, the communities plan launched on 5 February included a commitment to spend £250 million in the next three years in precisely

117WH
those areas. We will shortly be launching CABE Space, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport referred, a strategic community enablers scheme, a revamp of the green flag awards and a "liveability" fund, all of which focus on an acceptance that parks, green spaces and the public realm in general are as crucial to urban townscapes as they are to areas on the periphery. For the reasons suggested earlier, the work of the police and others is important in the maintenance of those spaces.
Simon Hughes: I am well aware of the Government's commitment to these issues. Can the Minister for Sport help me in relation to matters that arise frequently in the borough of Southwark, where there is a significant deficit of football and cricket pitches? The Heritage Lottery Fund has made some good investments. Southwark park has been re-opened and is very well used. I hope that between the beginning of May and the summer the Minister will accompany me to talk to leading people in the local authority and some of the users of the facilities to discuss how to lever in the maximum public and other funds to provide cricket, football and other facilities, as demand for them definitely exists. However, at present, no funding is available to turn the spaces in the big parks in Southwark to such uses. I am willing to give the Minister relevant material beforehand. It is exactly the sort of profitable use of underused spaces for young people that would help to deal with social disorder on the estates and to improve sporting interests and abilities in our communities, which are waiting for the space.
Mr. Caborn: I will answer about the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I should first explain that there are two bodies into which we are putting significant funding. The first is the New Opportunities Fund. About £500 million is going through local education authorities in the next three years. That is starting to come on stream, and there will be just over 2,000 developments. That money is going into sports facilities, both new and upgraded. Even though the money is going through the LEAs, the prerequisite is that the money is used for the community. I have seen some innovatory schemes among those 2,000. do not know what is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but we can find that out.
The second body is the Football Foundation, through which £60 million is being spent specifically on grass-roots football. I have asked the Football Foundation to develop partnerships and to start using synthetic pitches more effectively. Although one is always happy to see the upgrading of traditional football pitches, in inner cities the pitches used most effectively are synthetic. They can be played on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and many are floodlit.
We must also explore the work being done by the private sector, for example, by JJB Sports. In Trafford park, there are 24 indoor five-a-side football pitches. Every day from about 4 to 10 o'clock at night, including Saturdays and Sundays, those pitches are booked one year in advance by football teams. Dave Whelan, the managing director of JJB Sports, allows those pitches to be used by schools for nothing between 9 and 4 o'clock during the day. That is a real marriage between the public and private sector. There are complexes in Wigan and Trafford, and the company is rolling out others.
118WH
We can explore public-private partnerships and should examine indoor facilities more effectively than we have in the past. Using synthetic surfaces is important for sustainability and usability. I apologise Mr. Deputy Speaker—I am almost making a speech rather than answering a question.
Mr. John Greenway: Although I welcome the Minister for Sport's answers, do he and his colleague in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that pitches in our parks play a crucial role in providing sports facilities for many local schools and grass-roots sports clubs—particularly for soccer and cricket, but also for rugby and hockey—where the schools and clubs have no pitches or land of their own?
Will the Minister for Sport, who is responsible for the lottery, examine how the NOF money is being spent by the LEAs to ensure that it is not focused only on schools that have the land and therefore the ability to improve and create new pitches? It should also be available to LEAs and local authorities to improve their facilities that are used by schools that do not have land of their own. I am thinking particularly of the kids who play on the pitches at Wandsworth, whom I see occasionally when I walk my dog.
Will the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister say whether the Government have looked at local authorities' ability to maintain the pitches that already exist, given the severe pressure on local authority budgets in the current spending round?
Mr. Caborn: With sports facilities, whether they are football or cricket pitches or tennis courts, one problem is that there has never been an audit of our facilities. We have spoken about PPG17 and conducting a needs assessment of facilities in certain areas. We are in the process of putting together a domesday book of all sports facilities, both public and private, and I hope that we will complete the first part of that project by the middle of this year. We hope to add to it month by month, and once we have the full survey, we can make a realistic assessment of what we need to invest in, whether that is for schools or the community. I am sure that organisations such as Football Foundation will join us in that project, as will the private sector. We will have a comprehensive picture of the sports facilities throughout the country in about a year from now, and we can then work out in a realistic and informed way where new investment should go. It is amazing that that has not been done before.
Mr. McNulty: I realise that pitches and playing areas outside schools are important, not least in some of our most deprived communities. I also understand that there are constant calls on local government funding, even though we have increased by well over £1 billion the local environmental, protective and cultural services block, the old standard spending assessment and the formula spending share.
The point made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is important. PPG17 is part of the process, but I should also pay tribute to organisations such as Groundwork, which is a serious player in recapturing many parks and open spaces that have gone into disrepair. Schools are then able to use them for the reasons that he suggested.

Empty Homes
Chris Grayling: If the Government will make a statement on empty homes in England. [107475]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall answer question 10 on its own. [Laughter.]
We are determined to deal with the wide-ranging impact of empty homes by pursuing policies to reduce the number that remain empty for long periods. It is unacceptable for homes to be left to rot. They impact widely on the surrounding community and deny housing opportunities.
Chris Grayling: Last year I was on the Select Committee that looked at the serious problem of empty houses, particularly in areas in the north of England where there is no obvious role for the housing. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that he plans to reduce significantly the number of empty houses and return the areas to open land. Will the Minister explain what stage that process has reached, how the different Departments will work together in establishing how the areas can be cleared and what use the land will be put to?
Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman will know that, in the communities plan, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister earmarked £500 million for nine designated low-demand pathfinder areas where the problems are particularly acute and there is abandonment or low demand. I was happy to be in a position last week to announce that six of the pathfinders would receive a further £4 million for the coming year, building on the £3 million that they received last year to start early-win schemes. Those moneys were drawn down from the capital modernisation fund. There are serious negotiations between the ODPM and the three other pathfinder areas for more progress in the plans and serious delivery this year. However, the hon. Gentleman should understand that it is about not simply clearing houses and putting grass seeds down, but re-engineering and refocusing the communities and the housing market so that people are served properly.
Andrew Bennett: I welcome what the Government are doing with the pathfinder schemes, but will the Minister give some of them a kick up the backside so that they get on a little more quickly? Does he recognise that there are places where the market has totally failed and properties cannot be sold, and that there are areas of significant housing weakness surrounding those areas? Should we not be looking at those areas as well as those that have seen total failure?
Will the Minister seriously consider, when a house is fit and of good standard, putting, a floor in the market, so that people can be sure that if they buy the property at a certain price, they will be able to sell it in five years at least at that price? As soon as confidence is put back, particularly in some areas in which the market is fragile, the market will take off again.
Mr. McNulty: There is a range of different problems in each of the nine pathfinder areas. Some reflect
120WH
different manifestations of the difficulties of low demand and abandonment. We are keen to work with each of the nine to sort out the problems locally for that community, and we have exhorted them all, when they have drawn up their visions for their communities, to be fully aware of the ramifications in next-door areas of what they are doing. We also exhorted areas that are close to the nine pathfinder areas that have experienced some of the difficulties, but clearly not to the same extent, to learn some of the lessons from their neighbours.
Mr. Edward Davey: May I welcome the Government's commitment to consult on empty home management orders? When will that consultation be published, and when will legislation follow? While we are waiting for that, will the Government do more in promoting and encouraging best practice among local authorities to tackle the problem of empty homes? Will the Government consult the Local Government Association on that? Will they consider promoting voluntary leasing schemes, information and advice to local authorities, and even grants to ensure that we can tackle the problem? The use of empty homes can do a lot in the short term to tackle the problem of the chronic shortage of affordable housing.
Mr. McNulty: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. He will know that Hammersmith and Fulham is one of the lead authorities in terms of voluntary leasing schemes. It works with the individual who, for whatever reason, owns the empty home but cannot do much with it. In the near future, we will consult on turning best practice on those schemes into a more compulsory system by means of home management orders. That is not the appropriation of private property, as one or two Opposition Members suggested when we announced it, in a sort of reversal of Proudhon's axiom.
On the whole, it is a matter of working with those who own empty properties. Those properties will be empty for a range of reasons. It is not necessarily simply a case of some nasty landlord letting it become run down for some nefarious reason.

Planning Policies
Angela Watkinson: What the Government's policy is on balancing urban infill against new settlements. [107476]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): Our policies in PPG3 set out a sequential approach that expects urban brownfield sites to be considered for housing before green fields in the countryside. Where development has to take place outside urban areas, we want to see the most sustainable option. Normally, that means urban extensions; urban extensions are likely to be more sustainable. We are working with local planning authorities very closely as they determine their plans.
Angela Watkinson: What advice would the Minister give to authorities such as the London borough of Havering when it is considering planning applications

121WH
for infill or back garden development that it feels under pressure to approve, perhaps in the face of many objections from local residents, partly because of the Government's high housebuilding targets in the south-east and partly because the council is in financial difficulties and does not want to risk facing the high appeal costs associated with refusal?
Mr. McNulty: My advice to Havering and any other local planning authority considering a plan is, if it is in full accordance with the national planning policy framework, grant it. If it is not, do not. I speak as someone who was on a planning committee for 11 years. We do not have planning by plebiscite. One does not weigh petitions objecting to a plan. If it is within the framework go with it, and if it is not, refuse it.
Angela Watkinson: The problem is that the council feels under pressure to approve applications that it would rather not allow because of the rules that are in place. That means that Government are imposing decisions rather than allowing them to be made by the local council in line with local circumstances.
Mr. McNulty: With the best will in the world, as I said in one of the Committee sittings on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, I have no wish to design local plans for each and every local planning authority, and that is not the Government's position. We are not imposing any targets or plans on the London borough of Havering that are outwith our statutory planning policy guidance, or the unitary development plan that Havering is currently operating.
Another thing that the hon. Lady said troubled me—that Havering is making such decisions because it is financially constrained in some way. If it is looking to let through planning applications that should not be let through under the current planning policy framework purely to make a few bob, it should not be.

Flooding
Mr. David Atkinson: What discussions have taken place between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on using the planning process to reduce the threat of flooding in urban areas. [107477]
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael): Regular discussions have taken place between Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on flooding issues, for example on new planning policy guidance on development in flood risk areas issued in July 2001, and recently in relation to the Thames gateway proposals.
Mr. Atkinson: Does the Minister agree that people who intend to move into areas that are at risk of flooding should be made aware of that risk before committing themselves to such an investment? Is he aware that the CON29 local search form, which is used by solicitors for those seeking to purchase property, does not include a question concerning flooding and erosion? It should include such a question. Does he agree that the home information packs, which will include key information
122WH
on a property for sale and which are proposed in the forthcoming housing Bill, should include any history of a risk of flooding?
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman asks several questions that are outside my direct responsibilities. The Government's policy is to discourage inappropriate development on flood plains and to examine plans when they are being developed. PPG25 stresses the need for local planning authorities to examine in consultation with the Environment Agency how flood risk can be taken into account as part of the planning and development control process. There is good cooperation between Government Departments on trying to anticipate where problems will arise and ensuring that the planning process takes account of them. As for searches, I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's comment but it falls outwith my portfolio of responsibilities.
Mr. David Heath: Is it not the case that planning policy should discourage new development in areas of unsustainable flood risk without blighting existing properties? Does the Minister not agree that the key to protecting urban areas from flood is whole river catchment area management dealing with land use, compaction of subsoil, aquifers and deforestation? That is the way forward and his Department should pursue it.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is right that there are implications for land use upriver from settlements. Measures can be taken within land management and farming practice to affect the management of flood risk. We try to look at the problem in a joined-up way. The Government's policy is to discourage inappropriate development on flood plains. Whether a particular development is inappropriate depends on the quality of flood protection in an area. From the way in which he asked his question, I assume that he agrees that we should not have a blanket ban on development, which should be examined in its context. I agree that looking at the wider implications of land use is important in understanding the specific issues in particular locations.
Mr. James Gray: May I apologise for not having been here for the whole of this crosscutting question and answer session? I was upstairs participating in a debate on a statutory instrument, which the Minister delegated to his deputy. Sadly, I have no deputy to whom to delegate.
The Minister says that the Government do what they can to avoid inappropriate developments, which we welcome. There are currently 2 million houses built on flood plains across England. Perhaps the Minister can explain why the Government forced through agreement on 288 of the 758 planning applications to which the Environment Agency objected last year. Not all those applications involved building on flood plains, but a substantial proportion did.
Equally, can the Minister tell us why the Deputy Prime Minister has chosen to allow the building of substantial numbers of houses on greenfield sites in the south-east of England, which will unquestionably add to the flooding problems?
Alun Michael: I indicated earlier that we work closely with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in

123WH
considering the implications of planning for flood plains. It is neither practical nor desirable to stop all development. The Environment Agency is now required annually to report to DEFRA and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on planning applications that are determined against the agency's advice. We can see from the report that local planning authorities are taking flood risk more seriously, which is a welcome change that reflects the issue's increased profile.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. McNulty): With the best will in the world, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) suffers from the casual empiricism of aggregates. We cannot put all these referrals from the Environment Agency together and leave the impression that those that were granted against the advice of the Environment Agency were problematic. That would be deeply irresponsible, as it is to suggest that because the Thames gateway means the Thames and therefore a river and river banks, it is all prow, to flooding, and that we built anywhere regardless of flood risks. That was not the case. Everything that we did in early developments and identification of sites in the Thames gateway was in full cognisance of the facts. We worked with all local authorities in the gateway, whatever their hue, in the context of full and frank consultation with the Environment Agency. Casual empiricism does not sit gently on the hon. Gentleman's shoulders.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise if I have been unable to fit in every intervention that was sought, but, by and large, the session has dovetailed fairly well.
A norm of around 12 questions is becoming established, but I shall give instructions that 15 questions should be published on the Order Paper in future to provide a little more flexibility and we shall see how we get on from there. I repeat what I said at the beginning: any observations from any hon. Members, be they Front Benchers or Back Benchers, would be extremely welcome.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence
[Relevant documents: Second Report from the Health Committee Session 2001—02 HC 515 and the Government's response thereto, Cm 5611.]
Motion made and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.]
3.31 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: May I begin by expressing my appreciation for the opportunity to debate the Health Committee's report on the National Institute for Clinical Excellence? It may be Thursday afternoon and some of us are subject to a one-line Whip, but it is always a pleasure to have the company of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), for two hours.
I begin with the usual formal expressions of gratitude to all who co-operated with the inquiry and those who submitted detailed written evidence, which was extremely helpful and informative. I particularly want to thank the oral witnesses whom we heard during the inquiry. It is appropriate to thank the representatives of NICE who co-operated fully with our inquiry, and I want to place on the record my thanks to the chief executive of NICE for his letter to me and other hon. Members earlier this week giving an update on the developments since our report was published and the Government responded.
It is also appropriate to place on the record my thanks and those of the Committee to Lord Hunt, who was the Minister responsible when the inquiry was undertaken. It is a matter of personal regret that he is no longer in the Government; I have known him for a very long time and have the highest regard for his integrity and for his knowledge of health and social care matters. In view of recent events, I hope that there may be a possibility of his returning to office in the near future.
I also want to place on the record the Committee's thanks to our two advisers during the inquiry: Professor Joe Collier of St. George's hospital medical school and Dr. Hilary Pickles, director of public health policy at the Public Health Laboratory Service.
It is particularly important to put on the record my thanks and those of my colleagues on the Committee to our excellent Committee staff. We have been very fortunate in being served by a first-class team on this inquiry and many others. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. In the current environment, in which Members spend a great deal of time together trying to agree a report on a certain subject that I will not go into, it is also appropriate to thank my Committee colleagues for their patience and work. That comment is addressed to members of all the parties that are represented on the Health Committee.
Let me turn now to the detail of our inquiry. It is fair to say that it was the first independent evaluation of NICE since NICE was established in 1999 to tackle the inequities of what has been called postcode prescribing in the national health service. All Members who were involved found that the inquiry proved to be complex but fascinating. It raised many questions about the process of prioritising health care spending, which strikes at the heart of many key debates about today's NHS.

125WH
From the outset, the Committee was clear about its support for the principle that informed the establishment of NICE: a desire to eliminate postcode prescribing by providing clear guidance on the supply of sometimes controversial treatments that would be applied uniformly across the country so that NHS patients, whether in my area of Yorkshire or in Bristol, London or elsewhere, could expect access to the same high standards of care. That was to be achieved through a central body that would provide independent, evidence-based analyses of treatments to inform the decisions of prescribing committees and clinicians. Treatments were to be assessed in terms of their clinical effectiveness but also their cost-effectiveness, so that clinicians would not be able to prescribe overly expensive treatments at the behest of pharmaceutical companies if cheaper, equally effective treatments existed.
As we took evidence, however, it emerged that the reality of the system was far from straightforward. Several key concerns emerged. The first task for any new NHS organisation is to establish credibility within the service and to work collaboratively with others in the field. We heard widespread concern that lack of communication between NICE and other established sources of pharmaceutical guidance already being used by the NHS, such as the British National Fortnulary and the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin, was causing confusion among clinicians, who were suddenly faced with conflicting guidance from different sources. We were very pleased to hear from the Government's response that NICE now formally invites the editors of other relevant publications to comment on its guidance in draft form. A letter that I received recently from NICE goes into much more detail about how it is addressing the problem. I believe that we all welcome that.
The Committee also heard from several witnesses working in the NHS that NICE was not engaging sufficiently with NHS staff. NICE now has a representative from an NHS trust and from a health authority as formal consultees in its process. In addition, the Government welcomed the Committee's suggestion of creating a network of NHS clinicians and commissioners to maintain dialogue between NICE and the NHS and to promote the implementation of NICE guidance. We strongly welcome such developments.
NICE is charged with making difficult decisions on issues that are often highly emotive. Its decisions may have a profound impact on the lives of individuals. For that reason, it is absolutely vital that the process of establishing clinical and cost-effectiveness is, and is seen to be, entirely independent of intervention from Government or the pharmaceutical industry, and that the processes are completely transparent and open. As a result of the Committee's report, NICE is introducing further measures to improve the transparency of its decision-making process. It has also changed its arrangements for hearing appeals against its decisions, as they have attracted considerable criticism for a perceived lack of impartiality.
Dr. Evan Harris: I was interested to see that the report recommended not removing the selection of topics from the Government's control. If NICE at least had a say in that, the process
126WH
would be seen as more independent and open. Is it not a problem, therefore, given the consequences of selection for appraisal, that that fundamental step is not subject to the independence that many would like?
Mr. Hinchliffe: I will touch on that issue and a number of wider questions in the course of my remarks, because the more one looks at some of the issues raised by the role of NICE, the more one has to address the kind of point that the hon. Gentleman has just made.
I was talking about the independence of NICE. I welcome the steps that have been taken subsequent to the inquiry to address that issue, particularly in respect of the appeals mechanism, which was causing concern to many of the witnesses who gave evidence to the Select Committee.
As our inquiry progressed, we were continually struck by the complexity arid breadth of the guidance that NICE was expected to produce, and also by the tight time scale to which it was expected to produce it. It was therefore perhaps unsurprising that its work had attracted criticism from people who felt that the quality of its analysis was not: sufficiently robust. Although we were obviously not sufficiently qualified to assess those claims ourselves, we recognised in our report the huge importance of maintaining credibility among the clinicians at whom the guidance is aimed, and we were very pleased to hear that NICE is now working with the World Health Organisation to arrange an independent review of the technical quality of a sample of its guidance, as we recommended.
During the inquiry, we were faced with a multitude of technical concerns about NICE's very complex processes, and we attempted to address those as fully as possible. However, we felt it was important that our inquiry was not entirely consumed by those technicalities at the expense of the broader issues.
Perhaps most importantly, we considered what effect NICE was having on the NHS. At the time of our inquiry, we received a great many submissions, from both sides of the fence as it were—from patients and pharmaceutical companies—arguing that despite the existence of NICE guidance, patients were still being systematically refused treatments endorsed by NICE. Given the plethora of new initiatives, guidance and must-dos that have begin issued to the NHS over the past few years, it is perhaps unsurprising that guidance takes a while to filter down to ground level and does not translate into improvements overnight. However, more worrying was the apparent lack of any form of systematic assessment of the implementation of NICE's guidance. Our report recommended that appropriate monitoring of the implementation of guidance should be undertaken as a matter of urgency, and we are heartened to learn that the Government's Modernisation Agency is now taking a key role in driving that forward.
In December 2001, the Government issued a directive to the NHS making the implementation of all NICE guidance mandatory. Although the move may have been made partly in response to concerns about the implementation of NICE's recommendations, it has thrown the contentious issue of the prioritisation of health care spending into sharp relief. We received compelling evidence about that from many NHS

127WH
managers, who told us that because NICE recommendations are mandatory but do not have ring-fenced funding, managers find themselves having to cut back on other services to fund NICE-endorsed drugs and treatments. We were told, for example, that for the cost of four implantable cardiac defibrillators of the type recommended by NICE, an NHS hospital could fund four extra nurses in the accident and emergency department.
The increasing use of technology in medicine will only compound those problems. Our inquiry into NICE persuaded us that, with so many competing interests vying for attention and funding in an area in which resources are finite, it is not sufficient to have prioritisation of health care services carried out, effectively through the backdoor, by an organisation such as NICE. That is why our report called for a more open debate on the issue, and recommended that the Government should work to achieve a comprehensive framework for health care prioritisation, underpinned by an explicit set of ethical and rational values.
Prioritisation of health care spending is an issue that lies at the heart of almost every debate on health care policy, because for each aspect of health care provision that is given priority on the NHS agenda, another aspect is deprioritised. We saw a graphic illustration of that during our recent inquiry into sexual health. The chair and chief executive of an NHS hospital told us that its sexual health clinic, which was turning away more than 300 patients a week and operating out of premises which had been condemned, could not be developed or improved because the trust's spending priorities had to be centred on meeting Government waiting list targets for elective surgery and routine out-patient appointments.
Those are tough decisions to make. However, I would find it hard to justify such a decision if it meant not being able to offer prompt treatment to a young person with a potentially life-threatening sexually transmitted infection who, once turned away from a service, would probably be lost to follow-up. Moreover, that young person would probably go back into the community and continue to have unprotected sex, further endangering himself or herself and others.
However, in its response to our report into NICE, the Government made it clear that they had already established their key priorities at a broad level through the planning and priorities framework and the national service framework programme. It is well accepted that once everything becomes a priority then nothing is, and we are already in a situation where that is a risk. The planning and priorities framework for primary care trusts covers nine key areas: reducing waiting times for A and E, out-patient appointments and surgery; improving services in cancer, coronary heart disease, mental health and services for older people, and improving life chances for children; improving the overall experience of patients; reducing health inequalities; and contributing to the Government's drive to reduce drug misuse.
In addition, national service frameworks now exist in six clinical areas and are about to be published in four more. That is a huge sweep of diverse concerns, and there is already widespread anxiety that primary care
128WH
trusts, which are relatively new organisations, will struggle to meet such a broad range of targets. The mandatory implementation of NICE guidance, which is often not linked explicitly to any of those priority areas, will add to the list of must-dos that restrict the amount that primary care trusts can invest in so-called low priority services such as sexual health.
A glance at NICE's website shows that recent NICE guidance has covered a bewildering array of subjects, including obvious priority areas such as cancer and coronary heart disease, but also hip replacements, wisdom teeth extraction, the treatment of influenza and stress incontinence, the use of growth hormones, and the treatment of eczema. NICE is currently working on guidance on IVF fertility treatment, to be published in November this year. If it recommends that couples experiencing difficulty conceiving are routinely offered a certain number of cycles, at an average of £1,200 per cycle, that will have a considerable impact on prescribing budgets.
I do not want to pass judgment on what degree of priority should be afforded to any of those issues, but none of those areas appears to feature either in national service frameworks or in the primary care trust planning and priorities framework. If sexual health, or other services, must be cut to fund new technology recommended by NICE, such as implantable defibrillators or IVF treatment, there should be an open and rational framework for systematically addressing those trade-offs.
I will raise one further point about the local implementation of national guidelines, an issue that does not arise specifically from our report, but arises from my experiences in various parts of the country. Could the Minister comment, for example, on whether the Government believe that the strict numbers-based guidelines contained in the NICE cancer guidance have sufficient research justification for the current reconfiguration of services being proposed in some cancer networks? It is not clear to what extent they are factoring into their requirements the impact of the proposals on district general hospital services, when specialist skills are centralised to cancer centres.
The Committee's view, which I hope is shared by others, is that the inquiry was useful. It was certainly interesting and we learned a great deal from the experience. As I said to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), the issues raised in the inquiry took us to a range of other, more difficult issues which will not go away, whatever Government are in power.
I welcome the Government's positive and helpful response to the points that were raised. I want to place on the record my thanks and those of the Committee for NICE's constructive response to our recommendations.
3.50 pm
Sandra Gidley: I apologise in advance as I have another engagement in my constituency, so I shall not be able to stay for the Minister's winding-up speech. However, I assure her that I will read it avidly in Hansard when I return on Monday.
I shall refer to three matters: first, the access to NICE medicines. The Committee was aware of something called NICE blight, a problem that has not gone away.

129WH
NICE admits that, in an ideal, world a drug would be examined and appraised to coincide with its launch, and that would avoid the current time gap between the launch and the drug receiving NICE approval. However, that is a fudge, because there is nothing to stop anyone who can do so prescribing any drug, even if it has not been through the NICE process. However, when there is pressure on budgets, that process is often used an excuse by administrators, those who set the budgets and even doctors for not prescribing a drug or making it available. It would be useful if the Minister would say how that problem will be addressed and how she plans to speed up the process.
NICE has been disappointing because its work is incredibly slow. An appraisal takes a long time from start to finish and the rate at which drugs are examined is slow. The process needs to be speeded up—perhaps by increasing the resources available—if medicines are to be considered and decisions taken in good time.
I imagine that the matter also exercises the pharmaceutical industry, although I have not been lobbied about it. However, when it takes an ever-decreasing length of time for drug companies to take out a patent on a drug to recoup some of their investment, it must be worrying that both ends of the process are being squeezed. There are generic pressures at one end of the market and the delay in NICE approval at the other. In the middle are the patients, who suffer, first, because they do not get the drugs in the first place and, secondly, because the process makes supplying the drugs less cost-effective for the industry.
The process is particularly slow if there is an appeal. It is often frustrating for all concerned—most of us have been lobbied about visidyne and beta interferon; there are numerous examples—that the guidance is so slow in coming. I appreciate that that is because of the desire to try to get things right but, in the meantime, the patient's condition gets worse and their chance slips away.
I want now to put something else into the equation: I think that the first NICE determination was for the anti-flu preparation—I forget its name. [HON. MEMBERS: "Relenza."] That is the one. NICE lost a little early credibility when it produced interim guidance that did not seem to be very workable and that it reviewed a year or so later. Although a review process is built into the NICE appraisal calendar, it strikes me that, if new evidence proves that a drug is effective or ineffective, there does not seem to be an easy mechanism by which there can be a quick review and, accordingly, a review of any NICE guidance. It is important to work such a mechanism into the system somehow. I shall talk a little more about the process later.
The other hot potato is the implementation of NICE guidance and how it is monitored. Committee members raised the concern that there was no baseline other than drug industry sales figures. Although NICE is producing guidance on a drug, no figures are collected to show what the baseline for prescribing it is during that time. That causes a problem, because NICE issues a guesstimate of what it believes the take-up will be. That is not always accurate—the take-up has sometimes been greater than NICE said that it would be—and we have no easy way of looking back and asking if PCTs and hospitals are doing what they promised to do.
130WH
Our recommendation (p) suggested that practical systems and structures should be put in place. The Government's response was that they agreed in principle, which is good news. On page 9, they state:
"CHAI should be the principal external inspector of the implementation of NICE guidance, and the details of this inspection will be agreed between the Commission and the Department of Health."
They also mention the Modernisation Agency, which will work with NHS bodies, and the board development programme, with which I admit I am not entirely familiar. The response continues:
"NHS Boards are asked to check how NICE guidance is implemented".
It notes:
"The Institute has commissioned through the NHS Research and Development Programme an independent evaluation of the impact of the Institute's technical appraisal guidance."
I would welcome any indication from the Minister about how all that was progressing. Patients and the industry will be much happier if they are convinced that there is a robust monitoring system, although I hate to use the word "robust"—it is one that we tried to keep out of the report.
Much has also been said about the postcode lottery, although I am not sure whether that was why NICE was set up. As an Opposition politician, it is easy to jump on the bandwagon and decry the whole issue. However, I will not do that, because if we are devolving decision taking down to local areas, there will inevitably be some difference in the way in which PCTs in different parts of the country decide to implement guidelines. Any Government mechanism must ensure that such flexibility is still available to local decision makers. We cannot have our cake and eat it. We cannot have blanket NICE guidance that is implemented in exactly the same way everywhere and still say that local people will take local decisions. The two things do not square. There needs to be a loose framework in which both are taken into account.
Secondly, are we monitoring drugs in the right way? I ask that because I was especially struck by much of the evidence that we received that was very complimentary about the Scottish system called SIGN, which tends to examine a drug in the context of the wider disease, condition or whatever it is used for. That was coupled with alarming evidence from, for example, the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin and the British National Formulary that there were discrepancies between the guidance issued by them and the guidance issued by NICE. Most people in the medical profession regard the British National Formulary as a bible. It is probably the first work that one looks at to get an initial picture of something. The Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin is also held in very high regard. There are moves for more consultation between bodies but, at some stage, we need to ask whether there is enough consultation and whether they are all singing from the same song sheet.
We consider drugs in isolation. That is the biggest problem with the way in which NICE tackles things. I do not mean that as an attack on NICE, because it was set up to work in that way. However, doctors are using outdated medicines for many conditions. On the face of it, they may look like the cheapest option, but if we factor in the costs of prescribing drugs for side effects

131WH
and quality-of-life issues, the picture can suddenly change quite considerably. I should like more emphasis to be placed on a wider appraisal that considers new drugs alongside existing therapies and that comes to a balanced view about the relative merits of both.
That is linked to the argument about cost-effectiveness and affordability. I admit that I was sometimes confused by the conflicting evidence that the Committee received. NICE considers cost-effectiveness. There was significant concern that there was an arbitrary cut-off rate in relation to quality-adjusted life years. It became apparent that this is an inexact science. Often, a medical model is examined. The quality-adjusted life year often does not take into account other factors, such as a person's ability to carry on working, not to have to claim certain benefits and even to live at home unaided. Such factors are important, but are not taken into account adequately in the process.
Recommendation (w), which is on page 12 of the Government response, was about greater clarity. However, it will be difficult for the Government and NICE to provide that until clearer guidelines are accepted by all. There was confusion about whether NICE decided on affordability, or whether that was a political decision. The consensus at the end was that it was a political decision, because clearly the Government fund the NHS and it is up to them to decide what is affordable. I sometimes think that NICE crosses the border between deciding cost-effectiveness and deciding affordability. Greater clarity as to who makes which decision would be welcome.
It is easy to pick on the negatives and on the things that are going wrong but, on the whole, NICE serves a useful purpose. If sufficient notice is taken of the Committee's concerns and some of the concerns raised today, and if there is a will to change, we can come up with a system that benefits patients and politicians alike.
4.4 pm
Dr. Richard Taylor: As our Chairman, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), was kind enough to compliment the members of the Committee, I should like to compliment our Chairman on his incredible patience and sense of humour. His patience was tried excessively this morning, but it remained intact. I also want to compliment the Minister and say how pleased I am to see her. I know that she spent as much time working out the answers as I did working out the questions. I saw her in the Library yesterday, and I tipped her off about one of my questions—but only one.
I want to speak on three topics. I want first to welcome events that have happened since our inquiry, although I will not say whether they are a result of the inquiry or not. I will then raise a few matters that I am still concerned about, before speaking briefly about the future.
My first welcome concerns the "British National Formulary". As has already been pointed out, we were staggered at the lack of collusion between the BNF, the "Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin" and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, even to the extent that the BNF at that stage was not a formal consultee. I had
132WH
a word with the chairman of the BNF earlier today, and I am glad to report that he feels that satisfactory communication is now taking place between NICE and the BNF, so much so that the BNF now includes summaries of NICE recommendations in up-to-date issues.
The only disappointment is that the BNF is having trouble with its computers, just as every other organisation seems to do, which means that the current BNF is not out until the end of April and I have not been able to check it. The executive editor of the BNF said that they were almost overwhelmed with information from NICE, but I do not want that to detract from the fact that NICE is sending it all that information. The situation is improving with the "Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin" as well, although perhaps a little more slowly.
My second welcome concerns paragraph 104, in which we noted that NICE had plans to establish a citizens council. We know from the press that something like 30 people from all walks of life have been enrolled into the council. From the NICE response, we know that one meeting has taken place already. I regret that I have not had time to check on the web what happened at the meeting, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to tell us how those ordinary citizens are coping—I do not mean to talk down people when I say "ordinary". During the inquiry, one or two witnesses said that going up before the academics at the NICE inquiries was scary, and I want to know how the ordinary people are standing up to it. Are they finding it friendly or intimidating?
Paragraph 94 has been superseded because the citizens council has been appointed before the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health has really got off the ground. Could the citizens council be affiliated to the commission in some way, because that would give it more strength and bring NICE into the same fold? The NICE response mentioned the feasibility study on the patient impact assessment, and I want to know how that is going.
My third welcome concerns paragraph 99, which mentioned the need for an independent, detailed peer review. The NICE response says that the World Health Organisation is being asked to review the work of NICE, which is a tremendous step. However, I am slightly worried by the wording, because the NICE response says that the WHO will carry out a review of the technology appraisal programme for 2003. Is that the same as our recommendation that the review should be of a random selection of actual guidance?
Those are my three points of welcome, and next are my three points that still concern me, the first of which is funding. We are told repeatedly that the Government's welcome huge increase in funding to the NHS is enough to cover the cost of NICE recommendations and many other proposed developments. I have never been convinced that that is absolutely realistic. PCTs are overspent already, and a vast amount of extra money will go into the overspend. The three PCTs in the county in my constituency are overspent to the tune of £14 million, and that will swallow up a vast amount of their extra money. That is emphasised by the health bulletin produced by the Audit Commission, "Primary Care Prescribing", which shows that on average PCTs have increased their drug budgets by about 10 per cent. Drug

133WH
costs are forecast to rise by about 12 per cent., so 2 per cent. of the figure is not actually accounted for, and it is a puzzle where that extra 2 per cent. will come from.
Others have already mentioned implementation of NICE recommendations and it is a worry. If a 2 per cent. rise is not accounted for in PCT budgeting and the implementation is not full, something of a black hole will be exposed. The charity Schizophrenia First has done a lot of work on implementation of the guidance, particularly the use of atypical anti-psychotic drugs. Its work does seem to show a clear gap between the issue of guidance and the actual implementation. The health bulletin states that the increase in spending on the atypical anti-psychotic drugs is £39 million, or 32 per cent., and if implementation is incomplete there will be a swingeing total increase that may not be covered. I wonder whether full implementation is affordable.
Dr. Evan Harris: What does the hon. Gentleman think of the Government's response to that point in recommendation (o) on page 10 of their response? The report raises concerns about not only the affordability of the NICE recommendations, but the distorting effects that they might have on privatisation for those treatments that are not NICE-approved. The Government simply state:
"The NHS does have sufficient funding to meet the cost of NICE recommendations."
If only inquiries were so straightforward that bald assertions could be made and weeks of work and evidence considered could just be dismissed by the stroke of an assertive ministerial pen.
Dr. Taylor: That is exactly my next point.
My next point, which has been touched on, is the impact of NICE guidelines on service delivery. If one examines the health bulletin, one finds some extraordinarily interesting figures. It analyses the £540 million increase in spending on drugs from 2001—02 to this year. A figure of £250 million is spent on drugs recommended by national service frameworks or by NICE guidelines. That includes a vast amount of money spent on the statins that improve the health and prognosis for many patients with heart disease. It includes money for anti-hypertensives, diabetic drugs, and atypical anti-psychotic drugs. Nearly half of that £250 million goes on drugs that have the support of NSFs and NICE guidelines, and the other £290 million—just over half— covers the vast bulk of medicines that are not supported by NICE guidelines. There is a worry that there will be a skewing of prescribing in the initial phase in favour of the drugs that have NSFs or NICE guidelines behind them.
Finally, I shall mention briefly three aspects on which I would like clarification for the future. Paragraph 68 addresses the issue of legal status:
"We recommend that the Government and NICE should clarify the legal status of NICE guidance in relation to the other legal duties incumbent upon clinicians and commissioners of health care."
I understand that NICE, working with the Department of Health and the Welsh Assembly, is trying to make sure that the service is clear about the priority that should be accorded to the guidance. However, I still have worries. Clinicians have legal duties of care to their
134WH
patients and the PCTs have a duty to remain within their budgets. Somewhere, there will be a clash between those duties. If treatments that do not have the NICE guidelines or the national service frameworks behind them are squeezed out, where does the clinician who wants to use something that is no longer funded stand?
Secondly—this point was mentioned by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley)—we should bite the bullet and spend now to save money in the future. Obviously, expenditure on statins is improving the outlook and will reduce the number of patients who are admitted. Thinking again about anti-psychotics, full implementation of those recommendations would almost certainly reduce the need to admit schizophrenics to hospital, which is the sort of economy that it is so difficult for PCTs to make. They have got the money now, but they cannot use it to make savings in the future.
Thirdly—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wakefield—paragraphs 134 and 135 raise the wider issue of prioritisation. We have to welcome NICE as the first brave attempt at prioritisation or even health care rationing. Paragraph 135 of its response states that
"NICE agrees that this is a key issue and it is a debate in which the Institute wishes to contribute. NICE's experience so far, as well as imminent developments (especially the formation of the Citizens Council) gives the Institute a special perspective."
Speaking personally and not on behalf of the Committee, I would welcome a more wide-ranging, open debate on rationing, which is what prioritisation really means—although "rationing" is easier to say. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.
4.18 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: Of course, I join those who have already spoken in applauding the Select Committee, and in particular its Chairman, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), for not only choosing to open the inquiry but conducting it so deliberately. Reading the report, looking at the amount of evidence taken and how it was weighed, I find that it has covered the issues very well. There are some areas or the report with which I disagree, but there are broad areas with which I agree. Even in those areas of disagreement, it is clear that the Committee has done the work, taken the evidence and reached a view, which it sets out and defends.
At the outset, it is important to say that the Liberal Democrats supported the broad purposes for which NICE was set up. They were to provide clear guidance to the NHS about the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and efficacy of a drug and its cost-effectiveness, not only in absolute terms but more important in relative terms compared with other treatments, and to allow decisions to be made on a consistent basis, as far as possible, across the country.
Dr. Doug Naysmith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there were other reasons for setting up NICE? It was not simply to deal with postcode prescribing. People have argued for a body to consider clinical effectiveness, and perhaps cost-effectiveness, for many years. Does he welcome the body being set up, as I do?
Dr. Harris: I did not mention postcode prescribing. I was making the point that the hon. Gentleman made.

135WH
There were reasons for setting up NICE other than abolishing the so-called postcode lottery. In that respect, I entirely agree with him. The rationale that I set out for setting up NICE has little to do with so-called postcode lottery. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) explained, there are difficulties in saying that one wants to devolve decision making to the front line, to local bodies, and then saying that there will be no geographical variation in the provision of services—that is a much better way of putting it than "postcode lottery".
Using the term "postcode lottery" is insulting to people who have to make tough decisions. In my area, the commissioners in Oxfordshire have painful decisions to make about what treatments they can afford to fund, and what treatments and quantities of those treatments they cannot afford to fund. They have no way of raising funds, so they have the blame and responsibility without the power to raise extra money and be accountable for it. Their decision may have a bad impact on some of my constituents, who will feel hard done by. Those who benefit from the money being used in other services will appreciate it. Different decisions are made in Berkshire and Buckinghamshire.
To call that difficult decision making a lottery is an insult to the work being done. For example, in Oxfordshire, there is a priorities forum in which community health councils and patient groups are represented. Academics and clinicians are present, consider the evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and make decisions.
Rationing is rightly touched on in the report. Rationing is a natural consequence of the need for health care being greater than the general ability of resources—whether we are talking about funds, beds, doctors, nurses, or accessibility in terms of geographically appropriate services—to provide for that need. That is what causes rationing. By rationing I mean the lack of provision of certain treatments that would benefit patients, but which cannot be accessed on the NHS.
I hope that the Minister will use the "R" word, now that it has been defined in that way, because it is not a bad thing. The NHS has always rationed health care. The question is not whether there is rationing; there should be no sudden realisation of the existence of rationing. There are two fundamental questions. First, how much rationing is taking place—in other words, how many effective treatments cannot be afforded in terms of the resources available? Secondly, how explicit is that rationing, and, therefore, how accountable is the system? The British public have been failed in relation not to the existence of rationing but to the lack of explicitness.
One of the tests for NICE, therefore, is whether, since it cannot increase resources, it can specify that certain treatments are not beneficial. That is rarely done, because NICE considers treatments that have licences, presumably for an efficacious use. However, NICE has helped in making certain rationing more explicit, which is important. For that reason, NICE has been a welcome innovation over the past few years—it seems like it has been with us for decades.
136WH
As I have said, the fact that NICE is an authoritative national body that reaches its recommendations in an open, transparent and detailed way will make it easier to understand why certain treatments are not available and why there is more pressure for certain treatments to be available. As far as it goes, the Select Committee report makes those points as well, and I welcome that.
Liberal Democrats have some concerns about NICE. One is the question of affordability and the politicisation of NICE decisions, which occurs in various ways. The decision about what technologies to appraise is not independent but a political decision made by the Government. When NICE says that the NHS will fund a certain drug or will not provide certain treatments, it gets the blame from patient groups or, on the other side, pharmaceutical companies. The Minister, who is the person who is ultimately responsible for providing resources to the NHS and for deciding which technologies are appraised, does not.
To that extent, I worry that NICE is the fall guy for decisions for which accountability should lie with the Minister. I have always been clear that if the Government were explicit about rationing decisions, there would be no criticism from us about them, although we could have a debate about the level of the resources. There is less of a debate now between the Government and Liberal Democrats, but there certainly was debate in the five years before the new resources were allocated.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful contribution. I am interested in some of the wider points arising from the experience of NICE. Bearing in mind the commitment of the hon. Gentleman's party to devolving decision making in the NHS, which I and, I believe, hon. Members from all parties share, I wonder how he squares the process with his concerns about who chooses the interventions that are analysed by an organisation such as NICE?
Dr. Harris: That is a very good question. I would be happy to send the hon. Gentleman more details about that matter.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Not too much.
Dr. Harris: I do not think that any detail would be too much for the hon. Gentleman.
It is a very important question, because simply devolving to the front line is not adequate. Those on the front line would take more blame for decisions that they are making without any get-out. Under our approach, commissioning decisions would be made locally, but the local commissioning bodies would be dramatically different in two ways.First, they would be democratically accountable. We propose to do that in the same way called for by the hon. Gentleman, which is by merging health commissioning directly with local authority-based social services commissioning and by having a health and social care board, social services committee or local authority executive with a strengthened and unfragmented public health function.
Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Harris: I will when I have finished answering the question of the hon. Member for Wakefield.

137WH
Secondly, those bodies would be able to raise resources locally in a fair and progressive way to add to the pot that comes from central Government. Clearly, equity is a key issue, and there would have to be redistribution of the resources raised locally to poorer areas. However, one can have a rational system of democratically accountable, locally based decision making on commissioning—it is the commissioning that is critical, not the provision—only if one ensures that there is an ability to raise or reduce the resources that go into the pot. I hope that hon. Members accept that that is a rational way to do it.
There would still be national guidelines, but they would be agreed by the regions. Under our system, the national service framework guidance and standards would be accepted, because they are clinically based. They are not political. Nor are they like some of the performance targets that are wholly unclinical and that work against patient interests. I hope that I am not provoked into that debate. Our proposal would involve a mixture of national standards and local decision making.
Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman spoke a great deal about political purity and health decisions, but I just heard him say that he would like local authorities to control spending decisions in the NHS democratically. Will he be absolutely clear whether it is Liberal Democrat health policy that local authorities should control commissioning decisions in the NHS?
Dr. Harris: Yes. It is set out in a paper that is available on our website. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows how to use the internet and will be able to access it to reassure himself even more completely. It is our policy that local authorities should control commissioning decisions in the NHS, which we have been saying for some time.
Dr. Naysmith: Judging by what the hon. Gentleman has said, he will agree that it might be a good idea if NICE were encouraged to consider some existing treatments and discontinue them—I believe that he used the word "discontinue"—rather than being forced by political interests or patient groups to consider the latest, most exciting product. I know that NICE wants to do so, because it said so when it gave evidence to the Select Committee. Does he believe that local decision taking would make that easier to achieve? Would there be more local pressure to make that happen?
Dr. Harris: I stress that I am keen to discuss the Health Committee's report, but, again, the paper that I just described says that we want NICE to be significantly expanded so that it can consider existing treatments. Some treatments have been shown to be less effective over time when used outside the purity of clinical trials, and have been superseded by newer treatments that may appear to be more expensive but that are cheaper in the long run because eventually one has to use them anyway. We therefore want the work of NICE to be expanded. I suspect that NICE would want it to be expanded if it could choose its subjects, which it cannot, to cover some existing treatments that, I am ashamed to say, are not rational. The "Drug and
138WH
Therapeutics Bulletin' exposes that very well, and I know that the Select Committee carefully considered the work that it does.
Under the sort of scheme that I described, decisions would be made locally and in a democratically accountable way. Every local voter, patient and member of the public would receive a leaflet saying what services were not available, so rationing would be explicit, and if they objected to that they could apply for more funding through the usual democratic process. An obvious consequence of what I have said is that NICE decisions should be advisory, not binding.
We had two reasons for objecting to the fact that NICE guidance is made mandatory without earmarked funding being made available. First, it makes it very difficult for there to be local prioritisation, especially when there is a suspicion that the treatments chosen for appraisal by NICE are chosen for political reasons because they are imposed on NICE by the Department of Health. Secondly, while that situation pertains, as the Select Committee said in its report, treatments that are not appraised are likely to have their funding cut to fund a mixture of NICE must-dos and less worthy Government must-dos. That is what I have described as a tyranny of the appraised over the non-appraised. The more things that NICE covers, the greater that tyranny will be. The treatment areas that remain are not subject to compulsory funding in that way. The Government's response has completely failed to deal with that distortion of resource allocation from the must-dos, but the Government must deal with it. I hope that the Minister will do better than the response set out in her report.
I was interested in the Select Committee's discussion of affordability. When NICE was established, the statutory instrument made no mention of affordability when it described its functions. In the summer of 1998, the Government snuck out an additional statutory instrument that said something to the effect that NICE would take account of the resources available to the NHS when it took its decisions. That was asking NICE to factor in affordability.
Of course affordability is important. My objection is that those who control the amount of resources available on one side of the equation that I described should be the ones who take the blame or get the credit for recommending the use or prescribing of a treatment or drug. However, if NICE decided that there was a very effective drug that was also cost-effective but that allowing the drug to be widely used on the NHS would have an impact on NHS budgets, that drug could not be recommended. That may be the right decision, but it is a decision for Ministers to make.
Perhaps the only good thing about the decision made on Sildenafil, or Viagra, by the Government is that they made that decision in pre-NICE days. It was, and remains, wholly unethical that a drug should be rationed according to the disease process behind the disability or condition, rather than according to the ability to benefit. That is not the sort of thing that we should be seeing from those with the responsibility for making decisions.
In long conversations that I have had with the chairman and chief executive of NICE, they have said that they do not make decisions based on affordability, so why that statutory instrument was introduced,

139WH
debated and passed, I do not understand. I know that the Select Committee has withheld its judgment on whether that is the case, because it is hard to find examples. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that it is the job of NICE to discuss effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
The question of cost-effectiveness is interesting because of the other issue raised about NICE—whether it has set a ration for the health service in terms of an amount of money per quality-adjusted life year. In the old days, when we discussed rationing, Ministers refused to accept that there was rationing. Notoriously, in the first half of the previous Parliament, Ministers would say at the Dispatch Box, "If you mean by rationing that there is a certain ration of treatment that everyone has, as with wartime food rationing, then there is no rationing in the health service." However, that was not what most people understand by rationing in the NHS. Curiously, the process of NICE's evaluation has tended to create, by iteration, a limit of cost per QALY, which it will judge to be cost-effective enough to recommend.
I am not saying that that is a bad thing—it is rational, understandable and a rule that can be followed. It allows a standard to be set and decisions to appear less perverse. Clearly, if something costs £80,000 per quality-adjusted life year, and it is rejected, and something costs £20,000 per quality-adjusted life year, and is recommended, people can see the reasons. It is important that, despite the difficulty of getting good data, some attempt is made to cost such decisions. It allows vigorous debates about whether the right studies have been used and whether the right time scales, particularly in respect of QALY, have been used.
However, in its evidence to the Committee, NICE still denies that there is a threshold, and I am not sure that it does not deny that what is involved is the process by which it says that it will recommend a treatment that costs £20,000 but will not recommend one that costs £200,000. I would expect that it would do that, and why should it deny that that is the case? I would be interested in the Minister's view. Does she expect to see decisions understood in that way?
As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), the Government have said that they think that there is no problem about the affordability to local health economies of positive recommendations from NICE. However, they just state that baldly, without providing any evidence, on either a national or a local level, about the overall cost of the funding, and how that can be afforded together with everything else. I tabled some parliamentary questions and, in the end, got some figures about the Government's estimate of the cost to the NHS of NICE guidance. When that is added to the cost of meeting the clinically correct standards in NHS frameworks, which I endorse, that creates a new figure. When that is added to the cost of implementing some of the political targets that the Government impose on local health economies, it is clear, as we can see by the enormous deficits in health economies, that it simply cannot be done, even out of the growth money that, in the last year only, has been at the sort of level that we would have liked to see some years ago.
140WH
The Government must recognise that that is the case and say that they will not be able to achieve everything very quickly because if money is going on cancelling deficits on health economies, it cannot be spent on investing in new services. That is just a fact of arithmetic, and if the Government accepted that, we would have some common ground. In fact, the Government do hint that there may be a problem here. In response to recommendation (k), where the Committee calls for
"an increase in NICE's capacity"
to look at treatments as whole rather than at individual drugs—a wise recommendation—the Government say:
"As the Government made clear in its response to the Kennedy Report, it agrees that over time NICE guidelines should cover all major conditions".
Again, I worry about what happens to minor conditions under the tyranny of the appraised. They continue:
"However, the pace at which guidelines are produced must take account not of NICE's capacity but the ability of the NHS to act on them."
Is that finally a little honesty about the impact of making NICE recommendations that are expensive to provide?
Those are some of the key issues in the Select Committee report. One final point concerns the setting up of the NICE citizens council. Although it looks as if that is a sensible move that makes decisions more accountable, I believe it to be the opposite. When I asked NICE how it could defend making decisions about whether QALYs should be used—in a sense, they are age-discriminatory—and allocating decisions on that to 30 people who are in no way democratically accountable, or indeed accountable at all, rather than expecting Parliament to make a decision, its response was, "It's in the NHS plan."
If what NICE does is subject to what the Government decide in the NHS plan, and that does not come before the House in the shape of regulation or even primary legislation so that we can debate it and vote on it, NICE is not truly independent. It was not NICE that set up the so—called citizens council—the Government forced it to do so.
There is a question that we have to answer about QALYs. Is it right that a seven-year-old should have treatment, but not a 70-year-old when they could both benefit equally? Logically, more quality-adjusted life years are saved by treating the seven-year-old rather than the 70-year-old. The question about whether that is discriminatory or appropriate is a decision for which the House must be responsible. We must debate it and we must be accountable, and there must be a full public debate. Using 20 or 30 people, however interested they are in the subject and however varied their background, as a barrier behind which to hide when such decisions and judgments are made means that there is less accountability for such decisions—it is a sham.
I should be grateful if the Minister told us whether she feels that QALYs are satisfactory as the basis for making key decisions on cost-effectiveness and therefore recommending whether treatments are available or not—it is a binary decision once NICE makes the decision. If she feels that that is so, can she tell us when that has been debated in the House and the Government have been responsible for that decision?
The report is an excellent start on probing NICE, health economists and the Government on some of the issues but, without the Government engaging in debate, it can be only part of what needs to be a wider process.
4.43 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I join the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), in his generous and appropriate comments about Lord Hunt, who was associated with the Committee, as he conducted our inquiry.
The hon. Member for Wakefield has a justified reputation for being able to talk the talk fluently, but in his bluff Yorkshire manner he also has a reputation, to which the Secretary of State would certainly testify, for walking the walk.
In the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments on Lord Hunt, I may be able to help him. I draw to his attention early-day motion 935, which says:
"That this House recognises the personal commitment made by Lord Hunt of King's Heath to the NHS over many years and fully accepts that his decision to resign over the issue of Iraq is one entirely of personal conscience."
In the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments, he might like to join seven of his hon. Friends, not all of whom are the usual suspects, in adding his name to that early-day motion that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) tabled. Moreover, if he is tempted by that, he may want to walk the walk a step further and turn the knife and sign early-day motion 936, which says:
"That this House deplores the derogatory comments by the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to the resignation of Lord Hunt."
I hope that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. I hope that we are coming to the subject of NICE, eventually.
Mr. Burns: We are indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it seemed appropriate to go down that cul-de-sac to start with, because the Chairman of the Health Committee was so eloquent and appropriate in his comments about the loss to the Government of Lord Hunt, given the tremendous work that he did in assisting the Committee during its investigation of NICE.
I listened to the speeches today with great interest, and two things struck me as unusual. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who said, in connection with one of the issues that she raised, that she would not jump on a bandwagon. I commend her for that. She is the first Liberal Democrat that I have encountered who has not jumped on a bandwagon when appropriate, or even sometimes on two different bandwagons at completely opposite points.
I listened with incredulity to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) because, if I understood him correctly, he said that to use the term "postcode lottery" is insulting. I took that to mean the general use of the term, as well as its use in connection with the report. I find that staggering, because although I would agree with him that it is an insulting misnomer, I suspect that that has not stopped most of his colleagues, and probably the hon. Gentleman himself when he was a parliamentary candidate, from using it ad nauseam in the mid-1990s.
Dr. Evan Harris: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could find an early-day motion that I signed
142WH
that includes the term "postcode lottery" or any leaflet of mine that uses the term, because I have been reasonably consistent. If the hon. Gentleman finds it an unreasonable term because it is too simplistic, he should look at how often he has used it and not try to have it both ways.
Mr. Burns: I do not want to go too far down that cul-de-sac, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening. I said that his colleagues were likely to have used the term, and that he is likely to have used it when he was a parliamentary candidate in the 1990s. It defies belief for a Liberal Democrat politician to claim that he or his colleagues have not used the term "postcode lottery" during their political careers. He knows as well as I do that they have, and have done so with a vengeance, but "on the one hand or on the other" is the Liberal Democrats' position.
The report by the Select Committee on NICE is welcome, because, as you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, NICE is a new body. It is therefore important that an in-depth assessment is made of its operation in the initial stages after its establishment. That is why I think it was appropriate that we, as a Committee, examined the organisation at that stage. We were able to see it working through some of its teething problems at the beginning of its existence, and to examine some of the controversy associated with it in certain areas because of the statutory instrument on affordability, and the whole area of cost-effectiveness to which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon referred.
This is in no way a criticism, but it is fair to say that setting up such a body, a move that the official Opposition welcomed and supported, raises expectations, sometimes unrealistically, because of the nature of its work. It is certainly not the fault of Government that expectations were raised, and by definition it would be unfair to make criticisms because those expectations have not been met. I suspect that some if not many people thought that a body of this nature would in some respects be a blank cheque, but of course that was never going to be the case, and nor should it be, because that is just not realistic.
I should like to deal with two issues arising from the report that to me, as a member of the Select Committee on Health, were of particular concern during our investigations. The first issue is the length of time that it takes for an appraisal to be carried out. In some cases, that has led to what has become known as NICE blight. In paragraph 63 of the report, NICE states:
"We have been playing a lot of catch-up at NICE. We have been looking at anti-cancer drugs that were first launched in 1994. This is not a tolerable situation. What we do need to do…is to be proactive. We need to be starting the appraisal process a year before a drug is licensed. It is perfectly feasible to do it."
That is a very valid point. The Minister may argue, with some justification, that at the beginning of its life, a body cannot play by those rules because of the heavy work load of a new body. I would accept that, but I hope that, as time progresses, NICE's comment can be acted on more speedily.
An early problem has been that NICE has had to carry out two different roles: the catch-up role and carrying out appraisals of new drugs. It has not been easy for NICE to combine both roles in the early life of the organization, because of the sheer scale of the catch-

143WH
up involved. That is no one's fault, but an inevitability of creating such an organisation. However, that situation has caused serious problems and, in some cases, possibly avoidable suffering to patients who could have benefited from drugs that were being appraised.
During our hearings, we took important evidence on that problem from Mr. Campbell-Morrison from the Campaign for Effective and Rational Treatment. CERT's submission was critical of what it described as "unplanned and unexplained" delays in some appraisals. It gave in graphic terms the example of the drug Herceptin, whose appraisal had been inexplicably delayed by six months, even though the drug can have a dramatic effect on the survival chances of women who have an aggressive form of breast cancer, and can improve dramatically the quality of life of those sufferers. Such delays have adversely affected the quality of life of too many individuals who might have had an improved quality of life if they had not been victims of those delays.
I warmly endorse our recommendation in paragraph (1):
"We recommend that for all new technologies, NICE's work programme is arranged to facilitate publication of guidance at the time of launch. When this is not possible, NICE should conduct rapid "interim" appraisals of clinical and cost-effectiveness to be published at the time of a treatment's launch … Although the amount and type of information available at time of launch may be less than ideal, an 'interim' appraisal would provide useful guidance until a more detailed appraisal of the treatment is conducted as part of NICE's expanded main function of developing clinical guidelines."
In retrospect, perhaps there should have been more of an awareness of a split in NICE between dealing with existing drugs that needed appraisal, and the new drugs coming on to the market in order to minimise the problems of catch-up. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me that there was and tell me what was done to minimise the problems. I would be grateful to the Minister if she could update hon. Members on what has been happening since the Government's response on the issue was published last September.
My second point concerns recommendation (w), which talked about great clarity in the criteria for evaluating clinical and cost-effectiveness. It states:
"Whether or not Quality Adjusted Life Years are used, we"
that is the Select Committee—
"recommend that NICE should consider the wider societal costs and advantages of particular treatments and in particular the wider costs and benefits to the public purse of reduced benefit dependency and improved ability to work both for patients and their carers."
We came to that conclusion because of the numerous concerns raised about cost-effectiveness. We received criticisms from one witness in particular, Dr. Crayford of the Croydon health authority, over NICE's alleged inconsistent approach to the use of quality-adjusted life years. I know that other hon. Members have referred to that problem, but I noticed that in the Government's response that—possibly rather surprisingly—they have said:
"wider costs and benefits should be taken into account."
I welcome and agree with that, but the Government went on to say:
144WH
"The Treasury will shortly"—
this was published last September—
"be issuing new guidance on economic appraisal which will broadly meet the Committee's point".
I would be grateful if the Minister could update us about that commitment in the Government's response.
I have not been able to find any new guidance published by the Treasury, but that may be due to an error on my part, or it may be because that there has not been sufficient time for the Treasury to publish that guidance because of the work still required on it. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us of the current status of either the guidance or its preparation. If it has not been issued, when does the Minister expect the Treasury to issue it?
My final point returns to a point made by the hon. Members for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon, which is the response that the Government gave to recommendation (o):
"The NHS does have sufficient funding to meet the cost of NICE recommendations."
As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said, that is a very bald statement. I would expect the Government to say that; I would not expect them to say anything else. It is, to my mind, a somewhat glib response, and what one would expect from the Government. If one talks to PCTs, they would not all necessarily accept the Government at face value on the matter because there are considerable budgetary problems with drug bills in PCTs. As other hon. Members have mentioned, there are problems in relation to deficits in some PCTs. If the Minister could just flesh out that statement, it would be extremely appropriate and helpful.
I welcome not only the report, but the fact that we have had the opportunity to debate it this afternoon, question the Minister and hear her response. All too often, through no fault of anyone, Select Committees produce reports to which the Government respond—within two months if we are lucky, which we usually are—but there is no opportunity to have a follow-up debate in which we can quiz the Minister following that response.
5 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am delighted to discuss what is an excellent report from the Select Committee on Health. We have had a thoughtful and stimulating debate, and because the National institute for Clinical Excellence plays such a pivotal role in exercising judgments about clinical and cost effectiveness and, increasingly with the introduction of the citizens council, value, we have inevitably managed to raise some fundamental and wide-ranging issues about the NHS itself, as well as those purely related to the technical operation of the institute. I hope to be able to respond to all the issues raised but, at a quick glance, there appear to be at least 30. I ask hon. Members to forgive me if I do not manage to respond to every one, but I will follow up on them in correspondence if that happens.
I want to make two preliminary points before I embark on the detail of hon. Members' contributions. The first is to note at the outset the extent to which

145WH
NICE makes its own decisions. It works independently from the Department of Health, which was a key point for us in setting up the institute. As we said in our response to the Committee's report:
"The Government made clear from the inception of NICE that the Institute would determine its own methodology and formulate advice without interference from Ministers, subject only to its Framework Document and founding Statutory Instruments."
It was a courageous decision by the Government to embark on this dangerous territory and say clearly that the institute should be independent. It was a departure from how things were run in the past, and I believe that NICE has repaid the Government's confidence. That all means that many of the Committee's recommendations are matters for NICE, and I know that the institute's chairman has responded in detail to some Members. My replies and the Government's response will also reflect the actions taken by the institute.
The second point that is worth remembering is the report's first conclusion:
"It is clear that expectations of NICE have been high, and in addition to the challenges of its remit, NICE has also faced the same logistical and operational challenges as all nascent organisations. In this context, we welcome the support we have seen for the establishment of NICE, and we recognise that this represents an improvement on the previous situation."
All hon. Members who have contributed to today's debate have welcomed NICE and seen it as an improvement, and that conclusion reflects the complexity of the task that we have set up NICE to undertake.
I would go a little further than the Committee's conclusion and say that I believe that NICE has done a very good job. It has tackled some tough issues and has been prepared to learn from its experience and interact with a range of people both in and outside of the service. There has been some criticism, some of which has been justified, but the way in which NICE has listened, responded and learned about its future work is tremendously encouraging for the health service as a whole.
I shall now turn to Members' specific points and first to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who is the Chairman of the Health Committee. I echo his kind remarks about Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who was an excellent Minister and tremendous colleague. He is severely missed in the Department, not least because I am now dealing with a matter that was previously his responsibility, although I am delighted to do so.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of the institute's credibility, which is extremely important. The organisation's integrity and credibility are fundamental if the institute's recommendations are to command widespread consensus and agreement. I know that the Committee raised its concern that there was not enough interaction with outside bodies such as the "British National Formulary" and the "Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin". Those points were well made and I am delighted to tell the Committee that there have been formal meetings between NICE and those organisations, which will have opportunities to make formal comments.
On credibility, the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who is not present because she has had to attend another appointment, raised the specific issue of
146WH
the Committee's change of guidance on the drug Relenza, which was highlighted in evidence presented to it, and I should like to explain what happened. NICE issued preliminary findings in 1999 and the results of its full appraisal in 2000. NICE's task is to appraise the clinical and cost-effectiveness of treatments based on the available evidence. When it first issued its guidance in October 1999, it said twat it would review the guidance after the flu season in the following year.
The 2000 guidance was different from the 1999 guidance because new evidence had become available. At that point, NICE said that the treatment would benefit small, at-risk groups. The guidance was not that the treatment was good to use across the board, but that it might be useful for particular at-risk groups. That the experts could not agree on the precise guidance reflects the complexity of the issues. I should not want that specific, one-off issue to undermine NICE's credibility. Hon. Members are right that credibility is very important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield went on to raise the issue of inclusiveness. Trying to ensure that as broad a sweep of stakeholders as possible is involved in discussions with NICE is a fundamental tenet of the institute. There have been some improvements to try to ensure greater dialogue such as the change in the topic referral system, the widening out of the stakeholders from the NHS and the increase in stakeholders from patient and carer groups. We welcome the Committee's recommendations on involving stakeholders. In March last year, consultation, which is due to be completed in November this year, began on how NICE involves stakeholders. The review will take account of the recommendations from the Select Committee on Health. The widening of stakeholders is extremely important.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of independence, which, as I said at the outset, is extremely important. The Committee has recognised the difference, which goes to the heart of the independence debate, between what the institute decides on cost-effectiveness and what the Government decide on affordability. That demarcation needs to be extremely clear. We always intended that NICE should look at clinical and cost-effectiveness because it has the expertise and the evidence base to do so. Decisions on affordability are rightly a matter for the Government and for Ministers in setting the overall budgets for the NHS and in trying to negotiate the delicate area of priorities, a point that I shall further explore when I comment on the contribution from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris).
Several hon. Members raised the issue of the monitoring of advice, which is an important subject. It concerns examining who takes up NICE's guidance, whether the guidance is widespread across the country and whether it is managing to ensure, as it is intended to, that there is equal access to new treatments and technologies. We want to ensure that the legal requirement on PCTs to make funding available to follow NICE guidance is implemented across the country. I should like to make the distinction, although it is perhaps a fine one, that the legal obligation on PCTs is to make funding available where clinicians decide that it is appropriate. We are not simply saying to PCTs that every clinician must implement the NICE guidance. The

147WH
position is that once the NICE guidance is issued, clinicians must take it into account, but it is not an absolute, mandatory instruction. At the end of the day, the decision will always be for clinicians, but PCTs have to ensure that there are sufficient resources in the system to allow treatment to be made available on the indication of a clinician. The distinction is fine, but it is also important.
In terms of implementation, it is our view that the Commission for Health Audit and Inspection should be the principal external inspector of the implementation of NICE guidance. The details of that inspection will need to be agreed between the commission and the Department of Health. I expect that CHAI's work will cover clinical guidelines, as well as the appraisals that are integral to the clinical governance agenda in the organisation.
The hon. Member for Romsey raised the question of the role of the NHS Modernisation Agency in seeking to support the boards of trusts in making sure that they can also play a role in monitoring the implementation of NICE guidance. I understand that the national clinical governance support team is working with 215 NHS boards, right across the system. Executive and non-executive directors are being trained and supported in carrying out an analysis, in their organisation, of whether NICE's recommendations are being followed. So there is a mechanism at local level to try to ensure that that happens.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I thank my hon. Friend for a helpful reply. She may be coming on to the point that I raised towards the end of my speech about the mechanisms for monitoring the impact of NICE guidance where that guidance is affecting existing services, particularly in relation to requirements to reconfigure existing services that, if implemented, would threaten the future of existing services. Who would be responsible for monitoring such a development? Would it be the new CHAI body or the strategic body?
Ms Blears: I am coming on to address that point. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I am not in a position today to give a definitive answer, and it will probably be a complex answer, as things in the NHS tend to be. Getting the position right will not be the responsibility of single body.
I wanted to deal with the points that my hon. Friend made about prioritisation—several hon. Members have raised that issue—and whether there should be a more explicit framework. The recommendation of the Committee in paragraphs (ee) and (ff) were around whether there should be a more explicit set of ethical and rational values and a framework for making decisions. Through the national service frameworks, NICE, the NHS plan and CHAI, we try to set a national framework for the national standards that should be available across the NHS.
There will inevitably be a tension between national standards and local devolution in terms of having a framework within which people can see what it is that they are entitled to expect and what the priorities are within the system. The analysis from the hon. Member
148WH
for Oxford, West and Abingdon about the tensions between the national and local levels was simplistic. We are on a rolling programme towards having an explicit framework, through NICE work.
In his evidence to the Committee, Lord Hunt said that he envisaged, over the next five to 10 years, that the NICE work would be likely to cover the vast majority of treatments and services available within the NHS, but it had to be an incremental process. It would not be helpful to try to concertina that process by setting out the prioritisation at this point. As NICE goes on, and covers much more of the service, as it interacts more closely with the national service framework, as it produces its guidelines around treatments, we shall begin to see emerging a more detailed framework.
At the moment, it is not possible to create the kind of explicit framework of prioritisation that the Committee has asked for. I am sure that, as time goes on, that framework will become more populated by the empirical data from the individual appraisals that NICE has conducted, and we shall start to see much more of a comprehensive picture across the piece, but we are certainly not there yet, and we do not have the data to be able to do that now.
Dr. Evan Harris: Is the Minister saying that there is no role for Government in setting priorities in the health service and that there will just be an accretion of national service frameworks and NICE guidance? If the Government do not have a role that is based on ethical values, as the Committee recommends, why do they keep setting priorities and demonstrating them by earmarking central funds for them, or by earmarking a certain condition for appraisal or for a national service framework?
The Minister cannot have it both ways. Either the Government are involved, in which case they should be explicit and operate within an ethical framework, or they should leave the health service to the gradual gathering of prioritisations through standards.
Ms Blears: Clearly, the Government have a role in setting priorities. That is why we issued the NHS plan and the planning and priorities framework for the next three years to PCTs. They set out the Government's priorities and what we expect PCTs to deliver through their local delivery plans. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield discussed nine different aspects of the planning and priorities framework.
The hon. Gentleman's analysis is simplistic. He repeats the phrase, "You can't have it both ways," but in politics, as in life, the art of achieving a satisfactory resolution is striking the right balance between competing issues, which are not black or white, right or wrong, all of one and none of the other. It is a matter of bringing together complex factors and seeking to create from them a synthesis that meets the vast majority of the needs of the greatest number of people through the services that we provide.
That is a proper, grown-up, realistic and mature analysis of priorities in public services. The hon. Gentleman's insistence that it has to be either this or that, and that we cannot have a blend of national

149WH
standards and local devolution of priorities is an extremely simplistic analysis and one that does not help in setting priorities.
Dr. Evan Harris: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Blears: I want to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point, but I shall give way.
Dr. Harris: The Minister says that it is important to have a blend, or synthesis, to ensure that we benefit the greatest number of people in the most effective way—I agree with her. What work are the Government doing—academically, through research or, indeed, philosophically—to demonstrate the values and rationale that underpin the strategy, which she claims to have developed through a synthesis of various factors, by which we seek to benefit the most people in the most equitable way by the most effective treatments? Is any work being done, or is "no" her answer to recommendation (ff)?
Ms Blears: An important part of our work is exactly exemplified by the work of NICE, which is going through that very process of examining clinical and cost-effectiveness. I shall later deal with the important point that was made by several hon. Members about quality-of-life years.
The hon. Member for Romsey expressed her concern about the time that it takes to carry out appraisals. Most appraisals take just over a year, which is, admittedly, an extremely long time. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said that the institute is trying to catch up with many existing technologies. We hope that it is possible to learn from experience and that perhaps future appraisals can be accelerated.
On NICE blight, the health service is under guidance to consider clinical effectiveness before NICE guidance has been issued. There is no bar to using drugs and services simply because they have not been appraised. I acknowledge that there are tensions in the system. PCTs sometimes say that they are reluctant to use something that has not been appraised. However, there is no technical bar to their continuing to prescribe and use products that have not been subject to a NICE appraisal.
Several hon. Members discussed the timing of guidance. Clearly, NICE would like to be able to issue its guidance at or very shortly after the launch of any new product. That would make the most sense, because people would then know exactly what the judgments were. The recommendation about interim guidance has been rejected, and rightly so. It would be dangerous to arrive at interim views that later have to be reversed because there was not enough information to make a proper decision.
We then return to the problem of the credibility of NICE if it were able to make anticipatory judgments that were later found not to be robust or to have integrity and had to be varied. We must ensure that the appraisals are carried out as early and as quickly as possible. When we can horizon-scan and anticipate new developments, the timing will coalesce much better than in the past.
150WH
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) raised a number of important points and I am delighted with his welcome for NICE's work. He forewarned me of his intention to speak about the citizens council and I know that he has a particular interest in public and patient involvement in the NHS. I hope that he feels that we are making significant progress towards greater involvement of the public and patients in the design of services. I am delighted to be able to tell him that the first meeting of the citizens council was in November, when it met for three days of solid consideration, which is a lengthy commitment for the members. I am delighted that it had its first meeting in Salford, which is not quite the home of public and patient involvement but I like to think that we have a tremendous amount of experience. The panel consists of 30 people, balanced in factors such as age, gender, ethnic background and so on. I am told that there were around 5,000 applications for membership of the citizens council. Some people say that there is apathy in the community and that people do not want to come forward and take part in such bodies, but the number of applications give the lie to that.
I am told that the members took control of the first meeting and were incredibly articulate. Their agenda for the first meeting was to consider what factors should be taken into account when defining clinical need. Their views were preliminary, but they suggested that NICE should not take account of self-induced or inherited illness when deciding priorities and that voices should be prioritised, the first being that of patients and health professionals, the second being that of carers and the third being that of manufacturers. They had a clear view of the sort of priorities that should be taken into account.
Dr. Naysmith: They did not take age into account.
Ms Blears: I am unaware of that, but age may be a factor. I am sure that during subsequent discussions they will consider the difficult issues surrounding quality-of-life years and put their valued judgments to NICE.
The process is incremental. In the past, we had no such views in the system and I am sure that the citizens council is not the perfect answer to every democratic consideration, but it is a significant improvement on not having the voice of patients and the public heard at all.
Dr. Evan Harris: I am sure that it is a sophisticated focus group and the Minister referred to it making decisions, but what are the implications of its decisions? If my constituents want to object to a view that self-induced illness or any other illness should not be priority, how will they do that? Will the Minister ensure that there is democratic accountability in those important issues? In what way will that focus group be democratically accountable?
Ms Blears: I do not think that it has ever been asserted that the citizens council is a democratic body. Its purpose is to find out whether there is a way of ascertaining people's views. I do not think that a democratic element is always possible. We should work towards introducing as much democracy as possible into the national health service, but if it is not possible that is no reason for not trying to use citizens councils,

151WH
patient forums and the other mechanisms that we have set up. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the citizens council as another step forward in trying to introduce other values into the system.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest asked about the cost of the NICE guidance. Its appraisal guidance accounts for £521 million in recurrent costs, £21.8 million in one-off costs and in 2002–03 that represented less than 1 per cent. of annual NHS expenditure. Several hon. Members asked whether the cost of NICE guidance is included in the NHS budget. There are constraints on PCTs, which are under enormous pressure to try to meet all the standards set out, but the cost of NICE recommendations has been included in the spending review settlement that was allocated to the NHS. Hon. Members must accept that those costs are within the context of the biggest-ever increase in resources for the NHS, doubling the amount of money spent on it by 2008; which means average PCTs getting a 30 per cent. increase over the next three years. Inevitably, hon. Members will ask for even more resources, but at present the increases are in the context of a very favourable climate for the NHS.
We will not be able to do everything overnight, which is why there is a three-year forward-funding programme, within which we expect PCTs to start thinking about service redesign, about operating in a different way and about how to create more of a margin for health improvements and to start to work on that creativity. I do not know about the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, but when I visit PCTs throughout the country, I find that they are increasingly working more creatively to find the flexibility to improve services in their local communities and I would encourage them to do so.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of topic selection. Some witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee argued that external organisations should be able to decide what topics go forward. The Committee rejected that. It said:
"We feel that this very high-level prioritisation is rightly the job of Government".
We believe that to be the case. However, NICE has four representatives on the new advisory committee and senior members of NICE meet as the joint planning group. NICE is free to propose topics in its own right; it has proposed atypical anti-psychotics for schizophrenia and the use of cannabis in treating MS, which it has fed into the programme. We expect NICE to continue to do so in the future.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon raised the issue of conflict between national standards and devolution, which I hope that we have already dealt
152WH
with. He either wants targets and standards and the progress that goes with them or he wants a free for all at local level. I am not sure which it is.
Dr. Evan Harris: No targets.
Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman wants no targets, but without targets there will be no mechanism to see whether the system is improving. A managed system is the way forward, to try to resolve the differences between the national standards and local devolution. Managing that process is the most sensible way to get the most benefit from our investment for citizens throughout the country.
I shall turn briefly to the matters raised by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford. He thought that NICE might raise unrealistic expectations because of its work. I can tell him that the Government are tremendously ambitious for the health service.
Mr. Burns: I do not think that the Minister understood; what I said was that at the time of NICE's creation, some unrealistically high expectations were established in the community.
Ms Blears: The public now have extremely high expectations of all public services, and rightly so. NICE is helping us to meet those expectations and to manage them properly.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the length of time taken to carry out appraisals. As the programme progresses, I hope that the time taken will come down, although that will depend upon the complexity of the appraisals and the amount of evidence available.
Several hon. Members mentioned the need to consider issues such as the wider societal costs and the benefits of NICE, and it is right to do so. The Treasury will be issuing guidance on a new and improved way of carrying out an economic appraisal. The guidance was published on 16 January and has just been received by the NHS. It will be discussed with NICE to discover whether there is a better and more appropriate way to measure the wider costs and benefits involved. The Treasury will be concerned to ensure that we do not do any double counting; it wants a fairly rigorous appraisal and we shall ensure that it is.
NICE decisions are not based just on QALYs. It pays full attention to all the evidence that is presented to it by patient and carer groups, too. It is not a mechanistic process in which an appraisal has to get over a QALY threshold. It is more complex than that; there are more judgments to be made in the process and NICE does an excellent job of bringing all the issues together.
I thank the Select Committee for an extensive and extremely constructive report. Many of its recommendations have been helpful to the Government and to NICE. I thank all hon. Members who took part in the debate and managed to improve the Government's policy by their cautious and careful deliberations.
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  David Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to provide medical facilities for civilians, including children, who have lost limbs during the conflict, when Iraq is fully liberated; and if he will make a statement. [108545]

  The Prime Minister
  We are supporting the International Committee of the Red Cross in its efforts to keep health systems functioning during the conflict.

  The provision of a comprehensive health system for the people of Iraq will be a priority for the post-conflict international rehabilitation effort. We will play a significant role in this process working alongside the UN, international financial institutions and nongovernmental organisations.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Higher Education White Paper
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what representations he has received from Wales regarding the White Paper on higher education. [108255]

  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend and I meet from time to time, as do our officials, with the Welsh Assembly Government to discuss the HE White Paper proposals. Paragraph 7.52. of the White Paper 'The Future of Higher Education' identifies the need for further discussions with the devolved Administrations to consider the impact of our proposals for student and institutional funding on flows of students between UK countries.

  We have had seven comments from Wales on the White Paper.

  Children's Centres
  Ross Cranston
  When he expects the first Children's Centres to be established. [108256]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  We expect the first children's centres to be announced in June 2003. These early designations will be existing settings that already meet the core offer for children's centres now. Local authorities will submit their strategic plans for rolling out children's centres by 15 October and we expect further announcements to follow throughout the Autumn.

  School Staffing Costs (Essex)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what recent representations he has received on staffing costs in Essex schools. [108257]
  342W
  Mr. Miliband
  None.

  Smaller Schools
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, What research his Department has conducted on the effect of smaller sized schools on(a) standards and (b) behaviour, with particular reference to under-achieving students. [108258]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department has not conducted any research on the effects of smaller sized schools on standards or on behaviour.

  However a statistical bulletin we published in June 2002, on pupil progress by secondary school type, found that pupils in schools with year group cohorts of under 100 pupils made less progress than those in larger cohorts.

  Adult Skills
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what new steps he is taking to improve the adult skills base of the UK workforce. [108259]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Last month we published an interim report on the Skills Strategy, setting out progress we have made in developing the strategy.

  In June we will be publishing the Skills Strategy and Delivery Plan, which will set out how we will address the skill needs of the country, with a particular focus on raising the skills of the workforce, including those adults with low skill levels.

  National Grid for Learning
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding from the National Grid for Learning has been granted to the Stoke-on-Trent local education authority in each year since 1999–2000. [107979]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Stoke-on-Trent LEA has been allocated the following funding through the National Grid for Learning Standards Fund Grant since 1999–2000:

  £

  Total Grant

  1999–2000

  1,000,000

  2000–01

  1,000,000

  2001–02

  1,356,063

  2002–03

  1,685,167

  2003–04

  1,624,151

  Since 2000–01 funding has been allocated by formula. All figures include LEA match funding.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many days on average were lost per teacher due to sickness in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 in (i) England and (ii) Buckinghamshire; [107099]

  (2) how many teachers working in Buckinghamshire took early retirement under (a) premature and (b) ill-health retirement arrangements in 2001–02; [107100]
  343W
  (3) how many teacher vacancies there were in Buckinghamshire in (a) January 2002 and (b) January 2003. [107159]

  Mr. Miliband
  Table 1 provides the average number of days lost per teacher through sickness absence1 for full-time and part-time teachers in the maintained schools sector.
  1Sickness absence on working days, whether paid absence or not, of teachers with permanent contracts or contracts of more than a month, including teachers without QTS. The number of days taken as sick leave includes all periods of sick leave.

  2000

  20011

  Buckinghamshire

  5

  4

  England

  5

  6

  1This is the most recent data available.

  Source:

  Annual 618G Survey of Teachers in Service

  Table 2 provides numbers of premature and ill-health retirements from the maintained schools sector in Buckinghamshire 2001–02.

  Number

  Retirements

  Premature

  40

  Age

  20

  Ill-Health

  10

  All Retirements

  80

  Notes:

  1. Rounded to nearest 10.

  2. Data are provisional.

  Source:

  Pensioner Statistical System (PENSTATS).

  PQ 106511: Comparison of rates of improvement for specialist schools by year of entry into the Specialist Schools Programme— percentage 5+A*-C grades at GCSE

  1994 (%)

  1995 (%)

  1996 (%)

  1997 (%)

  1998 (%)

  1999 (%)

  2000 (%)

  2001 (%)

  2002 (%)

  Gain versus base year

  Class of 1994 (50 schools)

  40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  +25

  All other comprehensives and moderns (2,948 schools)

  est.36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  48

  +12

  Class of 1995 (41 schools)

  —

  44

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  59

  +15

  All other comprehensives and moderns (2,907 schools)

  —

  37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  48

  +11

  Class of 1996 (62 schools)

  —

  —

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  59

  +9

  All other comprehensives and moderns (2,845 schools)

  —

  —

  38

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  48

  +10

  Class of 1997 (72 schools)

  —

  —

  —

  49

  —

  —

  —

  —

  57

  +8

  All other comprehensives and moderns (2,773 schools)

  —

  —

  —

  39

  —

  —

  —

  —

  48

  +9

  Class of 1998 (82 schools)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  45

  —

  —

  —

  53

  +8

  All other comprehensive and moderns (2,691 schools)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  42

  —

  —

  —

  47

  +5

  Class of 1999 (76 schools)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  47

  —

  —

  52

  +5

  All other comprehensive and moderns (2,615 schools)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  44

  —

  —

  47

  +3

  Class of 2000 (127 schools)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  47

  —

  52

  +5

  All other comprehensive and moderns (2,488 schools)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  44

  —

  47

  +3

  Class of 2001 (146 schools)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  46

  49

  +3

  All other comprehensives and moderns (2,342 schools)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  45

  47

  +2

  All 656 non-selective schools designated by September 2001

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  54

  —

  All non-specialist comprehensives and moderns (2,342)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  47

  —

  Notes:

  1. Examination figures are taken from DfES national performance data and Ofsted PANDA Annex.

  2. The results include those of the 15 City Technology Colleges.

  3. The results exclude grammar schools and special schools.

  Source:

  "Educational outcomes and value added by specialist schools—2002 analysis" Professor David Jesson, April 2003.
  344W

  Table 3 provides the number of full-time teacher vacancies in maintained schools in Buckinghamshire.

  January

  Teachers1

  Vacancies2

  Vacancy rate3 (percentage)

  2001

  3,360

  59

  1.8

  20024

  3,380

  53

  1.6

  1 Full-time qualified regular teachers in the maintained schools sector.

  2 Advertised vacancies for full-time permanent appointments (or appointments of at least one term's duration) in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools. Includes vacancies being filled on a temporary basis.

  3 Vacancies as a percentage of full-time qualified teachers in post.

  4 2002 is the most recent data available.

  Note:

  Teacher numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  DfES annual 618G survey

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the performance of specialist schools. [107641]

  Mr. Miliband
  In 2002, specialist schools' 5 + A*-C GCSE/GNVQ performance was on average 6 percentage points higher than the equivalent performance in maintained, mainstream non-specialist schools (54.9 per cent. vs 48.9 per cent.).

  Research carried out by Professor David Jesson (University of York) shows that the performance of each cohort of specialist schools and City Technology Colleges (from 1994 to 2001) has improved more than schools that were non-specialist at the time, with the exception of the 1996 and 1997 cohorts (see following table). This research excluded grammar schools, which, however, form a very similar percentage of both specialist schools and non-specialist schools.
  345W
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the examination performance of specialist schools compared with other schools. [108246]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff were employed by his Department in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [106979]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office on 4 April 2003,Official Report, column 891–92W.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the sunset clauses included in legislation from his Department since 1997. [106940]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The only sunset clause included in legislation made since 1997 from the DfES is contained in section 2 of the Education Act 2002. This is a power for the Secretary of State on the application of one or more qualifying bodies by order to make provision conferring on the applicant exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation, relaxing any such requirement, enabling the applicant to exercise any function conferred by education legislation on any other qualifying body, and making any necessary consequential modifications.

  Subsection 7 provides that no order may be made after the end of the period of four years beginning with the commencement date (October 1 2002 in England; not yet commenced in Wales).

  Truancy
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to reduce the number of days lost in school through unauthorised absence. [108242]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin),Official Report, column 391.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Solicitor General what recent representations she has received on the relationship between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. [108260]

  The Solicitor-General
  I receive regular reports on the relationship between the CPS and the police from the CPS at area and national level, the police themselves, and from individuals raising issues about particular cases.
  346W
  In order that the criminal justice system works as it should, it is essential that the police and the CPS work in close partnership.

  British Prisoners (Guantanamo Bay)
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Solicitor General if she will make a statement on the pursuit of costs by the Treasury Solicitors from British citizens who are seeking to compel the Government to act in relation to British citizens held in Guantanamo Bay by the United States. [108265]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Treasury Solicitor is not pursuing any such costs. In the case of Abbasi the Court of Appeal made no order for costs.

  Relatives of a number of other detainees held by the United States Government sought unsuccessfully to intervene in the Abbasi Court of Appeal hearing. Cost orders were made against them, but following representations from their solicitors the Treasury Solicitor informed their solicitors by letter on 17 March 2003 that the claim for costs would not be pursued.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Solicitor General what discussions she has had with other Departments on measures to encourage witnesses to give evidence in cases of domestic violence. [108267]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have had recent discussions with colleagues on the Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence on a range of issues connected with domestic violence. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government propose to introduce a Domestic Violence Bill in the third session of Parliament. This will be preceded by a consultation to be issued this summer.

  Assisted Suicide
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Solicitor-General when a decision will be made on whether to bring charges in relation to the assisted suicide of Mr. Reginald Crew in Switzerland. [108003]

  The Solicitor-General
  Merseyside police have conducted an investigation into the circumstances of the death of Mr. Crew and have decided that there is insufficient evidence of an offence to seek the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to a prosecution under section 2(1) Suicide Act 1961.

  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans the DPP has to institute proceedings under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 against(a) organisations providing information on overseas assisted suicide organisations and (b) publishers or distributors of self-deliverance manuals; and what criteria he applies in the latter cases.[108004]

  The Solicitor-General
  The decision to prosecute an offence under the Suicide Act, as in all cases, is taken in the light of all the evidence available, following an investigation conducted by the police. The DPP has not been asked for advice on whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute organisations who provide information on assisted suicide or the publishers or distributors of self-deliverance manuals. The criteria the
  347W
  DPP applies in all cases is contained in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The code can be viewed at www.cps.gov.uk.

  Departmental Costs
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the cost was to her Department of the case of R (on the application of Pretty)v. DPP 2001. [107504]

  The Solicitor-General
  Mrs. Diane Pretty challenged the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to grant her husband prospective immunity were he to assist her in ending her life.

  The difficult and complex issues in this tragic case were considered by a number of lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service and at the Treasury Solicitors Department. Senior Treasury Counsel was instructed to advise, and he appeared on behalf of the Director in the Divisional Court, the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights.

  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not operate a system whereby time spent on individual cases is recorded. It is therefore not possible to calculate CPS staff costs.

  Treasury Solicitors did not apply for costs and did not therefore prepare a scheduled bill. These will be calculated and forwarded to my hon. Friend in due course.

  Counsel was paid a total of £20,984.94 for advising and appearing at court on behalf of the Director. This includes accommodation and attendant expenses.

CABINET OFFICE

  Working Hours
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 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. [107657]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office has a flexible policy on core hours. Individual management units are able to assess the extent to which core hours are necessary to support the delivery of their business. Where appropriate, core hours are usually 10 am until 12 noon and from 2 pm until 4 pm. Different core hours can be agreed locally.

  The Cabinet Office supports measures to improve the work/life balance of its staff including flexible working. The Department has a dedicated site on its intranet which promotes a variety of flexible working options open to its staff, including part-time working, job-sharing, working compressed hours or staggered hours, occasional homeworking and term-time working.

  These policies on core hours and flexible working are mirrored in our agency and the non-departmental public bodies for which the Department is responsible.

  Equal Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made with the pay review 348W
  in the Cabinet Office, agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which the Office is responsible, with particular reference to the gender pay gap; and if he will make a statement. [106730]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office, Central Office of Information (COI) and the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) have separate delegated pay arrangements and have therefore been carrying out their own equal pay audits. COI and GCDA have completed their audits. The Cabinet Office audit is on target to be completed shortly.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the cost will be to public funds in 2003–04 of the rise in national insurance contributions on the salary bill of his Department. [107900]

  Mr. Alexander
  It is estimated that the changes to employers' national insurance contributions announced in the Budget will increase pay costs on average by 0.7 per cent. next year.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the sunset clauses included in legislation from his Department since 1997. [106938]

  Mr. Alexander
  No legislation introduced by my Department during the period in question has contained sunset clauses. However, as part of their better regulation agenda, the Government are committed to using sunset clauses where appropriate. The revised guidance on regulatory impact assessments (published on 28 January 2003) advises policy officials to consider time limiting or sunsetting regulations, and gives specific examples of where sunsetting might be appropriate.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Apsley House
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment she has made of the proposals for the future administration of Apsley House by(a) English Heritage and (b) an independent trust; [107670]

  (2) what the (a) rules, (b) content and (c) dates were of the competition between agencies for the future management of Apsley House. [107671]

  Tessa Jowell
  Initial expressions of interest in the future management of Apsley House were invited in "Government Opportunities" on 15 March 2002, for which a closing date of 12 April 2002 was set. English Heritage and the Wellington Museum Trust expressed interest and both were subsequently invited on 11 October 2002 to satisfy a number of pre-qualification criteria by 15 November 2002.

  A tender evaluation panel with independent external expertise considered the responses from both parties in December 2002. My Department has been in detailed

  349W
  discussions with them since then, and a final decision will be taken soon on the shape of future management arrangements.

  Film Diversity
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Film Council will publish its strategy for ensuring diversity in film employment, following the publication of the British Screen Advisory Council's report, Achieving Diversity in Film in January 2001. [107672]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Film Council intends to publish its draft diversity and inclusion strategies in July 2003 and will consult with key stakeholders about its proposals over the summer. As well as aiming to increase diversity in film employment, the Film Council wants every UK citizen to have access to film culture.

  It has appointed a Head of Diversity and is working to ensure that the range of diversity and social inclusion issues is prominent when developing new policies and programmes. Meanwhile, a Cultural Diversity Group of industry practitioners is considering a range of practical measures to ensure that the UK's cultural and ethnic diversity is fully reflected both behind and in front of the screen.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is being done to revise the Fair Share scheme of National Lottery funding; and what steps are being taken to ensure that there is a workable mobility strategy in place. [108185]

  Mr. Caborn
  Fair Share runs until March 2005. Tenders are currently being sought for evaluation, and at present, it is too early to know if the scheme will continue beyond March 2005 and, if so, on what basis.

  Regions White Paper
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress the Department has made towards the aim in the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", of assessing the balance of staff between the centre and the regions in terms of effective policy design and implementation; and what examples there have been since the publication of the White Paper of the Department deciding between locating new streams of work(a) in and (b) outside London and the south-east. [108569]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department is very aware of the importance of ensuring that the regions have a role in its policy design and implementation. The Department's regional agencies are largely responsible for ensuring the cultural and sporting agenda is delivered, and we already make considerable efforts to ensure that they and the Government Offices in the regions participate in the policy making process. In addition, the Department's staff embedded in the Government Offices for the regions and the eight Regional Cultural Consortiums are responsible for championing the Department's interests in the regions.
  350W
  We are currently developing the DCMS policies outlined in the White Paper, and as part of this, we will be giving full consideration to the impact the creation of one or more Elected Regional Assembly will have on staffing at the centre and in the regions.

  Tourism
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether her Department is planning a review of value added tax on accommodation, as suggested in the report, The Structure and Strategy for Supporting Tourism. [107499]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  On 1 April 2003, the Government laid before the House their full response to the recommendations of the report, The Structure and Strategy for Supporting Tourism (Cm 5790), in the form of a command paper. The Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps all aspects of the tax system under review.

DEFENCE

  Basra (Water Supplies)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the US and UK forces are responding to the need for electricity supplies to be restored in Basra in order that sewage treatment and water pumping can resume. [108053]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is little difference between the electricity supply to Basra before the conflict started and that since, with electricity generally available for around six to nine hours per day. Coalition forces have been helping the International Committee of the Red Cross to ensure that at least this level of supply is maintained.

  British forces also assisted the ICRC in gaining access to the water plant north of Basra International Airport and the water supply has been restored to its pre-conflict levels, operating at 60 per cent. capacity. UK forces are continuing to assist the ICRC in gaining access to water treatment and pumping plants.

  Friend/Foe Identification
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been budgeted for Friend/Foe Identification in the Defence budget since 1991; and what proportion of the budget has been spent on this purpose. [107978]

  Mr. Ingram
  'Combat Identification' is the term we use to describe the capacity to distinguish between friend, foe and neutrals in modern joint and coalition military operations. Effective Combat Identification is delivered through the combination of three elements: Situational Awareness (knowledge of what is happening in the battlespace), Target Identification (the ability to positively identify a target within the battlespace), and Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (including such measures as the use of recognition devices on vehicles and the clear definition of areas of operation). Because it is so key to overall operational effectiveness, Combat Identification is a characteristic spread across a wide
  351W
  range of defence equipment, information systems, information technology applications, joint doctrine, training effort and battle procedures: it is not a standalone capability. It would therefore be impossible to give a meaningful dis-aggregated figure for Departmental spending on Combat Identification since 1991.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training in use of Arabic was given to military personnel and medical auxiliaries in the invasion forces in Iraq. [106426]

  Dr. Moonie
  A small number of military personnel were given training in Arabic language skills prior to their deployment to the Gulf in support of operations against Iraq.

  That aside, no additional training in Arabic was given to the forces now serving in the Gulf. Personnel deploying to the Gulf are issued with a language card that lists useful vocabulary and its meaning. These cards contain phonetic phrases to aid pronunciation. Training in Arabic is not provided for medical auxiliaries. We do, however, employ interpreters to work alongside medical personnel caring for Arabic-speaking patients.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on how the coalition forces invading Iraq convey to Iraqi citizens how they can surrender. [106427]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Coalition have dropped approximately 32 million-33 million leaflets aimed at Iraqi citizens, mainly combatants, but also civilians.

  Those aimed at combatants include instructions on how to surrender, including adopting a non-offensive posture, raising a white flag, stowing weapons, and parking combat vehicles in a square formation.

  Those aimed at civilians advise on how to avoid being caught up in military action, by staying away from military targets, by staying indoors, and not interfering with coalition operations.

  In addition, the Coalition have used radio and loudspeaker broadcasts to convey specific surrender instructions to combatants.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Iraqi tanks and of what types have been destroyed by British Forces in Iraq since the start of the Operation TELIC. [107114]

  Mr. Hoon
  United Kingdom land forces in Iraq have destroyed T54 and T55 tanks. In addition, the Royal Air Force has attacked Republican Guard formations and has destroyed some of their equipment which is likely to have included T72 tanks. It will be some time before any estimate could be made about the numbers of tanks destroyed by UK forces.
  352W
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assurances the Government has received from the United States that any irregular Iraqi troops will be treated according to the Geneva Convention. [107832]

  Mr. Ingram
  Under the Geneva Convention, treatment of prisoners taken during hostilities is a matter for the Detaining Power. We will adhere to our obligations under the Geneva Convention towards all prisoners we capture. We are confident that the United States will do likewise.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to send additional British troops to the Gulf. [107977]

  Mr. Hoon
  As I told the House on 31 March 2003,Official Report, columns 649–50 and 3 April 2003, Official Report, column 1074, we plan to send out replacements for our forces as and when they prove necessary. At this stage, we do not require a substantial increase in the total number offerees in theatre.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many days(a) food rations and (b) water supplies are loaded on the RFA Sir Galahad; and how many people he estimates will be provided with shelter from the vessels supplies. [106603]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 28 March 2003, RFA Sir Galahad delivered some 300 tonnes of humanitarian aid at Umm Qasr, Iraq. The load included 100 tonnes of bottled water and 187 tonnes of food. This has been, and will continue to be distributed, as required, across an expanding area of operations. It is not accurate, therefore, to characterise the amount as 'days of supplies'. However, a large number of people in southern Iraq will benefit from the delivery.

  Also, as part of humanitarian aid emergency packs, the load carried two and a half tonnes of blankets and half a tonne of plastic sheeting (normally intended to shelter the supplies, if required). None of this was specifically to provide shelter nor has this been found to be a particular requirement.

  Reserve Notices
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reserve notices have been issued to date. [108203]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 8 April 2003, in support of Operation TELIC 8,549 call-out notices had been issued. At the same time 5,051 Reservists had been accepted into service.

  Type 23 Frigates
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all the Fleet's Type 23 frigates will be equipped with sonar 2087. [107116]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 516W, to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Abandoned Cars
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what powers are available to(a) local authorities and (b) the police to remove cars abandoned on private land or property. [108023]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local authorities are already under a duty (section 3(1) of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 to remove a vehicle which is abandoned in their area on any land in the open air or on any other land forming part of a highway.

  For vehicles abandoned on private land, the local authority enters onto the land using their powers under section 8(1) of the 1978 Act. Using their powers under Regulation 8 of the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 they then serve on the landowner or the occupier a 15 day notice requiring them to remove the vehicle. If no representations are received then the local authority can remove the vehicle following the expiry of the 15 day period. Objections to the notice must be made by the landowner or occupier to the Chief Officer at the local authority within the 15 day period and the landowner or occupier must outline their reasons why they consider that the vehicle is not abandoned. If the local authority accepts the representations then the vehicle can remain on the land. If the local authority rejects the representations they will then remove the vehicle.

  Regulation 4 of the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 empowers a police officer to remove vehicles abandoned without lawful authority on any land in the open air.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the(a) county council, (b) local authority and (c) police council tax contribution, as applicable, for each local authority in England in (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 1996–97; and what the percentage change has been since 1996–97. [107952]

  Mr. Leslie
  A table setting out the county council, billing authorities' own and police authority contribution to each billing authority's area council tax has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the divergence among local authorities in the percentage of total revenue expenditure raised through council tax; [108107]

  (2) which local authorities raised 50 per cent. of their total revenue expenditure through council tax in 2001–02. [108106]

  Mr. Leslie
  One of the main reasons for the divergence among local authorities in the percentage of total expenditure raised through council tax is the varying extent to which authorities are dependent upon central Government grants. The distribution of grant between 354W
  local authorities takes account of authorities' relative circumstances, in terms of both their need to spend and their ability to raise resources from council tax.

  It is, however, for local authorities to determine their revenue expenditure and council tax levels. Ultimately, they are answerable to their local electorates for their decisions. They should be seeking the views of their taxpayers about the level of tax that they will bear, and where their money is spent.

  St. Albans district council budgeted to raise 50 per cent. of its revenue expenditure through council tax in 2001–02. In addition, the following local authorities budgeted to raise more than 50 per cent. of their revenue expenditure through council tax in 2001–02:

  Aylesbury Vale district council

  Blaby district council

  Castle Point borough council

  Chiltern district council

  Congleton borough council

  East Dorset district council

  East Hampshire district council

  Elmbridge borough council

  Harborough district council

  Harrogate borough council

  Huntingdonshire district council

  Macclesfield borough council

  North Hertfordshire district council

  Reigate and Banstead borough council

  Rochford district council

  South Bedfordshire district council

  South Northamptonshire district council

  South Oxfordshire district council

  Stroud district council

  Tandridge district council

  Uttlesford district council

  Waverley borough council

  Wealden district council

  West Wiltshire district council

  Wychavon district council

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [106302]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer to the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 29 January 2003,Official Report, column 867W.

  Electricity
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what changes in unit payments for electricity have resulted from the switch by his Department to purchasing renewable energy which is exempt from the Climate Change Levy. [96490]

  Mr. Leslie
  In response to Government targets, the Office has switched a number of its sites over to the purchase of electricity from renewable energy sources that are exempt from the Climate Change Levy. Where this has taken place, the actual average price was
  355W
  3.67p/kWh, the 'standard' electricity price would have been 3.6p/kWh, so the increase due to the purchase of this renewable energy is 0.07p/kWh or 1.9 per cent.

  Estates Renewal Challenge Fund
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many projects in(a) the Buckingham constituency and (b) Buckinghamshire have received funding from the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund; and if he will list the beneficiaries. [106019]

  Mr. McNulty
  No projects in either the Buckingham constituency or in Buckinghamshire received funding from the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund.

  External Reports
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list(a) the title and subject, (b) the total cost to his Department and (c) the commissioned author or organisation of each external report commissioned by his Department and its predecessors in each year since 1997. [103711]

  Mr. Leslie
  A list of the titles published by and for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and its predecessors in each year since 1997 has been placed in the Libraries of the House. Publications of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister can be found at www.publications.odpm.gov.uk.

  Information on publications does not go beyond this level of detail and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Heating Systems
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to use regulations to require the installation of micro CHP heating systems; [106797]

  (2) what research into the relative efficiency of condensing boilers and micro CHP heating systems his Department has assessed in developing its policy regarding building regulations. [106798]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not plan to use building regulations to require the installation of micro CHP heating systems. The regulations are couched in functional terms allowing the person carrying out the work to decide upon the best way to meet the functional requirements. To be prescriptive would risk stifling innovation.

  There has been no research into the relative efficiency of condensing boilers and micro CHP heating systems. Research into the efficiency of conventional and condensing boilers led to the development of the SEDBUK (Seasonal Efficiency of a Domestic Boiler in the UK) procedure. The SEDBUK procedure can be used to demonstrate that boiler efficiency meets the requirements of Part LI of the Building Regulations. At present the SEDBUK database of boilers (which can be viewed at www.sedbuk.com) does not include micro CHP systems because a means of taking the electrical energy benefit into account in the efficiency rating has yet to be developed. However research is on-going on this.

  Local Authority Finance
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish the calculation used by his Department to reach the conclusion that the forthcoming change in national insurance contributions would increase local authorities' pay costs on average by 0.7 per cent. [106176]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The changes to employers' national insurance contributions announced in the Budget will raise revenue by £4.0 billion in 2003–04. This puts pay costs up on average by about 0.7 per cent. across the economy, calculated by expressing the increase as a percentage of the total pay bill in the economy and allowing for the element on which NICs are not paid. At the time of the Spending Review, we looked at the actual total local authority pay bill for 2000–01, including pay, national insurance, pension contributions and other costs. This was then uprated by an assumption for pay increases to estimate the first year direct costs. The precise cost will be dependent on a number of factors including the actual pay award and the number of part-time staff employed by local government.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the additional cost to local authorities in a full year of the recently announced extension of TUPE provisions in PFI and PPP contract arrangements. [106993]

  Mr. Leslie
  Clauses 102 and 103 of the Local Government Bill confer new powers on the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales and Scottish Ministers to require best value authorities, in contracting with other persons for the provision of services or in circumstances where a contracted-out service is brought back in-house, to deal with staff transfer matters (employment and pensions) in accordance with any directions made. This will enable the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to meet its commitment, following the Best Value Review to make statutory within local government the policy set out in the Cabinet Office "Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers in the Public Sector" and the Annex to it, "A Fair Deal for Staff Pensions".

  The Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) published when the Bill was introduced contained estimates of cost based on data from a Local Government Management Board (LGMB) survey carried out in 1998. This survey found that up to 12 per cent. of local authority staff transferred without TUPE applying and up to 35 per cent. transferred without a broadly comparable pension. This figure represents contracts entered into in any one year but is calculated over the full term of the contract.

  The RIA estimated that for England and Wales the additional cost of protecting employees' terms and conditions could equate to almost £5.5 million. The additional cost of protecting employees' pension provision was estimated to be almost £21 million (the survey indicated that fewer contracts contained pension provision in the past). Therefore the total additional cost of protecting transferees' terms and conditions and pension provision could amount to almost £27 million.
  357W
  These estimates, however, illustrate a maximum possible cost scenario and because of policy and legislative changes since the survey was carried out, we do not consider that the shortfall is likely to be more than a few per cent. The RIA therefore made an assumption that if only 2 per cent. of employees currently transfer without TUPE and 6 per cent. currently transfer without a broadly comparable pension, then the additional cost of protecting these employees would amount to approximately £4.5 million.

  A revised RIA will be published shortly reflecting amendments made to the Bill during Standing Committee to extend the provisions to Scotland.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost has been to public funds of the millennium dome project. [107951]

  Mr. McNulty
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) was responsible for building the dome and running the Millennium Experience. NMEC was allocated £628 million of National Lottery funds from the Millennium Commission for the Millennium Experience, which included the associated national programme of events across the United Kingdom as well as the dome at Greenwich. NMEC is currently in solvent liquidation and it is expected that some £25 million of this grant facility will not be required.

  Up to the end of December 2002, English Partnerships (EP) had incurred a total cost of £22.9 million. This includes, from 1 July 2001—when EP took over the ownership of the dome—£4 million for the management, maintenance and security of the dome; £6.5 million for decommissioning the contents of the dome and its site in preparation for the future long-term use; and £5.7 million in connection with the sale process. It also includes £6.7 million for the previous competition to find a long-term use for the dome. All of these costs incurred by EP in relation to the dome will be recovered from sale proceeds.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for his Department was in 2002. [101542]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002.

  Part (a) of this question will be addressed in a letter from Nick Matheson, the Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) to the hon. Member for Buckingham. As for part (b), the cost of taxis from 1 June to 31 December 2002 was £21,704.

  Mobile Home Parks
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce legislation to regulate the running of mobile home parks; and if he will make a statement. [108518]
  358W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently considering how best to take forward the agenda for reform following the undertakings given by the Government in their response to the Park Homes Working Party report.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many mobile phones used by(a) himself, his Ministers of State, and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State. (b) his Department's special advisers and (c) his department officials have been listed as lost or stolen in each year since 1997. [98574]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since the creation of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 29 May 2002, the number of mobile phones used by Ministers, special advisers and departmental officials that have been lost or stolen are set out in the following table.

  Number of mobile phones lost

  Number of mobile phones stolen

  Ministers

  0

  0

  Special advisers

  0

  1

  Departmental officials

  1Records not held centrally

  1Records not held centrally

  1Records on mobile phones are not held centrally and can only be provided at disproportionate cost—the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently in the process of compiling a comprehensive list following the Machinery of Government changes.

  Parish Council Elections
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of the forthcoming parish council elections in(a) the Wychavon district council area, (b) Worcestershire and (c) England are contested. [108143]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Sector Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [104930]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has policy responsibility for the Firefighters' Pension Scheme. There is no pension fund and the scheme is a pay-as-you-go system with costs being paid by the employing authorities out of revenue and receiving contributions from employees. As an unfunded scheme administered by separate fire authorities no formal overall actuarial valuation is carried out.
  359W
  The last actuarial valuation of the English Partnerships Pension Scheme was carried out as at 31 March 2002. The value of the assets was £76.451 million and no deficit applied as at the last actuarial valuation.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Energy Policy
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase spending on energy efficiency and renewable energy; and if she will make a statement [103307]

  Mr. Morley
  In 2003–4 the total spending available from Defra to support energy efficiency will be £268,042,000.

  This includes £33,500,000 for The Carbon Trust, £22,487,000 for the Energy Saving Trust and £22,055,000 for the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme. In spite of heavy pressures on Defra's overall spending, these budgets remain broadly unchanged from last year reflecting the importance we attach to energy efficiency following the Energy White Paper. In addition, over £34,000,000 of capital grants and development support are available under the Community Energy programme. The budget for fuel poverty will be £156,000,000. No decisions have yet been taken about spending levels in future years.

  The Government have recently increased support for renewable energy by £60,000,000. Over the next four years, the Government plan to provide nearly £350,000,000 in direct support, mainly in the form of capital grants. Future increases in funding have not yet been decided.

  Agricultural Shows
  Mr. Huw Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received on behalf of the Monmouthshire Show Society about the impact of the six day rule on the movement of livestock to agricultural shows; and if she will make a statement. [107224]

  Mr. Morley
  Letters have been received from the Monmouthshire Show Society expressing concern on this subject and a reply will be sent shortly.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what requirements her Department has placed on agricultural shows to provide licensed areas for livestock; how these requirements have changed since 2002; and whether the requirements differ for(a) cattle, (b) sheep and (c) goats. [107255]

  Mr. Morley
  Livestock shows in England and Wales must be licensed by the relevant Department before they can operate to make sure that they can comply with biosecurity standards. There may be an 'animal area' within the licensed premises if the whole of the licensed premises are not used for animals. Licence conditions for shows have been simplified in 2003 to make the biosecurity requirements easier to understand and 360W
  operate. In particular, the new requirements focus on those dealing with animals at the show rather than visitors.

  The requirements do not differ for cattle, sheep and goats.

  Animal By-products
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how her Department plans to demonstrate to the European Commission that it is complying with the new Regulation of Animal By-Product disposal; and if she will make a statement. [107693]

  Mr. Morley
  Member States must ensure that"adequate arrangements are in place, and that a sufficient infrastructure exists"
  to ensure compliance with the new rules. The collection and disposal industries advise that there is sufficient capacity within the existing infrastructure to deal with the estimated additional quantities of fallen stock arising from the ban on burial which comes into effect from 1 May. In addition, there will be a requirement for record keeping which will ensure that all animals which die on-farm are accounted for and disposed of through permitted routes.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funds she has made available to the livestock industry to assist with costs incurred as a result of the implementation of the EU Animal By-Products Registration.[107594]

  Mr. Morley
  No funds have been made to the livestock industry to help them meet the costs of complying with the EU Animal By-Products Regulation. However, Government are willing to contribute to the establishment of a national fallen stock collection scheme provided that part of the costs are met by farmers themselves. We plan to write to livestock farmers shortly to invite expressions of interest in a voluntary subscription scheme to meet farmers' contribution to the costs.

  Departmental Savings
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what savings she anticipates will be available as a result of combining the BSE control and monitoring schemes, the Over 30 Months Scheme casualty collection service and the Fallen Stock TSE Surveillance Scheme. [107207]

  Mr. Morley
  These schemes are already administered centrally. The Government have proposed a voluntary subscription scheme for the collection of fallen stock which could also build upon these existing arrangements.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the disposal of fallen stock. [107039]
  361W
  Mr. Morley
  The Government expect farmers to comply with the requirements of both European and National legislation and dispose of their fallen stock accordingly.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice on biosecurity her Department received before imposing the new regulations on the disposal of fallen stock; and if she will make a statement. [107273]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department regulates outlets which deal with animal by-products, such as knackers yards, hunt kennels, rendering and incineration plants. Officials, including Vets from Animal Health and Welfare Directorate, are, therefore, involved in regular discussions with those industries and other interested parties.

  Animal By-Products legislation already controls the collection, storage and transportation of animal by-products, including animal carcases. It also requires records to be kept of any consignment of animal by-products to assist in the auditing and traceability of this material. General guidance on biosecurity is also available on the Defra website http:// www.defra.qov.uk/animalh/animindx.htm

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people in Somerset will be monitoring the disposal of fallen stock. [107340]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has 19 veterinarians in the Somerset and Dorset region (16 permanent and 3 casual veterinarians) who can provide advice and guidance. However, responsibility for enforcement rests with the relevant local authorities.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what rules there are for the disposal of fallen stock to dogs in rural areas; [107341]

  (2) what help is going to be given to the disposal on farms of fallen stock. [107342]

  Mr. Morley
  Currently, the Animal By-Products Order 1999 permits the feeding of fallen stock to recognised packs of hounds, provided the meat is not from animals that are suspected of being diseased.

  The new EU Animal By-Products Regulation will permit hunt kennels to continue collecting fallen stock. However, they will be required to upgrade to knackers' yard standards, if they wish to do so, to collect fallen stock for the purposes of feeding to hounds.

  The collection and disposal industries advise that there is sufficient capacity within the existing infrastructure to deal with the estimated additional quantities of fallen stock arising from the ban on burial which comes into effect from 1 May. However, we are aware that the new rules may increase the cost of disposal for some farmers and we have, since April of last year, been discussing setting up a national fallen stock collection and disposal service with farming unions and the disposal industry. Although progress has been made on the operation of a scheme we have not yet been able to reach an agreement on funding. Nevertheless, we are continuing our dialogue with the
  362W
  industry and plan to write shortly to individual farmers about the new rules when we will invite expressions of interest in a scheme partially funded by Government to which farmers can contribute by voluntary subscription.

  Guidance on the use of on-farm incineration as a means of disposal of fallen stock will be issued with this letter. Further information and copies of the relevant legislation, is available on the Defra website at the following address, http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/ by-prods/default.htm., and from local Animal Health Offices.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when her Department will issue and publish technical guidance on the use of on-farm incinerators as a legal alternative method of livestock disposal for fallen stock. [107695]

  (2) what guidance her Department is giving to farmers about the Animal By-Products Regulation and the ban on on-farm burial; and how she will monitor their compliance. [107694]

  Mr. Morley
  We plan to write shortly to individual livestock farmers about the new rules. This will include guidance on the use of on-farm incineration as a means of disposal of fallen stock. Information is also available on the Defra website at the following address, http://www.defra.qov.uk/animalh/bv-prods/default.htm.. and from local Animal Health Offices. Compliance with the Regulation will be monitored through inspection and approval for on-farm incinerators, and in the case of fallen stock, by a record keeping requirement.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to allow the use of biodigestion as a possible system for disposal of fallen stock; and whether she has promoted this method at EU level. [107697]

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the benefits of bio-digesters to handle fallen stock in specially designed concrete cylinders with a bacteria starter pack in terms of relative(a) environmental and (b) economic effectiveness; and if she will make a statement; [107130]

  (2) what plans she has to permit bio-digestion of fallen stock in specially designed concrete cylinders on farms as an alternative to fallen stock collection after 30th April; and if she will make a statement; [107131]

  (3) what representations she has made at European level to permit the bio-digestion of fallen stock in concrete cylinders on farms using a bacteria starter pack; and if she will make a statement. [107127]

  Mr. Morley
  Although no representations have been made at a European level, I have received some correspondence from UK companies on the biodigestion of fallen stock. 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.
  363W
  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 5 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.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to fund the collection of fallen stock from farms from 30 April; and if she will make a statement. [107124]

  Mr. Morley
  The collection and disposal industries advise that there is sufficient capacity within the existing infrastructure to deal with the estimated additional quantities of fallen stock arising from the ban on burial which comes into effect from 1 May. However, we are aware that the new rules will increase the cost of disposal for some farmers and we have, since April of last year, been discussing setting up a national fallen stock collection and disposal service with the farming unions and the disposal industry. Although progress has been made on the operation of a scheme we have not yet been able to reach an agreement on funding. Nevertheless, we are continuing our dialogue with the industry and plan to write shortly to individual farmers about the new rules when we will invite expressions of interest in a scheme partially funded by Government to which farmers can contribute by voluntary subscription.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs why guidelines have not been issued to farms regarding the proposed changes to the handling of fallen stock from 30 April; and if she will make a statement. [107125]

  Mr. Morley
  We plan to write shortly to individual farmers about the new rules, which will include guidance on the use of on-farm incineration as a means of disposal of fallen stock. Information on this matter, and copies of the relevant legislation, is available on the Defra website at the following address, http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/by-prods/default.htm, and from local Animal Health Offices. General guidance on bio-security is also available on the Defra website at the following address, http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/ animindx.htm

  The EU Animal By-Products Regulation was originally proposed in November 2000 and interested parties have been consulted throughout negotiations on the draft Regulation.

  We have recently consulted on the draft legislation which will give effect to the controls in England. The consultation period closed on 21 March 2003. We are currently considering the responses, and preparing the final legislation.
  364W
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the extra cost of on-farm collection of fallen stock compared to on-farm burial; and if she will make a statement. [107128]

  Mr. Morley
  A regulatory impact assessment has been prepared as part of the consultation procedures for implementation of the Animal By-Products Regulation of which the ban on on-farm burial of fallen stock forms a part. The costs for any individual farmers will depend on the location of the farm and the kind of stock kept.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many confirmed cases there have been of a direct link between fallen stock burial on farm and damage to human or animal health since(a) 1997, (b) 1992; and (c) 1982; and if she will make a statement. [107129]

  Mr. Morley
  This information is not available and it would in any case be very hard to prove such a link. However, concerns about water pollution and the lack of scientific information available on how persistent the prions that cause diseases such as BSE and scrapie are in soil justify the EU's precautionary approach towards on-farm burial.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to permit the continued use of on-farm burial of fallen stock after 30 April to allow research into animal or human health risk associated with this method; and if she will make a statement. [107132]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no plans to permit the continued use of on-farm burial of fallen stock. The rules in the new EU Animal By-Products Regulation, regarding the disposal of fallen stock, have been influenced by a number of scientific opinions which take into account factors such as the potential for polluting water courses. Although the new rules will allow the continued use of animal carcases for "diagnostic, educational or research purposes", the Department would, as competent authority, require any research proposal and the site on which it was conducted to be approved.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the potential risk which fallen stock collection from farms presents to livestock and human health; and if she will make a statement. [107133]

  Mr. Morley
  No formal assessment has been made of the bio-security risks of a national carcase collection service. However, we would expect that only those collectors who follow agreed bio-security procedures would be allowed to participate in such a scheme.

  Animal By-Products legislation already controls the collection, storage and transportation of animal by-products, including animal carcases, it also requires records to be kept of any consignment of animal by-products to assist in the auditing and traceability of this material. General guidance on bio-security is also available on the Defra website:http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/animindx.htm.
  365W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the impact on the(a) farming industry and (b) countryside of the prohibition on on-farm burial of fallen stock. [106407]

  (2) when she will give instructions to farmers on alternative means of disposal of fallen stock; and how these alternative schemes will be funded. [106197]

  (3) what representations she has received on the setting up of the Government of a national collection and disposal scheme for fallen stock; and what financial assistance she will provide to the farming industry in the establishment of a scheme. [106403]

  (4) when the Department will issue guidance to farmers on how to comply with the rules on on-farm burial which will be introduced on 30 April. [106405]

  (5) when her Department will produce guidance.on (a) the use of on-farm incinerators as a legal alternative method of disposal of fallen stock and (b) the possible use of a proportion of animals dying on-farm as carrion. [106404]

  (6) what assessment she has made of the impact of the EU Animal By-Products Regulation on (a) the countryside and (b) farmers. [106226]

  (7) what representations she has received on the introduction of biodigestion as an alternative system of disposal of fallen stock; and if she will make a statement. [106406]

  Mr Morley
  A regulatory impact assessment has been prepared as part of the consultation procedures for implementation of the Animal By-products Regulation of which the ban on on-farm burial of fallen stock forms a part.

  The collection and disposal industries advise that there is sufficient capacity within the existing infrastructure to deal with the estimated additional quantities of fallen stock arising from the ban on burial which comes into effect from 1 May. However, we are aware that the new rules will cause difficulties for some farmers and we have, since April of last year, been discussing with farmers and the disposal industry setting up a National fallen stock collection and disposal service. Although progress has been made on the operation of a scheme we have not yet been able to reach an agreement on funding. Nevertheless, we are continuing our dialogue with the industry and plan to write shortly to individual farmers about the new rules. The provision of further government funding is dependent upon some contribution being made by farmers themselves.

  We are currently drafting guidance on the use of on-farm incineration as a means of disposal of fallen stock and will issue this shortly.

  We have no current derogations from the EU Animal By-products Regulation to permit the feeding of fallen stock to necrophagous birds and this is not relevant to the UK situation.

  I have received some representations on the biodigestion of fallen stock which we are considering. This is not currently an approved disposal method and this will not change when the Animal By-product
  366W
  Regulation comes into effect from 1 May. Approval of any new disposal method would have to be made by the Commission.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria she has drawn up to evaluate the performance of any revised scheme that replaces the landfill tax credit scheme. [105758]

  Mr. Meacher
  Performance indicators—relating to recycling rates for example—will be put in place for any schemes that replace the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. The indicators have not yet been fully developed, but will be made public as soon as they are. Progress against these indicators will be assessed regularly and made publicly available.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place copies of the speeches she has made to outside organisations since 1 January in the Library. [102442]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have made numerous speeches since 1 January. Copies of my keynote speeches, and also those of my ministerial team, are available on the Defra website (as are some other, more minor speeches). Where possible, any other speeches are available on request, although generally not in an 'as delivered' format.

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to have signed contracts for the current tender exercise for the incineration of tallow arising from carcases culled under the over thirty month scheme; and for what reason the signing of contracts has been delayed. [107815]

  Alun Michael
  The Rural Payments Agency have been in negotiation with a large disposal outlet identified under the tender exercise for the incineration of tallow arising from carcases culled under the Over Thirty Month (slaughter) Scheme and are hopeful of signing a contract with this outlet within the next 2 to 4 weeks. Discussions with the smaller disposal outlets identified under the tender exercise will be progressed once the requirements for this large outlet have been finalised.

  The delay in reaching agreement has arisen from the number of licencing, environmental and logistical issues which have to be clarified or resolved prior to signing the contract.

  Public Services (Co-payments)
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce co-payments for the public services for which she is responsible. [102202]

  Alun Michael
  The Department seeks to deliver services to the public using effective, efficient and economical approaches consistent with Government policies on Sustainability.
  367W
  These approaches include a range of partnership formats where the financial arrangements may be shared with the private sector, including: the establishment of ISIS by British Waterways.
  PFI/PPP projects such as the new office buildling in Cambridge, and Flood Defence schemes at Broadlands and Pevensey;
  "joined—up" working with other Departments and the private sector on centrally—funded projects under the Invest to Save Budget and Capital Modernisation Fund;
  joint ventures between Executive Agencies and private sector businesses under the Wider Markets Initiative;
  support for LINK projects.

  Defra will continue to use these approaches where appropriate.

  Recycling
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of household batteries sold were recycled after use in 2002; and what plans she has to take measures to improve this record. [107402]

  Mr. Meacher
  No assessment has been undertaken to measure percentage of household batteries recycled in 2002. However, the current recycling rate is estimated to be less than 2 per cent, for the UK.

  An EC Batteries Directive is currently being negotiated that will set targets for the collection and recycling of automotive, industrial and consumer (or household) batteries. In anticipation of these targets, the Government have set up a major pilot project to study the collection and recycling of consumer batteries in Bristol. The results of the pilot will be made available to all local authorities. Other pilot collection schemes involving industry, local authorities and/or waste management companies include those in Lancashire, Cheshire, Dorset, Barnet and Ealing.

  We expect the new batteries Directive will set collection and recycling targets for consumer batteries so it is likely that more battery collection and recycling schemes will need be set up throughout the UK.

  Six-day Rule
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last met representatives of the National Farmers' Union to discuss the effect of the six day rule; and if she will make a statement. [107229]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra Ministers and officials regularly meet and correspond with farming union representatives on a number of animal health matters.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last met representatives of the(a) National Farmers' Union of Wales and (b) Farmers' Union of Wales to discuss the effect of the 6 day rule; and if she will make a statement. [107271]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra Ministers and officials regularly meet and correspond with farming union representatives, including those representing farmers in Wales, on a range of animal health matters.
  368W
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she will amend the 6 day rule to allow agricultural shows to operate; and if she will make a statement.[107272]

  Mr. Morley
  When the 20 day standstill was reduced to 6 days most of the exemptions to the standstill, including the exemption for shows, were removed as a counter-balance to the increased risk created by the reduction in the standstill period. We are aware of the concern that the removal of the show exemption has caused and are looking at alternative suggestions put to us.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

  Antarctic (Amendment) Regulations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the Antarctic
  (Amendment) Regulations. [107788]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Principle Antarctic Regulations of 1995 have been amended on 5 occasions by means of the Antarctic (Amendment) Regulations of 1995, 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2003. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received no representations in relation to any of these Regulations.

  Burma
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the promotion by travel companies of holidays for tourists from the UK to visit Burma. [107508]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  HMG's policy is not to encourage tourism to Burma. We have drawn to the attention of travel organisations our policy and the views of the Burmese Democratic opposition that tourism to Burma is inappropriate at present due to the political and human rights situation there. As part of this policy, senior Burmese tourism officials are included in the European Union visa ban and asset freeze.

  Congo
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to restore peace in the Congo; whether it is his policy to bring about regime change in the Congo; and if he will make a statement. [108202]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK is actively engaged with our African, EU and UN partners in promoting a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The Government have supported the implementation of both the Lusaka Peace Agreement and the Pretoria Agreement of July 2002 as providing the most viable way forward.

  We warmly welcome the agreement signed in Sun City on 3 April as part of the Lusaka process, on the establishment of a transitional government with a view to democratic elections in two years time. We will continue to monitor progress carefully and help the DRC Government deliver free and fair elections which reflect the will of the Congolese people.
  369W
  We were shocked to hear of the appalling massacre of civilians by militia in the DRC's Ituri Province last week. Our thoughts and sympathies are with the families of all killed and those who have been injured.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the Congo following the reported massacre there; and if he will make a statement. [108519]

  Mr. Rammell
  We were shocked to learn of the appalling massacre of civilians by militia in the DRC's Ituri Province last week. My noble Friend the Baroness Amos issued a statement on 7 April strongly condemning this tragedy. I have placed a copy in the Library of the House. Our thoughts and sympathies are with the families of all killed and those who have been injured.

  These killings, as with earlier militia attacks, underline the need to stop this senseless cycle of violence in the region. We call on all parties to stop fighting and join the political process, particularly now that a transitional government has just been agreed for the DRC covering the whole country.

  Equal Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [106745]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As part of The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's commitment to the Equal Opportunities Commission Task Force "Just Pay" report, our pay review is under way and we plan to submit our action plan to the Cabinet Office by the end of April 2003. Our non-departmental government bodies were not included in our review as the members of the boards are paid expenses only.

  Elizabeth Wilmhurst
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the resignation of Elizabeth Wilmhurst as one of his legal advisers. [108316]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is not our practice to comment on such cases, which are a matter for the individual concerned.

  George Atkinson (Dubai)
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurance he has sought from the Dubai authorities that George Atkinson will be released from detention upon completion of the additional six months sentence imposed on him by the Dubai Ruler's Court due to end on 31 August. [107663]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our consul general in Dubai raised Mr. Atkinson's case when he called on the Dubai Ruler's Court on 19 January. The Court reiterated 370W
  Dubai's previously stated position that Mr. Atkinson can expect to be released at midday on 1 September 2003.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many member states spoke(a) in favour and (b) against the United Kingdom-United States-Australian invasion of Iraq in the United Nations security council general debate on 26 March to 27 March; and what assessment has been made of the speeches opposing United Kingdom military action against Iraq. [107582]

  Mr. Rammell
  The verbatim record of the interventions made at the Security Council Open Debate on 26–27 March is available on the UN website (www.un.org). Many of the interventions express views which are difficult to characterise either as in favour of, or opposed to, the military action being taken to enforce Security Council resolutions.

  The coalition action has active support from over 40 countries.

  Moldova
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to(a) the European Commission and (b) European partners on improving economic conditions in Moldova; and if he will make a statement. [108121]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK is at the forefront of discussions within the EU on building a closer relationship with Moldova, including on improving economic conditions. The UK, via the Wider Europe initiative launched by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last year, has been considering a package of incentives for Moldova including work towards greater economic interdependence. The Department for International Development (DFID) is helping to improve economic conditions in Moldova primarily through the Poverty Reduction Strategy Process (PRSP) and directly through support to the Medium Term Expenditure Framework in partnership with the Ministry of Finance. Under the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with the EU, Moldovan exports receive Most Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment. Also as a developing country, Moldova benefits from the EC's Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). Further market oriented reforms must take place in Moldova for economic conditions to improve.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring the UK is undertaking of the Nigerian elections, with particular reference to communal violence. [107889]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK is part of the EU election observer team which has already arrived in Nigeria. With 96 observers in total it is the largest international team to be monitoring the elections. The UK has partially funded the Commonwealth observer mission,
  371W
  over a third of whom are African. The British High Commission in Abuja will provide 35 separate observers.

  All the observer teams are aware of the need for peaceful, free and fair elections. HMG have allocated £3 million for supporting the elections. This includes help for the Nigerian Electoral Commission, training of journalists and work on a police code for the elections. In addition, DfID, in collaboration with other donors, has funded the Institute for Democratic Alternatives in South Africa (IDASA), an experienced NGO, to monitor communal electoral violence throughout Nigeria and to produce a weekly summary of incidents.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases of inter-communal violence the Department has investigated in Nigeria in the last six months. [107890]

  Mr. Rammell
  The High Commission in Nigeria reports on cases of inter-communal violence when they occur, basing its information on first hand reports from local contacts and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the region. It is for the Federal Government of Nigeria and the local Nigerian authorities, not HMG, to investigate the incidents. We are, however, active in seeking to prevent these clashes, for example through support for the work of Coventry Cathedral's Centre for reconciliation.

  Rwanda, Congo and Great Lakes
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the situation in Rwanda, the Congo and the Great Lakes region. [107713]

  Mr. Rammell
  Our aim is lasting peace and stability in the Great Lakes region. Recent developments have been encouraging, although we remain concerned about the humanitarian situation, continued outbreaks of fighting and human rights abuses, particularly in eastern Congo.

  In the Democratic Republic of Congo we warmly welcome the recent agreement on the establishment of a transitional government with a view to democratic elections in two years time. We hope that the Congolese people can take this opportunity to end almost five years of civil war. We were shocked to learn of the appalling civilian massacre by militia in and around the town of Drodro in DRC's Ituri Province on 3 April. The UK strongly condemns such acts.

  In Rwanda, preparations are in hand for a full national referendum on the Constitution, to be held on 26 May. We look forward to free and fair presidential and parliamentary elections later this year.

  In Burundi we welcome President Buyoya's commitment to hand over power on 1 May. This will be a further important step in the implementation of the Arusha peace process.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff are employed by his Department. [106290]
  372W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office employs 9,060 staff, as of 1 January 2003. This figure includes 3,189 locally engaged staff.

  Staff Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [106774]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff are entitled to undertake union duties. The FCO allocates the equivalent of a total of seven full days for this. The cost to public funds in 2002 was £154,811. About 50 members of staff are members of union or branch committees.

  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department has taken to ensure the education of the children of Haitians who have received citizenship from the Turks and Caicos. [107283]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Turks and Caicos Islands Government has a policy of free compulsory education for all children aged 5 to 16 who legally reside in the Territory. As the criteria for school registration requires information on immigration status, some children were unable to register before the current school year. The Governor has asked for a re-examination of cases where children may have been precluded from attending school.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [107653]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's policy to support flexible working both in the United Kingdom and where possible at our posts overseas. Jobs are open to flexible working unless the nature of the work prevents this.

  We have a number of flexible working patterns in use at present including staggered hours, flexi-time, compressed hours, home working, school working hours, term time working and time off in lieu. Within the flexi-time scheme the core hours are 10.00 to 12.00 and 14.30 to 16.00 in London and 09.30 to 12.00 and 14.00 to 16.00 at Hanslope Park. We currently have 142 part time staff—an increase of 35 per cent. since last year.

  World Trade
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the French Government concerning their stance on agricultural subsidies, with reference to the Doha round of world trade negotiations; [108122]
  373W
  (2) what representations he has made to the European Commission concerning the French Government's stance on agricultural subsidies, with reference to the Doha round of world trade negotiations; [108123]

  (3) what the Government's stance is on agricultural subsidies, with reference to the Doha round of world trade negotiations; and if he will make a statement. [108124]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government remain committed to the declaration on agriculture made at the WTO Ministerial Conference meeting in Doha in November 2001. We want comprehensive negotiations aimed at substantial improvements in market access; reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies; and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support. The Government were disappointed that the WTO's 31 March deadline to establish modalities for a new agreement on agriculture was not met. Agricultural trade reform remains critical for developing countries and is central to the Doha Development Agenda as a whole. WTO members must now redouble their efforts to reach consensus on agriculture by the 5th meeting of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun this September. We are working with all our EU partners, including the European Commission and France, to ensure that the EU plays its full part in bringing this about.

HEALTH

  Community Health Councils
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community health council staff he expects will transfer to patient forums; and who will pay their salaries between the closure of Community Health Councils and the establishment of the patient forums. [107750]

  Mr. Lammy
  Community Health Councils (CHCs) will be abolished from 1 September 2003. There will be no transfer of CHC staff to patients' forums. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) on 19 March 2003,Official Report, column 850W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total redundancy bill for closing down Community Health Councils. [107754]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is too early to estimate the cost of redundancy as a result of the Community Health Councils (CHCs) abolition. To help avoid redundancies, a human resources framework for CHC staff has been agreed with trade unions and employing authorities. This framework provides for the establishment of clearing houses to pool local employment opportunities, training and other support to enable this group of staff actively to seek and obtain suitable alternative employment in the national health service.

  Congestion Charge
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has made to the Mayor of London regarding exemption from the congestion charge for patients required to attend London hospitals for treatment but who are unable to use public transport because of their illness. [105123]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service London regional office, in consultation with and on behalf of the NHS in London, was involved in negotiations with Transport for London to identify ways to minimise potentially negative impacts of congestion charging on NHS patients.

  For patients, reimbursement of the congestion charge can be claimed for a vehicle used to transport an eligible NHS patient to attend NHS appointments in the congestion charging zone.

  Eligible patients are those where:
  the relevant NHS body has provided assistance to enable the patient to attend appointments using private transport whether by reimbursement of travel costs or parking charges, or by the provision of free parking;
  the patient has a compromised immune system, requires regular therapy or assessment, or requires recurrent surgical intervention;
  the patient has been clinically assessed as too ill, weak or disabled to travel to an appointment by public transport.

  The NHS and the Directorate of Health and Social Care—London will be closely monitoring the scheme to see what potential impact it may have.

  Contingent Liabilities
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which contingent liabilities for which his Department has responsibility have matured in each of the last five financial years; and if he will make a statement. [105178]

  Mr. Hutton
  The following sums have been paid against contingent liabilities in the five years to 31 March 2002.

  Contingent liability

  Year in which paid

  Amount paid

  An indemnity to water undertakings in respect of costs, damages and expenses not otherwise covered by insurance claims arising from claims and/or proceedings on the grounds of alleged harm to health arising solely from fluoridation

  1997–98

  £4,000

  The Government originally paid £42 million to a trust from which payments are made to haemophiliacs infected with HIV virus, following treatment by the NHS with infected blood products. The Department has agreed to pay to the trust any sums required to make payments if the funds already provided prove insufficient.

  1997–98

  £3,000

  375W

  Contingent liability

  Year in which paid

  Amount paid

  1999–2000

  £1.99 million

  2000–01

  £2.52 million

  The Department was found negligent in failing to stop treating patients with Human Growth Hormone by 1 July 1977–at a time when possible consequences should have been apparent. Compensation will need to be paid to patients treated after this date who subsequently die from CJD.

  1998–99

  £1.678 million

  1999–2000

  £3.278 million

  2000–01

  £68,000

  Departmental Fees
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which fees his Department, its agencies and associated bodies collect; how much(a) has been raised and (b) will be raised from each of these fees in each year from 1989–90 to 2004–05; and which of these fees count as negative expenditure. [105187]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department, its agencies and associated bodies collect fees or charges on a statutory basis and make charges where legislation allows on commercial services. Information where a fee or charge can be separately identified in accounts or departmental returns has been placed in the Library. Where fees or charges are not separately identified, income has been attributed to the receiving body.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement regarding the powers that would be available to a board of governors of a foundation hospital. [106810]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 April]The powers available to a Board of Governors of a National Health Service foundation trust are set out in Schedule 1 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. Subject to Parliamentary approval, the Board of Governors will be responsible for appointing and removing the chair and non-executive directors, and deciding their terms and conditions, approving appointment and removal of the chief executive and executive directors, appointing the auditor, advising the Board of Directors on development of forward plans and for approving the annual report and accounts.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures are planned enable local people to elect the hospital governors of foundation hospitals. [106811]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 April 2003]: Procedures are set out in Schedule 1 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. Subject to parliamentary approval, local people, patients and staff who become members of a National Health Service foundation trust will elect representatives onto a Board of Governors.
  376W

  Hillcroft Site (Lymington)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2003,Official Report, column 663W, on the Hillcroft site in Lymington, who negotiated on behalf of New Forest Primary Care Trust; whether the site was offered by tender; and whether the property was disposed of to the party which offered the highest sum. [107887]

  Ms Blears
  Hampshire and Isle of Wight Strategic Health Authority have advised that the District Valuer and an independent valuer advised the primary care trust and carried out negotiations on its behalf.

  NHS Estates, the Directorate of Health and Social Care, the strategic health authority and New Forest PCT all considered this professional advice and concluded that the offer provided best value.

  NHS Estates Property and the Directorate of Health and Social Care approved a negotiated sale to a single bidder who was in a position to pay the best price for the property.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [106270]

  Mr. Lammy
  Copies of research reports are not routinely placed in the Library, although a list giving details of market and opinion research undertaken by the Department is made available. A list of research projects carried out by the Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies for the financial year 2001–02 is available in the Library, and 2002–03 is being compiled and will be placed in the Library. These lists may not include all research projects, as some information is not centrally available.

  A list of expenditure incurred on opinion polling, focus groups and other forms of market research could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  We are committed to consulting and involving the public to help inform both policy formulation and the delivery of better quality public service. Responsive public services are an important part of Modernising Government initiative.

  We only conduct or commission market or opinion research when it is justified by the needs of the policy programme and is the most economical, efficient and effective way to achieve the purpose.

  Health Awareness Courses
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the awareness courses run by the NHS since May 1997; and how much each course has cost. [102087]
  377W
  Ms Blears
  Public health awareness campaign initiatives run by the Department of Health's communications directorate since April 1997, are shown in the table. Public

  Name of campaign

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Antibiotics

  —

  *

  *

  —

  *

  *

  Blood donation

  *

  *

  *

  —

  —

  —

  CALM

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Flu

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Immunisation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *

  *

  Keep Warm Keep Well

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Mind Out

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *

  *

  NHS Direct

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Organ donation

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  RU Thinking (teenage pregnancy)

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Sexual health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *

  *

  Smoking

  —

  —

  *

  *

  *

  *

  TB awareness

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  * Depicts year of campaign

  Overseas Health Treatment
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost is(a) in a UK hospital and (b) in a German hospital which carries out procedures in agreement with the NHS, (i) including and (ii) excluding the cost of travel to and from the UK and (c) a French hospital (i) including and (ii) excluding the cost of travel to and from the UK of (A) a hip joint replacement, (B) a knee joint replacement and (C) a coronary artery by-pass graft. [105861]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service national reference costs are provided on the Department of Health website. The average cost of a primary hip replacement is £4,356, the average cost of a primary knee replacement is £4,818, and the average cost of a coronary bypass is £6,275.

  A procurement process identifying spare capacity abroad is currently active, so the costs of specific procedures abroad are commercially sensitive. However, prices are comparable to spot purchasing in the UK private sector.

  Pharmacists
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pharmacists have received grant aid to install consultation areas in their premises. [107755]

  Mr. Lammy
  In general, the provision of consultation areas in pharmacies is primarily a commercial decision for the contractor concerned. Local national health service bodies may have made grants available, but no details are held centrally.

  As part of a research project where community pharmacists provide a structured service reviewing medication for patients with coronary heart disease, the Department has provided funding of between £900 and £1,500 towards the costs of providing or improving such areas to five out of 60 participating pharmacies.

  We are examining with the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee and the NHS Confederation how premises standards generally and the provision of
  378W
  health awareness courses are not run from the Department. Details of any such courses which might be run within the national health service are not held centrally.

  consultation areas can best be reflected within the new national contractual framework for community pharmacy.

  Specialist Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the steady state funding arrangements for specialist services will cease; and what plans he has to monitor the impact of this change; [105564]

  (2) if he will issue guidance to primary care trusts to ensure consistency in the arrangements for commissioning specialist services and continuity of service for patients. [105565]

  Mr. Hutton
  Steady state funding lasted from April 2002 to March 2003. Strategic health authorities will monitor the effectiveness of primary care trusts' collaborative commissioning arrangements for specialised services.

  The responses to the consultation on commissioning arrangements for specialised services were published on 6 March 2003. Guidance was published on 31 March 2003 on commissioning arrangements for 2003–04.

  St. Mary's Hospital, London
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing staff at St. Mary's Hospital, London have worked on extended 14-hour shifts in the last six months; and how many have worked on extended 14-hour shifts more than three times in a row. [107966]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect this information centrally.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Charities
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has collated on how many charities have converted to company limited by guarantee status(a) in order to

  379W
  avoid trustee indemnity insurance and (b) for other purposes in (i) each of the last three years and (ii) 2003 to date. [107136]

  Beverley Hughes
  This is a matter for the Charity Commission as the Government Department responsible for the regulation of charities in England and Wales. The Commission's Director of Policy will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of her reply will be placed in the Library.

  Trustee Indemnity insurance
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recent representations he has received from charities in relation to trustee indemnity insurance. [107134]

  Beverley Hughes
  Five representations about trustee indemnity insurance have been received from charities responding to the Strategy Unit Report, "Private Action, Public Benefit: A Review of Charities and the Wider Not-for-Profit Sector" although the issue of indemnity insurance was not raised in the report.

  This is also a matter for the Charity Commission as the Government Department responsible for the regulation of charities in England and Wales. The Commission's Director of Policy will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of her reply will be placed in the Library.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children of asylum seekers under the age of 18 years are being held in the former prison at Dungavel in Scotland; and for what reason. [106114]

  Beverley Hughes
  A one-off exercise carried out on 2 April 2003 shows that 21 people were being held in Dungavel Immigration Service Removal Centre at that date who were recorded as being under 18 years of age.

  Minors are detained only in two limited circumstances: first, as part of a family group whose detention is considered appropriate; second, when unaccompanied, whilst alternative care arrangements are made and normally just overnight.

  More detailed information or those in detention at 29 March 2003 is due to be published on 30 May on the Home Office website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ whatsnew1.html

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) adults and (b) children under the age of 18 are held in each asylum removal centre in the UK; and how many have been held (i) for less than a month, (ii) between one and three months, (iii) between three and six months and (iv) over six months. [107302]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest published information on the number of people held in each Immigration Service Removal Centre (IRC) is for 28 December 2002 and is given in the table. Information on the age of individual detainees is not collated centrally therefore information on the length of time that these people have been in detention is not available.
  380W

  Persons recorded as being held in Immigration Service Removal Centres at 28 December 2002

  Total detainees

  Of whom asylum seekers1

  Dover

  190

  155

  Campsfield House

  160

  95

  Harmondsworth

  150

  110

  Hasl.ar

  120

  100

  Lindholme

  90

  80

  Tinsley House

  85

  45

  Dungavel

  80

  55

  Oakington

  40

  40

  Total

  920

  680

  Figures are rounded to nearest five.

  1Persons detained solely under immigration Act powers who are recorded as having sought asylum at some stage.

  Dungavel, Harmondsworth, Oakington and Tinsley House are the only Immigration Service Removal Centres that deal with family cases.

  A one-off exercise was carried out on 2 April 2003 to assess the number of children under the age of 18 detained in these IRC's, the results of which are contained in the following table.

  Immigration Service Removal Centre

  Children under 18 years of age in Detention at 2 April 2003

  Dungavel

  21

  Harmondsworth

  18

  Oakington

  14

  Tinsley

  3

  Total

  56

  Minors are detained only in two limited circumstances: first, as part of a family group whose detention is considered appropriate; second, when unaccompanied, whilst alternative care arrangements are made and normally just overnight.

  More detailed information on those in detention at 29 March 2003 is due to be published on 30 May on the Home Office web-site: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/whatsnew1. html

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) adults and (b) children are held in each removal centre in the UK. [105765]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest information published information on the number of people held in each Immigration Service Removal Centre (IRC) is for 28 December 2002 and is given in the table. Information on the age of individual detainees is not collated centrally.

  Persons recorded as being held in Immigration Service Removal Centres at 28 December 2002

  Total detainees

  of whom: asylum seekers1

  Dover

  190

  155

  Campsfield House

  160

  95

  Harmondsworth

  150

  110

  Haslar

  120

  100

  Lindholme

  90

  80

  Tinsley House

  85

  45

  381W

  Persons recorded as being held in Immigration Service Removal Centres at 28 December 2002

  Total detainees

  of whom: asylum seekers1

  Dungavel

  80

  55

  Oakington

  40

  40

  Total

  920

  680

  1Persons detained solely under Immigration Act powers who are recorded as having sought asylum at some stage.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to nearest five.

  Dungavel, Harmondsworth, Oakington and Tinsley House are the only Immigration Service Removal Centres that deal with family cases. A one-off exercise was carried out on 2 April 2003 to assess the number of children under the age of 1 8 detained in these four IRC's, the results of which are contained in the following table.

  Immigration Service Removal Centre

  Children under 18 years of age in detention at 2 April 2003

  Dungavel

  21

  Harmondsworth

  18

  Oakington

  14

  Tinsley

  3

  Total

  56

  Minors are detained only in two limited circumstances: first, as part of a family group whose detention is considered appropriate; second, when unaccompanied, while alternative care arrangements are made and normally just overnight.

  More detailed information on those in detention at 29 March 2003 is due to be published on 30 May on the Home Office website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ whatsnew1.html

  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been brought against housing companies used by the Department for asylum seekers. [107318]

  Beverley Hughes
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has not taken legal action against any of its contractors. NASS is aware that one of its contractors has been involved in a dispute with a former subcontractor. NASS was not directly involved in this dispute. Their concern was for the safety of asylum seekers placed in accommodation affected by the dispute.

  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are given by the Department to(a) GPs, (b) schools, (c) social services, (d) job centres and (e) the legal profession in respect of asylum seekers. [107323]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office is responsible for meeting the direct needs of destitute asylum seekers and their dependants (accommodation and subsistence). Services such as education and health are provided in the same way as they are for anyone else moving into an area. Local Education Authorities (LEAs) have a statutory duty to ensure that education is available for all children of compulsory school age in their area, irrespective of a child's immigration status or rights of residence in a particular location. The Department for Education and 382W
  Skills has produced guidance on supporting the education of asylum seeking and refugee children which covers good practice at both LEA and school level. The Department of Health is responsible for issuing guidance to primary care trusts/local authority social services respectively. Regional consortia have been established in each region of the UK and these include representatives from local councils, the education authorities and the National Health Service. Generally speaking asylum seekers are not allowed to work whilst their application for asylum is under consideration and no guidance is issued to Job Centres.

  The Legal Services Commission has entered into contracts with competent legal representatives to provide legal representation to asylum seekers. The voluntary sector is grant funded by the National Asylum Support Service to provide one stop services in dispersal areas to assist asylum seekers.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether her Department's guidelines state that asylum seekers housed in cluster areas must be three miles or less from(a) a main post office and (b) a main rail station. [108008]

  Beverley Hughes
  The accommodation provided by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is chosen on the basis of suitability to house asylum seekers and their dependants within the cluster areas throughout the United Kingdom. The cluster areas are ideally based in towns and cities where suitable accommodation is available and where there is potential to provide a link with existing multi-cultural communities and to develop the support of local voluntary and community groups.

  The accommodation within the cluster areas is also located within a three mile radius of the main post office. If the accommodation is located outside of this three mile radius, it is the responsibility of the accommodation provider to cover the cost of travel to the main post office in order for asylum seekers to collect their support payments. There is no requirement for accommodation to be provided within a certain distance of the railway station in each cluster area.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to deport failed asylum seekers from(a) Northern Iraq and (b) the rest of Iraq. [108022]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is important that Iraqis start returning to their country once the conflict is over. We will start removing unsuccessful asylum seekers as soon as conditions make this possible.

  Case Decision
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 3 March 2003m,Official Report, column 825W, on a case decision, for what reason Mr. Xhevat Murtezi, ref M1010576 and ML/LAB 19953, has not yet received notification of a decision; and if he will make a statement. [107381]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 7 April 2003]Mr. Murtezi was granted leave to remain on 2 April 2003. The delay in actioning this decision was due to an administrative error, which is very much regretted.

  Children in Need
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the IRT system will allow the sharing of information on children in need before they come to the attention of the police. [106782]

  Hilary Benn
  Yes. As part of the drive towards more co-ordinated preventive services, IRT systems aim to improve information sharing between agencies working with children and young people at risk before the situation reaches crisis point. The primary focus of IRT is to pick up the early signs of difficulty and ensure a referral is made to the appropriate preventive service.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what period of time his Department expects letters from the public to be answered. [105315]

  Mr. Wills
  The Home Office aims to answer 95 per cent, of public correspondence within 20 working days in line with its published Service Delivery Agreement target.

  Home Office performance against this target for the period April 2002 to February 2003 for non-immigration matters currently stands cumulatively at 90 per cent, answered within 20 working days. No performance data are held currently for public correspondence on immigration and nationality matters.

  Improving performance against published targets is recognised as a priority across the Department. A new computerised Correspondence Tracking System is being introduced currently into non-immigration areas of the Department, and will make it possible for targets to be

  Home Office Payment Performance 2001–02

  Number of invoices paid

  Number paid on time

  Percentage paid within 30 days

  Number of invoices paid late

  Percentage of invoices paid late

  Home Office

  142,025

  130,725

  92.0

  11,300

  8.0

  Agencies

  Forensic Science Service

  28,140

  27,376

  97.3

  764

  2.7

  UK Passports and Records Agency

  13,493

  12,989

  96.3

  504

  3.7

  Prison Service

  500,175

  475,720

  95.1

  24,455

  4.9

  Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) (See Note 1) (See Note 1)

  Police IT Organisation

  10,461

  10,384

  99.3

  77

  0.7

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

  2,159

  2,158

  100.0

  1

  0.0

  Youth Justice Board

  11,614

  10,731

  92.4

  883

  7.6

  Community Development Foundation (See Note 2)

  4,622

  4,595

  99.4

  28

  0.6

  Commission for Racial Equality

  7,829

  4,384

  56.0

  3,445

  44.0

  Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner

  759

  740

  97.5

  19

  2.5

  Police Complaints Authority

  507

  506

  99.8

  1

  0.2

  Parole Board

  300

  294

  98.0

  6

  2.0

  Police Information Technology Organisation

  10,461

  10,384

  99.3

  77

  0.7

  Criminal Cases Review Commission

  2,706

  2,701

  99.8

  5

  0.2

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

  2,159

  2,158

  100.0

  1

  0.0

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel

  21,525

  20,664

  96.0

  861

  4.0

  Youth Justice Board

  11,614

  10,731

  92.4

  883

  7.6

  Notes:

  1. The National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the Central Police Training and Development Authority were not constituted as NDPBs until 2002–03.

  2. The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) had credit control problems with service providers in 2001–02 which resulted in a significant number of invoices being kept back, creating a backlog of payments. The Commission have been making a special effort to improve their payment performance in 2002–03 and this is reflected in a considerable improvement in the figures, with 77 per cent. paid within terms compared with 56 per cent, in the previous year (figures provided by CRE).
  384W
  achieved for the first time. The same system will be introduced into immigration and nationality areas later in the year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Minister will reply to the letters from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, dated 13 September 2002, 11 November 2002, 27 January 2003 and 7 February 2003. [106487]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 1 April 2003]: I replied to the right hon. Member's letters of 13 September and 11 November on 7 January 2003, and to her letters of 27 January and 7 February on 10 April 2003.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he has taken in response to the letter from IND to the hon. Member for Leicester, East dated 3 October 2002 concerning the case of Mr. Mahmood Mohd Jibreel, date of birth 31 December 1968; [106930]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the case of Mr. Mahmood Mohd Jibreel, of Leicester, date of birth 31 December 1968, and the reasons for the length of time to take a decision on whether he is entitled to indefinite leave.[106929]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 9 April 2003.

  Departmental Invoices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the instances in which his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2001–02. [104287]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available information is as follows:

  European Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress with achieving transparency in respect of the European working groups for which his Department is responsible. [105746]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government have long been committed to greater openness in the EU Institutions. This was a key theme of the UK Presidencies in 1992 and 1998. Making it easier to gain access to non-sensitive documents is crucial to this. The Government welcomed Regulation 1049–2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. As a result, more documents are released to the public, whilst genuinely sensitive documents are given the protection they need.

  Much of the Council's work takes place in preparatory bodies, including working groups. Negotiations at all levels are generally held in private. However the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council occasionally holds open debates on general policy subjects. Discussions at the JHA Council are also reported by written answers to PQs in both Houses or by letter to the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees during Recesses.

  Accountability and transparency of Council business to Parliament are ensured by the scrutiny process, to which the Government are also firmly committed. The scrutiny process offers the opportunity for Parliamentary oversight of proposals which are under negotiation in all but a few cases, such as agreement with third countries, which remain confidential during their negotiation. All deposited documents are placed in the Library and the Scrutiny Committees publish their reports, together with Ministerial correspondence relating to the proposals, on their websites (www.parliament.uk). Home Office Ministers regularly give oral evidence to the Scrutiny Committees of both Houses.

  We strongly supported the measures agreed at the Seville European Council to make the Council more open when in legislating mode. We remain committed to increasing transparency. The Future of European Convention is also looking at ways to make the EU more open, including through proposals for the Council to meet in public when it is discussing a legislative proposal.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken in the last year was to deal with an application to his Department for travel documents. [108213]

  Beverley Hughes
  The average time in April 2002 was 68 days. This has decreased to 20 days in March 2003.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what appeal rights will exist for a person granted humanitarian protection if they are refused all leave to remain in the UK when their case is reviewed at the end of the period of humanitarian protection. [108216]
  386W
  Beverley Hughes
  Providing the application for further leave is made before expiry of the current leave, an outright refusal is an immigration decision within the terms of section 82(2)(d) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and accordingly, attracts a suspensive right of appeal under section 82(1).

  A person who fails to leave the United Kingdom voluntarily after this process, or who applied out of time for further humanitarian protection leave and was refused, is an overstayer. A decision to remove an overstayer is an immigration decision under section 82(2)(g), and again, attracts a right of appeal under section 82(1). This appeal is suspensive if an asylum or human rights claim has been made in the United Kingdom.

  In either case, all the grounds listed in section 84(1) of the Act may be cited in the appeal, in particular, that removal would breach the appellant's rights under the Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Act.

  People Trafficking
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of women who have been trafficked for sexual exploitation have returned to their home countries in the last three years. [108052]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Act 2002 created a new offence of trafficking for the purpose of controlling someone through prostitution, the relevant sections of which came into force on 10 February 2003. Given that the powers came into effect very recently there is no information yet held centrally about numbers of victims of this crime.

  This information could only be obtained by examining the individual case files of every person removed under Immigration Act powers over the period in question. A voluntary returns scheme that will help reintegrate victims in their country of origin is currently under development and will be implemented later this year.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of the Police Complaints Authority in relation to non-territorial police forces. [107137]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Police Complaints Authority (PCA) can form an agreement with non-territorial police forces by virtue of section 78 of the Police Act 1996. The PCA has such agreements with six non-territorial forces. Where no such agreement exists between a police force and the PCA, the Secretary of State can direct that one be reached. The PCA can involve itself in any investigation into a complaint or conduct matter that has been referred to the PCA by a territorial force.

  Section 78 of the Police Act will be repealed next year, and will be replaced by sections 25 and 26 of the Police Reform Act 2002.

  Refugees
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason he has suspended operation of the 1959 Council of Europe Agreement on the Abolition of Visas for Refugees. [108214]

  Beverley Hughes
  Intelligence gathered by the Immigration Service shows that significant numbers of people who had been accepted as refugees elsewhere were coming to the UK and making asylum applications in false identities. We considered that suspending the UK's operation of the 1959 Council of Europe Agreement, which allowed refugees settled in certain countries to visit the UK without a visa, was a necessary step to tackle this abuse.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary database
  David Winnick
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what progress has been made in providing access for(a) hon. Members and (b) the general public to a comprehensive list of Members who have entered the House since 1979. [108437]

  Michael Fabricant
  The House of Commons Information Office provides a range of basic information about Members of Parliament on the Parliament website http://www.parliament.uk/directories/directories.cfm including lists of Members by party and geographical area and the composition of the House by sex. Work has recently been undertaken to extend the database from which these lists are drawn to provide limited biographical information and details of the parliamentary careers of all those who have been Members of the House of Commons since May 1979. An early version of the database, which is not yet complete, is available to Members on the Parliamentary Intranet at http://hcll.hclibrary.parliament.uk/sections/hcio/members/mpssince 79.htm

  Once work on checking and correcting the entries is complete, the Library will consider how this information can best be published in both electronic and paper formats.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Congo
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the number of people who have died in the conflict in the Congo since 1998; what action her Department is taking to deal with the humanitarian problems in the Congo; and if she will make a statement. [108201]

  Clare Short
  The International Rescue Committee has just published a new report on mortality in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which puts the number of people who have died as a result of the war there since 1998 at between 3.3 million and 4.7 million. It is important to be clear however that the vast majority of these estimated deaths were from disease and malnutrition rather than combat.
  388W
  We welcome this report and hope that it will not be misrepresented. One of the conclusions is that the general rate of mortality and in particular the rate of death from violence in the east of the DRC has decreased dramatically (by 90 per cent.) over the past year.

  The report's recommendations are welcome and are in line with Government efforts working with the UN and the South Africans to get the new Congolese Transitional Government installed in Kinshasa and for all foreign troops to withdraw as agreed in the Lusaka Peace Accord. Only Uganda has not honoured this commitment to withdraw fully. It is imperative that neighbouring states and groups in Kinshasa cease to provide funding and arms to factions in eastern Congo which are causing such suffering to the people of the region.

  DFID is providing substantial help to efforts directed at reducing the suffering of civilians with urgent humanitarian needs in Congo. Last financial year DFID provided over £11.5 million through the UN agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross in response to their emergency appeals and through international NGOs in the following areas: health, nutrition, refugees.

  The UK continues to play a major part in the international effort to bring this conflict to an end so that the long-suffering people of Congo, Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda can look forward to a future of peace, stability and development.

  Humanitarian Crises
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what money she has set aside from her Department's 2003–04 budget for the humanitarian crisis in(a) Southern Africa, (b) Ethiopia and (c) Afghanistan. [108019]

  Clare Short
  The current position is as follows:

  (a) Southern Africa: DFID's 2003–04 programme budget for countries in Central and Southern Africa is £179 million. It has not yet been determined what proportion will be allocated for humanitarian assistance.

  (b) Ethiopia: £19 million has been allocated to Ethiopia for 2003–04, of which just under half has been earmarked for humanitarian assistance. However, we continue to closely monitor the situation in Ethiopia and additional funds will be made available if necessary.

  (c) Afghanistan: My Department is committed to provide at least £40 million official development assistance to Afghanistan in 2003–04. We do not budget separately for humanitarian and development assistance to Afghanistan.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans are in place to ensure early access for UN agencies and international aid agencies into Basra. [107940]
  389W
  Clare Short
  The International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) are already operating in Basra.

  Most humanitarian agencies require a permissive security environment before they can operate in Iraq. The Office of the UN Security Co-ordinator (UNSECOORD) provides security advice to the UN humanitarian agencies. Security updates are also being provided through the Humanitarian Operations Centre in Kuwait. NGOs are being issued passes to cross the Kuwait/Iraq border by the Humanitarian Operations Centre in Kuwait. Once the situation allows, NGOs will need to undertake their own security assessments before engaging.

  The military are discharging their humanitarian obligations under the Geneva and Hague conventions in order to provide relief in the interim in the territory they occupy. The military fully appreciates the need to hand over to humanitarian agencies as soon as the situation allows.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Treasury on reimbursement of sums drawn from DFID's contingency reserve for Iraq this year. [107941]

  Clare Short
  I have allocated £75 million of DFID's contingency reserve to humanitarian assistance in Iraq. On 27 March the Chancellor of the Exchequer allocated £120 million from HM Treasury's central reserve to DFID for its work in Iraq and set aside an extra £60 million on 9 April for DFID to apply to draw on if it is needed.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what information her Department has received regarding an outbreak of diarrhoea in Basra. [108039]

  Clare Short
  My Department is not aware of an outbreak of diarrhoea in Basra. We are aware of a report on 4 April from a health worker in nearby Urn Kail of increased incidences of diarrhoea.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with Stevedoring USA on the running of the port Umm Qasr. [108040]

  Clare Short
  My Department has had no discussions with Stevedoring Services of America.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the World Food Programme regarding the mass distribution of food in Northern Iraq. [108041]

  Clare Short
  The World Food Programme (WFP) reports that food stocks have been diminishing in northern Iraq but has recently 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. They intend to use these stocks to replenish the Oil for Food Programme distribution system, which has to a greater or lesser extent remained operational in Northern Iraq.
  390W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with international aid agencies to undertake urgent humanitarian relief work in Northern Iraq. [108042]

  Clare Short
  My Department has regular discussions with international aid agencies and NGOs on the humanitarian situation in northern Iraq.

  Within the last week, we have received the following reports of humanitarian assistance being provided within northern Iraq. The World Food Programme have been able to deliver 850 tonnes of wheat flour to northern Iraq from Turkey, which is the first part of an initial 6000 metric tonne consignment expected to be delivered in the coming days. Twelve further UNICEF trucks are also en route to the north. The World Health Organisation is supporting local health providers to assess disease outbreaks. The Mines Action Group (MAG) is undertaking mine clearance. Save the Children Fund UK are providing food and non-food items to internally displaced people sites. HelpAge international is continuing to assist vulnerable, elderly populations.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment her Department has made of the situation of the poorest families in Northern Iraq. [108043]

  Clare Short
  Reports from UN agencies indicate that a total of approx 260,000 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. The World Food Programme (WFP) reports that food stocks have been diminishing in northern Iraq.

  Detailed needs assessments will be carried out once there is a permissive security environment.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many tonnes of food have been imported into Iraq via Umm Qasr. [108044]

  Clare Short
  The Royal Navy ships the Sir Galahad and the Sir Percivale have delivered some 600 tonnes of humanitarian aid into Umm Qasr, and UK forces are working to ensure that the port can be opened to commercial shipping as soon as possible. This will allow merchant ships carrying Oil for Food Programme stores and other supplies to enter the port.

  In addition, NGOs working from Kuwait are transporting large quantities of aid overland to Umm Qasr, for onward distribution in southern Iraq.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which aid agencies have refused to accept funding for their work in Iraq. [108050]

  Clare Short
  The British Overseas Aid Group (BOAG) has announced that Oxfam, Christian Aid, Action Aid and Cafod will not accept funds from the UK government for their work in Iraq.
  391W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the operation of the Oil for Food programme. [107939]

  Clare Short
  On 28 March the UN Security Council unanimously approved resolution 1472 giving the Secretary General authority to adapt the Oil for Food Programme (OFF) to changed circumstances so that it could continue to operate. While the UN, Red Cross and NGOs can provide assistance to cover a short gap in the OFF, with 16 million Iraqis totally dependant on the Programme and most families partially dependent, it is essential that the OFF fully resumes as soon as possible. The World Food Programme (WFP) concluded contracts last week to buy a further 400,000 metric tonnes of food aid for Iraq, which they intend to use to replenish the OFF distribution system. But they will only reach people if we can keep the distribution system in place. This means helping Iraqis keep 55,000 separate outlets across the country operating. The WFP is taking a lead in monitoring and supporting the distribution network.

  Street Children (Central and Southern America)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of St ate for International Development what plans she has to increase funding to organisations supporting street children in Central and South America; and if she will make a statement. [108444]

  Clare Short
  My Department will continue to provide support to street children in Central and South America through our contribution to reducing poverty generally and through more direct support for organisations working with street children. Examples of the latter include our support for European Commission project covering E1 Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Guatemala, which aims to improve the legal environment for children in those countries, and to strengthen local law enforcement agencies to combat trafficking and commercial exploitation of children. We have also been supporting a number of projects managed by Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) including equipment for homes for street children in Guatemala, and education for street children in Ecuador.

  We believe that the most effective way of helping street children is by tackling the conditions of poverty, deprivation and social exclusion which leads to their situation. We are working in partnership with the international development community and with Governments to reduce poverty and provide access for all to primary health care, education and social protection services.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the government of Guatemala regarding street children. [108047]

  Clare Short
  The British Ambassador to Guatemala frequently discusses issues regarding street children with the Government there. My colleagues in the Foreign Office have also raised this issue during their visits to Guatemala.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [107606]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) are committed, subject to operational needs, to meeting requests from staff to adopt alternative working patterns, including reduced hours. Under our flexible working hours system, the flexible working day is between 7:00 and 19:00. The core hours are 10:00 to 12:00 and 14:00 to 15:30. A minimum half-hour break must be taken between 12:00 and 14:00. Staff can build up extra hours up to a maximum of two working days, and work with a similar deficit of two working days, within any four-week accounting period. Staff need their line manager's approval before they can take flexi-leave in lieu of extra hours worked.

  The Department has no agencies or sponsored public bodies with employees to whom the question applies.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Pension Poverty
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for Women what discussions she has had with other departments concerning pension poverty amongst women; and if she will make a statement. [106410]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 25 March 2002,Official Report, columns 617–18W, about the way in which my Department is working with DWP on this issue, both at ministerial and official level.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that women are not disadvantaged regarding pension provision and enjoy a decent income in retirement. We have already introduced a range of measures including stakeholder pensions, minimum income guarantee and state second pension to help with this. From October 2003, the new pension credit will benefit lower income pensioners further still. Two-thirds of people receiving pension credit will be women, half of whom will be aged 80 or over.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reasons underlie the policy set out in the provisions of draft Orders under the Export Control Act 2002 that lack of criminal intent is not an acceptable defence in cases of strict liability offences involving the supply or attempted supply of goods or technology that might be used in the production of weapons of mass destruction; and for what reasons no equivalent provisions are included relating to the supply of information which might be used in the production of weapons of mass destruction. [106081]
  393W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government believe that in view of the seriousness of offences relating to the supply of goods, technology or technical assistance which the provider knows or has been informed are for use in connection with weapons of mass destruction, the person (or legal entity) concerned should be liable to prosecution whether or not there was a deliberate intent to evade the legislation.

  The draft Export of Goods, Transfer of Technology, and Provision of Technical Assistance (Control) Order does provide for strict liability offences in relation to the supply of information which is or may be intended for use in connection with the production of weapons of mass destruction. The Order makes provision for strict liability offences in respect of the electronic transfer of technology, the transfer by non-electronic means (including oral communication) and the provision of technical assistance in connection with a weapons of mass destruction programme.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the expenditure of her Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [106296]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department's expenditure on newspapers, magazines and periodicals for 2002/03 is in the order of £536,732. These figures are provisional and subject to final audit.

  This includes expenditure on national daily and Sunday newspapers, regional papers, mass circulation magazines and journals, and academic periodicals. It also includes expenditure on annual publications, in particular reference works that would not normally be considered as periodicals. It is not possible to exclude such annual publications, except at disproportionate cost.

  National Security
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what statutory powers the Government have to take action against companies or individuals threatening national security by releasing information about military technology and software on the internet. [106101]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I understand that this is covered by the Official Secrets Act 1989 and other legislation introduced by other Government Departments.

  Post Office Card
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to promote the use of the Post Office card; and whether it is giving bank and building society accounts preference over the card method of payment. [108321]

  Mr. Timms
  The Post Office card account is one of a range of accounts that people can use to receive benefit payments into, and which will enable people who wish to do so to be able to collect their benefits in cash at post offices. Our aim is that people should be able to choose the option that suits them best. Information about all the options is being supplied to benefit, pension and tax 394W
  credit customers by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Inland Revenue. Post Office Ltd. is also making its own information material available to customers.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals she has for facilitating the use of the Post Office card by(a) disabled beneficiaries and (b) users and beneficiaries acting through home helps or social workers. [108325]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government and the Post Office are working to provide a high quality range of services for all our customers, including those who wish to use the Post Office card account. As the service provider it is the responsibility for Post Office Ltd to ensure the accessibility of the Post Office card account.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the overseas companies in which the Royal Mail has investments; when each investment was made; what the amount of each investment was; and what the financial performance of each has been since it was made. [107564]

  Mr. Timms
  Royal Mail's overseas investments are a matter that falls within the day-to-day responsibility of Royal Mail and I have therefore asked the Chairman to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Sustainable Energy
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the additional capital grant funding for sustainable energy technologies announced in the 2002 Comprehensive Spending Review and the 2003 Energy White Paper is intended for the(a) offshore wind, (b) biomass and (c) solar PV grant programmes. [106225]

  Mr. Wilson
  The allocation of this money between the various renewable technologies has not yet been decided.

  Transco
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when Transco refused to comply with the HSE and statutory regulation to reassess its engineers, engaged in safety work in domestic premises, to the Approved Competency Standard qualification; [91405]

  (2) on what basis the industry the HSE issued an exemption notice to Transco from the requirement to reassess its engineers qualifications to the approved competency standard; [91404]

  (3) for what reasons an enforcement notice was not served upon Transco by (a) the HSE, (b) Ofgem and (c) the Secretary of State when Transco refused to fulfill its statutory obligation to reassess its engineers qualification to the Approved Competency Standard. [91402]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have been informed by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) that there is no substance to the suggestion that Transco refused to comply with

  395W
  requirements to reassess its engineers. Transco chose rather to take a new route through a national vocational qualification being developed by the appropriate national training organisation, the gas and water industries national training organisation, to align with regard to gas safety requirements, with the nationally accredited certification scheme for individual gas fitting operatives (ACS)

  In March 1997, Transco was registered with CORGI and all its emergency service operatives were deemed to hold valid certification under the Health and Safety Commission's Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) scheme, the sole means of demonstrating safety competence then in force. As this certification was valid for five years, no action could have been taken against Transco up to March 2002.

  If Transco were to breach legal requirements in this area, there is a range of enforcement action available to HSE under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, ranging from the provision of advice to the serving of an enforcement notice and, ultimately, prosecution.

  Websites
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [107632]

  Ms Hewitt
  For expenditure on and visitors to the Department's main website, I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 393W, and 24 March 2003 Official Report, column 27W. Information on other departmental and NDPB websites is not held centrally and could only be produced at disproportionate cost.

TRANSPORT

  European Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress with achieving transparency in respect of the European working groups for which his Department is responsible. [105742]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have long been committed to greater openness in the EU Institutions. This was a key theme of the UK Presidencies in 1992 and 1998. Making it easier to gain access to non-sensitive documents is crucial to this. The Government welcomed Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. As a result, more documents are released to the public, while genuinely sensitive documents are given the protection they need.

  Accountability and transparency of Council business to Parliament are ensured by the scrutiny process, to which the Government are also firmly committed.
  396W
  We strongly supported the measures agreed at the Seville European Council to make the Council more open when in legislating mode. We remain committed to increasing transparency. The Future of Europe Convention is also looking at ways to make the EU more open.

  Rolling Stock
  Mr. David Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on plans to improve rolling stock in the Great Western and Wessex areas. [107851]

  Mr. Spellar
  First Great Western (FGW) is progressively introducing Class 180 Adelante trains to their services. In May, they will be extended onto the route between London and Cheltenham. The Strategic Rail Authority intends to investigate options for replacement or refurbishment of the 53 high speed train sets currently operated by FGW. Wessex Trains' Class 158 fleet is being increased to operate on the Stroud Valley shuttle services and the new Bristol-Worcester service from September 2003.

  Wessex Trains are also refurbishing their Class 150 fleet to improve passenger comfort.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the sunset clauses included in legislation from his Department since 1997. [106945]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since the Department for Transport was formed on 29 May 2002 no primary legislation for which it has been responsible has included a sunset clause. No transport legislation since 1997 for which a predecessor Department was responsible has included such a clause.

  Train Franchises
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current franchise negotiations, with particular reference to the(a) Great Anglian and (b) Great Western areas. [107850]

  Mr. Jamieson
  On 1 April, the Strategic Rail Authority announced that three parties had qualified as bidders for the Great Anglia franchise: Arriva plc; GB Railways plc; and National Express Group plc. The new franchise will incorporate existing Anglia Railways, Great Eastern and West Anglia rail services after the end of current franchises in 2004.

  The Greater Western franchise will commence in 2006, combining the services currently operated by First Great Western, Wessex Trains and Thames Trains. The Strategic Rail Authority intends to ask FirstGroup and Go-Ahead for proposals to run the Thames Trains franchise in the interim period 2004–06.

  Transport Funding (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much funding has been awarded to projects affecting the Buckingham constituency from the(a) rural transport partnership, (b) transport grant scheme, (c) rural bus challenge fund, (d) rural

  397W
  transport development fund, (e) rural bus subsidy grant and (f) urban bus challenge fund in each year since their inception; and what the nature of the project and level of funding was in each case. [108516]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 594–96W.

  Details of awards made within the county of Buckinghamshire, but not included in that reply are given in the following table. Records are not kept of awards by individual parliamentary constituencies.

  Since April 2001 the Government has provided £191,457 of grant funding to Buckinghamshire. The schemes are listed below:

  (a) Rural Transport Partnership

  Alternative Transport guide—£10,420 Voluntary car schemes—£12,034 Dial-a-ride services—£8,762 Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes (RTP)—£86,612 Rural Dial-a-ride—£11,040 Walkways and cycleways—£33,321 Aylesbury Vale Greenways research—£18,018 Explore the Chilterns—£11,250

  Since April 2001 the Government has provided £23,121 of funding to Buckinghamshire. The schemes are listed below:

  (b) Parish Transport Grant Scheme

  Four villages transport—£21,840 Tax Bus Service— £1,281

  (c) Rural Bus Challenge Fund

  2001—02—No award to Buckinghamshire in 2001 2002—03—£350,000 for services in the Wycombe area

  (d) Rural Transport Development Fund

  The Rural Transport Development Fund (RTDF) scheme was merged with the Rural Transport Partnership fund in April 2001

  (e) Rural Bus Subsidy Grant1

  2002–03—£837,352

  (f)Urban Bus Challenge Fund

  No awards have been made in Buckinghamshire under the Urban Bus Challenge fund

  1 RBSG is primarily for the support of new or enhanced rural bus services. In 2001–02 Buckinghamshire provided 46 services with the aid of the grant.

TREASURY

  Iraq
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what communications there have been with the US Administration about the seizure of assets of Iraqis linked to Saddam Hussein. [107817]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are in close and regular contact with the US authorities regarding assets of the Iraqi regime.

  Israel
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the written ministerial statement by the Economic Secretary on 3 April on duty on goods imported into the European Union which originate from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories, whether the standard Israeli reply referred to, sent in response to verification requests for the origin of goods, will be taken as adequate reason to suspect that goods 398W
  may have originated in Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories and for the customs debt to be applied. [108024]

  John Healey
  As my statement on 3 April 2003,Official Report, column 68WS, made clear, the standard Israeli reply is insufficient to determine the real origin of the goods, or to dispel the reasonable doubt as to their entitlement to preferential duty rates under the EU/Israel Association Agreement. Preference is therefore being refused and HM Customs and Excise have now begun issuing duty demands.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rates of customs duty applied to non-EU countries which import goods to the UK, with particular reference to the duty on goods imported from Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. [108034]

  John Healey
  A comprehensive list of customs duty rates applied to all goods imported to the UK is published in HM Customs and Excise Tariff, a copy of which is being laid in the Library of the House. Preferential duty rates on goods imported from the State of Israel are specified in the EU/Israel Association Agreement. As my written ministerial statement of 3 April 2003,Official Report, column 68WS, made clear, goods produced in the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are not eligible for preferential duty rates under this agreement.

  The average full duty rate for goods under verification, where Customs have reasonable doubt as to their eligibility for preferential duty rates under the EU/Israel Association agreement, is 4.1 per cent.

  Details of duty rates applied to particular goods under verification cannot be disclosed, as this could lead to the identification of individual importers; Exemption 13 (third party's commercial confidences) of Open Government Code applies.

  Public Liability Insurance
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department is doing to increase competition within the insurance industry in the provision of public liability insurance. [108292]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Office of Fair Trading is currently conducting a fact-finding study into the UK liability insurance market.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the annual report of his Department will be published. [107883]

  Mr. Boateng
  The spring 2003 departmental reports are to be published between 28 April and 16 May 2003. We will publish our departmental report within this window.

  Employment Relations Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff in his Department have taken time off from work in order to attend to domestic incidents as provided for by the Employment Relations Act 1999. [108341]
  399W
  Ruth Kelly
  In the Treasury, staff are allowed up to 10 days paid special leave in any one annual leave year for reasons of grave concern to the member of staff that can only be dealt with them in person e.g. the care of a sick dependant or a domestic emergency. Central records are not kept on the amounts of special leave taken in these circumstances.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of working age people in the Buckingham constituency were in employment between March 2001 and February 2002. [108488]

  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. Bercow, dated 10 April 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about employment in the Buckingham constituency. (108488)
  The working age employment rate in the Buckingham constituency for the 12-month period ending February 2002 is 81.5 per cent. This estimate is from the Labour Force Survey (LFS).

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff in his Department have used their leave entitlement under the Parental Leave Directive since it came into force. [108423]

  Ruth Kelly
  Treasury staff are eligible for unpaid parental leave under the Parental Leave Directive. Central records are not kept on the amounts of unpaid parental leave taken.

  Press Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed in his Department's Press Office; and how many were employed on 2 May 1997. [108403]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury currently has seven press officers in addition to the Head of Communications, and on 2 May 1997, the number was five in addition to the Head of Communications.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the expected saving to public funds from the private finance initiative schemes due to become operational in 2003. [105718]

  Mr. Boateng
  PFI extends the scope for cost savings in a variety of ways. For example, by putting substantial levels of private sector capital at risk and requiring companies involved to deliver clear levels of service at a fixed price over the long term, PFI ties payment more 400W
  closely to performance; safeguards the quality of the service over the life of the contract and better ensures that public assets are delivered on time and to budget.

  For example, the National Audit Office's recent report, 'PFI: Construction Performance' confirmed that PFI has established an exceptional record in terms of delivery times and price certainty for the public sector. This record represents significant savings to public funds.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many PFI contracts his Department or its agencies(a) have with and (b) are being tendered for by (i) Amey plc and (ii) consortia involving Amey plc; what the total value is of those contracts; what the average length is of the contracts or proposed contracts; and what assessment his Department has made of the financial position of Amey plc and the implications for his Department. [108331]

  Ruth Kelly
  None of the Chancellor's Departments have existing PFI contracts or tenders involving Amey Plc.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals have been seconded to his Department from(a) the private sector, (b) NGOs and (c) other, in each case listing (i) from which organisation and (ii) dates of secondments, in each year since 1997–98. [108085]

  Ruth Kelly
  The following information sets out the secondments into HM Treasury from 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2003:

  Secondments into HM Treasury—1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  Range

  Location

  Organisation

  Start date

  Number of people

  D

  UK

  AA

  27 March 1997

  1

  D

  UK

  LGMB

  1 April 1997

  1

  Banks of

  D

  UK

  England

  13 April 1997

  1

  D

  UK

  Other

  5 January 1998

  1

  Total Range D

  E

  UK

  QBM Ltd.

  1 January 1998

  1

  E

  UK

  BZW

  21 April 1997

  1

  Coopers

  E

  UK

  Lybrand

  21 July 1997

  1

  Pannell Kerr

  22 September

  E

  UK

  Foster

  1997

  1

  Ernst and

  E

  UK

  Young

  5 January 1998

  1

  New Zealand

  E

  UK

  Treasury

  7 April 1997

  1

  E

  UK

  Tresor

  19 May 1997

  1

  New Zealand

  E

  UK

  Reserve Bank

  7 August 1997

  1

  Australian

  E

  UK

  Treasury

  8 December 1997

  1

  Total Range E

  9

  401W

  Secondments into HM Treasury—1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  Range

  Location

  Organisation

  Start date

  Number of people

  D

  UKM

  AA

  27 April 1998

  1

  UK

  Irish Finance

  28 September

  D

  1998

  1

  UK

  Irish Finance

  4 November

  D

  1998

  1

  D

  UK

  Army

  4 January 1999

  1

  Total Range D

  4

  UK

  Dilston

  —

  E

  Management

  —

  E

  UK

  Midland Bank

  14 April 1998

  1

  UK

  Coopers

  5 May 1998

  E

  Lybrand

  1

  UK

  AA

  1 September

  E

  1998

  1

  E

  UK

  Deloitte Touch

  4 January 1999

  1

  UK

  Ernst and

  4 January 1999

  E

  Young

  1

  UK

  Slaughter and

  21 January 1999

  E

  May

  1

  Europe

  European

  1 December 1998

  E

  Commission

  1

  UK

  Audit

  5 May 1998

  E

  Commission

  1

  UK

  Audit

  29 June 1998

  E

  Commission

  1

  E

  UK

  Manpower

  10 August 1998

  1

  UK

  Save the

  1 September

  E

  Children

  1998

  1

  UK

  NEW Zealand

  10 November

  E

  Treasury

  1998

  1

  UK

  New Zealand

  10 January 1999

  E

  Res. Bank

  1

  UK

  New Zealand

  6 May 1998

  E

  Treasury

  1

  Total Range E

  14

  Secondments into HM Treasury—1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  Range

  Location

  Organisation

  Start date

  Number of people

  D

  UK

  FSA

  15 November

  1999

  1

  D

  UK

  Slaughter and

  13 December

  May

  1999

  1

  D

  Japan

  Japanese

  2 August 1999

  Ministry of

  Finance

  1

  D

  UK

  London

  10 January 2000

  borough of

  Lambeth

  1

  Total Range D

  4

  E

  UK

  Price

  6 September

  Waterhouse

  1999

  1

  E

  UK

  Brunswick

  19 July 1999

  Public

  1

  E

  UK

  Price

  10 January 2000

  Waterhouse

  1

  E

  UK

  Institute of

  7 February 2000

  Fiscal Studies

  1

  E

  UK

  National Audit

  4 October 1999

  Office

  1

  E

  UK

  Thurrock

  31 August 1999

  district council

  1

  E

  UK

  Housing

  15 November

  Corporation

  1999

  1

  E

  UK

  National Audit

  1 January 2000

  Office

  1

  E

  UK

  National Audit

  10 January 2000

  Office

  3

  Total Range E

  11

  402W

  Secondments into HM Treasury—1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  Range

  Location

  Organisation

  Start date

  Number of people

  D

  UK

  National Audit

  6 August 2001

  Office

  1

  D

  Europe

  Swiss Finance

  29 August 2001

  Ministry

  1

  D

  UK

  Legal Services

  3 December 2001

  Co

  1

  Total Range D

  3

  E

  UK

  Deloitte Touche

  24 September

  2001

  1

  E

  UK

  Institute of

  24 September

  Fiscal Studies

  2001

  1

  E

  UK

  Accenture

  18 February

  2002

  1

  E

  UK

  Bank of

  23 April 2001

  England

  1

  E

  UK

  Tidy Britain

  24 September

  Campaign

  2001

  1

  E

  UK

  Bank of

  10 December

  England

  2001

  1

  E

  UK

  Japanese

  13 July 2001

  Ministry of

  Finance

  1

  E

  UK

  Bank of

  1 September

  England

  2001

  1

  E

  UK

  PUK

  14 January 2002

  1

  E

  UK

  University of

  8 June 2001

  Bristol

  1

  E

  UK

  Oxfam

  3 September

  2001

  1

  E

  UK

  CARE

  28 November

  2001

  1

  Total Range E

  12

  Secondments into HM Treasury—April 2002 to 31 March 2003

  Range

  Location

  Organisation

  Start date

  Number of people

  D

  UK

  FSA

  7 October 2002

  1

  D

  UK

  Women's

  6 March 2003

  Budget

  1

  D

  UK

  FSA

  23 September

  2002

  1

  D

  UK

  Bunk of

  17 February

  England

  2003

  1

  D

  UK

  NCVO

  15 November

  2002

  1

  Total Range D

  5

  E

  UK

  Pannell Ker

  22 July 2002

  Foster

  1

  E

  UK

  Environment

  7 January 2003

  Age

  1

  E

  UK

  LGMB

  24 February

  2003

  1

  E

  UK

  National Audit

  6 January 2003

  Office

  1

  E

  UK

  Other

  23 February

  2003

  1

  E

  UK

  HM Forces

  6 January 2003

  1

  E

  UK

  Cambridge CC

  19 June 2002

  1

  E

  UK

  NCVO

  15 November

  2002

  1

  Total Range E

  8

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants have been seconded from his Department to(a) the private sector, (b) NGOs and (c) other, broken down by (i) grade of civil servants seconded, (ii) location and (iii) dates of secondments, in each year since 1997–98. [108086]
  403W
  Ruth Kelly
  The following information sets out the secondments out of HM Treasury between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  Secondments out of HM Treasury

  Range

  Location

  Organisation

  Start date

  Number of people

  1 April 1997 and 31 March 2003

  D

  EU

  Bank of

  15 September

  England

  1997

  1

  D

  UK

  British Cement

  5 January 1998

  1

  D

  UK

  Securities and

  13 October 1997

  Investments

  1

  D

  UK

  UKBI

  1 August 1997

  1

  D

  UK

  Securities and

  19 May 1997

  Investments

  1

  D

  UK

  Sanetra

  1 December 1997

  (Consultants)

  1

  D

  UK

  NHS

  13 June 1997

  1

  D

  UK

  European

  7 April 1997

  Banking RD

  1

  D

  UK

  Bromley by Bow

  25 September

  CC

  1997

  1

  Total range D

  9

  E

  EU

  EC

  3 November 1997

  1

  E

  EU

  EC

  8 December 1997

  1

  E

  EU

  EC

  16 June 1997

  1

  E

  EU

  German

  12 September

  Ministry of

  1997

  Finance

  1

  Total range E

  4

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  D

  EU

  EC

  14 September

  1998

  1

  D

  UK

  Countryside

  5 May 1998

  Agency

  1

  D

  EU

  EC

  1 April 1998

  1

  D

  EU

  EC

  21 September

  1998

  1

  D

  EU

  EC

  14 September

  1998

  1

  Total range D

  5

  E

  UK

  Youth Justice

  22 February 1999

  Board

  1

  E

  EU

  Irish Finance

  3 August 1998

  Ministry

  1

  E

  EU

  EC

  10 October 1998

  1

  Total range E

  3

  F

  UK

  Youth Justice

  11 December 1998

  Board

  1

  F

  UK

  Westminster and

  11 November

  Industry

  1998

  1

  F

  UK

  International

  4 January 1999

  Commission

  1

  Total range F

  3

  G

  NEU

  IMF

  1 August 1998

  1

  Total range G

  1

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  D

  UK

  CML

  21 February 2000

  1

  D

  UK

  SM Consultants

  21 February 2000

  1

  D

  UK

  NHS

  1 April 2000

  1

  D

  Japan

  Japanese

  2 August 1999

  Ministry of

  Finance

  1

  D

  EU

  EC

  6 September 1999

  1

  D

  EU

  EC

  1 May 1999

  1

  Total range D

  6

  E

  EU

  Strategic

  2 August 1999

  Planning

  Services

  1

  E

  UK

  HSBC

  27 September

  1999

  1

  E

  UK

  Granada Media

  14 February 2000

  1

  E

  EU

  Ministry of

  3 May 1999

  Finance

  (Sweden)

  1

  E

  EU

  EC

  1 January 2000

  1

  404W

  Secondments out of HM Treasury

  Range

  Location

  Organisation

  Start date

  Number of people

  E

  UK

  London

  6 April 1999

  Borough of

  Camden

  1

  E

  EU

  EC

  1 December 1999

  1

  E

  UK

  London

  14 July 1999

  Borough

  Lewisham

  1

  E

  EU

  German

  31 March 2000

  Chancellory

  1

  E

  UK

  Kent County

  12 July 1999

  Council

  1

  E

  EU

  EC

  1 June 1999

  1

  E

  UK

  Azernjan

  5 September 1999

  Ministry of

  Finance

  1

  Total range E

  12

  G

  UK

  Capital RAS

  13 September

  (Consultants)

  1999

  1

  G

  UK

  Youth Justice

  13 August 1999

  Board

  1

  Total range G

  2

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  D

  UK

  Institute of

  30 May 2000

  Fiscal Studies

  1

  D

  EU

  United Nations

  17 April 2000

  Eco. Comm.

  1

  D

  EU

  IMF

  18 August 2000

  1

  D

  EU

  EC

  18 September

  2000

  1

  Total range D

  4

  E

  UK

  3I'S

  1 August 2000

  1

  E

  UK

  Audit

  21 August 2000

  Commission

  1

  E

  EU

  EC

  1 February 2001

  1

  E

  Japan

  Japanese

  10 July 2000

  Ministry of

  Finance

  1

  E

  UK

  Stats

  1 July 2000

  Commission

  1

  E

  UK

  Stats

  3 January 2001

  Commission

  1

  Total range E

  6

  F

  UK

  Charities

  15 January 2001

  Commission

  1

  Total range F

  1

  1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003

  D

  UK

  Charity

  2 September 2002

  1

  D

  Japan

  Japanese

  17 September

  Ministry of

  2002

  Finance

  1

  D

  EU

  EC

  9 September 2002

  1

  D

  EU

  EC

  3 March 2002

  1

  D

  EU

  EC

  17 February 2003

  2

  Total range D

  6

  E

  EU

  European

  21 October 2002

  Banking

  Federation

  1

  E

  UK

  Gartmore

  9 September 2002

  Investments

  1

  E

  UK

  Accenture

  31 March 2002

  1

  E

  UK

  CRE

  1 February 2003

  1

  E

  UK

  Tesco

  17 June 2002

  1

  E

  EU

  French Finance

  3 March 2003

  Ministry

  1

  E

  UK

  RBS

  31 March 2003

  1

  E

  EU

  EC

  1 April 2002

  1

  E

  UK

  3I'S

  2 December 2002

  1

  Total range E

  9

  F

  EU

  EC

  1 September 2002

  1

  Total range F

  1

  Self-Employment
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people excluding the self-employed received income from employment(a) between £4,616 and £30,420 and (b) above £30,420 in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03. [108590]

  (2) how many people received income from self-employment (a) between £4,616 and £30,420 and (b) above £30,420 in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03. [108592]

  Mr. Boateng
  Estimates for the number of taxpayers receiving income from employment and self-employment are given in the table.

  Number in thousands

  Number of taxpayers

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Income from employment

  £4,616 to £30,420

  17,30001

  17,1001

  £30,420+

  3,2001

  3,5001

  Income from self-employment

  £4,616 to £30,420

  2,1002

  2,2002

  £30,420+

  500b

  50022

  1 Excludes taxpayers who are also self-employed

  b Includes taxpayers who are also receiving income from employment

  These estimates are based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the Budget 2003.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people excluding the self-employed he estimates will receive income from employment(a) between £4,616 and £30,940 and (b) above £30,940 in (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [108591]

  (2) how many people he estimates will receive income from self-employment (a) between £4,616 and £30,940 and (b) above £30,940 in (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [108593]

  Mr. Boateng
  Estimates for the number of taxpayers receiving income from employment and self-employment are given in the table.

  Number in thousands

  Number of taxpayers

  2003–04

  2004–05

  Income from employment

  £4,616 to £30,940

  17,4001

  17,2001

  £30,940+

  3,7001

  4,1001

  Income from self-employment

  £4,616 to £30,940

  2,3002

  2,3002

  £30,940+

  500b

  6002

  1 Excludes taxpayers who are also self-employed

  2 Includes taxpayers who are also receiving income from employment

  These estimates are based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the Budget 2003.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Leeds West he estimates are eligible for(a) the child tax credit and (b) the working tax credit; and how many people he estimates will take up these credits in 2003–04. [107973]
  406W
  Mr. Boateng
  It is estimated that(a) 540,000 families are expected to receive the Child Tax Credit and (b) 150,000 families are expected to receive the Working Tax Credit in the Yorkshire and the Humber region in 2003–04.

  Tax
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were(a) starting rate, (b) basic rate and (c) higher rate tax payers in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03; and how many he estimates will be in each category in (A) 2003–04 and (B) 2004–05 based on 2002–03 bandings. [108589]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is given in the table.

  Number of taxpayers (thousands)

  Starting rate

  Basic rate

  Higher rate

  2001–02

  3,040

  22,070

  2,940

  2002–03

  3,080

  22,460

  3,050

  Using 2002–03 starting rate band and basic rate limit

  2003–04

  3,420

  23,050

  3,360

  2004–05

  3,240

  23,530

  3,850

  These estimates are based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the Budget 2003.

  Terrorism (Insurance)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on(a) householders and (b) car owners of the exclusions for claims on insurance policies relating to chemical, biological or other terrorist attack; and if he will make a statement; [107488]

  (2) what steps he intends to take to ensure that (a) householders, (b) car owners and (c) holidaymakers can obtain cover for insurance claims arising from chemical, biological or terrorist attacks; [107490]

  (3) what representations he has received from (a) householders and (b) car owners relating to the exclusions on the grounds of chemical, biological or other terrorist attacks from their insurance cover. [107489]

  Ruth Kelly
  We are aware of concerns about the availability of insurance against terrorist risks. We are looking carefully at the issues involved.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much independently certified timber is being used in the refurbishment of the Treasury; and what proportion of the total timber purchased for this refurbishment this represents; [108148]

  (2) how much timber is being used for the current refurbishment at the Treasury and for what purposes; and which companies are supplying the timber for refurbishment. [108149]
  407W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information is not available, as the project has not yet reached the stage of identifying the extent of the timber requirements. I will write to my hon. Friend with this information as soon as it is made available. However, we shall be seeking to use as much existing timber where possible and thereafter, procured from sustainable development sources carrying the PCS trademark or other equivalent internationally recognised independent certification system for good forest management.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 24 March 2003,Official Report, column 64W, on sustainable timber products, what general criteria are used to select companies that have tendered for inclusion in OGC buying solutions framework arrangements; what environmental criteria are taken into account in this process; and if he will place a copy of the most recent advertisement that appeared in the Official Journal of the European Communities in the Library. [108178]

  Mr. Boateng
  OGC buying solutions framework agreements are awarded following a competitive tender process in full accordance with EC rules. The main criterion for award is the acceptance of the most economically advantageous offer (i.e. value for money). The sub criteria include adherence to product specification, price, service delivery capability and whole life costs. Qualitative and whole life costs criteria will include relevant environmental factors such as energy savings, recyclability and disposal costs. As requested, a copy of the most recent relevant advertisement in the Official Journal of the European Communities has been provided.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Gas Safety
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will amend the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations (GSMR) 1996 to include(a) mandatory competence of employees of gas conveyors and their sub-contractors in line with the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4, Part B, Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 for operatives working downstream of the emergency control, (b) a duty of publication of the safety case required of gas conveyors and emergency network co-ordinators by paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the GSMR and (c) maintenance of the 12 hour limit for the prevention of gas leaks in paragraphs 7(4) and 7(5) of the GSMR. [102244]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Health and Safety Commission is currently reviewing the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations (GSMR) 1996, and has set up a working group representing industry, consumer, Government and other stakeholders to consider these and other issues. The Commission plans to publish a consultative document later this year. The outcome of this consultation will inform any advice that the Commission may offer to Ministers on amending the Regulations.
  408W
  The Health and Safety Commission also published, on 25 March 2003, a Policy Statement on Permissioning Regimes. The statement sets out the Commission's approach to be followed both when developing new permissioning regimes, including safety case regimes, and when reviewing existing regimes. The statement includes criteria for the disclosure of safety case information to the public. The forthcoming consultation on GSMR will provide an opportunity to seek views on application of these criteria to the publication of GSMR safety case information.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what annual rate of replacement of iron mains was achieved by Transco for the year 2001–02; what annual rate of replacement is predicted by Transco for 2002–03; and what assessment he has made of whether Transco is on course to achieve the annual rate of replacement needed to meet the target required by the HSE's gas mains replacement programme. [102243]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Health and Safety Executive does not hold this information in exactly the form requested1. The information that Transco have provided to HSE is available as follows:

  Transco's mains replacement programme has two elements. The Medium Pressure Ductile Iron Mains replacement programme and the other mains replacement programme.

  Medium Pressure Ductile Iron Mains replacement programme

  1 Jan 01 to 31 Dec 01

  1 Jan 02 to 31 Dec 02

  Budget

  1076.5km

  Actual

  1089km

  1400.8 km

  Other Mains Replacement programme

  1 Jan 01 to 31 March 02

  1 April 02 to 31 March 03

  Budget

  996 km

  1225km

  Revised Forecast2

  1216km

  Actual

  1101 km

  932 km (as at 28 Feb 2003)

  Notes:1 Transco's mains replacement programme originally ran on a calendar year basis. In 2001, this was changed to a financial year i.e. a 15 month period. However, because the improvement notice required the work to be completed by 31 December 2002, Transco continued to provide data on progress with Medium Pressure Ductile Iron Mains (MPDI) replacement on a calendar year basis i.e. January to December.

  2 The forecast for the 02/03 other mains replacement policy was revised downwards because the focus of Transco's work was on the compulsory work being carried out to meet the requirements of the Medium Pressure Ductile Iron Mains Replacement Policy.

  HSE's current assessment is that Transco will meet the revised forecast target for 2002–03. The data for the full year will be available shortly.

  Benefit Overpayments
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much benefit has been overpaid in each of the last three years, broken down by type of benefit; and what the total amount of such overpaid benefit that was recovered was in each year, broken down by type of benefit. [88465]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As part of our strategy to reduce losses from fraud and error and improve the collection of debt, in April 2001 we established the Debt
  409W
  Management organisation within the Department. The key priorities of Debt Management include achieving an increase in overall recoveries and a long-term reduction in debt stocks, and improving the financial control of processes and the overall efficiency of debt organisation through the establishment of specialised Debt Centres.

  The available information is in the tables.

  Debt recorded and input to the Overpayment Recovery System by benefit

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Attendance

  Allowance

  9,773,288.97

  16,267,021.50

  11,955,190.03

  Invalid Care

  Allowance

  11,222,521.23

  11,359,424.18

  8,180,199.74

  Severe

  Disablement

  Allowance

  1,507,316.88

  1,497,590.03

  1,204,289.58

  Disability

  Living

  Allowance

  11,022,462.65

  13,959,427.62

  10,330,301.50

  Mobility

  Allowance

  25,109.21

  45,899.24

  34,652.23

  Disability

  Working

  Allowance

  145,715.50

  49,189.35

  23,843.10

  Industrial

  Injuries Benefit

  233,451.94

  335,067.25

  393,750.38

  Reduced

  Earnings

  Allowance

  275,712.87

  198,052.42

  180,035.53

  Industrial

  Injuries Death

  Benefit

  53,678.91

  64,507.42

  133,907.19

  Child Benefit

  16,362,151.88

  14,619,039.83

  11,926,340.85

  Family Credit

  5,177,369.26

  341,856.44

  90,681.85

  Income Support

  183,084,658.39

  215,916,895.21

  214,192,488.13

  Supplementary

  Benefit

  297,945.80

  339,755.17

  204,939.63

  Pre 88 Housing

  Benefit

  40,132.41

  18,744.95

  14,817.05

  Other1

  355,865.34

  355,540.93

  215,399.38

  Jobseeker's

  Allowance—

  Income Based

  27,716,465.66

  27,227,901.08

  21,908.398.26

  Earnings Top

  Up

  1,513.70

  184.10

  1,172.08

  Retirement

  Pension

  17,387,756.06

  23,749,019.99

  26,250,436.74

  Incapacity

  Benefit

  22,859,269.81

  25,177,744.49

  20,066,059.35

  Unemployment

  Benefit

  117,798.64

  25,349.83

  19,256.76

  Widows Benefit

  3,081,283.20

  3,846,236.41

  3,169,276.07

  Sickness Benefit

  97,354.31

  67,323.16

  31,810.16

  Maternity

  Allowance

  153,548.49

  93,694.93

  37,205.87

  Guardians

  Allowance

  160.00

  2,127.80

  2,842.85

  Invalidity

  Benefit

  942,978.38

  623,498.52

  369,246.77

  Jobseeker's

  Allowance—

  Contributory

  854,384.74

  1,017,568.55

  722,687.74

  Total

  312,789,894.23

  357,198,660.40

  331,659,228.82

  1 'Other' includes cases of obsolete benefits and cases where the overpayment benefit type is not identifiable, for example fraud cases where the debt has not been allocated to benefit.

  410W
  Notes:

  1. Amounts are calculated overpayments not estimated values of loss.

  2. Figures relate primarily to recoverable debt, that is overpayments relating to customer error or fraud. Other debts recorded on the system, for example official error, are not recoverable under benefit legislation but recovery may be considered tinder common law.

  Source:

  Overpayments Recovery System

  Overpayment summary level recoveries 1999–2000 and 2000–01

  £ million

  Financial year

  Value of overpayment recoveries

  1999–2000

  184

  2000–01

  177

  2001–02

  188

  Notes:

  1. Summary level recovery information cannot be broken down by benefit type.

  2. Data are based on recoveries shown on the Overpayments Recovery System and the Overpayment Recovery Computer System.

  3. Recoveries do not necessarily relate to overpayments identified in the same year.

  Source:

  Programme Accounting Computer System and Financial and Management Information System

  Benefits
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many residents of Hendon receive(a) job seekers allowance, (b) incapacity benefit, (c) disabled living allowance and (d) income support; and how many of those receiving income support are lone parents. [108237]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 9 April 2003]: The latest figures available are in the table:

  Benefit recipients in the Hendon constituency

  Benefit

  Number of claimants

  Jobseeker's Allowance1

  2,100

  Incapacity Benefit1

  1,600

  Disability Living Allowance2

  3,100

  Income Support (all claimants)1

  8,100

  Income Support (Lone Parents)1

  2,400

  1 Figures for JSA, IB and IS are as at November 2002.

  2 Figures for DLA are as at August 2002.

  Notes:

  1.The figures given are based on a five per cent. sample therefore subject to sampling variation.

  2. Parliamentary Constituencies are allocated using the relevant ONS postcode directory and are based on May 1997 boundaries.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  4 JSA and IB figures exclude 'nil benefit' cases who claim National Insurance credits only.

  5. Income Support Lone Parent claimants are defined as any live Income Support benefit unit where the claimant is under age 60, with dependents, and not in receipt of a disability premium.

  IB figure will exclude a small number of clerically held cases.

  Source:

  Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2002.

  IB—five per cent. sample of the Benefit computer system.

  DLA—IAD Information Centre five per cent. sample.

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, November 2002.

  Child Support Agency
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) third party debt orders, (b) charging orders, (c) county court judgments, (d) levying of distress actions, (e) committal actions and (f) withdrawal of driving licence orders have been (i) sought and (ii) granted at the instance of the CSA in each year since 1997. [106243]

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

  Letter from Doug Smith to Annabelle Ewing, dated 8 April 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent
  parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply
  from the Chief Executive.
  You ask how many (a) third party debt orders (b) charging orders (c) county court judgements (d) levying of distress actions (e) committal actions and (f) withdrawal of driving licence orders have been (i) sought and (ii) granted at the insistence of the Agency in each year since 1997.
  The Agency does not collect or retain reliable information about the use made of different enforcement mechanisms or their relative effectiveness. This is one reason why, last year, I commissioned an internal review of our enforcement work. One outcome from that has been the establishment of a new enforcement management information package so that this information will be available for the future.
  With that proviso, my best estimate of the use made of different enforcement mechanisms is as follows. You will note that I have not, for each, been able to establish reliable figures for "sought" and "granted".

  Third party debt orders

  Year to 31 March

  Number

  1997

  340

  1998

  370

  1999

  1,150

  2000

  1,400

  2001

  1,500

  2002

  800

  2003

  950

  Charging orders

  Year to 31 March

  Number

  1997

  70

  1998

  60

  1999

  70

  2000

  80

  2001

  250

  2002

  400

  2003

  700

  County court judgments

  Year to 31 March

  Number

  1997

  300

  1998

  700

  1999

  500

  2000

  650

  2001

  600

  2002

  300

  2003

  550

  412W

  Levying of distress actions

  Year to 31 March

  Number

  1997

  800

  1998

  1,000

  1999

  2,000

  2000

  2,300

  2001

  1,600

  2002

  2,100

  2003

  2,400

  Strictly the Agency does not seek either committal or the withdrawal of a driving licence. These are options available to a Magistrates Court. The number of cases we have taken in each year where the Magistrates choose committal are as follows:

  Year to 31 March

  Number

  1997

  0

  1998

  Figures not available

  1999

  33

  2000

  7

  2001

  22

  2002

  5

  2003

  16

  The Magistrates chose to exercise the option of withdrawing a driving licence in two cases in the last year.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many liability orders in Scotland have been(a) sought and (b) granted at the instance of the Child Support Agency in each year since 1997. [106244]

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

  Letter from Doug Smith to Annabelle Ewing, dated 8 April 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask how many liability orders in Scotland have been (a) sought and (b) granted at the insistence of the Child Support Agency in each year since 1997.
  The Agency has not collected or retained information about the use made of different enforcement mechanisms or their relative effectiveness. This is one reason why, last year, I commissioned an internal review of our enforcement work. One outcome from that has been the establishment of a new enforcement management information package so that this type of information will be available for the future.

  With that proviso, my best estimate of the number of liability orders obtained in Scotland is as follows:

  Year to 31 March

  Number

  1998

  260

  1999

  400

  2000

  700

  2001

  470

  2002

  200

  2003

  280

  Clearly there will be a difference between the number "sought" and "granted" but, for the reason explained, I am unable to reliably establish that.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff have been employed by(a) the Department for Work and Pensions or the Department for Social Security and (b) each executive agency in each year since 1997. [102992]

  Maria Eagle
  Information is not available in the format requested prior to June 2001. Such information as is available is given in the table.

  DSS/DWP

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Benefits Agency

  63,718

  —

  —

  Child Support Agency

  9,921

  10,869

  11,209

  Employment Service

  32,198

  —

  —

  Appeals Service

  905

  909

  884

  Jobcentre plus

  —

  83,783

  78,543

  The Pension Service

  —

  9,930

  15,801

  The Department for Work and Pensions

  9,370

  20,002

  20,566

  Total staff

  116,112

  125,493

  127,003

  Notes:

  Numbers are WTE (rounded) and are consistent with Cabinet Office definitions other than the inclusion of staff on paid maternity leave.

  2. Numbers for 2001 and 2002 are point in time as at 30 June each year. Figures for 2003 are point in time as at 28 February 2003, the latest data available.

  3. The increase in Department for Work and Pensions staffing in 2002 and 2003 is due to the inclusion of staff in Disability and Carers Service and Child Benefit Centre, previously counted as part of Benefits Agency

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has to(a) close, (b) reduce the services available from and (c) reduce the opening hours of Job Centre Plus premises open to the public (i) in Hendon and (ii) serving Hendon residents; [108230]

  (2) what consultations his Department has had with (a) trade unions, (b) customers and (c) others on changes to the operations of Job Centre Plus (i) in Hendon and (ii) serving residents of Hendon; with which other bodies or persons consultations were held; what the responses to the consultations were; and if he will make a statement. [108236]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 9 April 2003]: The administration of Job Centre Plus is a matter for the Acting Chief Executive of Job Centre Plus, Clare Dodgson. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Clare Dodgson to Mr. Dismore, dated 10 April 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about future plans for Hendon Jobcentre Plus offices and the level of consultation which has taken place in relation to this. These are issues which fell within my responsibilities as Acting Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Jobcentre Plus Vision incorporates a commitment to continuously improve the quality, accessibility and delivery of services to all working age customers. Already, the Jobcentre Plus
  414W
  Pathfinder offices have begun to demonstrate a very different model of service, which has been widely welcomed by our customers.
  As part of the national roll-out programme for Jobcentre Plus, it was necessary to consider the services provided to our customers within each District. It became clear that we needed to review the existing estate and in some cases rationalise the accommodation in Jobcentre Plus and Social Security Offices. The aim of the review is to enable Jobcentre Plus to deliver a better, more focused and cost effective customer service.
  Within the North London District, the current service provision at the Hendon and Edgware Social Security Offices (SSOs) was reviewed. Various options were considered as part of this process and the favoured option was in providing National Insurance Number interviews at Hendon, and benefit enquiries/payments at Edgware. It was proposed that by centralising the customer services between the two sites, an overall improvement of service would be achieved. There are good transport links by bus between Hendon and Edgware and customers will be able to access services at both locations regardless of where they live.
  The staff affected by the changes to the Hendon and Edgware SSOs have been consulted. The Trade Union and staff directly involved with the proposed changes, were issued with a copy of the proposal on 4 April. Their comments on the proposal are due to be returned by 18 April.
  After considering the feedback, MPs and external organisations will then be formally notified of the proposed changes and comments will be invited. The proposed deadline for comments on the proposal is expected to be 2 May 2003.
  Decisions on the longer term plans for provision of Jobcentre Plus services in Hendon and Edgware will not be taken until nearer the proposed roll-out date, which is anticipated to be in 2005–06. This is when we expect to have the fully integrated model, currently operating in the Pathfinder Districts, to be introduced in the North London District.
  Burnt Oak Jobcentre was part of Brent, Harrow and Hillingdon District and is situated in the HA8 postcode area. Based on the rollout plan for this district for 2002–03, a decision was taken to close this stand-alone Jobcentre, which provided only a limited job broking service. Benefit customers have not been affected. Brent, Harrow and Hillingdon have been putting together these proposals over the course of the past nine months, during which time the local trade union has been kept closely in touch with developments. Although we did not consult customers themselves, we did write to customer representative groups including Community Mental Health teams, the London Homeless services team, local Citizens' Advice Bureaux and local businesses at the same time as we wrote to you and to other local Members of Parliament about the service delivery plan for the Brent, Harrow and Hillingdon Jobcentre Plus district.
  I regret that you feel that the letter informing you of the plans for Burnt Oak Jobcentre was unclear. I have reviewed the guidance covering these circumstances and put in place arrangements to help ensure we are clearer about proposals and plans in the future. I have instructed my District Managers to state when writing to Members of Parliament and stakeholders the actual names of any offices they are considering closing as part of their Jobcentre Plus Service Delivery Plans.
  I hope this is helpful.

  New Deal
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 12 March 2003,Official Report, column 335, on the New Deal, how many individuals embarked upon test trading under (a) the New Deal for Young People and (b) the New Deal 25 Plus, in each period listed. [104628]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table.
  415W

  New Deal for Young People

  Total numbers of people starting test trading

  April 1998 to December 2000

  3,400

  January to December 2001

  1,050

  January to September 2002

  900

  Total

  5,350

  New Deal 25 plus

  Total numbers of people starting test trading

  April to December 20011

  910

  January to September 2002

  3,020

  Total

  3,930

  Source: New Deal Evaluation Database

  Note:1 New Deal 25 plus did not have a self-employment option until it was enhanced in April 2001.

  In the answer given to the hon. Member, on 12 March, Official Report, column 335W, the table for the New Deal 25 plus was incorrectly labelled. The section labelled as January to December 2002 should have read January to September 2002.

  The corrected table is as follows:

  New Deal 25 plus2

  Left New Deal for sustained employment following test trading1

  April 1998 to December 2001

  30

  January to September 2002

  410

  Total

  440

  Notes:

  1 Figures include people who moved into sustained employment as employees following test trading.

  2 New Deal 25 Plus did not have a self-employed option until it was enhanced in April 2001.

  3Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.
  416W
  Source: Labour Market System and New Deal Evaluation Database

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. David Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff worked in the(a) Child Support Agency, (b) pensions service and administration, (c) disability benefits delivery and administration, (d) child benefit delivery and administration, (e) benefit offices, (f) job centre offices and (g) Central administration rating areas in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [97362]

  Maria Eagle
  Information is not available prior to January 2001. Such information as is available is given in the table.

  2001

  2002

  2003

  (a) Child Support Agency

  9,921

  10,869

  11,209

  (b) Pensions Service and Administration

  —

  9,930

  15,801

  (c) Disability Benefit Delivery Administration

  6,624

  7,294

  7,279

  (d) Child Benefit delivery and administration

  1,754

  1,871

  1,924

  (e) Benefit Offices

  55,340

  —

  —

  (f) Job Centre Offices

  32,198

  83,783

  78,543

  (g) Central Administration

  10,275

  11,746

  12,247

  Total DWP staff

  116,112

  125,493

  127,003

  Notes:

  1 Numbers are WTE (rounded) and are consistent with Cabinet Office definitions other than the inclusion of staff on paid maternity leave.

  2 Numbers for 2001 and 2002 are point in time as at 30 June each year. Figures for 2003 are point in time as at 28 February 2003, the latest data available.

  3 Staff numbers for Appeals Service are included with Central Administration numbers.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Building Regulations (Electrical Safety)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  We published a consultation on 21 May 2002 on proposals to introduce into the Building Regulations 2000 new electrical safety requirements for dwellings. We have taken this course because of concerns about increasing risks of electrical accidents in the home. This is coupled with the apparent absence of voluntary controls or legislation that effectively reaches much domestic electrical installation work. Although it will be some time yet before the analysis of the response to the consultation can be completed, and final decisions on whether amendments to the Regulations can be made, I am pleased to say that preliminary analysis indicates our proposals have broad support and the signs suggest that positive progress may be possible.

  The consultation document contained a draft. Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) and a proposed new Approved Document (AD) giving guidance on how a safety requirement could be met. The draft RIA made it clear that the proposals would probably be too costly without a new system of competent electrical firms able to self-certify their work, and the AD included guidance on the circumstances when self-certification (and the avoidance of much of the regulatory burden) would be appropriate. Consultees strongly agree that self-certification is a vital component and I therefore encourage those who are already working to develop a national competent firms system to press ahead.

  There are technical, administrative and commercial issues to resolve, no doubt. But I hope this early statement helps to stiffen industry's resolve to complete the task of bringing large numbers of electrical firms into a satisfactory system sooner rather than later. In the meantime the analysis of the consultation response will continue, including a careful review of the arguments in the RIA. The decision on whether or not to introduce the proposed requirements will depend on the final RIA and the prospect of a viable self-certification system, in place ready for implementation, will be one of the key factors influencing this.

  Town Centre Planning
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  The Government's planning policy on town centres is set out in:Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 (PPG6): Town Centres and Retail Developments (June 1996);
  28WS
  the Parliamentary Answers given by the then Planning Ministers, Nick Raynsford on 5 December 1997 and Richard Caborn on 11 February 1999 (the Caborn statement), together with Mr Caborn's contribution to a debate in the House of Commons on 11 March 1999;
  the Government Responses to Select Committees in July 1997 and May 2000;
  PPG11: Regional Planning (October 2000); and
  PPG13: Transport (March 2001).
  The policy has operated successfully since 1996 but there is increasing evidence of differences in interpretation. This statement sets out the policy and how the First Secretary of State intends to operate it when determining planning applications and appeals. He expects local planning authorities to apply the same policy when determining planning applications.

  POLICY TESTS

  The purpose of the policy is to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town and other existing centres by focusing retail, leisure and other key town centre uses which attract a lot of people within those centres. PPG6 emphasises the plan-led approach to promoting development in town centres, both through plan policies and the identification of locations and sites for development. It sets out a number of tests that must be satisfied if applications to develop retail or leisure facilities are to be successful. The Caborn statement further clarified the application of the test of need and the sequential approach as applying to proposals to develop at edge of centre or out of centre locations which are not in accordance with an up to date development plan strategy that is itself consistent with PPG6.

  In summary, applicants must:
  demonstrate that there is a need for the development;

  having established that such a need exists, adopt a sequential approach to site selection;

  consider the impact on nearby centres; and

  provide evidence on the site's accessibility by a choice of means of transport, as demonstrated by a transport assessment (see PPG 13), the likely changes in travel patterns over the relevant catchment area, and any significant environmental impacts.

  All these tests apply equally to proposals for extensions as well as to new developments.

  NEED

  Proposals which would be located at an edge of centre or out of centre location and which:
  are not in accordance with an up to date development plan strategy; or
  are in accordance with the development plan but that plan is out of date, is inconsistent with national planning policy guidance, or otherwise fails to establish adequately the need for new retail and leisure development and other development to which PPG6 applies,
  should be required to demonstrate both a retail need for additional facilities and that a sequential approach has been applied in selecting the location for the site.

  Some applicants have sought to make a distinction between quantitative and qualitative need for new retail facilities. PPG6 does not make this distinction although evidence on both has frequently been presented at planning inquiries. The First Secretary of State accepts

  29WS
  that need can be expressed in quantitative and qualitative terms but considers that evidence presented on need is becoming increasingly and unnecessarily complicated. He therefore places greater weight on quantitative need for new retail provision to be defined in terms of additional floorspace for the types of retail development distinguished in PPG6, which are comparison and convenience shopping. Where both comparison and convenience goods are proposed to be sold within the same development, the First Secretary of State will expect to have evidence on the need for each type of goods.

  Regeneration has also been argued to be a component of the need for additional retail floorspace. There is no Government guidance that supports this interpretation. The First Secretary of State considers that the contribution that a proposed development might make to the regeneration of a site or its area could be a material consideration to be taken into account in determining an application, but does not consider it to be an aspect of retail need.

  Equally, the net additional employment created by a proposed development is not an indicator of retail need but may be a material consideration.

  For the avoidance of doubt, the First Secretary of State does not regard regeneration or employment creation as aspects of retail need for the purposes of the tests set out in PPG6 and the Caborn statement.

  The principles outlined above apply also to leisure uses.

  SEQUENTIAL APPROACH

  PPG6 seeks to promote sustainable development by locating major generators of travel in existing centres, where access by a choice of means of transport, not only by car, is easy and convenient.

  PPG6 requires a sequential approach to be adopted in selecting sites for new development. Both local planning authorities and developers should be able to demonstrate that all town centre options have been thoroughly assessed before less central sites are considered for development for key town centre uses. This means that the first preference should be for town centre sites, followed by edge of centre sites and only then out of centre sites in locations that are accessible by a choice of means of transport.

  In providing evidence that they have complied with this guidance, applicants must demonstrate flexibility and realism in terms of the format, design and scale of their development, and the amount of car parking, tailoring these to fit local circumstances.

  The First Secretary of State will follow the approach set out in the Government's Response to the Environment Select Committee in 2000. Where a class of goods is capable of being sold from a town centre location, that is the preferred location for the retail development and he will expect to see flexibility in the scale and format of a proposed development to meet that objective. A retailing format that can only be provided at an out of town location is not regarded as meeting the requirements of this policy.
  30WS
  The First Secretary of State does not consider that developers and retailers always take sufficient account of this element of planning policy and further considers that this is potentially undermining the Government's objectives for town centres and their policies to achieve development that makes efficient and sustainable use of land and reduces social exclusion. He will look for evidence of, for example, more efficient design and layout, greater use of multi-storey developments, more efficient car parking provision, mixed-use development and opportunities for home delivery services. Where development consists of defined elements, such as a retail warehouse park or a grouping of retail or leisure uses, the First Secretary of State expects developers and retailers to consider the degree to which constituent parts of the development could be accommodated on more central sites.

  In applying the sequential approach, the relevant centres in which to search for sites will depend on the nature and scale of the proposed development and the catchment that the development seeks to serve, as set out in the Caborn statement. The scale of such proposals should also be appropriately related to the centre and catchment that the development seeks to serve. The First Secretary of State therefore wishes to make it clear that development that would serve a wide catchment should be located in a centre that serves a similar catchment area.

  BULKY GOODS

  PPG6 recognises that some types of retailing, such as large stores selling bulky goods, may not be able to find suitable sites either in or on the edge of town centres. The First Secretary of State considers that it rests with developers and retailers to demonstrate that a majority of their goods cannot be sold from town centre stores. He does not consider that developments involving the sale of bulky goods are exempted from meeting the policy tests in PPG6 and subsequent clarifications.

  REVISED PPG6

  The First Secretary of State will be issuing revised planning policy guidance for town centres and retail developments for consultation in due course.

TREASURY

  Inland Revenue Approved Schemes (Armed Forces Reservists)
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  The Inland Revenue will publish shortly an Extra Statutory Concession (ESC) to enable Armed Forces Reservists called up for active service in connection with the current conflict and who participate in their civilian employer's Inland Revenue approved share scheme, to continue to do so during their period of active service.

  The ESC will ensure as far as practicable that Reservists who are members of such schemes continue to benefit from the tax and National Insurance Contributions advantages such schemes offer.
  31WS
  The ESC will be retrospective back to 7th January 2003, the date the first call up order was issued by the Secretary of State for Defence and will be followed up with legislation in next year's Finance Bill (2004).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Procedures Committee
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth)
  I have appointed two new members to the Animal Procedures Committee. Mr. Graham Moore was appointed from 1 December 2002. He is a veterinarian, who recently retired from Pfizer UK where he was Director of Animal Welfare. Professor Dawn Oliver was appointed from 1 March 2003. She is a barrister and Professor of Constitutional Law at University College London. Each member has been appointed for a four-year term. I am grateful to both for accepting membership of this important committee.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn)
  I am today announcing a change to the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) Scheme that will provide earlier resettlement opportunities for lower risk offenders and help to deal with the pressures on the prison population.

  I have tabled a draft Order under Section34A(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (as amended) to change the "requisite period" that a prisoner must spend in custody before becoming eligible for HDC. This will mean that the maximum period a prisoner may spend on HDC will rise from the present three months to four and a half months, according to sentence length. Since all prisoners must spend at least 25 per cent. of their sentence in custody, this will mean no change in the maximum curfew length for prisoners serving between three months and under 12 months. Prisoners serving 18 months and over will be eligible for the maximum four and a half month curfew period. Prisoners serving four years or more are not eligible for HDC. The Order will come into force on 14 July 2003.

  Eligible prisoners who are assessed as suitable for HDC, and who have not already been released by the time the Order comes into force, will be released in phases between 14 July and the end of August if their new HDC, eligibility dates fall prior to 1 September 2003.

  It is extremely important to maintain public confidence in the HDC Scheme. So, at the same time as increasing the maximum curfew period, I will set a presumption that prisoners convicted of certain serious offences will not be suitable for release unless exceptional circumstances exist. Offences involving the death of the victim, attempted murder or threats to kill, serious offences involving the possession of firearms or offensive weapons, child cruelty, and all racially aggravated offences will be subject to this presumption. This will also apply to prisoners convicted of any sexual offence who are not already statutorily barred from HDC. As at present, Governors will only release prisoners on HDC if they pass a risk assessment and
  32WS
  following a satisfactory home circumstances report. Public safety is of paramount importance and offenders will be released on HDC only where it is safe to do so.

  Under the HDC scheme prisoners serve the remainder of their custody period at home under electronic curfew usually from 7pm to 7am. The scheme provides prisoners with a smoother and more effective re-integration into the community, enabling prisoners to be released from prison early, while remaining subject to significant restrictions on their liberty.

  At any one time this measure will increase the number of prisoners serving the latter part of their sentence on an electronic tag by up to 1,000 prisoners. No further changes to the scheme are planned but, as always, the scheme will be kept under close review.

TRANSPORT

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency Business Plan 2003–04
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency's Business Plan 2003–04 and Forward Look is published today and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The key targets of the Plan are:In at least 96 per cent. of incidents, take a decision on the appropriate search and rescue (SAR) response to accidents and life threatening situations and initiate action if necessary within five minutes of being alerted;
  Deliver at least 97 per cent. of planned ship inspections using a risk based approach;
  Ensure that at least 5 per cent. of available Coastguard time is spent on prevention activity;
  Introduce initial on-line services for customers;
  Introduce a national regime for inland waterways vessel standards and boatmasters' licences.

DEFENCE

  Free Postal Service (Armed Forces)
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Ministry of Defence, with the generous support of the Royal Mail Group, plans to introduce a free postal service to Armed Forces personnel currently serving in the Gulf.

  From Thursday 17 April, families will be able to post letters and packets of up to 2 kilograms in weight free of charge to BFPO addresses in the Gulf. Priority will be given to the delivery of letters, 'Blueys' and 'e-Blueys', which are the primary means of communication for families. Packets will be delivered to the troops as soon as is practicable depending on the operational situation.

  This service is designed for close family and friends. Packets can only be accepted addressed to named individual Service personnel. We would urge families to limit the number of packets they send so that the system works for everybody and does not become overloaded.

  33WS
  Those who wish to show more general support to the Armed Forces serving in the Gulf should not use the system and we would encourage them instead to contribute to the UK Armed Forces Gulf Fund (details available at http://www.ukforcesgulffund.org and (0800 107 0200).
  34WS
  We are working very hard to implement the new system and need to put mechanisms in place to handle the expected increase in mail. We hope that families will be patient in the interim period, since we still need to get essential stores and equipment to the Gulf to support the front line.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Detainees
Lord Ahmed Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total number of people held in custody under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; what are their nationalities; and how many have been convicted.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, 15 foreign nationals have so far been detained using powers in Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Eight were detained in December 2001, one in February 2002, two in April 2002, one in October 2002, one in November 2002 and a further two in January 2003. Of the total detained, two have voluntarily left the United Kingdom. The other 13 remain in detention. They have been detained under an immigration power. They are not being held pending criminal charges.
Under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission's direction under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1987, we are directed that,
"there shall be no publication of any matter which may identify them or any of them".
Therefore, the nationalities of those detained must remain undisclosed.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his reply. Can he tell the House whether any of those detained have been involved with any terrorist activities in this country? Were their arrests due to intelligence received from their countries of origin or from their activities in this country? Will they be extradited to their countries of origin or will they remain in custody for a very long time and, if so, for what period?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall not comment on any intelligence material. As I said in the Answer to the Question, their detention comes under an immigration power. We wish to deport them from this country because they are suspected terrorists. We cannot deport them because we fear what may happen to them if we do so. Therefore, they are detained in this country until they can be deported.
As I indicated, the detainees can leave voluntarily if they wish, and two of them have done so. Therefore, criminal charges are not pending. How long they remain in custody will depend on the view of the Secretary of State and the review of their position by SIAC. SIAC must consider their position and the
334
hearings will start on 19th May. After a conclusion has been reached, the decision will be reviewed every six months thereafter.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, will the detainees be deported to countries which operate the death penalty?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the country to which they would be deported, if they agreed to go, would depend on the nationality of each individual defendant. I cannot say whether or not those countries have the death penalty.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, given the current circumstances around the world in which the death toll from terrorism currently runs well into the thousands, is it not perfectly reasonable that the authorities should take a considerable interest in persons who have been involved in terrorism, whether in this country or anywhere else?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is perfectly reasonable. We have balanced the rights of the individual against the national security of the state. The approach that we have taken is sensible and has been approved by the courts as being both sensible and lawful.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is always preferable that suspects should go through due process? Can he say how many people arrested under this legislation have subsequently gone through the normal processes of the courts following a charge?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Question relates to Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. I gave the numbers in the Answer. The total was 15 foreign nationals. I repeat that this is not a precedent to criminal proceedings. This matter comes under an immigration power. We would wish to remove those people from the country because we believe that they pose a threat, but we are not prepared to put them in the danger that would arise from their being deported. Therefore, these are not criminal proceedings; they are immigration powers intended to protect the state and to protect the interests of the defendant.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I refer to an earlier reply of the Minister in which he stated that the detainees have not as yet appeared in front of SIAC. If that is the case, has no one looked at them since their arrest, which occurred a considerable time ago?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the point first raised in relation to SIAC was whether or not the derogation from the European convention was lawful. That matter was not resolved until October 2002 and, indeed, a further appeal is possible. However, the merits of the cases are now to be considered by SIAC

335
in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and that is due to start in May. Initially, the detainees' position was looked at by the Home Secretary.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the helpful answers that he has given today on these difficult issues. He referred to legal procedures that are coming into effect with regard to SIAC. Can he say something about the special advocate procedure? His noble friend Lord Filkin, in reply to my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, said that that would be kept under review. Can the Minister say what kind of review it will be and under what timescale it will be carried out?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the special advocate procedure involves someone being appointed to represent the detainee at SIAC. That person is entitled to hear closed evidence which the detainee himself would not be able to hear. I do not believe that any specific review of the role of the special advocate is intended to take place. The special advocate is there to protect the interests of the detainee but in a way that also protects the national security of the state.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, are any of the 13 remaining detainees required or wanted as international terrorists in other countries?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not prepared to make any comment about the details surrounding any of the detainees.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, some of the detainees may be from Algeria. Can the Minister explain the difference between our attitude to the Government of Algeria and that of the French Government?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not prepared to say anything that indicates the nationality of the detainees.

Services for Older People
11.7 a.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote Baroness Howe of Idlicote asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further action they intend to take to improve co-ordination across departments in light of the National Audit Office's report, Developing Effective Services for Older People.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we welcome this publication by the National Audit Office, which provides a very fair report on government achievements in the field of policy on older people. We are pleased that it acknowledges the effort we have put in towards better co-ordination across government. It notes, in particular, our successes, such as setting up a Cabinet Sub-Committee on Older People, appointing a Cabinet
336
Champion for Older People, designating the Department for Work and Pensions to take the lead on older people's issues, and establishing the Pension Service to provide a dedicated benefits service for pensioners. However, that does not leave room for complacency. We acknowledge that still more could be done. We accept all the National Audit Office's recommendations.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I certainly congratulate the Government on the important initiatives that are currently under way for improving the access of older people to services that they need. However, in accepting all the recommendations of the National Audit Office, does the Minister nevertheless agree that there remains a lack of departmental coordination and feedback for those consulted in some areas? With the number of old people likely to grow from approximately 10.5 million today to 16 million by 2040, does the Minister accept the need for policies to be planned across all government departments to meet that challenge? Can he say when the older people's strategy, long promised by the Department for Work and Pensions, is to be published and whether it will, in particular, identify one department to be responsible for the co-ordination of these services?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, although I accept the recommendations of the National Audit Office, I believe that to some extent it was scratching around for things to criticise. It is such a favourable report that it is difficult to read it in the way I fear the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has been doing. However, there is a substantive point about the promise we made to produce a strategy for older people. We have not done so. I think, frankly, that the priority lies in communication with older people themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said feedback—and she is quite right—such as updating the publications, which are now a little out of date, should be addressed to people themselves. The time for White Papers, cross-cutting reviews and strategies may be past. It is better to communicate directly.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, there is a need for greater co-ordination. But, having been the Member of Parliament for the constituency with the oldest population in the country, I may perhaps have some understanding of the needs of older people, which is a matter mentioned in the report. Is it not the case—and does not the Minister's rather obvious embarrassment about the sycophantic nature of this report reflect the fact—that many older pensioners really do not want to be patronised? The idea of a Cabinet Champion for Older People and reports which bear titles such as Winning the Generation Game are likely to be mixed with a reaction veering from cynicism to nausea.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as one old person to another, in a House with quite a number of older people, I have some sympathy with that. Nevertheless, it is a fact that a large number of departments provide services for older people. It is necessary that someone should get a grip on it all. It is

337
necessary to have a Cabinet committee, not for the sake of holding more committee meetings, but so that each department is signed up to the work done by the lead department, which is the Department for Work and Pensions.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that with rapidly improving medical standards, growing standards of living and so forth, older people are rapidly becoming younger people?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes, I think so. It is certainly true that there are more older people than people under 16 in this country for the first time in history.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the ageing of society generally and the huge increase in longevity, which is somewhat different, means that this is a global as well as a national issue? Should the Government really take not only a wider and better co-ordinated view of policy, but also a longer-term policy, perhaps by renaming the Cabinet sub-committee "Ageing: older people and longevity", because forward planning is of extreme importance and should be long term?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, certainly, it is an international issue. I would not call it an international problem. Of course, as people get older—as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, rightly said—their capacities survive for longer. Therefore, it is possible that people could work longer if they wanted. Many of us are rather in favour of that. So it is not a problem internationally; it is increasing the number of people who have a full working life and then the number of people who have an opportunity to enjoy it afterwards.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I declare an interest as an employee of Age Concern England. Does the Minister accept the criticism in the report that the national service framework for older people is the only one that has been introduced without any funding? Will there be further research to measure whether the co-ordination at national level is reflected locally; and whether that has resulted in real outputs for older people or whether it has just been a series of yet more short-term initiatives?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have accepted all the recommendations. I cannot find that particular one in the list, so I think that I can give the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, the assurance she seeks. Of course, an important issue is contact with older people when they want to be contacted and only when they want to be contacted. That is a local issue, as she rightly says.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, can the Minister respond in particular with regard to those elderly who become frail? I am not talking about the vast majority of us who are lucky enough to enjoy good health. I
338
believe that one of the big problems that still exists is in the tie-up between home care and health and hospitals. Locally as well as nationally, there is still grave concern in ensuring that the services needed by a person returning home from hospital are co-ordinated properly. It is an area that needs addressing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Indeed, my Lords. The House has spent many happy hours debating the subject on the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill. I am pleased to record that at the conclusion of that debate there seemed to be a much greater degree of agreement around the Chamber about the Bill than there had been at the beginning. I think that shows the Government's recognition of and concern about this problem.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will have noticed that in yesterday's Budget the Chancellor announced that there would be no removal of the basic state pension for pensioners who are in hospital for up to 52 weeks, which will undoubtedly help.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, has my noble friend consulted the Prime Minister on this issue, who, according to SAGA magazine, next month officially becomes old?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the Prime Minister thinks that 50 is old, then he expects less of himself than the rest of us. We think that the Prime Minister will go on in his prime for a very long time.

SARS
11.16 a.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government:
What advice they are issuing and what measures they are taking to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the Department of Health issued information and advice to all general practitioners, trusts and public health professionals on Thursday 13th March and Monday 7th April. The department also issued advice to the public and travellers to south east Asia about SARS. As a result of this timely response, to date we have had only five probable cases of SARS in the UK against a total of 2,722 in 16 other countries. The Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency continue to monitor the situation.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that Answer, might I ask for her assessment of reports in today's newspapers that the Government of China have concealed the extent of the spread of SARS in China, and, indeed, the evidence given to a select committee of the Senate on Monday by the World Health Organisation that the outbreak might have been curbed much more quickly

339
had they acted earlier? Are the Government any nearer to identifying the nature of the virus; what is the latest science on the spread of the virus; are they giving any consideration, as in America, to the quarantine issue; and, on the issue of health workers, given the large number who have died in Hong Kong, have they given advice to health workers in this country?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I shall answer what I think are the two most critical questions here—first, the attitude of the Chinese Government to the spread of the disease; and, secondly, what the research tells us. The Chinese Government came under some strong criticism from the WHO but are now co-operating. An expert WHO team has visited Beijing and Guandong to conduct research. We expect a report from it. It has met the officials, the researchers, and so on, who are involved. The Chinese ministry of health has introduced tighter controls and procedures now in order to control the outbreak. There is a central task force being set up to monitor it. Obviously, we still maintain our advice to travellers that they should not travel to the two areas of Hong Kong and Guandong if at all possible.
On our current information about research, the WHO has co-ordinated research across the world in public health laboratories, including our own very expert Central Public Health Laboratory at Colindale. It suggests that the SARS associated coronavirus is probably the major cause, but that there are other infections which may play a part. These discoveries are very positive. We are proud that our own public health laboratory has played a key role. This will now enable work to be developed on tests to detect the presence of the viruses in patients. So we are now at the next stage where we can begin to develop the diagnostic tests which will help us to determine the actual SARS virus itself.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister recall that she set out very clearly, at col. 643 of the Official Report of 25th March the detailed reply about how people were informed? I understand that that is working very well. But is she aware that air flights are one of the major forms of transmission of this disease? Through the World Health Organisation, can we ask airlines to ensure better recirculation and filtration of air because any infection is transmitted very easily in this way?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, perhaps I may first address the question of transmission. As far as we know, the disease is transmitted by coughing and sneezing. I take the point about recirculation. The WHO has issued guidance to reinforce general procedures; it has not addressed that issue to date. On the question of people entering the country, environmental health officials are boarding incoming aircraft from infected areas at Heathrow on a random basis to check with cabin crew whether they are aware of anyone who may present
340
symptoms of SARS. We hope that that will work well. We are also in the process of issuing leaflets that will be available at ports of entry.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, early reports from the Far East suggested that the agent responsible for the syndrome might be a paramyxovirus but, as the noble Baroness said, the most recent research suggests that it is a coronavirus. From the research carried out to date, does the Minister have any information as to whether the agent is responsive or sensitive to antiviral agents and whether there is any prospect in the foreseeable future of producing an effective vaccine?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, not being a microbiologist, I do not know much about the virus itself, but I know that we have only five probable cases in the country. Three have recovered and gone home; two are in hospital in a stable condition. Those patients have been treated empirically with antibiotics and antiviral agents; they are also being supportively nursed, as noble Lords would expect, to protect their general recovery. We shall have to wait until we are a little further down the road of research for information about a potential vaccine.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that of 112 suspected cases in Taiwan, 17 have been definitely confirmed as suffering from SARS? Taking up the point about the World Health Organisation, what does my noble friend have to say about the fact that Taiwan, having notified the WHO about the outbreak on 14th March, has now heard that the WHO has absolutely declined to offer any assistance to Taiwan because of possible objections from the People's Republic of China? As a consequence, one young boy who entered Taiwan from Vietnam had to be flown to the United States for treatment. Does not my noble friend think that an extraordinary way in which to tackle a serious disease?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is probably outside my brief to comment on international diplomacy and relations between China and Taiwan, but what I would say is that the Foreign Office has advised that all travellers to Taiwan should be aware of the current situation as cases of SARS continue to increase, of the fact that they may be screened prior to air travel, and of the symptoms of SARS. We are doing all we can to keep people alert and well-informed.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, what advice is given to travellers to other places, such as the United States, where there have also been incidences of the virus, about steps they can take to protect themselves from transmission?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, so far as I am aware, we have not issued any such advice to travellers to the US. We have issued advice to travellers to Toronto in Canada where there has been a specific and traceable outbreak.
Earl Howe: My Lords, if a suspected carrier of SARS arrives in the UK, is it not essential for the

341
authorities to be able to quarantine that person? Will the Government take powers under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to make SARS officially notifiable, so that it would be possible to detain those suspected of having SARS? If they do not intend to do so, why not?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as I have explained, the normal health procedures are in place and are working well to identify people who are travelling on aircraft. The pilot radios ahead and all necessary steps are taken. We are not yet at the stage where quarantine is necessary. Our public health surveillance systems are working well—as I said, we have had only five probable cases—and we will be monitoring the situation. We will clearly take appropriate action, should that be necessary.
Lord Chan: My Lords—
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we are now in the 24th minute. In fairness to the last questioner, we should move on.

Secondary Schools: Examinations
11.24 a m.
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the arrangements for this year's post-16 examinations in secondary schools are satisfactory.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, Mike Tomlinson's recommendations to secure the 2003 examinations have been implemented in full by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the awarding bodies. We are making an additional £6 million available to QCA to help ensure that the 2003 examinations are delivered accurately and effectively, with particular attention paid to ensuring that there are sufficient examiners. The Examinations Task Force, chaired by the QCA with representatives from the awarding bodies and the teaching profession, will oversee delivery of the examinations.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but has he read the letter in The Times this Tuesday from a mother, stating that her son will on 23rd May, in the morning, be sitting two English AS-level papers, beginning at 9.15, followed in the afternoon by three geography papers, the last of which begins at 4.45? That is five examinations in one day. Does the Minister think it fair to expect anyone to have to experience such a pressurised timetable and then perform to the best of his or her ability?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness has identified a case that should cause concern. It is clearly
342
too demanding on a student to face so many examinations in one day. I am sure that arrangements can and will be made to change that position.
Let us recognise the nature of the problem. Increasing numbers of students are putting themselves forward for greater numbers of A-levels. Whereas in the past, taking two or three used to be regarded as the norm, four or even five may now be taken. That gives rise to acute problems in timetabling examinations, but the noble Baroness has a point.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords—
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am bound to say that it was a Conservative Question. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will take her turn after the Liberal Democrats.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. Will the Minister tell the House where the Government's thinking on Curriculum 2000 is going? Are they still wedded to the AS/A2 A-level split, or are they considering development of the English baccalaureate, which is strongly supported by some academics at the Institute of Education in London because of the enormous pressure that A-level examinations place on 16 to 18 year-olds, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, one of Mike Tomlinson's recommendations was that the whole question of examinations from 14 to 19 should be considered. That review is taking place and is taking into account the point made by the noble Baroness. The international baccalaureate finds favour in some circles. We should not underestimate the number of schools in this country that already pursue courses in the IB—it is a considerable number.
However, to make such a significant change, there would have to be agreement across the whole education profession and in education thinking. In any case, it would take considerable time. But the noble Baroness is right; considerable thought is being given to those issues, not least because it is widely recognised that the examination demands that we make on students from 14 through to 19 are creating significant problems that may not be entirely conducive to the best form of education.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister is astonishingly sanguine about both the examination arrangements for this year and the pressure on young people. I do not think that the lady to whom reference has been made will be very comforted about the pressures on her son.
Teachers are being asked by the QCA to take time off during the summer term to mark examination papers. Does the Minister agree with John Dunford of the Secondary Heads Association, who said:
"the … problem is over-examination of school students. Until they"—

343
that is, the Government, do something about it, they will simply,
"lurch from crisis to crisis"?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hope that I was not being over-sanguine. I reflected the review carried out by Mike Tomlinson, with his clear recommendations on how we can secure the position for this year. He is satisfied that we are making progress. We have had something of a trial run—of course, a minor one—with the January examinations. But that was regarded as a successful development in the new examinations structure. We are confident about that. We are not sanguine; we recognise the problems. I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, about timetables. Of course, what the noble Baroness asks for is desirable. We need to reduce the number of demands on students in examinations. But nobody suggests that that can be done at the flick of a switch.

Business
11.30 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 1 p.m. my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will repeat a Statement on Iraq. Then, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 4 p.m. my noble friend Lady Amos will repeat a Statement on the humanitarian situation and rehabilitation in Iraq.

Communications Bill
11.31 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Communications Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 to 27,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 28 to 60,

Clauses 62 to 71,

Clauses 74 to 103,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 104 to 115,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 116 to 156,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 157 to 177,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 178 and 179,

Schedule 7,

344

Clauses 180 to 189,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 190 to 196,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 197 to 216,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 217 to 267,

Clause 61,

Clauses 72 and 73,

Clauses 268 to 289,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 290 to 331,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 332 to 338,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 339 to 342,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 343 to 353,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 354 to 382,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 383 to 399,

Schedules 17 to 19,

Clauses 400 to 403.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
11.31 a.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Expenditure relating to British Energy p.l.c.]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert "for the purposes of—

(i) ongoing operational support of the British Energy company whilst a restructuring deal is being put in place,

(ii) the funding of trading arrangements of the operating companies of the British Energy company should a restructuring deal fail, or

(iii) funding in the event of British Energy being put into administration"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am happy to be able to speak to Amendment No. 1, the purpose of which is to define the circumstances under which the financial assistance can be provided to a British Energy company under Clause 1(1)(a). It is a reworded version of similar amendments moved at earlier stages, which takes account of the Minister's comments, notably in Committee on 17th March, at cols. GC3–5, and on Report on 3rd April, at cols. 14–17.
Throughout the consideration of the Bill, we on these Benches and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Hodgson, on the Conservative Benches have sought to define the nature of the special package of support to be provided to British Energy in the difficult circumstances in which it find itself. Because of the nuclear implications, it has been singled out among other generators that have also suffered from a

345
substantial fall in wholesale prices. It is therefore important that there be absolute clarity about the form and limits of the assistance to be provided.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred in Committee, at col. GC5, to the concern of other generators. I, too, have heard of that concern, especially that the support to British Energy has enabled it to offer electricity to the market at prices that it could not otherwise sustain. I hope that the Minister can deny those rumours. But they explain why it is important that the Bill should make as clear as possible the purposes for which the assistance is being provided. As the Minister's own words have been incorporated in the amendment, I trust that he will find it possible to accept it. I know that the noble Lord attaches great importance to flexibility, but there must surely be some assurance about how the money is to be used. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I support the amendment. I apologise that I was in the House too late yesterday to put my name to it; otherwise, I would have done. We on these Benches and my honourable friends in another place have been concerned that the Bill as drafted was just a little too wide. We believe that it gave the Government scope to indulge in matters not connected with the problem it was intended to solve; namely, to back up the rescue of British Energy.
The Minister, at a meeting that we held recently, gave us certain assurances, for which we are all grateful, about the Government's intentions and their interpretation of the powers that they were taking in the Bill. Amendment No. 1, which has now been virtually redrawn by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, gives effect in black and white to what the Minister told us. I see no harm in the Government's stated intentions being enshrined in the legislation.
If the amendment truly gives effect to the Government's stated intentions—I am sure that it does—it is to be hoped that the Minister would not feel that it was not flexible, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, or that it was too prescriptive.
I hope that the Minister can accept the amendment. If he cannot, perhaps he could state in the clearest terms that it represents the Government's present and future policy and intentions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for giving the department advance notice of his intention to table this amendment. I very much understand his desire to pin down the Government as to what they intend to use the clause for. I am very happy to make absolutely clear the Government's position.
We see Clause 1(1)(a) as being used almost totally for the three areas referred to in the noble Lord's amendment. Any further use of the clause would be very minor compared to those three main purposes. But I do not believe that it would be appropriate to try to constrain the use of Clause 1(1)(a) to just those three items.
346
There may be a limited need for expenditure on a British Energy company in other areas. I think in particular of expenditure and pursuance of the Government's support for BE's restructuring plan. We said previously that our financial assistance for restructuring was based on support for nuclear liabilities. The intention is to give that under Schedule 12 to the Electricity Act 1989. That remains the case.
As we move forward in drawing up the very detailed arrangements for the formal undertaking between the Government and British Energy, we are keen to ensure that there are no items that might fall through the net. For that reason, we want to make sure that Clause 1 is still left flexible enough to allow us to fund any small items that might not be captured by Schedule 12. I should stress that we would expect any such items to be small. To some extent, having Clause 1(1)(a) available is simply a precaution. It makes it absolutely clear that we have absolute authority to incur expenditure on a British Energy company, ensuring that there is no legal uncertainty over whether some small item of expenditure fully fits within Schedule 12 or not.
In the end, we may never need to use Clause 1 for that purpose. None the less, the mere existence of Clause 1(1)(a) could have helped to remove any doubt. The company's creditors need to have certainty over the Government's commitment if they are to support the restructuring, and having Clause 1 helps them to do that.
As part of the restructuring, the Government will commit to fund any shortfall in paying to decommission BE's stations. Schedule 12 allows for funding,
"the decommissioning of any installation the operation of which requires a licence under section 1 of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965".
But we want to make sure that nothing slips through the net. We want to ensure, for example, that there is no doubt that funding could be provided for the complete decommissioning of a site, including, perhaps, the cost of dismantling construction on the nuclear site, such as sea walls and office buildings, which have not been subject to irradiation, and where there might be some uncertainty as to whether the provisions of Schedule 12 apply. Rather than get bogged down over a matter of legal interpretation of Schedule 12, it would be very useful to have available the flexibility of Clause 1(1)(a) to ensure that the items that fit within the spirit of Schedule 12 clearly have parliamentary authority. I accept that it is a question of having both a belt and two or three pairs of braces. But, in the circumstances, I think that it would be appropriate.
The amendment would limit the flexibility that Clause 1(1)(a) gives in relation to the provision of assistance to a British Energy company. As I have explained, that might give rise to legal uncertainty at the margins as far as concerns creditors, which could undermine the restructuring plan. We are, of course, keen to avoid that.

347
I hope that, with my explanation and clarification of the Government's position, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I note that he agrees that the three purposes mentioned in the amendment are the main ones for which Clause 1(1)(a) would be used, and that any variant from that would be extremely limited. Under those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, with renewed enthusiasm, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Bill was clearly necessitated by the unfortunate problems of the flagship company, British Energy. It is not a secret that on these Benches we have reservations about the Government's approach, especially after the Bill began its passage through Parliament, when the immediate threat of administration was lifted. We felt that the Government could have gone back to the drawing board and presented a Bill that dealt specifically with the company's new situation. We also thought at the time that the Bill gave the Government excessive powers.
However, we are grateful to the Minister for having courteously paid attention to the representations made by both me and my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and that he has taken time to discuss those views with all three of us. It probably did not escape his notice that the amendments we put down, except for that one today, bore the names of all three of us. We appreciate his efforts to accommodate us as far as he could. We therefore support the Motion that this Bill do now pass, and we all hope that it will achieve the objectives that everyone shares.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the Minister and his department for the efforts that they made to discuss with us our reservations about the Bill so that they were fully aired. I believe that they have been dealt with fairly and reasonably—particularly after the most recent remarks of the Minister on Clause 1(1)(a). Therefore, we also agree that the Bill should now pass.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I commend the Bill to the House. In doing so, I would like to thank all the Bill team for their hard work, and all the noble Lords who have taken part in the detailed discussion of this apparently simple, but in fact complex, Bill. It has been a valuable exercise, and I hope that we have been able to reassure noble Lords that our objectives are common to the whole House. We will pursue this Bill with close financial controls.
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.]
11.42 a.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 26 [Sections 18 to 22: sexual relationships which pre-date position of trust]:
On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: Clause 26 exempts from prosecution those who were in a sexual relationship immediately before a position of trust arose. It introduces an entirely new defence to a charge of abuse of trust. That defence is not present in the existing law on abuse of trust brought in by the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000. The clause creates a blanket defence to all abuse of trust offences, whether created in 2000 or under this Bill. The clause represents a reversal of Government policy.
I shall illustrate the turnaround that there has been. I shall quote from the Home Office guidance on abuse of trust issued in 1999 in the run up to the 2000 Bill. That guidance is very firm—so firm that it grudgingly accepts a marriage exemption such as that now found in Clause 25 of the current Bill. In explaining the intention behind the 2000 Act, the guidance states:
"There would also be a defence if the parties were married to each other before the sexual relationship takes place. As a matter of good practice, however, we would not expect those married to remain in a relationship of trust".
In other words a teacher who wants to marry a pupil must not under any circumstances consummate the marriage until the wedding night. If they do marry the teacher should quit his job. In 1999 the Home Office was worried that a teacher could get around the Bill by marrying a pupil. Now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme. In 2003 under Clause 26 a teacher can get around the Bill by having a one night stand with a pupil.
I quote again from the 1999 guidance,
"any sexual relationship within a relationship of trust is unacceptable so long as the relationship of trust continues".
The guidance states that the reason for this is,
"A sexual relationship itself will be intrinsically unequal within a relationship of trust and is therefore unacceptable. It is also inappropriate since the 'professional' relationship of trust would be altered … given the inequality at the heart of a relationship of trust, the relationship of trust should be ended before any sexual relationship develops".

349
That is precisely the point. It is the Government's own guidance. One cannot be in a position of trust and have a sexual relationship. Under the 2000 Act a defendant could not excuse himself by claiming that he was in a sexual relationship immediately before the position of trust arose. The Government thought that that was unacceptable, so the legislation contains no such defence. Neither should this Bill.
Clause 26 creates a serious loophole in the abuse of trust legislation; a loophole which I believe will be exploited to thwart many prosecutions. Under the clause, to escape conviction, all an accused person would have to show was that he had a sexual relationship with his victim prior to taking up his position of trust. Abuse of trust offences by their very nature are those most likely to have a young person spring to the defence of an adult who has abused their trust. By definition, prosecutors are not arguing that force has been used by the perpetrator, in which case a charge such as rape would have been laid. Instead, the young person has ostensibly consented.
The raison d'etre of the abuse of trust offence is that such consent is not real consent. The Government have decided that the risk to a young person of being manipulated is so great that such a relationship should be unlawful. The clause allows a defence which manipulative older persons can rely on routinely to escape prosecution. It is a defence that is much too easy to abuse. For example—a 16 year-old boy transfers to a new school. A 30-year-old female has sex with him and begins an intense relationship with the young man. The teacher is arrested for abuse of trust. She lies, claiming that their relationship started up before the boy started at the school. The boy is besotted with the teacher and agrees to back up her story. The police have to drop the case.
Clause 26 provides a defence if there was a sexual relationship "immediately" before the position of trust arose. That could presumably start up the weekend before term starts. Clause 26 could turn a one night stand into an alibi for abuse of trust. Indeed under Clause 26 it need not even be that.
For example—a 40 year-old male teacher starts his employment at a new secondary school on the first Monday of September. In a pub on the Saturday night before the start of term, the teacher meets a 16 year-old girl who attends the school. They get talking and the teacher realises that she is probably going to be in his A-level class. He ingratiates himself with the girl. She allows him to fondle her in a manner which is clearly sexual. After term begins, the teacher continues his relationship with the girl, who trusts him because of his position as a teacher and does not want to upset him because he is responsible for marking her work. He persuades her to have sexual intercourse with him. The girl's pa rents are concerned that she is out every night, and report the matter to the police. They are powerless to act, since the girl raises no complaint and the teacher argues a Clause 26 defence—that he had already had a sexual relationship with the girl before the position of trust arose.
350
In the area of education, the abuse of trust offence is tied to an institution. The teacher must regularly teach at the same school attended by the young person. Therefore Clause 26 will aid those manipulative adults who change their jobs in order to be in the same school as the young person whose trust is abused. Teachers from one school often meet pupils from another. Extra-curricular activities provide plenty of opportunities for this. Pupils who take part in inter-school competitions, sporting contests, or joint field-trips will often meet teachers from other schools. Many teachers also volunteer for other non school-related youth work, such as Scouts and Brownies. That is a particular practice of paedophiles.
It is possible that a teacher could have a sexual encounter with a 16 year-old from another school in one of those settings, relying on his position as a teacher. He would not be caught by any of the abuse of trust provisions because Clause 23(5) requires that the teacher and pupil must be at the same school. If the teacher then took a job at the child's school, he could continue the abuse of trust, free from legal sanction. He could argue that they already had a sexual relationship "immediately before" the position of trust arose.
What about the case of a paedophile who changes his job in order to gain access to young people whom he can abuse? It is a well-established fact that paedophiles often seek to put themselves in positions of trust over young people. Clause 26 hands them on a plate a technique for gaining immunity; they need only start the abuse before the position of trust arises. They can begin the relationship in a social setting or from a position of trust that is not covered by the Bill. In our debates on the second day in Committee, it was demonstrated clearly that there was a good number of such positions of trust. The abuser can then move into a position of trust from which they can continue and even intensify the abuse with impunity.
I shall give another example. Over a period of five years, a male social worker is assigned to help a family because of abuse of trust by a violent father. The social worker forms a relationship with an 11 year-old boy in the family, and the boy completely trusts the social worker. It is a common occurrence. After five years, the family is re-housed in a residential family centre, and the social worker takes up a job there a few months later. The police are tipped off by another member of staff that there is a sexual relationship between the social worker and the boy. The police suspect that the social worker may be a paedophile who groomed the boy for abuse over several years and took up the appointment at the family centre in order to be close to the boy, who, by this time, is 16. The social worker claims that the sexual relationship began when the boy was aged 16 and before he started his new job. He claims a Clause 26 defence, when arrested for abuse of trust. The boy supports his story. The police are powerless to act.
Such a case is not far removed from the sort of abuse that occurred in north Wales and was exposed by the Waterhouse report. That report showed that child abusers changed their jobs in order to abuse young

351
people. The report also showed that it was not at all unusual for 16 and 17 year-olds to be abused. Some of the abusers deliberately waited until those whom they wanted to abuse had reached 16. For example, the social worker Jacqueline Thomas groomed a boy for abuse but did not have sexual intercourse with him until he was 16. One of the most horrifically abused boys in the report, boy "B", was abused by infamous paedophile Gary Cooke only after he had reached the age of 16.
Such examples show that the exception simply cannot be allowed to remain in the Bill. If it is thought right to criminalise abuse of trust, the law should not contain unjustified exceptions. If it is wrong for teachers to have sexual relationships with those whom they teach, a teacher must make a decision: he can maintain either the sexual relationship or his professional position. If Clause 26 remains in the Bill, a teacher who starts a sexual relationship the day after term starts will commit a criminal offence, but the one who starts it the day before will not. In the first case, such activity will be an abuse of trust with a potential five-year custodial penalty; in the second, it will be fully defensible, and there will be no case to answer.
Clause 26 breaches the principle, which, until recently, the Government strongly endorsed, that those in positions of trust should not have a sexual relationship with those in their care. That principle should be maintained under the Bill, as under the Act. We should offer protection, in particular, to those most vulnerable to such activity. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My noble friend Lady Blatch has raised some important concerns about Clause 26. I find it a difficult area. In many ways, I find it more finely balanced than my noble friend does. I can see, on the one hand, that there may be circumstances in which a relationship between a child and somebody who later acquires a position of trust is not harmful. It is difficult to see why we should make something unlawful because of a change of circumstance. However, as my noble friend pointed out, people have choices in life and could choose to resign from a position of trust or find some other way of removing themselves from such a position.
My concern is that allowing pre-existing relationships would subtly undermine the basic prohibition created by the abuse of trust provisions. That would send the wrong message. We want the abuse of trust provisions to be strong and effective and to send a strong signal. I hope that the Government will consider the clause again.
Lord Monson: Time and time again, I find myself in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on a wide variety of subjects—but not on this occasion, I am afraid.
The point is that the relationships ante-date the assumption of a position of trust by the older person, who may, after all, be only slightly older. The allegedly naïve and innocent 16 or 17 year-old could not have been swept off his or her feet at the outset by the
352
exalted status of the older party. They would have met on level terms, so to speak. It seems cruel, on principle, for the state to break up an existing relationship for no compelling reason.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lady Blatch said. It strikes me rather strongly that the effect on a class being taught by the person with the previous relationship would be formidable. Children recognise acutely when sexual relationships exist. I tried to imagine what it would be like to be the parent of a child in a class where that was known to be going on. It would be difficult for that class to operate properly. I am not sure whether my noble friend made that point, but it is a powerful one.
I see the point that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has just made. It is, of course, unkind to break up a relationship in that way, but, as my noble friend said, that person does not have to teach that class. That is an important point, and the Government should think seriously about it. Educationally speaking, it would not be doing the school a good turn.
The Earl of Listowel: I shall make a brief point on the issue of trust. It must be damaging for a child to have her or his trust abused by an adult. I want to point out the wider context of the issue. As the Minister has often said, we are not here, at the moment, to address those broader issues, but we need to keep them in mind.
We should keep in mind the fact that, often, young people who have had poor experiences—perhaps, they have been abused themselves—feel attracted to social work. They want to care for others because they identify with other children who have suffered. However, such young people may not have come to terms with their own experience and may be weak and vulnerable. They may go out to help others, without necessarily being fully equipped to do so. The Minister should bear in mind the necessity properly to train and support those working with vulnerable children who trust in them. I am not, in any way, excusing the abuse of trust, but, while we talk about punishment, we must remember our duty to support and train such workers. We must remember how poorly trained and supported staff in children's homes, for instance, have been.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is an important issue, which we must consider extremely carefully. The protection of children is at the heart of the Sexual Offences Bill, and we are, as noble Lords will know, introducing several different offences to protect children from exploitative sexual acts.
The offence of abuse of trust is designed to protect a child from abuse in circumstances in which an adult holds a position of trust or authority in relation to the child—for example, in a residential home, a detention centre or an educational establishment of any sort. The primary motivation for introducing the offence is the need to protect young people aged 16 and 17. If they are under 16, they will be protected by provisions relating to other offences. We are dealing with children who are over the age of consent but are vulnerable to

353
having the trust that they repose in somebody manipulated to the advantage of the defendant, with a view to that defendant having a sexual relationship with them.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, rightly said, the offence introduced in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 includes an exemption for any lawful sexual relationship that existed immediately before the commencement of that Act. The Act has been in place for more than two years, during which time any lawful relationship that pre-existed it will have moved out of the scope of the offence, by virtue of the fact that the younger party must now be over 18.
This Bill provides a similar exception in Clause 27 in relation to the new positions of trust that have been incorporated into the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has tabled an amendment to strike Clause 27 from the Bill, and for the reasons that I shall explain during our debate on that amendment we agree with her thinking and intend to remove the clause. We are with the noble Baroness on that point. The clause provides that if a relationship is lawful only because it began before the enactment of the Bill and continues after enactment, that should not be a defence.
But in Clause 26 we are considering something else—a relationship between person A and a young person aged between 16 and 17 years which is lawful. The law explicitly does not intend to interfere with such a relationship and so the relationship of trust has not been manipulated in order to sustain that relationship. We must be clear where the line is drawn. I interpose at this stage to stress that it is the relationship that the Act defines as a defence, not a one-night stand, as referred to by the noble Baroness. That would not constitute a relationship. We are considering lawful relationships.
Taking the obvious example, after the relationship has commenced the defendant begins to teach the person aged 16 to 17 years. Plainly that relationship has not been brought about by the relationship of trust; it is a perfectly lawful relationship. We have thought very carefully about this point. We believe that it would be going too far in circumstances where it is plain that iniquity has not occurred; namely, the relationship was not abused, leading to the young person aged between 16 and 17 being victimised. We consider that, overall, the provisions of Clause 26 strike the right balance between keeping interference by the state into the private lives of individuals to a minimum and maintaining maximum protection under the law for children from sexual abuse and exploitation.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that the clause introduces a new position from that taken under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, but I repeat that we believe that we have struck the right balance. I hope that Members of the Committee will take the same view and agree that Clause 26 should stand part of the Bill.
An important point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. The noble Baroness was right to point out that difficulties would arise in
354
the classroom if it was known that the teacher was conducting a sexual relationship with one of the pupils. Let us assume for the purposes of the argument that there was a pre-existing sexual relationship between the teacher and the pupil, one that pre-dated the point at which the pupil came into the school. I respectfully suggest that the correct way to deal with that situation would be for the school to ensure that there was no possibility of the teacher concerned taking lessons with the particular class. The problem is not whether the criminal law should intervene, rather it is a matter of ensuring that the school is properly run by the headteacher.
I agree also with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. We need to ensure, as far as possible, that people who are in positions of trust are properly trained and supported.
Noon
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, have the Government ascertained whether the teachers' unions have agreed to what he has stated? If they have not, a school would be put in the extremely difficult position of having to prevent teachers from taking their normal classes because a girlfriend happened to be a pupil in one of those classes.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I shall write to the noble Baroness about the consultation that has been undertaken with the teachers' unions. However, I am not sure whether any sensible headteacher would think it appropriate for a teacher and a member of one his classes to conduct a sexual relationship. I find it hard to believe that that would be regarded as an appropriate relationship in the context of a school.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: Would the noble and learned Lord describe when a position of trust arises in the circumstances mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch? Let us consider a teacher who has just agreed a new contract with a school in which classes have not yet started. He is already a teacher at the school, but that fact is unknown to the particular girl, a pupil at the school, whom he meets in a public house just before the new term begins. In those circumstances, by virtue of his contract, one might argue that he is placed in a position of trust in relation to any person he discovers at any time thereafter to be a pupil at that school.
I should like to be certain that the phrase in Clause 26(1),
"before the position of trust arose",
can be seen as being the start of a contract. I look back to Clause 23(5) which refers to person A looking after,
"persons under 18 who are receiving full-time education at an educational institution and B is receiving full-time education at that institution".

355
I hope that the point is one the noble and learned Lord can clarify. It could present difficulties in the courts as regards determining the point at which Clause 26(1) would arise, so that the teacher would not be absolved, as it were, from his sexual relationship with the pupil.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron, will be aware that Clause 23(5) applies where person A,
"looks after persons under 18 who are receiving full-time education".
He will also be aware that Clause 24(3) states:
"A person (A) looks after another person (B) on an individual basis if—
(a) A is regularly involved in … training … B"
and that Clause 26(1) states that,
"is not an offence … if, immediately before the position of trust arose".
I am loath to identify the precise moment at which the relationship of trust occurs, but certainly it can start before there has been an incident of teaching. Once it has become clear that person A is going to teach or train person B on a regular basis, then potentially the point at which the position of trust was established would have arrived. I think that it would be unwise to define it more precisely than that because it would depend on the facts of each individual case.
Baroness Blatch: I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, has made a point in his remarks. Either person A would be committing an offence, in which case he would already be in a position of trust and therefore committing an offence under the Bill or—if I modify slightly my example of the same two people—where person A applied for a position having already struck up a relationship with person B, then of course the defence under Clause 26 would apply. I am rightly chided, I think, over the way I used that particular example. However, there is a choice to be made here. My noble friend Lady Carnegy made a very pertinent point. This is something about which the teaching unions are extremely concerned. We are referring here to sixth-formers. Sixth forms in schools tend to be close communities. If one sixth-form pupil is conducting an affair with a much older school teacher, and they claim a pre-existing relationship so that they benefit from immunity under Clause 26 if it remains part of the Bill, then there is an impact on other students in the school. Simply to say that the teacher should not teach the particular girl while she remains a sixth-former in the school, but that he should teach other children, does not resolve the difficulty.
The decent and honourable thing to do—indeed, as far as the school is concerned, it is what the teacher should do—is for the teacher to remove himself altogether from that position of trust. A choice is available to such people.
I remind Members of the Committee that if such relationships occurred only rarely, then I would not seek to make a further point to support my case for the removal of Clause 26 from the Bill. But I refer again to
356
the Welsh case. A network of paedophiles was operating not only in north Wales, where young children were being passed around like parcels so that people could sexually abuse them, but also all over the country. Indeed, people from my own local authority sought jobs for themselves in that part of Wales because that kind of activity was going on. People in the paedophile networks will realise that they have a tailor-made defence under the provisions of Clause 26. They will manipulate circumstances so that a relationship is struck up before the position of trust commences. They know that they will be provided with immunity from prosecution beyond that point. The Minister is absolutely right that the relationship must be tested, but I return to the Welsh case because it is the most vivid for many of us. We all remember reading that dreadful report. That case went on for many years and the repercussions are still being felt in the lives of many people. Young people in that situation are extremely vulnerable. They are desperate to be loved. They will even allow the most awful things to happen to them because somebody is taking care of them and loving them—but at the same time seriously abusing and taking advantage of them. Those are the people we want to protect.
This does not do a disservice to people in the kind of relationship mentioned by my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Monson. If we are about anything when we come to legislate, it should not be about giving an excuse to somebody who manipulates the system. Once Clause 26 is part of the statute, it could be manipulated by taking advantage of young, vulnerable people who will always profess to having had or being in a relationship prior to the abuse of trust position.
If Clause 26 goes onto the statute book and allows persons to take sexual advantage of vulnerable people, paedophiles will be completely free of any kind of offence. However, I do not intend to press my opposition to Clause 26 at this stage. The noble and learned Lord has been marvellous between the last time that we met and this stage. He has listened very carefully in respect of other clauses about which I was equally concerned and responded. I shall read everything said in this debate and hope that the noble and learned Lord will do the same. If nothing changes, I shall return to this matter on Report.
Lord Monson: Does not the noble Baroness agree that persons who are attracted to 16-and 17-year-olds are not, strictly speaking, paedophiles?
Baroness Blatch: The case that I have been making over and over again is that persons engineer sexual relationships with people much younger than 16—so that at 16, as in the Welsh case and one of the examples that I gave, the offender almost has a free rein and can be free of committing an offence.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Sections 18 to 22: existing sexual relationships]:
On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: I was delighted to see the name of the noble and learned Lord associated with the opposition to Clause 27 and am mightily relieved that it will not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Monson: I realise that I am ploughing a lone furrow, in that I think that Clause 27 strikes the right balance as it stands and should not be deleted. That was presumably the view of the White Paper Setting the Boundaries and of the other documents mentioned in the Explanatory Notes. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am mistaken. I confess that I cannot remember what those different documents said about the clause.
We have been hearing from the media generally for months, if not years, and heard in earlier debates that a higher and higher proportion of young people are becoming sexually active at 13 or even earlier. I think that is deplorable, but there does not seem to be anything that anybody can do about it.
At the same time and perhaps consequentially, we are told that 16 and 17 year-olds are, to all intents and purposes, adults and should therefore be given the vote at 16. In this House, that proposal came from Conservative Back-Benchers but received support from all parts of the House—and many letters in the press in recent weeks have supported that idea. The Government seem to agree that 16 or 17 year-olds are de facto adults, as they used the Parliament Act to ensure that 16 and 17 year-olds of both sexes can now be legally sodomised by anyone not in a position of trust. That was against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of your Lordships on both sides of the House and the public—and against the wishes of a number of responsible homosexuals. That, despite the physical dangers involved and described so graphically by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, with his enormous medical expertise.
How strange then to demand up to five years imprisonment for someone in a position of trust—not a position of authority because an employer, office manager or foreman can get away with anything under the Bill—who perhaps merely kisses the younger person, as he or she may have been doing week after week or month after month prior to the Bill coming into force.
I realise that nothing that I say will change the Government's mind at this stage, but I thought that was worth saying none the less.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I will briefly explain why we are not supporting Clause 27 anymore, which is entirely in line with my remarks about Clause 26. The abuse of trust offences are designed to protect children from being manipulated by the relationship of trust
358
into what are ostensibly consensual relationships in circumstances where the genuine nature of the relationship must be in doubt.
As the rationale for these offences is to protect young people from being manipulated into such relationships, it follows that we should not make it a defence to a continuing sexual relationship that the manipulation occurred before it became unlawful. There is an option; namely, that the relationship of trust can be brought to an end. It is unlike Clause 26, where the start of the relationship was not the product of the abuse of trust relationship—whereas under Clause 27, the relationship would have been the product of the abuse of trust.
If Clause 27 stands part, the only reason for it not being unlawful would be if the relationship started before the Bill became law. It is very difficult to justify continuing the relationship after it becomes unlawful simply because it started before. For that reason, my name is added to that of the noble Baroness and we agree that Clause 27 should no longer stand part of the Bill.
My name also appears with that of the noble Baroness in relation to Clauses 32 and 51 stand part. Those deal with situations where a relationship or position of dominance is manipulated to start a relationship. That would have occurred before the Bill became law but continued after. The fact that the manipulation started before should not be justification for it continuing after the Bill becomes law. When we come to Clauses 32 and 51 stand part, I hope that we shall be able to deal with them as quickly as Clause 27.
Lord Monson: Before the Minister sits down, will be remind the Committee of the recommendations made in Setting the Boundaries and Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 in respect of this particular clause?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The document Setting the Boundaries suggested that there should be a defence if a relationship started before and continued after. But the logic of saying that one acted in a way that would have been regarded as criminal and continued to do so after the law is enacted is difficult to defend.
Clause 27 disagreed to.
Clause 28 [Sexual activity with a child family member]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 13, line 15, after "offence" insert "of incest"
The noble Baroness said: I moved amendments to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill to extend the scope of the existing law covering abuse within the family. Although the word "incest" will not be used in the new offence in Clauses 28 to 32, I am very pleased that the scope of the protection to cover abuse within the family has been significantly widened in the way that I proposed some three years ago. For example, step-parents are included and so is abuse by a family member of the same sex.
The Government have in many respects produced a better law of incest than currently exists, re-implementing many aspects of English law on incest that were removed when the Ecclesiastical Courts lost their jurisdiction. But in doing so, the Government are dropping the title "incest" and so are weakening public understanding of the offence and recognition of its seriousness.
Existing law has three omissions. It does not cover sexual activity between family members of the same sex; oral sex or sexual acts falling short of penetration; and step-parents, step-siblings, uncles and aunts. Where a child is involved, Clauses 28 and 29 remedy those loopholes and form a better law of incest than we have at the moment. However, the name of the offence is changed in the title from incest to sexual activity with a child family member. Clauses 68 and 69 largely restate but rename the existing law of incest for adults. For the first time, same sex activity and oral sex are also covered, but unlike the offences protecting children, Clauses 68 and 69 do not include sexual activities falling short of penetration. Nor do they bring step-parents, step-siblings, uncles and aunts within the scope of the law.
Clauses 28 to 32, 68 and 69 create a problem—although I know that Clause 32 will now not stand part of the Bill—by removing the word "incest" from the statute book. Incest is a term that is very well understood among the public; it recognises the particular nature and seriousness of the offence. There is all the difference in the world between the expression "non-consensual sex" and "rape". To say you are a victim of rape has a clear meaning—everyone knows what it means. To say you are a victim of non-consensual sex can never convey the same degree of seriousness. In the same way, there is all the difference in the world between "sexual activity with a child family member" and "incest".
Children who are victims of incest suffer a particularly grievous form of child abuse. In addition to the abuse, with all that that can mean, there is the violation of the close family relationship. This seriously handicaps the child's ability to trust other adults in future. The incest law exists to help preserve the sanctity of family ties.
The Government's White Paper said:
"The balance of power within the family and the close and trusting relationships that exist make children particularly vulnerable to abuse within its environment".
I agree with that analysis. Incest is the greatest abuse of trust; it violates the assumed security of the family.
The word "incest" graphically captures the idea of impurity. This is the meaning of the Latin word "incestus" from which the English word derives. It encapsulates the desecration of a family relationship by the most appalling abuse of trust.
The overall section title in the Bill does not say "incest offences" but "familial child sex offences". The word "familial" lightens the gravity of the matter. It is an obscure medical term of comparatively recent origin, more common in the US than in Britain. In
360
contrast, "incest" is a longstanding concept—it can be found in documents dating back to the time of Magna Carta. Its meaning is widely and immediately understood today. Anyone who comes across the term "incest" in a news report, book or film knows exactly what it means.
The title of Clause 28 simply reads:
"Sexual activity with a child family member".
This is striking only in its neutrality. As a term, it does not possess the same degree of seriousness as the term "incest" and carries little stigma for the offender.
I understand that the sex offences review believed that the term "incest" should be removed as it might imply that the innocent party was complicit in the offence. If that was its aim, it has comprehensively failed. The descriptions "sexual activity with a child family member" or even "sex with an adult relative", the title of Clause 68, do not have any connotation that consent was withheld. Removing the concept of incest from the law removes from the name of the crime any concept of guilt. Ultimately, the only person who can benefit is the one who has committed the offence. Dropping the word "incest" makes the severity of what the victim has suffered appear much less serious.
I cannot help feeling that "incest" has been removed as a token gesture to political correctness. No doubt the Government will claim that they are merely tidying up or modernising the law. Whatever the case, I am afraid that this renaming downgrades and, I believe, sanitises the offence.
As I mentioned a moment ago, a plain contrast is that the Bill retains "rape" as an offence. Many noble Lords will be more than aware of this following lengthy debates earlier in Committee. Rape will still be called "rape". The Government have not proposed, so far as I am aware, to replace "rape" with an offence of "non-consensual sexual activity". There are moves from some activists in this country and in the United States to rename paedophilia "intergenerational sex". Will that be next? I sincerely hope not.
In defence of the name change in the Bill, it may be argued that the word "incest" should be used only to cover blood ties. I understand that argument, although I do not agree with it.
As brought in by the Government, the Bill rightly prohibits sexual activity between uncles and nieces. This relationship of affinity is also prohibited in the marriage law. Incest is the right description for this offence. In a real life case, most people who heard of it would immediately think that incest had taken place, not a "familial child sex offence".
One simple definition of incest is sexual intercourse between close relatives, the definition given by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. A sexual relationship between close relatives is commonly known as incest. The Bill defines the close relationships covered in Clauses 28 to 32 as "family". If these relationships are close enough to be defined as "family", they are also close enough to be defined as "incest".
The Government's proposals in this area are almost all found in the recommendations of the sexual offences review, which reported in July 2000. The

361
review recommended the removal of "incest" from the law. However, one factor in its decision seems to have been its belief that prosecutions under the existing law were declining. It asserted that the number of crimes of incest tried in the magistrates' courts in 1997 was only one seventh of the number in 1987. There is an elementary error here. The review seems to have forgotten that most cases of incest are tried in the Crown Court. It was therefore incorrect to assert that there are few cases of incest each year. In fact, in recent years, there have been around 100 cases every year, not 26, as stated in the review. This is comparable to the number of perjury crimes reported each year, or to the incidences of unlawful sexual activity with a girl under the age of 13.
I repeat here that the sexual offences review's most positive proposal in relation to this offence was the widening of the relationships covered. The review drew attention, for example, to research evidence showing the high incidence of uncles involved in sexual abuse. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said on 13th February 2003 at Second Reading, incest is a taboo in all cultures and religions. The distinguished American sociologist. Talcott Parsons, argued that,
"the incest taboo is a universal of human societies".
The Government are restoring to the English law on incest categories of close relationships which were covered by our law for centuries. Under the Bill, a wider range of relationships is covered by the offence. The pattern ultimately derives from the Judaeo-Christian tradition as recorded in the Bible, which covers step-parents, step-siblings, uncles and aunts.
"Incest" will remain in statute for Scotland and Northern Ireland. If the term can be retained and understood there, why can it not be the same in England and Wales?
Clauses 68 and 69 relate to incestuous activity between adults. Here, too, it should be recognised that a serious offence has been committed of which society strongly disapproves. This preserves the universal pattern of the family for all ages.
The sexual offences review supported the retention of such a law for the whole family. It noted that most cases of incest between adults had begun when one party was a child and represented,
"a long-term abuse of power".
The review concluded.
"that society may properly apply standards through the criminal law that are intended to protect the family as an institution as well as individuals from abuse".
Finally, I strongly support the effect of Clauses 28, 29, 68 and 69, but not the name. The word "incest" is striking in its immediate gravity. The alternatives offered by the Government are vague and vapid. They serve only to detract from the seriousness of the offence and, in that, can only aid its perpetrators. If my amendments are accepted, the headings in the Bill will be changed to include incest in the name of the offence. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The Committee will recall my amendments to the earlier clauses in the Bill when I objected to the use of the bare word "rape" for purely practical reasons that I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will understand. It is my view, from experience, that one of the reasons for low conviction rates for rape is the use of that word. Juries find it a word that connotes something very serious, that could lead to life imprisonment, while they are dealing with a degree of human relationships that may not be serious. Consequently, they do not convict.
When it comes to incest, the noble Baroness paints a picture of a horrible, disgusting crime—and, indeed, it can be—where a father manipulates his young children and has sexual intercourse with them. My experience of incest is that it occurs between very inadequate people. For example, it occurs between children or young adults who have never had any moral code taught them and who do not understand the stigma which is attached to relationships between siblings in that way. That is one example. Another quite frequent example is where, for some reason, the mother of the family is incapacitated, perhaps by illness or something of that nature, and the eldest daughter develops a relationship almost of the wife and mother in that family and performs the functions of both looking after the family home and also being a partner to the husband. They are the kinds of cases which come to court and to which the word "incest" is attached.
There are all kinds of degrees of seriousness of behaviour encapsulated in the human condition. It is quite right for the Government to get away from the old phrases which have connotations around them. The Government have taken away buggery, bestiality and incest. It is my view that the Bill would be greatly improved if the Government took away the word "rape" and recognised that there are very serious cases of rape and less serious cases.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: I would like to be able to support the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, this time, but I cannot do so. She was kind enough to refer to my Second Reading speech in which, among other things, I suggested that it was a shame that the Government seemed determined to strike the word "incest" from the statute book. It is an ancient English word found in identical or near-identical form in a number of other European languages. More importantly, it is well understood by the public at large.
I submit that rightly or wrongly the public at large associate incest with penetration of some sort and not mere touching. I believe that they would be confused if it were extended to cover forms of sexual activity other than the most serious. Although I am strongly in favour of retaining the word "incest" for the most serious forms of sexual activity between family members, I do not believe that it would be quite right to extend it to mere touching.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, rightly describes the effect of the new provisions in the clause and the way in which it extends what had been the previous position as regards family sexual relationships. It expands their number and the sorts of conduct which are covered. It is based on the proposition that the family unit is a place where children should be able to feel safe and protected. However, because of the balance of power within the family unit and the close and trusting relationships which exist within it, the family creates opportunity for exploitation and abuse and within such a unit that can occur between people who are not simply blood relations.
In the light of that change we believe that it is wholly inappropriate to continue to use the word "incest". We believe that it goes further. There is a very short passage in Setting the Boundaries 2000 which I should like to read. It states:
"After careful consideration, we decided that the word incest, although well understood, was perhaps no longer the right one to use in the context of delivering protection in the family. It is generally understood as an offence of blood relations, and carries a very heavy burden, not only for the offender but also for the victim/survivor who can be seen as complicit. It seems inappropriate for the informal and temporary family arrangements that can be the cause of particular concern, and are well outside the present law of incest".
We believe that is broadly right and that the time has come no longer to use the word. In the light of what I have said I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that I dealt with the final point which the noble and learned Lord made about deeming complicity. The new terminology does not resolve that matter, which I dealt with in some detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was consistent in that he was concerned about the word "rape" as well. Whatever the activity is, if the degree of incest is sufficient to fall within the clauses in the early part of the Bill, then it is serious. It is certainly serious for the child. It links with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, as regards touching.
I have the same reservations as the noble Lord about that. For a long time I have supported the very difficult situation of a step-parent who has become a new member of a family with young children. It has always been my view that all members of most families touch their children and each other all the time and very often in a very affectionate way. It certainly happens in my family where one cuddles up on the sofa, watches television, reads stories and where children crawl into bed with their parents and even with step-parents. But we are not talking about such matters.
If it comes to the attention of the prosecution services that there is sufficient evidence that the degree of touching is such that it falls under the clauses in the Bill, then it is very serious for the child. There needs to be some protection in that regard. I believe that there is a commonality of understanding about the word "incest" and any child or member of a family who is violated by another member of the family, particularly children who are violated by parents and/or uncles and
364
aunts. The evidence shows that there are very common occurrences of the uncle abusing the child. I believe that "incest" is the appropriate word. I am sorry that my amendment has not received support throughout the Chamber. For the moment I shall reflect on what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 13, line 21, after first "he" insert "reasonably"
The noble Lord said: When I tabled this amendment my purpose was to try to tidy up Clause 28 and to try to deal with the shifting burdens of proof that are contained within subsection (2). After the facts have been established under subsection (1) the burden shifted to the defendant to prove that he believed that the other person was 18 or over and then back to the prosecution to establish that the belief was unreasonable. We had discussion about a very similar matter at an earlier stage of the Committee.
Looking at the matter again, I am even more concerned about Clauses 28 and 29 when comparing them with Clauses 9 and 11, which we have already debated. Sexual activity with a child family member is concerned with a person who is under 18. If the person were under 16, presumably Clause 9 would apply. There would be no question of consent being given by the child under 16. Again, we are really dealing with 16 to 18-year olds where the other party to the sexual activity may very well consent to what is taking place, but that does not stop it from being an offence.
I do not understand why in Clause 9 it is for the prosecution to prove that A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, but in Clause 28 the burden of proof shifts twice for the defendant to prove that he believed the other person was 18 or over and, as I have already said, for the prosecution to try to rebut that.
Why must there be a change of that nature? If one compares Clause 29 with Clause 11, we see that the same thing happens. In Clause 11, it is for the prosecution to prove that,
"B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over".
In Clause 29, the burden of proof changes to the defendant. It is for the defendant to prove,
"that he believed that the other person was 18 or over".
I want an explanation for that.
It is not sufficient to say, as the noble and learned Lord said when we earlier discussed the issue, that my amendment, which would have made it,
"reasonably believed that the other person was 18 or over",
in subsection (2), would offend the European convention. I have looked at the European convention, and I see nothing in that or in case law that supports that explanation.
The other matter that concerns me is the level of sentencing. In subsection (5), for a person over 18 the maximum sentence is 14 years. That accords with

365
Clause 9, when a person is under 16. But under Clause 28(6), unless subsection (5) applies—that is, unless the person is over 18—
"a person guilty of an offence under this section"—
in other words, a person under 18—
"is liable … on summary conviction … to … 6 months",
and,
"on conviction on indictment, to … 5 years".
The position that that postulates is that the other family member who is the defendant is under 18, dealing with someone who is between 16 and 18. The defendant could be 12, 13 or 14—in other words, he could be younger than the person that the clause aims to protect. That person, under subsection (6), seems to be open to conviction on indictment of up to five years. I do not understand the thinking behind that, but perhaps I am muddled and have not understood it fully.
One may compare that provision with the clauses that we have discussed—Clauses 68 and 69, which deal with sex with an adult relative—and consider the level of sentencing. In Clauses 68 and 69, the sentence is six months or two years, whether one is the person doing the penetration or the person receiving the penetration. In Clause 28, which deals with sexual activity with a child family member, there is a sentence of 14 years and, for a person under 18, five years. Why are there such discrepancies? Why do sexual assault, with which Clause 28 deals, or inciting sexual assault, with which Clause 29 deals, carry such enormous sentences of imprisonment as compared with what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would call the incest provisions in Clauses 68 and 69? A lot of explaining needs to be done about the two clauses, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: We on these Benches associate ourselves with the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in relation to the shifting burden of proof. We discussed that in almost the same terms in relation to the abuse of trust provisions in our previous Committee day, and drew the distinction between the drafting of those clauses and the sexual offences with children clauses—Clauses 9 to 14. We do not understand that difference, and hope that we will get an explanation or that the noble and learned Lord will consider the matter again.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raised two separate points. First, he asked why we place all the burden of proof on the prosecution in relation to Clause 9 and yet place part of the burden in relation to belief about age under Clause 28. Secondly, he asked why, even if the first question is answered, is there a shifting burden dividing it in two?
366
The noble Lord asked a separate wodge of questions about sentencing. He asked why the maximum penalty under Clause 69 was two years, whereas the maximum penalty under Clause 28 was two years—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Fourteen and five years.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Exactly.
In relation to the first question, the reason for the difference in overall approach between the Clause 9 and 11 offence and the Clause 28 and following offences is that in Clause 9 the defendant and the child may not know each other. In Clause 28 and associated offences, there is a familial relationship, so it is reasonable to say that the defendant should have the burden of saying, "I did not know or I did not believe that the child fell below the relevant age".
The second question concerned the burden of proof. When there is a burden on the defendant to set out what his or her knowledge was about the age, why shift the burden of reasonableness back to the prosecution? The European convention does not specifically refer to the question, but our view is that as a matter of law the convention in the circumstances of this offence would not uphold a reverse burden on the question of reasonableness, when it is an objective matter that a jury has to determine, and not something peculiarly in the knowledge of the defendant, such as the knowledge of age. It is purely because of that legal issue that the two have been separated.
As for the discrepancy between the sentencing for Clause 28 and for Clauses 68 and 69, that is accounted for specifically by reference to the age of the victim. For Clause 28 it is under 18 and for Clauses 68 and 69 it is over 18. Under Clause 28, when the defendant is very young, one would expect prosecutorial discretion to be used. The distinction is made because of the age of the victim.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I do not see the need to shift the burden of proof to the defendant under Clauses 28 and 29, in the way that the noble and learned Lord describes. If the burden of proof remains with the prosecution, it is still for the defendant to raise the issue and give evidence that he did not believe, otherwise it is not an issue in the case. It is for the defendant to have the evidential burden, in the sense that he has to raise the issue by giving evidence about it. However, it is only right and fair that the prosecution should retain the overall burden of proof so that the jury is sure that the defendant did not have that belief. I shall return to that matter.
As for sentencing, Clause 69 is where a person over 16 receives penetration from a family member, perhaps with consent. That carries a maximum of two years imprisonment. In Clause 28, the defendant may be under 18 and be facing five years imprisonment. I do not see how one can marry those two levels of sentencing. It seems totally ridiculous that sexual touching should carry such a heavy penalty, whereas giving or receiving penetration from a family member

367
with consent—all these offences are postulated as being with consent—should have the levels of sentencing to which I referred.
To follow the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, there is a degree of political correctness here. Consensual intercourse between adult family members—people over 16—is regarded as not too serious, but when the word "child" is put into the offence, the sentence must immediately be more than doubled. That is offensive, and I shall return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 174 and 175 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 176 and 177:
Page 13, line 22, after "proved" insert "(a)"
Page 13, line 22, at end insert ", or
(b) that the other person was under 13."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 178 to 182 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 13, line 31, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 13, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 184 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 198, both of which are probing amendments related to the use of family proceedings rather than indictment for the familial child sex offences in Clauses 28 and 29. Under those clauses, sexual activity with a child family member under 18 or inciting a child family member to sexual activity generally attracts a 14-year sentence except where the defendant is under 18, where sentence is either five years on conviction on indictment or six months or a fine on summary conviction. My amendments are designed to elicit the Government's thinking on how they see these clauses being used for those aged 17 or less and how they see the distinctions between summary proceedings and proceedings by indictment.
I tabled a similar amendment to Clause 14 which carries a similar sentence level in relation to under 18s who are involved in child sex offences under Clause 14, but I think that the Minister perhaps forgot to reply to it because I could not find that reply in Hansard—no doubt because our debate on Clause 14 ranged much wider than the matter of indictment and summary conviction. As with Clause 14, however, we are talking here about offences by young people, mainly 16 and 17 year-olds, against children. All of the points made when we debated Clause 14 are relevant here. The noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Jay, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—all of whom are in their place—raised points about children needing to be dealt with outside the criminal justice system. The
368
force of all of those points is at least as great when considering the type of young people covered by Clauses 28 and 29.
I am well aware that there is a spectrum in relation to the gravity of offences involving children and that discretion will be used. However, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will say what will drive the decision on whether to pursue a prosecution. I believe that the Crown Prosecution Service will pursue a prosecution only when it is the only way in which to ensure that the child is treated properly and/or to protect other children. As I understand it, the criminal justice system will be used only when other remedies would not be effective. So we are talking about very serious child sex offence cases that should be left to non-criminal justice remedies.
If that is so, and if we have concluded that an offence is so serious that there must be a prosecution to ensure that the young person is dealt with or that children are protected, would we ever contemplate using summary proceedings which could result in a mere fine? Do we expect the offences in these clauses to be used only for the more serious type of familial child sex offences, when the other mechanisms—child protection, social care, medical care—cannot exclusively be used? If that is so, how could we contemplate using the summary proceedings with the minor penalties that they allow? I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have already made my comments on the wide range of human behaviour and I shall not repeat them. However, the effect of Amendment No. 184 is on people who are under 18. It removes from them the possibility of appearing before a magistrates' court and receiving a summary conviction, simply for consensual touching of a family member who is also under 18. If I could be assured that forms of treatment and the measures to which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley referred were in place, perhaps it would be right to make the offence so serious that it could be dealt with only on indictment. However, until those measures are in place, and they are not at the moment, I think that one has to leave it open for those under 18 to be dealt with properly in the magistrates' court.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has refined her argument. She agrees that a wide spectrum of offending can occur. We all agree that much of that spectrum will necessarily entail a trial in the Crown Court. She then posed a question: if only very serious cases should be brought, should not the option of a summary case be excluded? I think that that would be unwise. Surely the right course is to let the prosecutorial authorities have the full range of options in dealing with what can happen in sexual situations and allow them to make their judgment on that basis. It would be unwise and much too difficult to make the guidelines so clear that although one thought that the criminal law should intervene, it could do so only in a way in which it could make a judgment on the seriousness of the case.

369
The problem arises only in relation to over 18s. If the defendant were under 18, he would start off in the youth court, which could decide whether the case was so grave that it had to go to the Crown Court. The noble Baroness said that one could not contemplate a situation in which a tine would be appropriate. One can be fined in the Crown Court.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. One could be fined in the Crown Court, but not for offences under Clauses 28 and 29—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No.
Baroness Noakes: Would they if on indictment?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes.
Baroness Noakes: I stand corrected. As the noble and learned Lord will know, my legal knowledge is rusty. I am still concerned that in dealing with young people we are retaining a range of criminal justice measures, when we should be focusing on non-criminal justice measures and simply retaining backstops for dealing with those children. The issue has been raised before but we have not had a satisfactory answer. Those arrangements are not in place, and that is where I think that the policy efforts need to be concentrated. Although I accept that those issues are difficult to accommodate in debates on this Bill, I hope that the Minister will accept the concerns that many noble Lords share about this particular aspect of offending behaviour. We are debating the criminal justice aspects of the issue, but that should not be our predominant concern. We should be looking to many other remedies. However, in the light of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 185 and 186 not moved.]
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity]:
[Amendments Nos. 187 to 196 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 14, line 19, leave out from beginning to "applies" in line 22 and insert—
"(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section, if he was aged 18 or over and the other person was under 13 at the time of the offence, and the activity incited involved—

(a) penetration of B's anus or vagina with a part of A's body or anything else,

(b) penetration of B's mouth with A's penis,

(c) penetration of A's anus or vagina with a part of B's body, or

(d) penetration of A's mouth with B's penis,
is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

370
(4A) Unless subsection (4) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section, if he was aged 18 or over at the time of the offence, is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
(5) Unless subsection (4) or (4A)"
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 197 raises the maximum penalty from 14 years to life for an adult aged 18 or over who incites a child family member aged under 13 to engage in penetrative sexual activity. Where the child family member is over this age or the activity incited is not penetrative, the maximum penalty will remain at 14 years. Where the incitement is carried out by a family member aged under 18 the penalty will remain at five years. Inciting a child aged under 13 to engage in sexual activity is in itself a serious offence. When the person who does that is a member of the child's family or household the betrayal of the child's trust is greater. Moreover, Clause 29 as drafted does not differentiate between victims aged under 13 or over; or between adults who incite a child family member to sexual kissing or to sexual intercourse.
The penalty of incitement needs to be comparable with the penalty for the most serious behaviour that might be incited; that is, sexual intercourse. The amendment provides for this differentiation which marks the most serious behaviour and the particular vulnerability of children aged under 13. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 198 to 200 not moved.]
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Iraq
1.3 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place on Iraq.
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the situation in Iraq.
"I will deal in a moment with the post-conflict arrangements. Let me start with the military situation. All right honourable and honourable Members will have followed the extraordinary events of the past four days as coalition forces entered Basra and then Baghdad. We can all share the new sense of hope so evident on the faces of ordinary Iraqis who are now tasting freedom, many of them for the first time in their lives.
"I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the courage shown by the men and women of our Armed Forces and those of the United States, and their compassion in dealing with the civilian

371
population. Some of our service personnel and some of the United States service personnel have made the ultimate sacrifice to help remove the threat from Saddam's regime and to secure Iraq's liberation. We mourn them and send our deepest condolences to their families and comrades in arms.
"I also want to express my profound sorrow at the death of innocent Iraqi civilians as well as a number of international journalists. This is, I am afraid, a tragic consequence of military conflict, despite all the care taken by coalition military forces to keep casualties to a minimum.
"Given what we have seen and now know, there is understandable euphoria at the progress made in recent days. But we must recognise that the military task is far from complete. There are still large areas of Iraq not under coalition control, and units of the Iraqi armed forces still engaged in combat. After years of brutal repression, we have inevitably seen excesses and lawlessness as the old regime collapses. Coalition military forces will be doing all they can to provide a secure environment for the Iraqi people.
"For all of the difficulties which may lie ahead, we are without question at the start of a new and much better chapter in Iraq's history. As our control extends, still more of the dark secrets of Saddam's regime are being revealed. Two days ago, ITN's Bill Neely gained entry to Saddam's secret police building in Basra. In graphic detail, a former inmate, Hameed Fatil, described how he was tortured along with his two brothers. Hameed was the lucky one. His two brothers were executed, and Hameed re-enacted their ordeal. There were no TV cameras in Saddam's torture chambers. But there are now: and the truth which they reveal is shocking.
"As for Iraq's programmes to develop chemical and biological weapons, we know that they existed, and in 173 pages of damning detail the weapons inspectors have spelled out all the questions the Iraqi regime had failed systematically to answer. We will now be seeking those answers. We pledged to rid Iraq of these weapons and we stand by that commitment.
"The rapid course of events made all the more timely the discussions on Monday and Tuesday at Hillsborough between President Bush and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. These were dominated by issues related to post-conflict Iraq. Copies of the joint declaration issued by the two leaders have been placed in the Library of the House.
"Our immediate priority is to ensure the delivery of food, medicine and humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq. My right honourable friend the International Development Secretary will be making a Statement on this shortly. But, in brief, British forces are already heavily engaged in the provision of humanitarian assistance and organisation of basic services in the areas of the south we control. As the coalition brings security to more of Iraq's
372
territory, so the flow of assistance will increase. We are actively looking at sending police advisers to Basra to assist UK forces as soon as possible.
"But our responsibilities to the people of Iraq go well beyond questions of immediate humanitarian relief. For a generation Iraqi people were starved of information both about developments in their own country and in the wider world. But those days when they had to labour under the lies spread by Saddam's propaganda machine are now at an end. I am pleased to announce that a new Arabic television service, Towards Freedom, is being launched in Iraq today with opening statements from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and President Bush.
"A major subject of discussion at Hillsborough was how best to help the people of Iraq build a stable and prosperous country living in peace with their neighbours. The Hillsborough declaration emphasised that the United Nations has a 'vital role' to play in the reconstruction of Iraq. The United Kingdom and United States plan to seek the adoption of new United Nations Security Council resolutions which would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq. In that context, we welcomed the appointment by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan of a special adviser to work on this range of issues.
"At Hillsborough we reaffirmed our commitment to protect Iraq's oil and other natural resources, as the patrimony of the people of Iraq, which should be used for their benefit, and for their benefit alone.
"Active discussions are under way among members of the Security Council to prepare the ground for these further resolutions. In addition to participating in the Hillsborough discussions, I have myself travelled to Berlin, Brussels, Paris and Madrid for consultations in the past week with Secretary Powell and the foreign ministers of Germany, Russia, France and Spain and of our other NATO and EU colleagues.
"It is our guiding principle that as soon as possible Iraq should be governed by the Iraqi people themselves. We therefore support the early formation of an Iraqi interim authority which progressively will assume the functions of government. The coalition will need to work with the UN in establishing this body. As an initial step, I welcome the initiative taken by British military commanders in the south of Iraq to bring together local tribal leaders. I envisage at the right moment a national conference bringing together credible representatives from all parts of Iraqi society to agree on the establishment of the interim authority.
"Iraq's neighbours too have important interests at stake. They, like us, want to see a stable and prosperous Iraq living at peace in its region. Many of them have given valuable support to the military coalition. All will have an important contribution to make in the reconstruction phase. I saw the Turkish Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul, last week, and

373
look forward to talking to him again shortly. I shall myself be visiting a number of Gulf states in the next few days.
"My ministerial colleague the honourable member for North Warwickshire will shortly be visiting Syria and I ran. It is important to maintain the dialogue with both these countries. Syria and Iran now have the chance to play their part in building a better future for Iraq. I have maintained a dialogue over the past two years with the Iranian Government and in particular Foreign Minister Kharrazi covering a wide range of issues, including some which cause us concern. As for Syria, we hope that it will now take the opportunity to make a decisive break with the policies of the past and so contribute to a better future for the entire region.
"As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has so often emphasised, nothing would make a more significant contribution to stability in the region than a solution to the Israel/Palestinian issue. This too was a major subject of discussion at Hillsborough. The Prime Minister and President Bush looked forward to the publication of the roadmap as soon as Abu Mazen's Cabinet has been formed. President Bush made clear his commitment and that of his Administration to implementing the roadmap and to expending the same amount of energy in the search for peace as the Prime Minister has done over Northern Ireland.
"For the Iraqi people the search for a lasting peace began yesterday. Iraq has been a country essentially at war with its neighbours and with itself for the past 24 years, its people subjected to a tyranny the full horror of which will become ever more apparent in the coming days and weeks. Twenty-three days ago, this House endorsed the Government's decision to resort to the use of force in order to remove the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and to bring the Iraqi peoples long nightmare to an end. In committing our Armed Forces in that way, we took one of the most difficult decisions facing any democracy. But we were right to do so. Today we are well on the way to achieving the objectives we set. In doing so we have taken on new responsibilities to and for the people of Iraq. We will apply the same energy and commitment to fulfilling these as we have done to the military task".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
1.14 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we are all deeply grateful to the Minister for repeating that full and helpful Statement. We warmly and closely associate ourselves with the tributes in the Statement to the Armed Forces and we express our great sadness—which is sometimes almost hard to control—at the news of the deaths or maiming of civilians and military personnel. There have been some tragic pictures that have moved us all.
We too agree that it is too early to declare what some call a victory. I am not sure that "victory" is the right word. A success, yes, against many gloomy expert
374
predictions that it would be impossible to control Baghdad or that it would take many months. But we must never forget that the purpose is to restore Iraq to its people. That will be the true success.
Does the Minister agree that as soon as the shooting is finally contained, to quote a leading Arab thinker in one of this morning's papers,
"every ounce of effort should go into helping to re-build a democratic and pluralist Iraq",
and to defeat the cynics who say that that cannot be done? Should we not be straining every sinew to bring not just succour—and of course, humanitarian help, about which there will be a Statement later—but also dignity back to the Iraqi nation?
Will the Minister accept—I know in this case she will—that the Prime Minister must have his full share of the credit for holding firm to his course, with support from this side but in the teeth of opposition from his own party and several other sources? Does she agree that the wooden spoon must go to the media; particularly the electronic media? Of course I recognise that there have been brave individual journalists and there have been some tragic deaths, which is to be deplored. But at the editorial level it is clear that the media lack the experience or skills to cope with such a war.
The Daily Telegraph this morning described BBC coverage as showing "bias, inaccuracy and defeatism". Has the Minister noticed a sharp change of tone in the broadcast reporting approach to the fall of Baghdad, but only now that it has happened?
As to the organisation of the next stage, is she concerned—I am sure that she is and that the Foreign Secretary is—about the looting and lawlessness that is breaking out? Does she think that, while our troops obviously cannot do everything—I know that they have made noble efforts—the Defence Secretary's somewhat lighthearted approach to the issue the other day in another place was a shade misjudged? What advice can we offer, with our enormous experience of Northern Ireland, on the establishment of an armed but trusted policing operation? Can NATO play a role? Or does the Minister suggest that the Arab League or the United Arab Emirates might organise a policing force to help restore law and order, without which Iraq cannot recover?
I need to ask about the US's naming of contractors. Is it the position that while under US law preference has to be given to American contractors in the rehabilitation of Iraq, here the opposite prevails? Aid must not on any account be tied to national suppliers or contractors under our laws and European Union regulations. Will the Minister assure us that that is understood and that the problem is being addressed and not allowed to drift?
I must also ask about oil. I had assumed, like others, that renewed oil revenues from Iraq would be available not only for food but also for reconstruction, especially if oil production could be boosted. Is it true that in practice Iraq's creditors—who are considerable in number—will all have prior claims to the oil

375
revenues and the ownership of the oil itself; and that therefore the oil resources available for Iraq and its immediate help may be far less than hoped?
I should also ask about Kirkuk's oil wells. Are we prepared for the fact that, if the Kurds take control as they are determined to, the Turkish authorities may say that they will find that unacceptable and may have to take action? What did the Turkish Foreign Minister say about that grim prospect?
Can we assume that the interim authority and the military will have to govern until a new Iraqi government is formed, with the UN playing a role—variously described as "vital", "central", or whatever—but not under a UN mandate? We know the names of all the American members of the interim authority because they have been published, but the names of the senior British officials, who will be part of this authority, seem to be missing. Can the noble Baroness give us some names or send them if they are not available so as to confirm the view that this is a coalition—an international authority—not just an American one?
Finally, and more broadly, will the noble Baroness continue, as she has assiduously done thus far, to keep us up to date on the Palestine/Israel front, on Abu Mazen's plans on building his cabinet, and on the prospects for the road map? Secondly, the noble Baroness will have heard it suggested fairly widely that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office apparently wants to mend fences with France and go back to business as usual on building a common EU foreign policy—on Iraq and, indeed, everything else. Does she accept that that would be the wrong approach? In paving the way for new UN resolutions, which the Foreign Secretary says he is doing, surely France needs to mend its fences after appearing to be neutral between Saddam and the West. Surely good Europeans, including ourselves, should now be using the situation to redesign Europe's future and its approach to the Middle East—and, indeed, the Atlantic Alliance—in ways that are no longer dominated by doggedly anti-American French and German thinking.
As the Chinese say, every crisis is an opportunity. This country will not be forgiven if we stand paralysed by pessimism and fail to take the colossal opportunities for a better Iraq and Middle East, a better Europe, and a better transatlantic relationship, which this moment so clearly offers.
1.21 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches also thank the Minister for repeating the very full and detailed Statement made in another place by the Foreign Secretary. We appreciate that this is a major attempt to bring us up to date on a whole number of different areas of concern. I should like to express our congratulations on the way in which the military strategy has been conducted. I have in mind the courage and imagination of the forces in Basra, which is under British control. We hope that the final conclusion as regards the military action takes place very quickly.
376
Does the Minister agree that, quite probably, sporadic military, or paramilitary, action will continue over the next few weeks? Does she also agree that we must be prepared for such action and recognise that part of winning the peace, which is now the essential challenge before us, involves being able to deal effectively with such sporadic actions? Like the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I should like the Minister to give us the most recent report on matters in northern Iraq, which create considerable concern because of what one might describe as the "race towards Kirkuk"? Can she tell us how that outcome might affect relations with Turkey?
I have one specific question with regard to casualties of war. We share profoundly the deep sense of regret of the House about the losses to British and American forces. We also acknowledge the extraordinary courage with which they have conducted themselves. However, there have been unfortunate casualties among innocent Iraqi civilians. I shall not go into the issue of humanitarian aid at this point because that will be dealt with by a further Statement later today, but can the Minister say whether the United Kingdom can assist in getting medicines and, if possible, even expert medical help to the hospitals in Iraq that are now dealing with overwhelming numbers of casualties among civilians? Can she say whether such assistance could be expedited so that we might be seen to be immediately dealing with some of the tragic consequences of war?
As to the issue of winning the peace, can the Minister give us further information on the present situation with regard to order on the ground, especially in the regions of Baghdad and Basra? According to the BBC lunchtime news, looting of the UNICEF headquarters, of the German Embassy, and of other sites in Baghdad, is now taking place. Can the Minister say whether it is perceived to be the responsibility of the Armed Forces, at least for the time being, to keep order, as implied by the Geneva conventions, until some form of policing can be established? In that context, we very much welcome the possibility of police advisers who would echo the thought that it is urgent to establish some sort of police help in these cities as quickly as possible, from whatever sensible and authorised source they might come. I support the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who suggested the possibility of bringing in police from Arab countries with experience of dealing with such situations.
With regard to the attempt to try to track down weapons of mass destruction, have the Government given thought to inviting the UN inspectors to return to Iraq? I echo the thought expressed from these Benches by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire that to persuade the world of the existence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction, it is important that they should be authenticated by a UN source. We understand that the UN inspectors are still employed by UNMOVIC. Can the Minister say whether any thought has been given to inviting the inspectors to authenticate the discoveries made by our troops, those of the United States and of other members of the coalition?

377
On the question of setting up the Arabic television station, which will obviously have some difficulty in establishing its credibility, can the noble Baroness tell us the position with regard to Al Jazeera? Can she say whether the studios, which we understand came under attack by way of a military missile, are now operating? Will they be able to resume services relatively soon?
I have two further major questions. The first, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, relates to what one can only describe as the "substantial confusion" over the issue of a post-war administration of Iraq. There have been a number of recent reports, especially as regards Mr Ahmed Chalabi, with the Pentagon differing to some extent from reports from the State Department. Indeed, one has to say that Washington gives the appearance of a continuing argument between different departments of state. Can the Minister say whether the proposed summit that was to be held this weekend in Iraq has now been postponed sine die, or to another date?
The Minister made reference to a national conference to be set up with support from the British forces in southern Iraq. Can she say under whose auspices such a national conference would be held, and what role, if any, the UN would take in such proceedings? The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, asked about the oil revenues. Can the Minister say whether existing debtors would represent the first demands made on them, or whether, as we understand from reports about the resumption of the Oil for Food programme—the basic requirements under UN Resolution 1472—the needs of Iraqi people, especially for food and medicine, would take priority over any other demands made in that respect?
I turn to the troubling communiqué from the United States Administration in Washington to the Government of Israel, reported in The Times on 4th April, which suggested that the US would now be looking at the position with regard to Syria and Iran; and in particular, would be taking action to stop the development of terrorist activities in those countries. I understand that the communiqué specifically said "not necessarily by military means". It is obviously of great importance, but it has not been published in the UK. The Minister may be able to throw some further light on the matter.
Finally, as regards the road map, perhaps the Minister can say whether the Sharon Government have now accepted, as the Statement implies, that once a cabinet has been established by the Palestinian Authority under the new Prime Minister, Mr Abu Mazen, that would count as the first stage having been met in terms of the continuation of the road map? Alternatively, as later reports suggest, will the process be delayed until that cabinet is "working effectively"—a rather vague phrase, which could mean either a long or a quick movement towards the next stages of the road map?
Lastly, we on these Benches welcome the joint statement by the Foreign Secretary and M. Villepin of France. We hope that the indications of much closer co-operation in bringing humanitarian aid and insisting on the reconstruction of Iraq can, indeed, be realised.
1.30 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord. Lord Howell of Guildford, and the noble Baroness for the tone of their responses. I join them in their tributes to our servicemen and women and those of the United States who have laid down their lives in this military conflict. Like them, I acknowledge not only the extraordinary courage of those who have participated in the military conflict but, in many ways as importantly, the compassion shown by our service people towards Iraqi civilians.
I have little time in which to reply and I shall do my best to get through all the questions. I agree with the noble Lord that it is too soon to declare what he called "success". I direct him back to the Statement, which made clear that the military task is still far from complete. I believe that that point was also made by the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord went on to say that when the military conflict stopped, every ounce of effort would need to be directed at construction. I agree with him. I believe that this is an enormously important issue, and it is a point to which your Lordships have returned on a number of occasions. The reconstruction of Iraq—perhaps it would be better to say the "post-Saddam construction of Iraq", because so little was done over so many years to put Iraq into proper working order—will be of real importance. I believe that the word "dignity" was a very apposite description of what we should be searching for in relation to the Iraqi people.
I thank the noble Lord for giving my right honourable friend the Prime Minister his full share of credit. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord's Benches for the stalwart way that they have supported this military action. We have been very pleased to see that type of reaction from the Conservative Benches.
The noble Lord talked about giving the wooden spoon to journalists. Of course, some very brave journalists have been out in Iraq. As the noble Lord acknowledged, some of those journalists lost their lives in the pursuit of truth. It is important that we do not tar all journalists with the same brush.
I also consider it important to have seen on our television screens what the excesses of war really mean. It is important that we know what is done in our name. Those of us who have to take these terrible, heart-wrenching decisions must know the real consequences of those decisions, not only for our military personnel but for the people on the ground. What I have found most objectionable is the mixing of editorialising and reporting. Reports have not been clear. They have been editorialised to a degree that I believe many people have found unacceptable.
Personally, I believe that some of the BBC reporting has been excellent, but some parts of it have been just plain silly. We may well have time to examine whether that has been a result of 24-hour reporting. But I emphasise to the noble Lord that the role of journalists in this type of conflict is vital, and many of them are very brave men and women.

379
On the question of looting, as the Statement reported, we hope—we are considering how to arrange it—that police experts will go to the south of Iraq where Her Majesty's Government's forces are currently dominating. We have also been talking to tribal leaders in that part of Iraq to try to ensure that they offer proper leadership to young people who have undertaken some of the looting in an effort to stop it on the ground. I say to the noble Lord that the reports that we are receiving this morning from the military seem to indicate that much of the looting in Basra has subsided, although there is still cause for concern in Baghdad this morning. But I suggest to your Lordships that this is part of a fast-moving picture. When military forces enter a region, there is bound to be a period when a certain degree of lawlessness takes place.
I turn to the question of the US and the naming of American contracts. There is a different law in the United States. In my view, we are right not to tie our aid to our trade. We have persuaded the United States not to tie their aid to their trade in the same way as they untied their aid in relation to Kosovo and other conflicts. They are now prepared to see the subcontracts go to contractors from other parts of the world. I have already explained to your Lordships that British companies are actively involved in that.
Of course, the oil should be for the Iraqi people. The question of debtors must be discussed, and I have already seen the question of debt cancellation crop up in papers. A number of very big debtors will have a great interest in the issue. It is a matter of open knowledge that Russia, Germany and France are among the substantial debtors, and they will no doubt take a great interest in what happens next.
The noble Lord asked about the names of the senior British officials who are involved in ORHA. I was able to report to noble Lords yesterday that there are such officials. I understand that I am not able to reveal the names to your Lordships, but I shall do so as soon as I can. I shall seek to obtain clearance of the names, which I have in my briefing. I specifically sought to find out whether I could reveal them to your Lordships, but I am advised that at present that would not be proper. But I shall do so as soon as I am able. We shall of course keep your Lordships up to date on all these important issues.
I have used up the 20 minutes that I understand I am allowed but I have not reached the end of the very detailed questions from the noble Baroness. However, perhaps I may try to weave those in in answering other questions.
1.36 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am sure that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who returns even as we speak from his less high-profile but vitally important programme on interfaith dialogue, would want to associate himself with the graciousness and thoroughness of the Minister's Statement.
380
Does the noble Baroness agree that it is very important that we pay tribute to members of the Armed Forces for the way that they have carried out an extremely difficult job? I believe it is true to say that we are now in an age where war of whatever kind will be debated in a way that it has never been debated before. As Bishop of a Navy city, I can say, without letting cats out of bags, that the people with whom I have had contact have truly and honestly debated whether our forces should be there, what they have carried out and what they have been ordered to do. Surely the Minister agrees that it is important that, as we think of the next stage, we should be generous in extending a measure of support to all sides in this debate.
I want to press the Minister very gently with a second point. I shall then sit down and let others intervene. I do not believe that we should allow our relations with the UN and our severed relations with our former allies just to go by the board. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is not enough to take a rather triumphalistic view.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I join the right reverend Prelate in the tribute that he paid to the most reverend Primate, who is returning from Qatar as we speak. We welcome him back and I thank the right reverend Prelate for the warm things that he said. I agree with him. The fact is that we are able to debate war as never before. I believe that that is right. War is a terrible thing. We must see what it entails if we are to make judgments about whether we are right to risk the lives of our own servicemen and women and whether we are right to risk the lives of those in the country where we pursue such military action.
What I have found difficult is not so much the 24-hour coverage as the constant questioning of every decent motive. We were told that this would be a war about oil. I hope that what I have been able to say to your Lordships has demonstrated beyond peradventure that nothing could be further from the truth. It has been about weapons of mass destruction.
I pick up a point made by the noble Baroness. Of course, we should talk with the coalition and the United Nations about the role of the inspectors. However, I say to the noble Baroness that if we find weapons of mass destruction during the course of the continuing military action, I hope that the noble Baroness and others will not question the veracity of those who make those finds. I hope we shall not find that people rush to say that, because the coalition found the weapons, somehow that veracity is undermined. I consider that to be a very important point.
I return to the question of the United Nations. I believe that what was said yesterday at Hillsborough about the vital role of the United Nations chimes in rather well with what President Chirac said. It is important that we establish and re-establish our relationships. The noble Lord questioned whether this was the wrong approach. But I remind him that we have to work in multilateral forums. That is the nature

381
of international relations these days. We have to work in the UN. We have a huge international programme on terrorism. We have to work through the EU. It will be vital in the WTO, and we also have to work in the G8. I hope that we shall there be working with France on some of the very important issues that we have to face in Africa.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the action they have taken and in particular on the determination of the Prime Minister. I pay my own tribute to the courage and bravery of our forces. About the need for a wider settlement in the Middle East, I add that in 1967 I reported the Middle East war when the Occupied Territories became the Occupied Territories; 35 years later my stepson has reported this war and is now in Baghdad. So if the House will forgive me, I shall not join in the criticism of the press and television. I endorse entirely what she says. I believe that some of the reporting has been both distinguished and courageous.
My point is that I do not believe that we can afford remotely to waste another 35 years before we reach some fair and good settlement to the Palestine/Israel position. If we do that, the instability in the Middle East will continue and continue.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I shall reply briefly to that last point. Her Majesty's Government agree whole-heartedly with the sentiments noble Lords have expressed about the enormous amount of effort that has gone into the Middle East plans, to the quartet and to the roadmap. We are very pleased that this week there was the Statement from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the President of the United States which endorsed that roadmap and gave a commitment to implement it when it is published, which we hope will be after Abu Mazen has appointed his government.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bach responded very helpfully recently to an inquiry about the more than 600 Kuwaiti prisoners taken by the Iraqis in Gulf War I, who were never accounted for by the regime of Saddam Hussein. Further to the Minister's moving reference today to the regime's "dark secrets", is there anything more my noble friend can say now about the fate of the Kuwaiti prisoners, and will she keep us urgently informed of any development in this deeply important matter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I associate myself with everything that my noble friend Lord Bach said about the Kuwaiti prisoners. It must be a matter of continuing anguish to the families, parents, husbands and wives of those who are unaccounted for. Sadly, as yet, I cannot give the noble Lord any further information about that, but I assure him that as soon as information becomes available it will be made public, consistent with, of course, anything that has to be said first to the families of those directly involved. I think we owe it to them in the first
382
instance, as the loved ones of those who may have lost their lives, to give them the information as quickly as we are able.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords—
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the Statement to this House.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, there will be time for everyone who wants to speak.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: To be brief, I associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, both in terms of his gratitude and that of your Lordships' House to all our servicemen who have contributed to the success of this campaign and also in terms of his criticism of the BBC. I was one of the first in your Lordships' House to suggest a wooden spoon for the BBC.
However, I think your Lordships will agree that there are lessons to be learned from this campaign. One of those must be that economic boycotts do nothing to hinder evil regimes. Those economic boycotts that we saw in the case of Iraq did little other than handicap the most vulnerable within a regime such as that of Saddam Hussein.
Have we now learned that we must first of all not rush to mend our bridges with France, which has supported the Saddam regime? In addition, we must look carefully at whether in fact the United Nations is properly geared—I use that word advisedly—to carry out those things that we expect from the United Nations, or whether in fact we need to reform, in terms of the year 2001, that which was put in place subsequent to 1945.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks about our servicemen and women. I have stated my own position about the criticisms that have been made of journalistic coverage. At this stage, that is all I wish to say about that, except to pick up the point that the noble Baroness made about the Towards Freedom broadcasting. I was sorry to detect almost sniggering on the Liberal Democrat Benches about the broadcasting that is beginning. It is important to give the Iraqi people a view, for the first time, of what is happening in their own country and in the outside world which has not gone through the appalling filter of the Saddam Hussein regime. I do not understand why that was thought to be something that should have attracted wry smiles.
As regards Al-Jazeera, I am not in a position to give the noble Baroness any more information on that. We very much regret all civilian deaths which occurred during the conflict. We are investigating what happened to the Al-Jazeera building. I am still not in a position to give her any definitive news on that. Again, I hope that we can return to that matter.

383
As for the question of not rushing to mend our fences with France, the noble Lord said that it had supported the Saddam Hussein regime. That is going much too far. I must say to the noble Lord that we should not forget that France was with us over United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. We all know that we had differences after that and what those differences were. But constantly to pick away at that wound will not help us to build a better future for Iraq. The role of our friends in France in doing that is an important one. It is a member of the P5. We shall need its support in any future United Nations Security Council resolutions, and I am afraid that we must work with them. For my part, I do not find that difficult. I understand that some of your Lordships do, but it is a matter of fact that working together will be essential if we are to do what we have all said is vitally necessary; that is, to build a brighter future for the people of Iraq.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise that, as conquering powers, we cannot be perceived by everyone in the role of the agents of the international community, with the independence with which we might seek to judge our own actions? Does she also recognise that it is reasonable to be concerned that the revelation of weapons of mass destruction is indeed authenticated by an international inspection body, if that is possible? It would hugely support the understanding more generally of the reasons why we were supposed to have gone to war.
More particularly, can the noble Baroness say something more about the position of this Government with regard to Syria? Few things have been more menacing and troubling in the past few days than the utterances of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld on that subject. The Statement that she read out stated:
"As for Syria, we hope that it will now … make a decisive break with the policies of the past".
It is only a matter of months since the President of Syria paid a state visit to this country and our Prime Minister visited Damascus. What is the implication of that statement today? Are we being caught up in the rhetoric—and perhaps worse—emanating from the American Administration about the future of their relations with Syria?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I take issue with what the noble Lord said about our being a conquering power. I emphatically tell him that that is not how we have seen ourselves; that has not been said at any point by any of those in the coalition. We conceive our role as that of liberating powers. The noble Lord has only to look at the faces of the Iraqi people in Baghdad yesterday. They were not the faces of conquered people; they were the faces of liberated people who were themselves pulling down the statues of Saddam Hussein.
I turn to the question of the authentication of any weapons of mass destruction that may be found. I have not ruled out—no one would dream of doing anything
384
so silly—the authentication for which the noble Lord asked. What I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was that it was quite possible, if any weapons of mass destruction are found, that they will be found by coalition forces. The fact that they had been found by them should not lead one then to say that there was somehow a doubt about the veracity of what they had found.
I fear that by pursuing their line, the Liberal Democrats may well argue themselves into the position, if weapons of mass destruction are found by the coalition forces, in which somehow the whole world will be able to say, "They were not real, because they were found by coalition forces". It is quite possible that they will be found by those forces, but the role of the United Nations in then inspecting what has been found has not been ruled out. It is a matter to be discussed with the UN and the forces on the ground.
I turn to the question of Syria. There is nothing sinister in the statement that has been made about Syria. There have been questions about Syria's attitude to Iraq. That is clear. Those statements have been made openly. We are concerned about Syria's attitude. We do not want succour to be given by the Syrians to the fallen regime of Saddam Hussein. That is the point at issue. But there is nothing sinister in our asking my honourable friend Mike O'Brien to go to Syria, as my right honourable friend has done. As the Statement makes clear, having such a dialogue with Syria is the sort of thing that we need to be doing. That is precisely what the Government are doing—nothing sinister, but sensible diplomacy.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I want to raise a question that has not hitherto been appropriate. In the light of the looting, and so on, I have given notice to my noble friend of my question, which I raise on behalf of the All-Party Group on Archaeology. One dimension of winning hearts and minds among significant groups in Iraq is recognition of their pride in their history. The heritage of Iraq has considerable potential for the crucial task of forging national unity. All groups in Iraq share a common pride—a pride successfully exploited by Saddam Hussein.
For a number of reasons, it is desirable for any reconstruction plans to include some provision for safeguarding those sites.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Reading!
Lord Lea of Crondall: Does my noble friend agree that the question of protecting archaeological sites against looting, borders and so on, should be given urgent attention now that the issue of policing is on the agenda? Would it be helpful if an Arab League country such as Tunisia was also involved in such a policing operation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is a serious matter that the Government take seriously, but we must be careful. Military action in Iraq is not yet over. There may well be serious questions of security, not only in some of the outlying regions—we

385
have been discussing Kirkuk and other problems raised by your Lordships relating to different parts of Iraq—but there is obviously still fighting going on in Baghdad. That is an important issue, but we must take things carefully at present, not move to some of the points that, however important they may be, are not as important as safeguarding the lives of the people on the ground—our own servicemen and women and civilians.
However, we are considering how we can help the Iraqi people to preserve their archaeological heritage. We are in touch with archaeologists and other experts to discuss ways forward. I know that the matter concerns my noble friend. I have been trying to contact colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who of course have the primary responsibility in that area. If I cannot find someone who can help the noble Lord immediately, I am willing to meet him and his colleagues who take an interest in the matter one day early next week.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise that, by reason of the way in which, from the outset of this matter, she has shouldered her anxious responsibilities to the House, she has put us greatly in her debt?
Lord Judd: My Lords—
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords—
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I fear that we are out of time.

Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.]
1.56 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 30 [Family relationships]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 14, line 35, after "half-sister," insert "step-sibling or foster-sibling,"
The noble Baroness said: We now come to a group of amendments that concern the family relationships in the familial sex abuse clauses—Clauses 28 and 29. Amendment No. 201 adds step-siblings and foster-siblings to the list of basic relations—if I may term them that—in Clause 30(2)(a). That extends the relationship beyond blood relations. The amendment is consistent with the inclusion of step-parents and foster parents in paragraphs (b) and (c). In terms of creating a family relationship that can be abused, I cannot see that step and foster siblings can be separated from siblings of whole or half blood, who do not have to live in the same household to be able to abuse their family relationship.
I am aware that under Clause 30(3)(d), foster siblings may be brought within the scope of the familial sex abuse clauses, but step-siblings could not be caught, except by Clause 30(4), which does not concern family relationships at all. It would be safe to
386
include those relationships squarely in Clause 30(2). While I am on my feet, I support the amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, which seeks to clarify which cousins are intended to be covered by Clause 30(3). The noble Lady knows far more about the meaning of words such as "cousin" than I could ever learn, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There are three amendments in this group: Amendments Nos. 201, 202 and 203. They all deal with the question of who should be included in the family group. Clauses 28 and 29, dealing with familial child sex offences, are designed to protect children within the family environment, where they should be entitled to feel safe and protected but where, unfortunately, they are especially vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Because of the balance of power in the family unit and the close and trusting relationships that exist within it, the family creates ideal opportunities for exploitation and abuse. What familial relationships should be covered? It is clear that the most important factors are the proximity of the relationship and the balance of power that exists between the abuser and his victim, and that those attributes extend beyond the immediate blood relatives of a family. The definition of the family unit also needs to be drawn widely to reflect the fairly loose structure of the modern family and the sometimes transitory nature of familial relationships.
In brief, the definition of the family unit is therefore drawn into three categories. Subsection (2) relates to core family members. Subsection (3) relates to wider family members, such as the partner of the child's parent who lives or has lived in the same household as the child, or who holds or has held a position of trust or authority in relation to the child. Subsection (4) relates to other persons living in the same household as the child and who hold positions of trust or authority in relation to the child at the time of the alleged offence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, proposes bringing step-siblings and foster-siblings within subsection (2), which covers relationships where there will always be an offence. As the noble Baroness will be aware, step-siblings and foster-siblings may not be related by blood; they may never live in the same household and may rarely come into contact with each other. So we do not think that it is right for them to be covered by subsection (2). We have already covered foster-siblings in subsection (3)(d) because we recognise that in some cases they may live in close proximity. There may also be merit in bringing step-siblings, who are not covered by paragraph (d), into the scope of the offence in certain circumstances. We should like to consider that point further. We are not suggesting their inclusion in subsection (2); in effect, we are suggesting subsection (3) it depends on whether or not they live together.
Amendment No. 202 is a government amendment. Subsection (3)(b), as drafted, brings the partner or spouse of the child's aunt or uncle within the scope of the offence, where the defendant lives or has lived in the

387
same household as the child, or where he holds or has held a position of trust or authority in relation to the child. On reflection, we think that those relationships ought to be covered by subsection (4), where the defendant lives in the same household as the child, and where he holds a position of trust or authority in relation to the child. We no longer think that there is anything peculiar to the relationship between partners or spouses of aunts or uncles as distinct from a range of other relationships. Amendment No. 202 takes out of the scope of the relationships covered by the offence the partner or spouse of the child's aunt or uncle.
The amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, Amendment No. 203, would restrict the relationships between cousins covered in subsection (3) to first cousins. However, I do not think that the amendment is necessary, given that "cousin" is defined in subsection (5)(b) as,
"the child of an aunt or an uncle".
In the light of those considerations, I respectfully suggest that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, withdraw Amendment No. 201 to enable me further to consider the point about step-siblings. I make it clear that it is in regard to subsection (3), not subsection (2). I also ask Members of the Committee to accept the government amendment, Amendment No. 202.
For the reasons that I have given, I am afraid that I do not think that Amendment No. 203 is necessary because the point is already covered. I therefore hope that the noble Lady will not feel it necessary to move it when the time comes.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Clearly, I should have spoken to my amendment earlier. In spite of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I still think that "cousin" should be more sharply defined at an earlier stage. That would avoid any confusion. The child of an aunt or an uncle is a first cousin. It would be advantageous to specify that in the Bill. I shall not say any more, because my argument is now redundant. I still believe that, for clarity and to avoid doubt in the first instance, it would be better to specify the cousinship.
Baroness Blatch: I would certainly like to support the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. Often, it is we in the Westminster village who are familiar with the legalese of legislation. However, having been a Member of the House since 1987, I cannot claim to be entirely familiar with the legalese that comes before us. "First cousin" is clear beyond peradventure. One would not have to look for implicit provision in other parts of the clause. But I concede that the argument has been well answered by the Minister, as does the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun.
I was also going to rise to support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Noakes. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for agreeing in characteristic style to take it away, to look at it more fully and to take into account the omission that my noble friend talked about. We look forward to whatever comes of that at the next stage.
388
I have taken wise counsel from my noble friend, who has a very real understanding of the Bill. We have had a fairly complicated discussion on Amendment No. 202. My understanding of that amendment differs from that of my noble friend. Rather than call that a point of issue between us, I wish to pose a question to the noble and learned Lord to clarify either my understanding or my misunderstanding about it.
As I see it, the amendment appears to strip out one of the most obvious categories of potential sex abuser—the non-blood-related uncle. Deleting subsection (3)(b) removes uncles by affinity; that is to say, those who are not related by blood but who are married to a child's blood aunt. It also removes putative uncles; that is, a boyfriend of a child's blood aunt. Of course, it does the same for aunts by affinity and putative aunts. But it is well known that uncles, in particular, can abuse the trust that being part of a child's family gives them. Some men become obsessed with children within their families. The NSPCC says that, after brothers and fathers, uncles are the most likely source of sexual abuse within the family.
I shall base my question around the following example. Am I correct in taking as an example the tragic murder of Danielle Jones, who was abused by her uncle Stuart Campbell, who was married to her father's sister? He had an obsessive sexual interest in teenage girls and became infatuated with Danielle. The infatuation led to her murder. Leaving aside the murder element, the man was guilty of taking advantage of a member of the family with whom he had a position of trust. He neither lived in the same house, nor, I believe, was he a carer, trainer, supervisor or in sole charge of the child. Therefore, on my reading, by removing paragraph (b), and by not conforming with the conditions in subsection (4), he would not be caught by these measures. If that is the case, then it would be bizarre, but I need to be told if that is the case.
If the amendment is made, it would also mean that some children within a family could be protected, whilst other siblings were not. For example, when a widow married a widower and they both brought children to the new marriage, then two of the children would be protected and the other two would not. That is also a problem. If the wife's brother took a sexual interest in any of those four children, the children of the mother would be protected by the familial abuse provisions, but the children of the new husband would not.
I am trying to elicit from the Minister whether I am right that that kind of person, that kind of relationship, which is among some of the most common abuse of people within a family, is caught by the provisions. If they are not caught, I would argue that subsection (3)(b) should stay in. If they are caught, how does that happen? I am talking about somebody who does not fulfil the terms of subsection (4)(a) and (b)—an uncle

389
married to a blood relation of a child who does not either live in the household, or is a carer, trainer, supervisor or in sole charge of (B).
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I understand the question. The uncle married to the sister of the father would not have been caught in the circumstances put forward by the noble Baroness under subsection (3), as unamended by Amendment No. 202; because as I understand the example given, he would not have lived with the niece—who would not be his niece by blood but by marriage; he would have no role in caring for or training her. If that is the position, that relationship would not have been caught by the existing subsection (3) with paragraph (b). So the removal of subsection (3)(b), which is Amendment No. 202, makes no difference to that example.
We think that the right course would be that with such a person, the critical question should simply be: are the subsection (4) conditions satisfied? I think I have answered clearly the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I am not sure whether I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes or the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but it would be invidious of me to find out which.
Baroness Blatch: I think my noble friend is probably nearer to the Minister in terms of the explanation that he has just given. For clarification, is he telling me that the partner or spouse of a blood relative of the child—that is the uncle who is not a blood relative—if he was not either living in the house or a carer, trainer, supervisor or in sole charge of the child, would not be caught by the provisions, with or without subsection (3)(b)? If that is the case, how can we make it clear in any amendment to the Bill, that that sort of person would be caught? I have given the most dramatic example of the case of Danielle Jones, but there are many young teenage girls who are still missing today and the issues concerning them have not been resolved. Prior to them being murdered they have suffered much sexual abuse. One has to imagine that because such cases do not all end in murder, there are many young girls who are vulnerable from uncles within a family.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes, I confirm what the noble Baroness has said; namely, that the uncle, not by blood but for example married to or the partner of the sister of the father, would not have been caught with paragraph (b) either in or out of the Bill under subsection (3). He would only be caught if it was under subsection (4), which means a live-in relationship, and paragraph (b) was satisfied. The reason why we do not think it is appropriate to catch the person—save in subsection (4)—is that we are dealing with family situations. We cannot catch people in a family situation who conceive an obsessive feeling about a person who these provisions are designed to protect, but are outside the family unit—for example a friend. They might be called "uncle", but
390
would not fit in any known category of uncle. We have had to draw the line somewhere, and the line is being drawn around the family unit, as defined in Clause 30.
Baroness Blatch: If I could come back again. The uncle of a sister of the father of the child is a pretty close relative. He may not be a blood relative, but he is a close relative. He may have an incredibly close physical relationship with the family. My understanding is that the murderer of Danielle Jones did have a close relationship. The family were so shattered by the news that it was that uncle who had murdered their daughter, because of the closeness of the relationship of all of them in that family.
It seems bizarre—I go back to the word I used rather cautiously earlier—that the person who abused the girl dramatically before eventually murdering her would not have been caught, simply because he did not live with the family or live with A and was not her carer, trainer or supervisor or in sole charge of her. The Bill needs amending to include what I regard as a very close relationship—the mother or sister of the parent of the child.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As the noble Baroness knows, it is obviously the case that dramatic abuse—I do not know the details of the case, so I am not commenting on it—would be covered by a range of other provisions in the Bill and by other existing provisions of the law.
Here we are focusing on the family unit. The noble Baroness will know better than I that close relationships with, for example, somebody who is not an uncle—the next-door neighbour, perhaps—cannot be caught appropriately by the clause, even though the relationship could be as close as in the situation described by the noble Baroness. We must have clear limits. We will consider closely what the noble Baroness said, but we think that we have got the balance about right.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Could we have some less complicated language? We keep hearing about the "spouse of the aunt or the uncle". The spouse of the aunt or the uncle is the uncle by marriage or the aunt by marriage. Those terms have been used all my life and are, so far as I am aware, still in use.
Viscount Bledisloe: I am puzzled by what the noble and learned Lord said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I can see the situation if the family live in separate houses, but is the noble and learned Lord saying that, if I gave space to live in my house to my sister and her rather unsatisfactory husband, he would not be included in the scope of the clause unless he were regularly involved in caring for, training or supervising my daughter? Would that be the position if the noble and learned Lord's amendment were made?

391
I have suggested that the gentleman of whom I spoke was rather unsatisfactory and was not regularly involved in anything desirable. Surely, if he lives in the house as the husband of the aunt, he should be within the scope of subsection (3). It is going too far to remove him from that, as the noble and learned Lord's amendment will do, and say that he is covered only if he is involved in caring for her. It would be extraordinary for a resident uncle by marriage not to count, unless he were a useful uncle by marriage involved in caring, training or supervising.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Viscount has got it exactly right, as he defines the issue. We are acting on the basis that the question is whether the uncle by marriage—I apologise for using such complicated language previously—should be regarded as somebody separate from a person who lives with the family but provides no care. The noble Viscount has got it right. We think that we have drawn the line in the right place.
Baroness Noakes: It has been a useful debate, and my noble friend Lady Blatch has exposed some issues that should be thought about further.
I thank the Minister for agreeing to consider the position of step-siblings again, but only in the context of subsection (3). I understand that that is his position. However, I go back to what he described as proximity and balance of power. I cannot see the difference between including half-sisters and half-brothers in the close family unit described in subsection (2) and including step-siblings and foster siblings. The noble and learned Lord said that it was a blood relationship or a half-blood relationship, but, given the ability of a half-sister, step-sister or foster sister to influence and abuse the child through the family relationship, there could be circumstances in which the same degree of potential for abuse existed.
My noble friend, Lady Blatch, exposed the issue of the position of uncles by marriage. The clause also deals with partners who are not necessarily married, so it is more complicated than the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, suggests. Again, my noble friend sees the relationship as being the dominant issue. It does not necessarily matter whether the person lives in the same household or has to prove that a caring relationship of the sort referred to in subsection (4) exists. It is the family relationship—notwithstanding the fact that it is not a blood relationship—that carries the potential for abuse.
I am prepared not to press Amendment No. 201 pro tem, given the noble and learned Lord has said that he will look at the matter again. I hope that he will not move his Amendment No. 202, thus allowing us to debate this further before Report stage. Our debate today has made me more concerned about family relationships and how they are to be brought within these offences than I was at the outset. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 14, line 42, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord has not taken the advice of my noble friend Lady Noakes because it would be helpful if we could consider this matter further. The Government have nothing to lose. Taking the two Houses combined, they have such almighty powers that they will get their way in the end. I think that we should all be given an opportunity to stand back and think again.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, pointed out a matter that I had not properly picked up, which was my fault. He said that an uncle of the sister of the father of the child who lives in the same house but does not have any supervisory, training or caring responsibilities, would not be caught. Equally, if the same uncle is in sole charge of the child, but does not live in the household, again he will not be caught. Only someone living in the household with a caring or supervisory role would be caught.
That is a very muddled arrangement. We are discussing here an uncle who takes advantage of and abuses a child in what my noble friend described so well as a "family situation". Members of the Committee on all Benches should be extremely concerned about any abuse taking place in such close family relationships. Simply because both of the criteria set out in Clause 30(4) are not fulfilled, a young person will have no redress.
I make a final plea to the noble and learned Lord. Will he consider giving the Committee more time to consider Amendment No. 202 as well as to allowing himself time to reconsider his position?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Having listened to the debate, I consider that the point as regards the distinctions between family relationships and blood relationships is a good one. I support the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Blatch that further consideration might be given to this matter. It is of some importance as regards the welfare of the child.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I seek clarification on one point about which I am very concerned. Is it not the case that, either under this clause or the earlier clauses relating to sexual offences, the case would have to be proved? Therefore, in the second set of circumstances the offender would be caught under earlier parts of the legislation once it is enacted. If not, then there is a serious gap. If so, however, the point is covered.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, is quite correct. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has been extremely persuasive in making her point. However, I feel that it would be wrong for me not to move the amendment because it would give a totally false expectation about what is going to happen

393
next. Even though the noble Baroness has put her point very well, I feel that at this stage the right course is for me to move the amendment.
2.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 202) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 55.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Addington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Adebowale, L.

Amos, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Andrews, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jeger, B.

Avebury, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bach, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Barker, B.

Lipsey, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Blackstone, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bradshaw, L.

[Teller]

Brennan, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brett, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Brooke of" Alverthorpe, L.

McNally, L.

Brookman, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Carter, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Christopher, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Crawley, B.

Rea, L.

David, B.

Redesdale, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Desai, L.

Rooker, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Roper, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Russell, E.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sandberg, L.

Falkender, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon, V.

Filkin, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gale, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gavron, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Golding, B.

Thornton, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Tordoff, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Walmsley, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Whitaker, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Whitty, L.

Harrison, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hayman, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

NOT-CONTEMTS

Arran, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Ashcroft, L

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Astor of Hever, L. [Teller]

Burnham, L.

Biffen, L.

Byford, B.

Blatch, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

394

Chester, Bp.

Montrose, D.

Cobbold, L.

Moynihan, L.

Colwyn, L.

Naseby, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Newton of Braintree, L.

Courtown, E.

Noakes, B.

Denham, L.

Northbourne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Ferrers, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Freeman, L.

Peel, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Glentoran, L.

Prior, L.

Greenway, L.

Rawlings, B.

Higgins, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Hooper, B.

Rix, L.

Howe, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Selsdon, L.

Luke, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Marlesford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Vivian, L.

Monson, L.

Weatherill, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Wilcox, B.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
2.33 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 203:
Page 14, line 44, after "are" insert "first"
The noble Lady said: I will not move the amendment, but I want to say that I am not happy with the definition in subsection (5)(b) that,
"'cousin' means the child of an aunt or uncle".
That is not correct. It is sloppy and bad use of English. If the noble and learned Lord does not see fit before Report stage to qualify "cousin" as I have requested, I reserve the right to return to this matter.
[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Sections 28 and 29: existing sexual relationships]:
On Question, Whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is exactly the same argument as we had in relation to Clause 27. I indicated then that where the formation of the relationship was by the abuse of an existing relationship and it continued after the Act came into force, then I did not believe that there should be a defence. This is precisely the same point as regards familial relationships. Having reconsidered the position, we support the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in removing this clause from the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I fully support what he has said and hope that this clause will not stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32 negatived.
Clause 33 [Sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder or learning disability]
Lord Adebowale Lord Adebowale moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 15, line 38, leave out "refuse" and insert "consent"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I also wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 212 and 218. These are probing amendments to ascertain the rationale for using the terms "refuse" and "choose" rather than the term "capacity to consent". It may be helpful to group these amendments with those in Clause 34 as they address the same substantive points.
Capacity to consent is central to determining whether a relationship is appropriate for a person with a learning disability. The failing in the current criminal law is that it does not define capacity to consent and does not set out who can and cannot consent to sexual relationships and in what circumstances. It wrongly categorises people as being a mental defective or not a mental defective rather than focusing on whether an individual can consent to sexual relations in particular circumstances. The meaning and the effect of the common law is also subject to some legal debate.
Certainly an act of submission without any understanding of what is taking place cannot possibly constitute consent. I should like to remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, of the case of R v Jenkins. In that case David Jenkins was a support worker in a residential unit. He admitted having sexual intercourse with a woman resident. When it was discovered that she was pregnant DNA tests confirmed he was the father. At the trial experts agreed that the woman could name only some body parts, could not distinguish acts of sexual intercourse from other pictures shown to her and had no understanding of pregnancy or contraception. Plainly, she lacked the capacity to consent, as we would understand the term.
However, the judge ruled that she had given consent through her "animal instincts". This case alone is a stark reminder of the need for new legislation and for laws to ensure that those who cannot consent have absolute protection of the law. It is alarming not only because it would allow abusers to claim that sexual relations are not abusive, but also because it dehumanises the person with a learning disability and robs them of their privacy and dignity.
As regards the words "refusal" or "consent", I agree that in order to consent to sex an individual must understand what is proposed and its implications and be able to exercise choice. The word "choice" reflects cases in which someone is in a position of power over another, so that person is unable to refuse or choose to have sex. There is a difference between "choice" and having the freedom to make that choice. Someone may comply with another's request for sex, but that does not mean that the choice to have sex has been exercised freely or without undue influence.
There is a sound basis to preferring the term "consent", over and above the niceties of the English language. I have already explained that the word "consent" is pivotal in determining whether an act is
396
abusive. The BMA and the Law Society have published guidance that uses the test of capacity to consent to sexual relations. The phrase "capacity to consent" has also been thoroughly tested in case law. It is a valid defence to most sexual offences committed against people of all ages. The term "consent" is used by parliamentary draftsmen in many criminal statutes, but has not been defined.
I am mindful of the Law Commission's draft report and the draft Bill on capacity and the Government's commitment to introduce new capacity legislation when parliamentary time allows. The Law Commission and the two Government consultation documents on mental capacity—Who Decides and Making Decisions—use the term "capacity to consent". I seek clarification from the Government as to why they have departed from that wording. For my part, I am uncertain as to whether inability to refuse will give less or more protection to people with a learning disability. However, I am clear that the law should protect people who are unable to give any consent to sex.
There is sound precedent for using the term "unable to consent" and that should be reflected in the offence. If we proceed with the terms "choice" and "refuse", I would like an assurance about whether it will be necessary to revisit and redraft the clause when the new mental capacity legislation is in place.
Lord Astor of Hever: We on these Benches support the probing nature of the amendments. We question the wording of the clause.
Ability to consent and ability to refuse are different, the first demonstrating active agreement and the second simply describing where someone could not demonstrate their unwillingness. Other clauses in the Bill discuss consenting to sexual activity, and it is unclear why the Government have decided to change their stance and use the words "unable to refuse" and have opted to refer to choosing to agree to the touching rather than consenting.
Baroness Blatch: I also support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. He has made an extremely persuasive case and, unless the noble and learned Lord can make an even more persuasive case, I shall continue to support the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We on these Benches would be interested to know how the words "refuse" and "consent" are to be taken in regard to Clause 77. That clause defines consent in a way that would probably be incapable of understanding in the case of a person with a learning disability. We welcome an explanation from the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Rix: I shall be on my feet a number of times in the next few minutes, so all I shall say is that I fully support the amendment that my noble friend has tabled.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I suppose that there must be something wrong with me, but I cannot see the distinction in any practical context of lacking a capacity to consent and lacking the capacity to choose whether to agree. I cannot see that in the definition of the mental state there is any practical distinction. However, I may have misunderstood the situation.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendment raises important wider issues about the definition of the capacity to consent—I use that term in a non-technical sense—to which we shall come under later amendments. For the moment I shall address only the technical issue that the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, raises in Amendment No. 204.
The amendments are concerned with a situation whereby someone with a mental disorder or learning disability is approached to engage in sexual activity. The issue is whether at that time they were able to understand enough of what was proposed to refuse if they did not want to engage in sexual activity. The clauses as drafted define the criminal behaviour in terms of it being committed against someone who is unable to refuse being subjected to it. That clearly defines the vulnerability of the victim in these cases and does so in straightforward language. That does not seem to amount to any substantive change. The proposal is perhaps designed to probe why we have chosen the words that we have.
The answer is a technical drafting point. If we used the word "consent" it would import the definition of consent at Clause 77, which states that,
"a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice".
So the Bill provides that a person can consent only if he has the capacity to choose. As Clause 33(2) is meant to be a definition of capacity to consent, incorporating the word "consent" would make the definition circular. That is why we have used different words. Noble Lords can consider the point by looking at the relevant provisions. However, we have made the decision because of that good drafting point. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rix: The very point that the noble and learned Lord has just made was made in my briefing from Mencap. Although I wish to support my noble friend, perhaps it is because of loyalty to him as well as a belief that his description of people with a learning disability must commend itself to the Committee.
Baroness Blatch: I have a question for the Minister in the light of his explanation. I am still persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. If a person is propositioned in these circumstances but has not consented; if the only test—should the case come before the courts—is whether they had a capacity to refuse; and if it was proven that they could perhaps have refused but did not, or it was deemed that they had not refused, then, although they had not consented, they would be left without a defence. The victim would still
398
be a victim and there would be no remedy in court, simply because the only test was whether they had the capacity to refuse. It seems that there is a lacuna. I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord has been more persuasive than the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That is right. Whereas the Bill says, "unable to refuse", the amendment says, "unable to consent". They both amount to precisely the same level of protection.
Earl Russell: I cannot help being a little perturbed by the case of R v Jenkins which the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, quoted. If "consent by animal instinct" is to be taken as a sufficient consent, then one does, does one not, altogether remove the element of reasonableness which is such a consistent thread through the body of the common law? I cannot help but feel that that could have rather more far-reaching consequences than perhaps we are thinking about at the moment. It worries me.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am not aware of the detail of the Jenkins case. Obviously I shall have to look at it. It is a perfectly legitimate concern and I understand the concerns being expressed. However, looking at the wording, I think that the concerns are misplaced. I must consider profoundly what has been said in relation to it. I think that we are all trying to reach the same conclusion.
Lord Adebowale: I agree that we are all trying to reach the same conclusion, and I think that I understand the noble and learned Lord's response to my amendment. However, I am still concerned. I think that the case that I quoted raises some genuine issues which I am not sure have been fully addressed. I believe that the ability to consent is critical to the ability to make a choice. I respect the support that noble Lords have given to my amendment. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 15, line 38, leave out "disorder or learning disability" and insert "disability or physical incapacity"
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak to Amendments Nos. 206, 209 and 210. Before doing so, I should like to mention the rationale underlying the amendments and to explain in particular the grouping. These four amendments deal with the issue of whether physical incapacity warrants inclusion in Clauses 33 to 51. In the next group I shall tackle the specific area of definitions: the complexities of what the terms "mental disability", "mental disorder", "learning disability" and "learning difficulty" cover and which terms are preferable for use under this legislation. I realise that Amendments Nos. 205 and 209 introduce a term "mental disability". However, for the sake of clarity I prefer to talk about the advisability of adopting this term when I speak to Amendments Nos. 207, 211 and 404. I speak now to Amendments Nos. 205, 206, 209 and 210.
The Law Society and MIND have made several representations to us about the advisability of including physical incapacity in Clauses 33 to 51 along with whatever definition is preferred to describe mental impairment. Many people are not capable of expressing valid consent or indicating a lack of consent and are as such vulnerable because of a physical disability.
There may be circumstances where a person may not fit the legal criteria of "mental disorder" or "learning disability" but may be unable, by reason of physical incapacity, to communicate his or her consent to sexual activity: for example, those who are mute, deaf or in a coma. Although their reason for incapacity to consent is of a different kind—it is physical, not mental—they should be afforded the same protection.
In paragraphs 4.5.8 of Setting the Boundaries, the Law Commission recommended that for the purpose of any non-consensual activity offence,
"(1) a person should be regarded as lacking capacity consent if at the material time:

(a) the person is by reason of mental disability unable to make a decision for themselves on the matter in question: or

(b) the person is unable to communicate their decisions on that matter because they are unconscious or for any other reason".

Sub-paragraph (1)(b) points to some physical disability. It is on that basis that we have some sympathy for the inclusion of physical incapacity. It is a point which is covered in the rebuttable presumptions in Clause 78. We on these Benches believe that a debate on its inclusion here is worthwhile.
It is clear that during the consultation process, there were some who believed that physical incapacity should be included in Clause 33 and following clauses. Paragraph 4.53 of Setting the Boundaries states:
"The review was unanimously agreed that some people had levels of mental and sometimes physical disability so severe that they could not be regarded as being able to give consent in any circumstances. Examples may be those with severe brain damage, severe learning disabilities or severe dementia. Such people would not be able to understand what was being asked of them or to communicate consent, or the lack of it, in any way".
That suggests that there is some overlap between physical and mental impairments in terms of being able to consent. It might then be thought appropriate to include those with physical incapacity in the amendments which deal with inability to consent because of mental disorder or learning disability. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: As the president of Mencap and the father and grandfather of a daughter and a grandson with a learning disability, I believe that I am somewhat qualified to add briefly to the discussion on the always vexed issue of terminology. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, has been kind enough to share his thinking and his briefing with me and I am happy to return the compliment.
We are, if I may say so, entirely agreed on the importance of clarity, all the more so since I am conscious that any time someone steeped in this debate
400
even lists the diverse terms, a sort of quiet despair spreads across the noble countenances of others of your Lordships.
The Bill offers "mental disorder or learning disability", as does the noble Lord, Lord Astor, in Amendment No. 220 tabled in his name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. In the next set of amendments, Amendments Nos. 207, 211 and 404, the noble Lord and his co-sponsors seek to substitute "mental disability" for "mental disorder and learning disability", while in these amendments, Amendments Nos. 205, 206, 209 and 210, there are other attempts to exclude learning disability.
I have no objection to the separate proposal for inclusion of physical capacity as a relevant factor. Someone with very good intelligence and an unclouded mind may indeed be unable to act in and speak for their interests in a sexual encounter because of their physical incapacity. Furthermore, I have no objection to whatever terminology colleagues in the mental health field want to use to describe those with severe incapacitating mental illness.
But I do object to removing "learning disability" from the Bill. I know exactly what learning disability means. As the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, said from our shared brief, it is in English usage in this country a common and commonly understood means of describing intellectual limitations of various degrees dating from birth or soon afterwards and lasting for life. Some social disability normally goes with the intellectual disability, although I have to say that some people with learning disabilities seem to me to have outstanding social skills. I have some sympathy with the desire to define the term in the Bill. I certainly want to use it.
"Learning disability" is different from the term "learning difficulty" when used to describe specific deficits in learning skills such as dyslexia. It is also different from "mental illness", which is a clouding or distortion of perception that may hit any of us, quite often does, and is happily amenable to treatment in many cases. Even senior Ministers of the Crown—I will not mention names—have been known to confuse mental illness and learning disability, and I want to take every opportunity to avoid that frequent confusion.
For the avoidance of doubt, I prefer to keep "learning disability" in the Bill and thus to recognise that it is something different from the perhaps fluctuating capacity that may go with "mental disorder", and stands out from the amorphous "mental disability". In short, I think that the Government have got it right in this particular and the noble Lord and his colleagues have got it wrong.
Lord Addington: I am a newcomer to the Bill who happened to be in the Committee during this discussion. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, pointed out, the definitions in the Bill are correct. Surely physical incapacity, where it would lead to a lack of communication ability, should be brought in. If that

401
point is covered elsewhere in the Bill I will take my slapping on the wrist well, but it is an important point. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, but I wonder whether physical conditions that inhibit the ability to communicate properly are taken into account in the Bill.
3 p.m.
Lord Adebowale: We are dealing with a most complex issue. I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. As someone who is involved with a charity that provides a service to many people with learning disabilities, and having involved myself in the world of learning disability over the past few years, I am always filled with a certain sense of despair when there is a failure to acknowledge what is an issue for well over a million people; indeed, it will become increasingly so over the next 10 years during which we shall see an increase of about 3 per cent in the main population and anything up to 70 per cent in minority ethnic populations. We need to start using the term, and understanding it as being a separate entity.
However, I have some sympathy with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, in that there are people with physical incapacity who would face a real challenge in this respect. I put forward the following as a helpful suggestion. Both sides in this discussion are seeking to achieve the same aim. We are all in agreement as regards what we wish to achieve. We are trying to find a form of words that acknowledge a range of challenges faced by individuals, which might prevent them from engaging with the law. I suggest that further discussion takes place with the likes of MIND, my organisation Turning Point, and Mencap before the conclusion of the Committee proceedings. This would enable us to arrive at a suitable definition that might reflect the wishes of all sides.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I support one half of the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. I do not want to enter a debate about definitions regarding disability, because the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is an expert in that field. However, I am the vice-chair of John Grooms charity for disabled people. It would be a pity if we did not explore the argument that if people with physical incapacity were not included at this point in the Bill it would leave a gap. This is a most complicated area. Real questions arise as to whether or not one can communicate consent in these circumstances.
There needs to be a definition about levels of capacity to communicate and about conditions in order to get the legislation right. It would be useful to hold further discussions on the matter to ensure that this group of people who are abused are included in the legislation. I have experience of advocating for physically disabled people who have been abused.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is incredibly important for us to ensure that the basic definition of the group covered by Clauses 33 to 51 is the right one. There is not much doubt about the fact that we are all trying to
402
arrive at the same conclusion. I thoroughly agree that the Government should keep their mind open between now and the Report stage on the issue of the right way to deal with this form of words. I shall set out our current thinking. However, I should tell the Committee that I shall carefully consider all the comments made today.
I shall refer to Amendments Nos. 205, 206, 209 and 210 but also mention the next group—Amendments Nos. 207 and 211—because they raise a similar issue. The first proposition, under Amendments Nos. 207 and 211 is that "learning disability" should be dropped from the definition. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, supports that proposal, but the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Adebowale, are against it.
I can see the force of the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. We believe that "learning disability" comes within the definition of "mental disorder". For that reason, it does not need to be dealt with separately. If we took that approach, it would have to go right across the board in relation to all these clauses, which means that we would need to bring forward an amendment to deal with the whole position. That is our current thinking, but that is not in line with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Therefore, before we make a final decision on the matter, we need to discuss the matter with the various groups to ascertain whether we are right or wrong in that respect.
The second proposal in this group of amendments is to replace "mental disorder" with "mental disability". I know that the this has been proposed by the Law Commission, and that it is being considered for the Incapacity Bill, as well as the new Mental Health Bill. However, it would be unwise at present to connect oneself to a definition that has been put forward only in draft form because it may be amended before it becomes law. We believe that the right course of action is to wait for the later Bill. If the definition is adopted at that stage, or adopted in a changed form, we can then amend what would be the Sexual Offices Act 2003 in the subsequent Bill.
The third issue is the important proposal of whether "physical incapacity" should be included within these clauses. As a group, those with a physical incapacity have the capacity to consent, whereas these clauses are intended to protect those who lack that capacity. Some people, along with a mental disorder, also have a physical incapacity—
Lord Addington: If a person has a communication difficulty with a physical incapacity, he may well be denied any communication ability. That really does not follow.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: One can see that the types of vulnerable victim with whom these clauses seek to deal are different from the types of victim we shall seek to deal with in other parts of the Bill. Therefore, people in a coma, for example, who have been identified or those unable to communicate by reason of a physical disability are covered by the presumption in Clause 78. When people suffer only from a physical disability as opposed to a combination

403
of a physical disability and mental incapacity, is it right that they should be brought within the provisions of this part of the Bill? Our current view is that if a person has a mental disorder and physical incapacity, he is already covered; if he has only physical incapacity, then that is better dealt with by the existing provisions. Would such people want to be covered by these parts of the Bill?
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for giving way. I am still unclear about the situation of a person who has a serious verbal communication difficulty—perhaps a serious speech impairment—who is unable to communicate, is perhaps frozen with fear and cannot communicate in any other physical way. Perhaps the Minister can explain how such a person would fare under this provision.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Let us assume the person to be an adult. Let us assume that he has no mental incapacity of any sort but that he is unable to communicate his wishes. If, without his consent, he was subjected to a sexual act, that, without any doubt, would plainly be caught by the first 11 provisions of the Bill. Therefore, I ask myself why it is also necessary to raise questions in relation to this part of the Bill with regard to such a person.
We also seek to provide additional protection for such people in Clause 78 by saying that there is a presumption that there is not consent unless the relevant burden is satisfied. We believe that that is the right way to deal with this issue. Obviously protection is in place, and I ask whether such people want protection under this heading. That is our basic position. As I said, our minds are open, but I set out what we consider to be the right approach. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment now. Obviously we need to have further discussions about the way forward.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the Minister for that reply. I agree with him and with all the other speakers that it is absolutely vital that we get the definition right. I had hoped that this group of amendments would relate more to physical incapacity but, as other Members of the Committee have addressed the definition issue, I shall touch on that.
As always, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for, both inside and outside the Chamber, putting me right on all these very technical terms. It is entirely thanks to him that I understand most of them now. I say to him that we must all work together to try to get the right definitions in the Bill. I believe that in the past we have worked very well on that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, said, this is a very complicated issue and we must all try to find the right form of words. I certainly think that MIND, Mencap and Turning Point need to get together.
404
So far as concerns physical incapacity, there has clearly been a difference of opinion as to whether there is sufficient protection. We want to read Hansard very carefully and consider that before Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may intervene briefly. I put my name to this amendment largely as a result of my experience at the Bar in learning disability cases.
"Learning disability", as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, knows probably far better than I, is a somewhat technical and narrow definition. My noble friend Lord Astor, on the Front Bench, seeks to remove a narrow definition and extend it in a way which will include the lesser. Looking at the matter from that point of view, I am absolutely with him. That is only one aspect of the issue.
If one looks at the words "mental disorder or learning disability" and squares them against "mental disability or physical incapacity", the latter is the more comprehensive concept that embraces the former, without importing difficulties of construction. One is using words that can be clearly understood. What a learning disability is cannot be so clearly understood because that has been the subject matter of a considerable amount of case law. One wants to get away from case law if one can. One cannot always escape. We are looking for the right definition which will work best in practice. One wants really to try to find the wider definition, using words that have not been treated with a form of technical interpretation and constraint. That is why I put my name to the amendment. I would not have done so if I did not support my noble friend.
Lord Rix: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. He has put his finger on a particularly sore point so far as I personally am concerned. I have always realised that "learning disability" was a difficult definition of the condition of learning disability. But we want to get away totally from the use of the word "mental". Therefore, "mental disability", "mental defect", whatever it may be that has been used in the past or that which it is likely could be used in the future, is a total anathema not only to me as a parent and as a grandparent but to all people connected with the world of learning disability. We are talking about a constituency of 1½ million people in this country with a learning disability, which is a large proportion of the population.
I agree though that "learning disability", as such, is not a particularly adept description. I believe those in the Antipodes have probably put the matter better. They talk about "intellectual impairment", "intellectual disability" or "intellectual handicap". I believe that the use of the word "intellectual" probably sums up the condition more accurately and does not confuse the position with "learning difficulty", which of course is a separate issue. Learning difficulty can be from physical causes or dyslexia

405
or sensory conditions, such as short sight, hearing impairment or whatever. Those conditions cause learning difficulties.
It is a sine qua non that a person with a learning disability also has a learning difficulty. So one sees that the arguments could rage across these Benches for the next 24 hours and I do not think I would be very popular if I continued. However, I throw this response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, as perhaps a challenge for the Government as something that should be looked at for the future, which is using the term "intellectual".
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to my noble friend for his observations. Clearly, this is a very important matter. I think that we shall return to the definition in great detail on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]
3.15 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 207:
Page 15, line 38, leave out "or learning disability"
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 211 and 404. The amendments were designed to get to the bottom of the correct terminology. In the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said about reconsidering the definitions, I shall spare the House the rather lengthy speech that I was minded to give. I very much hope that we shall return to the matter in great detail on Report.
[Amendment No. 207 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathly): I call Amendment No. 208. If it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 209 to 211 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Adebowale Lord Adebowale moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 15, line 40, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 217. Some people have levels of mental disability so severe that they could not be regarded as being able to give consent in any circumstances. Examples include those who are profoundly learning disabled and many who are severely disabled. Such people will not be able to understand what was being asked of them or to communicate consent or the lack of it in any way. Absolute prohibition on sexual relations with such individuals is justifiable as essential for their protection.
Sexual contact with someone who cannot consent to that contact for reasons of severe learning disability should be a criminal offence. The amendment would make that offence one of strict liability. A defendant could not claim any defence once it was established that an individual was unable to give informed consent because of his severe disability. One can argue that it cannot be a defence that the accused thought that the individual gave his consent. My organisation, Turning
406
Point, is aware of a case in which a person with a severe learning disability aged 30 was befriended by a member of his church and sexually abused. The accused claimed that he did not realise that the young man had a mental impairment, despite the fact that a clinical psychologist claimed that his condition was immediately apparent and that he could not give his informed consent.
I appreciate that there may be some cases in which a person's disability may not be immediately apparent or so self-evident, especially in a case of a person with autism or someone with a mental disorder. On that basis, I understand the rationale for including paragraph (d). Its drafting is an improvement on the current legal position, in which a defendant can simply claim that he did not know that someone had a mental disability as a means to escape punishment.
Indeed, I go further. I commend the Government for trying to close that dangerous loophole. On the other hand, I should not want the defence in paragraph (d) to be raised automatically with the solid intention of putting additional strain on the victim or used as a device to force that person to be cross-examined in the witness box, which has often happened. Similarly, I should be concerned if that was raised in cases in which the victim is so severely disabled that it would be absolutely evident that the person was vulnerable.
I am aware of a case in which it was established that a person was a "mental defective". That was challenged by the defendant. The victim was forced to give evidence, but the judge ruled that the victim was not a competent witness, refused that person special measures under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and dismissed the case.
I hope that the Minister can reassure me that such a mistake by a judge will not happen once the Bill is enacted. The defence that the offender did not know that the victim had a severe learning disability is often not credible because of the circumstances or characteristics of the injured party. There is a case for dropping that as a special defence but not preventing it being pleaded in mitigation by an accused party. I should welcome the Minister's response to that suggestion.
In any event, I suggest that there is a case for guidance for Crown prosecutors and judges in this area to spell out the circumstances in which the defence in paragraph (d) can be raised; to reinforce the need for special measures to support the victim in court; and to explain how the reasonableness test in the clause will be applied in practice. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: This is a most extraordinary amendment. Although I appreciate the spirit in which it is moved, the noble Lord is suggesting that a person could be imprisoned for life for intentionally touching another person in a sexual way without realising that that person suffers from a mental disorder or a learning disability. Surely, the prosecution must show that the defendant has some mens rea. The use of the expression that he would be guilty if he,
"could reasonably be expected to know that B has a mental disorder",

407
covers all eventualities.
The noble Lord said that that should not be a defence where it is not credible. If a defence is not credible, the jury will not believe it; they will not accept it and will find the defendant guilty. Ultimately, that is the only way in which the criminal justice system can possibly work.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, said, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, identified, the two amendments are designed to remove the requirement that sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder or a learning disability, or causing a person with a mental disorder or a learning disability to engage in sexual activity, is committed only where the defendant knows or could reasonably be expected to know of that person's mental disorder or learning disability.
I accept that in some cases where someone has a mental disorder or a learning disability sufficiently severe for them to lack the capacity to consent, that will be utterly apparent. In such cases, it would be relatively easy to prove that the defendant could reasonably have been expected to know of the person's lack of capacity to consent. I would have thought that that would apply in the sort of case that the noble Lord refers to when he says that the position was "immediately apparent". In the vast majority of cases, there would be no requirement to call the victim, because it would be proved by medical evidence that that was the position.
It is right to recognise that there may be cases where incapacity is not apparent and that there is a genuine defence. It is for the prosecution to prove its case. It is not possible for restrictions to be made on when the defence can be advanced; that must be a matter for the defence itself. But we should be prepared, first, to trust juries to reach sensible conclusions about it, and, secondly, to trust judges to ensure that there is no requirement for any demeaning cross-examination to establish the position. It can usually be established by the calling of other evidence.
I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It would be wrong to convict anyone of an offence that carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment when they did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that someone did not have the capacity to consent to sexual activity. Therefore, although I understand the spirit in which they were moved, I must resist the amendments.
Lord Adebowale: I note the response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Although I understand the comments made on my amendments, my concern is that it is still possible for someone to be cross-questioned. The example that I gave is clear evidence of that, and it is only one among many. I am not sure that I am entirely satisfied. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 209 to 212 not moved.]
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 16, line 4, leave out "possible" and insert "reasonably forseeable"
The noble Lord said: The amendment aims to challenge the reasoning behind the wording of Clause 33(2)(a). Subsection (2) gives two alternative reasons why B is unable to refuse sexual activity. Either he lacks the capacity to choose, or he is unable to communicate his choice. With the former option we are given a further explanation in brackets,
"whether because he lacks sufficient understanding of the nature or possible consequences of what is being done, or for any other reason".
Amendment No. 213 proposes replacing "possible" with "reasonably foreseeable". "Possible consequences" is too broad and too vague. "Reasonably foreseeable" seems a better alternative. It points to the likely outcome rather than what is "possible", which might relate to any number of things. The Law Commission used the term "reasonably foreseeable" in response to the consultation document. It is a small point, but it is important we get it right. It is just the sort of thing that might become the basis of legal wrangling in court cases. So I would welcome the Minister's clarification on the choice of wording.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I feel that I am being drawn into the most unhelpful legal debate about particular words. The perfectly well-intentioned amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, seeks to replace "possible consequences" with "reasonably foreseeable consequences". It seems to be based on the Law Commission definition of capacity to consent, as proposed in Setting the Boundaries. Unlike the Law Commission's definition, our definition refers to a person who lacks sufficient understanding of the possible consequences of what is being done. The Law Commission definition referred to a person who is "unable to understand" the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the Bill.
The effect of the amendment would be to refer to a person who lacks sufficient understanding of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the act. I am not sure that it is any different from a provision which refers to a person who lacks sufficient understanding of the possible consequences of the act. The definition in the Bill is clearer and more straightforward. One could find a million lawyers who would give a million definitions of the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. I believe that it is right to take straightforward words, put them in the Bill and leave it for the court to decide on the facts of the case, rather than adopt a range of words that are selected from various other parts of the law which might be overcomplicated. Unless a good reason is given for departing from the simple words, we are minded to stick with our own. However, we will of course consider any arguments that are advanced.
Lord Astor of Hever: I do not wish to draw the Minister into unhelpful debate, as we were trying to be

409
constructive. As he said, the amendment was based on the Law Commission definition. I am grateful for that response. We will consider it. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 16, line 4, leave out ", or for any other reason"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 214 is a probing amendment. I have been wondering what other reasons could be invoked in relation to capacity which the inclusion of the phrase "or for any other reason" would be designed to cover.
I almost feel that this vague wording is a result of drafting legislation on consent. If the wording is too loose it will create trouble in the courts. We would welcome a more tightly-worded specific phrasing in the clause.
Amendment No. 215 continues in that vein. The Bill leaves open the possibility that a defendant may be charged with offences because he has sexual relations with a person who, he knows, has a mental disorder or learning disability. Not all mental impairments are constant conditions, affecting someone to the same extent and degree continuously. The Bill should make it clear that the defendant's knowledge of the subject's mental disorder or learning disability relates to the time at which the alleged offence took place, rather than to the general knowledge that the subject has been diagnosed as suffering from a mental disorder or learning disability. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I do not want to argue with my noble friend about the amendment. He said that it was a probing amendment, so I speak to it in that vein.
I am concerned about the narrowing of the test. My noble friend said that he would prefer to see a tightening of the wording. However, if there were a tightening of the wording, it would have to be more comprehensive and inclusive. Anything that fell outside the tightened-up wording would not be caught by the phrase,
"or for any other reason".
It would be difficult to draft a law that covered all eventualities. The Bill leaves the courts freer to make a judgment about whether something is caught by the provisions. If B lacks the capacity to choose or—I would prefer to use the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale—to consent for any reason other than not understanding the nature or consequences of what is happening, it could be that there was another reason. There could be another reason that would be just as valid and prove that something undesirable had happened to the victim, B. The catch-all phrase,
"or for any other reason"
leaves the courts with some welcome flexibility.
I hope that my noble friend will agree that person B should receive the protection of the court from sexual assault on the basis of a reason that is accepted by the
410
court after due process as valid but falls just out side the wording of the subsection as it would be if we took away the words,
"or for any other reason".
The difficulty is that, if we narrowed the wording, we would have to consider more closely how we described all the possible eventualities. That might be too difficult.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We accept the reasoning of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the matter. The basic thing that must be established is that B is unable to refuse. He is unable to refuse, if he lacks the capacity to choose whether to agree to the touching; that is what must be proved. He might lack that capacity because he lacks,
"sufficient understanding of the nature or possible consequences of what is being done, or for any other reason".
The phrase,
"or for any other reason"
would include the matters referred to in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, but I imagine that a significant number of lawyers could think of variations that do not quite fall within the bracketed words but which, none the less, a sensible person would think showed that the victim lacked the capacity to choose whether to agree. It would not be helpful to restrict the basic definition of whether somebody lacks capacity. Although I fully understand the reasons for moving the amendment, which is only a probing amendment, we think that we would give the best protection by including the words,
"or for any other reason".
That is why we did it.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I take on board what he said, as well as what my noble friend Lady Blatch said, and, in the light of that, we will want to consider the matter again before Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 215 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 216:
Page 16, line 7, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, Whether Clause 33, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Rix: Originally I drafted an amendment which sought to insert a new clause after Clause 116. It was headed, "Orders of court: therapeutic or counselling services for victims". Unfortunately, I was informed that such a clause would not find a happy home in this Bill, and that the best I could hope for would be to receive assurances from the Minister by pursuing the route of opposing the Question whether this clause should stand part of the Bill. This I am now doing, and I trust that I shall not detain noble Lords for very long.

411
The issue is the lack of specialist counselling and therapeutic services for people with a learning disability who become victims of sexual abuse and for whom the process of recovery can be painfully slow and, of course, painfully difficult. Therefore we must consider how best we can help them.
The national provision of counselling and therapeutic services for people with a learning disability is extremely poor. These services possess neither the expertise to offer specialist support, nor do they receive sufficient funding to offer counselling to this vulnerable group, which may well contain those with profound learning and multiple disabilities, thus making communication and counselling even more difficult.
I raised this matter last October when I introduced my own Bill on sex offences, supported by Mencap, VOICE UK and the Ann Craft Trust, all organisations deeply involved in supporting victims of these heinous crimes. Alas, as yet I do not feel that I have received a satisfactory answer or, indeed, any answer.
I hope that the Minister will review the availability of resources to ensure that victims with a learning disability are at last given the right and proper support. If it would help to resolve matters, I would gladly beat a path to the Minister's door to explore the way ahead. On the other hand, a cast-iron, copper-bottomed commitment—if that is possible—made now might well provide the solution. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Lord Astor of Hever: I fully support all that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, concerning the provision of support and counselling for those people with mental disorders or learning disabilities who have to go through the legal processes or give evidence in a trial. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that the national provision of counselling and therapeutic services for people with a learning disability is extremely poor. We believe fundamentally that specialist services should be provided with adequate funding for these circumstances, a point also made by the noble Lord.
The criminal justice system is daunting for anyone, let alone those suffering from a mental disorder or a learning disability. Problems have arisen in the past because their evidence does not stand up in court under the scrutiny and interrogation of the defence counsel. I understand that provisions cannot be included in this legislation, but I would welcome assurances from the noble and learned Lord that steps are being taken to address these problems.
The Bill admits that different rules apply for people with mental disorders or learning disabilities, in particular those who are incapable of giving consent. Other legislation dealing with how the criminal justice system works should similarly reflect and address those differences.
On other grounds, Clause 33 is worrying. We would like to know why no functional test of capacity is included. How is a prosecution to be pursued under
412
Clause 33? Who will be responsible for assessing the capacity of victims, questioning them, and providing them with access to the right support facilities and experienced care workers who can handle the inquiry? I shall certainly require a degree of persuasion from the Minister that these matters have been considered fully and that the procedure which would result from a prosecution brought under Clause 33, although not on the face of the Bill, has been thought through in detail and is appropriate to provide for the needs of these most vulnerable people.
Legislation on mental capacity would help to clarify cases involving people who lack the capacity to consent to sex and should therefore be a priority in order to complement the provisions of this Bill.
Baroness Walmsley: I have great sympathy with the problem described by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, of finding a suitable platform for raising this important issue. I had a similar experience with regard to services for young people who abuse. It is disgraceful if the situation is as the noble Lord described. These are very vulnerable people in the most terrible situation and very much in need of highly qualified, experienced persons to provide appropriate services. The training of such people takes a long time, as does developing the range of experience necessary to do such specialist work. Producing enough people requires long-term planning, so I hope that the Minister listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. The sooner something is done, the better. Maybe it will take five or seven years to produce enough people to fill the gap that the noble Lord identified.
The Earl of Listowel: I listened with concern to my noble friend Lord Rix, whose remarks brought to mind earlier debates in Committee about therapeutic services for vulnerable young people. Does the Minister expect anything in the Green Paper Children at Risk to address the issue of developing a workforce to work with such children? Will the noble and learned Lord bring to the attention of his colleagues working on the Green Paper the concerns raised today?
There is concern at the delayed publication of part of the national service framework for children. Money is being passed to services throughout the country, yet the framework—particularly a document entitled The Emerging Findings—has not yet been published, so service commissioners will not be fully informed about how best to spend their budgets. Perhaps the Minister can convey my concerns. We would be interested to see the document coming forward soon, so that the right sort of therapeutic services are provided.
Lord Adebowale: I support my noble friend Lord Rix. The organisation Respond, like Turning Point, is very concerned about the lack of clarity on the critical issue of therapy for victims of sexual abuse who have learning disabilities. As the law stands, there is great uncertainty about whether a person with a learning disability will receive therapy, even though therapy can actually help people to deal with the legal process better and with the incredibly emotional pain of abuse.

413
For too long, people who have been terribly hurt have been denied treatment for dealing with that hurt—an absurdity that must change. We know that abuse wrecks people's lives, yet often therapy is not made available to the victims of abuse. The treatment of people with learning disabilities is characterised by weak assessment procedures, uneven availability of treatment and lengthy delays. Poor service planning and low levels of commissioners' expertise prevent organisations such as Respond from doing their job properly. Funding is often too short term, rather than being matched to individual needs. This critical issue deserves our attention and I thank the noble Lord for bringing it to our notice.
Baroness Blatch: My understanding is that the noble Lord's opposition is a device to raise certain issues because I would not want to lose Clause 33—which does offer protection to some very vulnerable people. That does not, nevertheless, make the points raised by the noble Lord any less valid; it seems an excellent way of doing things. This is a very wide issue—it is not just about resources but about the quality of the services made available to people who suffer from a mental disorder or learning disability.
My noble friend Lord Astor spoke about how this will work—the practice of making very sensitive judgments, what the tests will be and whether there will be a code of practice. They are very real issues.
This is an ingenious device, but I would not like to see Clause 33 disappear from the Bill, because the protection it provides is very important.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: What the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says is widely understood around the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, was kind enough to give me warning of the purpose of this provision. We have had equally legitimate and parallel debates on the position of the victims and the perpetrators of sex crimes, particularly those who are underage.
One of the key principles underlying the offences in the Bill is that the provisions should offer better protection to the vulnerable. The sex offences review heard very disturbing evidence about the extent and nature of the sexual abuse of vulnerable people. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has been drawing that to our attention in this House for a very considerable time. It included evidence that these vulnerable individuals are deliberately targeted for abuse by predatory offenders who calculate, all too often rightly, that they are less likely to be convicted than if they abuse somebody with no such disability.
Existing legislation has offered inadequate redress because of the inadequate nature of the criminal offences. These provisions try to make the criminal law better and more effective as a means of seeking to reduce the level of abuse.
414
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is right when he says that that is only part of the story. What support is provided not just for victims who have a case brought in the criminal justice system but for those who are abused without proceedings being brought?
I appreciate fully why the noble Lord has raised this issue. I sympathise with his concerns that those victims of crime who are in this situation need specialist help in very many cases in terms of counselling and other services to aid their recovery. I fear that I may not be able to give him the assurances that he seeks. There are two sources of funding. First, there is local authority social services funding. Funding for social services has gone up generally. Relationships with local authorities require that the discussions with them determine how much they give. In addition, the Department of Health provides support to voluntary sector organisations which play a part in providing the sort of counselling to which the noble Lord referred.
The noble Lord knows better than I that for the year 2003–04, voluntary organisations in the learning disability field received approximately £1.4 million in Section 64 grant funding. That is made up of £496,000 paid in the current year and £898,000 that they applied for in previous years. The organisations that received this funding include his own organisation, Mencap, as well as VOICE UK, Respond and ARC. I anticipate that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will say politely, "I know all that. It is not nearly enough; there is no over-arching strategy, it is patchy throughout the country because some local authorities do this and some do not". We would all share the view that provision needs to be much more focused and less patchy. That needs to be done as soon as possible. I cannot stand here and say that I can give an assurance that that will happen but we all agree that it should. I will take back what has been said today to my colleagues in the relevant departments.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, raised the question of the Green Paper Children at Risk. That will obviously deal with a different category of children rather than the vulnerable people whom these provisions are intended to deal with. It will cover issues about how they are to be supported when they become victims of crime in the kind of circumstances with which the Bill is intended to deal.
I appreciate that I have not dealt with the matter in a way which might satisfy all Members of the Committee. We are very mindful of the problem and recognise that the Bill can be part of the story.
As regards the final issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and supported by other Members of the Committee, it is not possible for me to give definitive indications of the precise circumstances in which this clause will be used. But it is absolutely right that it has to be dealt with incredibly sensitively having particular regard to the interests of the victim in the context of proceedings and in considering whether or not it is in the interests of the victim in every

415
case to bring proceedings. That will occur and it will very often require advice and assistance to the CPS way beyond the normal advice which is given.
Lord Rix: I thank the Minister for that response. I am obviously disappointed that he has not got his hand in the Treasury's pocket. I hope that he will allow me to make further overtures to his department so that we may discuss possible ways of increasing the funding from perhaps other departments which are wealthier and more inclined to be able to distribute funds.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I agree to that, but with no expectation of success.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Causing a person with a mental disorder or learning disability to engage in sexual activity]:
[Amendments Nos. 217 and 218 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 16, line 34, leave out subsection (3).
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 37 agreed to.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 220:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—"
"GUIDANCE
The Attorney General shall issue guidance to supplement the code for crown prosecutors when deciding whether to prosecute those with a mental disorder or learning disability for sexual offences."
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 221 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. As Members of the Committee will be aware, there is concern that protection is provided for vulnerable adults without impinging on their right to a private sex life.
This amendment aims to safeguard the achievement of this balance. Clauses 33 to 37 of the Bill could see two adults without capacity to consent prosecuted for engaging in sexual relations. That is clearly not the intended purpose of the Bill, but in its current form it poses a threat to the rights of vulnerable adults.
However, situations may arise where two adults with differing levels of capacity are sexually involved leaving the party with less capacity open to exploitation. It is necessary, therefore, that some form of amendment be introduced to guard against both of these risks without diminishing the protection provided by these clauses. It is my view that regulations would be the best means of resolution as they would provide clear enforceable guidance on the proper usage of the Bill without curtailing potential protection.
The prosecution of two adults equally lacking in capacity to consent could be avoided while the possibility of abuse by an adult with a learning disability or a mental disorder could still be accounted
416
for. Regulations would hold the advantage of carrying statutory force, allowing parties to be prosecuted if they were found to be in breach and would serve as a strong preventive measure against misuse of the Bill. Redress therefore would not be limited, but the right to a private sex life for vulnerable adults would be maintained.
Regulations are needed if the full protective potential of the Bill is to be realised. However, I should like to emphasise the need for regulations to have statutory force, in view of recent developments concerning the Mental Health Act 1983. There is a code of practice for the Act, but there has been much legal debate over whether it carries the weight of law. As a result, two recent breaches of the code have effectively been ruled lawful by the judge concerned. Those cases are now going to appeal. That clearly illustrates the grave danger that guidance or regulations can be wilfully ignored if they lack statutory force. I hope that the Government learn by experience and introduce regulations that explicitly carry statutory force and clearly set out guidance around the implementation of the Bill.
After what I have just said about requesting comprehensive guidance under Amendment No. 220, I should make it clear that I fully support the principle upheld by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. It should be possible for two people with a mental disorder or learning disability to have a sexual relationship without fear of prosecution. That applies to those who are aware of their actions and can give consent and those who are not and cannot. Currently, the former can undertake a relationship without fear of prosecution so long as neither party uses threats, deception, inducement or exploitation, as covered by Clauses 38 to 42. However, no sexual activity is permitted between those with a mental disability who cannot consent, and there is a risk that someone engaging in such an activity could theoretically be liable to prosecution.
Anyone who lacks the capacity to consent may not have a proper understanding of what behaviour is appropriate. It is not acceptable that they are dealt with by criminal prosecution, in the same way as someone who is not mentally impaired. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: Since the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, has already spoken to Amendment No. 220, which seeks a different approach with a similar result, I shall keep my comments on Amendment No. 221 brief.
I should say at the outset that I am not saying that sex between two adults, neither of whom knows what he is doing, is a good thing. I am saying simply that it is not a matter for criminal prosecution. Since there may be an inequality of strength or personality between the two parties, it may be entirely appropriate to stop the relationship if either or both parties is suffering rather than benefiting. That is to be sorted out there and then, in the light of all the facts and as sensitively as possible. It is not something to be sorted out over months and by involving the police and the courts.

417
My proposed new clause is quite tightly defined. It says nothing about consensual sex between parties having capacity and choice, or abuse by one party who knows what he or she is doing of another who does not know what he or she is doing. It says nothing about the unlikely but not impossible situation of a large and forceful A, who does not understand the nature and impact of sexual activity, perpetrating sexual violence on a small and inoffensive B, who knows all too well what is going on but is powerless to stop it.
I have concentrated on the most likely scenario and have sought to address it through direct provision in the Bill, although the Minister may prefer the guidance approach advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. If so, I shall listen carefully to his comments, although I have an unrepentant preference for direct provision over assurances about future guidance.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment because the scale of mental disorder is all but infinite, and its effects are not so precisely known and are of various gravity. In a new look at the law—which this is in more senses than one—it is right that the Attorney-General should authorise a prosecution, having the advantage of totally objective advice as to the mental state of the person who is to be tried.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I sound a note of caution on both Amendment No. 220 and Amendment No. 221. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever is prepared to rely on the normal processes and the good sense and sensitivity of those who deal with these cases. If discretion is limited, it seems possible that the protection which the Bill offers might be undermined. It seems that there is a defence in the Bill whereby a person with severely limited understanding could not be convicted of an offence if they do not have the capacity. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can confirm that. I think that there is a defence.
As my noble friend said, mental disorder or learning disability covers a huge spectrum of disability in terms of seriousness. If a person is at the less serious end of the spectrum, then the law will view them as more responsible for their actions than someone who has a serious mental disorder. It is a fact that some disabled people who commit sexual offences deserve to be prosecuted—there are occasions when that is the case. They may well take advantage of other disabled people or of children or of adults. That is why I really am worried that the blanket ban which I believe these amendments would introduce could result in such people escaping justice.
I think that we run the danger that any additional guidance issued under Amendment No. 220 could be inflexible. Although I make that prediction, it may well be precisely the guidance that we would all want to see. However, the consequence of Amendment No. 221 is that a person could not be convicted of any sexual offence under Part 1 if both victim and perpetrator lacked sufficient understanding of the nature of the activity. That means that where the victim is learning disabled, the perpetrator can get away with committing
418
a sexual offence against him if his lawyers can show a lack of understanding about sexual activity. That would mean that disabled people are again less protected.
What is surprising about the amendment is that the exception is to the whole of Part 1. That could have severe unintended consequences if relied on as a defence by the perpetrator of, say, a child sex offence under Clause 9. It may be that defence lawyers will argue that neither party understood the nature of the activity—the perpetrator because of his disability and the child because of his age. As I said, the Bill as drafted contains a defence. A person who has severely limited understanding would not in any event be convicted of an offence as they would not have a mental capacity to have committed it in the first place.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I fully understand the considerations behind both amendments and I hope to give reassurance. It is perfectly plain that we all agree that the criminal law has absolutely no part to play in a significant number of the types of relationship to which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred. I should hope that it would not play a part in the vast majority of such cases. Usually, the prosecution of someone who lacks the capacity to understand the nature of his own actions due to a mental disorder or learning disability would be totally wrong and not possible as a matter of law because he could not understand that what he was doing was wrong. That would prevent a prosecution.
Moreover, Clauses 33 to 37 require that,
"A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that B has a mental disorder or learning disability and that because of it B is likely to be unable to refuse".
It would be very unlikely that someone with a serious mental disorder would meet that requirement, which has to be proved in order to make out an offence. Nevertheless it has to be said that the exact nature of an individual's position and its impact on their capacity to consent, whether they are the perpetrator or victim of an action, is not something that can be precisely determined outside the consideration of the circumstances of the individual case. The nature of an offender's mental status is a consideration whoever the victim may be. The Crown Prosecution Service follows a code of practice in determining whether the evidential requirements are met and whether it is in the public interest to mount a prosecution.
Amendment No. 220 would place a statutory obligation on the Attorney-General to produce supplementary guidance specifically in relation to persons with a mental disorder or learning disability. The code for Crown prosecutors and other CPS documents contain detailed guidance about the circumstances in which prosecution will be in the public interest. These will be updated as a matter of standard practice following the passage of the Bill.
For persons with a mental disorder or learning disability, criminal responsibility is not something that comes with a specific diagnosis; rather, it depends on the nature and facts of the whole case. It needs to be taken into account. If the case ever got to the CPS—

419
and in many cases it would not—it would need to consider whether the evidential requirements are complete and whether or not the public interest test had been satisfied.
I do not think that the new legislation creates new issues in that regard so far as concerns the prosecution. I appreciate the thinking behind the amendments. The Government are not interested in criminalising that which is not criminal. But because of the difficulty of providing for every circumstance, whether in legislation or guidance, one has to trust to the good sense of both the authorities and the CPS; otherwise one would get into a situation where something that was obviously wrong which might be very exceptional was not covered.
In the light of the assurances I have given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, will feel able to withdraw his amendment; and that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will not feel obliged to move his amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I agree with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that this is not an issue to be sorted out over a long period involving the police and the courts.
We applaud the thrust of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. However, we are concerned that someone who has a mental disorder or a learning disability and cannot therefore consent may have a condition which makes it unsuitable for him or her to have a sexual relationship. He or she may tend to use force or be unable to register unwillingness on the part of the recipient of their affections and to respond accordingly.
I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. My noble friend Lady Blatch asked whether it would be better to rely on the normal processes and pointed out that the guidance could be inflexible. We have received a great deal of briefing on the issue. Perhaps after discussion I may reflect on that. I agree with my noble friend that there are instances where someone with a mental disorder or learning disability deserves better treatment.
I shall read Hansard carefully. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 221 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder or learning disability]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 18, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Causing a person with a mental disorder or learning disability to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 223:
420
Page 19, line 4, leave out subsection (2).
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2003
4.9 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn)The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Northern Ireland Act 2000 provides for the Secretary of State to run the Northern Ireland executive departments but also for special legislative powers in place of those of the assembly. Those powers would expire, if not renewed, on 14th April of this year.
Efforts to restore the Assembly have not yet quite succeeded. I am sure that we all hope for a speedy restoration of devolved government to Northern Ireland. At the moment of restoration, the powers we seek to renew today, along with the machinery of direct rule, will fall away and the devolved Assembly and Ministers will take back their full authority.
I recognise that we place a significant burden on this House in the months during suspension. We have brought forward elements of the Assembly's programme that had not been fully enacted by suspension on 15th October. We tried to implement that programme to the same timescale that the Assembly would have done, which has meant a great deal of work. If, contrary to our hopes, it is necessary to bring forward further orders, I undertake that we shall generally allow a period of three months' public consultation on draft orders before they go through formal stages here. That will give an opportunity to everyone, including of course your Lordships, to contribute to the development of legislation before its final form.
We hope to see the early restoration of stable and inclusive institutions and early steps towards the devolution of policing and justice. Your Lordships will want to know that the following statement was made from 10 Downing Street today just after noon:
"Continuing discussions between the Governments and the pro-Agreement parties have led the Governments to conclude that sufficient progress has not yet been made which would allow the holding of a meeting between the Prime Minister, the Taioseach and the parties later today. The Prime Minister and the Taioseach will meet this afternoon in London to review the situation".
If there is success we shall need to return to your Lordships in the near future to seek authority to carry various proposals into effect, including—we hope—at an early stage the restoration of devolved government. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Order laid before the House on 27th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his remarks. What he said in a short and brief statement is in fact a huge happening. With no blame on the noble and learned Lord or, on this occasion, his Government, we are where we are in relation to the statement from 10 Downing Street to which he referred.
It is no secret that those of us who follow affairs in Northern Ireland were hoping for a major statement and, if I may say so, a major happening. That clearly has not happened, to the disappointment of us all. That is felt not only here but throughout the Province, on the streets of our cities and towns. The population were waiting for something that would give them hope that we could return to devolved government and progress towards a complete and absolute democratic state and peace.
We are patient. We are still waiting and hoping. Easter should be a happy time. It has not yet arrived. Let us hope that there will be some news from our Province before Easter that can be termed good tidings. The order has to be passed today. All I can say is that I support it and I hope that we will not have to do the work of Stormont and that we will not have to pass a repeat order in six months' time.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I take a slightly more robust line than the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. We have no wish to detain the House, but it is important that the views of these Benches are placed on the record. We support the order, but reluctantly. We do not believe that Orders in Council are the best way to legislate.
Orders were at different stages of the legislative process in the Assembly when they arrived in Westminster. Some had nearly completed all stages and been subject to a great deal of scrutiny from the Assembly. Some had been through Committee stage or were in the process of being considered by an Assembly scrutiny committee. Therefore, they might have benefited from extra time at Westminster. Some had completed only the second stage—effectively, a Second Reading debate—and had not been scrutinised in any detail. One order, the Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites (Northern Ireland) Order, had not even been through the second stage in the Assembly. My noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton, who is unable to be in his place today, voiced strong concerns at the time about the appropriateness of bringing forward this legislation as an Order in Council when the Assembly had not even had the opportunity to discuss the principles involved.
Having said that, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal took on board the concerns expressed by several noble Lords, and allowed provision for a special Northern Ireland Grand Committee to look in more detail at some of the orders off the Floor of the House, for which we were most grateful. However, being Orders in Council, there is no provision for
422
amending the legislation. I recognise that there must be some mechanism to legislate for Northern Ireland, if the Assembly goes into suspension. We cannot have a situation where Northern Ireland is left in limbo and a number of important initiatives are delayed by months.
I have a question for the Lord Privy Seal. It is one that he may have answered previously as regards his proposal for three months' consultation. If we were to find ourselves in a similar situation on another occasion, would the Government consider sending a number of these orders to a pre-legislative scrutiny committee, which would be able to take evidence from interested parties? Such a process would be particularly important for orders that had not received detailed scrutiny in the Assembly.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords. I shall be brief. I begin my remarks with a profound apology for missing two opening speeches. I was working diligently upstairs in the House and did not notice the change of business on the television screen.
Today the Prime Minister had hoped to unveil a new initiative on Northern Ireland; but, regrettably, that hope has been dashed by the intransigence of what one might term the "republican guard" (Irish version), who have gobbled up all the concessions, but, true to form, always demanded more. The Downing Street team has been very patient, and most generous. But obviously the team now realises that it is impossible to concede anything more without causing irreparable damage to the entire body politic in Northern Ireland.
Fortunately, there is a constructive and workable alternative. There is an acceptable workable model in Wales, which could, without any difficulty, be tailored to suit Northern Ireland. It closely resembles the plan endorsed by 14.5 million electors in the 1979 general election. That model is proof against sabotage—no blocking powers to frustrate the greater number. It simply provides for administrative devolution, which works perfectly well in Wales. No one—no party—is excluded, unless they exclude themselves. Huffing and puffing cannot obstruct sound governance. The unthinking will say that it is not enough. Very well, but do they mean to come clean and state their preference for total integration, via direct rule from the sovereign Parliament?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions made this afternoon. I agree with the thrust of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. He said that he was disappointed; indeed, all of those concerned in one way or another with Northern Ireland matters are disappointed. The noble Lord said that both he and his party are patiently waiting and hoping—a sentiment that we can all echo.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, it is important for me to repeat what the two Governments said. They could have taken the easy option, but they did not. They said that,

423
"sufficient progress has not yet been made".
That is rather an important and significant point.
The noble Baroness questioned me on what I said about public consultation. I take her point entirely. I am happy to reaffirm that we shall generally allow a period of three months for public consultation so that all those interested can make their representations and your Lordships will be able to consider them. I believe that we have a good record.
The noble Baroness was kind enough to refer to the Northern Ireland orders Grand Committee. I believe that we shall have an opportunity to discuss those. But—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran—I reiterate that the Government's firm policy is that we do not wish to be in that position and, as he said, we certainly do not wish to renew the order in six months' time. I am obliged to noble Lords.

Iraq: Humanitarian Assistance and Reconstruction
4.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development. The Statement is as follows:
"I would like, with permission, to make a Statement about the humanitarian situation in Iraq and the international planning for post-conflict rehabilitation and reform.
"It is now 22 days since military action began. Coalition forces are occupying a large part of Iraq, including parts of Baghdad. British forces are occupying much of the south east. Our forces have been providing humanitarian assistance in the areas they occupy in line with their obligations under the Geneva Convention and The Hague regulations. The Treasury has provided £30 million to fund these efforts and my department is continuing to provide advice on humanitarian issues to the UK Armed Forces.
"In most of the country, food is not currently a major problem. Because the Oil for Food programme distributed additional rations in central and southern Iraq before the start of the conflict, supplies will not run out for many families until the end of April. We hope the Oil for Food programme can be re-established by then. There are not so far the large numbers of internally displaced people and refugees that were feared. However, the risk remains that people may move if there are shortages of food or medical supplies or if the fighting escalates. The UN system has made contingency plans to cope with large movements of people.
424
"The main humanitarian problems to date have been of water supplies in towns and cities to the west and south of Baghdad where power supplies have been disrupted. Disruption to water supplies presents a real threat to health. In some areas, supplies have now been reconnected or water is being supplied by tankers—the Royal Engineers built a valuable pipeline from Kuwait into Umm Qasr through which water is being tanked to other towns—but in others the problems remain. We are monitoring the situation very closely and are looking to do whatever we can to resolve the problems. UK forces are doing all they can to restore power supplies in the area they control.
"Over the past few days, we have also received reports of an increasingly serious humanitarian situation in Baghdad. Hospitals are overwhelmed with casualties. Electricity is mostly out of order. Some parts of the city no longer have piped water. Most hospitals are using back-up generators and stocks of additional water pre-positioned by the International Committee of the Red Cross in recent weeks. These are now beginning to run out.
"We heard yesterday from the ICRC of violent looting in Baghdad—far more than in Basra—where a breakdown of law and order is feared. There are reports of a hospital being looted and individuals attacked and, in some cases, raped. The ICRC has said that it is temporarily unable to pursue its emergency assistance mission in Baghdad. We have offered to do all we can to help, and arrangements have been made to secure the ICRC warehouse in Baghdad. ICRC's senior logistician has been killed. I am sure the whole House would like to offer its condolences to his friends and family and express its support and admiration for the work the ICRC is doing in keeping water, energy and medical facilities functioning in this very difficult situation. It is a very fine organisation.
"There has also been looting in Basra, Umm Qasr and elsewhere in the south. In Basra, some water plants have been looted and rendered unserviceable. UK forces are working with local leaders to try to restore order. There are reports today that the Kurds have entered Kirkuk and that looting is also taking place there. We are also monitoring that situation very closely.
"As soon as it is safe to do so, UN agencies will return and take over responsibility for co-ordinating humanitarian support in accordance with humanitarian law and principles. The UN has considerable experience of this role and is well prepared for operations in Iraq. Last week the UN security co-ordinator made an assessment of some parts of southern Iraq and a number of UN agencies and NGOs have made initial visits to those areas.
"In the north of Iraq, assistance is being provided by the local authorities, UN agencies and NGOs. There are some displaced people, but the great majority are being accommodated by relatives or local authorities, and assistance is being provided

425
where it is needed. The World Food Programme has succeeded in getting food over the Turkish border and this is now being distributed.
"There are serious problems with unexploded mines and ordnance, some of which date back to the 1991 war. Border areas are heavily mined. The coalition is providing information to the UN Mine Action Service on mines and unexploded ordnance of which they are aware. UNMAS is mapping this and is planning a programme to raise awareness of the dangers, mark off affected areas and make them safe. We are supporting the mines action group and will contribute to further humanitarian mine action through our response to the UN appeal.
"On 28th March, the UN launched its flash appeal for Iraq. I committed £65 million, that is some 100 million dollars, from the United Kingdom on the day the appeal was launched, and contributions from the United States, the European Union, France, Germany and the Netherlands bring current commitments to over 1.2 billion dollars. The total appeal was for 2.2 billion dollars for six months and the UN is hopeful that this will be partly funded by the Oil for Food programme.
"The total DfID commitment to support humanitarian work in Iraq is now £115 million, made up of £32 million to the Red Cross, £78 million to the UN and £5 million to NGOs. We have another £95 million available for further contributions in response to evolving needs. In addition, the Chancellor announced yesterday that he would set aside a further £60 million for DfID to claim from the Treasury if and when needs arise.
"The House will be aware that I have made a commitment—and I think this is widely supported—that I will not redirect funds to Iraq from other emergencies like Southern Africa, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Afghanistan or the West Bank and Gaza. Nor will I divert funds from ongoing programmes supporting development for poor people elsewhere.
"When I made my last Statement on 24th March, I said that the most important priority was to restore the operations of the Oil for Food programme. On 28th March the UN Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1472 giving the Secretary-General authority to adapt the programme to changed circumstances, so that it could continue to operate for 45 days. The World Food Programme estimates that most Iraqis' current household food stocks should last until around the end of April.
"While the UN, Red Cross and NGOs can provide assistance to cover a short gap in the programme, the scale of need with 16 million Iraqis totally dependent on the programme and most families partially dependent means that it is critical that we get Oil for Food working again as quickly as we can. The World Food Programme concluded contracts last week to buy a further 400,000 metric tonnes of food aid for Iraq, which it intends to use to replenish the OFF distribution system. These supplies should start reaching the region by late April. But they will only reach people if we can keep
426
the distribution system in place. This means helping Iraqis keep 55,000 separate outlets across the country operating, 45,000 of which are in the centre and south of Iraq. In some parts of the country, they are still doing so; in others it will be a greater challenge. We will work hard at this and I will keep the House informed.
"We are also working on plans for reconstruction and development. The Geneva Convention and The Hague regulations impose obligations on occupying powers to provide for humanitarian needs, keep order and to keep the civil administration operating. But major reform and reconstruction require the authority of a legitimate government authority. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and President Bush made clear in their Hillsborough communiqué that they plan to seek the adoption of new UN Security Council resolutions that will affirm Iraq's territorial integrity and make provision for an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq.
"The UN has a vital role to play in helping the Iraqi people to establish a broad-based and fully representative Iraqi interim authority as soon as possible. The establishment of a legitimate government is essential for the engagement of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and the international community to provide support to the Iraqi interim authority in Iraq. Without the full involvement of the bank and fund, rehabilitation and reform will be less effective.
"Iraq is a naturally wealthy country with considerable oil resources, educated people, strong institutions and a proud history. It should be a prosperous middle-income country. In order to make progress, there will need to be agreement to reschedule and restructure Iraq's huge debt and reparations claims. Currently, there is little economic activity in Iraq apart from oil exports, which fund a massive programme of handouts through the Oil for Food programme. The reform effort will need to support Iraq in a transition from a centrally planned, impoverished economy to build a modern growing economy. It will be possible to phase out the Oil for Food programme as the economy develops.
"The atmosphere in the wider region is currently tense and angry and the conflict has caused economic decline in neighbouring countries. Economic development in Iraq will benefit its people and the wider region, but we must also remember that there is a severe humanitarian crisis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and that progress in the Middle East requires full implementation of the roadmap to the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel by 2005. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and President Bush re-affirmed their commitment to the implementation of the roadmap at the Hillsborough talks.
"Events on the ground in Iraq will change clay by day. As the military phase of the crisis comes to an end, the priority will be to provide order and humanitarian relief and to establish an Iraqi interim

427
authority so that the longer-term reconstruction effort can begin. I will keep the House informed. Reports on the humanitarian situation are being placed in the Library of the House each weekday morning".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we are deeply grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. We welcome the swift progress that the military campaign has made. Although the humanitarian situation in Baghdad remains very serious, a lengthy siege of Baghdad could have caused an even more serious humanitarian disaster.
The Red Cross has highlighted the problem of power and water cuts in Baghdad that the Minister mentioned. Now that Saddam's grip on power has been considerably weakened, will the coalition forces or any NGOs be able to restore the power and water supplies as a matter of urgency? The Red Cross also reports that hospitals in Baghdad are stretched to their limits as a result of fighting, but there are awful shortages of medical and surgical supplies. We add our support and admiration for the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross, but is Baghdad safe enough for any NGO to be able to deliver emergency medical supplies, or will the coalition forces do so?
I turn to the wider problem of order and security in Iraq. There is an urgent need for the restoration of security and order in areas liberated by the coalition forces. The chaotic scenes of violence and looting that we have seen on television are, we are told, preventing aid organisations from delivering vital aid to Iraq. What advice is the Department for International Development giving to aid agencies that wish to work in Basra and other parts of Iraq? Does the Minister believe that it is currently safe enough for them to work there?
If aid agencies are unable to enter Iraq for some time, does the Minister accept that the coalition must discharge its responsibilities under the Geneva Convention to deliver aid? Given that the war is not over and our forces will still be engaged in fighting the remnants of the Iraqi regime, how well equipped are British troops for keeping the peace? Does the Minister agree with me that there is a key role for the United Nations to become involved now in delivering humanitarian aid?
The big question remains over the extent of the UN's role in the reconstruction—or rehabilitation and reform, as the Minister calls it—of Iraq. Earlier this week, the French President, Jacques Chirac, said that the UN should,
"take on the political, economic, humanitarian and administrative reconstruction of Iraq",
and that the,
"reconstruction … of Iraq is a matter for the United Nations and it alone".
428
That statement was quoted in the Independent and the Financial Times on 9th April 2003. Is that the British Government's position?
The Secretary of State has stated that, without a UN resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq, coalition forces will be an occupying army under international law. Given the rapid progress made over the past few weeks, a resolution on reconstruction will therefore be required sooner rather than later. Can the Minister tell noble Lords what progress has been made on getting that resolution?
The World Bank and the IMF are holding their spring meetings this weekend. Can the Minister clarify whether or not they will be providing help in the reconstruction of Iraq even if there is no UN resolution backing the process? All of us in Europe are still eternally grateful to the United States for the Marshall plan that followed the Second World War. We hope that the US will once again be as generous.
There were media reports earlier this week that officials from DfID had been lined up to act as deputies to Americans in the Pentagon's Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. Can the Minister comment on the co-operation between her department and the Pentagon on the reconstruction of Iraq?
If our troops are to be welcomed as liberators and not as conquerors, we trust that Iraqis, too, will be closely involved in the process of reconstruction. What co-operation is taking place to choose which Iraqis will be involved? Can the Minister say what is being done to make certain that Iraqi companies, teachers, doctors and nurses are fully involved in the rebuilding of their country? What consultation is taking place with the Iraqi opposition groups on the form of a new government?
We commend all the troops who have done so much to liberate the people of Iraq over the past three weeks. We also pay tribute to the courage of the people of Iraq who have come into the streets to celebrate the downfall of Saddam's regime. We have a duty to mirror the success of the military campaign with an effective programme of humanitarian relief. We hope that the end of the Saddam Hussein regime will herald a new beginning for the Iraqi people.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, we on these Benches are also very grateful to the Minister for repeating the very full Statement that her right honourable friend gave to the House of Commons earlier today. Winning the peace is now of as great importance as winning the war has been. The central tasks of the members of the coalition, as set out in the Statement, in ensuring there is no further deterioration of the humanitarian situation and the rehabilitation of Iraq are of great importance.
We need to show that we are taking our responsibilities under the Geneva Convention and The Hague regulations properly. Our intentions to the people and to the region are clear. As has already been shown to some extent in Basra, there is a function of

429
winning hearts and minds in Iraq by fulfilling those functions properly. But it goes further than that. It is how we behave in these matters that will also help to win hearts and minds outside Iraq and persuade people elsewhere in the world of our intention our behaviour.
We were grateful to learn from the Statement, as I think we knew, that food is not currently a major problem. The food is unlikely to run out until the end of April. However, the end of April is not too far away. How will we be sure that the essential network of 55,000 outlets is up and running in three weeks' time? How many of them have been looted during the problems of the last few days? How will we ensure that there are secure lines of communication to take in the food? There was good news that the railway is being tested at least a certain way inland. However, there are still serious problems about ships of any significant draft reaching the port of Umm Qasr. It is important to know how the dredging is going on.
More seriously, it appears that a number of merchant vessels are reluctant to enter Umm Qasr because they cannot obtain insurance to enter the area. Can the Government provide some guarantee of insurance to ships which need to bring in essential requirements?
We share the sadness expressed in the Statement over the death of the senior logistician of the ICRC in Baghdad. We are concerned that since then the UNICEF office there has been looted. Two of the personnel of Médecins sans Frontieres are still missing. We are in a difficult situation, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said, the question of the hospitals and the availability of medicines, particularly in Baghdad but also I gather in Basra, are critical. I hope we can ensure that those essential medicines which are reaching their limits are replaced in the relatively near future.
This morning during the debate on the Foreign Secretary's Statement there was a discussion about the proposal of the Government to send some senior police advisers to Iraq. I hope that the Government, together with their coalition partners, and more widely, would look at the real experience that UN civil police have had in so many places over the years. They are not heralded much, but UNCIVPOL have provided many essential police, and the UN does have experience. That is one of the key areas in which the UN could continue to play a part.
I turn to the point made about the £270 million that was referred to in the Statement. That should be made available without any diversion from other matters and is very welcome. We note that £270 million is a relatively small sum compared with the military costs of the campaign. As regards the Oil for Food programme, it has a rather false name. If one looks back at the way in which the money from that oil has been used recently, it has not only been used for food, but for a great range of activities which have enabled the modernisation of a large section of Iraq's infrastructure. Will it be possible under Resolution 1472 for those funds to be continued to be used, thus
430
giving the United Nations an important lever in the way in which the rehabilitation programme is carried out?
I welcome the words of the Statement which said that the United Nations has,
"a vital role to play in helping the Iraqi people to establish a broad-based and fully representative Iraqi interim authority as soon as possible".
That goes further than the Hillsborough statement, where the "vital role" only referred to the humanitarian side. I hope that the words of this Statement are now accepted by all of our coalition partners.
At the end of the Statement, the noble Baroness referred to the helpful reports that DfID had placed in the Library of the House each day. Would it be possible for those to be e-mailed to Members who have a concern in these matters during the Recess, when we are away?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said, the roles that our forces and our people will play in carrying out the tasks of humanitarian aid will be challenging. They will be challenging in a different way from the military tasks, but we must respond to them, if we are to show the importance that we attach to them. I believe that that is the view of your Lordships.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and the noble Lord, Lord Roper, for their comments. I will try to address their questions in turn.
The noble Baroness asked several questions about order and security and asked whether it was safe enough for people from the International Committee of the Red Cross and other NGOs to operate. The situation is different in different parts of Iraq. The first responsibility of our forces is to secure everyone's safety and ensure that it is possible for humanitarian workers to operate. It is not necessarily easy or straightforward to do that. In Basra, for example, there has been some looting. Under the Geneva and Hague Conventions, our forces have an obligation to keep law and order. Noble Lords will know that our military have worked with local leaders to secure law and order. We have considered the question of policing in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, mentioned police advisers.
Things are more problematic in Baghdad. In the south, the UN security co-ordinator has gone in, and we are trying to ensure that there is access for humanitarian workers. Workers can go into the south of Iraq, but I must stress that can be done only with a high level of protection that is not yet possible in Baghdad. Our forces will endeavour to ensure that as quickly as possible. The noble Baroness asked about the delivery of humanitarian aid by the UN. We all want to see that happen, and that is why the security environment is so important. It is a priority for the military forces.

431
We see the reconstruction as happening in three phases. The noble Baroness mentioned the statements made by President Chirac. There will be the immediate post-conflict phase, when our military will have a responsibility under the Hague and Geneva Conventions, as I said, with particular regard to law and order. In that time, they will also have responsibilities relating to humanitarian assistance. Once security is established, it will be possible for humanitarian workers to come in. As I said, we have seen that, in a limited way, in the south.
There will then be a move with the Department of Defence's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. We are in close co-operation with ORHA, and, in a previous Statement, I mentioned to noble Lords that DfID and FCO officials were working with ORHA. We will then move quickly from that to the Iraqi interim authority, run by Iraqis and chosen by Iraqis. Then, we move into the longer term, and I have no sense of how long the interim to the longer term might be. That will become clearer.
It is possible that we will need more than one UN resolution. We want, of course, a UN resolution relating to Iraq's territorial integrity. There is the issue of reconstruction and reform, and we will also want to authorise the interim authority. It is not yet clear whether that will require three resolutions or two, and we are engaged in discussions with our Security Council colleagues and with the UN on that matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked for an assurance that Iraqi companies, teachers and so forth would be involved in the rebuilding process. I can assure the noble Baroness on that point. Indeed, if she heard my right honourable friend Clare Short in another place earlier this afternoon, she made it absolutely clear that we need to use the skills already available in Iraq. It is not for us to send in people from outside the country, but rather to use the considerable skills that exist within Iraq.
The noble Lord, Lord Roper, said that it was important for us to win hearts and minds inside and outside Iraq. I agree entirely with the noble Lord on that. The sensitive handling that we have witnessed on the part of our own troops in Basra is something which I hope will help that process. It is important that we work together to ensure that the essential network of outlets is kept up and running. Constant contact on that is maintained between ourselves and our coalition partners, and between defence and humanitarian experts.
All our thoughts go out to the brave humanitarian workers in Iraq. They are facing a very difficult situation with immense courage. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roper, that what we saw with regard to the looting of the UNICEF office and the killing of the ICRC logistician was extremely shocking. We hope that there will be no further incidents. The humanitarian workers are very brave indeed to do what they are doing. The UN civil police have real experience of such situations. That is why it is important that we move towards securing some form of UN resolution as quickly as possible.
432
I turn to the Oil for Food programme and the question of the UN having a wider responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, will be aware that until a wider resolution is agreed under which the UN can operate, the current phase of the programme will be limited to humanitarian needs. I hope that by the time a further resolution has been agreed in the Security Council on the Oil for Food programme it can be expanded to embrace some of the wider projects to be undertaken.
I hope that I have addressed all the questions that have been put to me.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Baroness to one sentence from the Statement made this morning by the Foreign Secretary? He stated that the Government had,
"reaffirmed our commitment to protect Iraq's oil and other natural resources, as the patrimony of the people of Iraq, which should be used for their benefit".
Will the Government confirm that, in the long run, the real key to reconstruction will be Iraq's oil? Can they further confirm that, for many years now, both France and Russia have—certainly in contravention of the spirit of sanctions—been doing deals with Saddam Hussein for the exploration of this oil? Are the Government aware that as far back as 1997, the Russian oil company, Lukoil, which has considerable political as well as commercial connections, had agreed a deal with Iraq whereby it expected to take possession of some 500 million tonnes—tonnes, not barrels—of oil which at present prices would have been worth some 80 billion dollars?
Will the Government do their best to smoke out exactly what oil contracts the French and the Russians agreed with Saddam Hussein, of which they were anxious to get the proceeds and which of course goes a long way to explaining why they were so anxious to take the political line over Iraq that they did?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, as regards Iraq's oil resources, I can confirm that in the short to medium term, the top priority will be the Oil for Food programme. Some 60 per cent of Iraqis are dependent on that programme. However, once the Iraqi interim administration has taken control, it will have control of Iraq's oil. No doubt it will look closely at the priority needs of the country.
I turn to the other points made by the noble Lord. A number of countries have commercial interests in Iraq. I am sure that, over the coming months, those interests will become clearer.
I forgot to give one answer in response to the previous set of questions. We will happily e-mail reports if noble Lords will contact the Department for International Development.
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, while appreciating that coalition forces and troops should not be used as policemen during civil disorder, would it be possible for coalition troops to protect and secure the hospitals in Basra and Baghdad—where I understand there is

433
much looting, vandalism and other abuses—so that at least the supplies that are available get through to those institutions?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is an obligation under the Geneva and Hague Conventions for the military to keep law and order, but in doing so the military must ensure that they are safe before moving on to secure other places. I assure the noble Baroness that protecting and securing hospitals is a top priority—as is trying to protect and secure supplies, including medical supplies. We worked very hard to protect and secure the ICRC warehouse in Baghdad because we were very concerned that it might be subject to looting.
Lord Judd: My Lords, my noble friend's remarks about the lead role to be played by the United Nations in humanitarian operations were immensely reassuring. Have the Government yet been able to discuss with British non-governmental organisations and humanitarian agencies whether they are now satisfied that arrangements are in place to enable them to keep to their tradition of working only in a situation in which they are seen to be impartial?
For all of us who have worked in the area of humanitarian aid, my noble friend's comments about the absolute indispensability of an Iraqi administration being in place as soon as possible were immensely important. Does my noble friend accept that if the new administration is to have legitimacy and credibility in the world, the UN cannot just assume a consultative role in its formation but must be central to the whole task of bringing the new administration into being and seeing it become operational?
More specifically, what is being done to plan for police training and to ensure that resources are in place for the administration of justice? We always talk about the rule of law, but it is immensely expensive. It requires lots of lawyers, judges, institutions and the rest. That alone will use up more than £270 million. Can my noble friend give an assurance that steps are being taken, beyond rhetoric, to ensure that arrangements are in place for the rule of law? Finally, does my noble friend accept that £270 million of aid can only be a small beginning and that the bill at the end will completely eclipse that sum?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, £240 million has been allocated to immediate humanitarian support—as DfID updates and statements have made absolutely clear. I was asked some time ago about the cost of longer-term reconstruction but at this point in time we have no idea. The international financial institutions are currently engaged in a needs assessment. They will not be able to operationalise it until there is a UN resolution that will enable them to operate in Iraq. We will return to those questions but the IFIs can undertake initial needs assessments.
We have been involved in weekly discussions with British non-governmental organisations since 13th February and have shared information with them. NGOs are currently operating in northern Iraq and there
434
are a couple in Baghdad-controlled Iraq—for example, CARE and Save the Children have a presence through their local staff. A number of NGOs are still refusing DfID assistance. We will continue to engage in discussions and dialogue, and if that situation changes, I will advise the House.
With respect to the UN role, my noble friend Lord Judd said it was central—we have said it is vital. I do not think there is much difference in the language. With respect to what we do in the longer term on police training, the administration of justice, and so on, I agree with my noble friend that these are very big questions. They will need to be tackled. They are resource-intensive, and I am sure that the House will come back to them on a number of occasions.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords—
Earl Russell: My Lords—
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, there is plenty of time for everyone.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the Minister take up what the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, said? Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that somebody loots a hospital, and he is then stopped. What happens then? Is there any process or administration to deal with justice, summarily or otherwise, on the streets of Basra or Baghdad at the moment? I accept that this is a very difficult question for the Minister to answer.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I would not expect the noble Earl to ask me anything but difficult questions. In Basra, our military are currently working with local leaders trying to establish some kind of policing system. This has not yet been established in an institutional way, but we are working on it. The situation is much more difficult and complex in Baghdad where the control is in certain areas and fighting is still going on. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, the military need to be safe and secure before they can move on to make particular areas or institutions such as hospitals safe and secure. That is very important. When there is movement on these issues, I am happy to write to the noble Earl to let him know.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, are the Government thinking in the short term—I realise that this is a statement about the short term—about the long-term cancellation of international debt on behalf of Iraq, bearing in mind that the main objection of many other countries is that that would benefit only the rich and the rulers? At present, when Iraq has no rich and no rulers, would it not be a good time to make that one of the first things we do to help?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it will clearly be one of the things that the IFIs look at as part of their needs assessment with respect to the longer term reconstruction of Iraq. The noble Lord will be aware that the spring meetings take place this weekend and I am sure that this will be one of the subjects under discussion.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that the United Nations will have to earn anew the confidence of the people of Iraq which I believe it currently does not enjoy, if only because the United Nations is identified directly with the policy of containment, which has been a total disaster? It is also identified with, and was responsible for, the policy of sanctions, which it failed miserably to enforce, with the result that millions of people suffered. Finally, it is identified with the policy of opposition to war, which has led to the liberation of the people.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think there will be an onus on all of us in the international community to demonstrate to the people of Iraq that we are serious about the commitment we are giving to their longer term development. That will be for us, as coalition partners, and for the UN, as an over-arching international umbrella organisation. We will have to work very hard on this; the first test will clearly be establishing the interim authority, ensuring that the people of Iraq have a voice on that interim authority and that it speaks for the Iraqi people.
Earl Russell: My Lords, while I join with my noble friend Lord Roper in welcoming many parts of the Statement, perhaps I may also draw the Minister's attention to a report in last Sunday's Observer to the effect that an organisation of groups of Christian missionaries led by Mr Franklin Graham are ready and waiting to take over the administration of large parts of the aid programme. For the reasons so admirably outlined in this Chamber yesterday by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, will Her Majesty's Government use whatever influence they may possess to ensure that this development does not take place?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that I have made it absolutely clear in this House, as we have through the Statement, that we would want to see the UN playing a large role in the reconstruction. Obviously, NGOs will have some part to play, with the major role played by the UN with respect to immediate humanitarian needs. In that context, I take on board the concerns mentioned by the noble Lord. But in view of the role we see being played by UN organisations, given the experience they already have in Iraq with the Oil for Food programme, those concerns will not arise.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, can we spare a moment, without any question of political allegiance, to pay homage to our Prime Minister, who has guided this country until now with wonderful courage and endurance?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely endorse the comments made by my noble friend.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there are many areas of Iraq without recognised aid agencies or NGOs? Is her department going to be wary of those individuals who set up as aid organisations and who have a political incentive in seeking political legitimacy? Is the noble Baroness's department aware of that risk?
The noble Baroness mentioned not reintroducing skills because there are many skilled people in Iraq. Does she agree that training is essential? For example, it is quite urgent for professionals in the media who have known nothing but Saddam Hussein's regime? Would her department consider, for example, short courses of three or six months which could be offered not only to Iraqis in Iraq, but perhaps those in the Iraqi community in this country?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that I can assure the noble Earl that, given our considerable experience of working with NGOs in other parts of the world, we are aware and know the risks which can arise sometimes in seeking to use their role for political legitimacy. It will be at the front of our minds as regards Iraq.
As regards training and short courses, particularly in the media, that is something that we already carry out. It may well be that some Iraqi journalists have already attended programmes. I see absolutely no reason why we should not be doing that.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for missing the beginning of her Statement. Nothing could have brought home more clearly than the Statement the terrible shortage that there will be in Iraq of authority, the means to enforce and also the resources to meet all the requirements that will now be presented in that trouble country.
In that regard Iraq is perhaps fortunate in that it has close neighbours in a number of countries who have very good reason to be thankful for the departure of Saddam Hussein and his regime. As members of the Gulf Co-operation Council they have resources and disciplined manpower that could very well be useful. It would obviously be an act of great good neighbourliness on their part for the future. Her Majesty's Government have particularly close relations with the countries concerned. I wonder what discussions they will have to encourage them to see what part they can play in helping Iraq, their neighbour, in its time of need?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. Indeed, the GCC will be important. The noble Lord will be aware that we have been engaged in an ongoing dialogue with the GCC. In fact, my noble friend Lady Symons attended a recent meeting with the GCC and that discussion and dialogue will continue.
438
The noble Lord is right. There are considerable resources in the region that could be used creatively and well in the longer term reconstruction and assistance to Iraq, and we will look to all those possibilities.
House adjourned for the Easter Recess at ten minutes past five o'clock until Monday, 28th April.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Water Bill [H.L.]
(Fifth Day)
Thursday, 10th April 2003.
The Committee met at noon of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Carter) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Carter): The usual announcement was made at the beginning of the Committee stage. I remind noble Lords that in the event of a Division, the Committee will adjourn immediately for 10 minutes.
Schedule 4 [Licensing of water suppliers]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 166D:
Page 147, line 7 after "Assembly;" insert—
"(iii) each relevant licence holder;"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 166E. 166F, 166G, 167A and 168ZA.
I seek clarification through Amendment No. 166D. When a reference to the Competition Commission concerns a single licence holder, the report goes to him immediately and at the same time to the Secretary of State and the Assembly. What is different about a referral of more than one licence holder is that they will all have to wait a further two weeks before receiving the report. We could not quite understand those provisions in the Bill, unless I have read them incorrectly. What will the Secretary of State and the Assembly do during those 14 days? There are those who, looking at past performance, will say that the amendment will not even be opened, let alone read, straight away. I do not quite understand why there is a 14-day delay when the decision has obviously been taken.
On Amendment No. 166F, subsections (6) and (7) give the Competition Commission the duty, "so far as practicable", to prevent disclosure of anything that is not in "the public interest", against "commercial interest" or harmful to an individual. This is only a small suggestion, but does that suggest that the Competition Commission is not to be trusted? Does the Secretary of State have a different yardstick? She can hardly be responding to an appeal because the report has yet to be published. On what grounds is it envisaged that the Secretary of State will exercise the power to ban the publication of aspects of the report?
Amendment No. 166G is a probing amendment. The Competition Commission has the duty, on page 146 at line 6, of specifying the modifications by which the anticipated adverse effects,
GC 68
"could be remedied or presented".
The words that we wish to omit suggest that the authority can gainsay the Competition Commission. One is tempted to ask: why involve the commission at all if it can be overruled on disclosure by the Secretary of State on modifications by the authority? These are all slightly technical amendments.
Amendment No. 167A relates to line 18 on page 149. If the authority is limited to making modifications that are recommended by the Competition Commission, there will be no need for any of that to be stated. There is much to-ing and fro-ing, and all of that is to be done in a timescale that no one who has ever waited for a promised regulation, guidelines or White Paper from the Government might credit. We wonder why the words are in the Bill.
Amendment No. 168ZA is another probing amendment. It appears that licensed water suppliers are to be allowed to have their own treatment works. Will the Minister expand on that and the subject of ownership by the licensed water suppliers of buildings, pipes and lands? Will they, for example, he able to take over existing water undertakers' responsibilities in that way, sell off the water abstraction end but retain the treatment works and delivery system? if a water undertaker develops a delivery system for a licensed water supplier and charges for it, will the system belong to the licensed water supplier?
I apologise for the fact that these are fairly technical amendments. We are seeking clarification on them. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): The essential point about the amendments is that the provisions are virtually the same as those in the Utilities Act. Although there are points in the Bill at which water clearly needs to be treated slightly differently from gas and electricity because of the structure of the market or the regulations, unless there was a specific reason for departing from the wording of the Utilities Act—or the earlier gas and electricity Acts—so far as gas and electricity are concerned, we have not departed from it.
On the specific point relating to 14 days, the standard conditions would relate to many licences but when one is dealing with a number of licensees some matters could be involved that are confidential to some of the licensees and not to others. The view is that we should need more time in which to sort that out before sending them what is in effect a standard reply circulating everything to everyone.
Amendments Nos. 166D, 166E and 166F, if taken together, would remove the right of the Secretary of State to excise sensitive matters from commission reports. The provision of confidential information to the commission and its use of that information is essential to enable it to do its job. As I said, those are the same provisions as apply to gas and electricity and there is no particular reason why those providing confidential information under the Gas Act should have their interests protected whereas those under the equivalent water licensee provisions should not.

GC 69
Amendment No. 166F relates to our reasons for involving the commission on modifications if the Secretary of State can veto. Again, that is consistent with the Utilities Act in relation to the implementation of government policies. The Secretary of State is unlikely to intervene frequently but the power is available in the Gas Act and the Electricity Act. The Secretary of State has wider interests than those of the Competition Commission, and that may lead to such a veto.
Amendments Nos. 166G, 167A and 168ZA would require the authority to be precise about any specifications that it had made for licences in the report and therefore there would not be any discretion left to the authority to make whatever modifications it believes are appropriate to give effect to the commission's conclusions. Again, that is similar to the position relating to gas and electricity. To remove that in the case of licensed water suppliers would be inconsistent and would add to the burden on the Competition Commission of getting it absolutely right. However, to give effect to its intentions, the authority's own expertise needs to be brought to bear in terms of the precise drafting of the licence. That discretion is sensible in relation to all of the utilities.
If the authority attempted to make modifications that were not in line with the conclusions of the report, the Competition Commission can exercise a veto under new Section 17P. That protection is also available.
On Amendment No. 168ZA, the noble Baroness asked whether licensees would still be able to acquire treatment works. The answer is that if they will not acquire, that may be because licensees have their own treatment works and input treated water to the undertaker's network. If the noble Baroness requires further clarification, I had better write to her because I am not entirely sure whether that directly answers her point.
The main point is that the provisions are the same as in the gas and electricity legislation and I do not see any overriding reason why things should be different in this respect.
Baroness Byford: I am very grateful to the Minister. In a way, I am sorry that this is the opening amendment because it is very technical. Had I realised that the provision was taken from the Utilities Act verbatim, I might not have tabled the amendment. I shall reflect on what the Minister said.
On the amendment relating to licences of their own, if, on reconsidering my explanation in greater detail, the Minister wants to come back to me, I should be happy. I am still not clear what rights I, as a new licensed supplier, have over where that would be coming in. I had not anticipated that all licensed water suppliers would have their own treatment works; that came to me as quite a surprise. It is possible that they might have that but I had not foreseen that they would have that. On those two amendments, I am certainly happy.
GC 70
If I understood the Minister's response to Amendment No. 166G correctly, he said that the Competition Commission can overrule the authority: if the authority decides that work needs doing, the commission has the final say and the authority does not. I had not read the provision as having such clarity.
Lord Whitty: To clarify the position, the authority has the right to fulfil the intention of the commission's recommendations in a way that varies slightly from the wording of those recommendations. However, where it has to go outside the recommendations and make a modification contrary to or distinct from them, the commission would have a veto.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful for that clarification. I understand the point; but if the Secretary of State or the authority does not like what the commission intends to do, the body having the final say is presumably the Competition Commission. Based on the indications from officials sitting behind the Minister, I am assuming that to be correct.
I should like to read the other responses in greater detail. If the Minister wishes to come back to me on the particular issue that I mentioned, I should be happy, but at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 166E to 168ZA not moved.]
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 168ZB:
Page 156, leave out lines 9 to 11
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 168VA, which are grouped together. Both are probing amendments; they seek greater clarification.
As the Bill stands, it appears that licensed water suppliers will not be allowed to have treatment works—I raise this matter for the second time. Will the Minister expand on the subject of ownership by licensed water suppliers of buildings, pipes and land? Will they, for instance, be able to take over the existing water undertakers, sell off the water abstraction side of the business, but retain the treatment works and delivery system? If a water undertaker develops a delivery system for a licensed water supplier and charges for it, will the system then belong to the licensed water supplier?
As I said, Amendment No. 168VA is also a probing amendment. Section 158 of the WIA gives the undertaker powers to lay, maintain and alter any relevant pipe in a street. Paragraph 30 in Schedule 8 to the Bill denies that right for pipes that would be used for supplying non-domestic water under a water supply licence. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case and that I have not misunderstood the matter; and will he then explain what will happen if a licensed water supplier requests a supply in circumstances that would entail digging up a street? Will it become a matter for the planning authorities, or will it simply be impossible to go ahead? As I said, we merely seek clarification. I beg to move.
12.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I accept that clarification is very important in these matters.
The effect of Amendment No. 168ZB would be to remove the new duty on undertakers to lay pipes to connect licensees to the supply systems. We do not wish to see that happen.
The effect of Amendment No. 168VA would be to extend that duty to cover both potable and non-potable connections. The use of the undertakers' pipe-laying powers is important in order to allow licensees to introduce water into the supply system. Undertakers will have to use the pipe-laying powers for connections only in relation to the potable system—the drinking water system. That will ensure that pipes are laid to a suitable standard and are owned by the undertakers, so that the drinking water supply system remains integrated under the responsibility of the undertaker.
We do not believe that the amendment is necessary for non-potable water supplies. I sent the noble Baroness a detailed letter on these issues the other day. The brief answer to the point she raised then is that the pipes are separate. Therefore, the undertaker is not required to lay pipes for this purpose.
Two further questions were raised in relation to other amendments. The first was: can the licensees have treatment works? Yes, they can construct their own treatment works or purchase access from undertakers. Regarding taking over the assets of existing undertakers, the answer is no: the provisions give no rights to acquire undertakers' treatment works or piped network. I hope that I have answered the points raised.
Regarding the power to lay pipes supplying non-domestic water, the power is not available for non-potable water networks. Without pipe-laying powers, pipes can be laid by applying to the local highways authority. So there is no automatic right of access.
I hope that with those reassurances the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, and I thank her for the letter that she sent to me in the interim. I shall not use the expression "a dry Bill", but the Bill is slightly technical in parts. It is a matter of seeking clarification. On re-reading the Bill, one begins to wonder whether one has got it right. At this stage, I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 168ZC:
Page 158, line 26, leave out "or second" and inset ", second or third"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 168ZD, which seeks to insert a third condition regarding provision of the supply system entailing environmental damage to flora, fauna or geographical or physiological features.
I believe that the amendment speaks for itself. But the undertaker must be able to refuse to dig up an SSSI or blast a new pipeline through the Downs or in the Lake District. The lack of an environmental, sufficient cause is a serious oversight, unless the Minister can point to its inclusion elsewhere in the Bill. In our view, it will not be sufficient to have that stated only in the WIA or the WRA. It should on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We agree with the aim of ensuring that the requirement on undertakers to make water available to licensees and for transfer from one undertaker's supply system to another should not result in damage to the environment, including flora, fauna and geographical features.
I can reassure the noble Baroness that there is no need for the additional condition proposed in the amendment. In supplying the water to licensed water suppliers, undertakers will remain under their existing duty under Section 3 of the Water Industry Act to further environmental objectives. Therefore, it is not necessary to repeat that commitment in this legislation.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her response. Presumably, this would affect new water suppliers too—they would fall within this restriction.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes, I believe so.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. In that case, I shall happily withdraw the amendment. We are obviously very anxious to make sure that flora, fauna and geographical and physiological features are considered when these decisions are made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 168ZD not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 168ZE:
Page 160, leave out lines 39 to 41.
The noble Lord said: This is another probing amendment. It deals with the question of the costs that a water undertaker may charge a water supplier for the use of its facilities in order to bring water from the supplier's source to its customers.
We are uncertain as to the meaning and effect of the words that we seek to delete. The cost principle referred to in the clause is that,
"the charges payable … under the agreement or determination … shall enable the undertaker to recover from the supplier … any expenses reasonably incurred in performing any duty under sections 66A to 66C … in accordance with that agreement … and … the appropriate amount in respect of qualifying expenses and a reasonable return on that amount".
I presume that the final words refer to capital costs and that sort of thing. The clause goes on:
"to the extent that those sums exceed any financial benefits which the undertaker receives as a result of the supplier supplying water to the premises of relevant customers".

GC 73
We are somewhat puzzled as to what precisely that means—if the water undertaker is no longer supplying the customer. It could conceivably be envisaged that if a customer is sufficiently big he might have some reduced costs. At the same time, he has presumably lost a great deal of income. We thought that the only thing to do was to table an amendment seeking to remove those last words, in an attempt to find out exactly what was intended. It looks as though the recovery of costs is not straightforward. If it is not straightforward, we are not sure what else this provision might mean.
Lord Whitty: In allowing access to their networks and providing supplies of wholesale water, undertakers incur additional costs. They will need to recover those costs from the licensed water suppliers. This clause sets out the principles on which the charges that licensed water suppliers pay to undertakers will be based. Those charges will enable undertakers to recover the costs that the undertakers incur as a result of the licensee introducing water, including an amount for expenses they have incurred in relation to customers who switch to licensed suppliers.
However, it is necessary to deduct from those costs any savings that they may be able to make and any financial benefits that may accrue as a result of the licensee's involvement. The amendment seeks to remove the offset of those financial benefits, so they are not deducted from the costs. Financial benefits may, for example, include financial savings resulting from being able to defer or cancel future capital plans as a result of not directly supplying the customer who has switched to licensed suppliers.
The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that any such financial benefits were retained by the undertaker. Effectively, the undertaker would be over-charging the suppliers to the disadvantage of the customers. Of course, in not all circumstances will any financial benefits arise. This simply provides for the situation in which such financial benefits or savings arise and need to be taken into account and offset against the charges which the undertaker is making.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I shall need to study that with some care. I understand direct financial benefits, if there are any, and perhaps they should be taken off the charges. But the idea that charges should be taken off, to the benefit of being able to defer or even avoid future capital expenditure, is stretching the point. This is expenditure which has not yet happened and therefore could not be charged anyway.
Baroness Byford: I thank my noble friend for giving way. We are doing a duet here. Perhaps I may raise one point. The Minister said that the proposal would be to the disadvantage of consumers or customers. Equally, it would be to the disadvantage of customers of water undertakers, so it depends on which customer will be losing out. Unless I misunderstood what the Minister said, there will be a loss to somebody.
Lord Whitty: The total cost will be met one way or the other. There will not be any additional cost to the
GC 74
consumers as a whole. If it is right that the undertaker should be able to recover the costs of setting up a licensed supplier and charge that, it will eventually be charged to the customer. But if the undertaker is left just to charge the gross costs but does not deduct any benefit from those gross costs, the final expenditure is shifted to the wrong customer.
For example, when the competitive activity allows the incumbent water undertaker to defer or avoid investment as a result of the additional capacity created by eligible customers switching to a new supplier, such investment would otherwise have to be financed through higher prices to his direct customers. If that is not so, there is no reason why allowance for that should continue to be built into the charge to the licensed supplier; that is, it is an attempt to ensure that the net costs are passed through the system to the ultimate customer in the right place.
Lord Borrie: Perhaps I might intervene and I hope that my comments will be helpful rather than unhelpful. Whereas I understood the example given by the Minister about the water undertaker being able, in certain circumstances, to defer capital expenditure that it might otherwise have had to incur—customers are now being supplied by the other company—I am unsure that that is covered by these words. I do not see that the undertaker receives financial benefit simply because he has been able to defer or permanently bring to an end his plans for future capital expenditure. Is that really a financial benefit received?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for explaining rather more clearly than I what is causing us concern. I understand that it might be of benefit if one supposes that the capital expenditure programme was so advanced that it had been taken into account in the pricing structure for the authority's water to its customers in the most recent assessment by what is now Ofwat and what will be the new body.
Because the price structure is reviewed regularly, I cannot believe that that situation would ever arise. On a number of occasions, we have discussed the length of lead-in time for major capital expenditure of any sort by a water undertaker. The authorities responsible for the pricing structure would not allow any accrual of income to the water undertaker until the expenditure had commenced. Therefore, to a certain extent, we are talking about a situation that will never arise.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I think that the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Borrie have both accepted the principle that financial benefit should be offset against cost. My noble friend Lord Borrie asks whether the wording of the Act actually covers the saving as well as a financial benefit received. It is intended to cover savings gained as well as positive financial benefit gained. Our advice is that the wording does cover that, although we shall look at that matter again.
As to whether it can be identified or not, clearly that will be a matter that Ofwat will need to look at and its guidance will need to cover. Clearly, there will be some

GC 75
situations where there will be some argument about whether it can be identified or not. But, surely, the principle is right.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for that reply. If we are dealing with a principle—we may well be able to accept a principle—I think that the examples which we have been discussing are a little fictitious, if I may put it that way. We shall study what has been said. It has been an interesting discussion on another of the technical points. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 168ZF:
Page 161, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 29 on page 162.
The noble Duke said: On page 159, the Bill states that the authority may determine a case referred to it by a licensed water supplier. What is the point, two pages later, in making it mandatory for the authority to consult the Secretary of State before it makes that determination? Not only does this indicate considerable doubt about the ability of the authority to carry out its duty, but it also deprives the licensed water supplier of an appeal route. Furthermore, it lengthens the time necessary for a decision to be reached. In our view, it is unnecessary and bureaucratic. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: This may be an issue about the way in which legislation is drafted. The reference to consulting the Secretary of State is required in order to obtain the opinion of the Drinking Water Inspectorate. The Secretary of State is directly responsible for the DWI and for drinking water quality. Therefore, in practice, this consultation would be with the DWI. That is an important safeguard in respect of the quality of water in the public supply system.
Where a dispute concerns a supply of wholesale water given by one undertaker for introduction into another undertaker's supply system, the authority is also required to consult the Environment Agency. That is to enable the agency to give its views on the advisability of transferring water between different systems. There is an existing requirement to consult the agency in case of a dispute.
The reference to the Secretary of State therefore is not pre-empting the appeals process but it provides a means whereby the Drinking Water Inspectorate could give a view.
The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am not well enough up on the structure of legislation to know why that cannot be stated a little more clearly in the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 168A:
Page 162, line 36, leave out first "supply" and insert introduction"
The noble Lord said: This is a formidable-looking group of amendments. I have communicated to those on the Opposition Front Benches the need for the amendments, which I hope will be acceptable. They are related to the competition provisions and are technical and consequential. I would like to draw three points to the attention of Members of the Committee. If there are any other queries, no doubt they will be raised.
Amendment No. 168F and the associated Amendments Nos. 168G to 168J augment the provisions in proposed new Section 66G by making provision for the authority to designate two or more introductions of water from a single supplier as a strategic supply. That better caters for situations where, for example, licensees develop several sources. Amendment No. 168M allows customers to sue an undertaker for consequential loss or damage, should the undertaker not comply with its duty to maintain a supply. Amendment No. 168N and the associated consequential amendments substitute the undertaker for the licensed water supplier as the body which detects incidents of damage to water fittings, contamination of water and waste. That better reflects the present position, which will continue under the competition arrangements, where undertakers detect incidents through their routine audits.
The remaining amendments are technical or consequential. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for proposing the amendments. As he said, the majority of them are technical, and he was kind enough to circulate some explanatory notes with them. At this stage, there is nothing specific that I want to raise, so I think that we on these Benches accept the amendments as they stand.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I rise simply to check something. I have the Minister's explanation on Amendment No. 168M. Is he saying that without that amendment, the proceedings could not be brought? In debate on when proceedings could be brought at an earlier sitting of the Committee, my understanding was that actions could be brought in situations of breach of duty in any case. Why is the amendment necessary?
Lord Whitty: I cannot even find the right page on Amendment No. 168M, so I will have to dig beyond my initial explanation and write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am sure that a letter would be helpful, as it will probably be easier to understand when I read it slowly in any case. If the noble Lord writes to me, will he ensure that his office addresses any letters to Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer? If they are not addressed that way, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, gets my post. That is obviously an inconvenience to her but, if she is away, any such post can take a week or more to reach me.
Lord Whitty: My apologies for that to both the noble Baroness and, probably even more so, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 168B to 168E:
Page 163, line 14, leave out from "that" to end of line 16 and insert "an introduction designated under this section as a strategic supply no longer constitutes such a supply, it shall cancel its designation."
Page 163, line 18, leave out "a supply" and insert "an introduction"
Page 163, line 24, leave out "a supply" and insert "an introduction"
Page 163, line 25, leave out second "supply" and insert "introduction"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 168EA:
Page 163, line 28, leave out "for domestic purposes"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment 168EA, I shall speak to Amendment No. 168FD. We have two more probing amendments. We understand—we have been told—that the 50 litre threshold will mean that the market opened for licensed water suppliers will be about 2,000 customers. Page 131 of the Bill lays down the requirements in relation to premises supplied by the licensed water supplier. The first of those is that the premises are not household premises. Will the Minister explain why such a tight definition does not apparently rule out the supply of water for domestic purposes? That deals with Amendment No. 168EA.
Amendment No. 168FD is another probing amendment. Will the list of companies to which the strategic supply may be transferred include water undertakers, or will that be a last resort to be used only when another licensed water supplier cannot be found to do that particular job? I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: Household premises would use water exclusively for domestic purposes, whereas non-household premises generally use water for both domestic and non-domestic purposes. That is why the Bill refers to household rather than domestic premises. All water supplied through potable water systems has to meet the statutory standards for quality, whether it is domestic or non-domestic.
Baroness Byford: What a simple response. Can I tempt the Minister to look at the Bill and explain it in those few words? It certainly does not read that way. Can I crave the indulgence of the Minister and his team to consider slightly rewording the Bill to make the provision so obvious? One sometimes feels foolish tabling amendments, but when one cannot find an answer to what is obvious to the Government but not to those of us who may have to come back to a Bill at some stage, such rewording would be enormously helpful. It would involve only a few words. I urge the Minister to consider it.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I wholeheartedly support what the noble Baroness said. The Minister has put over a crucial piece of information so far as households are concerned. Clarity in this respect is absolutely vital.
Lord Whitty: I will have a look to see whether anything can clarify the provision. The problem is that
GC 78
charging specifies domestic and non-domestic, whereas the type of use of water is as I have described. It is not going to be so easy to clarify the Bill.
Baroness Byford: I appreciate that it may not be easy, but the noble Lord has a great reputation for trying to put problems right. I hope that we can persuade him to tackle that one little job. When talking about households, it is quite obvious that they might use some water for a domestic purpose and that the rest will be for business, but the Bill is certainly not clear to that effect. I hope that he will think about the problem. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 168F:
Page 163, line 28, at end insert—
"66GG DESIGNATION OF COLLECTIVE STRATEGIC SUPPLY
(1) Subsection (2) below applies if at any time the Authority determines that two or more introductions of water—

(a) which are made by a licensed water supplier; and

(b) which a water undertaker is required to permit under section 66B or 66C above in accordance with agreements under section 66D above, constitute a collective strategic supply of water.

(2) The Authority shall designate the introductions as a collective strategic supply.
(3) Subsection (4) below applies if—

(a) a water undertaker requests the Authority to make a determination that two or more introductions of water constitute a collective strategic supply for the purposes of subsection (1) above, or

(b) the Authority otherwise proposes to make a determination that two or more introductions of water constitute a collective strategic supply for the purposes of that subsection.

(4) The Authority shall give notice of the request or proposed determination to—

(a) the Secretary of State;

(b) the Assembly;

(c) the Environment Agency;

(d) the other party or parties, or the parties, to the agreements under section 66D above; and

(e) such other persons (if any) as the Authority thinks it appropriate to notify.

(5) Any such notice shall specify the time (not being less than twenty-eight days from the date on which the notice was given) within which representations or objections with respect to the request or proposed determination may be made.
(6) The Authority shall consider any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.
(7) If the Authority determines that introductions designated under this section as a collective strategic supply no longer constitute such a supply, it shall cancel their designation.
(8) If the Authority proposes to make a determination under subsection (7) above that introductions no longer constitute a collective strategic supply, it shall give notice of the proposed determination to the persons specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (4) above.
(9) Subsection (5) above applies to a notice under subsection (8) above as it applies to a notice under subsection (4) above (and subsection (6) above applies accordingly).
(10) For the purposes of this section, introductions of water are a collective strategic supply if, without those introductions being made, there is a substantial risk that the water undertaker would be unable to maintain supplies to its own customers as well as supplying the customers of the licensed water supplier in question with water for domestic purposes."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 168FA:
Page 164, line 8, at end insert ", or
(c) the wronged water undertaker"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 168FA, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 168FB and 168FC. The first two amendments are linked. Say a person or company that should not do so supplies waters to premises x. Surely a water undertaker above all should be entitled to take the offender to court. As the Bill stands, I do not think that he is able to. That is why we have asked for the addition of proposed new Section 66H(7)(c), which suggests that,
"the wronged water undertaker",
should be in a position to take that person to court.
Amendment No. 168FC is again a probing amendment. Through it, we are asking about exemptions. What are they? What person or class of persons is supposed to be exempt? What reasons and evidence will the Secretary of State have for taking such action? Proposed new Sections 66H(1) and 66I(1) specify "water", so presumably the exemption could not be used for fluoride or other chemicals—or could it, provided that the chemical was diluted to x parts of a million?
The amendments are a little technical, but I beg to move.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The amendments seek to allow undertakers to initiate prosecutions against unauthorised use of their network. New Section 66H prohibits supply from the public network except by the undertaker or a licensee. New Section 66I prohibits the introduction of water into the supply network by anyone other than the undertaker, a neighbouring undertaker in accordance with an agreement, or a combined licensed water supplier.
Persons offending against either of these prohibitions will be liable to prosecution by the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness seeks to give a right of prosecution to the undertakers. It would not be appropriate to give the undertakers the right to prosecute as the offence would be related to access to their networks and therefore they would be directly involved. It would not be appropriate to give them the right to pursue a criminal prosecution.
Amendment No. 168FC would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create exemptions from the new prohibitions. The noble Baroness is suspicious of this provision and wishes to ascertain what exemptions there will be. It is not entirely clear that there will be any exemptions, but we would not wish inadvertently to close off the possibility of local activity, which we
GC 80
can designate either as not appropriate or which we can license. I cannot think of any specific examples where that would apply but, by virtue of the age of the water industry, we cannot be aware of every local arrangement. We want to give ourselves a little bit of elbow room in that regard.
The main point on the earlier amendments is that we would not wish to give the undertakers the right to prosecute because they would be party to the dispute.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am slightly puzzled as to why an independent water company is not allowed to prosecute. In the normal world outside, companies can take other companies to court if they have a grievance. If a decision was left to the Secretary of State, for example, it may well be that he would decide that a certain case did not warrant being taken to court. I find it unusual that water companies should be denied this legal right.
If the Minister is again going to tell me that this is a utilities Bill and that the provision is already in other Bills and has been transcribed across, I shall have to sit down graciously. But it is unusual.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am becoming increasingly uneasy listening to the debate. I am not a lawyer—which is unhelpful when we are faced with technical amendments about whether or not people have the right to take legal action—and I would welcome the Minister's assurance that he will put in writing where in the Bill the legal right to take action is removed from companies and individuals. The Bill concerns water and I am surprised that it seems to remove the legal rights of companies and individuals.
Lord Whitty: We are talking about criminal prosecutions. It is rare for a party to a dispute to be able to prosecute the other party under the criminal law. We are not denying people their civil rights. It would perhaps be better if I set out the position in writing, as the noble Baroness suggests.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister. I presume that the option of pursuing a case through the civil courts will remain, but that is not quite the same thing. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for her contribution. I cannot understand why that provision is in the Bill. Human rights issues, legal responsibilities and accessibility are key concerns of the Committee. I look forward to receiving the letter from the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 168FB and 168FC not moved.]
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Minor and consequential amendments: licensing of water supplies etc.]:
[Amendment No. 168FD not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 168G to 168L:
Page 183, line 21, after "introduction" insert "or introductions"
Page 183, line 30, after "introduction" insert "or introductions"
Page 183, line 42, after "below" insert "or the introductions of water by it which are so permitted are designated as a collective strategic supply under section 66GG below"
Page 184, line 42, at end insert—
"( ) Section 27 (general duty of Authority to keep matters under review) is amended as follows.
( ) In subsection (1), for the words from "water" to the end there is substituted—

"(a) water undertakers or sewerage undertakers carry out functions; and

(b) licensed water suppliers carry on activities authorised by their licences."

( ) In subsection (2)—

(a) after paragraph (a) there is inserted—

"(aa) the carrying on by companies holding licences under Chapter 1A of this Part of the activities authorised by their licences; or"; and.

(b) in paragraph (b), for "such company" there is substituted "company mentioned in paragraph (a) or (aa) above".

( ) In subsection (4), at the end of paragraph (b) there is inserted "or

(c) the activities authorised by retail licences or combined licences; or

(d) the carrying on of any such activities by a company holding any such licence.""

Page 184, line 42, at end insert—
"( ) Section 39A (information to be given to customers about overall performance) is amended as follows.
( ) In subsection (1), after "customers" there is inserted ", and, if the direction so specifies, licensed water suppliers using the undertaker's supply system for the purpose of supplying water to the premises of customers or those customers,".
( ) After subsection (2) there is inserted—

"(2A) The licensed water suppliers referred to in subsection (1) above shall, if the Authority so directs, pass on the information about the matters mentioned in that subsection to their customers.

(2B) In subsection (1) above, the reference to the water undertaker's supply system shall be construed in accordance with section 17B(5) above."

( ) In subsection (3), after "undertaker" there is inserted "or licensed water supplier"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 168LA:
Page 185, line 43, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
The noble Duke said: The Bill amends Section 55 of the Water Industry Act, which basically states that if anyone in a water undertaker's area requests a non-domestic supply, the undertaker, with a few caveats, is obliged to comply.
The subsection to which the amendment refers would extend the obligation to requests that come from outside the water undertaker's area. It is a bald statement which does not encompass how the consequences will be handled. For example, will the Minister explain whether the undertaker in question will have to lay new pipes, or can be apply to the water undertaker whose area it is for an automatic right to
GC 82
use the latter's delivery system? How does the subsection impinge on the new rights of licensed water suppliers? I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: At present, undertakers have a duty to supply customers outside their areas for domestic purposes but not for non-domestic purposes. We have sought to simplify the situation and provide clarity by removing this distinction.
The Bill also restricts this duty to supply customers outside the undertaker's area to those who are not eligible for supply by a licensed water supplier. This ensures that undertakers will compete only outside their areas through their associated companies and not directly. If the noble Duke is seeking to ensure that non-domestic customers eligible for competition can be supplied out of area by the undertaker, the amendment would not achieve it.
In such circumstances, the undertaker will have to build new pipes but, as we discussed in an earlier amendment, he will be able to charge for this. There is an existing duty to supply water outside the area for domestic purposes; it is a new duty only in regard to non-domestic supply. The change will not have any direct effect on licensed water suppliers because it relates only to ineligible customers, not to those who are eligible elsewhere.
The Duke of Montrose: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. She has a great grasp of the subject but I am afraid I am a little lost. It will be well worth our while to read what the noble Baroness said and attempt to follow the logic in that way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Duke of Montrose The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. I68LB:
Page 186, line 11, after "premises" insert "which meet the threshold requirement laid down in section 17D"
The noble Duke said: As it stands, the wording in the Bill implies that anyone may apply to a licensed water supplier for a domestic supply. Is this intended to be the case? Section 17A on the granting of licences lays down quite clearly that a retail authorisation does not allow a licensed water supplier to supply household premises. However, the section title refers to "Domestic Supply". Is this to be interpreted as the adjective "domestic" describing the noun "supply", or is it a shorthand for "the supply of domestic standard water"?
Are the words used deliberate? Does this piece of legislation tucked away in a schedule of minor and consequential amendments open the door to licensed water suppliers supplying domestic quality water to all classes of customer? I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I do not know. The amendment would appear to add a requirement that only customers of eligible premises may notify undertakers that they no longer wish to receive a supply of water. Given our

GC 83
earlier discussion in this context, I shall have to seek clarification of the definition of "domestic" and write to the noble Duke.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister. I smiled when my noble friend moved the amendment. I thought that it would be one on which the Minister would have to come back to us. It is an acceptable course of action.
The Duke of Montrose: I shall await clarification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 168LC:
Page 187, line 3, leave out "not"
The noble Lord said: This is a group of linked probing amendments. We are curious as to why the Bill is drafted this way round. It requires a water undertaker to be prescient if it is to fulfil its duties.
We are dealing with supply. The proposed new Section states:
"This section applies where … a licensed water supplier ceases to supply any premises with water; and … the owner or occupier of the premises has not notified the water undertaker… that he has made arrangements for the continuation of the supply of water to the premises"—
and so on. That appears to imply that a big business customer—we are talking about 50 megalitres of water—which is eligible in the competition arena would not be sufficiently au fait and on top of its business to know that its water supplier was going to collapse and go bust.
Or are we talking about an unpredictable temporary breakdown? Are we talking about imposing on the major water undertaker an obligation to provide a stand-in supplier because the water supply system has broken down for 48 hours?
In normal circumstances, as this would concern a business with a very high water use, the business would be aware in advance that it had problems with its water supply and would notify the water undertaker of the situation. We believe that it should be the customer's duty to notify the water undertaker that it had difficulties with its water supply. That would enable the water undertaker to respond properly. To require the water undertaker to respond automatically at zero notice would place a heavy burden on it. That may not be what the Bill intends to happen but, from the way in which it is written, that certainly appears to be the case.
The water undertakers, water suppliers and customers will all be substantial businesses. I do not follow the logic of the Bill and the way in which it is written. The amendments seek to turn the logic around so that the obligation is on the customer to notify the water authority.
Lord Whitty: The intention of the section is to provide customers with an interim supply while arrangements are made for an alternative supply, or a reversion to a permanent supply, when the supply from a licensee ceases. It could happen at very short notice or with no warning to anyone. The minute that
GC 84
supply from the licensee ceases, the duty automatically applies to the undertaker, and continues for at least three months.
The amendments we are discussing would require customers to notify undertakers before the interim supply duty applies. That could lead to a hiatus. Until the customer notifies the undertaker, the undertaker will not be able to charge for the supply and might therefore cut off the supply as it is not supplying to a customer at that point. As drafted, the Bill offers the prospect of continuity for the customer and allows the undertaker to recover charges for making the supply. There could be a hiatus on both counts were the amendments to be accepted.
1 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I hear the noble Lord's explanation with a degree of fascination. It seems to me that what he says flies in the face of what was said about the charges that a water undertaker might levy for passing water through his pipes. If the water undertaker has to maintain the whole system so that, literally at the drop of a hat, he can start to supply water without notice, he will never gain any benefit as a result of having a water supplier pumping water through his pipes and out to the customer. The water undertaker must maintain the whole system on the basis that he can carry out the obligations of the water supplier instantaneously should the water supplier fail. That issue is slightly separate from that addressed by the amendments we are discussing. I hear what the Minister says and I shall study it but we shall need to consider further the consequences that arise from this section of the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 168LD and 168LE not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 168M:
Page 187, line 41, at end insert—
"( ) Where a duty is imposed by this section in respect of any premises, any breach of the duty which causes the owner or occupier of the premises to sustain loss or damage shall be actionable at the suit of that owner or occupier; hut, in any proceedings brought against a water undertaker in pursuance of this subsection, it shall be a defence for the undertaker to show that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the breach."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 168MA:
Page 188, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 168MA, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 168MB and 168RA.
I turn first to Amendment No. 168MA. In the proposed new subsection (3A) in the Bill the licensed water supplier has a specific duty in relation to the supply of water for domestic or food production purposes.
In new Section 17A of Chapter 1A on page 131 of the Bill household premises are made off limits for licensed water suppliers. New Section 17B defines the

GC 85
water undertakers' supply system as the mains and other pipes used to convey water from a treatment works to customers' premises and any water mains and pipes used for conveying non-domestic water. Non-domestic water is defined on page 133 of the Bill as,
"water supplied other than for domestic or food production purposes".
My next point may relate to an earlier discussion but will the Minister clarify whether the wording in new Sections 17A and 17B is or is not intended to ensure that licensed water suppliers do not supply domestic quality water to domestic or food premises? In briefings from various interested parties before this process began, the message was quite clearly that the major customers interested in leaving water undertakers would do so precisely because they do not need domestic quality water.
I turn to Amendment No. 168MB. This is a probing amendment. The proposed alteration to Section 69 of the WIA would mean that a water undertaker forced to give a licensed water supplier access to his system to supply one of his ex-customers, perhaps with water from another undertaker, would have to test that imported water and publish the results. In the circumstances we believe that that might be an imposition too far. It is a bit like losing the front of one's garden to compulsory purchase for a footpath and then finding that one has the duty to sweep the said footpath. As the licensed water supplier appears also to have a duty to test and publish, will the Minister explain why the undertaker should be required to do so too?
I turn to Amendment. No. 168RA. Subsection (1) of Section 75 of the WIA gives the water undertaker powers to act in response to any of the four scenarios listed as paragraphs (a) to (d). It surely therefore makes more sense to extend the powers to licensed water suppliers. Will the Minister explain the thinking behind that subsection as it stands and clarify whether it is the Government's intention that the water undertaker should act on the suspicions of a licensed water supplier? I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 168MA seeks to relieve licensed water suppliers of an obligation to supply wholesome water and to ensure that the quality of water they supply does not deteriorate. That is a central obligation. It may not be the intention of the amendment to do what I have outlined. The maintenance of the present standards of the quality of water in the public supply networks is of fundamental importance. Ensuring that licensed water suppliers are responsible for water quality is central to maintaining that quality.
Section 68(1A), which this amendment seeks to remove, makes those who supply water through the public supply system responsible for its quality. Together with amendments to Section 18, it requires the Drinking Water Inspectorate to take enforcement action against any licensed water supplier should they be responsible for a failure to meet the water quality standards.
GC 86
Section 69 of the Water Industry Act contains provisions for the Secretary of State to make regulations to impose obligations on the use of processes, substances and products that are used in the treatment and supply of water. These regulations protect the quality from potential contamination from the use of unsuitable substances and products. Those safeguards are needed.
Amendment No. 168MB would restrict the requirement to water undertakers to conform to any standards prescribed for processes, substances and products. The Government consider it essential that there are safeguards to protect the quality of drinking water. Water undertakers and licensed suppliers should be subject to the same provisions to ensure that only appropriate processes, substances and products are used in water supply.
Section 75 of the Water Industry Act deals with powers to prevent damage, contamination and waste. Water undertakers have powers to disconnect water supplies or serve notices on consumers requiring steps to be taken to prevent damage and waste.
The last amendment in this group would give the responsibility of disconnection or the serving of notices to licensed water suppliers. Licensed water suppliers do not have the necessary powers to undertake these functions. The Government believe that water undertakers are best placed to ensure the integrity of the water supply system because through their monitoring and inspections they are likely to detect any waste or contamination. The responsibility to prevent damage, contamination and waste, and the powers to enforce that, should therefore remain with them.
As regards Amendment No. 168MA and the distinction between potable and other water, where licensees supply potable water for domestic purposes the water must meet drinking water quality standards. The import of the measure that the amendment seeks to remove is to place an obligation on licensees as well as on undertakers in that regard.
Baroness O'Cathain: Before the Minister sits down, I seek a point of clarification. The water undertakers have the duty to make sure that the water is not contaminated and is tested. Is the Minister saying that the water suppliers do not have that duty? Or I am wrong in that?
Lord Whitty: The first two amendments in the group we are discussing deal with giving water suppliers the same responsibilities for ensuring water quality as the water undertakers. The duty in the third amendment in the group, however, which relates to disconnection or the serving of notices—and, therefore, enforcement in the light of contamination or damage—must rest with the water undertakers. There is not an equivalent power to the water suppliers in that regard.
Baroness Byford: I thank my noble friend for her intervention which was helpful. The Minister said that the water suppliers are not responsible for a certain duty. I do not understand why that is so. After all, they

GC 87
supply water. We all agree that we want high standards as regards water quality. There is no difference between us on that. Let us establish that before we start. But the question is where the responsibility starts, middles and ends. If a water supplier is taking water from a water undertaker, at the moment the undertaker has to guarantee a certain standard for the water that goes to the water supplier. I shall need to consider the matter in greater detail as I am getting confused. It appears that the same responsibility is not expected as regards those who supply the incoming water.
Lord Whitty: The opposite is the case. Amendments Nos. 168MA and 168MB would remove the responsibility on the water suppliers. They are required to have equivalent responsibility for water quality. Amendment No. 168RA, which concerns disconnection and other enforcement powers, relates to the undertakers as they have the power of disconnection, not the water suppliers.
Baroness Thornton: I see.
Baroness Byford: I wish that I did. I thank the Minister for his comments, which I shall certainly read in Hansard tomorrow. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 168MB not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Carter): Amendment No. 168R is in the wrong order on the Marshalled List. It should come before Amendment No. 168RA. I now call Amendments Nos. 168N, 168P, 168Q and 168R.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 168N to 168R:
Page 192, line 13, leave out "licensed water supplier which provides" and insert "water undertaker whose supply system is used for the purpose of a licensed water supplier making"
Page 192, leave out lines 20 and 21.
Page 192, line 22, leave out second "that" and insert "the"
Page 192, line 32, leave out "that" and insert "the"
On Question, amendments agreed to
[Amendment No. 168RA not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 168S to 168U:
Page 192, line 45, leave out "(1A)(a)" and insert "(1A)"
Page 193, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) Section 78 (local authority's functions in relation to undertaker's supplies) is amended as follows.
( ) In subsection (1)(a), after "undertaker" there is inserted ", or by a licensed water supplier using that undertaker's supply system,".
( ) After subsection (2), there is inserted—
"(3) In subsection (1)(a) above, the reference to the water undertaker's supply system shall be construed in accordance with section 1713(5) above.""
Page 193, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) Section 86 (enforcement of water quality) is amended as follows.
GC 88
( ) In subsection (1)(b), for "by a water undertaker" there is substituted "using a water undertaker's supply system".
( ) In subsection (2)(a)(i), for the words from "by" to "above" there is substituted "or a licensed water supplier by or under any of sections 68, 69 or 79 above or imposed on a relevant person (as defined in subsection (1A) of section 70 above) by or under that section".
( ) In subsection (3), after "undertaker" there is inserted ", licensed water supplier or other relevant person (as defined in section 70(1A) above)".
( ) In subsection (4), for paragraph (c) there is substituted—"
(c) at any reasonable time require—

(i) any water undertaker or licensed water supplier to supply him with copies of, or extracts from, the contents of any records kept for the purpose of complying with any duty or other requirement imposed on that undertaker or supplier by or under any of sections 68, 69 or 79 above; or

(ii) any relevant person (as defined in subsection (I A) of section 70 above) to supply him with copies of, or extracts from, the contents of any records kept for the purpose of complying with any duty or other requirement imposed on that person by or under that section."

( ) In subsection (6), after "undertaker" there is inserted ", licensed water supplier or other relevant person"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
1.15 p.m.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 168 UA:
Page 193, line 27, at end insert—
"93AA DUTY TO PROMOTE THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER
(1) It shall be the duty of every water undertaker to promote the efficient use of water by its customers.
(2) The duty of a water undertaker under this section shall be enforceable under section 10 above—

(a) by the Secretary of State;

(b) with the consent of, or in accordance with, a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State, by the Director.

(3) Nothing in this Part shall have effect to authorise or require a water undertaker to impose any requirement on any of its customers or potential customers.""
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 168UA, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 170 and 171B standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.
All through the Bill at various stages we have tried to promote the conservation of water. As we said at the beginning of our discussions, we are concerned that there is an insufficient duty to promote it. We have talked about efficiency and saving water. One can use water efficiently but that does not necessarily mean that one conserves water in the way that we should like to see.
Conservation measures could be taken at the level of the individual householder who decides to use water in a different manner. One could argue that that constitutes efficiency of use but it would also conserve water. We have talked—and will talk later—about the whole question of having more reservoirs so that in times of drought one can draw on water that has been conserved. But at the moment there is nothing in the Bill that we consider adequately covers the matter.
I could go on at length but that would be unfair to the Committee. The words literally speak for themselves. We are asking that after Section 93A of the WIA there should be inserted new Section 93AA, which concerns a duty to promote the efficient use of water. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I support Amendment No. 168UA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, with a slight reservation that I shall mention in a moment. I shall also speak to our Amendments Nos. 170 and 171B. I believe that those amendments are necessary. I accept that my amendments are similar. Amendment No. 170 is a slightly narrower amendment because it lays the duty on Ministers, government departments and the National Assembly for Wales, but Amendment No. 171 B extends that duty to all public bodies.
In his reply I expect that the Minister will say that water undertakers already have a duty to promote the efficient use of water. The fact is that at the moment that duty is almost invisible. Although sometimes they send out helpful leaflets, there is no active promotion. Including such a provision on the face of the Bill requiring water undertakers to be more active would be helpful. Where water is metered, undertakers are in a dilemma as the use of greater volumes of water provides undertakers with more money. To require them to encourage their customers to be efficient adds to the dilemma.
My reservation on Amendment No. 168UA refers to subsection (3) which states that,
"Nothing … shall have effect to authorise or require a water undertaker to impose any requirement".
On the whole I agree with the spirit, but I can see a point where technology, for example, could produce smart taps that would identify when leakages occur. At some time in the future a water undertaker could require its customers to fit such a device. I have a slight reservation about subsection (3) of the amendment.
On Amendments Nos. 170 and 171B, I have in mind the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and planning authorities. I believe that in those areas we could see real efforts take place on the conservation of water. At the moment building regulations and planning requirements are totally feeble in relation to requiring water conservation. We still see industrial buildings constructed with enormous roof spans. For all the play that the Government made of the construction of the Dome being able to recycle water, we simply have not seen that translated into everyday use around Britain, except in a few exciting examples.
With regard to domestic house building, there is a vast area of potential for grey water recycling, for capturing water running off roofs, which would also release storm drains. None of that has been addressed. To address the issue in guidance is not sufficient; it needs to be addressed in a statutory way, otherwise the urgency required is lacking.
Lord Borrie: I understand why these amendments have been grouped together: they are all concerned
GC 90
with the conservation of water—a most important subject. However, I believe that there is a world of difference between imposing statutory duties on public bodies, as referred to in the Liberal Democrat amendments, and imposing a statutory duty on water undertakers as under Amendment No. 168UA. I agree with the Liberal Democrat amendments, but I do not like Amendment No. 168UA.
Although I agree with the Liberal Democrat amendments, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, understated the water companies' attitude to conservation. Companies with which I have been concerned in recent years have done not just a little, but a great deal in terms of promotion and providing information to customers on numerous matters directly concerned with water conservation. Such information has included the efficient use of water, the conservation use of water sprinklers and the like on gardens in the hot summers that occasionally we have in this country and matters concerned with the huge amount of water that is wasted in a relatively short space of time from one dripping tap. I can think of numerous examples of promoting the efficient use of water by customers and encouraging conservation.
I do not like Amendment No. 168UA, partly because of the reason to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, alluded; namely, imposing a duty on water undertakers under subsection (1), and then saying in subsection (3),
"Nothing in this Part shall have effect to authorise"—
let alone require—
"to impose any requirement on any of its customers or potential customers".
A duty, enforceable by the Secretary of State or by the new authority is to be imposed on water undertakers and yet they cannot do more than they regularly do at the moment, as I have just described, in informing customers of how to save water. The amendment does not appear to me to be appropriate. Therefore, I am critical of Amendment No. 168UA.
Baroness O'Cathain: Before supporting Amendment No. I68UA, I would like to make a gentle suggestion to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. Her view of water undertakers as regards metering was very cynical. She suggested that if meters are installed undertakers will encourage people to use more water in order to receive more money. That is precisely the reverse of what happens. The reality is that when meters are installed, people are very conscious of the amount of water that they use and the cost of it, so they try hard to conserve water.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, about Amendment No. I68UA, there is a duty to promote rather than to impose. If the water undertakers have to impose yet more regulations or requirements on their customers, that will be extremely difficult and it would put a huge cost on to the water undertakers.
I take his point that at the moment much is done by the water undertakers to promote the efficient use of water by customers. I believe that the purpose of the

GC 91
amendment is to encourage people to think about that even more. The undertakers do produce information notices about sprinklers and so on. But some water companies go further than that and tell people that in the area where they live there is a water short age and so it would be better when planning their gardens to produce tropical plant gardens or gardens with drought-loving plants. I have seen many leaflets to that effect.
There is a kernel of something here, if we can get the message across, although I do not know how. I suspect that the water companies would probably say that if they are to undertake a big promotion of the efficient use of water they will need that offset against the price that they charge, or they will want some recognition of it in their prices. As it is so important that there should be efficient use of water it is good to have such a provision on the face of the Bill.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I support this group of amendments. I do not believe that there is a great deal of difference between us. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, of course, loves to argue about words. At this stage these amendments have been tabled to sort out where we stand. I do not believe that there is any disagreement that there should be something on the face of the Bill about the efficient use of water. I do not think that anyone would have a difficulty with that as a statement of principle. Whether one uses the word "efficient" or the word "conservation" is another matter.
Although I accept entirely that all public bodies should be involved with the efficient use of water, the Government and indeed all public bodies are not actually water suppliers. They do not have a relationship with customers. I am sure that the Government must be the customer of a great many water authorities. The water authorities are the bodies that have a direct relationship with customers across the country and that gives them a considerable influence over persuading their customers to use water efficiently.
One could make a slightly cynical observation that if Ofwat did not work quite so hard at keeping the price down, people would be slightly more interested in conserving water. As it is, they simply buy water in a bottle from the supermarket at a more expensive price per litre. There are some oddities when one considers the situation.
The primary responsibility for promoting the efficient use of water should go to the water authorities because they have the supplier/customer relationship with everyone, including, of course, the Government. However, they have to apply it to themselves. Members of the Committee will recall that I mentioned at Second Reading that we have one water authority that has too high a rate of leakage for anyone's comfort. Easily the biggest additional source of water in that area is the amount that leaks out of the authority's pipes. As water is neither created nor destroyed, that water goes somewhere. The fact is that it is treated but does not come out of the customers' taps. That also has to be considered.
GC 92
I do not think that there is any disagreement anywhere in the Committee about this principle: that something on this subject ought to be on the face of the Bill. These amendments may not be perfect—amendments at this stage of a Bill rarely are—but I believe that we all have an obligation to work together to ensure that we can come up with an agreed amendment on this subject that can be put on the face of the Bill before it leaves this House.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that I speak mainly as a customer. I am a metered customer of Wessex and an unmetered customer of Thames. In neither place do I find that a great effort is made to encourage me to be efficient with my water. The efforts that I have made have been of my own doing.
My more substantive point is that I believe that we need two matters on the face of the Bill. The first concerns the efficient use of water. In his reply the Minister will probably say that to give the Environment Agency the power over efficiency matters is sufficient, so such a provision does not need to be inserted in the Bill and that it is a duty on the water undertakers. I believe that water conservation is a slightly separate matter. I see the Minister frown. I shall try to define the difference. One point is that people should try to use less water and the other is that such matters as recycling of water are a conservation matter. I may not use less water, but I use the water available to me in a different way. I realise that I have not defined the situation well. I am sure that we shall return to this subject at Report stage and I shall work on my definition. I hope that in reply the Minister will address those as two different issues.
Lord Whitty: I can assure the noble Baroness that I was not frowning at her remark. I think we have just come to that stage in the Committee! Nor was I suggesting that this matter is all down to the Environment Agency. Amendment No. 168UA proposes a duty on water companies to promote the efficient use of water by their customers. That already exists in Section 93A of the Water Industry Act. Clearly, both conservation and efficiency are subsumed under that. In this Bill, paragraph 24 of Schedule 8 contains an amendment to extend that duty to licensed water suppliers. In effect, I think that matter is covered by existing legislation and by a part of Schedule 8 that we have already dealt with. I therefore do not believe that Amendment No. 168UA is needed.
On Amendments Nos. 170 and 171B, which apply duties to central government more widely, I am not sure whether the correct form of words is used or whether it is inserted at the correct place in the Bill. However, there is something in the noble Baroness's argument that there could be value in extending the scope of some of the initiatives across all public bodies.

GC 93
I am prepared to take away the two amendments, to reflect on them and perhaps to come back if I see a better way of producing that result.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I particularly thank the Minister for that reply and assure him that that will also save government time when we come to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.
Baroness Byford: I thank noble Lords for their comments on this group of amendments. I accept—but do not perhaps always fully agree with—what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said. I realise that the amendment is not perfect in any way. The Minister said that the power is already there. We looked at the duty in the Act and felt that we needed to strengthen it. I shall take that away and consider it. On the Minister's response to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, we should be delighted if he came back with something that would do what we are seeking to do in all of our amendments; that is, to conserve water. We seek to secure that at various places in the Bill—such a provision should be in it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 168V:
Page 194, line 27, at end insert—
"In section 148 (restriction for charging for metering works), in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) there is inserted—
"(cc) any sums which it is entitled to recover under an agreement under section 66D above;"."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 168VA not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 168W to 168Z:
Page 194, line 39, at end insert—
"In section 163 (power to fit stopcocks), in subsection (1), after "the undertaker" there is inserted "or a licensed water supplier.""
Page 195, line 22, at end insert "or 66GG"
Page 198, line 16, after "introduction" insert "or introductions"
Page 198, line 27, after "introduction" insert "or introductions"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended during pleasure from 1.32 to 2.5 p.m.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 169:
Before Clause 55, insert the following new clause—
"HEALTH AND SAFETY
(1) The Secretary of State and the Water Services Regulation Authority shall consult the Health and Safety Executive about all safety issues which may be relevant to the carrying out of any of their respective functions under Part I of the WIA.
(2) The Secretary of State and the Water Services Regulation Authority shall, in carrying out their respective functions under Part I of the WIA, take into account any advice given by the Health and Safety Executive about any safety issue (whether or not in response to consultation under subsection (1)).
(3) For the purpose of this section a safety issue is anything concerning the abstraction, storage, treatment or conveyance through pipes of water, or the storage, treatment or conveyance through pipes of sewage or trade effluent, which may affect the health and safety of—

(a) members of the public, or

(b) persons employed in connection with the above-mentioned activities.

(4) Sections 2 and 2A of the WIA and subsections (1) to (3) above do not apply in relation to anything done by the Water Services Regulation Authority—

(a) in the exercise of functions relating to the determination of disputes, or

(b) in the exercise of functions under section 31(4A) of the WIA.

(5) The Water Services Regulation Authority may, nevertheless, when exercising any function under section 31(4A) of the WIA, have regard to any matter in respect of which a duty is imposed by section 2 or 2A of the WIA or subsections (1) to (3) above if it is a matter to which the Director General of Fair Trading could have regard when exercising that function.
(6) The duties imposed by sections 2 and 2A of the WIA and subsections (1) to (3) above do not affect the obligation of the Secretary of State or the Water Services Regulation Authority to perform or comply with any other duty or requirement (whether arising under this Act or another enactment, by virtue of any Community obligation or otherwise)."
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State and the water services regulation authority to consult the Health and Safety Executive on all relevant issues. It is important because at the moment the Secretary of State has the discretion to consult the HSE. At an earlier stage of the Bill, we discussed people being judge and jury and so on.
The Secretary of State would be helped by having to consult the HSE. There are few more important issues than water, water and sewage, sewage and trade effluent; their effects on health are immense. I do not expect that I need elaborate for Members of the Committee all of the issues that arise when something in the system goes wrong.
I noticed that the Minister said in his response to the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 168MA that the Secretary of State had powers over the addition of substances to the water supply. I am sure that that is provided in previous legislation. That makes it even more important that the Secretary of State should at least have a duty to consult the HSE on any way in which he intends to exercise those powers.
The Minister may say that our amendment is not necessary because the Secretary of State would exercise his discretion responsibly. I am sure that he would. It is in the public interest to include the amendment in the Bill and not leave the critical issue of health and safety to political discretion. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I do not believe that anyone would quarrel with the principle of the amendment but I am slightly puzzled about how the water industry—I use those words with their widest meaning—could escape from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act anyway. I simply do not see that. No doubt the Minister will put me right if I am wrong.

GC 95
The issue of adding substances to the water supply is important. I recall that it became a matter of primary legislation in relation to adding fluoride as a preventive medicine for teeth. That would not be a question of the HSE being competent to deal with the matter; one would go to the relevant health people for that sort of information. The principle is absolutely right but I believe that in so far as the matter can be covered, that is done by existing legislation. The amendment is probably unnecessary but I stand to be corrected.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I rise to support my noble friend Lady Miller and to ask a fairly simple question. Subsection (3) of the amendment refers to the "treatment …of water". There was a serious case of pollution of a water supply in, I believe, north Cornwall about 10 years ago—
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Camelford.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: At Camelford; I thank my noble friend. A very serious incident occurred there. Is existing health and safety legislation adequate to deal with an incident of that kind or would the amendment strengthen the legislation and allow us to deal more effectively with such an incident?
Lord Whitty: The first part of the amendment deals with the position of the Health and Safety Executive. Of course we agree that with the enforcement of health and safety legislation and regulations, there must be a good relationship between the authority and the HSE. That is already covered by the memorandum of understanding between Ofwat and the HSE.
The first part of the amendment would put the HSE in a rather different position in terms of the requirement to be consulted. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, in that respect the water industry is not different from any other employer who must abide by the rules of, and be subject to inspection by, the HSE.
As I understand the amendment, it is probably lifted from the provisions applying to gas in particular and electricity. The position of the HSE in relation to gas is different in this respect compared with water. Historically, under the Gas Acts, the HSE and its predecessor bodies had substantially greater powers over the supply, connection and installation of gas than with regard to the water supply side. With regard to water, that is the responsibility of the Environment Agency or the Drinking Water Inspectorate—that involves the Secretary of State—or local authorities in relation to some reservoirs. The HSE does not have the same relationship with water as with gas; the read-across is not appropriate.
The second part of the amendment—subsections (4) to (6)—is about the disapplication of the authority's general duties where it is determining disputes or acting under its concurrent functions under competition legislation and the Secretary of State or the authority are performing duties under other legislation. Subsections (5) and (6) of the amendment are already covered by the Bill. That leaves the
GC 96
disapplication of the authority's general duties when it determines disputes between undertakers and consumers under subsection (4) of the amendment. That would reverse the current position. The authority's general duties include the consumer objective—protecting the interests of consumers—and ensuring that undertakers properly carry out their functions. In the absence of more strongly competitive markets, which exist for other utilities, the authority must itself continue to balance the demands of its various duties with regard to determining disputes. I therefore do not believe that subsection (4) is appropriate, and subsections (5) and (6) are already dealt with.
With my assurances on the health and safety side of my explanation and the differences with other utilities, I hope that the noble Baroness will not proceed with the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. I accept his comments on subsections (5) and (6) of the amendment not being necessary and subsection (4) being inappropriate. I shall read his comments again. I ask him to respond to my noble friend's comments on the Camelford incident and the addition of substances to water. I believe that his response was that that would be covered by the Drinking Water Inspectorate. Does the HSE not consider procedures that are followed differently? Would the incident have been less likely to have happened if it had been involved?
Lord Whitty: On the supply of water to consumers, the contamination of water or the damage to consumers would be covered by existing legislation—I am not entirely familiar with the incident in Camelford. The enforcement agency would be involved at the point of delivery; the DWI, or, if a contamination occurred further upstream, the Environment Agency would be involved, not the HSE. The only role that the HSE would have in this respect would be the same as applies in relation to a factory and in terms of the danger to employees. It has a different role in relation to gas.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall read it carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]
2.15 p.m.
Clause 55 [The Chief Inspector of Drinking Water and the Drinking Water Inspectorate]
Lord Livsey of Talgarth Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 170ZA:
Page 71, line 1, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 170ZB and 170ZC. The purpose of the first two amendments is to create an inspector of drinking water for Wales in the Drinking Water Inspectorate. The insertion of the

GC 97
word "shall" in Amendment No. 170ZA means that that must be created. The word "but" is removed in Amendment No. 170ZB, which proposes a drinking water inspector for Wales. I must apologise to Members of the Committee because on looking at this amendment I have discovered that I have made an error on the top of page 71 of the Bill. I should have excluded the first part of paragraph (a) which states,
"subject to paragraph (b) below".
I apologise for that. The way that the Bill is currently drafted will not deliver the proposal that I am seeking. None the less, I should like to speak to this amendment about the desirability of having a drinking water inspector for Wales.
Most of the amendments that I have tabled are as a result of personal experiences as a Member of another place and the problems that I have encountered which need to be overcome. In one case, the drinking water in a community was of substantially low quality and totally unacceptable. It was very difficult to establish whether there was a drinking water inspector in being. I should have remembered that because it was after the original Act. In fact, what occurred was extremely unsatisfactory. I shall explain in more detail when I turn to Amendment No. 170ZC.
Eventually, the case was referred to Europe because we were unable to obtain any sense from the water company concerned. Ultimately, after 12 years of water problems in that community, the most effective person to deal with the matter was the drinking water inspector, who we tracked down to an office in London. Once the inspectorate was involved, it really got matters moving and I was very impressed with its ability to take action.
However, the residents of the community and I felt that the lines of communication were truncated and far away. If we had had our own drinking water inspector in Wales, we would have been able to refer to him or her immediately for action because we would have known of his existence. We were very concerned about that.
The problem related to old pipes, iron contamination, adults and children being ill, clothes being ruined and many other issues of that nature. The company said that it intended to deal with the problem, but it never did so satisfactorily. Ultimately, action by the drinking water inspector was required to overcome the problem.
Amendment No. 170ZC is also related to the same case. It states:
"The Drinking Water Inspector shall establish independent laboratory facilities for testing water quality for consumers in each region of England and Wales",
In the case to which I referred, the water supplier was judge and jury. It did all the testing; it maintained that the quality of the water was okay; and it produced a lot of analysis to prove its case. The problem was that the timing of the sampling—the water supplier was at the end of a long supply route—was such that the quality of the water varied within hours. Therefore, the result depended entirely on when the sample was taken.
The only way to overcome the problem was to go to a public analyst 50 miles away. As we suspected, his analysis was totally different. It was with that ammunition that eventually we were able to approach the drinking water inspector, who sorted the matter out. The community had to pay for that analysis, which we felt was very unfair. In fact, a number of members of the community were extremely poor and could not afford it. However, the analysis was done.
The purpose of Amendment No. 170ZC is to establish independent laboratory facilities so that consumers can refer to an analyst in their region who would supply analysis for comparison with other samples. We think that most desirable. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Drinking Water Inspectorate, headed by the chief inspector, currently acts on behalf of both the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to enforce standards of public drinking water in England and Wales. Clause 55 raises the profile of the inspectorate by providing statutory recognition to the existence of a chief inspector.
As the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, said, at present there is a single inspectorate for England and Wales headed by a chief inspector. The clause as proposed preserves that situation but leaves open the possibility to set up a separate inspectorate, headed by a chief inspector, for Wales, should the National Assembly wish to do so.
Amendment No. 170ZA would have the effect of imposing a mandatory obligation on the Assembly to designate a chief inspector of drinking water for Wales. Amendment No. 170ZB would omit the provision which envisages a single inspectorate with one chief inspector where the Assembly and Secretary of State are in agreement over the appointment. Such a person would be the chief inspector of drinking water, so it makes sense for him to be known as such.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, will be surprised that the consequence of these amendments would be to oblige the Assembly to designate a chief inspector of drinking water for Wales. That would suggest a separate inspectorate for Wales, which is a route that the National Assembly has so far not chosen. It has chosen not to establish such an inspectorate because it believes—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grenfell): I am afraid that we need to suspend the Sitting for 10 minutes for a Division in the House.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 2.25 to 2.35 p.m.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As I was saying, there are currently 26 laboratories accredited to drinking water test specification that can provide independent facilities for water quality testing. The scheme ensures that analysis undertaken meets the appropriate regulatory requirements. I hope with that clarification that the noble Lord will understand why the Government are unable to accept the amendments.

GC 99
Much work is being done by the Drinking Water Inspectorate in Wales, with much publicity and the launch of the chief inspector's report. A children's competition is running in Wales at the moment, with leaflets and reports—bilingual, of course—available. Media opportunities are also available to discuss quality issues. As a matter of fact, the inspector responsible for Wales is Welsh and liaises with the National Assembly regularly. Local authorities have lists of laboratories that can undertake testing, and there is a duty to keep informed about water quality. If they agree that there is a case to investigate, there is no charge.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, will wish on reflection to allow the National Assembly to exercise its right to make the choice. I am equally sure that, between now and 1st May, he will have an opportunity to speak to candidates for the Welsh Assembly and press on them how he would like them to exercise that choice.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thank the noble Baroness for responding to the amendment. I have no doubt that I will be able to speak to multiple numbers of candidates before 1st May, as I am sure will other Members of the Committee.
I shall first address Amendments Nos. 170ZA and 170ZB in relation to what the Minister said. I accept that the provisions give the Assembly a choice as to whether it has its own inspector. I also realise that the world has moved on since devolution, and that there is better communication between the Administration in Cardiff and consumers in Wales. None the less, I think that the Assembly should seriously consider doing as I suggest in the interest of consumers in Wales. We have plenty of water coming down from the heavens, but the infrastructure does not always deliver it in the condition or quantity that we require. The Government will no doubt draw the attention, as will I, of the Assembly to the matter.
Given the Minister's response on Amendment No. 170ZC, I should say that it was certainly not known until very recently that the laboratory facilities were accredited, available and could produce the results of samples for free. There needs to be wider distribution of that information. Local authorities may have it, but our local authority covers an area 132 miles long by 50 miles wide, so it is not always easy to access such information. It is important that community councils in particular in Wales get that information, so that they can plug into the facilities of that independent analysis, because water can be a problem in certain remote areas. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 170ZB and 170ZC not moved.]
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 170A:
Page 71, line 12, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Baroness said: Under the Water Industry Act, the fine for water undertakers that fail to provide assistance or information—we are not talking about water itself—to one or more technical assessors, given
GC 100
the same responsibility planned for the Drinking Water Inspectorate, does not exceed level 5 on the standard scale. Along with all legislation recently proposed to do with DEFRA, the Bill seeks to increase the level of summary fines fourfold and to introduce an indictment process.
Will the Minister explain the decision to increase the fine so much? Have cases been brought in which the fines were felt to be inadequate? Why is it necessary? Obviously, none of us wants to give people the slightest opportunity not to provide assistance in the normally expected way. However, the Bill seems to contain an automatic and very acute rise, as did the Animal Health Act and other Bills. Is it simply because that is what normally happens when a new Bill comes in?
I am really seeking guidance because my understanding is that, if someone is indicted and the case goes against them, there is no upper limit on the fine which the High Court could impose if a conviction were made. I seek clarification on the issue. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The £20,000 maximum fine is in line with fines for a wide range of environmental offences, including some in recent legislation. It is important to ensure a sufficient deterrent to protect the quality of drinking water supplies adequately. That applies to a range of offences in this Bill as well. It is the deterrent effect of a £20,000 fine, as against the lower limit, that is important.
The fine also gives magistrates' courts sufficient powers to deal with serious water incidents where their local knowledge of circumstances will be valuable. Magistrates will be able to decide what appropriate penalties up to that limit can be imposed on a case-by-case basis. That remains the situation. Also relevant is the question of the Crown Court having unlimited fines.
The maximum fine and the ability to refer the case to the Crown Court are consistent with the proposed penalty in magistrates' courts for Section 70 offences of supplying water that is unfit for human consumption. Increasing the maximum level of fine will remove any incentive to commit the information-related offence as a means of avoiding prosecution for the serious offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption.
The investigation of serious water quality incidents is always a difficult task. Water undertakers hold key information. If the inspectors are frustrated by not being able to supply information or receiving the wrong information, it is important that there is a suitable penalty to prevent assistance or information being withheld. With that explanation, I hope that the Committee will accept that an increase in the maximum fine is appropriate.
Baroness Byford: I hear what the Minister has to say. Obviously we accept that one needs a sufficient deterrent, but we are not actually talking at this stage about water being of poor quality. We are talking about information or assistance. The Minister did not answer my questions. I asked whether cases had

GC 101
occurred and whether that was why there was a problem. Will this be an automatic fourfold increase in the level of the fine as compared with the amount in 1995, even though at this stage an offence as such has not been committed but a request for information has been made? I hesitate to ask the Minister again, but I should be grateful if he could give some examples or provide greater information.
The Minister says that magistrates will have local knowledge. Obviously they will. But at the moment we are not talking about local knowledge; we are talking about information. That is very different from a default having occurred in terms of water quality. Perhaps the Minister will explain the point further.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I am not sure that I can explain any further than I already have. In terms of its enforcement functions, the inspectorate needs information. If it does not have accurate information, or receives false information, there is a problem in enforcing the standards that make the water fit to use. In a sense, that could have wider implications than a single incident.
It is therefore appropriate that the same level of fine is there as a deterrent. That is its prime purpose. It is true that, on the information side, there have been no prosecutions because the water companies have co-operated with the inspectorate in relation to this matter. However, one can conceive of a situation where a lack of information, or false information, could prevent the water companies from effectively prosecuting or effectively issuing an appropriately worded enforcement notice.
The Duke of Montrose: If there is concern about the quality of the water, is it not up to the Drinking Water Inspectorate to take a sample of the water? Surely it is not possible for anyone to prevent that happening. That is what will determine whether the water is up to the quality required by the inspectorate. I am not quite sure what other information it is likely to need in pursuing the question.
Lord Whitty: One can conceive of a number of different situations. The Drinking Water Inspectorate has, for example, issued some 3,000 enforcement notices where there has been a breach or suspected breach in terms of water quality and it is attempting to prevent a recurrence. Half of those enforcement notices will require the water company to take measures to ensure that such an instance does not recur. If it asks for information from the water company but is then given inaccurate information as to whether the company has carried out the terms of the enforcement notice, it is not then a question of water sampling but of whether the company is in breach of the enforcement notice. Therefore, it is important that the inspectorate is able to obtain accurate information.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that explanation. If I understand him correctly, last year some 3,000 notices were issued, but there have been no prosecutions to date.
Lord Whitty: No, there have been no prosecutions for not supplying information. There have been some 30 prosecutions in the past three years against water undertakers but not on the information issue.
Baroness Byford: I do not think I referred to prosecutions. I am slightly making my own point, although I accept that the initial thrust of the provision is that we want a sufficient deterrent. However, whatever the level of fine available, it has not been needed to date. I return to my original question.
We are going round in a circle. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Charges for services provided with the help of an undertaker]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 170B:
Page 72, line 15, at end insert "only in the circumstances that the person has failed to comply with subsection (2A) above"
The noble Baroness said: We are still dealing with the question of charges and I suspect that we shall be able to do so briefly. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I take this amendment and the clause stand part debates on the following two clauses together, as they are linked.
I return to the issue of supplying information. The proposed new subsection (2B) makes it clear that the imposition of a maximum charge is subject to the service provider failing to supply information specified by an order under proposed new subsection (2A). As the Minister said, no such case has been reported. The revision to subsection (5) does not make it clear that that is the case. In fact, it seems to set up an inherent contradiction within the section.
The debate on whether Clauses 57 and 58 shall stand part also relates to the issue of fines. The uplift to fines associated to the activities that fall within DEFRA's remit has been increasingly noticeable for those who have taken Bills through the House. Again, I ask the Minister to provide evidence for the reason for such large increases. Having heard his response to my previous amendment, I do not think that that will be forthcoming.
For example, what has been the instance over the past five years of the imposition of the current maximum fines? I suspect none, because there have been none. What has been the record over the same period of other fines; and what has been the trend, say, over the past decade relating to abstraction and impounding of water and to supplying water unfit for human consumption? Will the Minister tell us in what circumstances water undertakers would be blamed for supplying unfit water—for example, were terrorists to attack and put unacceptable substances into the water?
These amendments are not meant to be flippant. I have been increasingly concerned about the upgrading of fines, particularly when the previous one related to information. That is the reason why we tabled Amendment No. 107B and why we gave notice of our intention to oppose the Questions that Clauses 57 and 58 stand part, I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness has kindly linked the two Questions that the clauses stand part because they deal with the same issue—the £20,000 as against the £5,000 maximum fine. The amendment deals with issues on water resale; for example, if an owner of a caravan site paid his undertaker for a single water supply and charged the caravan owners for their water, the director has powers to fix maximum charges.
The improvements to the existing system are that the director's order can specify that interest is due on any excess paid. It can also require the person selling the water on to supply information and impose a different level of maximum charge if the information is not forthcoming.
I readily accept the principle that no one should be penalised under the clause except where he or she has failed to comply with the initial order. That principle is already applied in new subsection (2B). The power for the director to set a default basis of charges can be used only where the information prescribed in the order is not provided. The entitlement to repayment of past overpayments is a different matter. It already exists in the Water Industry Act 1991.
Those comments relate to the amendment itself. On the issue of the overall level of fines, it is true that in DEFRA legislation, as in some other legislation, the maximum level of fines has been raised principally for deterrent purposes. Where enforcement is dependent upon information, the level of fine has been raised for the failure to provide information as well as the substantive offence. That will give magistrates' courts adequate flexibility to deal with serious offences or repeat offences. Clearly the magistrates' courts will, as usual, use their discretion in relation to any particular case. To raise the status of environmental offences is important.
Clearly if a situation arose in which an offence of providing unfit water were caused by a terrorist incident or some other third party interfering with the water supply, it would not be appropriate that the water company should suffer anything like that level of fine and maybe no penalty at all, unless there was a compounding offence. In normal circumstances, it is important that the provision of unfit water is seen as a serious offence and that anything that undermines the ability of the enforcement authorities to ensure fit water is also seen as a serious offence. That is why we moved to the maximum of £20,000.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I support what the Minister has just said. There have been a number of cases in which it was obvious that the fines have not been
GC 104
adequate and the public have reacted with dismay because the regulations were not effective enough in this regard. His comments were very important indeed.
Baroness Byford: I have no difficulty responding to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, with regard to the need for adequate fines when something has been done to make water unfit. I accept that and take his point.
The question behind this amendment and the preceding amendment involves information. We tried to clarify the differences during the passage of the then Animal Health Bill, when sweeping powers were brought in; that involved the ability to find someone guilty of a criminal offence by not providing information. The balance is about which provision is right. If water is not up to the right standard, I, like others, would want there to be an appropriate fine; I have no difficulty with that. We have been round these issues in relation to two or three amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord for responding in the way in which he did. I still have slight concerns but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clauses 57 and 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Water resources management Plans]:
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 73, line 10, after "measures;" insert—
"( ) the recreational purposes to which areas of open water, within the undertaker's control, may be used to the benefit of the public;"
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is designed to probe where the Government have got to with regard to their stated commitment to find ways in which to increase access to water for sport and informal recreation. That commitment was restated in Directing the Flow in November 2002. I am sure that the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, remember our debate during the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act on that issue. That is why my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie attached his name to the amendment. Along with us, he has continued to be concerned about what is happening in this context.
We propose to insert the provision at this point because we are not sure what "resources management plans" are intended to cover. Water resources management plans cover various points that are specified at the top of page 73 of the Bill. However, subsection (3)(d) states that they cover,
"such other matters as the Secretary of State may specify in directions".
The Minister may say that recreational purposes, for example, to which the amendment refers, are covered by the phrase, "such other matters". If so, I should be very pleased.
I place on record the fact that the public appreciate the efforts made by various water companies to develop their reservoirs for recreational purposes. For example, I believe that South West Water established

GC 105
a trust for that purpose. Other water companies with which I am less familiar may do the same. However, some companies still do not allow access and some allow very restricted access—just for fishing, for example, but for no other purposes.
The amendment is intended to explore the Government's views about the fact that open water represents one of the most attractive facilities available to the public in the countryside, whether for more active sports such as sailing, canoeing or fishing, or for activities as quiet as having a picnic or simply sitting and enjoying the view, which includes the water. I hope that the Government have considered ways of moving on with regard to their worthy ambition in Directing the Flow. I beg to move.
3 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: The amendment seeks to define more closely what is meant by "water resources", not "water resources management plans". The noble Baroness's definition seems to extend it to that. One might think that "water resources" simply means the quantity and quality of water, but the noble Baroness is viewing it in a wider sense. In general, water is good for recreation, but reservoirs are specialist areas of water. Are we here looking at reservoir management plans rather than water management plans?
I know that there are many fears and worries about reservoirs and about what will detract from the quality of drinking water. In a case local to me—this will not worry the Minister as it is in Scotland—a large reservoir supplying Glasgow has removed 5,000 sheep and sacked five shepherds because it is believed that small pollutant animals, called cryptosporidia—which are almost impossible to remove—are getting into the water. However, we have noticed that having got rid of the sheep the numbers of deer have increased. I am not sure whether that information will help in this case.
One has to be careful when dealing with the quality of water for drinking and for human consumption. Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee whether the "water resources" element relates to traditional use.
Baroness O'Cathain: Are we dealing here with yet more costs imposed on water companies for protecting the environment surrounding reservoirs and other water resources? Is this a matter of ensuring that fences are kept in place and of allowing general access to the public? Would they be held responsible for children drowning in the water? As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said, some water companies make great recreational use of their water facilities in terms of allowing not only dinghies but windsurfers to skim along the surface.
The noble Baroness will be pleased to know, as will the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, that a water company of which I have knowledge is putting in place wildlife areas, wild flowers, wetlands and so on as recreational add-ons to reservoirs. However, I worry about such a provision being on the face of the
GC 106
Bill. There are health and safety implications and rules and regulations involved. The next thing will be hot-dog stands. If such a provision is put on the face of the Bill, I wonder whether that will lead to more and more cost and more and more destruction of the countryside.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: The definition of "water resources" becomes more and more quaint as the Bill progresses. I never thought that water resources management plans would contain provisions for hot dog stalls, but anything is possible.
Recreation around open water bodies is extremely important but many open water bodies are important also for other purposes, particularly for the conservation of wildlife. Rutland Water—in Rutland, would you believe—is an internationally protected wildlife site of the highest importance to this country. It is also an area where a variety of recreations take place.
The amendment does not encapsulate the balance that needs to be achieved between recreation and conservation. It gives undue prominence to one use of an open water body without taking account of the many other uses that are needed to achieve balance. It would be preferable to leave these issues to the more general provision of "such other matters as the Secretary of State may specify".
Lord Howie of Troon: I draw attention to the important role played by the quarrying industry in this regard, especially through the extraction of sand and gravel. As my noble friend knows, the quarrying industry provides prizes and so on for projects which are particularly useful. It would be a pity if other parts of the Bill so debilitated the quarrying industry that it would be unable to carry out this useful work.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: I have had this argument with the quarrying industry on many occasions. I commend the industry for the after use to which it puts the large holes it creates, but that does not necessarily mean that it should create large holes simply for the purposes of after use.
Lord Howie of Troon: Does my noble friend wish me to reply to that?
Baroness Young of Old Scone: No.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This is yet another example of the inventiveness of my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon in raising an issue which is dear to his heart on any item of business before your Lordships' House. I note his point about the quarrying industry's contribution to recreational facilities. I note also the comments of my noble friend Lady Young in regard to conflicts of interest between not only water authorities and the public but also between different interest groups and different sectors of the public.
We appreciate the motives behind the amendment. We are keen to encourage water undertakers to provide opportunities for water-based recreation but we believe that their existing recreational duties under

GC 107
Section 3 of the Water Industry Act 1991 are sufficient for this purpose. Most water undertakers provide access to land and water in their control. Statutory guidance issued by the Government three years ago gives an extremely clear steer on how they should approach their recreational and conservation duties under the Water Industry Act.
Section 3 of the Act places various conservation, access and recreation duties on water undertakers. These include a duty to exercise their statutory functions, so far as is reasonably practicable, in such a way as to make water or land associated with water within their control available to the public for recreational purposes.
A statutory code of practice issued by the Secretary of State under Section 5 of the Act requires undertakers to publish annual reports on how they have carried out their conservation, access and recreation duties and to make available to the public, on request, relevant land use and management plans.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to water resource plans. These plans relate to how companies plan their water resources for public supply, not to the issue of access to water.
I hope that I have covered the points raised. We share the aims and objectives of the noble Baroness. My right honourable friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life has asked the Countryside Agency to pilot projects for giving more access to canoeists. We have revised planning policy guidance on sport and recreation to emphasise the importance of water sports, and the DCMS game-plan strategy for sport and recreation will consider the issues of water sports and access to water.
I have tried to cover the points raised. I am not quite sure where the competencies lie in this field between here and the other side of Hadrian's Wall. If I discover that it is an area for which we are responsible south of Hadrian's Wall I shall write to the noble Duke. I fear that he will receive a similar answer to the one given to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey—that is, that he must direct his requests elsewhere.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. Their contributions have been very helpful. I particularly thank the Minister for her detailed reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 171A:
Page 73, line 12, at end insert—
"(e) the environmental implications of the supply of the quantities of water required to meet those obligations."
The noble Lord said: I am concerned that there should be provision in the water plan for the flow of water into and out of areas in order to sustain the environment. There can often be too little or too much water available at times of drought or excessive rainfall
GC 108
and it would be sensible to cater for the environmental implications of the quantities of water needed to meet the obligations in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The water resources management plans currently produced by the water undertakers include information on the environmental impacts of their obligations to meet their duties with respect to water supply. This includes the wider environmental impacts of any changes contained in the plan
When water resources plans are put onto a statutory basis the same information will be required. The direction-making power will be used to ensure that this is the case. Section 3 of the Water Industry Act already ensures that nature conservation obligations are taken into account by the undertakers in the discharge of their functions. Therefore the objective of the noble Lord's amendment is already covered.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am satisfied that the existing legislation contains sufficient powers to meet my concerns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 171AA:
Page 73, line 41, at end insert "; and
(e) any county council or metropolitan authority which has jurisdiction in all or part of the undertaker's area"
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to probe which bodies, in addition to those listed in the Bill, the water undertakers should consult before they prepare their resources management plans.
I was delighted to see the Environment Agency at the top of the list because it clearly has a part to play. We learnt earlier that the Environment Agency has responsibility for preparing a national water management plan and I assume that it has produced such a plan. I look forward to the Minister telling me that it has been prepared under the environment Acts or whatever, otherwise there will be a lacuna.
The authority is of course included on the list but I am puzzled by the inclusion of the "Secretary of State". I assume that that refers to the Secretary of State in charge of the parent department—DEFRA. But the person who will have the most influence on future water demand in this country is not the Secretary of State but the Deputy Prime Minister. So I have to ask another silly question: is the Deputy Prime Minister a Secretary of State for the purposes of the Bill?
Lord Whitty: Yes.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: That is reassuring. But once we are into that area we are concerned with housing demand and deep strategic planning. The local water resources management plans will have to take that deep strategic planning into account and we are

GC 109
concerned that the list contained in the Bill is not sufficiently wide. The Environment Agency will largely cover the subject but we believe that the county councils and metropolitan authorities should be added to the list. Given the Bill that is presently making its way through the building, perhaps we should add regional authorities to the list. We have tabled the amendment to probe whether the list of consultees goes wide enough. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I support the spirit of the amendment. It seeks to draw into the circle of organisations which should be consulted—particularly in regard to future housing requirements—the democratically accountable county councils, metropolitan authorities and regional assemblies, or whatever other organisation we may end up with.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: The sentiment behind the amendment is important. A major gap exists at the moment in terms of the statutory consultee status of the water companies and the Environment Agency, which is not a statutory consultee for the purposes of water resources.
The issue addressed by the amendment is important. In view of the large amount of development—particularly housing development—planned for water-stressed areas, both sides of the equation face a major issue. The planning authorities and the water companies need to engage with each other on this. Not only should the water companies consult with the local authorities but a positive duty should be placed on the local authorities to consult with the water companies.
Lord Whitty: I agree with all noble Lords. We need to write into the Bill a necessity to consult local authorities and the planning authorities. My only serious quibble is that it would be better if proposed new Section 37B(3) of the Water Industry Act was amended rather than proposed new Section 37A(8). I accept the principle of the amendment and I will come back to it at Report stage.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He said that we will come back to the amendment at Report stage. Is he saying that he will do the work for us? There is a much greater chance of an amendment being tabled in the correct form if he does so.
Lord Whitty: I will consider the issue further and, if necessary, I will come back with an amendment at Report stage.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 171B not moved.]
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 171 C:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—
"RESTRICTION ON UNDERTAKERS' POWER TO REQUIRE FIXING OF CHARGES BY REFERENCE TO VOLUME
In section 144B of the WIA (restriction on undertakers' power to require fixing of charges by reference to volume), in subsection (1)(c), after "prescribed" insert "by the Secretary of State following an application by the Environment Agency"."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment looks short but it actually contains a lot of meat. By way of explanation I could say that it is a metering amendment although the word does not actually appear in it, but mainly it is a water conservation and, indeed, a water efficiency amendment.
Certain areas of this country are water scarce. At the moment one way of dealing with that situation is to have compulsory metering. I know all the arguments against compulsory metering but I say in its favour that the only way you can apply demand management in a scarce water area is through compulsory metering. Optional metering is extremely expensive as under that system meters may be situated only in every third or 10th house.
Some water companies have selective metering. They ask people if they have sprinklers. People who have sprinklers have to have a meter. There are other ways of having selective metering. For example, in the case of a new housing development an arrangement can be drawn up between the water company and the construction or development company involved to install new meters in every house. One has to bear in mind that the installation of meters does not necessarily mean that people have to use them. They can be removed.
The situation is a mishmash which is not conducive to having an overall plan to enable an area which has severe water shortages at certain times of the year or, indeed, in certain years within a decade, to manage its water resources correctly, which is the aim of the Bill. Although in some areas there has in effect been compulsory metering, or an onus has been put on certain bodies to install meters, particularly as regards new housing developments, that has not impacted on demand, as was previously assumed. Currently, free meters are offered but that is ineffective as a demand management tool. Further compulsory metering would be more economical than either optional or selective metering.
At the moment water companies can carry out compulsory metering only where the area concerned is designated an area of water scarcity under the water industry regulations of 1999. Only the Secretary of State can designate an area as an area of water scarcity following an application from a water company. This amendment in effect suggests that on the recommendation of the Environment Agency the Secretary of State would designate an area of water scarcity and thereby allow compulsory metering. I hope that I have explained the amendment sufficiently. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The amendment raises some very important issues concerning when compulsory metering should be introduced and the whole question of demand management. Research shows that demand is not so greatly affected by metering as by income. As income rises, so does demand for water. That is common sense as people with higher incomes tend to acquire washing machines and dishwashers and use them more often. They also tend to have power showers as opposed to normal showers and so on.
The principles raised in the amendment are important. The Government have a considerable amount of work to do in considering whether water charging is carried out in the right way in England and Wales at the moment. Levying water charges according to the value of a property is not satisfactory. I do not wish to repeat my remarks about vulnerable groups but the provision made for people who are unable to pay water charges, whether fixed charges or meter charges, is simply not satisfactory. That is indicated by the fact that only 1 per cent of those eligible for that help take it up. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply. The Government will need to address this whole issue.
Baroness Byford: Before the Minister responds, I say to my noble friend Lady O'Cathain that I am grateful to her for tabling this difficult amendment. The amendment itself is not difficult but the thrust behind it is. I think that all of us throughout the Committee stage have been aware of the need to try to conserve and use water efficiently. I have a tiny property with a meter as it is situated in a water scarce area and another property that is not in such an area. My noble friend rightly explained that in certain areas metering would be of enormous benefit.
If I understood my noble friend correctly, she said that part of the difficulty arose from the higher cost of installing meters in every 10th house in an area as opposed to installing them in every house in a new development.
I believe that I raised my next point at an earlier stage in our discussions but the days are beginning to run into each other and my brain is becoming more and more addled. I understand that the installation of meters in new housing is not compulsory but that it is encouraged. Perhaps it would be possible to include a measure in the Bill to encourage that encouragement even further if the Minister finds that he is unable to accept my noble friend's amendment as drafted. That might be a halfway house situation but perhaps my noble friend does not want to settle for a halfway house. However, there are problems of water scarcity in certain areas that need to be addressed.
People who have water meters may be pleased to discover the smaller sums they pay in water charges compared with those who pay fixed charges. I am very sympathetic to the amendment. I hope that if the Minister is not able to accept it as it stands, he will at least give a little more thought to it. This is a very important issue that needs to be addressed, particularly as regards parts of East Anglia, the South
GC 112
East and the London area where water shortages are becoming more acute as the years go by but where yet more houses are being constructed. I thank my noble friend for tabling the amendment and giving us an opportunity to debate this important issue. I believe that we all support the amendment in principle.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I turn to the issue of metering. The amendment refers to Section 144B of the WIA and the ability of the Secretary of State to designate areas of water scarcity. That may determine whether certain homes are subjected to compulsory metering. Water metering involves considerably wider issues, some of which have been touched on and no doubt we shall return to them.
The noble Baroness asked about new build. All water companies are empowered to install meters in new build. As far as we know, they all do so and all new houses are metered. That may not apply in the case of some remote developments but virtually all new build is compulsorily metered. Therefore, I am not sure that the change proposed by the noble Baroness would improve the position in the real world.
At present the Secretary of States acts largely on the advice of the water companies. It is the water companies that have the knowledge about the scarcity of water, and therefore it is quite appropriate that they are the main source of advice to the Secretary of State. There is nothing in the present legislation to prevent the Environment Agency or indeed anyone else from proposing changes to the prescribed conditions for the Secretary of State to consider, with the final decision resting with the Secretary of State.
The amendment, however, suggests that the Secretary of State should be able to act only after an application to the Environment Agency. That seems the wrong way round. Although the Environment Agency obviously has responsibilities for the totality of supply and can suggest to the Secretary of State that a scarcity designation be introduced, it is not sensible to limit the initiation of that to only the Environment Agency. The water companies can go to the Secretary of State and seek that out themselves. In many circumstances they would be in a better position to do so, and could therefore introduce metering under such designation in areas where water was in least good supply.
I do not think that the amendment is appropriate. We shall no doubt return to the wider issues of metering at a later stage.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the Minister and want to ask a point of clarification. The Environment Agency has the right to designate an area as a water scarcity area. We wish the Environment Agency to make the application because, coming from it, the Secretary of State would realise the seriousness of the matter, given its responsibilities in terms of water demand management, conservation and efficiency, and its links to the water undertakers. Coming from it,

GC 113
we think that the request would have more thrust and power and a likelihood of being accepted by the Secretary of State. Is that right?
Lord Whitty: If the Secretary of State is considering imposing a scarcity designation, she would be bound to consult the Environment Agency anyway as it is a statutory consultee. Its view would be pretty substantial in determining her decision. If the amendment suggested that the Environment Agency should be put on the same footing as water companies, I would at least understand that. However, the difficulty is that the amendment suggests that the designation should be solely on the basis of an application by the Environment Agency. Other people may approach the Secretary of State, who would have
GC 114
to consult the Environment Agency among others, and make the decision in the light of that advice. The limitation to the initiation being from the Environment Agency seems unnecessary.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the Minister very much. Having heard what he has said, I shall read it very carefully and then look at changing the amendment in some way to come back with on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to stand adjourned until Tuesday 29th April at 3.30 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at twenty-six minutes before four o'clock.

  Angola: HIV/AIDS
  Angola: HIV/AIDS
  Disadvantaged Areas: Stamp Duty
  Disadvantaged Areas: Stamp Duty
  School-age Girls: Pregnancy
  School-age Girls: Pregnancy
  Registration of Births Online
  Registration of Births Online
  Working Time Regulations: Motorsport Industry
  Working Time Regulations: Motorsport Industry
  Animal Procedures Committee
  Animal Procedures Committee
  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Game Licences: Measures of Inflation
  Game Licences: Measures of Inflation
  Patients Entitled to Help with Travel Costs
  Patients Entitled to Help with Travel Costs
  Northern Ireland: Electoral Identity Card Applications
  Northern Ireland: Electoral Identity Card Applications
  Northern Ireland: Fine Defaulters
  Northern Ireland: Fine Defaulters
  Gulf Troops: Free Letters and Packets
  Gulf Troops: Free Letters and Packets
  Northern Ireland: Jury Service
  Northern Ireland: Jury Service